EP. 91: Gun Ban - Update on Bill C-21

Due to the seriousness of the bill and the nefarious way it is is being introduced, this is a special episode outside of the regular release schedule which should be shared widely and discussed. 

Travis Bader of Silvercore.ca, Daniel Fritter of Calibremag.ca and Nicolas Johnson of TheGunBlog.ca give an unvarnished update on the current Canadian gun ban under bill C-21.  Spoiler, there is reason to be optimistic.  

  Form letter: https://calibremag.ca/bill-c-21-form-letters-get-your-form-letters

 

 

______

Silvercore Club - https://bit.ly/2RiREb4
Online Training - https://bit.ly/3nJKx7U
Other Training & Services - https://bit.ly/3vw6kSU
Merchandise - https://bit.ly/3ecyvk9
Blog Page - https://bit.ly/3nEHs8W

Host Instagram - @Bader.Trav https://www.instagram.com/bader.trav
Silvercore Instagram - @SilvercoreOutdoors https://www.instagram.com/silvercoreoutdoors

____

What is The Silvercore Podcast with Travis Bader?

The Silvercore Podcast explores the mindset and skills that build capable people. Host Travis Bader speaks with hunters, adventurers, soldiers, athletes, craftsmen, and founders about competence, integrity, and the pursuit of mastery, in the wild and in daily life. Hit follow and step into conversations that sharpen your edge.

Kind: captions
Language: en-GB

I'm Travis Bader,
and this is the

Silver Core Podcast.

Silver Core has been
providing its members

with the skills and
knowledge necessary to be

confident and proficient
in the outdoors for over

20 years, and we make
it easier for people to

deepen their connection
to the natural world.

If you enjoy the positive
and educational content

we provide, please let
others know by sharing,

commenting, and following
so that you can join

in on everything that
Silver Horse stands for.

If you'd like to learn
more about becoming

a member of the
Silver Core Club and

community, visit our
website at Silvercore.ca

I'm joined today
by Dan Fritter of

caliber, meg.ca and
Nicholas Johnson

of the gun blog.ca.

And we were requested
to put together

something talking about
the proposed bill C

21, what that means,
what it looks like.

Uh, hopefully answer
some questions that

are out there from
our perspective.

Anyways, Nicholas,
Dan, welcome.

Thank you for availing,
availing yourself

to this happy Travis
for hosting this.

So Bill C 21, we're
getting a whole bunch of

questions coming through.

We're seeing some
information, some

misinformation,
a lot of panic.

Uh, we're seeing
how it's already

affecting businesses
even though it hasn't

been implemented yet.

Uh, and we're seeing.

Uh, some businesses,
some organizations using

it as a marketing tool
and some political games

as well being played.

Hopefully, you know,
the politics side of

has never been my forte.

I know you guys
have more background

there, more insight.

Hopefully we can answer
some of these questions

and maybe, maybe shed
a little bit of light

on what's going on.

Uh, Dan, you've been
doing a lot of work

with your magazine,
putting together

information for people.

I know we put a link in
our last, uh, newsletter

that went out for
people and some of the

action that they can do.

What have you
been seeing?

Where do you see
things going?

What can people do?

I.

To, to break
from tradition.

Um, I'm gonna sound like
a bit of an optimist

and say it, it looks
like it's working.

Um, mm-hmm.

, because what I saw
over the weekend and

growing into Monday
with all the other

stuff that was going
on, like you referenced

the organizations and
whatnot, was, uh, with

the most important of
'em, the NDP liberals.

And the block is
we started to see

some splits come up.

Um, we started to
see Charlie Angus

from the ndp.

We started to see.

You blache from the
block actually respond

directly to a journalist
on Twitter saying they

do take issue with some
of these amendments.

Now, obviously as a
gun owner, we wish

that they would've
taken a a similar

issue with Bill C 21.

Since the foundation
problem is the same,

it only impacts
licensed gun owners.

But nonetheless, um,
as a gun owner, you

have to learn to take
what you can get to

a certain degree.

Um, and in that
particular regard,

we're starting to
see the NDP and the

block come around.

Uh, and I think
that is probably.

Direct result of a lot
of the advocacy we've

seen gun owners do.

We've seen people
sending out masses of

three, 400 letters.

Um, I know Offa has laid
claim to a half a million

letters going to On.

Yeah.

To, and when you consider
that of a's Scope, offa

clarified their scope
and said they've sent a

half a million letters.

Their members have sent
a half million letters

to Ontario MPS and MPPs.

So that's a huge
footprint for

a relatively
small audience.

And I think probably
they're seeing similar

things happen in the
NDP and the block.

So that pressure
that's going out

there, that, that, I
think it's working.

I think we're starting
to see, um, hopefully

some pushback
taking form of that.

Now, obviously it
helps when Carrie Price

steps into the ring and
goes, Hey, this doesn't

make a lot of sense.

But I don't think
gun owners should,

should sell themselves
short on this either.

Like the NDP and
the Block, were

already starting
to walk this back.

Before Carrie Price ever
made his, his post that

was already happening.

We, we were seeing that
happening on Friday.

So they're starting
to feel the pressure.

Um, and I think that
is the, the fracture

that gun owners
should be looking for.

We should be making guns
a nonpartisan issue.

We should be looking
for practical solutions,

not political ones.

Um, and this is a great
step towards that.

I think personally,
you know, that's the,

that's the, the silver
lining in this not very

good cloud, but that's
what I'm looking for.

So if we back it up
for the listeners, cuz

some people will be
following this day by

day watching as new
advancements happen.

Some people are just
getting into the

fray right now and
they're saying, hold

on, what's going on?

I heard they're coming
after my hunting shotgun

or my hunting rifle.

Um, if we back this up a
little bit of where C 21

kind of started and what
it looked like and kind

of what advance, what
would that look like for

the average individual?

What do you mean?

? Well, I, so C 21
initially started off

with, uh, as an amendment
for some Oh, gotcha.

Okay.

So C 21 started.

Introduced, I mean,
this is the second

version of C 21 that's
been introduced even

so we could walk it
back way farther, but

for practical reasons,
it was introduced as a

bill aimed at freezing
handgun sales primarily.

Um, all, to be quite
honest, it was a bill

aimed at getting votes
because freezing handgun

sales doesn't really
have any public safety

aims whatsoever anymore
than adding more red

flag laws does when
you've got existing ones.

So it was largely a
political bill looking

for political solutions
to political problems.

And now they've added
what is fundamentally

the largest gun
control act in

Canadian history to it.

It's a, it's a ban on
all semiautomatic rifles.

It doesn't include
all Semitic shotguns

by any stretch, but
absolutely, pretty much

any semiautomatic rifle
is center fire unless

you happen to be one of
maybe the six people that

own a sour S 3 0 3 with
a two round integral meg

and semiautomatic action,
unless you own that one.

You're kind of
stuck with this.

Yeah, so this is huge.

I mean, C 68, all
that other stuff, it

didn't impact nearly
as many rifles.

Imagine if in C 68
they just said it's

a Semitic rifle band.

It would've been, it
would've been way bigger.

And that's what
they're doing now.

So they've bolted on,
you know, to what was

effectively a mouse.

They've added
an elephant.

Um, and they're
just trying to sneak

it in that way.

It's, it's, um, but I
think also too that that

sneaking it in is also
kind of the weakness.

Like you have to
kind of pull back

if you take yourself
outta the equation.

And if you were to say
as a, as an objective

observer, and this is
the first time I've done

this particular thought,
observe experiment.

But if you thought
academically, if you

bypass all the democratic
institutions, um, and you

bypass all the normal,
the rules, Bringing an

amendment like this in
which normally it does

meet some of the rules,
but normally this would

be asked, the minister
would at least be asked

to approach the committee
and say, Hey, we wanna

change some stuff.

Here's why they
didn't do that at all.

Um, it gives you a bit of
faith in that, you know,

that's again, mm-hmm.

. If you're looking
for silver linings,

you look at this and
you go, their biggest

weakness was they didn't
consult, they didn't

follow any process.

And the process is
what makes good law.

The process is what
creates consultation,

creates committees,
creates weaknesses,

creates friction.

So that one party
in charge has a bit

of friction, has
to automatically.

Make some concessions
to the other people.

Um, they didn't do that
cuz they didn't want

any of that friction.

And now we're seeing
that it kind of works.

So I guess on the
upside, you gotta

think that maybe this
is the system working

in a really perverse
and backwards way.

Um, it, it shouldn't
have to work this way.

This feels like the
safety net underneath

the bridge that you
already jumped off of

catching you, um, more
than it does any kind

of real safety thing.

But, uh, I think,
you know, it's, it's

quite the progression
if anyone's looking

at it and going, how
did C 21 go from not

affecting me to, I can't
take my bar outside?

Well, a Tuesday, a
couple weeks ago,

that's how it happened.

at, at the last
moment there.

So C 21 essentially
was, they're

approaching pens now.

C 21 hasn't been
enacted into a.

No, it's, but the hand
freeze in the committee

phase, clause by clause.

That's when they
brought this in.

Okay.

So it's the hand
and freeze has

reached Royal Ascent
according to the web?

No.

So C 21 as a bill,
it's gone through first

and second reading in
the House of Commons.

Um, generally untouched.

So they first reading
is when they just

introduce it and it's
the basic, like, I wanna

make a law and this
is what I'm thinking.

And everyone goes,
okay, that sounds like

a good sentiment maybe.

Sure, yeah.

Then they do second
reading where it gets

a bit more serious.

It's supposed to
be more formal.

They do that reading
and then it's like,

okay, we've adopted
that, that's what

they've done so far.

Then it goes
to committee.

And the committee
is comprised, the

committee is, you'll
hear it colloquially

referred to as secu.

It's the standing
Committee on Public

Safety in the house.

Uh, there's another
similar committee in

the Senate that does
the exact same job.

The bill then went
to the committee.

The committee
discussed it.

They had a bunch
of witnesses.

Called Forward for
two weeks, I think.

Was it, it was a
relatively lengthy

witness period.

Nick would probably
no longer cause he

covered that at length.

Mm-hmm.

, um, Couple weeks.

Yeah.

Maybe even worth,
I think, yeah,

maybe three length.

It was a length, not
as long as C 71 a

few years ago, but
a lot of witnesses.

Yeah.

So it was out there
for a couple weeks with

everyone out there kind
of chatting about it.

And then, then after the
committee goes forward

with it, they, they
finalize what's called

clause by clause where
they go through the

bill, literally clause
by clause, and they

propose amendments to it.

And that's where we're
at now, where they've

called all the witnesses.

Everything has been
discussed, and they're

supposed to be kind of
like, it's an amendment.

It's supposed to be
a, a whittling, if you

will, not a complete.

Restructuring.

They kind of had all
these witnesses and

they went, well, you
know, handgun free

sounds great, but you
know, it'd be better

if we just ban all
semiautomatic firearms.

That'd be way cooler.

. And, and now they're
really, I mean from a

democratic perspective,
we can't go witnesses.

So the SEC committee,
if you wanted to view

it from this really
naive perspective, that

these parliamentarians
that are in the secu

are, are truly coming
at it from an open mind.

They can't call
witnesses anymore.

So if they wanted to
discuss this stuff with

you, me, Nick, rod,
whoever, they couldn't,

they couldn't ask us
to come up there and be

like, Hey, let's, let's
chat about this cuz let's

restart the witness phase
cuz we're completely

rebuilding this bill
and we need to revisit

it from the ground up.

And actually, one of the
big things that's really

been concerning to me is
that from a parliamentary

standard, when you bring
a bill about, you have

to do various studies
to make sure that it

doesn't contravene
the, the charter of

rights and freedom.

Um, a charter study
was done on Bill C 21

was first introduced.

It was determined to
not break the charter

because you don't have
a right to a handgun.

So of course it didn't,
um, they didn't do

another charter study.

They haven't commissioned
any consultation with

indigenous people.

They haven't done any
of the things you would

have to do when you write
a new law, when they

introduce this amendment,
which effectively

constitutes a new law.

And in that regard, you
know, it's if you, if

you take a tiny law that
does almost nothing,

and you add a giant
component that does so

much more and you don't
study whether or not

that that additional
component contravenes

the charter, contravenes
the digits rights.

I mean, Dan Lloyd
and the committee's

made very good points
that this entire

law might contravene
the UN declaration

of indigenous.

the right smid people
like it's cause cuz they

have to be consulted
on this stuff and

they just were right.

Like it was just no, we,
we, we, and the comical

part is like, to put in
perspective, this is the

government that won on
this perspective of them

being the champions of
all these Rights Day.

And Lloyd asked the
committee, has anyone in

the liberal government
asked anyone in the

indigenous community if
this law is gonna work

or if it, you know,
nevermind a full study.

Has anyone even asked?

And the witnesses from
the Justice department

who I say worked for the
government, had the, had

the gall, uh, to say no.

We kind of decided for
them in 2022 after all

of this that's gone on.

Wow.

They literally said,
well we kinda looked

at it objectively,
wrote a report as a

bunch of white people
that aren't indigenous.

We kind of decided
this was probably in

their best interest.

And it's like, wow, God.

The hypocrisy, it's,
it's, it is truly galling

in that Oxford dictionary
sense of the word.

Like stainless screw,
aluminum metal kind of

galling . Just painful.

No one likes it.

It's awful.

Okay, so you go in the
public safety website

and they talk about
the different items of

the amendment, and some
are gonna be coming in

through oic, through
ordering counsel and some

through Royal Ascent.

So since we've
established that,

they're trying to
approach us by Royal

Ascent, but it has yet
to reach Royal Ascent.

One of the questions
that came up was,

how come the handgun
freezes in effect right

now if it hasn't gone?

, can I, uh, can I
offer an opinion?

Of course, Nicholas.

Yeah.

So, uh, first of all, I
wanna, I wanna commend

Daniel on his incredible,
uh, optimistic tone

and looking for
the positive here.

I I, and if I get
down in negative,

bring me back, man.

Bring me back.

. The, the, to your
question about Bill C 21

and the origins, there
were, there were a few

things that happened
on May 30th, 2022.

That's when the
government announced

their intentions of
the current version

of Bill C 21.

Part one was the
intention for an order

in counsel to kill the
handgun market to make,

to criminalize buying,
selling, transporting,

uh, bequeathing handguns.

So they we're gonna do
that by ordering counsel.

That means
executive decree.

And part part two of
that was they were going

to do it in legislation
that's Bill C 21.

So they announced
both of those three

things on May 30th.

They also announced a
third thing on May 30th

that they would add
an amendment to expand

their confiscations of
shotguns and rifles.

Remember back in May of
2020, they announced a

big confiscation on, uh,
I'll call it AR fifteens

and other, a lot of other
semi-auto center fire mag

fed rifles and shotguns.

They said, so that,
they did that in May,

2020 on May 30th.

The third component of,
of the confiscations

was they're going
to expand that

through an amendment.

And that's what we're
talking about now, is

that giant, uh, amendment
of, of uh, who knows

how many hundreds of
thousands I've seen

numbers over a million
of rifles and shotguns.

So it's the expansion
through that amendment,

but that order in
council to kill the

handgun market that's
already gone through.

and now we're seeing
into law the ordering

council of May 20, 20
plus this huge expansion.

Got it.

It's a little misleading
when you read the

public safety website.

It's, it's really,
well, also, this is

really interesting.

I, I, I think that
it's to, to, to expand

on or add to what
Daniel was just saying.

It's, I think this is,
it's devious, it's sneaky

this last minute stuff,
whether it's legal or

not, because I think it
probably is legal by some

interpretations, but even
if it's le, even if it

is legal, it's sneaky.

This is not how
it should be.

And I also want to, to
commend you again, for,

for bringing this to your
podcast, because just to

give an anecdote on, on
page [e-mail]

I was just looking at
this after the May 30th

announcement in the
week after, I looked

at the page views and
my page views after

this announcement of,
uh, November 22nd when

they unleashed the,
they published the,

uh, the amendment.

I've got four times
as many page views

this time around.

Wow.

So just as an indicator
of how broad the

interest is, how
broad the concern is.

And another point
that Wes Winkle made

of the, the president
of the Canadian

Sporting Arms and
Ammunition Association.

Mm-hmm.

, he pointed out that the
May 30th announcement,

that was the Prime
Minister, that was a,

that was a Telegraph
media announcement.

There were
press releases.

The Prime Minister had
lined up the media.

They were all there
with their cameras

and their notepads
to, to broadcasts.

There was huge media
coverage of the May

30th announcement,
the November 22nd

announce announcement.

There was
practically no media.

So this huge interest
that we're seeing is

predominantly grassroots.

It's people
reading Caliber.

It's the gun blog,
it's Silver Core,

it's it's Iko.

It's, it's, it's, it's
this grassroots and the

organizations, you know,
the other gun orgs, it's

completely grassroots and
the level of interest.

Uh, the half the a
h right, the half

million letters to mps.

It's, it's just
staggering.

It's unlike anything
that I have ever

seen personally.

I've only been following
this a few years, but

from what I'm hearing,
it's unlike anything

anyone has ever seen.

And this is where like
I'll interject and say

like, it's interesting
as someone that's been

follow us for a long
time, because I mean,

Nick can probably
attest and, and you as

well, Travis from your
background, that in a lot

of these things, when we
see these bad policies

come out or we see these
mistakes happen more

often than not, it's.

To be quite honest,
it's usually something

attributable to ignorance
where it's, it's someone

that's a, and I don't
mean this, like people

are gonna hear this
misinterpret that I've

got some like, I mean, no
animosity, this is just

people doing their jobs.

You have a public sector
employee who has worked

their way through maybe
agriculture, any other

department, and they see
an opening in the next

classification of job up.

Cuz I mean all these
public sector stuff is

incredibly hierarchical
so they just kind of

plug them into the next
module up in the, in

the earnings category.

And it's over in public
safety and it happens

to be in the policy
shop and it happens

to be with firearms.

Do you have
any experience?

Well no, but you've
been in the, to be quite

honest in the situation,
I've never worked for

the government, but I,
I can see a situation

where like, it's more
important that you have

knowledge of how the
government works than

how guns work to work
for the government on

guns, if that makes
sense to people.

Mm-hmm.

, um, cause probably
maybe the government

thinks it's easier
to teach guns than it

is to teach the very
complicated bureaucracy

of it is public policy.

And then you get these
people to get into these

roles that don't have the
experience and they're

being told various
things by various people

and they come up with
something they think

meets these goals, which
is to be quite blunt,

what I think this was.

Um mm-hmm.

and the politicians
go, yeah, okay,

well the experts
say this will work.

And I think basic group
thing happens where

the, the bureaucrats on
the inside are referred

to as the experts.

For long enough, the
politicians believed

them, forgetting
that these people

were promoted in
through agriculture

and don't really have
expertise per se.

And then everyone
just goes, yeah,

this looks good.

The experts say, so.

And that's what we
see in committee.

I mean that last
committee hearing,

um, last week where we
started to see Murray

Smith and justice
witnesses effectively,

directly kind of going
against what one another

were saying with what
would or would not be

banned, where justice was
saying, well, it's, if

the gun was originally
designed with a five

round magazine, Which
is not how Murray Smith

has been interpreting
these words, right,

for his entire career.

Right.

You start to go, this
doesn't, I know there's,

and again, there's
treads on some people.

There's a lot of people
who think there's

victimhood and animosity
and acrimonious.

I think it's just the
government kind of being

dumb, to be quite blunt.

I think they kind of
went, Hey, bureaucrats,

come up with a
solution to help

us ban these guns.

This was the solution.

They rolled with it
and they never looked

at it, quite honestly.

Okay, so maybe, maybe,
maybe let's, let's say

being dumb, but this
amendment that came on

is what, 300, like 30 or
13, something like that.

Pages long.

That would take a
while to put together.

And the execution of
putting that forward

doesn't sound like
it was coming from a

place of ignorance.

Like the idea of that
we'll just tag this

on at the very end
where we can bypass.

But I guess that depends
on who you're, who

you, depends on who
you call an expert.

Cause I mean that the 330
pages is largely based

on if we're being honest.

Cause I also think
that as gun, we've

gotta be honest, it's
a huge amendment.

Three 30 pages.

It's really easy
to say they planned

this out forever cuz
the length, sure.

We could distill this
down to 10 pages if

you wanted to, right?

Like you take out all
the AR 15 variance,

you probably left
to the document

that's maybe 50 page.

You take out the French
side, that's 50% of it

and while you're left
to 20 and you take out

all the other, you know,
well Visa 58 known as

you maybe got two pages,
you know of an actual

synopsis of here's what
we're looking at banning.

That's obviously
Murray's head list.

We've all known that
it's from the 2020 thing,

it's been circulated.

It's also.

Very much parallel to
the list that's been

circulated by Poly
and the Coalition

for Gun Control.

The notable gun on the
list that you gotta look

for to draw that parallel
is the Robinson Arms Xcr.

It's never been
involved in a shooting.

It's, they're not common.

They're, they're
pretty uncommon.

Even back in the day,
they weren't common,

um, never been involved
in high profile

shooting whatsoever.

It's been involved
in all of these bands

ever since, and it's
been on poly's lists

and gun controls
lists since day one.

When you hear Marco
Medino say things where

he says like, oh, mark
Lapine was captured

by a gun registry at
Polytechnic, no he

wasn't, but that's what
Poly San S had told him.

So you can kind of
just use some pretty

elementary deductive
reasoning skills.

Go well, they're just
consulting with Poly

Scania, which is not
an expert on guns or an

expert on what happened
at Polytechnic, which

doesn't necessarily,
you know, everything

about a car crash is
making a car expert.

Exactly.

I've used used that one
before, just cuz they've

been hit in the face.

It doesn't make
me a boxer.

Right.

It's, yeah.

Um, So what about
the prankster?

I understand I
haven't read through

the whole list.

There is the prankster,
not a little 22.

Is that on the list?

There it is.

That was on the May
that was already listed

in May, 2020, I think.

The Mossberg 7
0 2 Prankster.

So the 7 0 2.

The seven 15 The Blaze
previously, cuz that's

essentially a prankster
with a, um, AK style

plastic wrapper.

Yeah, I just put a
plastic wrapper on the

thing I, from what I
understand, the very

original ones that
came to, I've actually

seen photos of 'em
where they've taken

'em apart in videos.

And you've had a 7 0
2 plink, sir, in the

middle or, yeah, it's,
its like every other 22.

You just, what do
they, what do they have

against that rifle?

Now this rim fires
are on there.

Well, and I gotta say
some credit goes to

Tim thoroughly over
on Twitter, who's done

some extensive work
on the definition of

variant and filed his
own AIPs and whatnot.

Okay.

Um, so credit goes to
Tim on that variant.

Apparently can
include guns that

look like other guns.

It's as simple as that.

The government has
decided that the

ver variant includes
guns that look

like other guns.

So if gun A looks
like gun B, well I

guess they're variance
of one another.

So, and Murray Smith's
testimony in the federal

court case is also from,
I think October of, I

think it's 20, gosh,
I'm having a unsure

if it's 2021 or 2020.

But his testimony under
cross-ex examination,

like Daniel's saying
like variant is anything

that Murray Smith and his
colleagues want it to be.

Right.

It's not, you remember
that, that huge issue

that we've been dealing
with for, uh, for years.

Yeah.

There was two terms.

What was a variant and
the other one was a

modified version of, I
think were the two terms.

Okay.

That would never be,
uh, can't be defined.

They can't be defined
and they won't be

defined because they
wanna leave it open

to, but I think like,
and this is again, not

to interrupt, but like
no screw to interrupt

cuz I'm doing it.

I'll own it anyways.

Go ahead.

Like this definitions
thing, people get

hung up on this cuz
I know it's very.

Common in the gun
community to get hung

up on the variant thing.

People very, very
insensitive in

the gun community.

I would ask people to
also recognize like

these definitions,
the definition of

the term hunting gun
is equally nebulous.

Like it is a gun
that you hunt with.

So when they say,
oh, well it's banning

hunting guns, well
of course it is.

Because any gun that you
could legally take into a

field and shoot an animal
with is a hunting gun.

Like it.

It's as simple as that.

Like when, when people
say, well, what's

an assault rifle?

Well, assault rifle
does have a canonized

definition, a rifle
intended for military

uses primarily with
a fully automatic

fire switch that
is a assault rifle.

You detach a magazine,
typically 30 rounds,

et cetera, et cetera.

If you look it up in the
Oxford English Language

Dictionary, it's there
most crucially, if you

look it up in the APA
or the um, journalist

one, what's that one?

Canadian Press or
Associated Press?

Associated Press, yeah.

Associated Press
has a definition

for assault rifle.

It is a fully
automatic rifle period.

That's it.

Hunting rifle has
no such definition.

And I guess the crucial
thing, like when they

say this is an assault
weapon ban, we're not

banning hunting rifles.

There's no freaking
difference.

They're all
semiautomatic rifles.

The end.

I, I would also
suggest that we not

use those terms unless
as acceptance specific

circumstances, because
today in 2022, now you

guys are the technicians,
so I'm stepping

outside my lane here.

But the, the idea
that some firearms are

different than other
firearms, there's,

well, I guess what
I'm trying to say is

they're all made in
the same factories.

They're all designed
by the same engineers.

They all come through
the same, uh, well,

factories, retail
channels or I guess

even who, um, and
the people who use it

might be different.

But to make a
distinction that, oh,

this is a military gun.

This is a hunting gun.

This is a ranching
gun, this is a

farming gun, this is
a self-defense gun.

I don't think that
type of language

serves us or, or even.

It might be useful
for some purpose, but

it, it doesn't have
a, it's not, it's not

a useful distinction,
I don't think.

No, and I think, again,
to expand on that, I

don't like the, this
discussion around what

guns are has been one
that's been kind of

problematic for me.

It's been frustrating
for me because, um,

what guns are designed
to do is to launch a

projectile full stop.

And I think a lot of
gun owners, if anyone's

listening to this,
whenever someone brings

that up and says, well,
what's a, you know,

we got a ban ease.

They're designed
to do blank.

If whatever blank is
is not throw a rock at

high speed down range
accurately and reliably,

the answer is incorrect.

Cause that's all, like,
I know, I literally

have talked to people
that design guns.

And if you go to Colt
Canada, they say that,

no, we don't design
these to do anything

other than go bang,
make the, the bullet

hit where it's aiming
and do it reliably.

And then the other added.

Design parameters or
things like light, like

whether or not it's
lightweight, is it heavy?

How long is the barrel?

It's basic stuff.

But guns are designed
to go bang and shoot.

That's it.

Guns are designed
to shoot.

What you shoot at
is where the person

enters into it.

And that's, that's a
whole different metric.

And I think this
whole assault, assault

style hunting gun,
these definitions do

a tremend disservice
to distract from that,

that they are just guns.

They can be
tremendously dangerous

in the wrong hands.

Absolutely.

That's why we invested
heavily in this massive

system to keep them
out of the wrong hands.

Why are we now
investing heavily in

specific kinds of guns
in the right hands?

It doesn't make sense.

They call it an
assault vehicle.

This one's an assault
vehicle cuz it was

used or it's got X
weight or capacity,

it's painted black.

Mm yeah.

Or like we've got
leadership style

government doesn't
necessarily mean we've

got a functioning
government either.

Travis.

I'd also like to come,
uh, just to also to zoom

out here to, um, , I
think a lot of gun owners

were surprised by what
happened, uh, when the,

when this amendment to
Bill C 21 was introduced

or, or published.

And I think that's also
unfortunate because we

had huge signs, both,
both in the short term.

We have a government
under the Justin Truda,

liberals and Justin Truda
himself, who is very, uh,

clearly obviously hostile
to, uh, to gun owners.

He's campaigned
three times now.

He's won three
elections with a

message of prohibitions
and confiscations.

So the, the fact
that this happened

shouldn't be a surprise.

On May 30th, the
government said they

were planning an
amendment to expand the

confiscations, so it
shouldn't be a surprise

from that point of view.

And bigger picture,
back in C 68 of the

ninth of 1995, the the
Firearms Act, the the

Anti Firearms Act has.

Or let me rephrase that.

C 68 has, uh, an
amendment to the criminal

code that allowed cabinet
to ban any gun that it

wants any time if cabinet
doesn't think it's

reasonable for hunting
or sporting purposes.

So the minute that was
in the law, we should

have known, and a lot of
guys who paid attention

back then did That's
way before my time, way

before I was interested.

But I'm, I'm relying
on stories that have

been related to me.

Anybody who was paying
attention should know

that, that the fact that
that was in the criminal.

And the fact that all
gun owners are regulated

by the criminal code
meant it was not a

matter of if, it was
a matter of when.

Right.

So that plus Trudeau
saying he's, uh,

cracking down, he's
adding prohibitions

and confiscations.

So I can understand
people would be upset

or angry about what
happened, uh, on

November and November
22nd, 2022 when the

amendment came out.

But nobody should
be surprised.

Right.

The writing's
on the wall.

Yeah.

It's been on the wall
for, for either decades

or months, but mm-hmm.

. Yeah.

There's also another
thing that I just

want to add to that,
that, and, and this

is being positive.

I think that what
we're seeing now, the

thousands of people,
maybe tens of thousands

who are watching the
SEC U committee in the

House of Commons debate
this bill and who are

paying attention to
the policy at all.

Cuz there I think there
are a lot of people who

are paying attention.

It's serving as
a very valuable.

Political education about
how policy is made, how

the legislative process
works, and going back

right to the beginning
of the things Daniel was

mentioning about this
last minute amendment.

After all the witnesses
has come in, snuck

in under the wire,
all this stuff, um,

introducing a massive
amendment that was not

presented to parliament.

All this stuff is making
people very suspect of

this government and about
government ethics and

the political system.

And I think that's
actually dangerous

because we need
trust in politicians.

We need trust in the
system to function

as a society.

That's, that's
my opinion.

And this kind of stuff,
the way it's being

done, nothing to do
with firearms, just

purely the procedural
aspect is undermining

trust in politicians and
the political system.

I think that's dangerous.

Well said, Nicholas.

I, I want to talk
about the, the terms,

uh, hunting guns and.

A assault weapon
a little bit.

But you know, one
point on what you were

just saying there,
C 21 encompasses

more than just
firearms, doesn't it?

I, the only aspect I paid
attention to is firearms.

But it sounds like
you, it sounds like

you know something.

Well, I know very,
very little on this,

but I think Daniel
probably has a little

bit more information
covers before Airsoft.

You talk of the Airsoft.

Yeah, I mean, it, it's
obviously impacting

Airsoft and then broader
reaching kind of brackets

or, or parenthesis
around firearms is the

red flag laws and all
the additional work

around, um, exemptions
for things like nuclear

facility guards to
carry AR fifteens

and stuff like that.

Because apparently
AR fifteens are the

only tool that is
acceptable for our

nuclear facilities
to be defended with.

But you can't have one.

Um, yeah, the biggest
thing is airsoft.

Um, it bans airsoft.

Okay.

That's all
there is to it.

There's no other
way to put it.

I mean, it
doesn't ban it.

I mean, being a big
glib there, but, um, it

basically bans anything.

It's a replica firearm.

And if anyone's familiar
with Airsoft, uh,

airsoft is all about,
for most people, about

Milsom, it's about
the simulation aspect.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, but you can't really
simulate, uh, those

situations if you've
got some funky nerf

looking space do da that
you, you stick the, the

BBS in the side of, or
something like it's, you

know, kind of ruins it.

So, and plus too, this is
something that Canadian

gunners have to realize
cuz it's, it's where

airsoft and gun owners
overlap significantly.

We're not a big market.

Canada is not
a significant

airsoft market.

We are not a
significant gun market.

Full stop.

There's no other
way to put it.

I, I used to argue
this point when I

was 10 years ago and
doing the industry, I

was gung ho Canada's
big, no we're not.

Like they sell more
guns in Texas than

they do in Canada.

Mm-hmm.

. And in terms of Airsoft
globally, there are other

bigger markets by far.

Um, what the liberals
are looking at doing

ostracizes, the Canadian
market for both.

Uh, it requires Canadian
airsoft people to find

a product that does
not currently exist

on the market today
to practice Airsoft

as they currently do.

So they're either gonna
have to change their

behavior to, to meet
the law, not that their

behavior's currently
criminal, they're gonna

have to change their
currently law abiding

currently entirely
unharmful behavior

to be unharmful and
law abiding some more

with different stuff
because no one's gonna

build guns for them.

And it's the
same as Canada.

I've seen a few people
kinda say on social

media, well, I guess
we're gonna have to

redesign Mag Wells.

We're gonna have to, no,
it's not gonna happen.

Guys.

Like, like designing
a magazine.

Is one of the most
expensive parts

of designing a gun
cuz it's sees a ton

of wear and tear.

It's very diverse in
terms of your metrics

where things have to
line up, measurements,

you name it.

It's very, very
complicated.

Like to the point where
a lot of gun designers

say designing a reliable
gun is as important as

designing a reliable mag.

Then you wrap a
gun around it.

Mm-hmm.

, you're gonna really
expect people to go out

there and design a whole
new magazine format that

cannot be replicated
anywhere in the world

to hold more than five
rounds for a market

of 2.2 million people.

Mm-hmm.

, how many of those 2.2
million people are buying

new guns every year?

Well, not all 2.2.

Okay.

So let's take
those people.

Now you're getting
to the market size,

it just won't happen.

Right?

These laws will
not be adapted.

By the market, they will
meet their objectives

in that goal of ever
greening legislation that

will prevent gun owners
from circumventing it

because there's no point.

Mm-hmm.

, but that's just the
death nail of it.

It doesn't, it's not,
it's not like Airsoft

is adapting, it's dying.

Mm-hmm.

, it's over.

Like no one will make
a semiautomatic rifle

for the Canadian market.

Yeah.

If you're rich enough,
you can go buy a

sour S 3 0 3, someone
will sell you one.

They're custom mate.

You call 'em up, give 'em
your name, they'll put it

on the side of the gun.

Mm-hmm.

. But if you don't have
five grand, well,

I don't know, go
buy something else.

I guess that's what
your dad would say.

Like it's something
else that's equally

good but worse.

You know, like
follow up shot with

a bolt action rifle.

Never as good , you
know, as an animal

advocate guy, this
pisses me off to.

. I think also, Dan,
what you're saying is

incredibly important and
it answers the question

that, that I've seen on
social media that, that

some people are asking
and say, oh, I don't

have any guns that are
on the list, so therefore

this doesn't affect me.

And that's, that's false.

You might not be targeted
by the confiscations

directly yet.

Yeah.

But how are you affected?

Well, every gun owner
in Canada is affected

because as the market
shrinks, well, some

manufacturers are
going to simply

say, you know what?

The Canadian market
is not worth it to us.

That's gun manufacturers
and that's ammo

manufacturers.

So what does that mean?

Well, you're a gun owner
who, who shoots whatever.

Well, you're used to
buying your ammo at

your local gun store.

Well, is your gun
store gonna be able to

make it through this?

Maybe, maybe not.

And let's say your
local gun store

makes it through it.

And let's say you're
used to going the day

before you, before a
hunt or the day before

a a range event.

A range day and,
and stocking up on

a couple boxes or,
or dozens of boxes.

Well, are the ammo
manufacturers still gonna

serve the country the way
they do now because, and

so we're talking about,
um, some gun stores

disappearing and dying.

We're talking about
gun clubs eventually

disappearing and dying.

So this, this
confiscation is

suppressing the, a huge
gu there, the relatively,

that's suppressing the
Canadian gun market.

And that has
ramifications on

everybody who is in the
Canadian gun market.

Every gun store,
every gun club,

every gun owner.

I mean, to put that
in perspective, if

anyone's wanting to
noble context on that

from an industry side,
imagine going to the

range with a Lee Enfield.

How many rounds are
you probably taking

for an afternoon?

Let's see.

You get there after
lunch, you're gonna

leave before dinner.

You probably, if
you're me and you're

taking, let's say
my K 31, I'm gonna

call 50 rounds ample.

That's, I probably
come home with half

of them cuz I'm,
I'm just there to.

Plink away and, and
practice breathing

and all that.

Now imagine you go into
the range with an AR

or WK 180 to practice
three gun matches.

How many rounds
have you taken?

Hundreds.

Right?

A lot more, right?

Yeah.

That's what the
retailers are seeing.

When you worry, when,
when, when Nicholas

says this is gonna
affect your retailers.

Think about that.

Think what?

Every gun owner, if
you're listening to

this in a big city
like Toronto and you're

talking about Al Fla
or you're listening

to in Red Deer and
you're talking about

a small shop there
doesn't matter.

Maybe the powder keg
and Camloops could

be Reliable Gun.

This is a huge
reduction in volume

and that's gonna have
dramatic effects.

So even if you don't
shoot these guns, let's

say you're that guy that
only shoots the lean

field, well your box 3 0
3 is gonna go a hell of

a lot more in terms of
price because the lease

that reliable gun, the
powder, okay, everyone

else has to pay, which
has gone up tremendously

cuz real estate under
Trudeau, that lease

still has to be paid.

Except instead of being
paid for on thousands

of rounds of 2 23 or
7 62 like it normally

would be, it's gonna be
carried by guys shooting

20 rounds of 3 0 3.

Got it.

Every one of those rounds
is gonna go from one

to maybe five bucks.

Even like we are
looking at effectively,

if people wanna know
where this goes, the

European gun culture
where if you can afford

it, it's a great sport.

And if you can't
try baseball,

tough, tough . Yeah.

Like, uh, fishing.

Like it's really
that there's no other

way around this.

It's, they're moving it
into that for the rich.

And if you're Joe
Blow blue collar

hunts for your food,
you're Sol man.

And I've spoken with
numerous gun stores.

You've listed off a
few of them right there

about the effects that
they're seeing currently.

And the same thing
keeps coming back.

The people who want
to buy new kit and buy

lots of ammo, those
are handgun shooters,

sport shooters, people
who are shooting

the semi-automatics.

The handgun when that
announcement came in,

there was a surge on
buying, but there's no

new guns being bought.

This has all been
addressed before.

It's the same
number that would

be sold over a year.

It's just sold over a
condensed period of time.

Yeah, it was an untenable
thing for the stores

and now they're seeing
the repercussions

very quickly.

If C 21 goes through,
Dan, what you're saying

will come into effect,
is already largely

coming into effect.

You're gonna see layoffs,
you're gonna see small

stores shut down or
really niche down

and prices go way up.

Um, one thing that we
talked about earlier

was about terms, and I
know the lawyers were

really keen on pushing,
let's say Murray Smith

on, on saying what a
variant was or what a

modified version was.

I know earlier we had
mentioned maybe not,

let's not get hung up on
these terms cuz there's a

double edged sword there.

Uh, legally sometimes
if there's no legal

definition of what, let's
say, what an assault.

Weapon is, or an assault
rifle is, uh, they

will, they'll go to the
Oxford dictionary or

they'll look at US law.

They'll look at other
places where it's

kind of been defined
and, and lean on that.

Uh, I think the
lawyers really wanted a

definition of a variant
to constrain future,

uh, prohibitions and
put a box around what it

is they're looking at.

And the very telling
point is, is that

nobody wants to put
that definition on.

If we move forward, and
we're talking about,

like you say, this
is a hunting rifle or

going after the hunting
rifles, I don't know.

I look at this two ways.

Uh, number one, it's
giving some, uh,

context to those who are
outside of the firearms

industry and saying,
well, that doesn't

really make sense.

Why would they go
after, uh, indigenous

groups who use this
firearm predominantly?

Why would they go after
the farmer or the hunter?

And I can see some value
into leaning on that.

I do understand the
gun owner standpoint

of saying, the second
we define hunting

rifles, everything
else is gonna be gone.

And these are the only
few until they whittle

it down further.

I, I, I'm torn on the
two sides of that.

It's kind of like
saying, never call it a

weapon, it's a firearm.

Well, the criminal
code actually

calls it a weapon.

Right.

Even the receiver, a
weapon isn't, anything

that is used can be used,
designed to be used to

threaten, intimidate,
or cause bodily harm

to somebody else.

And without precluding,
the generality

of the forego
includes a firearm.

Words are important.

Where should people
stand on this one?

Should we be doubling
down and saying, , look

at what they're doing
to the hunting firearms?

Or should they
try and distance

themselves from that?

I'd like to
respond to that.

Okay.

I would say I agree with
you and that it's, it is

a double edged sword and
there's, there's pros

and cons to each one.

I think the.

The advantage of using
phrases like farming, gun

hunting, gun ranching,
guns, uh, target gun,

is that it, it makes
it sound nice and

it's maybe appealing
to certain people.

The risk is that we
forget that it's the

same guns that are
used by military,

uh, self defenders,
home defenders.

It's, it's exactly
the same tool.

That's the first thing.

The second thing is I,
I've chosen to, in, in my

[e-mail],
in my, in my

presentations and, and
discussions, focus on the

confiscation from people.

Cuz we have to remember,
we, it's, it's simpler

to say that they're
going after X Ys at

guns, but we have
to remember that the

confiscations are always
targeting certain people.

Right.

At the end of the day,
it's, it's not the gun

that's legal or illegal.

It's the possession,
the purchasing, the

acquisition, the,
the, the, having

buying, owning.

And that's a
human activity.

It's to bring the
people back into this

and remember that
they're not, I even

prefer to say they're
not going after guns.

They're going
after people.

And Daniel said this
for me in his opening

sentences, government
licensed firearm users.

This is where we
get to the coincide.

That's a, that's
a mouthful.

That like, what the
heck is the government

licensed firearm user?

It's much easier
to call it.

They're going
after hunting guns.

So rhetorically,
if you have to make

an ad or a meme,
they're going after.

Hunters is much, it's
conceptually much

center, much simpler.

So there's a huge
advantage there.

Does it come back to bite
us in the bum in our, in

our policy discussions?

I think it does.

So, pros and cons,
man, pros and cons.

And I think, like
from my perspective,

I, I echo Nick's
sentiment entirely.

Like I agree with
everything he said.

Um, I, I have no, there's
nothing really to add

beyond, like, I think
maybe gun owners maybe

just get too hung up
on the terminology.

Yeah, because I
used to, I, I've

been guilty of it.

I think a lot of us
have been at various

junctures and at this
point I can say like,

my background is, is
primarily in writing and

English literature, so
I kind of rely more on

the, the language purity.

A gun is absolutely
a weapon.

It can also be a tool.

It can also be a
fishing weight.

It can also be
a hunting rifle.

It can be whatever you
want it to be, you know,

like you can strap it
to the tire of a car

and use it as a ski in
the snow if you want to.

It's, it's just a
metal implement, right?

Like it is a thing that's
commonly called a gun.

What you add to that is
kind of secondary and

is more projection, and
this is how I viewed it

and I think gun owners
would be beneficial, is

maybe get caught up on
how other people refer

to it less and correcting
them less and maybe infer

from their usage more.

Like if someone refers
to a gun as a weapon

constantly, maybe
instead of correcting

them and being like,
no, they're not weapons.

Maybe in further, that
person has a little bit

of hesitancy around guns.

They have a little bit of
an acrimonious attitude.

They're a little
bit nervous.

And the best way to
address nervousness

or ignorance, which
is commonly what that

comes out as, is not
by just steamrolling

over them being like,
no, you're wrong.

Right?

So I just don't
get caught up.

And if someone's,
cuz I've done tons of

interviews or people
call on weapons, rifles,

guns, you name it, it
doesn't matter If you've

been in the army and
someone calls it a gun,

they'll bitch slap you
back and say, no, that's,

that's an artillery
piece, that's a rifle.

You know?

Mm-hmm.

So it's names are, are
really more about who's

using it than, than,
than what it actually is.

And I think gun
owners get too caught

up in that stuff.

And I think we let
our politicians get

caught up in it too.

Cuz it, and this is where
this hunting gun thing,

it exposes a bit of a
mutual flank for both

the conservatives and.

because the liberals
have to kind of admit

that an AR 15 is just a
semiautomatic rifle no

different than a Browning
B AR at some point.

Mm.

And at some point
someone, and believe me,

I'm sure that there is
someone in a liberal war

room, it's a little bit
worried about someone

holding up an AR 15
round and holding up a b

ar 30 odd six round and
going, oh, this rifle

shoots these four of
'em as fast as you want.

The other one
shoots these.

Um, so they're
worried about that.

The conservatives on
the other hand are also

worried about it because
they want to be seen as

defending hunting guns
cause that's socially

acceptable in Canada.

But they also
have to accept

someone eventually.

Reality has to
accept that there's

no difference.

A semi-automatic AR 15
and 2 23 is just as good

at hunting coyotes as
a semiotic b ar, and 30

odd six s at hunting elk.

They're just guns.

And uh, we should, by
that, I agree also that

we should be calling,
um, in certain cases

that we should be
referring to the AR

15 as a hunting gun.

Because in it's most
popular hunting gun in

America in the world.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I guess cuz it's the
largest hunting market.

So, so the ar all
popular in the world.

So we've, we've, we've,
we've, uh, I I've, I

I avoid referring to
firearms as weapons

because I think,
uh, philosophically

they are not.

But I also agree, Dan
wholeheartedly with you,

that that's, that's,
they can be's like that.

That's a, that's
a discussion that

about three people
are interested in.

I'm people who like to
splice hairs and three

of us are interested in
the, the, but, but all

three of us are in this
one pot is, oh my God.

And that's, and
that slippery,

what are the odds?

I think you're also
pointing to a slippery

slope of, of how
this policy is, is

being rationalized.

First they say, oh, you
can't use it for hunting.

Oh.

And part two, since you
can't use it for hunting,

you don't need it.

Oh.

And so let's just
confiscate them.

So the, it's,
it's a minute.

That's where those
people who say No,

we draw the line at
the, the first step is

where we draw the line.

Cuz once they go take
that first step, there's

always the second
and then the third.

And that is,
and the fourth.

Absolutely true.

Like in committee, I
remember vividly last

week, justice Witness,
and this is a, this

is a non-political
public sector employee

working for the Justice
Department who had,

again, the gall, when
the benellis were brought

up to simply say, well,
they were banded 92.

So obviously they don't
have any practical

reason cuz they've
been illegal since 92.

Right.

Like that somehow, like
being banned 92 prevents

them from being useful
and, and Nick's right,

they're gonna do this.

They're gonna say
these guns, they're

gonna ban them.

If they do ban them
today, these guns will

never be considered
viable hunting rifles

in the future because
they'll simply say, well

no, they're illegal.

They have been, you
have kinda like the air

15 in Canada is not a
viable hunting rifle

cause you're not legally
allowed to hunt with it.

It becomes a
self-fulfilling

prophecy effectively.

That's right.

Same with handguns
in the bush.

You can't, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

I always figured Alberta,
Alberta should come in

because the only thing
that stops people from

shooting a handgun in
the, in the woods is

that your att, which
allows you to transport

it to a range, not
out into the woods.

And ATTs are given up.

Provincially, although
you'd know more about

this being the, the
hunting and guy.

The hunting, well
definitely more than

me like is could you
be able to hunt in

Alberta with a handgun
if the CFO said so?

Yeah.

I mean, they do
it in the States.

I remember being
down at the, well, I,

Massachusetts legally
like could, oh, I see

the CFO of Alberta
legally without rewriting

the f the firearms act
like with the current

framework issue, an at
t to someone for like a,

a 44 meg and then that
person have a, a tag

for a deer and go get a
deer with a, a handgun.

Would that be legal?

So we have federal
and provincial laws

and provincial laws.

Uh, if your province
says you're good to

go and use a handgun,
then the federal laws

say, I kick in mind you
ATTs, and this would

be great to have Ian on
because I'm no lawyer,

but the, uh, ATTs are
issued provincially.

From my understanding,
that's one of the things

we're trying to, uh, to
change and have a federal

oversight on all ATTs
as as we move forward.

ATCs Well, and ATC is
also something that you

can bring out, but it'll
have conditions attached.

I think they're moving
the ATCs to the RCMP

federally for ATCs for
Protection of Life.

But the ATTs, I think
that's part of C 21.

Isn it, yeah.

Yeah.

But the ATTs, I believe
are staying are, I

don't think that the,
the, the regulatory

body for ATTs changes
as, as far as I know.

Again, hashtag
not a lawyer.

Um, the tribe on that
question though, is,

isn't it the, isn't it,
and I'm not a hunter, not

a lawyer, not a hunter.

Is it not?

Um, my understanding
was that it's illegal

in Canada federally to
hunt or to use a quote

unquote prohibited
or quote, unquote

restricted firearm for
hunting, you can only

use a non-restricted,
and therefore handguns

are automatically out.

So that would be
a provincial rule,

depending, I don't,
I don't, I don't know

every province, but the
provinces govern the,

uh, the use of implements
for hunting, whether

that be a spear or a bow
or, uh, a firearm that

would, that would fall
under provincial rule.

Municipally.

They can put extra
rules in place as well.

But um, like they
can say, well,

not in our city.

You ain't, you can't,
no firearms or no single

projectiles, for example,
corporation of Delta.

Mm-hmm.

guess for a city
now, city of Delta.

And, but from the use
of a firearm would

come down to can you
legally discharge it?

Well, you can discharge
a firearm anywhere.

It's lawful to do so.

Well That's then
brings into, you know,

have a loaded fire.

Anywhere you're allowed
to lawfully discharge it.

Can I lawfully
discharge my handgun

out in the woods?

And this is
getting perhaps a

little off topic.

If ATTs, if, if what
you're saying is that

ATTs aren't gonna be
affected, it's the ATCs.

I must have
misread that part.

. But, um, the, from my
understanding, not a

lawyer, the only thing
stopping you from using

your firearm out in the
woods would be an a t

which is why many law
enforcement can go out

in the woods and shoot
their pistols just fine.

Mm-hmm.

Because they've got
that blanket transport.

I have, I have a
different understanding

the opportunity
for Alberta there.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

, I mean, given they've
been pretty clear.

I mean, that's the other
thing that I think we

haven't talked about is
probably the provincial.

Like we were already
seeing that you think

back to, it's, it's
funny now how, how

thoroughly this shatters
your, like there was,

there's the before C 21
Amendment times, and then

there's the after times

Because before we
oh's huge, the big

talk was Saskatchewan,
Alberta, Manitoba.

Mm-hmm.

all saying, we're
not gonna do this by.

Um, Yukon and,
and New Brunswick.

Aren't they
jumping on too?

Yeah, that's true.

Yeah.

It was five
total, isn't it?

And now, like this, this
ban, I mean it's the,

the, the compensate.

Cuz justice has been
pretty unequivocal by

saying that if these
ban goes through, these

prohibited firearms will
not be available for use.

They've been, they've
repeated that ad

nauseum, so it doesn't
sound like it'll be

like a grandfathering.

Like if you got a bar,
you'll still be able

to hunt with it until
you die kind of thing.

No, you won't.

Um, so I think from
that perspective, it's

very interesting to.

. And that's why we've
included on some of

the form letters that,
you know, people should

be emailing their
provincial ministers of

public safety because
the bill to pay for

this will probably
most be felt by those

provincial authorities.

And it, there's
so many wedges.

Like it's funny that
this one wedge, it's very

obviously a, an attempt
to create a liberal wedge

for likely an election
next spring has created,

I think, probably a
lot more wedges than

they anticipated.

So, I mean, Nick's
saying, don't

be surprised.

I think, uh, he's right.

But I think it might
have surprised some

people that it probably
really shouldn't have

surprised, like the
people that wrote it.

I'd like to add to,
to that if I made that

the, um, this bill is
also quite nefarious

because even though it's
a federal, it would be

a federal law ordering
confiscation essentially

because you won't be
able to buy, sell, or,

or pass on to your heirs.

It's, it's offsetting
the cost of that

confiscation.

There's no mention
of who's gonna do

the confiscating.

Well, who's gonna do
the confiscating is your

municipal police force.

So when Hunter Bill
or, or Hunter Joe, uh,

dies and someone has
to come and collect

the guns, well,
who's gonna do that?

Well, that's presumably
gonna be the municipal

police force.

Well, municipal police
forces keep saying,

we don't have the
budgets for this.

There's, there's,
this is a massive,

massive, uh, we're
talking about millions

at this point between
the handguns and the,

the rifles and shotguns
that are involved.

Millions of firearms.

It would be a nonstop
job just to go around

the provinces or the,
the municipality and

collect this stuff.

Well, they don't,
that's not no police

force at the moment.

I mean, it wants to
do that or has the

budget to do that,
or they're responding

to 9 1 1 calls.

Right.

They're, they're busy
fighting bad guys.

They don't, they don't
wanna turn into, they

don't wanna be turned
into confiscation agents.

Mm-hmm.

. So this is,
again, federally.

Who's going to,
whose defacto is my

understanding is gonna be
charged with execution.

It's the municipalities
and no one's

talking about that.

Well, the really
interesting one for me,

for example, Alberta,
when they came out and

they said, okay, we've
got the RCMP here,

we've got their tasks.

They're under contract.

We're not gonna use our
money to fund the RCMP

to do this extra duty
outside of their normal

policing duties to go
confiscate the firearms.

That was interesting.

But they went further and
they said, we're looking

at enacting legislation
to prevent the federal

government from funding
the RCMP or allowing

them to confiscate
these firearms.

How do we have federal
laws in Canada that

provincially can be
opted out of that

I, you know, that's
an interesting one.

It's an untenable situ.

Well, what I understand
from Alberta and

Saskatchewan is they're
preparing their own.

I just took a very brief
look at this stuff in

the past few days, right.

They're planning their
own firearms acts to

require licensing of
any confiscation agent.

So they're gonna,
they're, I guess they're

gonna have lawyer people
who are actual lawyers,

not, not some blogger,
but who are finding

very creative ways to
say, we're not having

your confiscations here.

Mm-hmm.

. Well, I mean, that's a
brilliant one because

that, that licensing
thing, I mean, you first

read it and you think it
sounds pretty harmless,

but I mean, who, who
currently administers

those licenses?

If you wanted to take
a course, who would

you take it from?

Travis.

Mm-hmm.

. It's private individuals.

Private sector
businesses.

They can refuse customers
for various reasons.

Mm-hmm.

. So it'd be very easy
for the instructors in

Alberta to go, well,
we're just not gonna

take any potential
confiscation agents on

as potential students so
they can't get licensed.

And that kind of
stalls it there.

I love that.

Which again, It all,
you can be otherwise

designated by a
firearms officer.

They do have a section
in their That's true.

Yeah.

But I, which has
happened, but I mean, the

Alberta Chief Firearms
Officer ain't a boat

to appoint anyone.

Right, right.

Like it's, it's Fortress
Alberta as a, as a BC or

that's halfway between
Vancouver and Calgary.

Um, it's basically
Fortress Alberta.

Like they, they've,
they've got a pretty

decent amount of buttress
against it there.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, and I've heard for
a long time people that

have been around, For
probably seven plus

years might know that
like non-compliance,

when Trudeau was first
elected, non-compliance

was always discussed
as the thing that the

liberals feared most.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, we heard it
from liberal party

insiders back then that
anything they looked

at passing, they were
always concerned that

compliance would be low
because the long gun

registry compliance was
never greater than 50%.

And that was always
what killed them

on the costing.

Mm-hmm.

, way back when we went
through all that, and

I remember it vividly,
it was you, you spent

billions of dollars and
you got 50% of the guns.

It's pointless, right?

Mm-hmm.

. Um, so they're still
sensitive about that and

I think, you know, with
C 21 and what's going on

in Alberta, this, this
semi-automatic ban is

really stolen all the air
out of the room for sure,

for obvious reasons,
cuz it's massive.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, but when you view
it, when you kind of

pull back and view the
forest for the trees and

you contextualize that
this is an amendment

to a bill that was
already being opposed

openly by the entire.

Prairie provinces,
Yukon, new Brunswick.

Um, it does change
the perspective a

bit if people are
starting to panic.

Well, I don't know.

It kind of changes
the math a bit for me

personally, like I work
in the industry, it's a

game changer for sure.

Mm-hmm.

. But looking at all those
things, it does at least

gimme a little bit of
hope of going, yeah,

you know what there
is, the system might

kind of work maybe.

Mm-hmm.

, there's enough pushback,
enough feedback,

enough political
pressure, enough

friction that maybe
this won't go through.

You feel they got a
little too greedy,

they threw too much
on that boat and it's

starting to sink?

Or do you think
it was by design?

Perhaps?

I worry because I think
that we can all conclude

that the liberal party
has access to better

data than any of us have.

Mm-hmm.

, um, they are
incredibly efficient.

They have won two
elections now by

losing them, as in
they get less votes

than other people, but
they win the election.

That's efficiency.

And I worry about
that cuz this

stuff does play in.

And if anyone's, again,
people gotta step, if

you're, if you haven't
step out of your echo

bubble and just Google
carry price on Twitter.

Just Google it and look
at not, not the results

that you wanna see,
but just scroll through

'em and read 'em all.

Cuz you'll find that
it's probably about

50 50 that mm-hmm.

, there's a lot of
people of Oh yeah.

You know, happy to stand
with him, happy to see

him standing up for,
for all that stuff.

And there's a lot of
people saying they're

gonna throw his jersey
in the garbage and

stuff like that.

So it's, it's
pretty even.

Um, and I think people
should probably keep

that in context.

Um, so I, I don't know.

I mean, I wanna say, so,
um, ultimately I guess

the, the pragmatist in
me wants to say that

on exit polling, gun
politics never actually

cracks the top 10 on why
people cast a ballot.

Mm.

Um, so will this be the
reason people vote for

Justin Trudeau or don't?

No.

Will this be the reason
that people volunteer

for a political party?

Yes.

Will this probably
create more, does this

create exponentially
more leverage within the

NDP and the block way
be wha for gun owners

to create change within
those party structures?

Absolutely.

That's the big takeaway.

I think if gun owners
are looking at this

for the absolute, like
what is the absolute

best thing that could
happen from this?

It would be gun owners
liaising with the NDP

and the block and, and
effectively taking guns

off the political table
by doing so by, by using

this as an opportunity
to recognize liberals

of open the door for us
to have a conversation

here and for us to
have that conversation

with all of the other
parties that want to,

um, and clarify that,
like I said, we license

the people, we don't,
we license who has.

I wouldn't want to be
in a room with someone

with criminal intent,
whether they were armed

with a 22 or a 50 cow.

It wouldn't matter.

I'm probably not getting
outta the room alive.

So we control the people.

Let's spend a lot less
effort controlling

the individual things.

A lot less time,
a lot less money.

Um, I think that that
could probably work for

the block in the ndp.

Those parties wanna
spend a lot of money,

um, which means they
probably need to look at

saving money right now.

It's one of those things
where you gotta look,

the economy is kind of
a perfect storm, or they

gotta look at saving.

If they wanna spend
Trudeau's opened

the door with this
semiautomatic ban.

I think that's the,
that is the big thing.

I'd love to see the
NDP shift back to

a jack, late gun
agnostic perspective.

Mm-hmm.

, I think it'd be
the best, honest to

God for gun owners.

I think it'd be the
best for Canada.

It'd be the best
for the ndp.

I voted for the
NDP in the past.

I'm not like it's, I
voted for every party in

the past at some points.

Like it's, it's very
important that we have

a three party system and
the health of that is,

it relies on the NDP not
being the liberals laps.

So you bring up a
good point about the

communication carry
price, getting up there

and everyone's like, you
know, I stand behind him.

And I, it was gonna be
one of the questions I'm

saving, uh, to the end,
but we're into it now.

You guys are both
media professionals.

From your perspective,
uh, how should those

who are affected
be communicating

their concerns and
communicating through

social media, through
their, uh, MLA's,

through their mps?

Like, what, what
should, what should

be happening on a
communication standpoint?

Because I, I see some
groups, some businesses,

some individuals even
are trying to make

hashtags popular, so
it's used as a marketing

tool for themselves.

Which I guess is great
for them to, to market

in their way unless they
come under some form of

censure and everyone can
make that association

The, uh, the attacking
point, which is what's

happening right now
with the ccfr and, and

the, uh, the hashtag we
sent with them and they

didn't like the, uh,
the code that was used.

I just got some
information on that.

I don't know all the
ins and outs, but I

guess there is some,
uh, hue in Christ saying

they use a distasteful
discount code.

And, um, now the message
is disappearing and

everyone's focusing
on the, that, I guess,

marketing aspect of it.

Should people be
staying away from that?

How, how should we
be communicating?

I mean, does it change?

It's tough.

I don't know
if it changed.

That's kind of what
I'm at is I think

Carrie's Carrie price's
point is unchanged.

Mm-hmm.

, I think, um, The
discount code's.

Unfortunate there's
all you can do.

Like, just to be blunt,
cuz we can't, I'm not

gonna dance around
this subject for the

entire conversation.

I think the discount
code was unfortunate.

I see how they
did it like it

was two weeks ago.

It was long before
the anniversary.

And, and in that sort
of situation, poly say,

and Su has taken the
name obviously of kind

of poly technique, which
is where the shooting

occurred, the similar
component being poly.

Um, so I can
see both sides.

I can see why
the Ccfr used it.

I can see why people
think it's distasteful.

Um, I don't think it
distracts from any of

this though, just like,
I don't think like gun

owners like this, gun
owners love the drama.

We just follow the drama.

The Trudeau
does the band.

We love the drama.

Then it's the
organizations, the

drama just distract from
all that human nature.

6 21.

The problem with it
was in day one, it only

impacted licensed gun.

Gary Price makes a tweet
saying they're banning

a bunch of hunting guns.

Again, the problem
is fundamentally

it only impacts
licensed gun owners.

No criminals are losing
any of their guns.

If you are a criminal
without a gun license,

you cannot be charged
with the contravention

of any of these laws.

You just can't, you're
not actually contravening

these laws, so they
can't charge you with it.

All of this stuff
is a distraction.

Wow.

And I think in, in that
regard, like people are

gonna make a lot of hay
of the and, and I think

from what the rumors
are, we're gonna see it

probably continue for
the next little bit,

that things are gonna
continue to go poorly

with this discount
code and whatnot.

Um, again, it doesn't
really matter.

Like we're supposed to
be a country of serious

people with a serious
government spends a

bunch of serious amounts
of money on this stuff.

Um, I'm a little bit
personally, I'm actually

like, again, Big.

I'm not a hockey guy,
so when I say I'm a big

carry price fan, I'm a
carry price fan for him

standing up the way he
has, I have tremendous

amount of respect for
the manner in which that

man has stood up for
mental health and gun

rights in this country.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, for men, it's
incredibly important.

Um, but I'm also a
bit insulted that this

government produces
a law that doesn't

do anything good.

Everyone says from
police officers,

chiefs, lawyers, gun
advocates, industry

members, even people
that have had, you know,

victims groups say, this
won't work, government

doesn't do anything.

Anti-gun, criminal
defense, lawyers,

anti-gun groups say
it's not gonna work.

Government keeps going.

They add a bunch
of semi-automatic

hunting guns to it.

Everyone that's involved
goes, this is banning a

bunch of hunting guns.

The government's
response, you're lying,

and NHL goal tenderer
makes an Instagram post,

and now the government
takes it seriously.

I find that, yeah.

To use some
extreme language,

fucking insulting.

Mm-hmm.

because, , I count
as much as he

does, like mm-hmm.

, I'm a citizen of Canada.

I pay taxes just
like he does.

I own a business, just
like I'm assuming Carrie

Price probably owns a
business at this point.

Mm-hmm.

, why is it that he makes
an Instagram post and

Justin shows suddenly has
to reconsider his list.

But when countless
witnesses, countless

police officers,
countless lawyers and

countless stakeholders
stand up and say

the exact same
fucking thing to him.

He doesn't say a
goddamn word except, oh,

that's misinformation.

That's lying.

Don't believe the hype.

We're not banning
hunting guns like that is

fundamentally offensive.

And again, the drama
around this promo

code, the drama on the
organizations, it's

just a distraction.

We got a government that
is literally governing

by Instagram and it's
freaking bullshit.

Right?

Like, gun owners should
be pissed about that,

not about this stuff.

They should be pissed
at the fact that an

Instagram post is what
made Trudeau take notice.

That's the world.

That's I totally agree.

And unfortunately,
that's the world we live

in of, it's a, it's a.

We live in a world of
circus and superficial

and appearances, right?

So if we're gonna be
governed by public

perception, how do we
comport ourselves or

use that in order to
be able to achieve an

end that's gonna be
beneficial for everybody?

I think so.

All just a pine here
that the, the one

thing is that I've
done is I've written

to my member of, um,
federal parliament and

my member of provincial
parliament legislature

to say, I oppose this.

I urge you to vote
against this or to,

to, in the case of
provincial, they're not

gonna vote against it.

But to say, you know,
thank you for, for

what you're doing in
standing up for gun

owners, or basically to
communicate with them

to say that, Hey, this
issue matters to me

and I vote based on it.

Mm-hmm.

. So letters, I think
letters are, are

polite and, and, you
know, professional

letters are useful.

I think also for me,
another silver lining

here is that Bill C
21 is unenforceable.

There is no enforcement
mechanism to confiscate

all these firearms.

And that is a
sign of hope.

It's risky because
any single person can

be targeted and your
house can be raided

and they can, they'll
find what they find.

But the mass confiscation
is absolutely, is

just unenforceable.

It's entirely reliant
on the goodwill of

individuals, and I think
that a lot of individuals

don't have that
goodwill at this point.

And so they will, if
they will, defacto become

outlaws, not because
of what they've done

or any kind of harmful
intent, but simply

because they've been
standing on one side of

the line, they've played
the bargain, they got

all their paperwork,
they follow all the

laws, and the government
arbitrarily capriciously,

perhaps even with
malice, redrew the

boundaries, repositioned
the line and put us on

the other side of it.

So it's unenforceable and
I take hope from that.

Your earlier point
though, of this

legislation being
incredibly harmful from

the perspective of.

It's ability to
disillusion people.

Mm-hmm.

And the, the
division that it

causes and whatnot.

Cuz I think the
fracturing that

all this is causing
amongst society, the

vitriolic, this didn't
exist like for, for

any new gun owners.

Cause I, I forget
that like, I am, I'm

37, I'm not that old.

I've been in guns for 12
or 14 years I guess now.

Um, long enough that I
remember the old Long Gun

registry fight and back
then there was not this

sacrimonious attitude.

If you were a gun owner,
it would be maybe, maybe

one in 10 Canadians would
be like really anti-gun.

You know, like most
of 'em were kind of

just like, yeah, okay.

Like if that's, I'm not
really into it, but Cool.

You know, that was the
majority of people.

Mm.

Cause we kind of accepted
that we didn't have

the US' gun problem.

That was the,
that was Canada.

If you think about
growing up under crutch

and then under Harper,
most people would think,

oh yeah, we used to
think of ourselves as a

country that didn't have
America's gun problem.

And now Canadians
do think we have

that problem, but.

The number
hasn't changed.

Right?

The homicide
rate has remained

largely the same.

So it becomes more
when you say like,

how do we combat this?

It's, is it, is it a case
of public perception?

Do we need to get more
people to carry price

on side to support us?

I don't know, because we
haven't really changed,

like the perception has
shifted for no reason.

Mm-hmm.

, and unfortunately I
think gun owners kind

of have to accept that.

Like when I say no
reason, we all know the

reason the government has
shifted the perspective

by continuing to make
guns sound more dangerous

at every juncture.

And I think you gotta
be realistic as a gun

owner go, how do you
fight the government?

How can we possibly beat
the government at pr?

Well, that's
pretty tough.

So you have to look
at other alternatives.

And I think that's the
realistic option that is

confronting gun owners
now is it's not a case

of we need to make guns
acceptable in Canadian

society because that's
never gonna happen.

Let's just get that
right out the window.

Let's, why do I say that?

Well, let's look at
the most gun accepting

country in the world.

America.

Are guns controversial
in America?

Yes.

Okay, so in the most
gun contented world

like country, with
the most guns, it's

still controversial.

It doesn't seem likely
that we're going to

move from a gun that,
or a country that

generally is mediocre
to disliking guns, to a

country that loves guns,
that seems unlikely.

We're much better
off just using our

political leverage.

The dairy farmers of
Canada have been proudly

propping up supply
management for decades

through nothing other
than political will.

They don't go out there
and try and make people

feel great about milk.

That's actually the dairy
Farmers of America with

their milk campaign.

They just quietly
go about and do

the political work
they have to do.

And I, and some people
may hear this and

go, well, that sounds
like nefarious gun

lobby backroom stuff.

No.

What I mean by that is
just be freaking honest.

Yeah, just
stand up and go.

Yeah.

We're serious about
public safety.

Absolutely.

This is what we want.

We are the experts on
public safety with guns

cuz we own them all.

We're the ones
that keep them.

We know the licensing
regime because

we have them.

Nobody wants to keep you
lean on all those things.

Families, nobody
wants to keep our,

our husbands wives,
kids safer than we do.

And, and to be honest,
if you take it back

to, to gain, cuz people
like to use analogies.

This whole convince the
entire public is, is

kind of the equivalent of
like trying to run like

a student union election
when you're trying

to convince the, the
principle of something.

Mm-hmm.

like two separate
entities here.

Mm-hmm.

, like we can convince
the public the

guns are great.

Yeah, sure.

Or we could convince
338 people to not

fuck with them.

Mm-hmm.

, that's it.

There's 338 people
on one side and 36

million on the other.

Which one would you
rather convince?

Like it is literally
less of 338.

People like to be very
clear, the gun community

needs to convince
338 people in Ottawa.

That the licenses they
hold and the gun system

we have works 338 people.

There's 2.3
million of us.

There's 3 38 of them.

We used to work on that
math and it used to work.

Now we've got this whole,
well, let's convince

the public first and let
it trickle down where

we tell the public and
then slowly over time,

carry price hears about
it and carry price

makes Instagram post.

And Carrie Price makes it
and Trudeau sees it and

then he changes the law.

We were better off just
talking to Trudeau when

he used to get 6,000
emails and letters in one

day go, oh Jesus Christ.

No, nevermind.

I'm backing off.

That was better.

So if we're governed by
public opinion, how do

we, how do we make this
something that those who

are unaffected, who don't
own firearms or have no

interest in firearms,
how do we bring this on

the table so that they
actually have a stake

in their interested
in conveying their

concerns to government?

I don't think this
should be to be clear.

If you don't have a
stake in firearms and you

don't have the knowledge
and you haven't taken

it upon yourself to go
and learn the existing

infrastructure of laws
and regimes, storage

rules, regulations,
I don't really give

a shit what you're
feeling on guns is

cuz it's a feeling.

It's not knowledge,
it's a feeling like I'm

scared of small spaces.

There's nothing
wrong with them, I'm

just scared of them.

It's a feeling.

I think we can, um,
educate, and I don't

mean pre-chat, I'm
guilty of preaching that,

but educate, uh, share
information with our,

uh, family and friends
and colleagues about,

and we don't even have
to mention the word guns.

Oh.

And I don't know how
this would come up, uh,

but there are people
in my own garage.

I'm thinking of the
person I live with.

Really care about guns
or know much about them.

But she understands
that a lot of everything

Daniel just said, she
would agree with that.

It's, it's, um,
not about the 338

individuals, but about
the wrong headedness.

The nefarious, the
sneakiness of what is

happening legislatively.

Now, maybe this is a
little very, again,

back to this small
self-selecting sample.

Most people don't
give a hoot about

legislative policy or
regulatory affairs.

That's just not
their thing.

So to your question,
how do you reach people?

How does a non-gun
person or someone who

doesn't have, um, for
whom guns don't really

matter in their day
to day life, how do

we reach those people?

I don't know, other than
the old faithful, take

them to the range and
put a smile on their.

. What, what about from
the perspective of

like Canadian Taxpayers
Federation talking about

the price involved and
people say, well, I

don't care about guns,
but geez, that's a

lot of money we could
put elsewhere or, yes.

Uh, people saying they're
confiscating property

doesn't, doesn't matter.

It's not mine.

But if there's a, uh,
analogy that could be

made that say, well,
maybe your property

could be confiscated
like in real estate or

without compensation.

Without compensation.

I mean, may, maybe
talking about the

firearm issue is
ancillary, although

of high importance of
those who are affected,

who own firearms.

But maybe the bigger
conversation is for

the populace to be
writing their letters

in is something
that's going to be how

this is being enact.

Well, the, the example,
one example, maybe it

was one of you guys who,
who mentioned it, so

credit where credits due.

But people have
used the example of

cars or, uh, cars.

You know, let's say the
government says we're

banning, uh, we're,
we're confiscating, um,

fossil fuel engines.

Cars with fossil fuel
engines we're, um, date

acts, let's say 2035.

We're confiscating
them all and we're not

gonna compensate you.

Is is that on the dock?

I don't think so.

Is it, is it imaginable?

Well, it's not crazy.

Or any object.

Any object that the
government decides we

don't like these, we're
confiscating them and

we're gonna do it in
a sneaky, devious way.

Running a disinformation
campaign saying that

people who own these
objects are evil

people and past laws
sneaking amendments

at the last minute.

It's, it's not, um,
it's not hard to

imagine this happening
for other objects.

Maybe that's a way to go.

I don't know.

It's tough though,
cuz you always think

on the opposite side.

Like if you do the
old red team thought

experiment thing,
that there's gonna

be like when you do
that, you think, let's

try and do the public
sentiment thing.

Let's try and get people
frustrated with the

process that this is
an amendment instead

of like the OIC thing.

I tried that so
hard to try and

impress on people.

This was not a
democratic solution.

It was effectively
an executive order.

No one cared.

Um, it went exactly
nowhere, unfortunately.

Mm-hmm.

. Yeah.

Which might color my
response here, but

um, with, I think also
to, from a political

analyst perspective,
true to, has ushered in

a new era in much the
same way as the Fords.

Um, with the Ford
government in Toronto

and Ontario, they've
run incredibly effective

grassroots social
media campaigns that

have been marked with
incredibly low costs.

If anyone follows
politics, like they spend

very little and they
have incredibly large

reach on social media
and it's very popular

and effectively is in
some ways very similar

to the Trudeau campaign.

And that's why I say
it's a new era because

he's entered this era
of efficient politics

that is only attainable
by social media because

you have to have the
ability to pull very

tight geographic areas
on very specific issues

to get data that allows
you to extrapolate

this stuff out.

And I worry that if
gun owners try and

do this political.

I'm like, try and
change everyone's

mind thing first.

That effectively will
kind of be in a game

of whackable against
the opposition.

And as much as we're
constantly trying to

whack the anti-gun mos
down, be like, Nope,

nope, nope, nope, nope.

There's gonna be a
strategist out there

constantly finding new
populations of people in

writings that we're gonna
have to go and find.

So until you kind of
get like, you're kind of

gonna need to get a, a
decent, like, you know,

a 20% message incursion
into every given writing

for that to be effective.

And that's where
these strategies

start to fall down.

I think this is where
this gets into the

larger discussion of
gun owner politics

in Canada where it's
incredibly frustrating

cuz 2.3 million people
with gun licenses in

Canada constitute one
of absolutely one of the

largest identifiable vote
blocks in the country.

Like if you can say
there's a single thing

that ties everyone
together, that and

Ford pickup truck
ownership are kind of

the two big ones, right?

Like those are
the big ones.

But unfortunately because
our country's so big,

2.3 million people
spread out across 338

ridings does not equate
to enough votes to sway

most electoral outcomes.

And especially,
especially in this era of

new efficient politics.

Where I think
unfortunately, unless

there's a way, unless
someone can come up

with a PR campaign in
the next three years

is going to convert
urban Toronto and GV RD

voters to pro gun, like
straight up more than

50% pro gun, um, I think
that's effectively a

waste of money to invest
in, to be quite honest.

Kinda like, cuz
again, this.

To add some context.

Social media plays
into all this stuff

in a dramatic way, but
social media is also

incredibly censored for
guns like all of us.

Nick, you, Travis, we've
all talked about Sure.

That you try and put
stuff on Facebook or

Instagram and it's
incredibly restricted

by being gun content.

Yeah.

Even if you're not
gun content that

you're putting up, but
you're a gun business.

I just got notice
back from TikTok

the other day.

I said, sorry, you're
not gonna be shown

to the same audience.

And I'm looking
through what I have.

There's, there's one
video of me walking

with a rifle over and
one of a scope and not

talking about guns,
not promoting guns.

The one that was looking
at being promoters on

survival equipment.

They said, Nope, sorry.

And I think that.

And that's like I get,
I get, I used to run

Father, my biggest one
was Father's Day sales.

I'd run Father's Day
sales from magazine

subscriptions,
used to make a good

amount of money off
the Facebook ads.

Now I can't even get
the ad approved and we

don't sell guns I guess,
you know, but we promote

the sale of firearms and
ammunition apparently,

so we're banned.

When you consider like
again, pulling back in

five or 10 years time,
where do we want to be?

Well, we're probably
not gonna be allowed on

social media straight up
the way things are going.

It's very unlikely that
based on its current

ownership change, Twitter
may be an exception,

but Facebook, Instagram,
TikTok, there will

probably be no gun
content allowed, right?

I mean there used
to be a gun emoji.

If you doubt that
there was a straight

up gun emoji, it's now
a squirt gun, right?

So we are getting
kicked out of the

social media circus
where politics will be

more and more important
again, leading against

the end conclusion
that gun owners really

need to invest in the
politics side of things

cuz we unfortunately
have to confront

the stacked deck.

That winning the
public debate is to

be quite blunt, I
think impossible.

Uh, if the gun
ownership, if, if gun

ownership in Canada is
going to become widely

acceptable, it's going
to do so organically.

And I say that by way of
like it's going to be,

uh, to be quite honest
in a circumstance that

probably none of us want.

Hmm.

Through circumstances
like a war breaking out

or some sort of unrest
where people feel so

insecure that they feel
that their only way of

being secure is having
a gun of their own.

And some people may think
that's a great thing.

I personally don't.

I think it'd be
a bad situation.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

. Um, but I don't think
Canada, with our 2.3

million licensed gun
owners and all the money

that we donate to any
organization is going

to be able to sway the
court of public opinion

to 50% in favor of guns.

Mm-hmm.

. So if you view that
as the outcome, then

you have to go What
are alternatives?

Well, the alternatives
are to work directly

on the political
actions, work directly

with politicians,
work directly with

parties, and I don't.

Again, it's not partisan,
cuz this shouldn't

be a partisan issue.

We should be availing
ourselves to every party

to say, Hey, I'm here
to provide you with

the expert knowledge
you need to know about

gun stuff so that you
can pass good policy

and keep people safer.

Mm-hmm.

. And so it's really,
it's, it's almost naively

altruistic to say so,
but I, I just don't see,

I think we have to be
realistic about our,

our, you know, the first
thing, whenever you have

a plan, have a goal.

What is our goal
with this public?

What is our goal with
the, like, if someone

can tell me what the
goal is, like maybe you

can, what's the goal?

If we're trying to reach
out to the, how, what is

the goal of this public?

Can we convince 50%?

What's the percentage
we're reach.

I think, how many
do we need to reach?

How do you change
a conversation?

How do you find
a public trend?

That's something that
you can jump on that is

trending if we're gonna
use the social media.

Um, but if you jump on a
trend, how, how resilient

does that change?

Like this carry
price thing, for

example, right?

Like a lot of people
might be shifting

their views, maybe some
people have shifted

their views going, oh,
he's, he's my idol.

And he says It's
i'll changed my view.

If that's all it
took, it's not a

very entrenched view.

You'll probably
shift back.

I, I guess it's depends
on what the trend is.

I mean, like the, the
trend of when we talk

about hunting or,
uh, selfsufficiency

through C people
wanted to protection.

They wanted to be
self sufficient.

Uh, I, I think framing
the conversation a

little bit differently
and having firearms

just happen to be a
part of it as opposed

to from my cold dead.

Hands and having the gun
front and center might

be the way, cuz you're
right Meta, which owns

Facebook and Instagram
and Google, which owns

YouTube and they're,
they're not allowing

gun content in the way
they have in the past.

But there are, there is
other content that they

will want to see on there
because it's trending

and because that's how
they make their money

is through the views.

Uh, maybe there's
a way to just have

the conversation
change a little bit.

Not that we want to, but
just from a realistic

standpoint, like you say.

Oh, I think it could.

And I think that's one
of those, it has to be

reactive, like you said.

It's gotta be, you
gotta see the trends and

respond to 'em, kind of
grab 'em when you can.

Um, and I think react
to, to trends that

are occurring in
the real world and

reflect them back.

Um, I think that's
kind of like maybe a

bit antithetical to
my personal nature.

I tend to be a bit more
like, I just kind of

wanna plan and, and just
get on those tracks and

roll down 'em rather
than kind of react.

And, and that's probably
where I do view a bit

of the like, There are
a lot of things that I

think public sentiment
is counter to what our

politicians do, that our
politicians just don't

let get raised to the
issue of any kind of

debate because mm-hmm.

, it's been settled.

I mean, supply
management is one.

Most Canadians don't
like supply management.

It raises prices,
you name it.

But it's just a
non-starter for the ndp,

the liberals, and the
conservatives because

those people that are
involved in SP punishment

have effectively
communicated their

interest to politicians.

And now the politicians
have those interests in

their best heart too.

So, you know, we, we see
a road there and it's

kind of, I guess I also
must say perhaps there's

a bit of, um, unknown
bias that I haven't

recognized before this.

But as a gun industry
member, perhaps I simply

draw more parallels with
the dairy industry than.

The ability
to sway public

opinion . Sure, sure.

There's a couple aspects
also that I think we

haven't mentioned yet
that I, that I think

are worth mentioning,
and one is that guns

are, uh, unfortunately
a terrible political.

Um, thing like we don't
align on gun ownership of

those 2.3 million voters.

There's, I suspect,
as many who vote

NDP as liberal, as
conservative as other

parties that I suspect
the popularly the vote

distribution is roughly
equal to party votes.

And there are lots of
gun owners who voted

for the liberals three
times in a row and even

after Trudo promised
mass, confiscations voted

for them because guns
are not their number

one voting interest.

So one is a lot of
gun owners actually

vote liberal or for
other prohibitionist.

The second thing is in
terms of convincing I,

this is a, a complaint,
uh, with a smile.

Forget about
convincing Joe Voter.

We have gun owners
who are in denial.

And the, the gun clubs,
just, just an example

that was related to me
in the spring, perhaps

a few weeks before the
May 30th announcement,

uh, handgun Club near
Toronto, the board is

coming up for election
or planning the year

ahead, and they are in
complete denial after the

Prime Minister has said
repeatedly, repeatedly

for years, he wants to
confiscate handguns.

This handgun club was not
doing anything different.

Not stepping up.

Its recruiting
efforts, not

budgeting differently.

Hey, what if we get
shut down, no change.

Not talking about
handguns, not promoting

handgun ownership
or handgun sports.

Total denial.

Total head in the sand.

Total old school game of
if we just keep quiet,

they'll leave us alone.

Doesn't work.

And here's again,
it's find that

terribly frustrating.

Mm-hmm.

, real world examples
of what Nick is

talking about.

You got two, let's say
you're Joe Gun owner,

you got two options.

You belong to that
Toronto Gun Club, right?

You can.

And again, I feel like
I'm, I'm going to have

to take it easy cuz I'm
beginning to preach.

But , we've done
really well.

Preach.

You can try and convince
the public and if you

do so, you'll probably
turn to social media

cuz that's how most
people broadcast right?

These days.

And you'll make your
Facebook post and

you may, if you're
a popular person,

get a couple hundred
people interacting

with you, right?

Of those couple
hundred, probably none

of them will actually
communicate if they

have your concerns.

None of them will
communicate that to

the legislator who's
going to Ottawa, right?

They'll all just give
their happy faces

and they'll say, this
sucks, or That's too

bad, or you suck.

You name it.

Um, if you went to
your gun club with

a hundred pieces of
paper with letters

pre-printed to the MP
of that gun club and you

just said, sign this,
I'll mail it for you.

You just sign it.

That's it.

I'll put the gun
club's return address

on it, so it's fine.

You just sign it there.

You're a constituent,
you're good to go.

Now the MP of that
area has a hundred

pieces of communication
saying This law is bad.

What's the actual,
what is more likely to

create the actual change
we're looking for here?

Because ultimately
you can say that the

end result of the
social media campaign

is that those people
have commented may

change their vote in
the next election.

Maybe it's pretty tenuous
because we interact

with social media a
million times a day.

So no remembers it.

If you sign a letter,
you remember it.

So even if you've got
a gun owner, like Nick

said, that's maybe a
little bit wishy-washy

and he walks into
that gun club going,

well, we're just gonna
approve the same budget

cause nothing changed.

Then you hold a letter
up and they go, wow, like

you actually took the
time to print a hundred.

This is a real thing.

Oh yeah.

Look at the law,
you show them.

Well now you've got a
hundred votes and letter.

Like that's where it
comes into the, we gotta

stop thinking about the
public and stop thinking

about social media and
the media to be quite

honest at large, and
start thinking about

are there letters on
my gun club counter?

Because if your gun club
doesn't have three piles

of letters for people
to take sign and mail in

with instructions printed
right there saying you

don't need postage, hell,
they should have a bin

right there where you
just put the letter in,

they mail it for you.

Mm-hmm.

. If your gun club and your
gun stores don't have

that, you shouldn't be
posting anything about

guns on social media.

You should be taking
letters to your gun

club and you should be
telling em by envelopes

because in their best
interests, like that's

the real change here.

Like that's, and and I'm
starting to see it like,

to be clear, like I'm
sounding about ranty, but

I'm starting to see it.

I go on Reddit, I see
the big stacks and like,

to be very honest, I
wanted a chance to say

like, as someone's in
the industry whose entire

family, my livelihood
is tied to this.

Like it's a huge.

Huge boost to see, to go
on Reddit and see people

with stacks of letters.

Mm-hmm.

being like, I'm gonna
go bomb the mailbox,

like 400 letters and
it's mm-hmm , it's

the senates, the mps,
and all proud of it.

Like it takes me right
back to early long gun

registry days, like
when we were effective

and it's awesome.

And I think that's
where people gotta

like stop being
distracted, you know?

It's great.

The carry price
stands with us.

That's great.

Now go print a letter.

Like that's what it comes
down to in politics,

they always talk about
knock a door cuz door

knocking is the basic,
fundamental, grassroots

political effort.

So the running joke is,
that's a great idea.

Have you knocked a door?

Gun owners be
the same thing.

It's a great idea.

Have you sent a letter?

It's free, it's a piece
of freaking and paper.

Your boss won't
miss it if you print

it off at work.

They'll never know.

Like, just print 'em off
and get 'em in the mail.

Like, it's that simple.

You just, it's that
easy, you know?

Um, and that's where
the change comes in.

So I think that's,
that's the big

thing is really I.

really impressing upon
people that like, they

can change things.

They just gotta stop
thinking about, you

know, just talking to
social media and Facebook

posts and Twitter and
all this and actually

talk like, there are
only three, again,

there are 338 people who
make these decisions.

There are 2.3 million
of us like this.

Yeah.

This shouldn't
be difficult.

This really shouldn't
even be on the table if

we were at all effective
as a lobbying entity.

When it's almost
comical when these

anti-gun groups talk
about the strength of

the pro gun lobby, cuz
I mean, 2.3 billion.

Yeah.

It is comical.

Yeah.

What do, people are
in the dairy industry,

how do you, how do
you respond to the

people who say, and I I
think it's legitimate.

I understand this,
uh, this response.

I, I'm not, no one's
getting my guns.

I don't wanna send a
letter, I don't want

to go on the record
as flagging myself

as being a concerned
party or, you know,

that I own anything.

I just want, I'm
just gonna go dark.

I'm just gonna
quietly not comply.

What do you, uh, what's
a good response to to,

to tell those people
that you can quietly,

non comply and voice
your concern mutually.

Like, they're not
mutually exclusive

whatsoever.

There's no legal, like
if you sign a letter,

if you write a letter
to the Prime Minister

saying, I don't agree
with this law, there's no

legal thing saying that
you're in contravention

of it whatsoever.

Like, and, and moreover,
like, I'd almost kind

of say like, that's a
really weird moralistic

perspective to take.

Like, it's a very,
like Anne Frank isn't

my daughter kind of
perspective to take like,

like it's very like,
but, but I understand

it because if they,
if you don't trust the

government, if you think
that this government, if

these, if this 300 they
30, they're making social

media post saying, I'm
not sending a letter.

They.

Absolutely.

But so that,
that's why they say

we're staying off.

So I guess, I guess I
can understand it, people

who say that if you don't
trust these politicians

and you believe
that they are some

version of nefarious,
malicious, evil, bad,

uh, disingenuous,
dishonest, they're,

they're up to no good.

You're just gonna,
quietly, you have a

bunch of non-restricted
guns that are now

to be confiscated.

You're just gonna
quietly do your thing

and, and not make, not
essentially go dark,

not send a letter,
not go on social media

and advertise the fact
that you oppose this.

I, I, I understand
it and I wish I

had a, a response.

And I agree with you.

You can still
send a letter.

If we live in a country
where you cannot, where

you're too scared to
send a letter to your

politician, then we
are in deep trouble.

I don't think
we're there yet.

I hope we never
get there.

Um, but I just also
know that when I

say that to people,
they're not convinced.

They, yeah.

And I guess that's
where you get into

the, like, you can't
convince everyone, right?

I mean, and I think.

And I, Travis and I
have talked about this

before in, in the past
podcast of, of like

social media, is the
tempest in a teapot,

like I keep saying it's
2.3 million licensed

gun owners out there.

There's 5 million gun
owners in Canada, and

I'll say non-criminal
gun owners is in

like, they've never
committed an actual

crime in contravention
the criminal code as

in like violence or
injuring someone, but

they're in possession
of a firearm illegally

because they got it
back in the FAC days.

And I say it's 50%
because the registry

only captured 50%.

So if you go with,
well, let's go with even

4.5 million gun owners
out there that aren't

committing crimes.

You know, it's just
kinda like, I don't

know, like we know
that statistically

speaking, they're older.

. Yep.

We know that the majority
of 'em are over 45.

We know the majority
of people on social

media are under 35.

We know the people over
55 spend like five,

two, and 5% of all
social media traffic

is people over 55.

So the vast majority
of our gun owners that

we're relying on to
said letters and be

that grassroots are
not on social media.

So when, when that
one guy goes, well,

I'm not gonna send a
letter, my response

is like, I don't care.

I got a hundred of 'em
down at the gun shop.

Right?

I guarantee you
they'll be gone.

So one guy, like, and,
and again, this is kind

of the thing where gun
owners have to get a bit

more, I don't know, I
don't know if it's like

a business perspective or
a capital's perspective

of think about where
you're expending your

effort and your assets
and your resources

and do it efficiently.

If some guy is, if you're
spending four hours of

your day arguing, or
God knows, two years

of your life, arguing
with people on Twitter,

like various well
known anti-gun Twitter

names, just block them.

It's a waste
of your time.

Like literally.

Go whittle a canoe.

It's a better use of,
don't do nothing about

guns, be a better
child to your, or

father, your children.

Do anything other
than argue with people

on social media.

The good news there, I
think for I on Twitter,

I'm not on Facebook
or Instagram, but, but

I think the good news
there is that there's

very, like the Twitter
is is, I'm gonna say

it's insignificant in
terms of the gun debate.

It's, it's, it's, uh,
when I look at the

retweets, likes follows,
it's insignificant.

Yeah.

The numbers are
just, the numbers

are insignificant.

Yeah.

It's, it's a very
lively discussion.

I think that's, , it
gets confused for the

actual discussion cuz
there's a few people

that really, you know,
it's a small community.

People like
talking about it.

I like it.

But it's definitely,
I'm, I'm there too.

But in terms of, I guess
it, it's insignificant I

guess in terms of reach.

We're very smart people
who are on Twitter

posting very infor
important messages.

But we're, we're not
reaching things and

that's where the Carrie
Price thing comes in.

Why was Carrie
Price so remarkable?

Because instead of
reaching five or 50 or

500 people he reached,
I don't know what

the numbers are now,
but, but thousands

or tens of thousands.

So it's, and the
media pick on it,

is it millions on
his, oh, I think his

Instagram post, I think
he's got millions of

followers on Instagram.

He's a popular guy.

Okay.

So he, he, he reached, he
reached a lot of people.

That's why it's,
that's why it's

quite significant.

But I can, I can, I
guarantee you that nobody

in my own garage has
ever heard of Carrie.

Well, my best friend
would absolutely kill

for his autograph.

So Care, if you're
listening, by all

means, you can sign
a coffee of the menu.

. I had never heard of
him before two days ago.

Um, well, he got flack
for those that, again,

those that don't
remember, he got flack

years ago for, uh,
a picture he posted

on Instagram flying,
tying a fly with his

daughter, uh, with Anfa
flag in the background.

This would be four
or five years ago.

Might longer, it was
maybe even the Sean

Bevins days of the nfa.

But yeah, it was, he, he
was quite outspoken then.

He took flack for it
then, and he stuck.

He stood by it.

That's why I think this
is an honest to God.

He, he he does
believe this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And I think, I mean, I,
and to, to correct what

I just said, I, I have
heard his name before,

but I'm not, uh, I'm
not a hockey guy, so I

don't, uh, he's maybe the
only hockey player that

I could name now, Sid.

I've heard of him too.

Yeah.

Now you got two, you
go two now you got two.

So, and if you're from
Vancouver, everyone

knows Pav and,
and Wayne Gretzky.

And, I mean, you
know, I've, I've heard

of Wayne Gretzky.

So, so let's just name
hockey players for the

rest of the podcast.

. There'll be a lot.

So we've gone
through a number of

different things.

Um, we've put the
question out through

social media.

A number of the questions
that have been asked

have been answered
throughout this podcast.

There is one here
from Brock Fisher.

He says, what will be
involved in amending this

bill or dissolving it
if conservatives get in?

So what, let's say they
get in politically,

everyone's on the side
of getting rid of it.

What would
that look like?

Probably not something
that happens overnight.

Not overnight, but they
would need a major.

The conservatives
would need a majority.

And I would say that's,
that's perhaps a hope

that pr pev, I've,
I think there's an

incredible political
movement around him.

I'm gonna mark that.

Okay.

So coming back to that
one would need a majority

to be able to undo
legislation and, and,

and certainly not a, not
a short term thing, but

also I'm not, I'm not,
um, I don't have much

hope in the political
process because whether

this thing goes through
or not, the liberals

have shown their hands,
and, and Daniel has said,

uh, publicly, on, on, in
an interview with me a

few months ago, we're,
we're some number of

election cycles away from
mass confiscations and

perhaps an irrevocable
end to mainstream

firearm ownership
in this country.

Uh, that was at the time.

Maybe things have changed
dramatically now, but

I think we know where
this thing is headed

without a major cultural,
political, social change.

We know where this
gay ends and it's

not good for us.

Now, I said there
was a bookmark.

And I agree with
everything Nick's saying.

So not, not disputing
cuz again, we all

get along famously

Um, we actually do,
that's not actually,

that sounded like sarcasm
and we actually do

get along really well.

You said it man.

You said I'm
stealing your words.

We get along great
and agree on pretty

much everything.

Yeah.

Um, what I think is
really interesting

though is to game out.

Cause I agree it
needs a majority, like

conventional thinking
Absolutely needs a

majority to, to rescind.

Um, it'll take a
full legislative act.

This is one of the
interesting things

is, um, some of the
previous stuff, littles

did C 71, you name it,
rescinded cuz people have

forgotten, took away the
ability for the governor

in council to declare a
firearm non-restricted.

So we're can o
I see things.

So it's a one way trip.

So effectively the
liberals have almost

forced pr poly's hands
into a full firearms

act rewrite because if
he comes into office

buoyed by a bunch of
people going, well

this act is bad and we
want this rescinded.

The only way to really
give us back these guns,

the, to be quite honest,
the easiest way to give

us back these guns at
this point, because

the law has been so,
it's like a broken down

car that people have
fixed on the road and

rolls into the service
station with 14 different

brands of parts on it.

And the mechanic goes,
this is gonna take

a significant work.

You should just
buy a new car.

Um, that's what Poly's
walking into at the

Firearms Act is this Jap
of a broken down junker.

And his easiest
solution is to blow

it all up and go, no,
we're just gonna start

from scratch and we're
gonna get definitions.

We're gonna throw
this variant crap out.

We're getting rid
of this F frt, we're

starting from scratch.

Um, so I think it's
interesting liberals

of force hand's more
interesting to me and

again, why I've been
so on gun owners to

get involved in the
party politics side.

If you have any
inclination to join

the ndp, do so because
we're probably looking

at a spring election,
that's the common rumor.

Spring 2023.

And what I'm about to say
holds true regardless of

when the election occurs.

But for the reason of
the conversation's, the

easiest to have a time.

Let's say an election
happens in March of 2023.

We don't know the
outcome of that.

Election.

Polls will have all kinds
of things, whatever.

What we do know after
that election is it

is very unlikely that
the next liberal and

NDP mandates end with
the same leader that

they currently have is
very unlikely that no

matter if the NDP or
the liberals, if the

NDP won even, I mean,
if they won Jag Med,

probably stay, but
that'd be the only way.

Even if the liberals
win, it's highly

likely the Trudeau will
probably step down.

He's kind of intimated.

This is the last
one he runs in.

You name it.

Much like when Harper
left the conservative.

Trudeau will leave the
liberals effectively

rudderless when he
steps down because it's

not the liberal party
that we all have known

through our childhood.

It is the Trudeau
party at this point.

It is much like the
conservative party

was the Harper party.

It took on the
personality leader.

There's gonna be a
massive change when

a new leader steps
in and that massive

change brings with it
massive opportunity.

And I think both within
the liberal party and

the NDP gun owners would
be very well to both

communicate with if they
have a liberal and NDP

MP to communicate with
them that no matter

what happens in the
next election, they're

going to be facing an
internal party election.

And where they come
down on this issue

may be very important.

Because if you are a
member, again, I know

I'm kind of spiraling
here a bit, but the NDP

does not have a large.

So as gun owners, if
you were to join the

ndp, you could have
a massively outsized

impact on NDP policy.

Like literally 10,000 gun
owners could dictate NDP

policy to the NDP because
they're very small.

Just like a hundred
gun owners could

dictate policy to a
municipal election.

It's very,
everything changes.

Mm-hmm.

gun owners gotta
think about this.

Think not about
the election's.

Very important.

We should all work very
hard to make sure we

get a majority, but also
keep in mind that there

is a goal beyond this
election, and the goal

beyond the selection
is to take guns out of

the political hands.

And the only way to do
that start interacting.

And as the leaders of
Jag Meat and Trudeau

step down, these
parties are going to

be doing some serious
internal reflection.

And I think when you say
a majority, I think there

is an opportunity here
to get the NDP at least

back to a gun agnostic,
or perhaps even pro

gun side, because they
are the party of blue

collar union workers.

This policy wastes a ton
of money that would be

better spent on numerous.

Social supports
that the NDP would

otherwise support.

I mean a billion
dollars towards this

gun ban goes a long
way towards expanding

that dental program.

Yeah, these are very real
points that people can

be making and I think if
gun owners think about,

okay, the election is
the next big thing, but

there's going to be party
elections after and start

thinking about the role
that cuz this election

and the roll guns play
in it will have a way

bigger impact on how
the parties shape up for

the next four years than
it probably actually

will on the election.

And what I mean by that,
it'll have a larger

impact on whether or not
the NDP and the block K

back are, the liberals
are anti-gun program,

the degree to which their
anti-gun or program.

Cuz we might see a
liberal party come

out this next election
that is not the

Trudeau urban centric,
efficient Toronto.

And they, they go,
yeah, you know, we're,

we're not really, we
got creamed on, we're

stepping back from.

You know, we, we don't
think, we don't have a

lot of gun homicides.

The liberals could
entirely, it's within

the realm of possibility.

Dare I say, it's more
realistic than changing

50% of Canadian's minds.

Mm-hmm.

, it would be nice.

And we are going
to be confronting

the opportunity for
that within the next

year, realistically.

And that's what I think
we need to start working

around now, is the
election's one thing,

but that, that's the
larger issue, is to

start recognizing that.

Nicholas, you have
anything to add?

Uh, that message gives
me hope, actually.

The, it makes,
it, it's, I agree.

It's, it's plausible,
it's possible.

It's, I don't know if
it's probable, but it

gives me hope that,
uh, change is possible.

If we don't have anything
else to add, we've been

at this for a little
bit of time, I'm sure

there'll probably be
more questions that

come down the pipe
after this podcast

and we can probably
address 'em through

social media or perhaps
through, uh, future

podcasts like this.

If we don't have anything
else to add, perhaps

we, uh, wrap it up here.

What do you
say to Travis?

Thank you very much
for, for organizing

this, for what you
do and for having

me on as your guest.

I would agree with
Nick as always.

With everything he
says, I am in agreement.

Uh, cause he got a lot
cause we get along.

It's been a great, it's
been a great podcast.

I've really enjoyed,
um, always great with

you Travis and it's fun
to have, uh, Nick as

well cuz I like talking
with both of you guys.

So having both you on
one is, it's like a, it's

like a threesome that
I've always dreamed of.

. Well, I don't know
if I'd phrase it

quiet like that.

One note, I, I do always
enjoy speaking with

you, your perspectives.

Both of you
are fantastic.

I, and.

Nicholas, I mirror
your sentiments on

what Dan said there.

It leaves me with some
optimism and there

is some direction
that we can go.

Thank you very much.