Top News

LETTER: Opposition to federal gun ban is growing

 An AR-15 rifle on display at a sporting goods store in Colorado. (Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
An AR-15 rifle on display at a sporting goods store in Colorado. (Joshua Lott/Getty Images) - Joshua Lott

I have owned a target shooting rifle in calibre .233 Remington for 27 years. I have used it in bullseye competitions and even won on occasion.

It is a legitimate rifle for sporting activity but is unsuitable for deer hunting as Prime Minister Trudeau referenced on May 1 for two reasons.

First, its calibre is generally considered too light and secondly it was classified as a restricted firearm meaning it was not permitted to be used outside of a rifle range.

This firearm is a commercial (i.e. not military) Colt Sporter Lightweight also known as an AR-15 (i.e. Armalite 15).

It is not an assault weapon and is limited to only five cartridges in its magazine. Many people have actual 100-year-old military rifles that hold more cartridges.

Although my Colt resembles a M-16 or C-7 mechanically it can do nothing more than any of the other semi-auto rifles you did not prohibit. Commercial AR-15s cannot even accept the auto-sear parts to convert them to automatic fire even if the parts were legal/available.

My Colt has never harmed any living thing. It was exclusively used for target shooting and competition at ranges until that was abruptly taken away on May 1.

On that date the prime minister issued an order in council bypassing parliament and any sort of proper notification to firearm owners through the Canadian Firearms Program during a global pandemic.

Without discussion/debate by elected MPs my rifle was declared prohibited and I have two years to dispose of it.

I wish to retain it and am not interested in selling it to the government.

You cannot buy back something you never owned.

Therefore, my property will be confiscated even though I am a law-abiding citizen who has committed no crime.

How does that make anyone safer?

An order in council was also used during the second World War to confiscate the property of Japanese Canadians and ultimately take away their freedom?

I am deeply concerned Canada is moving away from a free society beginning with this confiscation program of private property.

What will be next? Automobiles that can exceed 100 km/h or computers that can access internet sites not government approved?

Prohibiting my rifle is like saying you can keep your car for two more years but may never drive it again.

Drunk drivers have killed many and a van was used, as a weapon, to kill innocent people in Toronto in 2018.

This did not result in any vehicle ban or restrictions. Why? If vans are banned, they cannot be used to commit murder, right?

Criminals commit crimes yet the current Liberal minority government chose to punish those citizens who have done nothing wrong, a situation not dissimilar to a former government’s decision to persecute the Japanese Canadian minority.

Today it feels as if another minority is being persecuted (i.e. legal gun owners) while criminals will not even be inconvenienced since they can/do obtain illegal guns smuggled in from the U.S.

I am asking Prime Mister Trudeau to rescind that order in council and refocus his efforts on trying to end gun crime perpetrated by criminals instead of further penalizing law-abiding citizens. Currently, a petition, e-2574 (democratic process), has exceeded 200,000 signatures also asking the prime minister to rescind that order in council and it is already the most-signed government e-petition in Canadian history.

Prime Minister Trudeau are you going to ignore all of us?

Neal Tucker
President, Discovery Shooting Club Inc.


Did this story inform or enhance your perspective on this subject?
1 being least likely, and 10 being most likely

Recent Stories