OTTAWA – The federal government is proposing $1,337 in compensation for turning in an AR-15 rifle under a mandatory buyback program.
Public Safety Canada has released a price list detailing how much money owners of banned firearms can expect to get under the program.
At the higher end of the scale, forfeiting a Swiss Arms SG550 could net an owner $6,209.
In these violent times, a shooting event is often over before law enforcement arrives at the scene. As those with bad intentions search for soft targets, they often choose “gun-free zones” such as malls, as the site of their hoped-for mass casualty event. Sometimes, however, a law-abiding citizen breaks the rules taped to the entrance and becomes a hero by ending the shooting (and the shooter); a hero to most but, apparently, not to those on the Left.
“But the issue isn’t the fact that our schools aren’t safe, the issue is the fact that it’s guns and the problem is we should not have semi-automatic weapons in anything other than warfare,” Axne said during the tele-town hall on July 6.
“So here is the deal, they need to go away, and I will continue to push for that and to continue to push for the bills that we tried to get into our Protecting Our Kids Act which was the one we had out of our House side that didn’t make it through in the Senate,” Axne added.
The most popular firearm in America continues to roll out of gun stores in record numbers.
According to new data released on the day a House committee is considering a ban on the gun, the number of AR-15 and AK-47-style “modern sporting rifles” has surged to 24.4 million.
The industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation said that is more than all the Ford F-150s on the road. The pickup is America’s most popular.
It may be coming to your state soon.
Gun permits based on political views. It’s on the horizon for many Americans.
That’s because left-wingers in California, a trend-setting state, have cooked up a new way to stop Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and anyone else who refuses to toe the politically correct line from defending themselves from the crime wave that their policies have unleashed on America.
And progressive gun-control and soft-on-crime policies don’t help.
Arecent visit to a gun range with a good friend (an expert hunter and firearms enthusiast) demonstrated the importance of gun control.
Not the Democratic dream of disarming law-abiding Americans, but handling and firing guns safely and accurately — so important for gun owners or anyone pondering becoming one.
So many bitter clingers, as Obama would put it, were at the range practicing gun control. Like the two Chinese men, by appearances father and son, practicing with a 9 mm pistol. Ditto two Indian gentlemen.
“This is a big deal,” says Punchbowl, breathlessly.
Is it? A bill that’s going straight down the toilet in the Senate sounds like the opposite of a big deal to me.”
Like the movie “Groundhog Day,” it happens again and again after a mass shooting, like the one at a July 4th parade near Chicago that killed seven people and wounded two dozen.
The professional anti-gun mob – i.e., liberal Democrats and the major media outlets – immediately spring into action and exploit the tragedy as much as they can.
As they did this week, they automatically blame guns, renew their calls for stricter gun reforms or dream about completely outlawing the private ownership of guns.
It doesn’t matter if the mass shooter was crazy, a terrorist or just plain evil, the gun-control nuts are as unrealistic and dishonest as they are predictable.
Make Rifles Great Again 💪🏿
👉https://t.co/J7lHnodhku#JeroneForCongress#2A #SelfDefense pic.twitter.com/Gs6iAHVVAP
— Jerone Davison for Congress #AZCD4 (@Jerone4Congress) July 6, 2022
Meet Jerone Davison, your new Second Amendment hero.
Davison, a former NFL player, pastor and motivational speaker, is running to represent the Republican Party in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District against Democrat incumbent Rep. Greg Stanton, according to Ballotpedia.
However, a new campaign advertisement from Davison demonstrates he’s running against two other Democrat fixtures: gun control and the KKK.
Toronto resident Rima Mansour was behind the wheel of a white, rented Nissan Rogue when she pulled up to the Peace Bridge at 8: 20 p.m. on Oct. 31, 2018.
The single mom told a U.S. border control officer she was returning to Canada after visiting family in the Bronx, N.Y.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation. One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued.
Policy used as a political wedge to punish “bad” gun owners and reward “good” anti-gun activists will merely divide us. Worse, it won’t work.
… Our firearm-related homicides have been increasing since 2013, according to Statistics Canada. However, it is the breakdown in ownership and use that reveals much of the nonsense in Liberal gun policy. Firearm-related violent crime is highest in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Territories. Rural men are far more likely to die by suicide than the Canadian average.
Our problems are growing, but rifles are almost as dangerous as handguns. Rural and small-town Canadians are far more likely to die by gun violence than people in large cities. Staring us in the face is the reality that most Canadian gun deaths are the product of social realities like family violence, despair and alcohol — not drug dealers.
Ban all guns is the message.
Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing “the Attorney General’s view that the Court’s decision renders California’s ‘good cause’ standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional.” California thus seems ready to promptly shift to a fundamentally shall-issue regime, in which pretty much all law-abiding adults can get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Nor will this require legislative action, I think; California already has a may-issue regime in place for licensing, so—as the AG’s office notes—licensing authorities (“sheriffs and chiefs of police”) can just use that regime but essentially without applying a good-cause requirement.
But the AG’s office concludes that the existing statutory requirement “that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of ‘good moral character’ remains constitutional,” and that this requirement isn’t limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG’s office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified.
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in support of the Second Amendment this week. Naturally, the backlash has been swift and brutal.
The court ruled 6-3 that New York’s restrictive concealed carry permit system was unconstitutional. Known as a “may issue” system, it essentially required New Yorkers to convince a government bureaucrat that they had “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry a firearm outside the home.
The high court’s ruling declares this a violation of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment — a violation, given that these amendments establish a right to keep and bear (read: outside the home) arms in self-defense. New York’s subjective, restrictive system treated self-defense as a privilege, not a right, so the justices struck it down.
