Preserving Liberty: The Battle Against Justin Trudeau's Fiat Gun Ban

In a powerful presentation, Stephanie McEvoy and Christine Generou, two passionate gun advocates, shed light on Canada’s distinctive firearm culture and the challenges it currently confronts. With a deep understanding of the subject matter, they passionately discussed the differences between Canada and the United States concerning gun ownership, emphasizing Canada’s focus on recreational activities, hunting, and sport shooting. Without a “Second Amendment” like its American counterpart, Canada’s approach to firearms and self-defense stands apart. However, recent events, including mass shooting propaganda, civil unrest, political interference, and NATO troop presence in Serbia, after a major gun confiscation in related areas, have heightened concerns and underscored the need for defense and protection.

Canada’s Distinct Firearm Culture

During their presentation, McEvoy and Generou stressed that Canada’s firearm culture significantly differs from the United States. While the Second Amendment in the United States primarily associates gun ownership with the right to self-defense against foreign and domestic enemies, Canada’s approach revolves around recreation, hunting, and sport shooting. Despite lacking a constitutional provision akin to the Second Amendment, Canada still permits lawful firearm use for self-defense under specific circumstances. By contrast, the pervasive culture of carrying handguns for personal protection, as seen in the United States, is notably absent in Canada.

Firearm Rights in Historical Context

Stephanie McEvoy shares her personal connection to the topic, recounting her upbringing in Canada during the late ’60s and early ’70s when gun ownership was prevalent and accepted. She reflects on her father’s involvement in collecting and dealing firearms, considering it a hobby that provided insights into history and technology. During this era, firearms were part of everyday life, instilling respect for their purpose and responsible ownership.

The Erosion of Gun Rights

Stephanie highlights the pivotal role played by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in introducing restrictions and regulations that marked the beginning of the erosion of gun rights in Canada. Although her father attempted to challenge these measures, his efforts were unsuccessful. Stephanie describes the subsequent raid on their family home, resulting in the loss of their firearms. This firsthand experience demonstrates the government’s tactics of targeting individuals and employing lawfare to exhaust resources and undermine opposition.

Historical Significance and Contributions to National Defense

McEvoy and Generoux underscored the historical significance of firearms in Canada, tracing its roots back to the mid-1500s when the foundations of the country were established. They highlighted the instrumental role of firearms in shaping Canada’s military prowess, with top fighter pilots and military personnel honing their shooting skills from an early age. The acquisition of marksmanship abilities played a crucial part in bolstering the country’s defense capabilities. Expressing concerns, the speakers lamented recent developments where Canadian history, particularly the remarkable achievements of native peoples and the country’s contributions during World War II, is no longer an integral part of basic military training. The erosion of historical recognition raises concerns about its implications for national defense and cultural cohesion.

The Role of Firearms in Conflict Prevention

Drawing inspiration from nature, McEvoy and Generoux emphasized the deterrent effect of a well-armed population. They evoked a powerful quote from Emperor Hirohito of Japan during World War II, highlighting that a land invasion of North America would be futile due to the presence of a “rifle behind every blade of grass.” This sentiment resonates with the concept of mutually assured destruction and deterrence theory, suggesting that well-armed nations are less likely to face conflicts on their own soil. McEvoy and Generoux argued that Canada’s possession of firearms has contributed to the avoidance of major conflicts and served as a defense against potential threats.

Impact of Legislative Changes

Throughout their presentation, McEvoy and Generoux expressed deep concern about recent legislative changes and specifically highlighted the potential implications of Bill C-21. They critiqued the proposed legislation for its perceived infringement on citizens’ rights and the adverse effects it may have on local businesses and shooting ranges. Over the past two decades, they noted a concerning reduction in the number of shooting ranges and firearm-related businesses in Canada, reflecting what they perceive as an erosion of firearm rights. The speakers also raised concerns about the proposed legislation’s provision for complainant anonymity, which they argued could lead to the potential confiscation of firearms without due process and legal expenses.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the new laws is the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for specific groups, particularly black and Indigenous offenders, which garnered criticism from both women. This disparity in the implementation of justice raises concerns about unequal treatment under the law. Furthermore, within the same bill, the government aims to enhance minimum sentencing for white individuals discovered in possession of designated firearms that are soon to be prohibited. Such a measure exacerbates both the actual and perceived erosion of equality, as it appears to be replaced with a notion of ‘equity’.

The Emotional Toll of Firearm Regulations

Generoux, an ordinary citizen, explained how she was deeply affected by the May 1, 2020, assault-style rifle ban. She shared her personal perspective on the issue and highlighted the emotional impact of the ban, emphasizing the loss of her liberty and security. Generoux also expressed deep concerns for her children’s future, which weighed heavily on her. She believes that the true objective of such legislation is to remove firearms from Canadian society as part of a military tactic called “reflexive control.”

Contradictions and Vagueness in Legislation

One key concern the women raised was the contradictory nature of the regulations. Generoux points out the ambiguity surrounding terms like “assault-style rifle” and “modified version,” highlighting that they lack clear definitions. This vagueness creates confusion and raises suspicions of academic fraud and propaganda. Generoux draws parallels to the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that a lack of clear definitions often indicates dishonest intentions.

The “Evergreen Clause” and Incremental Bans

Another significant point of contention is what Christine refers to as the “Evergreen Clause.” She cites the Regulatory Impact Analysis statement of 2020, in which assurances were made that the ban would not affect hunters, sport shooters, or small businesses, as they could replace their prohibited firearms with alternative options. However, later in the analysis statement, it was mentioned that these alternative firearms could be added to the prohibition list at a later date. This contradiction raises concerns about the potential for incremental bans, leading to a gradual erosion of firearm rights.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Questions

Driven by her conviction that her rights were being violated, Christine Generoux launched a judicial review and presented a notice of constitutional question. Representing herself, she embarked on a three-year journey that involved extensive legal procedures, including an eight-day hearing at the Federal Court. Although she succeeded in winning against the Attorney General in disclosure motions, Generoux faced challenges when the evidence was later stripped away through an illegal action. The process has been arduous but has provided her with valuable insights.

Confronting the Crown and Fraud Allegations

During her injunction testimony, Christine Generoux confronted the Crown Attorney and accused him of committing a criminal offense under Section 380 of the Criminal Code: fraud affecting the public market. In addition, she questioned why the Crown refused to define terms like “assault-style rifle” or establish clear criteria for measurement, suggesting that the vague nature of the legislation put lawful gun owners at risk. The Crown’s uneasy response and evident discomfort further fueled her belief that there might be a deliberate attempt to omit exonerating information and unjustly curtail firearms rights.

The Need for Responsible Firearm Ownership

Throughout their passionate presentation, McEvoy and Generoux underscored responsible firearm ownership as a cornerstone of Canada’s firearm culture. They stressed the importance of education, training, and licensing processes to ensure that firearms remain in the hands of responsible individuals. They highlighted the existing regulatory framework, including background checks, safety courses, and license renewal requirements, as key components in maintaining a safe and responsible firearm culture. By promoting responsible ownership, McEvoy and Generoux aimed to dispel misconceptions surrounding firearms and emphasized the need for ongoing dialogue and education on firearm safety.

Addressing the Challenges

While acknowledging the strengths and virtues of Canada’s firearm culture, McEvoy and Generoux did not shy away from addressing the challenges it currently faces. They expressed concerns about the rising incidents of illegal firearms, smuggling, and the illicit market. These issues pose significant threats to public safety and demand comprehensive measures to curb their proliferation. McEvoy and Generoux stressed the importance of enhancing law enforcement efforts, border security, and public awareness campaigns to address these challenges effectively.