The Nova Scotia shooting massacre

[storm rider]

Lots of information being proffered such as how the guy was wearing an authentic RCMP uniform as well as how the car used was nearly identical to an RCMP car.Also info about how he ran his denturist practice from people who interacted with him on a personal level.Also revealed is the dark side of how he financially fucked people over including his own uncle.

In the days after the worst mass killing spree in Canada's history the Lieberals want to change the firearm laws to supposedly "stop" this kind of "gun violence".

In Canada the ownership of firearms is a privilege not a right.Anyone who wishes to buy and possess firearms legally must be properly vetted via a screening process for non restricted and even moreso for restricted firearms.If a person owns registered restricted firearms they can be subject to inspection with regards to storage with no warrant at any time.Knock on the door or ring the bell and the police just simply say "restricted firearm storage inspection" and failure to comply is a world of shit.With those FACTS taken to mind in the aftermath of this mass shooting there are important questions that are not being asked by the leftist loving media that gives Trudeau a free pass on tough pertinent questions that are relevant.....they would rather ask him about his fucking socks.

The important questions the media are not asking are as follows.

#1 What firearm or firearms were used to facilitate this mass shooting?

#2 Were the firearms legally or illegally obtained?

Paint the tragedy any way you like and it is a huge tragedy and I cant fathom for any way what made the guy do it.The questions I have pointed out are not being asked in fact it seems to me that they are being specifically avoided by the media.


Did the scumbag use a semi automatic rifle with an illegal high capacity magazine bought from a street gang member in Toronto?Did he use a semi-auto hand gun obtained the same way?Was it both of them?Did he use a pump action shotgun?Did he use a bolt action rifle like a 30-06 with a legal 5 round capacity?

For all of the media hype and the moral outrage the really important facts are getting buried under the hyperbole.

For disclosure I am a fully compliant PAL holder who personally owns no firearms right now and my designation is non-restricted.I had a friend stop in to crash on the couch a number of years back and he offered up a Colt Python .357 magnum(a big badass chrome wheel gun) for a loan of $500 and the pistol was worth $2000.I told him NO as I was not legally allowed to even have it in my HOME.I said NO as I am a law abiding citizen with regards to firearm legislation and I much like the vast majority follow the guidelines and regulations.

As a legal law abiding regulation compliant firearm owner in Canada I find it absolutely disgusting that the media is not asking these questions and that the Lieberals are acting in an opportunistic way in the wave of media sensationalism to further restrict Canada's firearm laws and restrictions which are already very stringent.

SR

 

[appleomac]

Lots of information being proffered such as how the guy was wearing an authentic RCMP uniform as well as how the car used was nearly identical to an RCMP car.Also info about how he ran his denturist practice from people who interacted with him on a personal level.Also revealed is the dark side of how he financially fucked people over including his own uncle.

In the days after the worst mass killing spree in Canada's history the Lieberals want to change the firearm laws to supposedly "stop" this kind of "gun violence".

In Canada the ownership of firearms is a privilege not a right.Anyone who wishes to buy and possess firearms legally must be properly vetted via a screening process for non restricted and even moreso for restricted firearms.If a person owns registered restricted firearms they can be subject to inspection with regards to storage with no warrant at any time.Knock on the door or ring the bell and the police just simply say "restricted firearm storage inspection" and failure to comply is a world of shit.With those FACTS taken to mind in the aftermath of this mass shooting there are important questions that are not being asked by the leftist loving media that gives Trudeau a free pass on tough pertinent questions that are relevant.....they would rather ask him about his fucking socks.

The important questions the media are not asking are as follows.

#1 What firearm or firearms were used to facilitate this mass shooting?

#2 Were the firearms legally or illegally obtained?

Paint the tragedy any way you like and it is a huge tragedy and I cant fathom for any way what made the guy do it.The questions I have pointed out are not being asked in fact it seems to me that they are being specifically avoided by the media.


Did the scumbag use a semi automatic rifle with an illegal high capacity magazine bought from a street gang member in Toronto?Did he use a semi-auto hand gun obtained the same way?Was it both of them?Did he use a pump action shotgun?Did he use a bolt action rifle like a 30-06 with a legal 5 round capacity?

For all of the media hype and the moral outrage the really important facts are getting buried under the hyperbole.

For disclosure I am a fully compliant PAL holder who personally owns no firearms right now and my designation is non-restricted.I had a friend stop in to crash on the couch a number of years back and he offered up a Colt Python .357 magnum(a big badass chrome wheel gun) for a loan of $500 and the pistol was worth $2000.I told him NO as I was not legally allowed to even have it in my HOME.I said NO as I am a law abiding citizen with regards to firearm legislation and I much like the vast majority follow the guidelines and regulations.

As a legal law abiding regulation compliant firearm owner in Canada I find it absolutely disgusting that the media is not asking these questions and that the Lieberals are acting in an opportunistic way in the wave of media sensationalism to further restrict Canada's firearm laws and restrictions which are already very stringent.

SR

The media have asked those questions. The answer for 1) SIRT has the weapon(s) used by the shooter and that info is not being released right now. The answer for 2) the shooter did not have a FAC (now known as a PAL) - draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

 

[PierreCoeur]

Did you see the information about him being a card carrying member of the Conservative party.

 

[johnnydepth]

This is a huge tragedy. Doesn't matter what government is in charge or what gun policies are put in place, there is no way to control who gets a gun or how they use it.

 

[Lo-ki]

This is a huge tragedy. Doesn't matter what government is in charge or what gun policies are put in place, there is no way to control who gets a gun or how they use it.

Right on the button.....

 

[appleomac]

I'll add something that has been bugging me for a while. We already know that all the laws in the world do little to stop criminality; murder is illegal, and yet...

In Canada, it is difficult, expensive, and time consuming to become a legal/law abiding firearms owner. You've got to sit a two day course, take two written exams and two practical exams (assuming you want to get the RPAL) - and yes, you can fail. Afterwards, you need to submit an application to the Canadian Firearms Program (administered by the RCMP); which costs money to submit - and it is an in-depth pain in the ass. It is very easy for your application to be derailed, anything from an error in how you filled out the application, to reference issues, criminal record/police interactions, spousal/conjugal partner(s) raise any concerns, etc.

So, you jump through all the hoops, pass all the tests and you finally get your licence - congratulations. Now, when you purchase any firearm you end up having to ensure that you are compliant with storage and transportation regulations. Oh, you want a restricted firearm - well, now you need to pay, and then wait until your transfer/re-registration is completed (can take anywhere from 24 hours to months)...

Or, if you want to just get a gun, go down with cash in hand like the rest of the scumbags and shit rats and you've got yourself a piece. You'll need to pay quite a bit more for a clean piece, of course. layball:

First, no matter how much you spend on the black market for "a clean piece" - it will never be "clean." Buying something that you are not allowed to legally possess will always be illegal - think about it. Possessing cocaine is illegal - no matter how "clean" your dealer claims it to be! And secondly, are you literally whining about doing something the legal way vs. the illegal way of doing something?!?!? I need $200 for a night out with my buddies. What really bugs me is that I have to drive 4 minutes out of the way to an ATM, line up and wait for 3 minutes to withdraw my cash. Great, I got my $200! But the local hoodlum just pulls out a knife and robs someone. Oh boo-hoo poor me. Seriously mate, sounds pretty stupid doesn't it!

 

[zippy45]

Why does the PM have to tell us what weapon/s were used? That is not his job, that is the job of whatever police force is looking into it. I know you just want to slag liberals any chance you get, you are a 1 trick pony

 

[Mikehma]

Why does the PM have to tell us what weapon/s were used? That is not his job, that is the job of whatever police force is looking into it. I know you just want to slag liberals any chance you get, you are a 1 trick pony

Perhaps because the PM is the one using this tragic situation as a vote seeking opportunity to go after law abiding citizens. It's called grandstanding.

They can't afford to enforce the gun laws they have now, let alone new ones.

No amount of gun laws would have stopped this piece of shit in NS. He'd have just found some other means.

 

[appleomac]

The simple fact is, that owning firearms in a legal manner carries a much higher burden than doing so in a manner like this fellow from Nova Scotia. He had no problem gaining possession of an (at this time, at least to the public) unknown number of firearms without any licence. The licensing system in Canada as a whole, is built upon a flawed foundation - one that is supposed to stop all those not dully vetted from acquiring firearms, except that it hasn't from day one and it never will. Criminals will never be enticed to start following the law, simply because the government of the day adds a few new ones to the books.

If you want to really dig into a number of awkward statistics (for the Government), take a look at the various registration schemes that have been enacted over the years in Canada. Three different handgun registries, and the number of firearms that "disappeared" each time a new system was put in place. Or the Long Gun Registry, which was another abysmal failure - apparently with less than 50% compliance...

Yes, doing things "by the book" vs "off the books" is different. Guess what, you're free to follow or ignore any law(s) we have in this country. That's your choice. The "burden" of doing something "by the book" is less for most people than the potential "burden" of doing things "off the books" - or maybe that's just me. Pick your own poison. Under your narrow view, pretty much every single law would then be an abject failure, because notwithstanding the laws, murders still happen, rape still happens, speeding still happens, people lock leave their dog in the vehicle on a hot summer day, etc., etc., etc. Crime speaks to the criminal, not the law said criminal chooses to disregard. Contrary to how you are trying to spin this, this tragedy is not a failure of gun licensing laws in Canada. Just like gun violence among gangs is not a failure of gun licensing laws in Canada. Ergo, it is stupid for people to demand more gun licensing laws/banning certain guns in Canada every time a gangland shootout happens. That's what your trying to say - I get it. But what you are implying is that because someone obtained firearms illegally, that means licensing laws in Canada are useless and/or shouldn't be so onerous. That's asinine - you are trying to connect dots that are not there.

 

[storm rider]

Step down from the soapbox a moment; as you've gone and read into things in a way that is rather unnecessary. And goodness, thank you for being such an adept legal beagle, I never would have understood the difference between legal and illegal without your instructive example. uke:

My comments about the idea of a "clean" versus "dirty" piece, are in line with law enforcement terminology on illegal firearms. A "clean" firearm is one that cannot be traced (serial numbers defaced) as well as having never been used in a crime (ballistics). A "dirty" or "hot" firearm would be significantly cheaper to obtain on the blackmarket, simply because it is a much higher risk to be in possession thereof. The firearm may very well be traceable, but having previously been used in a criminal offence with a known ballistic profile means that being caught with it could potentially lead to charges in excess of crimes committed.

The simple fact is, that owning firearms in a legal manner carries a much higher burden than doing so in a manner like this fellow from Nova Scotia. He had no problem gaining possession of an (at this time, at least to the public) unknown number of firearms without any licence. The licensing system in Canada as a whole, is built upon a flawed foundation - one that is supposed to stop all those not dully vetted from acquiring firearms, except that it hasn't from day one and it never will. Criminals will never be enticed to start following the law, simply because the government of the day adds a few new ones to the books.

If you want to really dig into a number of awkward statistics (for the Government), take a look at the various registration schemes that have been enacted over the years in Canada. Three different handgun registries, and the number of firearms that "disappeared" each time a new system was put in place. Or the Long Gun Registry, which was another abysmal failure - apparently with less than 50% compliance...

The Long Gun Registry was the biggest boondoggle of Lieberal buffoonery of all time.It was supposed to cost 2 million and it ended up costing 2 BILLION and all it did was make non compliant gun owners into criminals.It was brought into law as a kiss ass vote pandering attempt after the shooting at Ecole Politecnique by Marc Lepine who used a Ruger M-14 and was most definatly an INCEL and a violent one.

Back then it was a person who was not a legal firearm owner and the recent shooting is the same MO....an illegal gun owner without a license.The Lieberals are grandstanding on this shooting and yes Trudeau is dodging questions about it because that is what Lieberals do....they dodge/obfuscate questions instead of answering them in plain words that give a straight forward answer......take a look at any session of question period in the House of Commons and wake up from the matrix.

SR

 

[appleomac]

The laws in place are largely useless, because a large part of them are nonsensical - in addition to the fact that there are numerous terms included in the Firearms Act that are undefined (what is a "safe" - or how about a "gun room"?). The legislation is indeed flawed, and a complete re-write should take place; one which is fact based and would be administered in an open and transparent manner.

What I'd like to know, appleomac, is this; what are your suggestions for improved legislation around firearms? Do you have any specific experience in this area?

Yes I do have experience. I've been a licensed firearm owner for decades. I am actively involved in shooting sports. I am a member of various firearms organizations. I personally do not have issues with the "burden" of what I have to do in relation to my firearms license. I will grant you the laws are not perfect. But your approach of comparing your personal "burden" to what a criminal does and implying how easy the criminal has it compared to all the laws you personally have to comply with - that's an asinine argument. And quite honestly, if you are truly a firearms owner and don't know what a "safe" is from a regulatory perspective, that's on you. Yes, the law does not define what a "safe" is in relation to storage regulations. Ask any lawyer what happens when something isn't perfectly/well defined in regulations - if it ever comes to it, a judge will use a reasonableness test. So in layman terms, use common sense! You being frightened/concerned that something isn't perfectly defined is you just wanting the government to hold your hand and tell you "this" is a safe and "that" is not a safe. A term not being well-defined in the law/regulation does NOT mean the term is defined as whatever the government or police wants it to mean - because let's face it, that's why you're whining about it: you're scared that because a "safe" isn't defined in the regulation you think that means "they" get to decide what a "safe" is.

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

appleomac, SR, smokescreened. You all have valid points and you all are reading to much into each others points
of view. Which some are correct, others are incorrect. All of you get off your so called soapboxes and call the
proper number to get educated. OKAY?

Phone number : 1-800-731-4000

If by snail mail, do this......
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Canadian Firearms Program PO Box 1200
Miramichi, New Brunswick E1N 5Z3

As a side note, the "safe' you all bring up is in regards to what is applicable to a "FIREARMS" safe.
It must at least be a metal cabinet like a "Stack on Allegiance series that can be bought at Cabelas
secured to the frame, foundation, of the building it is placed in by
long bolts with nuts on both ends, of which I do through the existing wooden frame work,
not screwed in because screws can be removed much more easily by simply ripping the entire unit
from the wall with a crow bar.

This would apply more stringently with RPAL weapons.
AKA handguns like pistols and revolvers, short rifle barrreled type weapons with a barrel length of
less than 12" I believe it is.
It's simple science people. Mostly anything to do with firearms like taking the licensing
is based on COMMON sense. Some of which is lacking in this thread.

Now, the laws requiring the legal transport, storage of handguns.
Yes, they must be kept in a safe at home WITH a trigger lock on the piece as well
when in the SAFE at home. All ammunition must be stored in a separate place but it does NOT
need to be under lock and key. I thumb my nose at that one as my ammo is under lock and key
as well.

Furthermore, when transporting the said RPAL weapons to the range, sporting goods store,
gunsmith repair shop or to your local range. The RPAL weapon MUST have a trigger lock
on it plus also be in a proper carry case for that particular weapon with a lock on the case as well.

In doing said transportation you are NOT ALLOWED to stop at any FUCKING Timmy's, MCD's,
Starbucks or the nearest SP's place for a quick blowjob or other. There and or back to your
legal registered place of residence where the firearms are registered.


You MUST travel straight to the said facility, like above and including the shooting range
you belong to.
That's another must in B.C. you have to be a member in good standing at a shooting range
to be allowed to possess an RPAL weapon. PERIOD!!!
No local range membership? NO possess RPAL weapons.

I do believe this law was struck down in Quebec as unconstitutional so it does not apply there..
Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do not want to get into a long winded battle about our gun laws suffice it to say that simpleton
socks trudeau can shove a grenade up his ass and pull the pin as far as i'm concerned.
Although he's probably to fucking stupid to even find the pin on such type of a device. ound:

We have some of the most stringent laws I know of anywhere and still are able
to enjoy the shooting sports that we do. My favourites are BP and Cowboy Action.

Ahhh, a single action .44 Virginian Dragoon true colt design with the four clicks of the hammer,
Sweet music indeed.

If only the states could even begin to start something similar they wouldn't have seen
innocent people get machine gunned like in Vegas.
Good lord you don't have to ban firearms just put laws on them so
you can still have your 2nd amendment and save lives.

Anyway that's my firearms lecture to lend a hand here with.

Now getting back to the Nova Scotia shootings here's an interesting bit of video from
a local there. I like his perspective on all that happened there.

..........................QM'r

 

[frisky business]

. . . We have some of the most stringent laws I know of anywhere and still are able
to enjoy the shooting sports that we do. . .

I'd say Canada's gun laws are about right just the way they are. The info is trickling out from the RCMP that the guy's guns were unregistered and he was not a licensed gun owner. No surprise. I can't remember ever hearing of a murder by a PAL/RPAL holder with a registered gun.

When there were those recent flurries of handgun violence in Toronto and Vancouver, I'd bet my bottom dollar that all guns used were illegal. And none of the people involved had a PAL or RPAL. As I understand it, all handgun murders in Canada are of drug dealers by drug dealers. And yes, occasionally innocent bystanders.

If someone wants to argue that we have an enforcement problem on illegal firearms I'd say that's a valid point. But tightening the laws won't change any of the already illegal activity.

 

[appleomac]

Okay, can't help it...

My contention that the Firearms Act needs a re-write because terminology used within is not defined, is due to the fact that most (if not all) legislation that is decently written will have terminology contained within defined (usually in the pre-amble of the legislation itself).

Terms/terminology that are well known/well understood/used in common parlance do not need to be defined. This is common in legislation writing, contracts, etc. Take the flip side, a very precise definition. Let's say the legislation/regulation defined a "safe" to be "a metal container made of rhodium with a lock made of osmium." This would be by all accounts a very precise definition. It would be so precise (in law we call this a narrow definition) that it would pretty much render every single safe in Canada unfit for firearms storage, as rhodium and osmium are literally the two rarest metals on planet earth - they might as well have said "made of unobtainium." The vagueness that you whine about allows reasonableness to be, in effect, "the guiding light/principle" when it comes to "things" that are well understood or known. Broad definitions (or lack of a definition) is sometimes much preferable to precise/narrow definitions. If the definition was too narrow, someone would have to waste their time in challenging the law and the Government would need to waste our money in defending their definition. People who whine about vagueness simply want to be told what to do - it's the "if this, then that" syndrome. Not everything can be (or even should be) whittled down to "if this, then that."

A safe is indeed generally some sort of a metal cabinet (can be a school locker, etc.) that is lockable. That's it - this was "defined" in a court case (R. v Barnes), in which Mr. Barnes was charged with unsafe storage (and a few other things, as I recall); the judge asked the pertinent question WTF is a safe? It's not defined in the Firearms Act, or the larger Criminal Code - so what is the Crown basing it's charge upon? The judge used the dictionary definition - a metal container with a secure lock. Charges dismissed...

And this is the perfect example how "reasonableness" won the day!

People have gone out of their way to make a vaguely worded statement, into something more concrete, by stating with authority that it means directly to/from the range with no stops anywhere. Except it doesn't say that. "Reasonably Direct" - it's not defined anywhere, and I doubt anyone is going to get convicted of breaking their ATT conditions - maybe some overzealous Crown Prosecutor, some day, will add a charge on in a case, but odds are it'll end up dropped... Can you stop somewhere with an R/P firearm in your vehicle - yes you can, just make sure you follow the recommendations/law on transportation - out of sight and double locked..

I can state with authority that drinking anti-freeze is good for the body. It's still not true. See what I did there? Speaking with authority does not equate to truth, accuracy, fact, etc. Reasonably direct is another example of a broad definition so as to avoid the pitfalls of a narrow definition. And when it comes to the overzealous Prosecutor, if you're the defendant, having something be more broadly defined can work in your benefit in a court room - narrow definitions may hurt you more than broad definitions. A narrow definition would be something like "to/from the range in the shortest distance" - this isn't always possible, example, road closed due to construction so I take a different route. Get it? "Reasonably direct" may give me that leeway, a narrow/precise definition may not.

 

[overdone]

Did you see the information about him being a card carrying member of the Conservative party.

did you see the info about him beating his father?

his uncle being a retired RCMP?

like no one in his family knew he had guns, cars that looked like cop cars

that he had a obsession with the RCMP

but, yeah, having a CP card is the thing that should have set off the alarm bells, lol

it's only a matter of time till Harper goes on a shooting rampage :attention:

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

That guy in the YouTube video is just a classic moron.


A shooting occurs late at night, and somehow he wants a "warning" (of something, yet nobody knows exactly WHAT) to go out to "everybody".

Just what percentage of "everybody" was going to learn of said warning before dawn?

Nobody even knows yet where the shooter was for several hours before dawn. (any warning they gave at midnight would have sounded like Covid social rules only with more confusion and ten times the urgency)

He wants a warning to "stay in your homes"... yet rural Nova Scotia is sorta known for people being already being in their homes past midnight.


It wasn't confirmed until dawn that the guy was in a replica police car.


The one person who really blew it was the lone wolf officer who ended up paying with her life.


By what police training manuscript are you trained to crash into a suspect who is known to be armed when you are running around without any backup??


Anyone can see that the correct move in that situation would be to turn around and follow from a distance while calling for backup and plenty of it.


So instead, her own family now has to live without a wife and a mother, and two additional victims lost their lives because of that lone wolf behavior.


But the RCMP as a group wasn't to blame for that renegade cop.

 

[appleomac]

That guy in the YouTube video is just a classic moron.


A shooting occurs late at night, and somehow he wants a "warning" (of something, yet nobody knows exactly WHAT) to go out to "everybody".

Just what percentage of "everybody" was going to learn of said warning before dawn?

Nobody even knows yet where the shooter was for several hours before dawn. (any warning they gave at midnight would have sounded like Covid social rules only with more confusion and ten times the urgency)

He wants a warning to "stay in your homes"... yet rural Nova Scotia is sorta known for people being already being in their homes past midnight.


It wasn't confirmed until dawn that the guy was in a replica police car.


The one person who really blew it was the lone wolf officer who ended up paying with her life.


By what police training manuscript are you trained to crash into a suspect who is known to be armed when you are running around without any backup??


Anyone can see that the correct move in that situation would be to turn around and follow from a distance while calling for backup and plenty of it.


So instead, her own family now has to live without a wife and a mother, and two additional victims lost their lives because of that lone wolf behavior.


But the RCMP as a group wasn't to blame for that renegade cop.

Based on the timeline of events released, what makes you conclude that Heidi Stevenson was a renegade cop??? She was on route to meet with another Constable (the other one that was injured in this incident). That other Constable was shot at by the suspect in the suspects mock RCMP vehicle. That shot Constable radioed in that he was shot (I'm assuming he also radioed that the suspect was in a mock RCMP vehicle). Heidi Stevenson was already in route to meet that shot Constable - conceivably she got the information that suspect was in a mock RCMP vehicle. And by all accounts she came across that mock vehicle. It has not been definitively stated how the collision occurred - although one article I read quoted (I believe) an RCMP member that said it was his understanding that Heidi Stevenson rammed the suspect in an attempt to stop him. Your contempt for Heidi Stevenson's actions are disgusting!

 

[Mikehma]

Based on the timeline of events released, what makes you conclude that Heidi Stevenson was a renegade cop??? She was on route to meet with another Constable (the other one that was injured in this incident). That other Constable was shot at by the suspect in the suspects mock RCMP vehicle. That shot Constable radioed in that he was shot (I'm assuming he also radioed that the suspect was in a mock RCMP vehicle). Heidi Stevenson was already in route to meet that shot Constable - conceivably she got the information that suspect was in a mock RCMP vehicle. And by all accounts she came across that mock vehicle. It has not been definitively stated how the collision occurred - although one article I read quoted (I believe) an RCMP member that said it was his understanding that Heidi Stevenson rammed the suspect in an attempt to stop him. Your contempt for Heidi Stevenson's actions are disgusting!

Agree.

She died a hero in my view.

God only knows how many more he might have killed if she and the officers at the gas station hadn't tied into the perp.

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

Can you stop somewhere with an R/P firearm in your vehicle - yes you can, just make sure you follow the recommendations/law on transportation - out of sight and double locked.

No you CAN NOT stop any where you wish on the way to the range. You must travel straight there and afterwards
straight home from the range and properly lock said firearms in your safe.

Call the CRO number I posted and ask them.
You will then get the correct info that you are mistaken about.

You do not require a range membership to be in possession, or own, an R/P firearm. You require a range membership to be issued an ATT/LTATT. Mind you, this requirement was fought and struck down in Ontario - someone should really buck up and issue a court challenge elsewhere, but that's neither here nor there.

Yes you do require a range membership to be in possession of a RESTRICTED firearm in B.C. That is law here.
If you're membership lapses, you can expect a letter first to remind you to re-up your membership and if you
don't you will be getting another letter to give you one more chance, if not you will be expecting a visit by
local authorities who will take those firearms from you.
Funny how you twisted that with the ATT/LTATT. If you're not a paid and good in standing member of a range for
your transfer/att reggie you will not receive it so will not be allowed to take possession of that firearm dude. Apples and oranges.

You have to provide proof you are a range member to CFO at Miramishi, NB., before they will complete your paperwork.

Case closed... Again call the number and ask as you may possibly be quoting outdated info.

I love our gun laws here. It keeps us a million miles ahead of the crazies south of us who go on
gun rampages like kids on halloween trick or treating just about every month sometimes it seems.
Last year was particularly brutal for gun rampages in US




......................QM'r

 

[frisky business]

The one person who really blew it was the lone wolf officer who ended up paying with her life.

By what police training manuscript are you trained to crash into a suspect who is known to be armed when you are running around without any backup??

Anyone can see that the correct move in that situation would be to turn around and follow from a distance while calling for backup and plenty of it.

Whether or not SSRSP writing above is right or not the public doesn't have enough info to say and may not ever. The news so far has been saying "the officer rammed the suspect vehicle" and it was a head-on collision. Whoa. Really? I can't imagine an officer intentionally ramming a fleeing vehicle head-on under any circumstances except below, say, 5 or 10 kmh.

Also, both cars were of the same weight and type. Why was she killed and he walked away?