The head of the National Rifle Association comes up to Toronto to say gun owners everywhere face the same threat to their rights

By Mark Bonokoski, Toronto Sun, November 28, 2006


She is the antithesis of the oft-parodied image of former National Rifle Association president, actor Charlton Heston, holding an antique Revolutionary War-era muzzle loader aloft back in 2000, and warning anti-gun proponents that they'd have to pry it "from my cold dead hands."

Yet Sandy Froman is what Heston once was -- president of the four-million-strong NRA, one of the largest and most powerful lobby groups in the U.S., and only the second woman to hold that post in the NRA's 132-year history.

"And I haven't met a gun yet that I didn't like," she says.

Jewish, soccer-(grand)momish, and a West Coast lawyer now living in Tucson, Ariz., the 57-year-old Froman is is as unstereotypical as it comes when looking for the stereotypical perception of the gun crowd.

And this is not lost on the woman herself.

In Toronto over the weekend to address the national convention of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), Froman said being a victim of crime was the prime motivator for her buying her first gun.

"It's weird how life goes," she says. "If what happened to me had not have happened, I would not be here.

"But it was a life-changing experience, and I would not be president of the NRA if not for that."

It was an attempted break-in of her Los Angeles apartment when she was in her 30s, and living alone, that prompted Froman to go out the next day and sign up for firearms training.

"I never wanted to be in a position in life where I had no options," she says. "And I had no options that day. There was a man attempting to break into my apartment and I had no backup -- no means to defend myself, no way out.

"And it changed my life."

Educated at Stanford University, with her law degree coming from Harvard, Froman was practising law at the high-profile California law firm of Loeb & Loeb when she had her late-night visitation, a chance brush with lawlessness that led her, eventually, to executive positions within the NRA.

Remember Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, and his ambush interview with a feeble Charlton Heston?

"Despicable" is how Froman described Moore's actions, leaving no doubt that Moore would be unwise to come knocking on her door with the same modus operandi.

Last January, having invoked the fear factor that half the guns used to bathe Toronto in blood in 2005 were stolen from law-abiding collectors and shooters, Prime Minister Paul Martin went to the polls vowing to ban all handguns in Canada -- if constitutionally viable, that is, a caveat he later had to add when he misfired on the facts.

Toronto Mayor David Miller sang the same statistical tune, despite contrary evidence in a report tabled a month earlier by his own police service -- a report obtained through access to information that shows, if not twisted, that no more than 16% of "crime guns" in Toronto were obtained through the robbery of legitimate owners.

Sandy Froman, however, would not go there. The United States, not Canada, she said, is her political bailiwick.

"Canadians have a different mindset. We have different histories," she says. "We (Americans) are self-reliant. Independence is part of our culture. Call it frontier-ism, if you want, but we are people who want less government interference in our lives, and we believe in the Second Amendment, and our right to protect ourselves."

According to Froman, some 80 million of the 300-plus million living in the United States own firearms.

"Gun ownership has increased 25% in the last years," she says. "And violent crime has decreased by 33%.

"Tell me there is no connection?"

There was no press invited to the Canadian Shooting Sport Association's dinner Saturday, yet some did show up nonetheless, with the Toronto Star apparently sporting a bogus "invitation" allegedly sent out by kindred-spirited, anti-gun lobbyist Wendy Cukier, a Ryerson professor and president of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control.

It was left up to Tony Bernardo, executive-director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association to let the reporter know that he had been somewhat had -- particularly since the reporter arrived thinking Cukier was his contact person.

This, in fact, was confirmed by the reporter himself.

"Cukier's name was atop the invite," says Bernardo. "And the reporter was certainly not happy about being asked to leave. But he has only one person to thank, and that's the person who sent out the phony invitation."

According to Cukier, however, the so-called "invitation" was actually a "press release" -- one, she admitted, that "might have caused some confusion" if it came down third-hand from an assignment editor to a reporter.

"I spoke to the Star," she says. "And they understand."

Got in a shot

According to Cukier, an address by the president of the NRA to a group of Canadian shooting sport enthusiasts is "something Canadians should know about."

"Which is why I put out a press release," she says.

One wonders, however, what Cukier had envisioned being so newsworthy that it required a media blitz.

For what follows is probably the most controversial thing Sandy Froman had to say her keynote speech.

"Though you don't have a Second Amendment in Canada, it is amazing how similar things are in your country and in mine when it comes to gun ownership and the fight to preserve it," she said. "You fight the same battles against the same enemies of firearms freedom that we do. You labour under the same lack of education among the general public about firearms issues.

"And you deal with the same bias in your media."

In that same speech, however, Froman did manage to get in a fairly good shot at Wendy Cukier.

It might be wise, in fact, if she obtained a copy.

mark.bonokoski@tor.sunpub.com or 416-947-2445

God bless Christie Blatchford...

My nation is . . . Toronto

Stow the envy, rest-of-Canada dwellers. 'We are a nation because we are what we are' here in Hogtown

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD, Globe and Mail, October 25, 2006.

I cannot tell you how conflicted I was by the "Quebec is a nation" business that broke out all over this week: as a federalist, delighted; as a Torontonian, amused. To borrow from the deliciously outfoxed and caught flatfooted Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who said, "We are a nation because we are what we are," we here in Toronto are also a nation and for the same reason.

As a native Quebecker, I know well how unique is that province, but if I had to name one place in the country that has almost nothing in common with the rest of it, it wouldn't be Quebec, but the city where I've lived for almost four decades.

In recent years, it's become so bad I've seriously considered separating myself from Toronto, the friends and routines of an adult lifetime, the house and neighbourhood I love.

I give you a small but telling true story.

I was in Edmonton last week and so, it turned out, was a Toronto couple I adore. They were visiting relatives who live about an hour out of the Alberta capital, and we chatted briefly on e-mail, unsuccessfully trying to arrange our various schedules in order to meet for dinner one night.

At one point, the husband was trilling on about how beautiful the relatives' property was, and how peaceful, and blah, blah, blah. Why, he cooed, from a window that very day, they'd spotted a deer.

"You should have shot it," I snarled, though I confess I have not yet found an e-mail icon to properly signify a snarl.

I actually knew, from an Alberta friend, that it is, or was, deer hunting season. Indeed, because of this friend, who regales me with lurid descriptions of the shots he could have taken but didn't and the hours he spends lying in various frigid places waiting not to shoot, and the array of clothes and gewgaws he takes with him to while away the wait until he doesn't shoot, I may well know more about Alberta deer season than any other single person in Toronto.

Anyway, as I recall, there was shocked e-mail silence from my Toronto friend. I don't think I ever got a reply. He probably thought I had mislaid my mind or that I had misspoken, which is what we here say when we accidentally have told a truth or said what we believe but had no intention of saying and been called on it.

After all, I had broken about a dozen Toronto conventions in one fell swoop: Thou shalt not speak of guns; thou shalt not speak of guns but to condemn; thou shalt not suggest, by word or deed or inflection or lift of brow, that there are good gun owners and bad ones; thou shalt not speak in any manner approaching approbation about hunting (for one thing, it may lead to meat eating), and thou shall always and at every turn defend the liberty-encroaching yet entirely useless national firearms registry while simultaneously attacking the liberty-encroaching but undeniably useful notion of imposing reverse-onus bail conditions upon those thugs caught actually using guns in the commission of an actual crime.

Now I didn't really want my friend to shoot the deer because, though I am a bad Torontonian, like any good one, I still see all deer as Bambi, much as I see all collies as Lassie and all horses as Black Beauty and all pigs as Miss Piggy and all cows as the long-lashed ones in the milk ads. We prefer our animals, domestic or wild, to be cartoons with cute voices, which is why so many of us want our dogs to be no bigger than a beaver's tail.

But the point is, Torontonians may not really think like this, but certainly, to judge it by what we say and certainly by how we vote, we do. The odds of the average citizen in this city being shot by a law-abiding, registered-up-the-ying-yang, taxpaying, gun-club-using fellow are next to nothing, but we here live in fear of that guy.

Him, we want banned, or his guns anyway. And his pal the hunter. We have no patience for any of his nonsense about shooting being a sport (what, biathlon?) or for any of the hunter's BS or the varmint-shooting farmer's. But give us a dude with a criminal record longer than (see earlier reference to dog size), a habit of not showing up for court and a well-documented taste for violence, and honey, we will turn ourselves inside-out in search of root causes.

I didn't mean for this to be so much about guns, but this is one of those issues that really captures so much that makes Toronto so breathtakingly irritating and, well, distinct.

There are others, but chiefly what distinguishes the Torontonian is that from the sanctity of his SUV-loving life, he desires to tell other Canadians how we all ought to live.

A few weeks ago, I was walking through the University of Toronto campus with my dog, both of us minding our business. Obie was, of course, on his leash, just trotting by my side. I had plastic bags in every pocket lest there be a hint of a dog turd within miles, and as we approached a young man, he smiled nicely. I am accustomed to people smiling at the sight of my dog (he is huge, white, goofy and with one floppy ear and one upright one) and smiled back.

"Where's the muzzle?" the young man asked pleasantly.

I presumed he had mistaken Obie for a pit bull and was referring to the Ontario ban on these dogs.

"Oh," I said, still polite, "his breed is exempt from the law."

"It's not a matter of law," he said.

"What is it a matter of then?" I asked.

He held his hands about a beaver-tail length apart. "I have a dog about this size," he said sorrowfully, shaking his head in what I suppose I was to take for rueful wisdom.

"My dog plays with dogs that size every day," I said. "He's as gentle as a lamb."

"Well," smarmed the young man, "I'm glad to hear it."

"I need neither your lectures nor your praise," I replied, rather regally I thought, and took my leave. But as he was to me, Toronto is to the nation. We are what we are, and what the rest of you, if only you were a little brighter, would want to be.
__________________

Putting the semi-auto ban rumour down for a nap...

This will be the last update on the topic of the semi-auto ban unless new relevent information is received. The response to the semi-auto ban "rumour" was apparently unlike anything Parliament Hill has experienced before from the grass roots. Based on a synthesis of responses from individual MPs to their constituents, the subsequent referrals to Stockwell Day's ministry (Public Safety and Emergency Prepared Canada), and a meeting of Garry Breitkreuz (CPC, Yorkton) with Minister Day, the following would seem to be true:

• There is no immediate intention to proceed toward a ban or re-classification of any firearm currently (no satisfactory elaboration of this word has been received).


• A ban (and re-classification?) was discussed in caucus by the CPC, and roundly rejected as undesirable by MPs (Laurie Hawn, CPC, Edmonton).


• Consultations have been and continue to be underway with "stakeholders" on the means by which gun control can be improved or strengthened. Stakeholders include the provinces and a wide range of "squeaky wheels". While it is believed the conversation centres around more rigorous licence checks and penalties for gun crime, no meaningful public agenda has been released as far as we know.


• the role of the PMO in this initative is suspect...


• The individual who prompted the rumour in the first place stands by his sources.


• The reaction of the government has not been sufficient to assuage the grass roots that something was not, or is not forthcoming. Presently, the grass roots community are holding a guarded optimism that the government "got the message", but are pledging to remain vigilant and proactive.

Its not at all clear firearms owners are out of the woods on this issue, although certainly there is no doubt the government heard us. If you haven't yet, remind your MP how seriously you take this issue.

Semi-Auto Ban Rumour Still Have Legs?

From an Aussie correspondent, today:

Here in Australia there was a push to further restrict firearms last year. The Police ministers were to meet the next day and the following was on the agenda: All pump action rifles to be banned. Levers and bolts taking more than three rounds to be so restricted that they would effectively be banned as well. The shooters got wind of it before the announcement and started faxing and emailing our politicians.

No restrictions were announced. One state (Western Australia) refuses to licence pump action rifles, but has reduced the restrictions on pump action shotguns as a trade off. Victoria was the source of the police document that I saw, it's police minister decided no further changes were needed. Queensland's licencing branch has had a hissy fit and has announced that as far as it is concerned a pump action fitted with an AR magazine will be treated as an AR, but no change has gone through the state parliament.
Zero change occurred in the other states. We won.

Start writing or faxing now. When an announcement is made, it is too late as the politicians will not back down when their public image is on the line. If they deny there was any such plan, then you have won.

Update 3 - November 6, 2006.

Just when we thought this story could be put to bed, it continues to break. As more MP's offices report to their constituent's concerns, the messages are not consistent. Some are saying the CPC "has no plans, currently", some point to Bill C-21 as not having any changes to semi-autos (it doesn't, but then it wasn't intended to), some, like the following from David Emerson's assistant, are more illuminating:

"Further to our telephone conversation, I can confirm that the government is currently in consultation regarding the possible reclassification of restricted firearms. This process is being conducted with Provincial, Territorial and Stakeholders across Canada. The intention is to improve Canada’s laws, enhancing public safety while keeping with our platform. Please note that this is only a consultation process.

I have requested more information from Hon. Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, and as soon as I am in receipt of same, I will be in touch with you.

Sincerely,

Elecia Elliott
PA to the Honourable David Emerson, PC, MP
Vancouver Kingsway

Update 2 - November 6, 2006.

Feedback coming out of variety of CPC MP offices today is indicating that no plan is in the works to further ban or re-classify semi-automatic firearms, although there have been a few admissions that it has been a topic of discussion. For the moment, it appears that calm is returning to the hinterland, and the CPC has been fully apprised of its constituent's concerns....

Update - November 6, 2006.

In response to the rumour, the office of Stockwell Day, deluged apparently with emails, faxes and phone messages has been advising callers that Minister Day and the CPC have no plans currently to introduce changes to classification or prohibition to semi-automatic long guns. They have been somewhat surprised by the intensity of the response to the weekend rumour.

---

MPs in Ottawa arrived this morning to find their fax, email and voice-mail machines full of expressions of concern from their constituents over the possibility of bans or reclassification of popular semi-automatic sporting long-guns. While rumours have circulated for a bit, the tenor raised somewhat over the weekend when a respected source outlined a serious plan that is rumoured to be in the works. Rumblings have been emanating from the Hill for a couple of weeks about this.

Stockwell Day's office is somewhat consternated about the volume of concerns and their source, but has not issued a definitive denial.

One MP, David Sweet, of Dundas-Ancaster-Flamborough-West Hamilton, has reportedly responded to a constituent:

I called the office the Hon. Stockwell Day on receipt of your letter and was informed that there are consultations taking place with the provinces, territories and stakeholders on repeating and semi-automatic firearms. They said that there may be some firearms reclassifications, but at this point they cannot confirm what if any. They are mindful of those with outdoor traditions and of collectors like yourself.

I have forwarded your letter along to Minister Day so that he is made aware of your concerns and frustrations.

Sincerely,
David Sweet, M.P.

The comment of interest is "re-classification". This has been one of the concerns outside of an outright ban. Some of the popular sport/competition semi-automatic firearms like the SKS, M-14, AR-15, and Beretta Storm may wind up as prohibited, or in the case of the M-14 and SKS, as restricted.
The Liberals slammed the door last year on owners of grandfathered prohibited firearms, removing their ability to take them to a range to shoot. Court challenges are underway on this decision. The SKS and M14, in addition to being popular hunting rifles, are also pivotal in the sport of Service Rifle competition, along with the AR-15. The loss of these firearms would effectively destroy Service Rifle competition, one of Canada's oldest shooting sports, one steeped in the traditions of Canada's military history.

The unacceptable part of all of this, is that there is no compelling public safety issue justifying the drive to ban and reclassify these firearms. The political will has come largely from raw vote-getting politics, ignorance, lack of general knowledge of firearms, leftist and socialist agendas, and from supporters of the UN world-government view. No defensible statistical and criminological justification has ever been put forward to support the assault on democratic principles these policies represent. A review of the Firearms Act (C-68) and the consequent Criminal Code amendments will clearly illustrate how anti-democratic and draconian these policies, and their underlying legislation, are.

[Cross-posted from www.editorialtimes.ca]

"...betrayal from the inside shall see no mercy"

Grass roots supporters from coast to coast are up in arms about a rumoured sellout over firearms issues by the Conservative party, in order to curry votes from the opposition and improve their voting base in Ontario and Quebec. CPC members can expect a firestorm in Ottawa this week from their constituents. Some of the comments from the trenches...:

..."If this happens, it would be suicide for Harper. Seriously. The Liberals would get a majority government next time, and deservedly so. If the Harper government proved itself unable to stand up for this basic principle, then they would be exposed as nothing more than the same type of opportunists as the Liberals. Even worse, because at least the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are not idiots -- they know not to piss off their core supporters."

..."8 members of my family voted CPC in the last election but if we have to go Libertarian next time , we will . The majority of my gunclub feel the same way as we remember Joe "The Duck" Clark and Kim Campbell and we've heard Peter MacKay and read what the CPC rep to the UN has recently said regarding the International Small Arms Agreement.

We'll stick with the CPC until there is one sign of treachery and if they table, facilitate or enact any legislation that negatively effects us, we're gone . We won't vote for anyone who only acts like a Liberal sometimes to purchase votes in Toronto and Quebec by trading our freedom for a few more seats."

..."What is so frustrating is that Statscan, the US Department of Justice and the National Acedamy of Sciences have been collecting data for decades and to date they have not found any evidence that any gun control measure has reduced murders, accidents or suicides. Stepping on citizen's Rights and freedoms through restrictions and prohibitions has not produced and positive benefits for society. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that we have the Right to own Property and we have the Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of it. If there is no evidence that taking away firearms from law abiding citizens provides society with any noticeable benefits then that would surely be a case of arbitrarily taking away property. It is outrageous that the government would consider taking away firearms from citizens when knives are responsible for injuring and killing far more people in this country. If the Government was really interested on public safety then why not start with banning all pocket and hunting knives?

...All studies based on hard numbers and unbiased stats show that it will not make a difference. Taking guns away from criminals might make a difference but taking them away from people who will not commit a crime is just ridiculous. Even the people of Quebec who traditionally hate guns do not think it will make any difference what so ever. The small group of people that Wendy Cukier has organized do not speak for the majority. Those people will not vote Conservative even if you banned every firearm in Canada. The rest of Quebec won't be swayed by a ban since they don't think it will make any difference one way of the other."

...I am told that the Government plans to ban restricted long guns.
I will not mince words. This is an error of the gravest type. Not only will you dissolve a relationship of grass roots supporters based in legal gun owners, the public will see this as "another ban" blurring the image of the party with the oppositions antics. An ill-conceived initiate such as this cost Canada further millions of tax dollars, and just like the registry - will contribute nothing to public safety.
Gun bans globally have not contributed to their nations safety and lives. Australia for example just had an article in the British Journal of Criminology admitting that their ban was a costly, futile effort without a reduction to crime.
Your minority hangs in the balance. Respecting that you need every vote possible, these ever increasing changes of policy will erode the trust you have in your core supporters.
Lastly, if this rumour is true, my own personal support of the CPC will have been damaged beyond repair. I am a good supporter, who volunteered for events, walked the street carrying placards for the party, gave hard earned money by the hundreds, plastered my lawn with giant CPC signs and lastly - trusted you to be the better party."

...If this "pending ban" is true the CPC are risking political suicide...
If they use restricted long-guns as bait and fail to bring an end to the long-gun registry, they will be wiped off the map in Western Canada."

If you haven't done so - go here right now and do what needs to be done.

Rumour? Or a Sellout?

The following post was made on a popular board this evening...

If true - the Conservative Party of Canada will become history in the next election... we guarantee it...

... I am sorry to say that I have been privy to a personal warning that the current minority government is about to announce the prohibition of all currently-restricted long-guns. It is a very serious warning, coming from a very well-connected individual within the Canadian firearms industry. I have known this source for 25 years, and am taking his warning at full face-value. He got the warning from sources which cannot be named, but are fully conversant with what is going on.

The essence is that all currently-restricted long-guns will be banned. It is not clear whether or not they will be grandfathered. The prohibition will apparently be legislative rather than OIC in nature. I am told that much like the previous OICs, the announcement will occur after the fact with zero warning for those who own (or would aspire to own) restricted long-guns. My source told me to expect a 10:00 announcement to the effect that as of 09:00 that same day, the new laws/regulations are extant. You and I know exactly why they will take that approach - no last-minute buying spree is possible.

There has been no indication that the forthcoming ban will impact upon handguns. There IS an expectation that the restricted long-gun ban will extend to the limited range of non-restricted semi-automatic long-guns currently available for Canadian purchase. This includes the SKS, Norinco M305 (M-14), Robarm M-96, Armalite AR-180B, and others of the ilk.

There is no knowledge regarding whether or not the impending semi-auto long-gun ban will incorporate a grandfathering clause. If so, then it would behoove prospective owners to buy now. As in right now. If there is no grandfathering clause, then at the very least those in possession of restricted firearms will be eligable for monetary compensation related to their seized personal property. Personal property rights and related reimbursement are a cornerstone of the Conservative government platform. Notwithstanding the recent turn-about on the taxation of income trusts, the Conservatives don't dare simply seize our restricted long-guns without due compensation. It is an admittedly small consolation, but at least you won't be out of pocket if you purchase an AR-15 receiver tomorrow only to legislatively lose it the day after....

Sorry to be the bearer of horrifically bad news, but as a firearms owner of 25 years I felt compelled to share this news with the board. If it turns out that my impeccable source is wrong and political pressure deems that the restricted long-gun ban will not happen, fine - I will eat crow, and be quite happy to do so.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that such is going to be the case. We owners of mil-style semi-autos are about to be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

I for one, will be mailing back my Conservative Party membership and "sustaining donor" cards with a very tersely-worded letter. Lacking a party that actually represents my interests, I will be opting out of the Canadian democratic process. That is how seriously I view these impending developments.

Take it for what you will. If I am "crying wolf", then so be it - I will eat my words and suck up the ridicule after the fact. But I am here to tell you that as of today, I was told by a VERY reliable insider of 25 years standing that this is what our Conservative Government is about to enact.

Not much warning on that Income Trusts tax, was there. You want to talk about blind-sided? Wait for it....

Forewarned is forearmed.

If you haven't done so - go here right now and do what needs to be done.

An Open Letter to the Coalition for Gun Control

I am not a bad person!

Now that is a self-evaluation, but on the whole, is probably an accurate statement. I have a full-time job and no criminal record. I pay my taxes and give to charity. I care deeply about my family and am involved in my community. I am a good neighbour and a caring friend. So why do you hate me so much?

Why do you label me a criminal? Have I ever done you harm? Do you even know who I am?

I am one of the five million Canadians who own guns. I store my guns properly and use them for entirely peaceful purposes--in Olympic sports and competitive target shooting leagues. I respect the fact that hunting helps many people provide for their families. I understand that guns are part of a traditional, rural way of life and that sometimes they're necessary for predator control. I'm also glad that our nation's heritage is being preserved in the antique firearms some Canadians collect as a hobby and hang onto as precious family heirlooms. To me, these guns are poignant reminders of the hardships our forefathers suffered to defend the freedom you and I enjoy today.

I am your neighbour, your child’s teacher, your accountant, your hairdresser, your doctor, and the policeman that patrols your streets. I am a farmer, a minister, a factory worker, the lady across the cosmetics counter from you, a fellow employee and maybe even your employer. I live in the country and in the city. You meet me on the street everyday. In fact, I live within three houses of you.

I am an average, everyday, law-abiding, trustworthy Canadian, who now realizes that I have to stand up, be counted and be heard. I sat back in disbelief while politicians and bureaucrats wasted $2 billion dollars of my tax money harassing people like me, when they should have been going after the gangsters, drug dealers and criminals who wreak havoc in the streets and rob parents of their children.

I understand your commitment to your cause, particularly if you've suffered a tragic loss. What I don’t understand is your blatant disregard for the truth. I would have more respect for you if you didn’t exaggerate your statistics, misleading both the media and your fellow Canadians.

I wish you could see how hurtful and misguided your statements are. I wish you understood that the measures you propose would make our country less safe, not more.

Most of all, I wish you understood that I am not your enemy.

Sincerely,
Andrea Hannen
A gun owner, your neighbour and proud to be both

Regional Director, Central Ontario
Canadian Shooting Sports Association