David A. Tomlinson, President, National Firearms Association, passes on.

David A Tomlinson, President of the National Firearms Association, passed away the evening of September 18th, 2007 after a short illness.

It goes without saying that David Tomlinson had a deep impact on firearms politics and legislation in Canada, beginning in the 1970's with the FARO group, through the first incarnation of National Firearms Association in 1978, and from 1984 to present as President and Legal Advisor to the National Firearms Association of Canada.

David Tomlinson was one of the few Canadians to foresee the ever increasing agenda of civil disarmament, identify it, and warn the Canadian firearms community of it's implications. In the early days of this struggle, Dave was routinely marginalized and dismissed for his views. Gradually though, and especially after the Liberal gun bill of 1995 - Bill C68, Dave's views had become accepted as fact. They had finally become mainstream thought in the firearms community of Canada.

Dave Tomlinson's investment in study and analysis of government firearms control laws and the political system revolutionized the way the Canadian firearms community approached the courts and legislatures in Ottawa, and all across Canada.

David Tomlinson's unique analysis challenged all of us to "think outside of the box" in regards to the legal and political challenges that faced us. He showed that there was another way, a light at the end of the tunnel, an alternative to the specter of a political and cultural end to the firearms community and the Canadian traditions of hunting and targets sports, the effective means of self defense, and the ownership of firearms in Canada.

Dave's massive legal library on precedent and guidance on defences against unwarranted Firearms Act charges was routinely placed at the disposal of the firearms community, as was Dave himself. His selfless assistance to those who have run afoul of our punitive, misdirected and broken firearms laws was done not only to benefit individuals, but the entire firearms community of Canada as a whole in the pursuit of natural justice for firearms owners.

That massive legal library remains as Dave's legacy, and will continue to be put at the disposal of the firearms community, even though Dave can no longer.

When the horrors of "Universal Registration" and the Chretien/Allan Rock Liberal agenda on gun control were visited on us during the dark days of 1994/1995, the fear and alarm that manifested itself in the firearms community was quite understandable. This was a day few thought would ever come, and all knew the implications if the firearms community simply accepted it as inevitable or irresistible. A great fear encompassed many.

But not Dave Tomlinson.

Dave had happily predicted that if the Liberals or any government actually went through with the idea of "universal registration" the resulting costs and bureaucracy would be so immense that a national scandal on the scale seldom seen in Canada would result. He predicted that any such scheme could not be delivered on time, on target or on budget. He was to be proven right.

After the C68 Firearms Act was passed by Parliament in 1995, Dave through himself into picking it apart and analyzing every aspect of it's convoluted and poorly drafted regulations. From this day, it was Dave Tomlinson and the National Firearms Association's firm mandate to wreck it from the inside and the outside, in the courts, in the legislatures, and in the court of public opinion. By showing the firearms community the ways it could be effectively resisted, undermined and finally stopped.

It now appears that Dave may have achieved just exactly that. The Liberal Firearms Act is widely recognized as a failure, it has been thoroughly marginalized politically with only it's authors and the gun control lobby still championing it, and it is due for replacement by the present Conservative government when it is politically possible to do so.

Dave developed an alternative to the failed gun control agenda's of the past. Based on the "Sportsman's Principles" of the FARO group of the 1970's, Dave developed the National Firearms Association's "Practical Firearms Control System. A system that takes the power of the bureaucracy over legitimite, law abiding firearms owners, and instead invests that power for training and vetting new firearms owners in the firearms community of Canada itself, where it belongs.

Many of you reading this will have known Dave a lot longer than I have. I first came to know Dave Tomlinson in 1995 as a result of Bill C68. His reputation preceded him. I recognized him as visionary in his assessment of the situation facing the firearms community of Canada, and his road map for defeating this most heinous piece of legislation gave me hope for the future. I think it did the same for you.

Today, I celebrate the life of Dave Tomlinson, and we all can stand assured that as we go forward in replacing the Firearms Act and reclaiming our rights, that it is Dave Tomlinson's wisdom, guidance and vision which has in a very great way brought us to this point, and which will continue to serve us as we advance in the future.


Dave Tomlinson
National President
National Firearms Association of Canada

We will not see another like him.

Blair Hagen
Vice President, Communications
National Firearms Association
www.nfa.ca

Give schools a choice to be tougher targets

EDITORIAL: Give schools a choice to be tougher targets

The Daily Telegram,
Adrian, Michigan

Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:33 PM EDT

— At issue: A state bill to allow trained adults the choice to carry a concealed firearm at school.

— Our view: Such adults have excellent safety records, while “gun-free zones” offer only the illusion of safety.

What did the past year’s Virginia Tech killings, the massacre in an Amish schoolhouse and the school murder in Bailey, Colo., all have in common?

Each was committed by an armed adult, and each might have been halted or discouraged if a teacher had access to a firearm, or at least the choice.

But most American schools are easy targets for psychopaths. Giving Michigan school staffs a chance to defend their students and themselves — a choice they’d be free to ignore — is the purpose of a House bill introduced last week. We understand Michigan residents’ feelings about the issue of guns in schools, but facts indicate the proposal by State Rep. David Agema, R-Grandville, is not only safe but overdue.

Utah passed a similar law in 1996 (upheld in 2003), and has seen zero accidents — and zero shootings. The few teachers who are armed keep their guns concealed, and don’t advertise the fact. “If it came to protecting myself and protecting my kids, it would stop in my classroom,” Natalie Aposhian, a Brighton, Utah, math teacher who is armed, said of any attack. “It wouldn’t be going from class to class to class and randomly shooting children.”

The view is not one typically expressed in stories. One headline (“Reading, writing, arithmetic … and revolvers?”) falsely implied that guns would become a classroom fixture. ABC News’ headline, “Mich. Lawmaker Wants to Arm Educators,” gave the incorrect impression that teachers would have no say. Grand Rapids Superintendent Bernard Taylor ignored school massacres committed by adults when he said: “It hurts to hear we’ve come to this, that we’re so afraid of children that we think we need to be armed to work with them.”

But feelings don’t match facts. House Bill 5162 would not “arm educators.” It would give school staff who pass permit training and background checks the option to carry a concealed weapon, and only if their superintendent approved. Most teachers would not choose that option and, in many districts, superintendents such as Taylor would never allow any staff member to possess a firearm.

Yet in a 1997 shooting in Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick used his .45-caliber pistol to stop a 16-year-old who had shot nine students, two fatally. Sadly, some were shot while Myrick had to run to his car parked 1,000 feet from the school to retrieve his gun before he could run back and use it. In 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law, an adult killed a professor and a student and wounded three classmates before two college students retrieved their firearms and stopped the killer.

These cases disprove the argument that, in a school, civilians are incapable of making good decisions. Far from it, we’re not aware of any cases anywhere in the U.S. in which a concealed carry permit holder’s gun was misfired inside a school.

Another faulty objection is that a student might take away a teacher’s gun and begin a rampage. This ignores the fact that, right now, rampaging students could more easily obtain and sneak guns into schools on their own. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold didn’t need a teacher’s gun at Columbine, Colo. Nor did Cho Seung-hui at Virginia Tech, Michael Carneal at West Paducah, Ky.; Jeff Weise at Red Lake, Minn.; Kip Kinkel at Springfield, Ore.; Robert Steinhaeuser in Erfurt, Germany; Evan Ramsey in Bethel, Alaska; Kenneth Bartley Jr. in Jacksboro, Tenn.; or any of the literally dozens of other school shootings.

Gun-free zones create an illusion of safety. They actually guarantee that nobody can fight back. That is why attacks occur at schools, not at gun shows. Michigan should allow trained, law-abiding adults a chance to protect themselves and our children. Rep. Agema offers teachers who want that a chance. Critics should give his bill the same consideration.