Gun Lobby Organizations: To Join? or Not To Join?

As many legal gun owners in Canada are aware the rules, regulations, and laws surrounding firearms is probably one of the most backwards pieces of legislation ever to be written in Canada. Firearms in general are a focal point of controversy amongst the liberal left of Canadians who are simply not informed and lawful gun owners. I've had a conversation about firearms to many of my peers, some who themselves are lawful gun owners and others who, at the beginning of the conversation, were very critical about the topic and put forth the narrative of "MORE GUN CONTROL".

One such conversation focused on the topic of gun advocacy groups and lobbyists. Three predominant organizations in Canada are the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, and the Canadian Sports Shooting Association. Each in their own right has promoted lawful gun ownership and informing Canadians about the truth surrounding the gun debate. There are an equal number of Anti-gun organizations such as the Coalition for Gun Control. Whose aim is to destroy the firearms community through misinformation and misrepresentation of the truth.

I was asked if I was a member of an organization to which I replied "No". Then I was asked "Why?"

FIREARMS ORGANIZATIONS IN CANADA

First, I was introduced to the National Firearms Association through Peter Elliot, a well known firearms instructor in Nova Scotia. Peter Elliot has served as an instructor, a police officer, and a member of the British Special Air Service. I was told about the many things done by the NFA and the support they provide to their members such as individual insurance policies, and even representing members in court. They provided some training courses such as a Holster Safety Course and Range Safety Officer Course. At first I thought the idea of a course to use a holster to be a silly idea, but I kept having to be reminded that not everyone serves or has served in the military, police or the professional firearms community and for someone unfamiliar it was very important that they understand the basics to be able to use it safely. I volunteered at a local gun range teaching under Peter and the club President, I learned a lot adapting my previous experience to the civilian firearms world.

Next was the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights, a friend of mine, we’ll call him Mark, was a “field officer” with the CCFR. His role was essentially to spread the word about the organization, provide information about firearms to both legal gun owners and those not aware of the gun debate in Canada, and to recruit people to sign up and join. I was familiar with the CCFR before from seeing Rod Giltaca’s YouTube Channel. Rod is the President of the CCFR, a successful businessman and owner of Civil Advantage Firearms in B.C. He is a well spoken and educated man, with an ability to really get down to the facts and present them in a way that everyone can understand. His online personality is one that would probably make someone join an organization even if they did not fully understand what it is they were joining, the kind of personality that could sell a fridge to an Inuit family in winter. Not implying any deceit on his part, he just has a very likeable online personality (I’ve never met the man personally)

I joined several social media feeds to get an idea of who these organizations were and what they were about, and to get an idea of the attitudes and insight of their members. Much of what was posted was a lot of folks showing off their guns, “internet experts” (who often got it wrong) voicing their opinion on topics you could easily tell they knew little to nothing about and the odd post here and there on actual gun issues, such as the RCMP’s unconstitutional authority to write laws and regulations concerning the classification of firearms, the Long Gun Registry, or incidents such as High River, Alberta where the RCMP took advantage of displaced Canadians during the Calgary floods and broke into over 3000 homes to steal firearms most of which were properly stored and secured(contrary to what the RCMP claim). Some conversations were productive; others were down-right nasty and hateful. For people like me who possess firearms for reasons other than target shooting, such as home defence or honing my weapons handling skills for work purposes, guys like me seemed to be very frowned upon at least on the east coast where the community is about 15-20 years behind the rest of the country.

For people in the actual profession of "gunfighting" there is the Operational Shooting Association. A group which supports the operational use of firearms. Be it home defense, professional development, open or conceal carry (yes while it is illegal in Canada, some Canadians travel south with CCW permits from the U.S. and exercise them.) Reputable training firms such as Veritac Solutions, Phase Line Green Tactical and WGT Consulting also provide similar courses and training.


BAD FORM CCFR, BAD FORM

My friend Mark invited me out for coffee one evening with another close friend of ours. He seemed troubled and asked me about a dispute I was having with local security firm owner. After I explained the vendetta that was being pursued against me he showed me a message he received from Morley Knight, Nova Scotia Director for the CCFR.

Needless to say I was taken back that a person in a position of leadership in an organization such as the CCFR, someone whom I have never met or even had a conversation with on any topic would slander me in this way and then threaten to kick Mark from the organization.

I contacted the CCFR asking that they take action . I informed them (as politely as I could) that while I support the CCFR’s mission to better the firearms community and lead change to the firearms laws in Canada, this sort of conduct was unacceptable and shouldn’t be permitted. I gave the CCFR the opportunity to correct the issue. I later received a response from their General Counsel essentially telling me that this was a private conversation and not defamatory and that my friend should not of disclosed “internal” information to me. They essentially stonewalled and back peddled, hiding behind a shield of ignorance. Later I would come to find out that they would fire Mark. The message this sends is simple, the CCFR condones harassment and bullying behaviour within its organization. The CCFR supports its members if it’s politically convenient and falls in line with its own agenda.

My view and opinion of the CCFR was scared. They permitted and condoned a member of their leadership to violate a person’s freedom of association. A protected right, not only under the Canadian Constitution Act but also the UN Charter, Article 20. Perhaps it is a showing of their true colors. They, obviously do not stand behind all of their membership; perhaps I was late getting the memo considering out of 2 million plus gun owners in Canada, only 15K plus are CCFR members.



FIRST IMPRESSIONS ARE EVERYTHING

A business associate of mine once said to me (shortly after this incident.) “I would never affiliate myself or my business with organizations like that; the majority of them are yahoos to begin with, and the rest just drink the koolaid”

I suppose in this instance that statement is not entirely inaccurate.

Edley Engineering owners of Sharkzcoins, manufactures challenge coins gets it. They were approached by the CCFR to make a challenge coin for their organization and the company refused to even give them a quote. At first glance the company decided Yeah this is probably something we should stay away from.


CCFR published a blog stating:

It’s interesting that Helen from sharkzcoins.com obviously still hasn’t looked into our groups mission. How could any company be against the educating of Canadian firearms owners and how exactly is any of what the CCFR does a conflict with a company having a long and respected relationship with law enforcement agencies? This is a prime example of the bias and assumptions made by the public about Canadian gun owners. 2.2 million law abiding, licensed gun owners are in no way an “opposite” to law enforcement.

I don’t think it’s lawful gun owners the company took issue with. Regardless I am sure this was nothing short of a battle cry to their members.


After a conversation with the CCFR and, what I can only assume was a barrage of bad phone calls and emails from CCFR members Sharkzcoins  posted an apology. Sharkzcoins may not have been correct in their assumption, but they were also not wrong for declining business…. that is their protected right, to refuse service.


EXAMPLES OF REAL ACTION
Organizations such as the NFA have actually gone to court against provincial and federal governments. Most recently, to block Quebec from receiving the long gun registry data, which the federal government failed to destroy after they were ordered to by the Supreme Court of Canada. Similar actions have been taken by the NRA in the United States, an organization that has reach and influence even in the U.S. Federal Election.

CCW Safe is another example, an American organization which promotes the lawful use of firearms for self defence through their legal defence service plan.

“CCW Safe is a legal service membership plan that was designed for CCW permit/license holders, active and retired military and law enforcement officers, and gun owners. We are not an insurance plan; we are a legal defense service plan. CCW Safe takes on the burden of the expenses associated with defending a self-defense/use of force critical incident. These expenses can include attorney’s fees, investigators, experts, and other associated costs, such as depositions, document fees, trial exhibits, and more. CCW Safe does not have the conflicts of an insurance product because the company is designed to indemnify the cost of the incident and not the outcome of a trial. It is not a reimbursement package and no money is required to be paid back to the company regardless of the outcome. You are covered in all states that honor your permit, and in all 50 states where you can legally possess firearm.  Neither CCW Safe members will not have any out of pocket expenses associated with defending a self defense incident, nor will they be limited by a policy cap on defense costs.” - https://ccwsafe.com/page/about-us

CONCLUSION

It’s not that I do not support others joining these organizations. I support the CCFR, NFA, and CSSA’s mission to promote education and understanding, I will never fault anyone for that.

My personal situation could have been handled much differently with a simple apology and or an administrative action taken against Mr. Knight for his immature and unprofessional behavior. So far as being a joiner. I simply, have yet to find an organization that has convinced me that my interests and my money will be taken seriously and that the support I give will be provided in return.

Before you decide, look into the organization, talk to their members, and look for dirt! Take in the good, bad, and the ugly. Research online and do your due diligence, to make sure you’re not joining some freedom fighter organization. If you do find something that raises an eyebrow, ask the person or the organization about it. Do not jump to conclusions and assumptions, there is a very good chance that whatever information you came upon does not reflect reality.

Make sure that your hard earned dollar is not better spent on the hobby you enjoy, rather than in the pocket of a lobbying group who may potentially not have your best interests at heart.

Stay In Your Lane

Recently, Macleans.ca published an article by Ken Hansen titled “Why Police Tactics, Not Weapons, Failed Against Justin Bourque.|" In the article Hansen is described as a defense analyst, retired at the rank of Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy as a Maritime Surface Warfare Officer. Mr. Hansen now works for himself, owner of Hansen Maritime Horizons, a company who provides consultancy for the civilian mariner industry including personnel and operational support. Mr Hansen’s comments have caused a wave of controversy throughout the professional law enforcement and even military community, many demanding that Mr. Hansen “Stay in your lane”. 

Cst. David Ross, 32, of Victoriaville, Quebec; Cst. Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, 45, of Boulogne-Billancourt, France; and Cst. Douglas James Larche, 40, of Saint John, New Brunswick were gunned down by Justin Bourque during an active shooter assault on 4 June 2014. Two other RCMP members, Cst. ÉricStéphane J. Dubois and Cst. Marie Darlene Goguen were injured during the assault. The Moncton shooting was the first time an active shooter specifically targeted law enforcement officers in Canada. The RCMP are currently fighting charges under Canada’s Labour Code that it failed to provide its officers with the necessary training and equipment, specifically C8 Carbinerifles, (the Canadian equivalent to the M4/AR-15 for our readers to the south) to deal with this type of threat. 

Mr. Hansen is well-articulated and clearly demonstrates his higher education. What he fails to demonstrate however, is his knowledge and understanding in law enforcement tactics as they relate to active shooter events. He draws on his own experience as a military naval officer using his knowledge of military doctrine and tactics and attempts to apply them to a civilian law enforcement setting. Let me put things in perspective for those who do not quite understand. The military is a broad sword, not a scalpel. Not just in its size and firepower but in the way they train, and the way they are employed. You cannot place a soldier in the role of a law enforcement officer, much like you cannot place a law enforcement officer in place of a soldier. The same goes for methodologies in tactics, policy and doctrine. This is one of the many reasons why western nations have laws against the employment of the military in law enforcement capacity, with the exception of aiding the civil power such as Oka, or the Montreal riots the military was employed but it was under the direction of civil law enforcement and not its own separate entity. 

My research into Mr.  Hansen’s pedigree, has been entirely open source however I have yet to find a reference that outlines his expertise in law enforcement, small arms, small team tactics, employment in a high threat environment, ground combat, response to active shooter threats, or police doctrine. This is the primary concern of the professional gun community, a mix of individuals who have actually been shot at, possess first-hand knowledge of what it means and feels like to have to engage in a gunfight, take another person’s life or experience the fear of losing their own. I, personally, do not know of many naval officers outside of the special operations community who have. I myself, thankfully, have never had to experience this outside of a controlled training environment, I do however know and have spoken regularly with both military and law enforcement personnel and therefore this article is developed through their experience. 

In a Military setting, weapons, numbers and tactics are essential to a successful operation, much like they are in police use of force encounters. However the mandate is much different. Police officers are sworn to protect and serve citizens; they are obligated by law to do so. In Canada, this is covered under the first three principles of the Canadian National Use of Force Framework published by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in November, 2000. 

1. The primary responsibility of a peace officer is to preserve and protect life. 

2. The primary objective of any use of force is to ensure public safety

3. Police officer safety is essential to public safety. 

The first two points speak to themselves. A Police officer, before applying for the job, knows and understands the risk they will not come home at the end of the shift, much like a military member understands the risk that they may not come home at the end of a battle. Police mentality differs from the military in the sense that they do not always have the option of intelligence resources, strength in numbers, equipment or a “tactical withdrawal”. In an active shooter scenario the offender is “actively shooting” victims. Their objective is not one of personal gain, political agenda, or religious belief. While some of these maybe the cause of their motivation their objective is to kill as many people as they can, as quickly as they can. In Moncton a “tactical withdrawal” for police meant innocents being killed. This was and will never be an option. For police this one of those damned if you do damned if you don’t scenarios. 

Police almost never have the tactical advantage in terms of numbers with exception to pre-planned operations. In many circumstances police are generally outnumbered. Here in Halifax the city employs over 500 police officers for a population of over 300K citizens. New York, having the largest police forces in the world with over 30K police officers in a city of over 11M people. The difference is made up in equipment and training. Not just in the use of force, but in a variety of other areas including mental health awareness, verbal communication, and interacting with the public to name a few. Military membersdo not receive the depth of training that police officers do. 

Police officer safety is essential to public safety. In layman’s terms means a dead police officer is no good to anyone. However expecting a police officer, or even a soldier for that matter, to take down a shooter armed with a weapon whose caliber alone allows them to engage targets out to 500 yards, with weapons that possess a max “effective” range of 50 yards is simple insanity. 

"The RCMP training changed in a radical way when the IARD program was implemented. As you stated this tactical withdrawal was no longer an option for the new members that were taught this at the academy." - Former RCMP Officer, 27 years service

Mr Hansen in his article states:

Reports from the Moncton incident show that the constables were confused, and some became terrified when wounded. Meanwhile, Bourque was completely calm and an efficient killer. While the police were very familiar with their equipment and the former commissioner says they were reasonably trained, their states of mind were not up to the situation. It is likely they eventually felt it was hopeless because they could not react effectively against their assailant. A tactical withdrawal was apparently not an option. 

Law enforcement active shooter policy does not permit a tactical withdrawal during an active shooter event. An active shooter event is different from a hostage taking, or barricaded gunman. In fact, many policies authorize the first officer on scene to enter an active shooter scene by themselves. An American study published in March 2014, titled The Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents by the Police Executive Research Forum compiled 84 active shooter incidents in the United States and provided statistical analysis, stated that in 75 incidents, a solo officer entered a scene to take direct action against the active shooter. 62% of the time the officer shoots the attacker, 13% of the time the officer otherwise subdues the attacker and the remaining 25%, the attacker shoots themselves. More importantly, 33% of solo entries resulted in the officer being shot. 

Combat is a unique animal, I use the term animal because I cannot think of a better descriptor. Combat is very unpredictable, as Mike Tyson once said “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” based on the testimony from veterans of the various conflicts the western world has been involved in. Many seasoned soldiers will tell you that there is no amount of training that can prepare you for actual combat; much like many police officers will say the academy can only teach you so much the rest you learn on the street. Unlike our friends to the south Canadian law enforcement officers are not exposed to the quantity of deadly force incidents. Confusion is inevitable; the only response to limit confusion is communication and training to cope with the sympathetic nervous system’s response to stimulus. The Sympathetic Nervous System controls our Fight, Flight, Posture, Submit responses to a threat and are triggered by four events; Objective Threat Perception, Objective Fear Perception, Physical Exhaustion, and Startle response. 

“Despite the instinct to rush in and protect, holding back and sending in an aerial drone to get a better understanding of the threat would have been a better first response. In fact, drones for reconnaissance are probably the force’s most urgently needed technology, rather than carbines for fighting.”

Quite frankly I think Mr. Hansen has watched Act of Valor or played Call of Duty one too many times. This is beyond a ridiculous suggestion to responding to an active shooter event, and again outlines Mr. Hansen’s lack of knowledge and expertise in this area. As previously mentioned, active shooter events have but one option, stop the threat. There was absolutely zero intelligence on the shooter, his motivations or who his intended victims were; there was no way for the RCMP to know that he specifically intended to target them. By not having carbine rifles and only responding with pistols and shotguns the RCMP were outgunned in an outdoor environment. The effective range of the RCMP’s weapons was much lower than Bourque’s, compounded by the effects of SNS activation and survival stress which include a 70% reduction of the peripheral field of vision which includes the loss of night vision, loss of near vision, loss of ability to focus the eyes, loss of monocular vision and depth perception, the effectiveness of their weapons was even less.

Frankly, considering the RCMP’s position in this battle, and as horrible as it sounds, three officers down was probably the best outcome they could have hoped to achieve. Only their training, decisiveness and instincts prevented more officers from being killed. 

In Conclusion Maclean’s has a professional responsibility to ensure that the so-called “experts” they allow to write commentary are actual experts in the topics they are discussing. Mr. Hansen has done a serious disservice to the members of the RCMP and the law enforcement community as a whole. His expertise is in naval and maritime related matters and his opinions should remain focused on those areas. One doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you don't fight rifles with pistols.

In short Mr. Hansen, Stay in your lane. 

Ref: 

• Why Police Tactics, Not Weapons, Failed Against Justin Bourque – Ken Hansen, Maclean’s Online. – July 2017
• Threat Patter Recognition – Use of Force Instructor Manual Jan 2017
• Canadian National Use of Force Framework  - Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Nov 2000
• Training at the Speed of Life – Kenneth R. Murray
• On Combat  - LCol. Dave Grossman (Ret.) US. Army
• The Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents – Police Executive Research Forum March 2014