Gun Rights

OTTAWA – The federal government is proposing $1,337 in compensation for turning in an AR-15 rifle under a mandatory buyback program.

Public Safety Canada has released a price list detailing how much money owners of banned firearms can expect to get under the program.

At the higher end of the scale, forfeiting a Swiss Arms SG550 could net an owner $6,209.

In these violent times, a shooting event is often over before law enforcement arrives at the scene. As those with bad intentions search for soft targets, they often choose “gun-free zones” such as malls, as the site of their hoped-for mass casualty event. Sometimes, however, a law-abiding citizen breaks the rules taped to the entrance and becomes a hero by ending the shooting (and the shooter); a hero to most but, apparently, not to those on the Left.

The most popular firearm in America continues to roll out of gun stores in record numbers.

According to new data released on the day a House committee is considering a ban on the gun, the number of AR-15 and AK-47-style “modern sporting rifles” has surged to 24.4 million.

The industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation said that is more than all the Ford F-150s on the road. The pickup is America’s most popular.

It may be coming to your state soon.

Gun permits based on political views. It’s on the horizon for many Americans.

That’s because left-wingers in California, a trend-setting state, have cooked up a new way to stop Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, and anyone else who refuses to toe the politically correct line from defending themselves from the crime wave that their policies have unleashed on America.

And progressive gun-control and soft-on-crime policies don’t help.

Arecent visit to a gun range with a good friend (an expert hunter and firearms enthusiast) demonstrated the importance of gun control.

Not the Democratic dream of disarming law-abiding Americans, but handling and firing guns safely and accurately — so important for gun owners or anyone pondering becoming one.

So many bitter clingers, as Obama would put it, were at the range practicing gun control. Like the two Chinese men, by appearances father and son, practicing with a 9 mm pistol. Ditto two Indian gentlemen.

“This is a big deal,” says Punchbowl, breathlessly.

Is it? A bill that’s going straight down the toilet in the Senate sounds like the opposite of a big deal to me.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen on Thursday didn’t simply shoot down New York’s onerous “good-cause requirement” in the gun permit application process. It set up similar laws in other states for likely revocation. One of those states is California, where they have their own requirement that applicants must show a “good cause” or “special need” before a carry permit is issued.

Policy used as a political wedge to punish “bad” gun owners and reward “good” anti-gun activists will merely divide us. Worse, it won’t work.

… Our firearm-related homicides have been increasing since 2013, according to Statistics Canada. However, it is the breakdown in ownership and use that reveals much of the nonsense in Liberal gun policy. Firearm-related violent crime is highest in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Territories. Rural men are far more likely to die by suicide than the Canadian average.

Our problems are growing, but rifles are almost as dangerous as handguns. Rural and small-town Canadians are far more likely to die by gun violence than people in large cities. Staring us in the face is the reality that most Canadian gun deaths are the product of social realities like family violence, despair and alcohol — not drug dealers.

Ban all guns is the message.

The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in support of the Second Amendment this week. Naturally, the backlash has been swift and brutal.

The court ruled 6-3 that New York’s restrictive concealed carry permit system was unconstitutional. Known as a “may issue” system, it essentially required New Yorkers to convince a government bureaucrat that they had “a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community” in order to carry a firearm outside the home.

The high court’s ruling declares this a violation of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment — a violation, given that these amendments establish a right to keep and bear (read: outside the home) arms in self-defense. New York’s subjective, restrictive system treated self-defense as a privilege, not a right, so the justices struck it down.