Canadian Gun Rights Activist May Lose Home to Gov't

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Sushihunter, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Canadian Gun Rights Activist May Lose Home to Gov't

    Please watch this video by Katey Montague, daughter of Gun Rights Activist Bruce Montague.

    After losing in court, and spending time in jail for opposing Canada's oppressive C-68 gun laws and Long Gun Registry, the government of Ontario is seeking to take the family home as "criminal proceeds".

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJQOQP4FcaQ]YouTube - Katey Montague On the Seizure of the Family Home by the Ontario Government[/ame]

    This family has fought for us - now we need to fight for them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2011
  2. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    0
    0
    Wow. That is too much power for a gov't to wield.
     

  3. fixxer

    fixxer New Member

    188
    0
    0
    Good luck brother. You are at a clear disadvantage by having to fight an uphill battle with the government already having taken many of your firearms rights. I beleive our neighbors to the North can band together and convince their government that common sense and decency will prevail over the ill-intentioned ways of the few. I believe you can convince them that not everyone should pay for ill intentioned minority's mistakes and furthermore, the good intentioned majority should have the right to protect themselves from ill will with the necessary tools.
     
  4. gregs887

    gregs887 New Member

    1,534
    0
    0
    You can lose your home for merely opposing a government point of view? That is some scary stuff.
     
  5. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    "We're with the government, and we're here to help" comes to mind.......
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    That's a beautiful home and a lousy video. The cause may be a great one that I'd be willing to donate to, but Katey didn't bother telling us WHY the government is trying to take her family's home.

    In what way was the gun law opposed? What's the whole picture?
     
  7. darkbarrel

    darkbarrel New Member

    13
    0
    0
    That's sad to hear their government is trying to take their house...I'm still confused how they pissed the government off though.
     
  8. Murfdog

    Murfdog New Member

    100
    0
    0
     
  9. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Thanks for your interest in this case.

    For more info about Bruce Montague, please visit his website: BruceMontague.ca - About - Of Freedom and Tyranny

    From the website:

    Bruce Montague determined to expose the constitutional violations in the Canadian Firearms Act. After being charged, mounting a constiutional challenge and appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada, Montague's case was dismissed without reasons. The Montagues then face an unexpected twist -- the confiscation of their home and property by the Ontario government.

    Though the case has shifted focus as the crown pursues the next step in its confiscation agenda, the Montagues deserve our continued support as they fight to keep their home and property.

    YOU COULD BE NEXT! Canada is undergoing a quiet revolution and your fundamental rights and freedoms are at stake! View Original Index Page »


    On another site:

    Bruce Montague Case Sentencing Update

    Bruce Montague Case Sentencing Update
    By Christopher di Armani


    Kenora, ON

    Bruce Montague's sentencing hearing on 26 firearms-related charges completed March 18, 2006 with Justice John Wright sentencing Bruce Montague to 18 months in jail. Bruce's wife Donna Montague was found innocent of careless storage, and was given six months probation for owning firearms without a license.

    Lawyer Douglas Christie argued that Montague should be sentenced similar to Ryerson Knight, the Victoria gun collector who pled guilty to 19 firearms charges after a search of his home yielded 662 firearms. The majority of Knight's firearms were pre-1950 military arms, and included handguns, fully-automatic firearms, tear-gas grenades, and silencers. Knight received a conditional sentence of two years less a day, of which the first nine months is being served under house arrest.

    The foreman of the jury that convicted Mr. Montague wanted to address the court to offer the jury's recommendation that Montague serve no jail time. Justice Wright denied him, saying his wishes were irrelevant. The jury's job is to convict or acquit, the judge's job is to impose sentence, he said.

    When given the opportunity to address the court, Bruce Montague said he would accept whatever sentence the judge deemed appropriate.

    You've taken everything we have, Donna Montague said. You've stolen money from us that nobody will even investigate, you've taken our life savings in the form of our gun collection, you've taken my husband and my children's father, and you've taken our family home. You have utterly destroyed a family for absolutely no good reason. It's disgusting. My forefathers fought for this country through three wars, and now you are destroying the antique firearms they used to defend Canada in the War of 1812 and the Fenian Raids. Our forefathers must be rolling over in their graves. They never fought for this kind of Canada!

    After sentence was handed down, Bruce was immediately taken into custody and transferred to the Kenora Remand Centre. Katey Montague simply stood still, tears in her eyes as she watched her father taken away by two police officers.

    Writer and freedom fighter Pierre Lemieux, already embroiled in his own challenge of the Firearms Act (see sidebar Pierre Lemieux) traveled from his home in Lac-Saguay, Quebec to Dryden, Ontario to research the history of Bruce's legal battle and interview the family on video.

    After the sentencing hearing Donna and Katey Montague were driven home by a family friend, and Donna noted that "[Sergeant] Meeks (the arresting officer in the case) followed us all the way. We even pulled to the right hand in the passing zones and slowed below 80km/hr. He didn't pass until we got to Eaton Rugby Rd."

    Meeks was, no doubt, just making sure they returned home safely, and did not mean to cause any further alarm.

    Charges under the Firearms Act can be dealt with in two ways: summary conviction or indictable offence. The difference is the penalties and how those penalties are applied. See sidebar "Types of Offences". Bruce's sentence runs concurrently, and sentences for each conviction are noted in the sidebar "Sentencing In Brief".

    In an interview Donna Montague said "I just phoned the jail to see if and when we can visit Bruce. I was told that he is still in segregation. The guard told me that Bruce really doesn't belong there and that they have him in segregation for his own protection. I'm to phone tomorrow at lunch to see what his visiting hours are."

    Currently Montague is being held in a segregation cell and is not allowed shoes, reading material of any kind, not even a pen and paper. He is, so far, being refused access to the telephone because he refuses to give a blood sample.

    Of the sentence and the justice system, Bill Cunningham wrote online, "We don't have a Justice system in Canada, we have a revolving door Legal Industry that keeps putting REAL criminals back on the street where they can keep the wheels of this legal industry moving, and it just makes me sick!!!"

    Both the pre-sentencing report created by Bert Sombrutsku and Justice Wright's sentencing report made a point of chastising Mr. Montague for "using" his daughter to promote his ideas in the series of YouTube videos entitled Katey's Firearms Facts.

    The pre-sentence report says: "To publicly assert his ideas via the internet, using his daughter, may be considered as being exploitative..." In his sentencing report Justice Wright stated: "He has also exercised poor taste in involving his young daughter in his campaign for the right to bear arms."

    It is clear that neither man questioned Bruce about Katey's videos. It is equally clear they never bothered to ask Katey either, as she would have assuredly set them straight. Katey wanted to help her father. She did that the only way she knew how, by using the tools and technology of her generation to promote awareness of her father's case.

    “There is no legal justification for disobeying the law,” Wright said in his written report. He suggested that Montague and others failed to try alternatives to breaking the law to oppose the Firearms Act. Justice Wright appears to be unaware of the history of the Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association and their varied and repeated efforts to get their concerns addressed.

    Multiple requests were delivered to both provincial and federal governments asking them to refer Criminal Code Chapter 39, the Firearms Act, to the Supreme Court as a civil rights abuse case. The few Attorney Generals to respond suggested that since civil rights are individual rights, provincial governments would not interfere between the state and the individual.

    Former Saskatchewan Minister of Justice Frank Quennell wrote to Joe Gingrich, a CUFOA member, "[t]he rights guaranteed by the Charter are individual in nature, and their application will depend heavily on the facts of a particular case. The Government's position is that Charter-based challenges are best brought by individuals, who can assert their own rights, rather than by the Government."

    With that notion in mind, the Montague family, Bruce's case management team and lawyer Douglas Christie will continue the appeals process. It is a long legal road ahead, and it will be costly. To all those who have helped financially so far, the Montague family is eternally grateful.

    If you would like to help Donna and Katey Montague, the Dryden IGA store will accept credit card purchases of gift certificates for the Montague family. Please call 807-221-2400 if you would like to help the family in this way. The store will call the family to let them know your gift certificate is waiting for them.




    If you would like to make a donation to help the Montague's continue the legal battle for all our rights to the Supreme Court, you can donate through the website at BruceMontague.ca - About - Of Freedom and Tyranny , or by mailing donations directly to "Bruce Montague Scrap C-68 Fund" c/o Roger Nordlund, Trustee, RR#2, Site 211, Box 7, Dryden, Ontario, P8N 2Y5.





    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sidebar: Pierre Lemieux

    Pierre's battle with the state goes back to 1996, when Pierre applied for the new FAC, and then 2001, when he applied for a firearms license under the new Firearms Act. In these two applications, he refused to answer questions he deemed none of the state's business, such as questions about his love life. In both cases, the application was granted.

    His 2001 firearms license has now expired, despite Pierre's attempt to renew it. On the renewal form, he again refused to answer intrusive questions, but this time the state disallowed his application, instead sending him a notice of refusal and revoking all his firearm registration certificates. Pierre's battle continues and he is now appealing the refusal and challenging the constitutionality of the “law”.

    For more information on Pierre's battle, please visit his information page on this issue at Centre des armes à feu Canada: Nous sommes Police Canada | Canada FirearmsCentre:We are Police Canada, and also his website Canada Travel Blog, with ongoing news, columns, videos and discussions of liberty.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Summary, Indictable and Hybrid Offences

    Summary conviction offences cover the most minor offences in the Criminal Code. Unless specified otherwise, a summary conviction offence carries a maximum fine of $2,000, six months in jail or both.

    An indictable offence is more serious than a summary conviction offence, and usually carries greater penalties. Many indictable offences, including those in the Firearms Act, have minimum mandatory sentences. If prosecuted by indictment you are generally entitled to trial by jury.

    Hybrid offences

    Many violations of the Firearms Act are "hybrid offences". They can be prosecuted either by summary conviction or indictment. The Crown "elects" the mode of prosecution. Hybrid offences are considered indictable until the Crown makes its election.

    In the Montague case, the Crown chose to proceed by indictment for all charges.

    Concurrent sentencing means all sentences are served at the same time. If he had been given consecutive sentences, then each sentence would have to be served individually, one after another.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sentencing In Brief

    As written in the unofficial Sentencing Report available at BruceMontague.ca - About - Of Freedom and Tyranny, Bruce Montague was sentenced as follows:

    For six counts of “storing the two non-restricted firearms in a not unloaded condition” - one year probation

    For possession of firearms without a license and his “Deliberate defiance of the law in this respect” - six months imprisonment

    For one count of possession of a silenced .22 caliber pistol – 12 months;

    For one count of “possession of a prohibited device” – 90 day sentence to be served in the community;

    For three counts of “possession of oversize magazines” – 90 day sentence to be served in the community;

    For nine counts of “possession of loaded prohibited or restricted firearms or prohibited firearms with ammunition readily accessible” – 12 months;

    For three counts of “altering a firearm to fire automatically” - 18 months.

    For four counts of “the deliberate defacing or removal of a serial number” – 12 months;

    All sentences are to run concurrent, and all probation or suspended sentences commence at the completion of incarceration.

    Bruce Montague also has a lifetime firearms prohibition against him.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Christopher di Armani is a freelance writer and filmmaker who resides in Lytton, BC, Canada, with his wife Lynda and their two dogs, Koda and Tuco.
    Christopher can be contacted at christopher(at)diArmani.com or diArmani.com: Our Poison-Tipped Pens are Sharper Than the Mightiest of Swords.

    --30--



    Copyright 2008 diArmani.com
     
  10. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Bruce Montague released

    Some additional info:

    Bruce Montague released | The Dryden Observer

    Bruce Montague released
    Posted on 18 January 2011
    Tags: bruce montague, dryden gunsmith
    This post was written by Ally Dunham

    Dryden area gunsmith Bruce Montague was released on parole from a Thunder Bay prison, Jan. 11, following a four-month stay.

    Over six years since his arrest at a Dryden gun show, a costly court challenge of the Canadian Firearms Act and failed appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, Montague says he’s done fighting.

    “We’re done like dinner,” he said. “We’ve gone as far as the Supreme Court and they turned us down. I’m pretty disappointed in our justice system in many ways. The courts on every level have totally ignored our arguments and just found me guilty. I’m finished fighting. If they turned around and legalized human sacrifice today, I would not protest it, guaranteed. It’s a lost cause.”

    His legal troubles aren’t yet over, however. In May, Montague faces a hearing in regards to the civil forfeiture of his Eton-Rugby home and other assets through the Proceeds of Crime Bill.

    Montague is somewhat fatalistic about the upcoming hearing, saying he’s been trying to put it out of his mind.

    “I’m numb,” he said. “At this point I’m done fighting them. If they want to take the house they’ll take it, if they don’t they’ll let me have it. From what I’ve seen over the last six years of fighting, you can have all the legal documents you want in order and the judge can just ignore it. So what’s the point of putting in all the effort? I’m not going to worry about it. I’m going to show up in court and see what happens.”

    At home, Montague is bound by numerous restrictions. He must abide by a curfew that confines him to his residence from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He is also restricted from leaving the province and faces a lifetime firearms ban. His parole will extend approximately one year, after that another year of probation will follow, as will 90 days of community service.

    Montague says his experience in prison was a difficult one.

    “It’s a very dehumanizing experience,” he said. “I must admit I used to talk up a big storm, saying, ‘everything’s taken care of — all your meals, satellite TV — sounds great!’. Try it on for size, it’s no picnic. It plays quite a head game with you. You’re considered to be total filth and garbage and you’re reminded of it every single day you’re in there.”
     
  11. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Katey Montague's YouTube Video Page

    To see all of Katey Montague's 46 videos on Gun Control and Gun Rights in Canada, see her YouTube page:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/user/kateysfirearmsfacts#g/u]YouTube - kateysfirearmsfacts's Channel[/ame]

    This is a family well worth fighting for!
     
  12. Murfdog

    Murfdog New Member

    100
    0
    0
    What were the charges I've read everything did I just miss what he did to be in trouble.

    Murfdog
     
  13. USEBOTHHANDS

    USEBOTHHANDS New Member

    1,319
    2
    0
    seems to me that he was WAY IN THE WRONG ON THESE ITEMS ALONE!

    taking his family home and the heritage firearms is a bit staunch though.

    hell, we have the same laws about serial numbers and converting/altering to a full auto firearm.

    3 counts of altering to create automatic fire is a pretty serious offense.
     
  14. Murfdog

    Murfdog New Member

    100
    0
    0
    He sounds kind of guilty.Is there something I'm missing, if he broke the law?


    Murfdog
     
  15. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Yes, if all you see is the list of charges against him, it does look bad.

    Keep in mind that Canadian police do not like citizens to have firearms -any firearms. They will trump up a huge list of charges in the hopes of getting a conviction in the court of public opinion and the law courts.

    One reason why Bruce got targeted is because he was a very public opponent of our former Liberal government's C-68 Gun Registration laws brought in against all common sense in 1995 and phased in over 10 years.

    They are hammering Bruce and his family as hard as they can as a warning to the rest of us who would defie them.

    This inspite of our new Conservative government who wants to rid us of at least the long-gun registry part of the C-68 laws.

    For example, Toronto Police have been targeting legitimate gun owners and collectors and confiscating as many guns as they can get their hands on. Some 1,800 gun owners as I recall.

    I've 'known' Bruce and his family for many years, even though I have never met them face to face. I have traded emails over the years and support him as much as I am able by getting his story out to the public and other gun owners who might be able to help them.

    The Monagues are good people. I would trust them with my life.
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Thanks for the additional info. There's lots to go through, but it seems he knowingly broke the laws that pertain to his charges. What I haven't found, yet, is the Canadian constitution and what it says in regard to owning arms and how lesser laws are stepping on the Canadian constitution.

    A couple things for our American readers. First, the U.S. Constitution most certainly and explicitly DOES acknowledge we have the right to own and carry arms. Not some arms or specific arms legislators approves of. But any arms suitable for use in a civilian army -- a militia -- which could include just about anything an individual can afford. We have laws that ban some arms and related devices for no reason other than to enrich and empower the government at the expense of the wealth and liberty of the people.

    Second, it is absolutely necessary we recognize the difference between something being right or wrong versus what the law says. How many of you would comply with turning your entire gun collection over to the authorities tomorrow if legislation were passed today banning all firearms of every sort? Probably not too many of you. That would make you all criminals; you would be knowingly breaking the law. But you would be doing the right thing in refusing to comply.

    I suspect Bruce did the right thing and predictably he got hit hard and made an example of. Hopefully, Canadians will get pissed off and fight back rather than cower in fear. What happened to him can happen to any of us; just because this took place in Canada doesn't mean anything.
     
  17. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Yep I saw them last year while crusing youtube and thought they were great
     
  18. Durangokid

    Durangokid New Member

    1,799
    0
    0
    I entered Canada by ship some years ago. Customs found 2 Concealed Carry Permits in my gear. They held me for 6 Hrs. and was questioned by a Gun Expert from the Mounties. {Gun Expert what a joke} more like Nazi SS. They told me anyone needing such permits could be a danger to the people of Canada. I did not have any arms or ammuntion in my gear. They ask me over and over how many guns I owned. I told thm over and over it was none of there "F###### Biz. They then claimed that I may be a gun smuggler. I ask to speak to the US Consul in Canada. They told me they were sorry and let me go. What a bunch of phoney low life SOBs. I will never again enter the Nazi State of Canada.

    DK
     
  19. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Here is a news report on how the Toronto Police view firearms owned by citizens:

    Cop project aims to disarm city | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun


    Cop project aims to disarm city

    400 guns seized in bid to keep them out of criminal hands

    By ROB LAMBERTI, SUN MEDIA

    Last Updated: September 23, 2009 5:10am

    They used to be legal firearms, but now they're either unregistered or outright banned, and they're wanted by police before there's a chance burglars put them in Toronto's underground and underworld markets.

    Since March 1, Project Safe City swept 400 unregistered weapons -- 150 of them handguns -- from homes throughout the city. No charges were filed.

    It's part of a plan to ensure that neglected firearms don't fall into criminal hands, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said yesterday.

    Police are reviewing thousands of gun ownership files to determine which weapons have lapsed registrations and which are now banned, he said.

    Owners can surrender the weapons for destruction or, if they can be registered, police will hold them until the owners comply with gun laws, Supt. Greg Getty said.

    "We cannot leave those firearms in that person's possession," he said.

    Those who "are less vigilant in maintaining proper licensing ... may be equally lax in maintaining the safety and security of their weapons," Blair said.

    "Now that there are 400 fewer guns that can be stolen and put into the hands of criminals, I think we've created a safer situation," he said. "This is very much an anti-violence measure."

    Of the 510 crime-related firearms seized so far this year, about 30% are stolen locally, with the rest smuggled into the country, he said.

    "What we believe is that legal handgun owners are not dangerous individuals, but we know from experience that their firearms can become extremely dangerous when they get into the hands of criminals," Blair said.

    "One of the issues that we have become aware of is the confusion among legal gun owners regarding their responsibility" that the weapons they own are properly licensed and maintain registration, he said.

    Project Safe City is proactive policing, Getty said.

    "This is not an enforcement initiative, this is a crime-prevention initiative," he said. "We have a responsibility to ensure that these firearms are not diverted to the streets of Toronto."

    ---

    GUN FACTS

    TORONTO GUN STATISTICS FOR 2009

    - Shootings to date: 259

    - Persons shot: 135

    - Murders: 23

    - Seized: 1,576

    - Number used in the commission of a crime: 510

    - Seized in Project Safe City: 400

    n Between Jan. 1 and the end of June, 27 firearms were stolen in 11 thefts, 10 from homes and one from a business. Of those firearms stolen, 16 were handguns, two rifles, three shotguns, three air rifles, two flare or paintball pistols and one replica.

    -- Toronto Police
     
  20. Sushihunter

    Sushihunter New Member

    44
    0
    0
    Police confiscating guns from lapsed license holders « Totalrecoil


    Police confiscating guns from lapsed license holders
    By totalrecoil

    Toronto police have just put “paid” to the often repeated denial that the Federal Firearms Act – AKA Bill C-68 – would be used to confiscate firearms from legitimate firearm owners.

    While drug dealers and gang bangers are prowling the streets of Hogtown, Toronto’s finest are riveted to their computers, looking for gun owners who have allowed their firearm ownership licenses to expire.

    What we are now seeing is the natural progression of legislation that was written with the intent to harass and penalize honest gun owners.

    Toronto’s gun confiscation program is being sold under the name of Project Safe City

    They used to be legal firearms, but now they’re either unregistered or outright banned, and they’re wanted by police before there’s a chance burglars put them in Toronto’s underground and underworld markets.

    Since March 1, Project Safe City swept 400 unregistered weapons — 150 of them handguns — from homes throughout the city. No charges were filed.

    It’s part of a plan to ensure that neglected firearms don’t fall into criminal hands, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair said yesterday.

    Police are reviewing thousands of gun ownership files to determine which weapons have lapsed registrations and which are now banned, he said.

    Owners can surrender the weapons for destruction or, if they can be registered, police will hold them until the owners comply with gun laws, Supt. Greg Getty said.

    In good faith, Canadian gun owners complied with the new federal law to license themselves in order to legally own those firearms that they had freely held, in some cases for generations. They also complied with the new law to register their existing firearms, so the government and the police would have a detailed list of everything that they owned.

    What many and probably most gun owners did not recognize was that they now owned their firearms conditionally at the whim of the politicians and the bureaucrats. And if they inadvertently or through some misunderstanding, at the end of the license’s expiry date failed to renew the paperwork, they became instant criminals in possession of illegal firearms who could be criminally charged and have their firearms confiscated.

    This is what the Toronto gun owners have experienced – police officers at their doors telling them that they have illegal firearms in their homes. Illegal, not because of misuse by their owners or by the fact that these people are a danger to the public, but because their paperwork has expired.

    Toronto police superintendent Greg Getty arrogantly says that the individuals who had their guns confiscated agreed to their destruction because the “didn’t want them”. It would be interesting to know just how they were approached.

    I can only imagine the intimidation factor when you find a couple of police officers on your doorstep telling you that you are the holder of illegal firearms which they are there to confiscate.

    It would seem obvious that those officers continued into the house to personally collect those guns as the police were eager to inform the media that some of these guns were illegally stored. Police being police, I can’t imagine them letting the gun owner go off by him/herself and bring the gun back to the officer at the front door. No, they would want to be taken to where the firearm was located and retrieve it themselves. And if it wasn’t “safely stored” under their definition I am sure they would have pointed out to the hapless citizen that they were in breech of the law on that account.

    I would also be surprised if they explained to the person that under the terms of the government amnesty they were protected against prosecution and could in fact renew their Possession Only License (POL) very simply and at no cost and would not have to go through the much more onerous process of obtaining a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL).

    After all, the real intent of these raids was to confiscate and destroy the firearms they found, - if at all possible – not to return them to their owners. Because, in the view of the police and their political masters, these firearms were a danger to the public just by being there, and it was just a convenience that the owners, by allowing their licenses to lapse, made that possible.