Commenting on the CCRF`s work from its Calgary-based law firm, CCFR General Counsel Michael Loberg said: “By raising public awareness of important issues, the FCC defends constitutional freedoms by ensuring that the government`s unconstitutional actions do not go unnoticed by the public. (a) Briefly describe any ongoing legal proceedings, with the exception of routine ordinary disputes related to the Company in which the owner or one of its subsidiaries is involved or whose ownership is subject. Indicate the name of the court or body before which the proceedings are pending, the date of initiation, the main parties, a description of the factual basis on which the proceedings are to be based and the appeal sought. Add similar information about these procedures that are known to be taken into account by government agencies. Information may be provided by hyperlink or by reference to the disclosure of legal proceedings elsewhere in the document, for example in the Management`s Discussion and Analysis, risk factors and closing notes. The JCCF said it would “seek to intervene in the Federal Court case initiated by the Canadian Coalition for Gun Rights.” (2) They mainly include a claim for damages if the amount, excluding interest and costs, does not exceed 10 % of the current assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. However, where a proceeding raises substantially the same questions of law or fact as other proceedings pending or known to be contemplated, the amount of those other proceedings shall be included in the calculation of that percentage. With the help of a talented network of lawyers, the CCF is advocating against unconstitutional and illegal government action. This lawsuit is the first in a series of measures planned by the CCRF to defend the rights, freedoms and freedoms of law-abiding Canadians.
Following the council order, the RCMP began making changes to the Firearms Reference Table, changing the classification of hundreds of firearms to “prohibited,” unilaterally drafting laws, and creating criminals among law-abiding Canadians. Therefore, the FRCC is asking the Court to declare that these so-called “FRT prohibitions” have no force or effect, both for reasons similar to those applied to the above-mentioned regulations and because the RCMP simply does not have the legal authority to unilaterally enact laws that reclassify firearms in Canada and create criminals from Canadians. This is particularly troubling because the RCMP does not even inform affected Canadians of these unilateral reclassifications. (1) involve negligence or other claims or actions where the business habitually gives rise to such claims or actions, unless the claim or act deviates from the normal nature of such claims or actions; or Moreover, this action goes far beyond gun rights. These are the kind of countries we want Canada to be, and the kind of people who are Canadian. I firmly believe that Canadians are inherently fair and that if they have the opportunity for an impartial assessment, they believe in freedom and freedom for all, including gun owners, and they would not agree to punish a group of innocent and law-abiding people for the actions of a few criminals. We must be very concerned that the freedom and freedom of Canadians is gradually being restricted by legislation that is gradually or, in this case, massively diminishing our rights. This humiliation is incompatible with the nature of a nation of free people who believe in the rule of law. This action is, among other things, a defence of freedom and the rule of law. “The FRCC is committed to the rights of law-abiding gun owners in Canada, and this repressive and unfair measure by the minority Liberal government, with its irrational ban on firearms, will not remain unchallenged. Today, we filed an application with the Federal Court for judicial review of these laws and various other constitutional and quasi-constitutional challenges to verify our belief that what the Liberals have done is both inappropriate and completely illegal.
The following pages on government regulations refer to this page. The CCRF, which solicits donations, asked the Federal Court to overturn the seizure decision on the grounds that: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Liberties of Canada supports the CCRF`s lawsuit against the May 1 Ruling Liberal Party`s seizure order, which attacks honest citizens. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, disclosure under this section includes, but is not limited to: May 28 Update: Ian McLeod, spokesperson for the Department of Justice, sent an email to the TheGunBlog.ca on May 28 in response to our invitation to comment: TheGunBlog.ca – The Canadian Coalition for Gun Rights leads a group that today sued the government and federal police. Challenge the constitutionality of a weapons confiscation order against hunters, snipers and companies. (b) the proceedings do not require information pursuant to this Section: (1) physical insolvency, receivership or similar proceedings concerning the registrant or one of its significant subsidiaries; Stay up to date by subscribing to our YouTube channel. A copy of the ad can be found here. Through projects such as the Runnymede Society and PrimaryDocuments.ca, the CCF provides significant resources to lawyers, students and the Academy. May 27 Update: “As this matter is currently before the courts, it would be inappropriate for the RCMP to comment at this time,” Camille Boily-Lavoie, a spokeswoman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, told TheGunBlog.ca on May 27. The Governor of the Council, which is composed of ministers, has had the authority to make regulations on firearms since 1969, including listing firearms as prohibited or restricted. This criminal Code power was used to amend the Firearms Regulations on May 1, 2020. The prosecution is one of at least six being considered by individuals and groups across Canada as opposition to the Liberals` arbitrary and unprecedented crackdown on honest citizens grows.
1. The Regulations are invalid, illegal and do not fall within the jurisdiction that the Penal Code could have conferred on the Governor within the Council.2. The regulation and the means by which it was created and amended are unconstitutional.3 The Regulations and their consequences violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Bill of Rights and section 35 of the Constitution Act, 19824; The Governor`s exercise of regulatory authority within the Council was and is irrational and contradicts clear facts and all available evidence; and5. In particular, the firearms allegedly prohibited by this Order of the Council are obviously suitable for hunting and sport in Canada, because that is exactly what we have been doing with them for decades. (i) such a procedure is relevant to the commercial or financial situation of the registrant; It specifically targeted more than 2 million gun users with state licenses for the mass confiscation of rifles and shotguns in one of the largest raids on honest citizens by: READ MORE HERE. May 27 Update: Addition of a certified court filing, an RCMP response. In the meantime, in order to protect the interests of Canadians from irreparable harm, the CCRF is also asking the Court to issue an injunction suspending the effect of the regulation and the “frT prohibition” until these issues can be properly decided. Today, the CCRF filed a motion with the Federal Supreme Court against the recent firearms ban announced by the minority Liberal government on May 1. This prohibition was enacted by an order of the Governor of the Council that amended the Canadian Firearms Classification Order.