Letter to the NB CFO

Attn: Ron Clark, NB Chief Firearms Officer

Dear sir,

I am writing to express my concern over the apparent policy of your office to refuse to issue Authorization to Carry permits to private individuals for the protection of life. Contrary to popular belief, it is legal and there is a permit for carrying a concealed firearm in Canada for the protection of life. The government has simply decided not to issue them.

Why is it that the government has seen fit to provide us with equipment to protect ourselves, our loved ones and our property against such threats as fires, vehicle crashes, sporting related injuries and many other accidents that may happen at anytime during our lives, yet withholds from us the ability to prepare ourselves from the most heinous of events – a criminal attack?

Every Canadian – strike that; every person – on this planet has the right to life. Even the UN cannot rescind this right of the people. And by-and-large, the government has seen fit to educate us and prepare us to meet the challenges of living in an imperfect world. We are offered the ability to acquire such equipment as fire extinguishers, 72-hour emergency kits, helmets, etc. Vehicles are mandatorily equipped with seat belts, airbags, and crumple zones… and while we retain the right to defend ourselves against attack by whatever means we have at our disposal, we are not allowed to prepare for such an event. Instead, we are told to rely on the police to protect us.

With that logic in mind, why are we allowed to obtain and use fire-extinguishers? We have a fire department to protect us, right? And why can a person buy kits for, and be trained in, first-aid? We have ambulances, paramedics and doctors to care for us, right?

The answer of course is because these professionals take time to respond to emergency calls. They cannot be everywhere at once and so we must rely on ourselves to protect our lives and the lives of our loved ones until the professionals arrive.

So why can’t we carry a gun to protect our lives? Is it better that my wife is raped and beaten by a man twice her size because she is not afforded the ability to carry a weapon that would take the advantage of his size and strength away from him? Is it better that my teenage nephew is beaten to death in his own home, by a gang of thugs who simply don’t like him, because his father cannot arm himself for such an event? How about a young university student walking back to her residence in a dark alley? Is it better that she dies too?

I know that these events don’t happen very often in this relatively safe country that we live in, but they do happen. Guns, in the hands of decent citizens, save innocent lives; they don’t take them. Criminals will always have guns, they will always kill, they will always rape and they will always endanger the lives of those around them, no matter what laws are passed. So why not give the opportunity to the general public to protect itself against these criminals?

I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this matter.

Advertisements

11 Responses to Letter to the NB CFO

  1. Charles_Martel says:

    let me guess. no response. ever. typical of the statist thugs in the Royal Canadian GESTAPO.

    • gunningforthetruth says:

      I actually did get a reply back – much to my surprise. It basically said that it was not a policy to automatically fail to approve all ATCs, so long as all the requirements were met. It’s just too bad that the requirements are pretty ridiculous.

  2. If cops are not allowed to carry sidearms when off duty, and special constables, reserve constables and peace officers (Alberta) are not allowed sidearms, then what are the chances of we non-LEO’s of ever getting an opportunity to carry? No matter what government is in charge, they will always regard dead victims as “morally superior” to convicted criminals. Such is our royally screwed up system.

  3. nikonmikon says:

    That really sucks man. 13 out of 13 million people. What a terrible thing to do to your own populace. I hope things get better for you guys up there.

  4. Ryanstach says:

    I agree we should campain for these permits to be issued to everyone

  5. Shawn says:

    Why not start a campaign to have large masses of the firearms community constantly send in atc applications? It may bring light to the issue. Do the CFO’s legally have to review each application? If so after enough applications start to roll in they may want to put the responsibility on a different agency, opening the opportunity for policies to change.

  6. shawn says:

    If there are any stupid people reading this that think the police will protect you pull your head out of the sand.in edmonton asalting a police dog gets you in far more troble than doing the same to my mother because the courts concider the dog a police officer. My mother cant even get a form to apply to the gov to have her social status raised to a level that would make asalting her punishable to a degree = a german shepared check it out if you dont beleve me. The police used my tax dollars to get new laws put in place making me a second class citizen to there dog. Thats what tierlessly serving there comunity means to them. And how about these internal investigations when a cop is acused of a crime, talk about jack investigating jill. Why cant i have a group of my freinds and coworkers investigate me if the police acuse me of a crime .wake up canada they dont work for you and havent for years.

  7. MJ says:

    The police are here to protect the interests and property of the corporation. The corporation of Canada. You are, as a civilian, just an income generating asset. Even if you are unemployed, your UI is taxed and the things you spend that money on are taxed. Remember, after losing your job of 20 years you paid that income tax for 20 years. And yet you get limited UI.

    The government sells the idea that they care about the people. In reality, they just care about themselves first and foremost, and then the pockets of the rich people who paid to get them into office. And that money comes from you.

    As an income generating asset, you are, by and large, expendable. The amount of tax you pay, while quite hindering to you, is only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total from your district. You are, therefore, not worth the effort.

    How many ‘laws’ exist that cause us to pay fines? How many laws exist to save big corporations money? How many laws have been passed that cause us to pay more and yet, somehow, we are constantly getting less. I have no doubt whatsoever that if we knew what some of our ‘leaders’ did they would be lynched in the streets. We are constantly sold out, time and time again.

    So, on the whole, you are not worth protecting. But if you are ‘ill’ you can cut the head off of a person and be free within 2 years with a slap on the wrist and a promise to take your meds.

    We live in a culture that breeds us to be martyrs to the system, not just causes.

    We live in society that values the rights of the criminal more than the law abiding. How do we know this? A criminal’s family can sue you – and WIN – if say, their crack smoking, thieving and raping son stole your TV and then drown in your pool trying to get away.

    Poor him, he could of turned his life around (after causing you loss of personal property, your sense of safety, your money and your insurance premiums, not to mention the stress and mental anguish you feel) as well as knowing, even though he was the worst of society, a person did die in your pool. That waste of air just ruined your life, for making a victim out of you. Yay Canada, way to protect your people.

    So, let’s look at the facts. We are not worth protecting in the eyes of the government. That a legal gun owner can be sent to jail for forgetting his wallet is preposterous. The only way to totally dominate a people is to take away their ability to protect their rights and freedoms from the controlling groups. They make legally owning a firearm stressful and put unfair legislation in place to make it that way, on purpose, to keep the numbers down. Less to deal with when they decide to use some catalyst to make all legally law abiding people who own firearms equal to the criminal (only in rhetoric of course) and demand a turn in.

    The logic they use to further their dissarmament adgend is preposterous and draconian in every way possible. If he didn’t have a gun…. ya. Ok. What car was used to drive to and from the crime? We should ban those cars too. May just certain makes and models. Criminals seem to really like cars. in fact, i bet they use cars more than guns…..We should ban whatever brand of cloths they were wearing, because, if he didn’t have cloths to wear, he couldn’t of gone out and committed the crime. Oh, how about the food he ate, to energize his body? We should get rid of the food criminals use to, no matter how healthy, because it seems criminals really like that stuff!!

    The logic they want us to believe is ‘it was the gun’. No, it wasn’t, and never will be. It was the criminal. Of which, most of us are NOT. So maybe we need to find leadership that will not treat us like criminals for wanting the most basic, since the dawn of time, right – the right to save ourselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: