Ep. 143: Fighting for Freedom: Dr. Teri Bryant on Gun Laws, Government Overreach, and Empowering Firearms Owners

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Travis Bader (00:09):
What started as a trip to support my friend and past
podcast guest, Sonny Smith at histitle fight professional bare knuckle
boxing match in Alberta, along withother friends and past guests, Jason
Budd and Chance Burrells turned intoan opportunity I couldn't pass up.
I sat down with Alberta'sChief Firearms Officer, Dr.
Terry Bryant, to dive deep intothe politics and realities of

(00:33):
firearms ownership in Canada.
Ever wonder why some guns arebanned while others aren't, despite
being essentially identical?
Tired of feeling like a criminalfor exercising your right?
Want a glimpse into what the future couldlook like for Canadian firearms owners?
Buckle up because we'rebreaking it all down.
From Alberta's fight for sensiblelaws to how you can take action.

(00:56):
This episode is brought to you by theamazing people at Armament Technology.
Silvercore Club members, don'tforget, you get 10 percent off
Tangent Theta, 15 percent offSAI and 20 percent off Tenebrex.
Now, let's get it rolling.
I'm joined today by Alberta'sChief Firearms Officer.
She's a dedicated advocate for responsiblefirearms ownership, bringing a wealth

(01:20):
of experience and a balanced approachto firearms regulation in Alberta.
We have the opportunity to explore herunique perspective on the challenges
and opportunities facing the firearmscommunity and how she's working to ensure
fairness and safety in the province.
Welcome to the Silvercore podcast, Dr.
Terry Bryant.

Teri Bryant (01:38):
Thank you, Travis.
It's a pleasure to be here today.

So what, three years?
Are we on your threeyear anniversary today?
Three years yesterday.
Three years yesterday.
Holy crow.
Three years, you've been afirearms officer here and chief
firearms officer for Alberta.

Yeah, it's, uh, it's been a wild ride.
I had no idea what I wasgetting myself into when I read

this.
Myself personally, there's always beenconfusion about sort of the hierarchy
within the firearms program, what it takesto be a firearms officer, let alone what
it takes to be a chief firearms officer.
Um, Opt in and opt out provinces hasalways been something that's been
a little bit, uh, confusing to me.
And I, I know others havebrought that up as well.

(02:20):
Can you tell me a little bit aboutsort of how you got into this and
what the structure kind of looks like?

Okay, so, uh, I got into this in a different way than, uh, most, uh,
people who are chief firearms officers.
So if I could just take a step back.
So there's a chief firearms professor,uh, officer in every province.
So there's 10 of us, plus there'sone for the Northwest Territories.
And, uh, most of those, uh, wereappointed in a different way than me.

(02:50):
Because, and this comes toyour point about opt out and
opt in provinces and so on.
So opt in provinces are ones where theprovince has assumed responsibility for
the administration of the Firearms Act,the Federal Firearms Act in Canada.
And so that means that the ChiefFirearms Officer is appointed by the

(03:13):
province and the Uh, employees in thechief firearms office, the firearms
officers and other, uh, individualsthere are provincial employees and opt
out province, uh, is a province that haschosen not to participate in the program.
And that means that, uh, all of the,the chief firearms officer is appointed

(03:38):
by the federal government and all ofthe employees are federal employees.
Hmm.
And Alberta was.
Uh, an opt out province as wasSaskatchewan until September of 2021,
and then they, uh, there was a lengthyprocess before that to reach the decision.

(03:58):
But on September 1st, 2021, we becamean opt in province, which meant
that, um, Um, my appointment camefrom the, uh, Minister of Justice
and Solicitor General at the time.
Uh, now we're just within theMinistry of Justice because
they've kind of split that off.
But, um, uh, Um, and of courseit had to be approved by cabinet

(04:20):
and everyone up to the premier.
Yeah.
But, um, and all my staff areprovincially, uh, appointed as well.
So all the chief firearms officershave the role of administering.
the Canadian firearmsprogram in their province.
Of course, how much they actually dothemselves versus delegating to employees
depends on the size of the office.

(04:42):
If you're Ontario or Quebec andyou have, you know, millions of
people you're serving, then you'renot going to be as hands on.
If you're looking after PrinceEdward Island and you've got just
a couple of people, probably you'regoing to be much more hands on.
Whether in, in, uh, the provincialpublic service or the federal

public service.
So this is unique, Alberta is the onlyprovince that has a situation like
this for the Chief Firearms Officer.

Uh, well, technically we're unique.
We weren't unique for a bit.
So there's, there are two, um,chief firearms officers who have the
expanded mandate that I have, notsince Saskatchewan and Alberta, uh,
Saskatchewan went, uh, went provinciala few weeks after we did, but, uh,

(05:33):
they've since changed their structurea little bit so that their chief
firearms officer with the same title is.
Um, a non political person, theequivalent of my deputy, um, who
is a member of the public service.
And, uh, the, the person who previouslywas the chief firearms officer, they now

(05:56):
call him the commissioner of firearms.
Got it.
Okay.
So that's Robert Freeburg.
And so he has.
Okay.
Thanks, guys.
The firearms office and a couple ofother things in, in Saskatchewan,
they didn't previously have aballistic forensic lab and when they
created one, they put it under that.
And there's a couple of other thingsthat's under his, uh, control there

as well.
In your role as a chief firearms officer.
And I've actually got a, uh, I gota handy dandy little sheet here
that outlines the role of a chieffirearms officer in Alberta, which
I thought was, was pretty neat.
But I know you and I, we looked atthis before, chief firearms officer
with respective firearms matters inAlberta shall develop and implement.

(06:37):
Implement policies,procedures, and strategies.
A big mandate shall identify andconduct studies of specific issues
or a specific subject matter.
And may publish theresults of those studies.
That's, there's a lotof trust right there.
That's, uh, shall review the programsand policies of the government
or other jurisdictions that mayaffect individuals as firearms.

(06:59):
Users and owners shall consult withand provide support to stakeholders.
This is an interesting one.
E shall engage in advocacy for andoutreach to Alberta's firearms community.
And I'll just go through the last couple.
So provide information and adviceto all levels of government, shall
develop and implement initiatives incoordination with other departments,

(07:20):
shall recommend the Shall recommendthe establishment of advisory boards or
advisory committees by the minister withrespect to specific issues or a specific
subject matter, and shall inform andeducate Albertans, and shall carry out
any other prescribed responsibilities.
That's a pretty broad mandate.
That's a lot of responsibility.

(07:42):
But the one that I thoughtwas really interesting was.
Shall engage in advocacy for an outreachto Alberta's firearms community.

And so, so that's actually what I, uh, you know, that, that list
that you have, uh, just enumerated,that's in addition to my role as, as
being responsible for the administrationof the Federal Firearms Act in Alberta.

Mm-Hmm.
. Teri Bryant: And so.
Um, that part, the part that I do thatis the same as what other people do, uh,
in who are chief firearms officers acrossthe country, uh, that's a relatively small
part of my time, less than half certainly.
Okay.

And, uh, because there are certain things like range approvals and,
and that, that I have to do personally.
Um, but most of my time is on the, theother part, uh, which is the list that
you've enumerated there, particularly.
To shorten that list part of my jobis not just to administer the law as

(08:46):
it is now But to figure out what itshould be and Advocate to make changes.
And so part of finding out what it shouldbe is, as you've mentioned, conducting
formal studies and things like that.
And we've got a coupleof those, uh, underway.
And another part of it is, uh,consulting with Albertans to

(09:07):
find out what their problems are.

Now

many of those are things that I was aware of before.
But, you know, no one, Uh, in the firearmscommunity is very, very diverse, right?
It includes people who areOlympic target shooters.
It includes, uh, ranchers, uh,who have a rifle in the pickup
truck for, uh, protecting theirlivestock or things like that.

(09:29):
And so I've been a member of thefirearms community all my life.
So I have had exposure to many of thesethings, but more to some than others.
And so, uh, every weekend, basicallyI am out at some kind of event.
Uh, whether it is a gun show or, um,a shooting competition or the annual

(09:50):
general meeting of an organization sothat I can hear straight from Albertans
what the issues are that they face.
And also that gives me an opportunityto educate them a little bit about
what our office does Um, what thefederal government does, what we
are, as an office are doing aboutwhat the federal government does,

(10:13):
uh, and, uh, things like that.
So, uh, so that's a, that's a very, um,
It's a part of the role that I verymuch enjoy because it gets me out
talking to Albertans, particularlyfirearms owners, uh, who are,
you know, that's the community.
Those are my people, as I always say.

(10:33):
Uh, and it also means that, uh, Iget to go all around the province.
So I travel over 30, 000 kilometersa year by car around the province.
Um, and so I visited everywhere fromMilk River, 10 kilometers north of the U.
S.
border, to Fort Mac in the north, fromGrand Prairie and, and Beaver Lodge

(10:56):
and, and, uh, Coleman in the westto, um, you know, Medicine Hat and
Consort and Provost, uh, in the east.
So, um, there's, it's, it'senabled me to see much more of the
province than most people see and.
Because I also, my, all my permanenthomes in Calgary, I have a, an apartment

(11:16):
in downtown Edmonton, um, I get to seea lot more diverse aspects of Alberta
than most people do, because I see therural areas, I talk to rural people,
I have this apartment in Edmonton.
In downtown Edmonton, where Isee some of the challenges that
people in an urban settings face.

(11:36):
So it gives me a very diverseperspective on what Albertans are
experiencing and what they need.
And it gives me the opportunity to talk topeople from a wide range of backgrounds.

Now you come from a long lineage of firearms
owners and users and collectors.
And I, as well, um, From a veryyoung age, being exposed at the gun
shows and in the firearms communityand watching the different rules and
regulations as they come into place.

(12:09):
Uh, there's been a growing sort ofus against them sort of mentality
and like, why are they picking on us?
Um, uh, sort of mindsetwithin the firearms community.
Was that a challenge for you to overcomewhen you were, when you first came into
your position as a chief firearms officer?
I know now you're welcomed withopen arms, but were you looked at

(12:32):
as the enemy when you first came in?

Well, uh, so there were certainly a lot of people in
the community that knew me, likeparticularly those around Calgary and
in the, in the collecting community.
And, um, so those people knew me andthey were happy to see me take the job.
Of course, there are a lot of peoplein the firearms community, um, who
were in other areas of the provincewho may not have known me as well.

(12:57):
And a lot of people in the firearmscommunity that have a more tenuous
connection, like they're not plugged inas much, uh, because I know for people
like you and me every day we're lookingat and seeing what's the latest thing.
We get all kinds of, you know, emailblasts from the different organizations
about the latest court decisions andchallenges and, and things like that.

(13:20):
But a lot of people aren't that connected.
And so what I did to start off with was,uh, initially using my own vehicle, my own
materials and my own, uh, you know, payingfor it myself, uh, to start with, um, I
went to gun shows, which is a place wherea lot of different parts of the firearms

(13:41):
community intersect and, uh, set up adisplay with some firearms that I thought
would attract attention because I have.
Some firearms that tendto attract attention.
I like to have the coolestguns at any gun show.
Um, and so a matter of opinion, butI'm not perhaps I'm not a totally
unbiased judge of that subject.

(14:02):
Yeah.
But what would happen thenis as people are walking by.
They would see the, you know,I had, uh, signs and they would
see, Oh, here's some cool guns.
And then I would give me a, once soonas they paused it, bang, I can like,
you know, like, like an insurancesalesman or something, you know, I
jump on it and, and, uh, and make mypitch and engage in a conversation.

(14:26):
And then they realized moreand more people realized that.
Um, you know, we were doing thingsdifferently that, uh, we do have
to administer the federal law.
We don't get to make the law ourselvesyet, um, but, um, we do have, it can make
a big difference in how things are donebecause, uh, I believe that, uh, most

(14:54):
people are, are reasonable and if you,uh, approach them in a reasonable fashion.
And then you'll get a muchmore positive reaction.
So we try not to.
Uh, you know, bang on thetable and say you have to do
this or you have to do that.
We educate them about what the lawis and what potential consequences

(15:16):
are if you, if you don't do that.
But we also point out that manyof these things, many aspects
of firearms regulations in,in Canada don't make sense.
And so we talk to them about that,recognize that we, yes, we know
that it doesn't make sense that thisparticular firearm is classified
this way and this one that's thesame is classified a different way.

(15:40):
Um, so we, you know, that weunderstand and sympathize with the
problems there, but not just that wesympathize, but that we're actively
engaged in trying to change that.
And that I think has resulted ina totally different reception.
Uh, want us to come to gun shows.
And now, of course, we have a much moreelaborate, uh, way of participating.

(16:04):
So I have some fancy tablecloths and pop up banners.
And, um, ever since the federalgovernment required that, uh, sellers
of nonrestricted firearms verify thevalidity of the, the pals of, uh,
buyers, um, That was very hard forpeople to do in the gun show environment.

(16:25):
So, uh, I have my staff come there andwe've worked out an arrangement with
the registry so that we can provide thatservice in person at shows, which is
something that doesn't happen everywhereand happens in few places, um, elsewhere.
But that's what we needed to doto be able to, uh, ensure that gun

(16:46):
shows were able to remain compliantwith the law and that they were.
Uh, there was no, there wasn'tgoing to be an easy way for
the feds to shut them down.

You know, and you, you bring up a few different points
here, and I'm trying to think of whatshould be the most logical for me
to, to, uh, to move from, but maybe,maybe the education piece there.
And I, I know I've talked on thepodcast before about the firearms
officer who explained to me aboutnormative process and I, you know,
we've chatted about this as well.

(17:16):
Uh, just like you were saying, why, whyis something deemed as one classification
and it's the same as another firearm andit's deemed in a different classification.
And there was a point of, uh,confusion around the classification
of firearms that I was inpossession of through my business.
And the firearms program had came in, theylooked at them, they had, uh, verified

(17:38):
them, a couple of firearms officers.
And they said, Travis, you have toregister these as this type over here.
And I'm sitting thereall paranoid and nervous.
And, uh, like, what are youtrying to entrap me into?
Because it's, the law says different.
I look at a different, but I tellyou what, if you want to do it,
you guys proceed, you go ahead andyou register it as you see fit.

(17:59):
Right.
And they said, no, no, wewant you to do it, Travis.
And I'm like, oh man, whatare they trying to do here?
So.
Talked to my MLA.
She talked to Minister Blaney andthey said, this doesn't make sense.
Just tell him to hold off.
We're discussing it atthe ministerial level.
I mentioned this to the firearmsofficer when they, uh, this
fellow was in my business and hesaid, we don't give an expletive.

(18:23):
Uh, what minister Blaney says, Idon't give an F what the MLA says,
they don't make the laws we do.
And he's explained to me, itwas done through a process of
normative, normative process.
Um, now that's one individual talkingout of his pocket, talking about, uh,
his opinion, but it's easy to paint thegeneral mass by the actions of the one.

(18:48):
Um, but there was an apology thatcame through really quickly the next
day, but it brought to mind the.
Issue of normative process.
He says, you know, if we do thingsin a certain way, if there's layers
of ambiguity within the law, thecourts will turn around and say,
well, how's it generally done?
How's it accepted?
And that's where I see the value ofthis education, both for the general

(19:11):
public, the firearms community, aswell as for the firearms program,
for everyone to be singing from thesame song sheet, to understand the
struggles that the firearms communityhas, to understand the challenges.
Which you have a very, you've got yourfinger on the pulse there and for the
firearms community to understand thestruggles and limitations that the
firearms officers have to deal with.
And if we're able to sing from thesame song sheet and create a normative

(19:35):
process that works for public safety,for everybody, and was able to navigate
the ambiguity of all the, the hodgepodgeof firearms laws that we have, I think
that's where the power of discussionslike this really comes into play.
Um, if, since you are intimately awareof the firearms community, both as prior

(20:00):
to being chief firearms officer, aswell as even more so now that you're,
you're in this position, you're What,what are some of the common things that
you see that people have contentionwith that maybe they're approaching it
in a fashion that's not serving theirbest interests and maybe there's a
better way that it could be approached?

Well, I think the main thing is to, um, to understand that
at least in, in our case, we, our goalis to preserve the firearms community.
Of course, our number onegoal is public safety.
Sure.
Sure.
But, um, I actually believe we needto preserve the firearms community

(20:41):
in order to maintain public safety.
And the reason for that is thatevery country has a firearms culture.
And um, so the firearms community inall its different aspects, whether
it's gun shows, uh, people who are,uh, training people to, to, uh, get

(21:05):
their hunting license, people aretraining to get their firearms license.
Um, all of these people are gunclubs that organize shoots and so
on, um, all of these people arecontributing to forming a culture.
And uh, I feel that the firearmscommunity is a very positive influence.
It can be a very positive influenceand we can shape that a little bit

(21:26):
by helping them to understand, youknow, is required to comply with
certain rules and things like that.
But, uh, if we create a firearms culture.
that is based around responsibilityand respect and safety, then that's
going to pay huge dividends interms of, uh, of public safety.

(21:50):
And on the other hand, if you got rid ofthe firearms community, like somehow you
managed, uh, some, some Mandarin in Ottawawaved a magic wand and we all went away.
Uh, And I suspect there are a fewthat might want to do that, uh, but,
uh, if they suddenly did that, therewould still be a firearms culture in

(22:12):
Canada, but how would that be shaped?
It would be shaped by, uh, likeultraviolent video games and
movies coming out of Hollywood.
And, uh, social media posts bygangbangers and things like that.
And that would be how people thoughtabout firearms and that would not

(22:32):
contribute to public safety becausethen if people saw a firearm,
they'd, Oh, this is how you do it.
You wave it around like thisand you go like this to look
tough and this kind of thing.
And.
Uh, and so, uh, the firearms communityin all its aspects and all the people
who work very hard, you know, usingtheir own free time, often their

(22:55):
own resources to educate people.
Um, you know, people who, uh, for example,at a collector's show are educating people
about the historical value of firearms.
And the role that they have playedin the evolution of our society and
the technologies of it, it createsa different mindset around them.
And that's something that contributesvery greatly to public safety and

(23:18):
that we want to continue to encourage.

Yeah.
You know, I find like different,different groups will attract
different types of people.
The firearms community I find tendsto attract a lot of independent
minded sort of individuals.
Yeah.
I was teaching a class oftraining instructors to teach
a basic firearm safety course.
And just for fun, I, I ask them like,aside from guns, like, what are you into?

(23:45):
And by and large, everyone comes backwith, well, I'm into scuba diving, or
I'm into rock climbing, or I'm intocollecting, or I'm into, and all their
other activities that they're listingoff are, aren't team activities, they
aren't group sort of activities, and,uh, I find, uh, To a degree that can
fragment the firearms community becauseeveryone's like, just leave me alone.

(24:08):
Let me do my own thing.
And then they will also try andlean on other organizations to make
things, to affect sort of change forthem, uh, whatever that might be.
And they sort of, uh, give controlover to a third party without realizing
the amount of personal agency eachindividual firearms owner actually

(24:30):
has when it comes to affectingchange within the organization.
Within the community, within theculture, the laws, and dealing
with the firearms program.
Um, I, I know there's a lot of very,uh, frustrated individuals when they
talk about the, uh, the OIC, therecent ordering council, or they
talk about the, the handgun freeze.

(24:52):
Uh, what can individuals do to help?
support some common sense legislation.

I'm glad you asked that because this is a point that I make quite
frequently and just goes beyond, youknow, everybody has a bit of a personal
philosophy and part of my personalphilosophy and my approach to life.
is being an engaged citizen.
And, so, being a citizen, itisn't just a matter of, well, it
says nationality Canadian on mypassport, or something like that.

(25:25):
It means that you are engaged in, uh,creating the society that we all live in.
And, so, people are very keen onexpressing things about their ideas, about
their freedoms, but they also have toplay a role, have to be, have to, Accept
responsibility for the way society is.

(25:46):
And that means if you're going to playan engaged role, then you will The
benefit of that, I mean you'll get tomeet other people that are like minded,
but it also means you're You will haveless frustration because I mean, I
was more frustrated before I had thisjob, uh, because, uh, although I was

(26:09):
active in a number of ways, I didn'thave some of the abilities to do things
to accomplish things that I have now.
So I wake up every day and I'm energizedbecause I see possibilities to do things.
And some people, also, I'm notthe only one who recognizes this.
I have a common question.
One of the common questionsthat I get asked at, at, uh, gun

(26:33):
shows and other events where Iappear is, well, what can I do?
You know, I'm, I'm not a,uh, chief firearms officer.
I'm not a former professor.
I'm not this, I'm just, youknow, You know, they say just
this, and, um, but what can I do?
Well, I always say there's threethings that everybody should be doing.

(26:55):
So, as a preface to that, thefirearms community has to recognize
that we're a minority, okay?
In Alberta, for example, uh, thepopulation's about 5 million, maybe 3.
5 million adults.
There's 360, 000 people who have a, a,uh, possession and acquisition license.
So that means we're about 10percent of the adult population.

(27:16):
Of course, some of the, you know,that's a, a wife may use her
husband's guns or vice versa.
So, so there's more users.
You know, it gives you someidea of order of magnitude.
This shocks some people becausewhen they, uh, they're thinking,
Oh, all my friends own guns.
So, you know, but, but that's not, that'snot, you know, the overall reality.

(27:41):
So as a, as a very small minority andone that is not well understood because
in today's society, even in Alberta,which is a very pro gun province where
firearms have, have Um, uh, we're aminority, a minority in the United States.
My wife and I have always played a veryimportant role in our traditions, in our
history, in our culture, in our economy.
Um, even here, we're a small minority,and a lot of people here, especially

(28:09):
because most of the population growthhas happened in our big cities,
don't have much firsthand exposure.
So what that means, because we're aminority and we're a misunderstood
minority, that we People eitherhave no opinion about us or that
are not a positive one, uh, then.
We need to be highly mobilized andyou know, they may not a hundred

(28:33):
percent agree with every perspectivethat you have But they'll recognize
the legitimacy of your concerns.
Mm hmm.
And that's a really important thing.

Yeah Yeah, I think the ability to articulate those concerns
in a way that, uh, makes people awareof the broader implications, like if
it's, if they're concerned about thefirearms confiscation, uh, that's one
aspect of the concern, but the otheraspect is can we Confiscating, uh,

(29:04):
personal property just through orderingcounsel without due process, which could
affect a broader, a broader population.
Maybe that's one way to help,uh, win allies out there.
I know the Canadian Federationof Independent Businesses has
taken the, uh, the amount of moneythat's being spent as a, as a way
to try and win hearts and minds.

(29:26):
We don't care really one way or theother about the firearm side, but.
The amount of money that's being divertedinto something that isn't showing any net
positive effect, this should be addressed.

Well, there's, there are aspects of the firearms issue that
should be of concern to everyone,whether they own firearms or not.
So you've alluded to one of them, whichis the whole property rights issue.
Um, property rights are not particularlywell protected under, under Canadian law.
Right.
Uh, in fact.
Some would say they'rebarely recognized, right?

(29:59):
Um, but, uh, you know, that's animportant thing for everyone that
if, if, uh, the federal governmentestablishes the precedent that they can
come along and take your property whenyou have done nothing wrong, and when
you are posing no risk to society, andwhen they have presented no evidence

(30:19):
that the property they want to take.
is of any danger to anyone, thenthat's a very dangerous precedent.
And there are similarly many other aspectsof, uh, federal firearms policy that
people should be gravely concerned about.
I expressed this rightafter I took office.
Um, I wrote a letter as early as November.

(30:41):
I remember I took office inSeptember, and I wrote it off as
early as November, for watching.
Um, I wrote a formal letter, which thenwas, you know, had to work its way through
and get, uh, get approval to go outpointing out the huge opportunity cost.
Opportunity cost is, it's a fancyeconomics term for what, what

(31:02):
else could you do with the money?
Okay.
Right.
And so, you know, the, with the, thisfirearms confiscation plan, uh, They've,
first of all, they've lowballed what thecost is going to be, um, and then they've
also, uh, not recognized the alternativeuses that that money could fit.

(31:24):
Like I said at the time that Ithought probably it would cost, you
know, a lowball estimate I thoughtwould be a couple of billion dollars.
And So, yeah.
Uh, so, I mean, so far they've admittedto spending, I say admitted because
who knows how much the actual figure,but they've admitted to spending 42
million and they've accomplished nothing.
And so, um, if they are to, uh, to carrythis out all across the country, then

(31:51):
it would be, uh, an enormous expensewhen, you know, we could use more
police officers, more border agents.
So, if you want to take a broaderlook at some of the underlying
problems that that generate violence.
You could hire more social workers oraddiction counselors, or, you know,
people to get, uh, uh, gang membersout of that destructive lifestyle.

(32:14):
So there's so many alternativeuses of that, uh, that money.
And.
Uh, you know, I know there's,there are certain politicians that
believe there's a bottomless wellthat they can always just print more
and the budget will balance itself.
Uh, but you know, that moneyhas to come from somewhere.
And so I think it's, it's importantto people recognize those, those,

(32:37):
uh, alternative uses and also thecorrosive impact that programs
like that, that are clearly uselessand that are, uh, attacking.
people's property rights and,uh, their other freedoms.
Uh, it's important that people recognizethat, uh, those, those, uh, actions

(33:03):
have consequences beyond finance.
They undermine confidence in the system.
And, you know, every society, everycountry has to have Um, people have to
have confidence in their government,and all around the world we see that
that is being undermined, that peopleare lacking confidence, and there's all

(33:26):
kinds of contributing factors there,some point to social media or one
thing or another, but governments haveto look long and hard at themselves.
And see whether their actionsare undermining public
confidence or reinforcing

it.

And that's one of the things when I, when I get philosophical,
what I think about my job is I want tohelp restore confidence in government,
not as the solution to everything.
We have to have some level of government.
You know, you can't have a societythat's just total anarchy, you know,

(34:01):
people running around doing anythingthey want to anybody they want
without regard for the consequences.
But the way that we will get the kind ofgovernment that we need to have is when
the people who are involved in governmentrecognize their responsibility to help
reinforce confidence in the system.

(34:22):
And when they do that.
Then other people will notshy away from public service.
They'll say, yeah, I want tobe, I want to help be part of
the solution, not the problem.
So I'm not just goingto sit here and carp.
I'm going to get involved and I'm goingto help to create the kind of government

(34:43):
that I want to see our country have.
And it's only when we all dothat, that we will get the kind
of government we want to have.
And I think that firearmsowners are uniquely positioned.
to help in that process because theyhave been, uh, sort of the canaries in

(35:04):
the coal mine for many of the attacks onindividual liberty and, uh, on our, On
the credibility of our, of our system.
They're the ones who aresuffering this first.
And so they see it.
And if they get involved, they canhopefully prevent this sort of corrosive

(35:27):
rot from, uh, eating away at our systemso much that it becomes irreparable.

I don't

think anybody wants to see that, but if we don't want to see
it, we've got to play an active role.
In bringing about what we do want.

So I have some theories as to why firearms owners have
been the canary in the coal mine.
You know what, I actually, whatI'm going to do is if you can,
I'm still getting some plosives,I'll be able to edit them out.
But if you can like the whole thing,I'll bend, if you can just pull
it to the, so you pull it to theside and then back in, or it should
bend this, this whole arm bends.

(36:05):
There you go.

How about like that?

Okay.
And then closer to themouth, but, uh, not in front.
Okay.
Talk one, two, three.
Okay.

One, two, three.
Peter Piper picked apeck of pickled peppers.

Okay, I think we got it.

Okay.

Okay.
Sorry.
No, no, it's okay.
We just, um, I'll, I'll,I'll edit that one.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
There you go.
Gives me a spike.
I can see for this one.

Okay.

So I have some theories as to why firearms owners are the
canary in the coal mine, so to speak.
Um, and I could, I could let youknow what they are, or do you have
theories as to why that might be?

Uh, well, I think if you, if you look historically, the
people who become the, uh, The,um, uh, scapegoats for problems are
typically people who are misunderstood.
They might be misunderstood becausethey're from a particular ethnic

(37:02):
or racial or religious group, or inour case, because they are members
of a group who do an activitythat many people don't understand.
And so if you want to get something.
Uh, if you want to eat away atsomething, it's easy to, it's easiest
if you use, uh, precedence with peoplewho are not well understood, because

(37:28):
it's easier to make them scapegoats.

Right?

And so, since we're not well understood, it's
easier to make us scapegoats.
And so, since people don'tunderstand, well, why does
somebody need to have a gun?
Or if you have a gun,why would you need two?

Well,

people don't understand.
I mean, my answer to, well, why do youneed more than one gun is, well, why does
a mechanic have more than one wrench?
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, if one works.
There are tools and, you know, I mean.
If you get a Crescent wrench, it could doa lot of wrenches, but it's not as good
as, as an actual wrench that's a ninesixteenths millimeter or, or whatever.

(38:06):
So that's why mechanicshave, have lots of wrenches.
And that's why people who want todo different things with guns have
more than one gun because differentones are good for different things.

Yes.

And, uh, so, so anyway, I think it's, you know, at least
partially that kind of The fact thatwe're, as people who are misunderstood,
it's easier to scapegoat us.
And once you establish thatprecedent, then you can gradually,
uh, you know, expand it out.
And next thing you know, the person whothought, oh, they'll never come for me,

(38:41):
realizes that That they are coming foryou and, you know, like in the case of
the, of the gun grab, um, they go afterrifles that, uh, and other firearms.
There's lots of things actually thataren't even in the modern sporting
rifle category, but they go aftermodern sporting rifles because it
doesn't look like a traditional gun.

(39:01):
And why would you, whywould you want to have that?
Why do you.
Need to have that.
But if the federal government succeedsin establishing a system, a procedure,
an infrastructure for, uh, confiscatingthose firearms after years of work
and many, well, by that time, it'llprobably be at least hundreds of millions

(39:25):
just to set up that infrastructure.
Mm-Hmm.
. Do you think they're onlygoing to use it once?
No, they'll have a list every year.
And so that's why this, this,uh, nefarious tendency has
to be nipped in the bud.

Mm

hmm.
And, um, you know, the other thingabout this, this particular, Um, Pro
set of prohibitions was it broke allof the sort of unwritten rules, right?
The unwritten rule was whenthey prohibited things, people
would get grandfathered and theycould at least keep their stuff,

right?

And this violated that trust,

you

know, so, um, this was very, this set of measures was
especially corrosive because itnot only, uh, attacked people who.
We're not contributing to the problem,but it also undermined all of the

(40:21):
assumptions that people had madeabout how things would be done fairly.
And so, um, I think that, thatwas a, a, a major blunder.
Um, and I, the positive aspect of that, Isuppose, is when people make really major
blunders, it's easier for other peopleto recognize that they are blunders.

(40:42):
Sure.
And, unfortunately.
You know, the people who are involvedin that keep doubling down and thinking
that, uh, well, if we just spend a littlebit more money and, or a lot more money,
uh, and more time, it's going to, but,you know, uh, a bad idea is a bad idea.
You dig yourself in a hole.
The best solution is to stop digging,to abandon this whole idea and

(41:07):
recognize that this was a bad idea.
Uh, a bad idea from the start anda bad idea poorly implemented.

Yeah.
There, there's two thoughts on the,they got the whole dig thought.
Okay.
Best thing to do, stop diggingthat hole, find your way out.
The other one is, okay, you found yourselfinto the darkest part of the forest.
And they say, well, justkeep pushing through it.
There's going to be lightat the end of the tunnel.
And maybe they're thinking that mytheory on it is, I mean, the people
who come up with these ideas and laws,there's going to be those very few

(41:38):
who are just fanatical and they have.
They're not open to reasonablepersuasion, but most of them
are going to be intelligent.
Most of them can look at the numbers.
No, most of them can look at thestatistics and I've always thought
it was more of a process of justbeing able to paint your opponent in
a certain way and to use somethingthat's in the public mind is.

(42:00):
Uh, perhaps a negative and say, we'regoing to do something about what
the public perceives as negativeand our opponent over here, all they
want to do is more negative, right?
And I've, I've always thought thatthat was sort of that, that had to be
for the logical common sense person.
The reason why they'd be pushingsomething forward was wasn't so

(42:20):
much that they actually believe whatthey're doing is going to affect.
A positive change because clearly,clearly the statistics and the outcome
isn't showing that, but it's how toshow the other person, paint them into
a negative corner so that they can usethat for, um, their own political means.
And recently I was asked to be on apodcast called the horrible people

(42:40):
podcast and, uh, uh, Jen McDonald, NiiGadbois, was the, is a host of that one.
She's putting it out and.
I said, I love the name.
I love what you're doing.
That's going to be catchy.
People are going to look atthat, but what's your goal here?
And she says, well, you know, I want toshow how the firearms community is shown
in a negative light and how the realstory behind people, we're not horrible

(43:05):
people and we're members of the community.
I said, well, that's all fantastic.
But who's going to listen to this, right?
And really the people who are going tolisten to it is the firearms community.
And it's going to be a closed echochamber of people chanting to themselves.
And yeah, we're, we're really good.
There needs to be a means for,uh, the firearms community to

(43:27):
reach the broader general public.
And I think what you brought up there,it was what I brought up with her.
I said, what if you, instead of,you know, Just dealing on the
gun side of things, dealt withothering and how people are othered.
And you can have people from all differentbackgrounds, um, religious beliefs,

(43:48):
ethnicities, whatever, that have beenothered and look at how the media portrays
them in a politically expedient way.
So now you're gaining thesupport of other groups.
You're showing the process ofothering and what that looks like.
I, I might be biased, but I think thepower of the, um, the collective masses

(44:09):
through the media is way more powerfuland affecting positive change than any
legal recourse that we possibly have.

Well, I think, I think, um, you know, that's, uh, rec helping
people, other people outside thefirearms community to recognize the
importance of the precedents, thenegative precedents that are being
set here is a very important thing.
Yes.
Yes.
And.
Um, so that's, uh, that'swhy in Alberta, I think.

(44:39):
Uh, there are a lot of people who,the arguments are more receptive,
more well received here in Alberta.
And that's because many of the issuesthat are touched on are ones that are
important to people, even if they're notaffected directly by them themselves.

(44:59):
So, you know, one of the things aboutAlberta, you know, uh, we're known
for our, uh, our Uh, emphasis onproperty rights and, you know, people
might wonder, well, why is that?
And if you think about it, historically,it makes a great deal of sense
because when Alberta was beingsettled, how did we make our money?
Well, agriculture, ranching,you need to have property.

(45:23):
You've got land, you've gotlivestock, uh, you've got equipment.
Um, and you know, even if you're, uh,not ranching, but you're, you know,
you're, you're, uh, seeding crops,you need, uh, lots of equipment.
So that property is your livelihood.
It is, there's a very directconnection between property rights.

(45:44):
And your livelihood.
And then subsequently we had the oilboom and, and, uh, you know, which has,
of course it has ups and downs overtime, but in oil as well, your property
rights and your, um, you know, your,uh, the royalties that come off of
that has helped to support the profits.
So property, uh, the recognition thatproperty is an important part of what

(46:10):
enables us to be prosperous and also.
And so, um, people may not recognize,uh, or even if they're a gun person,
they might say, well, yeah, but I don'thave an AR 15, uh, you know, well,

(46:35):
yeah, but if they take that away, howlong, you know, before they take the
other ones away and then how long beforethey decide that, You know, well, do
you really need to be owning land?
I mean, it isn't, shouldn't thatbe owned by the state so they can,
we can feed the masses with it?
Well, see how well I, I studied inthe Soviet union, so I know how well
the whole collective farm thing works,you know, um, uh, so, you know, here

(47:01):
in Alberta, people are much morereceptive to these kinds of concerns.
And I think in that regard, we can bea beacon for the rest of the country
because, you know, If you look across,you know, I pretty much confine myself
to my little bailiwick, which is thefirearms issue, but across a wide range
of issues, Alberta has not been afraidto challenge the, uh, the received

(47:27):
wisdom, the, the, uh, the popular ideasof the day and come up with ideas that
Often end up working better, and if theydon't work better, then we abandon those
and come up with an even better ideabecause we're not afraid to be different.
And that comes from that independentmindset that we have because we've

(47:51):
grown up as a society of peoplewho were farmers and ranchers and
people who are living on their own.
You know, you talk to some people,they live in some of the more
remote parts of the province.
They come to town every once ina while, otherwise, I mean, the
reason they're out there is theywant people to leave them alone.
And you know, that, that when thefederal government keeps coming in

(48:13):
and coming up with ideas that areintruding on their ideas, they've
moved somewhere where their activitiesdon't have any impact on anybody.
They, they just want to be left alone.
And when the federal government won'tleave people alone, but keeps badgering
them and coming after them, even whenthey're not doing anything, that really
rubs Albertans the wrong way, you

know, You are a very strong person and you stand up for what you know
to be true, which takes a lot of courage.
And I should imagine, do you find youget much flack or heat for Um, stepping
up and saying, I don't agree with thispolicy or I don't agree with this process.

(48:56):
There's a better way that we can do it.

Well, surprisingly little actually.
Um, because, uh, so a couple of things,first of all, I mean, people might
think, Oh, Terry's so courageous.
She does this.
I have a mandate.
So it says that I'm supposed to do this.
Okay.
Whereas if you, if you know, if I wasa federally appointed CFO, I'd get,
I'd have been fired within a week.

(49:19):
Okay.
Uh, uh, foreseeing anddoing the things that I do.
Um, but it's not just me, you know, Ihave a whole team here that is helping me
to, uh, establish, uh, a different way oflooking at the firearms issue, a different
way of relating to the firearms community.
I have political support, you know, allof the ministers, including our current,

(49:40):
uh, minister of justice, Mickey Amory.
They've all been very supportive.
I've spoken to the premier a few times.
She's a busy lady, so I don't see heron a real regular basis, but every
interaction I've had with her, she hasexpressed the strongest possible support.
Uh, I know many of the members of cabinetand they, uh, also are very supportive.

(50:03):
And so.
You know, it's a littleeasier to be courageous when
you know, you're not alone.
Sure.
Yes.
So, so I don't want to overplay my,uh, you know, my valiant role in this,
in this, uh, in this whole thing.
Uh, but you know, I do have, uh, alot of people who are very supportive

(50:25):
and the thing is that the people whorecognize me, like one of the things
that's really been a big change inmy life is I spent most of my life.
In carefully cultivated,complete obscurity.
Okay.
I didn't want to have anything to dowith the media or, or anything like that.
And then I got this job and, you know, alarge part of it involves talking to large

(50:50):
numbers of people at public events, beingon podcasts and all kinds of other things.
I'm not a very technologicalperson, so I don't even know all
the kinds of things that I'm on orwhat they're supposed to be called.
But.
Um, if you Google my name andchief firearms officer, you'll
find lots of stuff there.

(51:10):
And so I have people come up to me all thetime and say, are you, uh, yes, I mean,
I was in, uh, Lethbridge last weekend forthe, um, Fort Whoop Up rendezvous of the
Alberta black powder shooting association.
And um, I crossed the parking lot to goto the restaurant to have a bite to eat.

(51:32):
And as I'm walking in, the guy says.
Are you?
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's me.
Yeah.
I've been recognized on the streetand, and, and, uh, many places.
So.
It's not something that I wouldhave chosen, you know, uh, it's sort
of a cost that comes with the job.
I mean, some people would find it nicebecause it, it soothes their ego, you

(51:55):
know, that, oh yeah, people recognizeme everywhere, but it means I gotta be
really good because, because, you know,I'm in the public eye all the time.
And So the people who recognize me aregenerally people who are supportive.
Um, I do get some people, evenat gun shows, uh, who are.

(52:18):
Uh, less supportive of, not alwaysof firearms per se, but of, um, well,
why do they need that kind of firearm?
And you know, why, whydo people need a handgun?
Why do they need a modern sporting rifle?
Why do you need that?
And you know, I've been work on convertingthem and pointing out, you know.

(52:42):
I get at one time, uh, the leveraction repeating rifle was considered
a revolutionary increase in firepower.
Um, and so, you know, nowit's considered a, you know, a
very sedate, uh, traditional.
Uh, kind of thing.
So, uh, I, I spend time, uh, to convincepeople that this is something that,

(53:07):
you know, it's not, not so scary.
And, and if you, um, if they, if welet them get away with taking these
away, then the thing that you likenext is going to be on the block.
Yeah.
So, um, I, I spend a fair bit of time.
Uh, you know, at, at shows because it'snot that there's a large number of them,

(53:31):
but sometimes it needs a little work,you know, um, but that's part of my job.
Like, basically I view my time, Ihave to sleep a certain number of
day hours a day, but otherwise allmy time is this job, you know, and.
So if it's, if it takes 15 minutesto convert a person, then 15 minutes,

(53:53):
it'll take if it takes half an hour, ifit takes an hour, I just keep plugging
away at it one by one, you know, you,you make convert people to the cause,
or at least to being, uh, indifferentand another part of how I do that.
I think I've shown you that I, I use a lotof my own firearms and I have a lot of.

(54:13):
Very interesting historical pieces.
And I can comment on the history of them.
You know, this gun was, uh, was,uh, purchased by the kingdom of
Siam to equip their officer coreand, you know, this kind of thing.
And, um, so, uh, people then viewthese things as in a different way.

(54:37):
They realize, yeah, there's a lotof history there, or I point out,
you know, this one was owned by my.
My grandfather and then my father andthen me or my father and my uncle and
then me and, you know, they realize thatthere's family history to it, that, that
many of them are historical artifacts fromhistory writ large, not just my family

(54:58):
and it changes people's perspective onthings and they recognize that, you know,
like with the, with the modern sportingrifle that, uh, modern sporting rifles
that were covered by the order in council,people don't realize how broadly That
there were many other types of thingsthat are by no means modern sporting
rifles or black rifles, whatever you wantto call them, that are covered by that.

And

that's something that the federal government has repeatedly done is
say, Oh, we're banning this type of gun.
Oh, we're banning, you know,Saturday night specials or whatever.
And then they enact a law thatactually covers a lot more.
Oh, yeah.
And so, um, you know, that's a.
Uh, there should be some kindof honesty in labeling law with

(55:45):
respect to, with respect to laws.
But, you know, it's part of my jobto, uh, point these things out.
And, uh, you know, I, uh, when I wentto Ottawa, I took pictures, they're
talking about the handgun transferfreeze when they were going to entrench
it in legislation through Bill C 21.

(56:07):
I took pictures of, you know, my PeterSoli reproduction of a Harpers Ferry
flintlock, uh, and I said, you know,and, and my cap and ball revolvers and,
uh, uh, which are modern production.
But And I said, like, you realizethat this handgun transfer freeze,
this is what you're banning.
This is pirate era technology.

(56:28):
And what did they say?
And they, they, well, a coupleof them actually said, well,
like, can I keep these pictures?
So fortunately I had made numerous copies.
Yes.
And I said, oh, of course, youknow, um, but, uh, the, the
problem there is, you know,
You know, a lot of things are decided inOttawa by politics, not by rationality.

(56:49):
And, you know, I had people who wouldsay, yeah, you know, you pointed
out good errors, good, good, youknow, serious problems with this.
You've come up with goodcompromise solutions.
Nothing that I proposed.
It was radical.
I wasn't, you know, proposing opencarry or something like that, you know,
which whether you like it or not, it's,it would be quite, you have to admit
that would be a radical idea in Canada.

(57:10):
Yeah.
I wasn't proposing anything like that.
I was saying, well, you know, insteadof this Olympic exemption, you know,
let the chief firearms officer decidewhich organizations can write these
letters or something like that.
Little tweaks that could have madea big difference, but they weren't
willing to even consider that.
And that's what makes you realize.
that this has anybody who, uh,observes that should understand

(57:36):
then that it's not this, these lawsare not based around public safety.

Right.

That might be the, it's not to say that in the whole
complex of Bill C 21, there'snothing that affected public safety.

Okay.

But that particular thing, um, how can you argue that banning this
single shot muzzle loading flintlockIs going to improve public safety that
saying that that can't be transferredto anybody and it's not prohibited.
It just means that you can'ttransfer it to anybody.
I mean, I'm fond of saying the last timesomebody committed a crime with one of

(58:11):
these, it was 1820 and the guy had a patchon one eye and a parrot on his shoulder,
you know, so, um, and then after doingit, he disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

Well.
You know, well, part of mewould say, like, why, why would
they proceed with those things?
Would it be ignorance?
But clearly it can't be ignoranceif they're being educated otherwise.
Is it, uh, is it ego?
Is it arrogance?
Is there a greaterpolitical, uh, motive behind

it?
What?
So I'm hopeful that when the Senate facesthis kind of legislation again, um, that
they will do the right thing and Uh, bewilling to write some of the injustices
that have been, uh, perpetrated by, uh,Bill C 21 and some of the other measures

(59:00):
that have been introduced over the years.
You know, fundamentally, I mean,there are certain things that
need to be done right away.
You know, dropping the order incouncil, uh, dealing with Bill C
21 and the handgun transfer freeze.
But more fundamentally, wereally do need to start again.
Yes.
To, you know, start with a blank slate.

(59:22):
And I'm not saying that we get rid ofall the laws and then reintroduce them.
I'm saying, you know, what the patchworkthat we have now, where we've got
Band Aid on Band Aid on Band Aid.
It's incomprehensible.
Okay.
And, uh, so, and laws should beclear, should be simple, should
be easy to administer, should beeasy for people to understand.

(59:46):
You shouldn't need to have a doctorate inlaw in order to figure out, and actually
now, the law is so convoluted thateven if you get three doctors of law,
you'll get four opinions on what it's

worth.

Uh, so we really need to start again.
And, uh, after the, the positiveaspect, I always, I'm a, I'm
a silver lining kind of gal.
And so the, The positive aspect ofthis is we've got experience now.
We know what will work, what won't work.
We can also look at what othercountries have done and what

(01:00:18):
worked and didn't work there.
And we can just, the core elementsthat have been proven to work or
where there's at least a reasonable,plausible, logical case that they should

Travis Bader (01:00:31):
work

Teri Bryant (01:00:32):
and, uh, and get rid of the things that are only.
Expensive, ineffective, andundermine confidence in the system.
I mean, when we have a classificationscheme and I can show you
two guns that are identical,you couldn't tell them apart.
And one of them is restricted andone of them is prohibited, or one

(01:00:54):
of them is one category and anotheris another category, then, you know,
that undermines people's confidence.
People, if you want, the wholeidea of laws is to prevent people
from doing things that they mightotherwise do, that they might've
liked to do, but they realized, no,oh, I'm not supposed to do that.
Well, they're not likely to acceptthose kind of, they're less likely

(01:01:18):
to accept those kind of restrictions.
If those restrictionsdon't make any sense.

I agree.
Yeah.
I, I, I'm a firm believer that if youspend any time out in the wild, you
realize that animals will take the leastpath of resistance and humans are animals.
We take the least path of resistance,the path of least resistance.
Uh, and if we're able to make it, uh, Easyfor the politicians to make a decision.

(01:01:48):
If we're easy, make it easy forthe lawmakers to, to move forward
in a certain direction, they'reway more likely to move there.
And there's a couple of examples whereI've, I've looked at, uh, different
provinces sort of leading the wayin certain areas and other provinces
sort of copying their example.
One of them was, uh, Nova Scotia chieffirearms officer was, uh, Introducing,

(01:02:15):
uh, restrictions and amendments.
I'm trying to think of what the wordis on, on ranges, uh, conditions.
Thank you.
Uh, conditions on ranges and,uh, the new Brunswick CFO did a
similar thing to one of the ranges.
I think that was a Springfield range.
Springfield range says like,Hold on, I don't get why we have
these, we've operated so long.

(01:02:36):
And in fact, these conditions that arebeing applied, they don't make sense.
And they took them to court and the,uh, New Brunswick CFO says, well,
I'm just doing that because that'show the Nova Scotia CFO is doing it.
And that's sort of that, thatnormative process following the
path of least resistance whilesomebody else did it like that.
And the other one would be, um, in, um,Ontario, uh, Daniel Belofsky, he's, was

(01:03:02):
a Silvercore club member and the chieffirearms officer, Chris Wyatt at the
time says, no, we're not going to issueyou an authorization to transport, uh,
until you join a range in our province.
And he's like, I've lookedthrough the regulations, I've
looked through everything.
I don't see anything where you evenget the authority to ask for that.

(01:03:22):
Took them to court, uh, won, wasappealed, lost, but the by product was
that they no longer had to ask for, um,uh, range membership or club membership
in order to have your restrictedfirearms license renewed and issued,
or your, your ATT issued, I think wasmore of the provincial purview there.

(01:03:46):
And what I learned through that onewas it was, uh, at least what was
told to me, that was being run as abit of a test case to see how they
could bleed it out to other provinces.
So I, I see this normative process.
I see where the negative, uh,aspects of different policy are
being just, well, buddy to my left orright, that's how they're doing it.

(01:04:09):
Are you seeing that sort of process insome of the positive aspects or other
provinces looking to Alberta and saying,hold on a second, Terry makes a good point
over here, maybe we should reevaluate?

Well, we have seen, we have seen some of that because, um, You
know, for example, when they introducethe requirement that people that
you, that a seller validate the nonrestricted, uh, that the, they validate
the, uh, possession and acquisitionlicense of a buyer who wants to acquire
a non restricted firearm from them.

(01:04:44):
Or, or.
It's one of those ideas that doesn'tsound all that bad in principle,
but the way they did it meant thatit was, uh, pretty much impossible
to do it at many gun shows.
And so we worked together with ourfederal partners in the registry to

(01:05:07):
obtain these reference numbers for people.
Thank you.
And, uh, there has been some elementof, uh, spread of an idea like that.
Uh, it's, it's not challenging anything.
Like we're trying to say, like, ifyou want people to comply with this,
let's, let's make it easy or at thevery least possible for them to comply.

(01:05:30):
Yeah.
And you know, that's the, the wholeapproach that we try and take is, you
To, uh, facilitate people's compliance.
Okay.
Like we're not law enforcement,

right?

We're not the ones who are going to go out and
say, Oh, you're not doing that.
We're going to lay a charge against you.
That's not our role.
Okay.
Our role is to administer.
The licensing scheme and theauthorizations and so on, and to
encourage compliance with that.
Um, and encouraging compliance might be assimple as, you know, another example from,

(01:06:06):
from gun shows is people are supposed tosecure their guns when they're on display.
And so I don't go up and pound a tableand say, Hey, that gun isn't secured.
I get a supply of free locksfrom the federal government.
They're free in a sense, a lotof people don't like the idea of
anything for the government is free.
But, uh, we obtain them without themcharging us so we can pass them on

(01:06:30):
to somebody else without charging.
Right.
Right.
And in that sense, at least peopleare getting something back for all
the tax dollars they send to Ottawa.
But you know, uh, instead of saying,Hey, you need to, to fix this situation.
I go up and say, Hey, I gota bunch of trigger locks.
Would you like some, you know?
Uh, that gets a better reactionfrom people because people don't

(01:06:53):
like to be told what to do.
People don't like to be, tohave, uh, someone suggesting
that they're doing things wrong.
Um, but if you can offer themsomething in a graceful fashion.
Then that helps and, and it alsoencourages, you know, sometimes

(01:07:15):
people come to me and they say,um, if I do this, will this comply?
Is this enough?
And my reaction is, well, firstof all, I'm not a lawyer, so I
can't give you legal advice, right?
I can tell you what the lawsays, uh, but I'm not a lawyer.
My word, just because I say it,it doesn't mean that it's the law.

(01:07:37):
Okay.
But, um, what I can sayis here's what the law is.
It kind of looks like thatwould maybe meet the law.
Is that right?
All you really want to do?

Just bare minimum.

Yeah.
So, I mean, when I go out driving,my, when I do a lot of driving,
okay, my goal is not simply to avoidcommitting vehicular homicide, okay?
That might be complyingwith the law, okay?
But I've set my standarda little higher than that,

okay?

And I don't maybe always meet it, but I want to be, you know, a safe,
courteous driver and, you know, let peoplein and, you know, uh, this kind of thing.
And so if we want to create a positiveimage of ourselves as a misunderstood
minority, then it helps if we goabove and beyond, you know, and

(01:08:33):
so does that meet legal minimum?
Well, you know, I'm not a lawyer, butIt probably meets the legal minimum,
but I'd suggest you do more, you know,and, uh, and so that's why, you know,
when you were talking about, aboutgetting a club membership, right?
There's not, it doesn't say in the lawthat you have to have a club membership.

(01:08:55):
That's right.
Okay.
What it says is that a firearmsofficer can't issue this to you
without, uh, unless they They aresatisfied that you are acquiring
it for the purpose that you state.
Right.
Okay.
The easiest way to satisfy people thatyou want a gun for a target practice
is if you belong to a range where you,you would go to do target practice.

(01:09:18):
Sure.
But it's not the only way.
There are other, other possibilities.
You know, I always tell people, well,no, we don't legally require that.
It's not an absolute mandate.
It will be the first questionif we have to ask you.
Uh, because the way the federalgovernment has set things up now, a lot
of applications are held up for whatwe call confirmation of purpose, right?

(01:09:42):
So we will have to ask you that.
We have to ask because it sayswe can't do this unless we're
satisfied that this is the case.
But, um, you know, we, we aren't, uh,requiring this, but I always tell people,
I would strongly suggest that everybody.
Belong to at least one range.

(01:10:02):
I belong to three.
Okay.
Even though I hardly get a chanceto get out and shoot now because
I work every weekend, but, um, thereason for that is it's very simple.
Our entire.
Infrastructure is under attack, likewith the loss of handgun transfers, the
number of handgun owners ratchets down.

(01:10:23):
Then fewer people say, well, if I'mnot shooting my handguns, uh, I don't,
why do I need to belong to a range?
So some ranges have sufferedsignificant losses in membership.
That's exactly what the feds want.

Right.

Okay.
And so, uh, we need to continueto support our infrastructure.
And I made this point when I was arguingagainst Bill C 21 and its pernicious
effects on public safety because Isaid like, you know, ranges aren't only
the place where firearms owners go.
To shoot their guns in many places.

(01:10:58):
That's where like your, uh, armoredcar guards go, where your police go,
where, you know, people who, uh, youknow, wildlife officers and so on,
they need to have a place to shoot.
And right now, I mean,Alberta is a very big place.
You don't realize how big it is.
Until you start driving around here.

(01:11:19):
And even though I said, like, I've been upas far as Fort Mac, there's a whole bunch
of Alberta that's further North than that.
Including a couple of ranges thatare in the very far North, almost
to the Northwest territories.
And so I'm, and I hope to get there oneday, cause I want to visit everything.
I want to visit every business.
I want to visit every range.
I want to have, I want to be in placeswhere everybody at least has a chance.

(01:11:45):
If they want to talk to me,they can come and talk to me.
Okay.
Uh, but, um, you know, those,um, uh, many places, the police
don't have a range locally.
Like they, for their annual qualification,they may have to travel hours and
hours and hours to go somewhere.

(01:12:05):
So they'll use the local range.
Well, if the local range has to close downbecause they don't have enough members.
then that's going to negativelyaffect public safety.
It will, yes.
And, uh, because I don't know aboutyou, but anybody that is officially
carrying a gun, I want them tobe as proficient as possible.
Better believe it.
And so, you know, we need toensure that there are, uh,

(01:12:28):
that these ranges stay open.
And, uh, it's a small, Uh, cost,you know, I mean, uh, getting
an associate membership or, uh,you know, there are many rural,
there's still rural, um, ranges.
Some of them where it's under a hundreddollars, you know, uh, not a lot of
them now because costs go up, but,but, you know, there are, uh, if we

(01:12:51):
don't support those ranges, it's goingto come back to haunt us because the
whole model of firearms ownership inCanada, like it or not is based around.
Um, and if there's no place where peoplecan go and use them for sport, then

(01:13:13):
people would say, why do you have them?

Right.

And then they come for you.
Right.
So, you know, it's reallyimportant that we support ranges.
And so I always tell people,we don't legally require it.
We encourage it.
And part of the reason why is it'syour way of helping to support the
future of firearms ownership in Canada.
That's a good point.

That's a good point.
You brought up a couple of things here.
One of them is aboutgoing above and beyond.
And it brings to mind, uh, one ofour instructors, he uses the acronym
CYA and he's like, ask the class,you know what that stands for?
And I was like, oh yeah, yeah.
And he says, can you articulate?
Right.
Oh, okay.
If you're pulled over, can you articulate?

(01:13:55):
If you had to stand in front of a trierof fact, can you easily articulate?
And the answer is you have todo a song and dance and break
out the nitty gritty fine print.
Well, maybe, maybe it's going to be alot easier if you go above and beyond.
It's easy to articulate.

And, uh, you know, it's also, like people, people are sometimes
critical because not everybody who'sresponsible for, uh, or aspects of.
Uh, the firearms control system,whether it's the regulatory part or
the enforcement part, not everyoneis an expert on all of these things.

(01:14:34):
Right.
And, um, you know, most of us, becauseof our pattern of our past, our pattern
of usage and our interests, we tend toknow a lot about a few things and not
always a whole lot about other things.
Right.
Thank you.
And, um, you know, I know more aboutfirearms than most people do, but there

(01:14:57):
are areas about firearms that I don'tknow anything about and, or very little.
Uh, and so that's one of the reasonsalso why I go to events so that I can
learn more about it and I can see howthings get done and, um, you know, see
how people use things in competitions.
And, um, yeah.
educate myself.
So, you know, education isn'ta, is education isn't a fact,

(01:15:21):
it's a process, you know?
And so, uh, I'm continually learningnew things all the time about, um, you
know, how, you know, when I was at the,the black powder shooting association,
how do people deal with, uh, misfiresor hang fires and things like that?
And, you know, Uh, in a practicalsense, not, not theoretically, but

(01:15:44):
seeing exactly what they do and whattools they use and so on and so forth,
it helps me to understand things.
When will I use that?
I don't know, but it's all partof my toolkit, you know, and then,
uh, you know, it's part of that.
I guess that's part of the reason why yougo to Canadian Tire and they, They sell
you a kit that has 87 wrenches in it.

(01:16:05):
And am I ever going to needa six millimeter wrench?
I don't know, but I'll have one

for the day when it, but I want it, um, that, that learning
process, you know, there, As I've,I've been doing this since about 94,
started teaching in 94, the basic fireand safety course, when I came out,
I incorporated Silvercore in 03 andstarted the firearms business license.
Before that I had a sole proprietorship,Silvercore Gunworks, and I was

(01:16:33):
doing repair and maintenance,extended work for law enforcement.
Armor car companies.
And then every Joe blow and coming inwith a hundred dollar gun, they bought
it, a gun show that they wanted to shootlike a thousand dollar gun, but they
only wanted to spend 50 bucks, but,but been doing it for a little bit.
And there's been a number ofdifferent interesting learning pieces.
One of them.

(01:16:53):
So I've been asked for both Crown as wellas defense side to opine on different
firearms or weapons related issues.
And they go through the processand qualify you as a subject matter
expert for that case on that dayfor that one particular area.
And then even if you meet thatqualification, then it's okay.
How much weight's going tobe ascribed to this opinion.

(01:17:15):
Um, there was one that was,uh, ease of conversion.
There was a firearm that was beingimported and they got the AOK and the
firearms program turned around and says,no, it's easy to convert full auto.
And so I was asked to come inand take a look at this gun.
And I looked at it and within about aminute of taking it apart and looking

(01:17:38):
at how it operated, I figured out howyou can make this thing go full auto.
And so my testimony was, cause you're notan expert for the person who's hiring you.
You're an expert for the court to providethem with the best possible decision.
My expert testimony was, it'spretty damn easy to convert, right?
However, a lot of the things thatare being said about where it's being
made, how it's being put together and.

(01:18:01):
That's completely false.
And here's the informationthat I can show it to you.
Right.
As I testified first, I get to watch asecond, the, uh, firearms program expert
testify and it's, I've actually testified.
Um, he's been on a different sideon other issues and I watch him.
And the only thing I couldcome to mind was he's lying.

(01:18:22):
He's lying through his teeth.
He, he.
He's can't be that ignorantto what the facts are.
And if he had only heard my testimony,he wouldn't have had to lie.
Right.
Um, and so I was getting allworked up and looking like, how can
somebody go up there and do this?
And at the end of the day, what Ilearned was that the recourse for this
decision that was being made on thefirearm is similar to the recourse for

(01:18:45):
decisions for a lot of firearms issues.
And it was, I think they called it ajudicial review and it doesn't review
whether or not the end outcome, theend conclusion that the, um, in this
case, the firearms program came todoesn't review whether that was the
right decision or wrong decision,it reviews if they followed the
proper steps to get to that decision.

(01:19:07):
So that was a big, uh, learning momentfor me, even if you know, a hundred
percent, you're right on one thing.
And in that particular instance, Iagree it was, it was easy to convert.
I mean, it met the definition, buteven if, even if, uh, you are a hundred
percent right and the opposing side comesup with something that you know to be

(01:19:30):
a hundred percent wrong, Your recourselegally on that is rather constrained.
And if they can prove that they followall the right steps to get there, that
final decision stands in that, thatleads into a, um, a moratorium that was
put on, on instructors in uh, BritishColumbia, making new instructors.
And I didn't think that was right.

(01:19:51):
Other instructors says,Travis, what are you doing?
This is a gold mine.
I mean, why would you wantmore instructors out here?
And I said, I don't look at it like that.
This isn't, this isn'tmy main source of income.
I'm more diverse in this.
And I don't like the idea of limitinglegal access to firearms and the
safety training and all the rest.

(01:20:11):
I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to hire a lawyer and I'mgoing to challenge this moratorium.
Lawyer turns around and looks at itand says, okay, got your money here.
But, um, just to let you know, I'vedone some research and there actually
isn't a legal framework to act, compel.
A firearms officer orchief firearms officer.
To make new instructors, uh, inthe way that there would be a legal

(01:20:35):
framework for other civil servants.
Uh, the approach that we'retaking on this one is off.
We'll be lucky if theydon't see costs, right?
Uh, it was dropped without costs.
And I was mentioning this to somebuddy I know who's in the media and.
He's like, like, why are you pursuing it?
I said, this is a public safety thing.
If this is supposed to be safetytraining and it's supposed to help the

(01:20:56):
general public, how can they limit this?
He's like, well, I'llgive him a phone call.
So here's that learning process.
He phoned up on the Friday.
By Monday, the firearms programsaid, we've decided to change our
approach and we're opening up the,um, uh, we're, we're, uh, stopping
the moratorium on, uh, instructors.

(01:21:17):
And we're going to makesome new instructors.
So.
What I'm trying to get across in thissort of long winded thing here is
there's a lot of people in the firearmscommunity that might not actually realize
the amount of agency that they have.
If they're able to show the easy path andbe vocal in a positive way, uh, towards

(01:21:38):
the issues that they're experiencing.
If they say, that's it,we're going to court.
I got deep pockets andwe're going after this.
You're probably lookingat a losing prospect.
But if you take an approach ofraising public attention towards
these matters, I've found by andlarge, using that approach has,
um, pressured a positive outcome.

Well, I mean, it.
All of these issues, I, youknow, we, we need to kind of
follow multi pronged strategies.
And part of the thing you, you touched onwhen you were talking about the number of
instructors and, and that sort of thing.
Every province deals with thewhole issue of instructors.
I'm the one who has to actuallysign people's, uh, Certificates

(01:22:22):
saying that they're, they're doing,but we have a, a partner, uh, that
does that right at the moment.
They're the ones who, who,well, for quite a few years,
actually, not just this moment.
Yep.
They're the ones who've doneit for quite a long time.
And we work closely with them on that.
Um, and.
So other provinces do it differently.

(01:22:42):
They have one of the people in thefirearms office who is, uh, responsible
for managing the instructors.
We have a couple of our, ourfirearms officers who are
qualified instructors here as well.
So, but the thing is, Um,
having, you know, uh, oneprong of our strategy has to

(01:23:06):
be to increase our numbers.
And you can't become a legalfirearms owner unless you
can take the course, right?
So we've got to make sure that thatcourse is available to everybody.
So in the province of Alberta, ithas to be available to everybody
from the U S border to the Northwestterritories, from BC to Saskatchewan.

(01:23:27):
It has to be available to you.
Whether you're old, uh, young, uh, whetheryou, uh, are living with a disability,
whether you, uh, are a newcomer orsomeone who's long established, whether
you're, uh, indigenous, whether wewant to make sure that that's available
to everyone so that everyone, um, hasthe ability to join us in our, uh, Uh,

(01:23:54):
in our struggles, and that I think isvery important, uh, because a lot of
people have the, uh, have the mistakenidea that, uh, firearms owners are
just a bunch of angry old white guys.

Sure.

Okay.

Gouge is what I've heard.
Grumpy old white dudes.
G O U B.

Yeah.
So.
But the thing is, uh, and you know,we may have an element of that, I
can't deny in our, in our, uh, cadre.
But, um, you know, many of likemany of my firearms officers
are firearms enthusiasts.
I have a couple of the women whowork here as firearms officers
who are very avid hunters.

(01:24:35):
And, uh, and, uh, youknow, we have, when I.
I have people from all differentcommunities, from the South Asian
community, Filipino community,you know, Chinese Canadians and,
uh, Indigenous peoples and, uh,of all the different groups.

(01:24:56):
Yeah.
And, you know, it's, and young and old.
Um, so at the Black Powder event, therewas, you know, a lot of people who were
70s, 80s, even one in their 90s, um, butthere were also a couple of teenagers.
Right.
And there, it was very interestingbecause you know what the other hobby
of these two teenage ladies was?
What?
Roller derby.

(01:25:17):
I love it.
I love it.
Yeah.
I didn't even know they stilldid roller derby, but they were
showing me pictures of, of, of that.
So.
That could be a brutal sport.
Yeah.
Well, um, it's, uh, but it shows thediversity and that's what we need to, uh,
you know, we need people to understandand it will help us when we go to.

(01:25:39):
Talk to different groups if peopleunderstand that diversity, that it
isn't just a bunch of, uh, angry oldwhite guys from rural areas, that
we've got young urban women, thatwe've got people from all different
ethnic, racial, religious groups thatare part of that firearms community.

(01:26:00):
And, um, that opens people's minds,Oh, Oh, I didn't realize that
you, you were just like everybodyelse, except that you have this.
Uh, particular interest.
And so the more we can expand ournumbers and the more we can, uh,
expand into groups that we're notperhaps traditionally strongly inclined

(01:26:22):
towards firearms ownership, thestronger our cause is going to be.

So I've always looked at the, uh, firearms program.
You brought this up before thatyou guys aren't the enforcement.
The body, the firearms program is,but they're the ones that, uh, help
with the, I've looked at them asfacilitators, essentially, how do
you get you from point A to point B.
And for a number of years dealingwith the BC CFO's office and

(01:26:50):
dealing with other provinces.
That, that really was a way it'slike, Hey, I'd like to do this.
And I want to open up abusiness that does this.
How do I do that?
Can you guide me through it?
And, um, at some point things kindof changed and it looks like it's
swinging back again, but thingschanged to a point where it was rather
than being the facilitator, it wasa person who tells you, no, right.

(01:27:13):
Um, I'd like to do this while you can't.
Well, let me take a look at your businessplan first and nope, doesn't meet it.
Well, hold on a second.
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
Shouldn't you say in orderto get there, your business
plan has to have these steps.
If you got that great, fantastic.
If it doesn't, and I've, I've lookedat that in like ATC issuance, I've
looked at that in business, um,conditions and, and licensing.

(01:27:37):
Uh, I've done that.
In talking with you and looking aroundthe office and seeing where you're
going here, it looks like you'retaking a very grassroots approach
and, uh, a facilitating approachto helping people get forward.
I'm wondering is that, is thatthe trend within the General

(01:27:58):
Firearms program to turn around andsay, look, how do we facilitate?
'cause I was told by some pastofficers that on some issues.
Uh, they had a mandate todeny, to do what they could.
ATCs is one of them.
I was told we've got amandate to try and limit that.
The other one was a businesslicenses in the film industry.
We've got a mandate to try and crackdown and not allow people to get those.

(01:28:20):
Um, have you heard of those mandates?
Have you seen a shift towardshow do we facilitate more?

Um, well, first of all, the one place that I can definitely speak
to is here and, you know, our approachlike with ranges, for example, what
we, what we say is it was, I'm stealinga line that was come up with by, by
our senior range firearms officer.
Uh, and, uh, you know, you wantto have a safe place to shoot.
We want to give you a safe place toshoot, you know, so, and that means,

(01:28:53):
you know, we have a certain amountof expertise in making sure that.
Um, certain risks that you mightnot have thought of are covered off.
Sure.
Okay.
So, um, because we have the benefit,and this is part of the benefit of being
part of the whole Canadian firearmsprogram, we've got the experience
of everything that's happened allacross the country for decades.

(01:29:14):
Okay.
So, you know, we try and take thatfacilitative approach and it pays off.
You know, um, just past weekendwhen I mentioned I was at this
Blackpowder Rendezvous, uh, one ofthe participants there came up to
me and said, well, I want to starta gun show in such and such a place.
Where do where, uh, how do I do that?
And so I said, well,here's my business plan.

(01:29:36):
Uh, contact information, contact me,I'll put you an officer in touch with
you, but here's a couple of key thingsthat you want to think about, you know,
security and, and, uh, different issueslike that and some practical things, you
know, like, Uh, get yourself a, a rollof black plastic bags so that people
aren't walking out across the parkinglot with a naked gun to quote an old

(01:30:00):
movie, you know, that sort of thing.
So, you know, uh, and, and so I'm hopingthat he's going to follow through on
that and we'll have another gun show.
Um, because the more places there arewhere people can be socialized into
the law abiding responsible firearmsculture, the better off not only we

(01:30:22):
will be, but the entire society will be.
And so, you know, that's kind ofthe, the approach that we have taken.
I think that in other provinces, a lotof times it depends on every province
has its own kind of unique animal.
Um, there are certain efforts.
Um, you know, when we meet at, um,there's, there are a couple of meetings

(01:30:47):
of chief firearms officers each year, um,and they're, they often will attempt to
develop a consensus around what we, howwe should do with, deal with something.
Um, and, uh, you know, my responseto that has, has generally been
that, That seems to make sense to us.

(01:31:08):
We'll probably do that, but I'm notgoing to be, not going to bind my hands.
Okay.
Because if there's a situation thatcomes up where that doesn't work, I'm
not going to be bound by, uh, you know,by some group of people who, you know,
Uh, sat around a table, uh, you know,at three o'clock in the afternoon, we're

(01:31:29):
looking at their watches and decided no.
Yeah.
Uh, so, uh, I'm not suggestingthere's anything wrong with that,
with how that body of, of peopleis deliberating, but, uh, well, the

intentions are, are, you know, are good.
I

mean, uh, one of the things that really bothers me, so, you know,
there's a, uh, I just went throughthe roof when I saw this at first.
Was, um, you know, the commissioner'sreport on firearms and a couple
of years ago, there was a lineand it might still be there.
I don't know.
I have, I, I, I look atthe tables of numbers.
I guess I'm a numbers person.

(01:32:06):
I don't read all the footnotes, butit said that the principles of the
Canadian firearms program includedpublic safety and standardization.
And, you know, like there were aboutthree or four of them, but putting
standardization on a, in the same levelas public safety, you know, I, I tend to
look, think of it more as I would liketo see more ability for, uh, the firearms

(01:32:35):
offices across the country to reflect.
They're, uh, the peculiaritiesof that province.
Okay.
Uh, and, uh, so
if that, that has another benefit tothe whole country, that if we come up
with a good idea here in Alberta andwe show that it works, first of all,

(01:32:57):
we need to have the freedom to do that.
Right.
Okay.
But if we have that freedom and wedo something different and we show
that that works, then it works.
Right.
It's like what they call a naturallaboratory, you know, we can, we can
then say, Hey, I know you guys are doingit differently, but we did it this way

(01:33:18):
and look at the great results we got.
Right.
And so, you know, uh, talking aboutour outreach program, uh, I did a
presentation at the, uh, one of therecent, uh, chief firearms officers
meetings about our outreach program,talking about the benefits that we get.
from being out there and talkingto people and, um, you know,

(01:33:42):
others would like to do that.
There's a lot of them there.
In many cases, it's not, itcomes down to the, you know,
the hard matter of a budget.
Sure.
You know, like if, if you're in one ofthe smaller provinces that doesn't have
much money and, Uh, you're not viewed asa high political priority, um, they don't
give you any money and then you can'tgo out and be at gun shows, you know?

(01:34:05):
Um, here in, here in Alberta, people haverecognized that this is an area where we
can take the lead in policy, that it's animportant area to, uh, you know, I think
there's a widespread political consensus.
That, uh, this is an area that isof particularly critical importance
in Alberta to our, uh, our culture,our way of life, our traditions,

(01:34:30):
um, and, uh, and our economy.
You know, I've, I've touched on thata couple of times, but, you know,
the, the economic aspect is quiteimportant and it's not just, you The
jobs of people who are working in gunshops or at a, at a commercial range
or something, but you know, the healthof our agricultural industry and our,

(01:34:51):
you know, whether it's ranching orfarming, um, you know, and, uh, forestry.
And then there's the whole, you know, um,tourism and outfitting, uh, aspect of it.
There's a big economic footprint.
And, you know, if, if there's a, an area.
where somebody has been raising livestockfor 150 years and suddenly they're

(01:35:15):
no longer allowed to defend theirlivestock against predatory animals
and they have to abandon their farm.
That's an economic loss.
It's also a huge loss to the traditionsof our province, which are, you know, have
their origins in those kind of industries.
It's a huge loss to that family.

(01:35:35):
You know, imagine you've got a, hada family ranch that's been there
for 150 years and it has to bewound up because of some misguided,
uh, edict coming out of Ottawa.
Um, you know, we really need to,um, to emphasize The economic impact

(01:35:56):
of some of these things as well.
And, uh, fortunately here in Alberta,that's recognized, you know, we have
a provincial government that is verykeenly attuned to, uh, the different
aspects of, uh, our province, whichhave, I mean, increasingly we do have,
you know, high tech people in thisbuilding that we're in, you know,

(01:36:17):
is, is high tech, uh, uh, place.
There's lots of high techbusinesses here, but, uh, you know,
Geographically, a very large partof the province is, um, reliant on.
Agriculture resource industries,whether it's forestry or mining
or whatever, uh, who knows?
I mean, even if you, I don't really knowhow, uh, I'm not an expert on things like

(01:36:42):
solar energy, but, you know, you neverknow if we have an area where there's
a big, uh, What do they call them?
Solar, solar power farm.
Um, you know, they may, they may have,uh, uh, bears might like that, that area
or something and they need maintenance.
So people have to be safe.
Yeah.
Um, so there's a, uh, a wide range ofareas where, um, the firearms issue is of

(01:37:08):
critical economic importance to Alberta.
And I would, you know, I think our.
Um, that's recognized bythe current government.
Uh, I would hope that at some pointit would be, you know, my, my hope
is at both the provincial and federallevel that eventually the firearms
issue would not be a political issue.

(01:37:30):
Public safety should notbe a political issue.
Everybody wants public safety.
And if we establish a system thatis based on data, on science.
on mutual understanding and developingcultures of respect, uh, from citizens
between each other and betweencitizens and government, then, uh,

(01:37:55):
this should not be a political issue.
I mean, when we need changes inrules, we may need to have a vote
by politicians, but there shouldbe consensus on these things.
And, uh, you know, I would,uh, if there are politicians.
Federal, provincial, municipal,who want to be educated, uh, on

(01:38:18):
this to really understand what'sgoing on, um, you know, I'm here.
Uh, I'm, I'm willing to meet withpeople to people to understand, and
I think part of the reason why isI'm very proud of what we're doing.
I'm proud of the work of my people here.

(01:38:39):
So whether it's the day to day, You know,decisions that they make on renewing or
granting firearms licenses, or whetherit's the outreach that my people are
doing, um, I'm very proud of what theydo, and I'm proud of the initiatives
that we're coming up with to address, uh,issues like firearms, um, uh, firearms

(01:39:03):
misuse in domestic violence or mentalhealth issues or things like that.
Uh, we want to face thoseissues head on and develop.
realistic, uh, workable, databased solutions to those problems.
And when we do that here in Alberta,then I'm going to be preaching

(01:39:25):
those, uh, as we develop and get,get more and more ideas there.
I'll be out preaching to have thoseadopted all across the country, because
our goal is to have public safetyand a thriving firearms community.
And those two are not just compatible.
They're mutuallycomplimentary and reinforcing.

A hundred percent.
Do you want to hear somequestions from the public?
I'm always willing to listen.
Let's see what we got here.
What are the trends, vibesrelating to ATCs, PAL, hunting,
sport shooting, industry?
It's a pretty broad question.
Do you see any trends, uh, emergingin the, uh, in the industry

(01:40:07):
or in the firearms community?
Well, I see both troublingand promising trends.

Okay.
And, uh, the troubling trend that Isee is You know, a lot of people, they
get discouraged because right now the,there's been a number of completely
unjustified attacks on the firearmscommunity and it just wears people down.
Okay.
Um, and people say, Oh,should I stay in business?
Should I keep my guns?
Should I give up hunting?

(01:40:33):
You know, different things like that.
And on the other side though.
Uh, personally, I'm, you know, maybe it'scause I'm a half glass, a glass half full
kind of a person, but I see tremendousopportunity because, uh, the failure of
many of these, uh, misguided proposalsis becoming increasingly evident.

(01:40:57):
And uh, there's a reasonableprobability that after the next
election, uh, Ottawa might becomemore amenable to listening to reason.
And, uh, so I'm actually,uh, very positive.
I try to encourage peopleto, uh, give them hope.

(01:41:17):
Uh, I try to encourage people toride out this rough patch because
there's a better day ahead.
I

like that.
Uh, is your work different todayfrom when you started and if so, how?

Um, well, we are kind of at an inflection point

now

because when we started.
Uh, we were scrambling, okay.
When I took over the office, I, onSeptember, I was only hired like a
couple of weeks before the office opened.
Uh, I was not, although I was,I was a member of the Alberta
Firearms Advisory Committee.
I was part of the, uh, recommendationto, to take over the office

(01:42:01):
provincially, but then I wasn'tinvolved in the lead up to that.
Uh, and so I had no ideawhat I was getting into.
It was like, You know, diving blindfoldedoff a platform and not knowing whether
it's 600 feet down onto solid concreteor six inches down into a nice soft
mattress, what's it going to be?

(01:42:23):
It was a lot closer than600 feet down to concrete.
Um, but as we started off, youknow, we were, we were scrambling.
We had, uh, you know, an office thathad furniture, but not much else.
Uh, I had half a dozenpeople with me the first day.
And in very short order, we got ourselvesup and running, figured out what needed

(01:42:44):
to be done that enabled us to, uh, applyfor, uh, the, the funding that we needed
to take over more of the operations fromMiramichi, um, because I think things
are best done close to the people,like this is an information business.
All the information is here.

(01:43:05):
So we are, we're now at kind of aninflection point because we're almost
fully staffed and, uh, those staffnow we're in the intensive training
phase so that over the next numberof months we'll be able to take over

(01:43:25):
most of the work that Miramichi doesfor Alberta, um, and do that here.
Uh, I've always said that this madesense because I'm responsible for the
administration of the Canadian firearmsprogram in Alberta, but I didn't have
control over most of it because mostof it was being done in Miramichi.

(01:43:48):
And I had a certain, in theory, youcould say I had control of it because
for the people in Miramichi, um, who, andI, when I've met some of them, they're
dedicated, great folks that work hard.
But.
Um, I have no idea what's goingon because I would have to sign a
designation order saying that, youknow, Bill Smith or, uh, Jasbir Singh

(01:44:10):
or whoever is, is, uh, authorized toact on behalf of, uh, Alberta, but then
I had no idea of what they were doing.

Right.
And

so by having everything here.
We will know.
And then I, you know, I, I meet people.
As I mentioned, I meetpeople all the time.
I'm arm's length away from them.
I'm dealing directly with them.
I want to be able to tell them that Iwill fix their problem and be able to
say, okay, uh, you know, Bill or Maryor whoever fix this person's problem

(01:44:44):
and can't do that if they're 3000 milesaway and I don't know what's going on.
So, um, we're at that inflectionpoint now where we've.
Achieved our critical mass.
There's a couple of keyhires that we're still doing.
We need some training, but overthe next little while we will
really be hitting our stride.

(01:45:04):
So it's like, we've been doingall the training and now we're
going to be in the Olympics.
The Olympics are just a couple of monthsaway and then we'll be able to really.
Hit our stride, you know, I'm, I'mproud of how we've dealt with the
challenges up to now, but I'm extremelyexcited by how we're going to deal

(01:45:24):
with the, the expanded opportunitiesthat achieving, uh, our, our, uh,
I like that.

I have my own questions, but I'm going to save those to after.
Uh, I'm going to go throughthe ones to the public here.
Um, what's the latest on the handgunconfiscations post bill C 21?
How did the seizures actuallyhappen after a handgun owner dies?
Who gets a letter?
Who goes to collect the gear?
How much of a priority is this?

So, um, first of all, uh, just, I'm sure many of your listeners
would already know, but Um, there isno specific confiscation plan, the
same way that there is supposed to beone for the order in council firearms.
Okay.
Um, and I say supposed to be onebecause I haven't seen much evidence

(01:46:22):
of there being a concrete plan.
Um, but anyway, um, I think that whatthat question is, uh, designed about is
what happens to guns when somebody dies?
What happens to handgunswhen somebody dies?
So, right now.
The formal options for someone arevery limited because, uh, you could

(01:46:44):
sell them to a business, but mostbusinesses don't need more handguns.
Um, you could sell them to anexempt individual, but there's
only a handful of those.
Um, you could have them deactivated, butthat's basically destroying their value.
And um, and I mean, Ipersonally, I hate to see that.
So, um, you know, I.

(01:47:06):
I actually have a little sign thatI put when I do have a couple of
deactivated guns in my collection.
They were deactivated before I got them.
I wasn't responsiblefor their deactivation.
But my little sign says, in order tocomply with Canada's barbaric laws
requiring a desecration of precioushistorical artifacts, artifacts, sadly,
this firearm has been deactivated.

(01:47:28):
Yes.
You know, so there's that.
You could just surrenderthem and have them destroyed.
Right?
None of those are reasonable options.
None of the things that thefederal government says are options
are really options, you know.
Um, but, uh, and I can't counsel people,since I'm not a lawyer, I can't counsel

(01:47:50):
people on exactly what they should do.
However, I would point out that it'sour understanding that Uh, the executor
of an estate has the reasonable periodof time to deal with the resolution
of the estate and a reasonableperiod of time is not well defined
in law, but it's not weeks or days.

(01:48:12):
It's probably measured in years.
And I think there is areasonably good chance.
That after the next election,this will become significantly
less of a problem than it is now.

I agree.
I agree.
Uh, what about exportingis exporting in the car?
Yes.
Uh,

it's, it's possible.
Um, the problem is that mostguns aren't worth enough.
You know, like if it costs you, thereare many companies that do this.
Okay.
And I'm not trying to undercut theirbusiness or anything, but if it costs
you 300 to ship a gun out of thecountry and the guns worth 400, um, you
know, how much of an option is that?

(01:48:53):
Yeah.
So the federal government is fond ofsaying, Oh, you've got all these options.
Here's like your five option.
Well, that's like saying, well, youcan cut off your hand or you can cut
off your foot Or you cut off yournose or you can cut off your ear.
None of those are really optionsthat I want to entertain.

Right.
I agree.
That's a good way to put it.
Uh, what's the latest on therifle and shotgun confiscations?
May 2020 OAC has a federal departmentof public safety been in contact.
Is the plan advancing or stalled?
Um, what's Alberta's position?

Okay.
So.
Uh, first of all, Alberta's position fromthe very outset and not just my position
or not just our office's position, but ourprovincial government's position as, uh,
as articulated by, uh, cabinet has been,um, that we are absolutely opposed to

(01:49:50):
this because it's a violation of people'sproperty rights and it is a completely
useless waste of valuable taxpayer money.
Resources.
Okay.
Now, somebody, when they watch this,they'll probably say, well, but property
rights aren't protected in Canada.
Well, maybe not, but, uh, they'renot, they're not well protected in

(01:50:13):
Canada, but, uh, some people wouldsay, are you really violating them?
But personally, I don't believethat governments give us rights.
I agree to me, depending onwhether you're religious or not.
Your rights are eitherGod-given or innate.
Right.
Governments can recognizethem or protect them.

(01:50:34):
Mm-Hmm.
But they don't give you rights.
Mm-Hmm.
Okay.
But that's a bit of a philosophical,uh, you know, digression.
So we've always been verystrongly opposed to this.
And, uh, that has playeditself out in a number of ways.
So, for example, uh, a previousMinister of Justice and
Solicitor General, um, issued.

(01:50:57):
Uh, I'm not sure what they'recalled protocols or something like
that, indicating that no provincialresources were to be used, no
provincially funded resources wereto be used and, and things like that.
So that has limited the options forthe implementation of this program,
but it is, it is not considered legallylegitimate for the province to, um,

(01:51:24):
we can't obviate a law.
We can't say this law is invalid here.
Okay.
That's.
Uh, but it doesn't mean we haveto help, and so that's what
these protocols, uh, help to do.
Also, it's my responsibility as, uh, ChiefFirearms Officer, and particularly under

(01:51:46):
the Alberta Firearms Act, to ensure thatanything that is done is done safely.
And so, uh, we have the power to regulate.
seizure agents.
There's a fancy legal definition,but basically that would be anybody
who is involved in some kind ofconfiscation program like this.
Um, we have the power to regulatethem to ensure that whatever

(01:52:10):
activities they conduct are conductedin a, uh, lawful and safe manner.
And, um, you know, my, my Sometimesmy federal counterparts say, well,
you know, like surely what we'regoing to do it in a safe way.
That's, you know, why would you needto have the power to regulate that?
But then they came up with the ideaof collecting them in, in post offices

(01:52:34):
that, that have locks that a six years,six year old could, could break through.
And so, you know, itis an important thing.
Um, and we can't, we can't saythat, no, you can't do this.
Yeah.
But we can say that if you're goingto do this, we're going to make sure
that Albertans get treated fairly,and we're going to make sure that

(01:52:55):
the way you do it doesn't, uh,expose Albertans to undo, undo risk.
And fortunately, I think, uh, theyhave not yet figured out a way to do
it that, uh, would meet even minimalpublic safety, uh, requirements.

(01:53:18):
Um, the way I see things playing out, Idon't have a crystal ball, um, neither
the pre prime federal prime ministernor the, any of their cabinet, uh,
whisper little nothings into my ear.
Um, but the way I see it playing out isthat I think it's likely that there'll be.
By the time of the next election, they'llprobably be able to do something on

(01:53:43):
the collection of business inventories,because there are many businesses that
have been sorely hurt by having tomaintain stocks that they can't sell.
You know, they're paying interest on moneyfor years, interest rates have been high,
and so that's been a burden for them.
But in, and for many businesses, notall of them, but for many businesses,

(01:54:07):
it's inventory, you know, uh, but.
Uh, individuals, it's a wholedifferent thing because we are
much more attached to our stuff.
The things I have arenot just inventory to me.
They are historical artifacts, they're,uh, treasured heirlooms, uh, they

(01:54:28):
are, uh, they have a significance thatgoes well beyond their monetary value.
And so, um, we.
want to make sure that anythingthat, uh, the feds do, they
do in a Uh, a safe manner.
They haven't come up with a way to dothat, but I think that, uh, I don't

(01:54:51):
think they'll be able to make muchprogress by the next election on actually
collecting them from individuals.
I agree.
Um, and I, in some respects, and hereI'm going into, you know, uh, I'm not,
I'm also, I get give lots of, of caveats.
I'm not a political analyst.

(01:55:11):
Okay.
I'm not, uh, uh, I don't have adoctorate in political science.
But.
I would think that it, there's a certainconfluence of interest because it
probably makes sense for them to notcomplete it by the time of the next
election, because it will be troublesome.

(01:55:33):
It will cause friction and, uh, negativepublicity if they try to push it.
By the time of the next election.

Yeah.
Here's one from a business owner and hesays, one thing that would be really good
as an API or API access to PAL so thatwe can auto verify when we ship regulated
items, has there been any chat that you'veheard of, of implementing sort of APIs
to, um, to cross check people's licensesso that businesses can be compliant?

Well, businesses have access to a system for verifying
that people's PALs are valid now.
I mean, uh.
But it's not a,

an application protocol interface or whatever the thing called.
I don't understand that technology.
Fair enough.
It's something that'll, uh, allowsthe back end to talk without
the, without a human having tobe on the front end searching it.

I have not seen anything in, uh, Their plans, um,
and we do get updates on things, butthey are expanding the capability.
So they're expanding the capabilities ofautomation in the system all the time.
Like you can now apply foryour pal online and many other
things you can apply online.

(01:56:52):
Um, but on the other hand, anythingthat would make it possible to, to, um,
make it easier on the firearms community
isn't always.
I mean, some of these things, I mean, itis, it does make it easier when people
can apply for PALS, but The, the specificobjective of making life easier isn't

(01:57:18):
necessarily one of the top priorities,I think, in, in those, uh, efforts.
So the short answer is, I've givenyou a long answer, now I'll give you
the short answer is, I don't know.
I don't think so.

Fair enough.
Um, what are your thoughts on auditoryhealth slash medical benefits of
sound moderators slash suppressors?
Police use them, is what the question was.

Uh, well.
From the very beginning, I've been a,a strong believer that we need to, uh,
consider legalizing, uh, suppressors andnot just for the reason that was stated.
Uh, if you visit any area where there'sa lot of old timers, many of them,
uh, started using firearms before,uh, hearing protection, a lot of

(01:58:08):
them have, have, uh, hearing issues.
Thank you very much.
And there are times when hearingissues are not easily dealt with by
earmuffs or, or things like that.
So there's, there's that issue.
Uh, the hearing health is certainly animportant part, but another part of this
issue I think is preserving our rangesbecause ranges that are close to cities

(01:58:34):
increasingly are under pressure becausethe city grows out to where the range was.
It was originally in an isolated area.
Nobody cared about the noise.
Now there are houses that are close by.
If people were using suppressors,the noise would be a much
less significant issue.
I think they probably, we need tofigure out what kind of a regulatory

(01:58:55):
framework would be around them.
Um, I, I probably wouldn't favorjust removing all restrictions
on them until we at least studiedwhether that was going to be a good
thing, but definitely I think Pitt.
They should play a role in firearmsusage in, in the future in Canada.
They do in many other countries,including countries that have even more

(01:59:19):
restrictive firearms laws than we do.

England is one of them.
I remember I was in Scotland, I waswalking from Inverness to the Loch Ness.
I want to check out, go for a swimin their, their cold lake over there.
And, uh, I saw this guy in his fieldand I was like, Hey, I recognize what
he's got set up over there, lookslike a little covered shooting area.
And he was shooting, I thoughtI'll, I'll go chat with them.
And he had a suppressor on his rifle.

(01:59:42):
And so Canada, those are illegal.
He's like, really?
I can't shoot my rifle without it here.
Cause I live in X proximityto my neighbors and the
laws say I have to have it.
Yep.
Interesting.
Um,
there's, there's one.
What are your thoughts on theutility of the AR 10 ESP, especially,

(02:00:02):
I guess, as a SIG 308 offering.
In wildlife conservation officeruse, many Western Canadian provinces
switched to them beginning in 2018.
And I think this individual isprobably looking at the, comparing
and contrasting, I'm going to goout on a limb here, uh, how, um, ARs
aren't, or apparently aren't suitablefor, um, hunting or wildlife control.

(02:00:28):
Yet the, uh, provinces are, areusing them for, for wildlife control
within their government agencies.

Well, uh, so I guess the, on, on the broader point, I'm not always,
uh, I'll confess that I'm not always upon exactly the latest models or whatever
everything is, but on the basic point,um, you know, what really determines.
How suitable a firearm is for a givenpurpose is primarily its caliber
and secondarily things like weightand length and that sort of thing.

(02:01:01):
And so, um, the idea that somebureaucrat in Ottawa is better able
to decide what is useful or suitablefor, uh, someone in the field to use.
Uh, I find.
To be a difficult proposition to support,it's, uh, the people who are in the field

(02:01:24):
know what they need and, um, they shouldbe allowed within reason to choose the
tools that are going to most appropriatelyhelp them to do the job, to continue
with our, with our, um, our, uh, littleanalogy that we were using before.
You know, uh, the last thing amechanic needs is somebody reaching

(02:01:47):
over his shoulder and saying, Oh no,you, you really should be using the,
the, you know, the, the, uh, uh,closed end wrench, not the open ended
wrench in that application, you know?
Uh, well, let the person who'sdoing the job figure it out.

Yeah.
Uh, here's one from a, um, a business,uh, just says clarified legal
status of guns, not listed in OIC.
But the FRT's changed after the fact,also guns that have no FRT, period.
For example, no legal document statesthat ATRS Modern Series, Daria MK 12, and

(02:02:23):
the Maccabee Defense are prohibited, ora reason why, though the FRT got changed.

If I could answer questions like that, so I would, I mean, part
of the federal government has gonecompletely out of control on these issues.
And so, you know, it's one thingto pass a regulation that says, uh,

(02:02:52):
these specific things are prohibited.
You can agree with it.
You can disagree with it.
But, at least you know what theyhave said is okay and not okay.
But the way they have been willy nillytrying to expand, uh, the list of
prohibitions, I've heard, the latestnumber I've heard is that it's grown
from the original 1, 500 to 2, 000.

(02:03:14):
And it wouldn't surpriseme if it's even more.
Um, it's not how you should be making law.
Um.
Um.
Um.
And, uh, I'm not, neither alawyer nor a judge, nor certainly
not a Supreme Court justice.
And it may take that to, to come up witha definitive answer to that question,
but it's not how we should be making law.

Mm hmm.
And we think one thing that became reallyclear was, uh, I think it was Murray
Smith during the, um, uh, during the legalchallenge that came up, I was asked to
hope high on a few issues and had to sitin on the, on the court proceedings, but,
uh, he repeatedly kept saying, you know.
FRTs have no bearing in law.

(02:03:54):
They're not, it's something that, uh, thefirearms program makes for a, so that they
have a reference of things, but it is notdesigned specifically to influence law,
to classify that's done by politicians.
So that was something that hementioned on a few different occasions.
Yeah.

(02:04:15):
Um,
what are your thoughts on ATCs aswell as wilderness carry, I'm not
sure quite, maybe I'll just stop it aswhat is your thoughts on ATCs because
wilderness carry of non restrictedfirearms is kind of a moot point.

Yeah.
So, um, obviously, uh, so authorizationsto carry, there's sort of three
broad areas about me before.
So, um, So there's one area isauthorizations to carry for defensive
life, and those are exceptionallyhard to get in Canada because

(02:04:56):
the legal bar is extremely high.
And very soon, I probably will not haveany control over that at all because
Bill C 21 centralizes that powerwith the Commissioner of Firearms.
And so, uh, as far as I have seen, theyhaven't come out with the procedures.
Um, but, uh, I think that was adisastrous decision because the whole

(02:05:23):
point of that in the current frameworkis that the, uh, the need must be
imminent, imminent risk to life.
Well, if the risk is imminent, that'sjust the answer has to be imminent, right?
Not depend on going up a chain ofauthority, many levels high to the

(02:05:44):
commissioner of firearms And I don'tknow the background really of the
current commissioner of firearms,but one previous one, of course, is
well known for having said she knewnothing about the law in this area.
So I don't see what the benefitis of introducing those many
levels of additional scrutiny toa process that was already very.

(02:06:08):
Um, the authorizations to carryfor, um, for like, um, armored car
guards and people like that, that'sa relatively routine and, uh, un,
uh, uncontroversial, uh, area.
Although I would mention, um, when wetook over the previous federal office had

(02:06:34):
not done any of the renewals of those.
So we had about, we had to immediately.
Launch, they're all, they allcome due at one time of year.
And if we had not launched a crashcampaign to get them done in just a matter
of a couple of weeks, all the movementof cash in the province of Alberta would
have ground to a halt as with likelysignificant negative effects on the, The

(02:06:58):
province as a whole, so, you know, whenwe're talking about economic importance
of firearms, there's a very good example.
And so we prioritize that practicallyabove almost everything else in
order to not shut down the economy.
So, uh, then there's the trappers.
That's a relativelyuncontroversial thing too.

(02:07:21):
Um, and the wilderness carry, um, isa bit, uh, broader, uh, you know, with
the trappers generally, um, that's a,people sort of self identify, you know,
they've taken trapper course, they'vegot a trap line and so on and so forth.
The one that poses some, um, moredifficult challenges is the authorization

(02:07:44):
to carry, um, in the sort of wildernessprotection against, uh, uh, wildlife.
Yeah.
And.
Um, so the key thing about that isthat it does have to be professional.
Okay.
Like it's occupational.
So it might be a better term, um,whether it should be or not, that's a

(02:08:06):
question we could discuss, but there'sno doubt that right now the law says,
you know, if you're just out hiking inthe wilderness, regardless of whether
you spend 24 hours a day, seven days aweek in an area full of grizzly bears and
cougars and Wolverines, and I don't know.
Wolverines are nasty.
I don't know.
Did they ever had toactually attack people?

(02:08:27):
Um, can have, yep.
Yeah.
I'm not, I, I, you know, I'm, I'mnot as up on my, uh, wilderness
who's who, as you would be.
Sure.
Sure.
Uh, cause that's your,your area of expertise.
But, um, you know, uh, It doesn't matterhow much time you spend there, if you're
not working there, it's not an option.

(02:08:49):
Okay.
Um, so, uh, you know, we, we have,that there are provinces where
there's virtually no need for them.
You know, like if you're in PrinceEdward Island, I don't think there's any
grizzly bears in Prince Edward Island.
I'm not sure there's anything big enoughto pose a threat to people in Prince
Edward Island, but there's certainly muchless than there is in Alberta, at least.

(02:09:12):
Okay.
Okay.
So.
Um, they may, I don't know whether theyeven have that category as something
that they do as part of their productline at the chief firearms office there.
But here it certainly is part of ourproduct line because we've got lots of
grizzly bears, we've got lots of cougars,we've got lots of wolves, we've got lots
of, Other things that are, um, ready.

(02:09:34):
Wild animals, red in tooth and claw.
Yeah.
Uh, that, um, uh, pose potential risks.
And, uh, so it is something that we issueon a, you know, uh, we have to follow
the federal guidelines on it, but we, uh,do issue them on a fairly regular basis.

(02:09:55):
And, uh, you know, one thatpeople often don't think about.
Um, is, uh, if you, for example, are arancher in an area near the Rockies and
there's grizzly bears roaming around andyou're out working on your fence, um, a
case might be made that you need, uh, uh,to have an ATC when you're out there so

(02:10:19):
that you come back at the end of the day.
Um, and you know, we've taken a relativelyflexible position on these things.
It's not.
The Wild West, not open season,just come in and say you want one.
But, um, if you can make a reasonablecase for it, then, um, it is

(02:10:39):
something that people need here.
There's a legitimate needfor that here in Alberta.

Yeah.
There's a checklist you guys haveto go through that all fire and
officers has have to go through.

But what I would like to emphasize though, is that people
should be thinking of that as A lastresort, you know, that, uh, number one
should be, uh, being bear aware and,uh, you know, making sure that you are.
Uh, not exposing yourself to undue risk.
Okay.

(02:11:09):
Uh, and, um, everyone that I havespoken to who actually works with bears,
like bear specialists, people whosewhole job is bears say bear spray is
generally going to be more effectivebecause it's not as required, closer
requirement for accuracy as a backup.

(02:11:30):
Um, a firearm could be auseful thing in some cases.
Uh, I would like to see.
people have a high degree ofproficiency if they're in those,
uh, if they're going to be usinga firearm for a purpose like that.
Um, but, Like I said,it's a legitimate thing.

(02:11:51):
It's legally allowed and we do it.

I remember years ago, there was a, uh, a gun store in, in Surrey
and the police kept coming by that storebecause there's some gangsters that
are coming in and kept warning them.
I mean, Hey, these guys are violent.
There's going to be some problems.
And they're like, Oh, yeah.
Well, maybe we should be seeingif we should get an ATC here.
I mean, there's another store inBC where they were robbed and they,

(02:12:15):
I think it was a husband and wife.
They both got executed inthere and they used that as an
example and, and a few others.
And the, they applied for ATCs forprotection of their life based on what
was going around and the informationthey were getting from police.
Um.
Provided them training.
They're highly proficient.
They met all of the protocol up intothe point where the fire's program

(02:12:41):
says, look, you've met everything thatwe're looking for, for the issuance.
We just need a letter from the chiefof police in Surrey here saying that.
Um, their protection is not adequate.
They said, it can't comefrom a police officer.
It's gotta be the chief of police.
And they got to say the protectionis not adequate for you.
And, and then we'll issue it to you.
Of course, there's no chief ofpolice is going to turn around and

(02:13:02):
say that the protection that theyhave to offer is not adequate.
And that's where it was finally stymied.
Um, have you heard of incidenceswhere people actually are
successful in obtaining a ATC?
Like I've, I've heard a hearsay.
I've, I've heard people tellme wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Well, for defensive life, you mean?
For defensive life.
Well, defensive life is such a rarecategory that I can't, for security
reasons, I can't tell you exactly whatwe've done, but like in all of Canada.
You're talking about a handful of people,

right?
Okay.

And so it's not something that comes up, I can't say in 50 percent
of cases when you're talking about ahandful of the country, you know, so,
um, but in any cases I've indicated,it's kind of a moot question for us
because at any day I'm expecting to havethat power completely removed from me.
Um, and then it will be thecommissioner of firearms.

(02:14:00):
And I suspect that whateverdecision I would have made.
The Commissioner of Firearms might beeven, might be considerably more reticent
to issue, uh, than I would have been.
Um, and, you know, I understand, you know,like when I grew up, some of the places we
lived, it was quite a distance to a phone,

let

alone to a police station.
Yeah.
So I understand people have avariety of, of security needs.
And, you know, perhaps that would besomething that a future government
will revisit, but certainly this one'snot prone to reconsideration of such

things.
Is there anything that we haven't talkedabout that we should be talking about?

Uh, well, we've covered quite a lot of ground here today, uh, Travis,
but, um, I guess, you know, you know,if I were closing things out, I always
just want to, you know, Uh, give peoplesome reassurance that, uh, we might be

(02:15:11):
in somewhat dark times in the firearmscommunity at the moment, given the
unfounded attacks that have been made onour community and many of the ill advised
measures that we've been subjected to.
But the firearms communityis not without friends.
We do have friends in Ottawa.
We have friends, our provincialgovernment is a very strong supporter

(02:15:35):
of law abiding firearms owners.
I am working every single day of all of myenergy, uh, to try and make sure that the
firearms community has a bright future.
And as long as we are able to have asystem where firearms ownership is, uh,

(02:15:59):
regulated in a fashion To ensure thatit's consistent with public safety, then,
uh, I think that we will, in the end, besuccessful in convincing enough people in
Ottawa to make the rules that we need, andthat we here, in the province of Alberta,
will be leading the way in showing therest of the country how those laws can

(02:16:24):
then be interpreted in a fashion that ishelpful to the firearms community, and
And entirely consistent with public safetyand, uh, then basically spreading the
gospel across the country as, uh, Albertaleads the way in this area, as in so
many other aspects of government policy.

Trevor Burrus Terry, it was an absolute pleasure having
you on the Silvercore podcast.
Thank you very much.

Terry Claggett Thank you very much, Travis.
I very much enjoyed, uh, being herewith you and sharing some of the
exciting things that we're doing here.
And keep the faith folks,we'll get through this period.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Ep. 143: Fighting for Freedom: Dr. Teri Bryant on Gun Laws, Government Overreach, and Empowering Firearms Owners

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Ep. 143: Fighting for Freedom: Dr. Teri Bryant on Gun Laws, Government Overreach, and Empowering Firearms Owners

Stuff You Should Know