Olds Gun and Antique Show

07/28/2026

07/28/2026

Only a few weeks away now....

07/28/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/17yjrAjqg4/

06/20/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/18yiuzrJzv/

𝐆𝐨𝐯'𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐂-𝟐𝟏, 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫, 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐠𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐛𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐠𝐮𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐧 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 "𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞"
𝐷𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑙 𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟, 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑟𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑒
𝗝𝘂𝗻𝗲 𝟭𝟮, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲

Recently released government documents surrounding consultation on Bill C-21 indicate that stakeholders who consulted on the bill sought to ban online fi***rm sales, end target shooting with handguns and claimed: “mass shooters who modified their mags were legal gun owners, and it’s common knowledge that gun enthusiasts do this all the time.”

In a document entitled “Preliminary questions re Bill C-21 and other provisions,” a group of stakeholders identified as Polysesouvient, then headed up by current Liberal MP Nathalie Provost, as well as Danforth Families and unnamed others provided former Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino with a series of comments on various aspects of Bill C-21, in preparation for a technical briefing on the bill held between the aforementioned stakeholder groups and Ministry of Public Safety staff. Here are some excerpts from the criticisms levelled by these identified stakeholders around what they perceived to be C-21’s shortfalls:

Regarding the handgun freeze: “Authorized businesses with proper storage (i.e., retailers) could continue to import and sell handguns to other businesses (e.g., gunsmiths, museums, valuable goods carriers), law enforcement, defence personnel and exempted individuals. Can gun clubs own and (especially) acquire handguns that stay on site and can be sued [sic] by the public? Can they accumulate a million handguns from current owners before they pass away, ensuring that handgun target practice never dies out? What about new businesses that will pop up to purchase all the existing hanguns [sic]?”

Regarding the provision to make it an offence to alter a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity and allow for wiretaps for this new offence: “Why is this specific measure in this section? Nothing specifically related to gangs: In fact the mass shooters who modified their mags were legal owners, and it’s common knowledge that gun enthusiasts do this all the time.”

Regarding making it an offence for businesses to promote violence in fi***rms marketing and sales: “Has anyone ever done this? Who [sic] not do something that will make a difference, like no ads on the internet, or not [sic] online sales?”

Regarding the requirement for a person to present a valid fi***rms license to import non-prohibited am******on for fi***rms: “No additional measure to require PAC to purchase magazines?”

Concerning Insight into Ignorant Influence

This technical briefing is the only reference to a detailed outside consultation included in a 435-page response to a request for “documents regarding the proposal and development of amendments to Bill C-21.” It was authored before the bill’s second reading, meaning it is ostensibly the only such consultation that occurred as government prepared to propose amendments, when the bill passed to the committee phase. This is somewhat surprising, given C-21 combined with the related ban on millions of long guns instituted by Order in Council on May 1, 2020, formed a cornerstone of the most sweeping gun control measures in Canadian history.

In other words, the sole consultation the government participated in during their work on the contentious bill involved individuals who confused the defunct Fi****ms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) required to buy a fi***rm in Canada 40 years ago with the Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) program that replaced it in the early 90s, and spuriously tied legal gun ownership to mass shootings in order to make an entirely baseless (and false) claim that gun owners illegally modify their magazines “all the time.”

Taken alongside their advocacy for ending handgun target shooting entirely, a goal that is entirely divorced from any semblance of improving public safety, and banning mail-order gun sales in a country where online shops provide a literal lifeline to rural property owners and remote subsistence hunters, indicates that their “consultation” had nothing to do with providing feedback with the aim of reducing gun violence, and everything to do with simply advancing an anti-gun agenda.

And given the politically-driven nature of the Trudeau-era gun reforms, ranging from questions about the government’s attempts to publicize the illegal fi***rms used in Portapique to further their political agenda to the years’ worth of statistical evidence that neither the gun bans nor C-21 have had any beneficial impact on the rate of crime committed with a fi***rm in Canada, that Public Safety Canada only sought feedback from a group that buttressed the Liberals’ political goals with misinformed, false, and misleading rhetoric rather than meaningful evidence is clear evidence that the gun reforms enacted by the Trudeau government are political in nature, not practical. In short, Public Safety Canada sought out those who shared the Liberals’ political aims in order to justify their gun reforms, rather than any actual expertise that could ensure new gun legislation would reduce gun crime.

It is also worth noting that Nathalie Provost, then the leader of one of the most prominent groups identified as contributing to this expose of ignorance, now sits at the Cabinet table as the Minister of State for Nature and has repeatedly appeared alongside Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree during announcements regarding gun policy. Simply put, her involvement in this farce of a consultation, and the comments she contributed to that are contained within, should rationally disqualify her from any involvement in gun policy, as her obvious bias and absolute ignorance of gun laws, policy, and lawful use of fi***rms in Canada have been quite literally documented by Public Safety Canada above.

Finally, and perhaps most worryingly, this consultation indicates that the Public Safety Canada staff associated with gun policy seem to serve to further the political ends of elected officials rather than the public. One expects politicians to work towards the advancement and popularization of their political goals, but one also expects Canada’s public service to ensure that those goals are put through a filter of precisely that: Public service. But as is plainly evident, that did not occur here, and it should lead many to wonder where the line between politicians and the public service is drawn.

-

𝘿𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙇𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡/𝙉𝘿𝙋 𝙇𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝘾-𝟏𝟖 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧, 𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙬𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙠 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝒊𝒏 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝒂𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒆𝒃𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒆, 𝙤𝙧 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝑿 𝙤𝙧 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙣 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒔.
-
X.com/CanadasNFA
Linkedin.com/company/national-fi***rms-association

05/03/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/14dDv1qYC4X/

Six Years, Billions Spent, Almost Nothing to Show: Canada's Fi****ms Buyback Is a Historic Failure
Gun Owners of Canada Admins

Six years ago this month, the Trudeau government bypassed Parliament and used an Order in Council to prohibit more than 1,500 makes and models of semi-automatic fi***rms, rebranding them "assault-style" to make the politics easier. It was a bold, headline-grabbing response to the horror of the Nova Scotia mass shooting. It was also, from the very beginning, a policy built on a false premise, and six years of grinding reality have exposed that in almost every measurable way.

The numbers, now final, are damning. The government designed its so-called "buyback" around an expected 136,000 prohibited fi***rms. When the declaration window closed on March 31, 2026, fewer than 38,000 Canadians had come forward, declaring roughly 67,000 guns, barely half the government's own projection. The program's architects called this a success. Canadians with a calculator called it what it is: a program that failed to reach the majority of the fi***rms it targeted, before enforcement has even begun.

And enforcement? That may be the darkest comedy in this entire saga. Of 138 municipal police services across Canada, exactly two have agreed to participate. Two. The provinces and territories of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and Yukon have all refused to engage with the program. Alberta and Saskatchewan didn't stop at refusal: both provinces passed legislation specifically designed to block Ottawa from collecting fi***rms within their borders. The federal government's response has been to dispatch RCMP mobile collection units to fill the gaps, a patchwork solution that underscores just how comprehensively this policy has been rejected by the people responsible for actually implementing it.

Now consider the cost of this near-universal non-participation. The Parliamentary Budget Officer pegged the program at $756 million back in 2021. More recent government documents suggest the true figure is approaching $2 billion. The Fraser Institute has put the upper-bound estimate at $6 billion. We have spent, or committed to spending, an extraordinary sum of public money to collect less than half the weapons targeted, with the majority of police services in the country declining to help, and the amnesty period doesn't even end until October 30 of this year.

The deeper question, the one the government has never honestly answered, is whether any of this makes Canadians safer. The evidence says no. The weapons driving gun violence in Canadian cities are not the semi-automatic ri**es locked in the gun safes of licensed, background-checked hunters and sport shooters. They are illegally obtained handguns, overwhelmingly smuggled across the American border. The Nova Scotia tragedy that prompted this entire exercise, the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history, was carried out with fi***rms that were themselves illegally obtained. Not purchased through the licensed channels this program targets. Smuggled. The policy solution and the actual problem were never connected.

The legal picture adds yet another dimension of uncertainty. In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear four consolidated appeals challenging the federal fi***rms ban, including arguments that the government exceeded its authority under the Criminal Code by prohibiting fi***rms "deemed reasonable for hunting or sporting purposes." No hearing date is yet set. The Canadian Coalition for Fi***rm Rights has signaled it will seek an injunction to extend the amnesty period past the date of any final decision, meaning the legal status of this policy could remain unresolved well into the future, even as the government presses ahead with collection.

What the government currently calls a mandatory buyback is, in practice, a voluntary surrender initiative with a staggering scorecard. Six years on, the tally reads: billions of dollars committed for a fraction of the targeted fi***rms, seven provinces and territories refusing to participate, two provinces passing active blocking legislation, exactly two of 138 municipal forces cooperating, and a Supreme Court challenge that could ultimately invalidate the entire scheme.

The tragedy in Nova Scotia was real. The grief was real. But good policy cannot be built on the appearance of action. When a government spends six years unable to implement even a gesture, and when that gesture was never going to address the actual problem anyway, it has not protected Canadians. It has protected only itself from the accusation that it did nothing.

That is not good enough. It is time to scrap this failed experiment, end the political theater, and redirect those billions toward the border, where the real threat is actually crossing.

04/29/2026

What a great show this weekend!

Thanks to vendors and attendees who braved the snow, and the great volunteers from local charities.

See you again August 15 & 16 for another great show.

04/29/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/18Xdw78fos/

04/09/2026

Just over a couple of weeks now till our April Show. Mark your calendar to be sure you don't miss it!

04/09/2026

The feds are hiding the details, so taxpayers are back in court to uncover secret gun ban costs from Ottawa.Taxpayers deserve to know how much the feds are w...

04/06/2026

Stop the Farce—Confiscation Isn’t Safety, It’s Political Theatre

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) rejects the Canadian government’s tired narrative blaming gun owners and provinces for the failure of the federal confiscation. The reality is simple: law-abiding Canadians refuse to be scapegoats for Ottawa’s ineffective and overreaching gun policy.

Participation is low because Canadians see this confiscation for what it is—a costly PR stunt that targets legal owners, not criminals. THESE FI****MS WERE PURCHASED WITH GOVERNMENT APPROVAL, AFTER EXTENSIVE VETTING. There’s zero evidence that seizing them from responsible people will make our communities safer. No wonder provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta are standing up for their citizens’ rights—something Ottawa seems determined to trample.

We’re also disappointed with the mainstream media for immediately jumping to the sensational comments of an unprofessional, unhinged MP during the recent press conference about the “assault-style” confiscation update. Canadians deserve facts and clarity, not theatrics and political grandstanding.

Calling national pushback “misinformation” is just a desperate attempt to silence legitimate opposition and distract from a broken policy. If the government really cared about public safety, it would target crime, smuggling, and gang violence—not hunters, sport shooters, and collectors.

Let’s be clear: refusing to comply with a flawed confiscation scheme isn’t lawbreaking—it’s a stand for fairness and property rights. The CSSA stands with responsible gun owners and calls on Ottawa to drop the politics, respect Canadians’ rights, and actually invest in measures that fight real crime. Canadians deserve better than empty gestures and scapegoating.