First Nations group votes to reject Canadian gun ban

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Canada doesn’t have a version of the Second Amendment. They should, of course, but they don’t. As a result, they’re now facing a gun ban.

But not everyone is on board with Ottawa’s proposals.


It seems the Assembly of First Nations–a group made up of the chiefs of various tribes we’d probably call Native Americans–isn’t a fan of Trudeau’s plan.

Chiefs at the Assembly of First Nations have voted to publicly reject the Liberal government’s proposed gun-control legislation.

An amendment to Bill C-21, which is currently being debated by members of Parliament, aims to create an evergreen definition for “assault-style” weapons and enshrine it in law, allowing the government to ban hundreds of models of firearms.

Some First Nations leaders say they’re concerned to see rifles used for hunting on the list and voted today to take a stand against the bill, which they say infringes on their treaty rights.

The problem with gun control is that it will always eventually come for the “hunting rifles.”

No, it might not frame it as such. Here, they basically just try to lump them in with so-called assault weapons and pretend they’re the same thing. They’ll always try and reframe it so it sounds like they’re only coming after the “bad” guns, but that won’t be the case.


In time, expect them to go after “sniper rifles,” which will include all the bolt-action rifles.

Assuming, of course, they don’t get forced to stop somehow.

This likely won’t do a whole lot to stop it, but it’s nice to at least see some resistance to this inane effort by Trudeau and his cronies.

As for the concern that the measure infringes on their treaties, well, that’s just par for the course. Liberals like Trudeau are all about minorities only so long as they’re useful. They don’t blink at screwing them over whenever they need to.

Folks will look at First Nations groups and trip over themselves to do nice things, to elevate them above others as if that somehow erases all the sins of the past, but then they’ll turn around and violate a treaty because they like gun control more.

The kicker is that since Canada doesn’t have a Second Amendment, had they created a more conservative definition to use for their gun ban, they’d likely get away without too much fuss.

Yet one thing about anti-gunners is restraint ain’t a strength of theirs.


They reach for as much as they think they can get away with, but they often overstep. That’s what’s happening here. They crafted a definition in their gun ban proposal that goes beyond the scary black rifles and into hunting weapons.

People aren’t ready for that and they’re getting pushback.

The upside for our Canadian friends is that this overstep might just be enough to scuttle the whole effort. At least, one can hope. Yet I’m seeing a lot more opposition to this proposal than I normally see, and I’m seeing it from camps that usually stay out of Canada’s gun debate.

So here’s hoping for their sakes.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member