Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association
Association canadienne des propriétaires d’armes sans permis

Constitutional Challenges
& Court Cases

homebutton contacts button articlesbutton photos linksbutton
Peaceful, Non-violent, Non-compliance to an Unjust Law

In an end-of-the-year query to subscribers of the Canadian Firearms Digest, Moderator David Jordan asked:
"So today [at the end of 2008] are we any brighter for all of our efforts over the years?"

In reply Clive Edwards posited:
"Should that situation [armed confrontation over confiscation of firearms] arise, we will see whether all those who say they are willing to fight for liberty will indeed do so."

Before we should even consider this potential scenario of armed conflict,
I believe we each need to resolve ourselves to spending a couple of years in prison.

Yes, we own and possess unregistered firearms without "benefit" of a federal firearms licence - as well I believe we should and should continue to do so, but I believe we should always do so in an absolutely peaceful, non-violent, non-confrontational manner.

Bruce & Donna Montague will soon be taking our case for owning and possessing firearms without a license to the Ontario Court of Appeal. That action may very well yield the Court's definitive answer to our question of whether the State recognizes our Right to have 'Armes for their Defense' as we so resolutely maintain.

But no matter what the Court may decide, we know we have the Right to have arms to protect our families and ourselves. And we need to be prepared to defend that most basic, of all human civil rights - even against an adverse Court decision.

We best defend that Right by making a formal, peaceful, non-violent appeal to the people of Canada. By nonviolent noncompliance we peacefully demonstrate that we will never surrender our Right to have arms for self-defense.

We make this appeal directly to the wisdom of the citizens of Canada by publically proclaiming our unlicensed possession of firearms.

If the citizens of Canada believe we should go to prison for our peaceful, non-violent action to protect our Right to have firearms for self-defense, then we should go to prison.

If while we are in prison, the drug dealers, gang members, and violent criminals stop killing innocent unarmed citizens, then we admit the justice of our fellow citizens was correct.

If, however, the drug dealers, gang members, and violent criminals continue to kill innocent unarmed citizens, then when we eventually get out of prison we should continue to assert our inalienable Right to have 'Armes for their Defense' and acquire firearms for our self-defense. And if necessary, be prepared to go to prison again.

At some point common sense must prevail.


Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS
16 January 2009

Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association
Association canadienne des propriétaries san permis
402 Skeena Crt. Saskatoon
Saskatchewan S7K 4H2
(306) 242-2379 (306) 230-8929

On 21-Dec-08, at 8:17 PM, Clive Edwards wrote:

"So today, ... are we any brighter for all of our efforts over the years?"

The most important thing, of course, is that Anne McClellan was wrong – the debate is most certainly NOT over. Indeed, it is becoming more reasoned and spirited as the anti rights crowd withdraws from the debate, for the most part, having shot their wad (I believe that term refers to firing blanks after running out of ball to keep the enemy thinking you are still in the game). In any case, since the anti-rights crowd has no new arguments over the past thirty years to support their case they have lost the public debate.

The massive amount of soft money supporting the anti-rights cause is still there, and is focused on electing anti-gun politicians who will sign anti-Firearms Rights laws. This soft money doesn't come from the grass-roots of anti-rights organizations so much as from globalist social engineers such as George Soros and the European, especially English bankers who have put Britain in such a bad position that only the complete overthrow of the government can restore liberty to that country.

Our Pro-Rights groups have become more comfortable pressing for our Rights, and clearer in understanding what those Rights entail. If only one or the other of the national political parties would admit the folly of trying to engineer a compliant, docile globalist society and pick up either the American Bill of Rights or the Canadian Charter of Rights as their banner we could still win this war without bloodshed (that is, without police shooting innocent civilians in order to confiscate firearms or having innocent civilians return fire in order to keep them).

Of course a requirement for citizen militias in Canada or the U.S. would be quite beyond the pale. However, having said that, the mountainous spine of North America is very similar in many ways to Afghanistan and would be a natural route for moving arms and men from one country to another. Should that situation arise, we will see whether all those who say they are willing to fight for liberty will indeed do so.

Clive Edwards