Get Yer Ammo Now Before They're Gone, Boys and Girls...

Maybe it's me, but the last six months or so, I have noticed an general increase in anything firearm related. No more evident was this than when I went to my local gunshop recently (3 weeks ago) to buy a few rounds of .223 Remington and happened upon one of the two boxes that had a lower sticker price. The clerk swore under her breath, and said, "Fine, I'll give two boxes to you at the same price." I asked her why the price discrepancy, and she said, "price of ammo went up". Now, I sort of knew this for the .22 rounds that I bought in December, compared to the cheaper price that I got the same rounds for in August. At the time, I was told that the price shift was due to the Canadian dollar weakening. Makes sense. I asked if it had anything to do with Obama winning the U.S. election. Maybe, is the general answer received by many with whom I've spoken.

I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.

I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.

I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.

Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).

Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.

Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.

Firearms For Home Defence Not Really An Option in Canada

I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.

Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.

What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.

What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:

In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.

I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?

Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.

My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.

I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.

Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.