Bruce Montague, the Ontario gunsmith who challenged the constitutionality of Canada's Firearms Act, is appealing the destruction order for over $100,000 of his firearms. Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) seized Montague's entire firearm collection back in 2004 when he was arrested and charged with violating Canada's Firearms Act.
Bruce Montague and several other men defied Canada's gun control scheme, burning their firearm licenses on Parliament Hill on January 1, 2003. The OPP waited until the expiry date on Montague's burned license passed before arresting him at a Dryden, Ontario gun show. Six heavily-armed OPP members dragged Bruce Montague from the venue while his 11-year-old daughter Katey watched in horror.
Montague was in the midst of purchasing a saddle so Katey could ride their neighbour's horse when the arrest took place.
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear Montague's case, so the OPP is now seeking to have all Montague's firearms destroyed, even though the paper "crimes" he was convicted of related to very few of those firearms.
Montague seeks to have the destruction order rescinded so he can sell his firearm collection and retain some of his life savings, all of which was tied up in his firearm collection.
Bruce Montague sent out the following two emails recently, and if you are able to support him in this latest battle with the Ontario government, he and his family will be very grateful.
We finally have an appeal court date set for Tuesday June 18, 2013. This will be held at the appeal court in Toronto but I don’t yet know which court room.
This appeal is trying to overturn the court order to have most of my gun collection destroyed. There is roughly $100,000 worth of firearms that I have collected over the past 30 years. This represents the bulk of my savings as I approach retirement and we are desperately trying to get the court to agree that I should be able to at least sell these firearms.
None of these firearms were involved in any crimes. They were merely part of my collection as I protested the gun laws by not renewing my license or registering my guns.
There doesn’t appear to be any rational reason for why they should be destroyed.
On a further note, my wife and I would like to thank you all for continuing to support this fight even though we lost the constitutional challenge. This fight has become much more personal as we struggle to remain solvent in the aftermath of our charter challenge.
I guess that is the whole point isn’t it? The government wants to send a clear message to all of you, that if you try to stand up for your rights by peacefully protesting an unjust law, they will not only tell the court to rule against you but they will make sure the rest of your life is ruined!
Thanks again for your support in this fight that is now so personal. It’s wonderful to have such dedicated support! Who knows, if we win it may set a precedent that will help other gun owners in the future?
Yours in Liberty,
“It is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong”
- The Case for Personal Freedom by Judge Napolitano
Appeal Research Needed
I just finished looking through my “stuff” and couldn’t find any newspaper articles or any other evidence that I’ve been protesting these gun laws since well before my arrest in 2004.
I have been actively protesting the laws since C-68 was started back in 1995. Unfortunately I didn’t keep any newspaper articles to prove it. I didn’t think it was important at the time.
The reason I bring this up is because the judge made a comment that really disturbed me. He said something to the effect that if I was a legitimate protester than the destruction of my guns would be a different matter.
During the trial the judge and crown seemed to agree that I was a long time protester. That didn’t seem to be an issue but now all of a sudden I see it as possibly a major issue.
There was a lot of national media coverage when I was on Parliament Hill Jan 1st (2003??) with some papers actually having my picture in the article. It would be nice to have some hard evidence of my protesting to use in countering the judges claim that I’m not a valid protester.
If any of you can help here it would be appreciated.