Canadian Airgun Forum

When I just saw the title, I just thought "now, really? can't you wait until after?!?".

I was never an NFA member, but now I never will be for sure in future either.

I heard that one of their major figures, Shawn Bevins got in some hot water once, I also heard that he made some comments on his facebook page about "killing all muslims", I went on his page to investigate, and it was true, I saw comments directly to that effect.

Because of that, I never associated with them, but this just makes it more permanent.

I just watched the video now, and well, honestly the logos don't even look anything alike, whatsoever, and I highly doubt the NFA will win any suit, if they actually go through with it.

Also, doing this now just let's everyone know how big of a f*cking moron Sheldon Clare is, causing more problems now, when we already have a ton to fight against, and over what, a logo that only has very vague similarities?

The "civil advantage" (what Rod Giltaca used to do before the CCFR) logo is older than the NFA's logo, and it is much more similar to the current CCFR logo than the NFA's is, so leadslinger is right, if anyone can sue, it's the CCFR.

YES - absolutely, you are right, but only if the logo was copyrighted before the FNA copyrighted it.

We will get to the bottom of this: I have been in contact with the NFA president.
I gave him litter about this whole mess. This is what I got back.

Daryl,

You are buying into FB koolaid, and you are not correct.

They are suing us, and they are going to lose.

I would be happy to discuss it when I get home.

Sheldon "

Re: CCFR v NFA

For a better understanding of how we got here and the steps we’ve taken, I'd like to provide a couple of general comments.

First, we didn't ask for this, we didn't want this, and we're not happy this has been visited upon us. That said, the NFA brought this to us and we need to deal with it.

Specifically, the NFA wrote to us on April 2, 2019 and, after all their outrageous demands including that we pay over to them all of our net-of-expense revenues, they said: "Please be advised that failure, in whole or in part, to comply with any of these demands in a timely manner will result in legal action against the CCFR for intellectual property infringement without further delay or notice."

We took them at their word and believed them. This was an express promise to sue the CCFR if we didn't give in to their demands, in writing, made by their lawyer, on behalf of the NFA. It doesn’t get any more clear than that.

We will not be extorted and will not give them the CCFR money; that’s your money, not theirs.

Therefore we did the only thing we could do. We did the right thing, as we always do, and immediately put the matter before the Federal Court for a quick and final determination of who is right: the NFA or us. This is just as Rod explained in his video.

We are not interested in waiting. As a "law and order" organization, if there is a claim that we are doing something improperly or illegally we must get a judicial determination on that immediately.

As to the question, did the CCFR file in court first? Yes, of course we did. Because of the NFA’s demand, claim and promise to sue us over this logo issue we did not wait, and we put the matter in the hands of the Court immediately, to properly, quickly and finally determine the legal claims they made. We need certainty.

That’s how the civil justice system works in Canada. If you want to have certainty that you are operating legally and fairly, as we must have, when you are presented with a claim at law and a lawyer’s demand you take it to Court. That’s what we did. This situation is not good for anyone and the sooner we can dispose of this the better. These are the steps required to do that.

All of that has something to do with a dedication to truth and justice.

We didn’t ask for this fight, but since it has been visited upon the CCFR involuntarily we’ll do the right thing and have it resolved, properly. The sooner we can dispose of this, the sooner we can get 100% of our resources focussed back on firearm rights.

No one needs this distraction, especially now. I can’t imagine what motivated them to start this, or why they thought it would be a good idea, but here we are.

Michael Loberg
General Counsel
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights

One of them certainly is. I also smell excrement
in this.
I personally know Sheldon & know his background, too.
I also know he is the only one standing up for us at UN
conferences as a speaker for us, whereas the other two
outfits are not.