Re CCFR v Canada - Injunction Application
We promised you the largest and most complete case in favour of Canadian firearm owners that has ever been done, and we meant it.

On November 27, 2020 we served on the government our Motion Record in support of our application for an injunction against the government and RCMP Firearms Lab to stop the effect and enforcement of the OIC and the "bans by FRT".
The materials for this application are hundreds of megabytes in size and run 2,847 pages. This case is a monster.

I'll say this immediately: It is your financial support makes this possible. Without your support, this Motion wouldn't exist, and this fight wouldn't be happening. Thank you. You have our very sincere and profound gratitude for standing with us as you have.

Today, I am happy to present:

1. The Notice of Motion for the injunction; and
2. Our Memorandum of Fact and Law in support of the Motion.

READ IT: CCFR v Canada - Motion Record. Notice of Motion and Written Argument

Further to our delivery of the Motion Record for the CCFR v Canada injunction application, here is the Book of Authorities filed in support of the motion.
It's 1,137 pages long, so get a cup of coffee first.

READ IT: CCFR v Canada - Motion Record. Book of Authorities

I also include the cover page and Table of Contents (for overall understanding of what the whole package looks like, including its vast size).

I will also include the usual ask - if you like what we are doing and want to support this fight financially, please make a donation at the link if you can; and if you can't, don't - there are other ways you can support this fight.

This is the biggest fight in the history of Canadian firearm rights, and we do need help: https://firearmrights.ca/en/donate/

I will publish the rest of the materials in other posts, and we will have the usual web-stories for sharing in due course but you, our members, get this first.

Enjoy, and if you have questions I look forward to your comments.

~Michael Loberg, CCFR General Counsel, team lead for CCFR et al v Canada