Stop the Bleed Course – May 26th
HPRC is partnering with Royal Victorian HealthCare to put on a certified Stop the Bleed Course
The course will be held on Tuesday May 26th – starting at 6:00pm at HPRC
Trainers will be onsite from RVH – the course will run approx. 2 hours
Having these skills is priceless, you learn them once and have them for life
Massive bleeding can not just come from shooting accident (heaven forbid) but at work places, vehicle accidents, working around the house
Victims of these events or injuries can quickly die from uncontrolled bleeding, within minutes even – you need to be your first responder before help arrives
Everyone of all ages can benefit from this training
Many of us carry tow ropes, jumper cables, etc in our vehicles to help others out in times of need – the same applies for accidents
These are more tools you should have available
This Course is the fully accredited Stop the Bleed program run in over 168 countries
Upon completion of the course you will get an official Stop the Bleed Certification Certificate
The focus in on life-threatening bleeding and what to do to quickly and effectively to control it with three quick techniques
You will be doing various real world scenarios including how to properly use a Tourniquet and pack various types of wounds to stop the bleed and potentially save a life
The training team will have props with them and all the different ways to stop that bleed, including using items you have available
This is a hands-on course with great information and real stories from folks who have been doing this work for many years
We cannot stress how important it is that we feel that everyone regardless of age, ability know these valuable life skills
HPRC believes this is important enough that we are going to subsidize some of the program cost
$50 flat fee per person
HPRC paying to bring trainers onsite
Each person will get a Trauma Bandage ($15)
so that they can use it as part of the training than take it home after
Discount on other things if they chose to purchase from RVH
Coffee and snacks will be on hand
You can also bring your spouse, friend, children -who you wish, no age restriction
The club will be closed during this event of course
A lot of effort was made to put this together because we believe that everyone needs these skills
We understand people are watching what they spend, but this is a good investment of your time
We have a limited number of spots available, so to register for the Course we simply ask that you
EFT $50 per person coming to hold your spot
You can EFT $50 to MONEY@HPRC.CLUB
In the notes of the transfer ensure you add your full name and that of anyone else coming please
We will track it that way and then send you reminders as we get closer
money@hprc.club is set of auto-deposit, no password
If you choose to pay cash or cheque for the course you are going to have to drop it off at the Club (black cash box) in the next few weeks please
Please use an envelope and put your name on it – we will than let you know your spot is held
Any questions about this course – please just reach out
We look forward to seeing a number of you there !
TEAM HPRC […]
Truth be Told …
https://www.huntinggearguy.com/news/common-government-and-media-lies-about-the-gun-confiscation-program
Common Government and Media lies about the Gun Confiscation Program
April 1, 2026
Adriel
I was recently featured in a CBC bit about the gun confiscation program with a . . .less than charitable framing of a clip. Reading a recent error-laden CTV article and seeing the government rapid-fire lies one after the other when they recently spoke on the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program (ASFCP) drove me to write this article.
Lie 1: The government has targeted 136,000 guns with this buyback. That’s what the government estimates there are in circulation.
Is it a lie? Depends who is saying it. Nathalie Provost recently said “1/3 is still a very good number of the total amount there is in circulation”. That’s a clear lie. We don’t know exactly how many affected guns there are but industry estimates are 1-3 million guns affected by this ban so the government always intended to short-change legal gun owners. When news outlets are saying the gov will “miss the mark” because they’re only getting 67k/136k, they’re neglecting that it’s actually way worse at 67k/2M. Others from the government have been using the 136,000 number as a target to mislead and reframe but it’s important to remember that this is not how many guns are out there, it’s just what the government budgeted for.
Lie 2: The government enacted the ban because of the NS Portapique shooting.
Is it a lie? Yes, in 2 ways.
Intent: They want you to believe they enacted the laws because of the shooting. These laws were already queued up for release and promised as a part of the LPC election platform, the timing of the attack was just used for convenience and maximum publicity. The real reason (leaked behind closed doors) that the Liberal Party enacted these laws is because they needed more votes in urban Quebec.
Omission: They want you to believe that the law would have stopped the NS shooter. They don’t mention that the NS shooter didn’t have a gun license and illegally smuggled in at least one of the firearms used. The new law would not have stopped or hindered the shooter at all. What would have stopped it? Basic police work: multiple people had reported to police that Wortman had illegally owned firearms. Following up on those tips could have resulted in charges that could have stopped Wortman.
There’s a gap between the problem (Wortman bringing in illegal guns from the US, plus failure to enforce current laws) and the solution: targeting legal gun owners.
Lie 3: “These are firearms designed for war”, Gary Anandasangaree.
Is it a lie? The government tried to give these to Ukraine and they outright refused as the firearms are not appropriate for war. The gov said that’s because the guns didn’t meet “Nato compliance standards” but Ukraine is not part of Nato and doesn’t generally use Nato-standard firearms so that doesn’t seem to make sense. A GSG16 is a mostly plastic 22LR rifle suitable for youth users. Is that newly-prohibited rifle “designed for war”? See “lie 5” for more discussion on the “designed for” argument.
Lie 4: This program will save lives.
Is it a lie? Few are directly answering. Listen to how researchers and academics are quoted on this one because they’re not answering the question above. Instead, they give more broad answers like “removing firearms so that people don’t have access can reduce injuries or death”. But again, that’s not what we’re doing here: we’re removing some firearms from people who most likely own several. You can see this in the early numbers of declarations – 27,000 people declared 57,000 guns. Separately, police and provinces have refused to participate because they claim it’s a waste of resources.
Lie 5: “These firearms are designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time”, Justin Trudeau. “These firearms are designed to kill”, Nathalie Provost.
Is it a lie? Justin Trudeau and Nathalie Provost don’t know anything about the designers intention for each of the firearms affected in the ban and they don’t get to act as representatives of gun designers intent. Most of the firearms in the ban are not military firearms. My AR15, which was affected by the ban, was built from the ground-up by me as a competition rifle. As the designer of that firearm build, I can tell you that I did not build it to kill the most amount of people in the shortest period of time. My kid’s GSG16 is not “designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time”.
Lie 6: “We are not removing hunting guns”, Nathalie Provost.
Is it a lie? Many of the firearms were used for hunting. The GSG16 that my son used for hunting small game was banned. I have friends who used their WK180 and Stag10’s for hunting and those guns are now banned.
Lie 7: We’re only banning 2,500 models of firearms, there are still 19,000 models on the market still left to use for hunting and sport shooting.
Is it a lie? That number of firearms includes ALL FIREARMS EVER MADE. There are not 19,000 guns “on the market” since it’s a number from Canada’s FRT database that includes information on all firearms. A great majority of those firearms are no longer in production and haven’t been for decades. It also includes prototype models that only had 1 ever made. You can’t say there are 19,000 models on the market because that’s not close to what’s actually available to purchase.
Lie 8: “This is taking assault style weapons off the street”
Is it a lie? The program is only for legal gun owners, so you can’t say you’re taking guns “off the street” because that suggests these guns are illegally owned or are being used by criminals.
Finally a truth:
“I don’t feel I am a gopher or a duck or a pop can“, Nathalie Provost. About the only thing she’s said that’s 100% true! […]
Week 5 Update
Great Video with full updates after Week 5 – 32,000 collected to date […]
Gun Ban – Important Info
Ian Runkle does an great job breaking this down along with support from the Ford government […]
CCFR | Save your Guns Campaign
The CCFR has posted a page along with a video and detailed information about its newest program to fight the firearms ban
All of the information is available by clicking on the link below
CCFR Call to Action
Reminder, HPRC is providing this as information only
You have full control of what you do with it […]
AX Throwing Station
Ax Throwing – Outdoor Range
Our thanks to Robert Carville for taking the time to create an Ax Throwing station in our Outdoor Range
Feel free to use it next time you are out there
The axes are in a plastic toolbox by the station; please keep them closed up when not in use
Please be careful as they are very sharp !
You should maintain a distance of at least 10-12 feet from the target […]
Civilian Firearms
Canada’s civilian gun culture should be part of our defence plan
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/tim-thurley-canadas-civilian-gun
An armed and trained citizenry, and a thriving weapons industry, are essential parts of any national defence strategy.
Canadians pretended we didn’t need to take defence seriously. We justified it with fantasies — the world wasn’t that dangerous, threats were distant, and America would rescue us if needed. That delusion is dead. U.S. Republicans and some Democrats don’t trust us to defend our own territory. Trump openly floated annexation and made clear that military protection now comes at a price — potentially statehood. Canadian military leaders now describe our closest ally as “unpredictable and potentially unreliable.” And even when America was a sure bet, our overreliance was reckless. Sovereignty requires self-defence; outsourcing it means surrendering power.
We should take cues from nations in similar situations, like Finland. Both of us border stronger powers, control vast, harsh landscapes, and hold valuable strategic resources. We’re internally stable, democratic, and potential targets.
We also share a key strength — one that could expand our military recruitment, onshore defence production, rebuild social trust, and bolster deterrence: a strong civilian firearms tradition.
We should be doing everything we can to make that tradition a bigger part of Canadian defence, and a larger part of our economy, too.
That may sound absurd to some Canadians. It shouldn’t. Finland is taking full advantage by attempting to expand shooting and military training for civilians both through private and public ranges and the voluntary National Defence Training Association. Finland is seeking to massively upgrade civilian range capacity by building 300 new ones and upgrading others to encourage civilian interest in firearms and national defence, and is doing so in partnership with civilian firearm owners and existing non-government institutions.
Multiple other states near Finland are investing in similar programs. Poland is even involving the education system. Firearm safety training and target practice for school children are part of a new defence education curriculum component, which includes conflict zone survival, cybersecurity, and first aid training. Poland’s aim is to help civilians manage conflict zones, but also to bolster military recruitment.
Lithuania and Estonia encourage civilian marksmanship as part of a society-wide comprehensive defence strategy. The Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, one of the small nation’s most recognizable institutions, is a voluntary government-sponsored organization intended to prepare civilians for resistance to an occupying power. It has 15,000 members in a population of 2.8 million. The Estonian Defence League trains mostly-unpaid civilian volunteers in guerrilla warfare. It has an 80 per cent approval rating in Estonia, where over one in every 100 men and women with ordinary jobs have joined to learn defence techniques, including mastering standard-issue military service rifles that they may keep at home, ready to fight on a moment’s notice.
These strategies are modern. These countries are no strangers to cutting-edge modern warfare, necessitated by a common border with an aggressive Russia. But technologies like drones are not a replacement for a trained and motivated citizenry, as the Ukraine conflict illustrates. Against a stronger and more aggressive neighbour, these societies deter and respond to aggression through organized, determined, and trained populations prepared to resist attackers in-depth — by putting a potential rifle behind every blade of grass.
Canada, meanwhile, is spending money to hurt our own capacity. It’s coming back to bite us. The Trudeau government misused civilian firearm ownership as a partisan political wedge and ignored the grave flaws of that strategy when they were pointed out, hundreds of times, by good-faith critics. Thousands of firearm models have been banned at massive and increasing expense since 2020 despite no evident public safety benefit. In the recently concluded party leadership race, Mark Carney pledged to spend billions of dollars confiscating them. Government policies eliminating significant portions of business revenue have maimed a firearm industry that historically contributed to our defence infrastructure. Civilian range numbers, which often do double-duty with police and even military use, plunged from roughly 1,400 to 891 in five years. Without civilians to maintain ranges for necessary exercises and qualification shoots, governments must assume the operating expenses, construct new ranges, or fly participants elsewhere to train.
A serious, forward-thinking government could have anticipated these counterproductive consequences when Russia invaded Crimea and Donbas in 2014. It could have seen its backwardness before Bill C-21 received first reading in May 2022, a scant three months after Russian tanks openly rolled into the Ukrainian heartland and Ukraine handed firearms to civilians to help resist the invaders. Instead, our government remains committed to wedge politics.
Correction is possible. Canada has a long history of grassroots-oriented defence efforts ready to be adapted. Encouraging civilian marksmanship for military purposes was our government’s policy for much of our history. Shooting was the first Canadian sport to receive federal funding for that reason. The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA) was incorporated by Parliament in 1868 to ensure civilians and military members were competent with military firearms should the need to serve arise. The militia reports of the day make glowing reference to the interest in the shoots. Civilians competed at DCRA Service Rifle matches with standard-issue military rifles well into the 1970s. Despite teething issues, forces we raised through these traditions were competent and feared by our enemies.
Another institution loosely analogous to those of our allies is the Canadian Rangers, founded in 1942 to project sovereignty in sparsely populated regions of Canada. Rangers are issued a firearm that’s kept with them at home, though for self-defence and sustenance rather than combat. Many Rangers are from rural and northern regions and familiar with firearms.
We should reinvigorate the mandate of these existing organizations to meet modern defensive needs. The DCRA could expand and be refined with modern Finnish- or Estonian-style training, becoming a catalyst to reopen the urban ranges short-sightedly closed in the 1990s and 2000s. Supervised civilian service rifle competitions could once more be DCRA hosted. The DCRA is suited to sell surplused rifles and ammunition to licensed and screened owners to encourage self-funded practice, as our allies do. The objectives are to expand knowledge, create a vehicle for recruitment, improve our deterrent, and provide a stronger starting point should the worst happen.
A new style of tactically-trained and localized civil defence force, taking a role between the existing Rangers and the Primary Reserve, could fill critical gaps — especially in remote areas where it is not feasible to have a permanent presence. This force, made up of regional volunteers similar to the Baltic models, could complement a full-time professional core by increasing rapid response capabilities in the vast remote areas where we struggle to project power quickly, or by contributing trained manpower to large threat events.
Major parties have proposed onshoring and increasing defence spending. Small-arms manufacturing is the perfect place to do both. The reality is that Canada is and will remain reliant on foreign partners for a significant amount of our complex materiel in the short to medium term. Small arms are not necessarily complex. They are one area where Canada can quickly onshore substantial manufacturing ability while offering value for money.
Most countries known for producing firearms and ammunition for military clients also produce for civilian clients: Zastava in Serbia, Česká Zbrojovka in Czechia, Sako in Finland, Nammo in Norway and Finland, and Norma Precision in Sweden are a few non-American examples. Colt Canada, now owned by CZ, sold civilian rifles until the 2020 prohibitions. Civilian sales nurture innovation thanks to demanding end-users and maintain production lines, avoiding excessive up- and down-tooling for sporadic individual defence contracts. Civilian sales provide a steady source of supplementary income, especially on consumables such as ammunition, and enable companies that didn’t get the latest defence contract to continue to survive and innovate until called to bid again.
Canada used to be an outstanding small arms manufacturer. Our Second World War-era production figures are almost unbelievable by today’s standards. We maintained excellent production knowledge for decades. The current government’s actions forced the industry to operate with sporadic contracts in an unpredictable legal environment. Despite the resultant low economies of scale, the tenacity of domestically-owned companies such as MDT, Cadex, and PGW shows Canada has the potential to reach high-quality, cost-effective mass production in the sector — a stark contrast to much of our defence industry.
Canada is nearly unique among middle powers in that we have the resources and expertise to sustain a modern small arms supply chain almost entirely domestically once tooled up. That will require predictable rules for manufacturers and civilians, directed state support through consistent government contracts for key items such as hammer-forged barrels, and structural encouragement of exports. Canada is not bound by the complex American ITAR rules, meaning that as other nations look to diversify small arms contracts, Canada can be easily placed to fill them.
These proposals might also help address a key social issue: trust. Reinvigorated community defence institutions will build bridges between constituencies, which the early rifle associations accomplished by being popular events on the social calendar for all political persuasions. Canadians of all stripes and regions, rural and urban, will be able to join together for a higher purpose and share institutional commonality with fellow Canadians thousands of miles away. Trusted, licensed gun owners and businesses can contribute their knowledge and experience and be treated as welcome stakeholders and partners by governments.
We need bold new ideas for our new multipolar world. While we ramp up other needed defence priorities — NORAD modernization, critical infrastructure, naval capacity, and new aircraft — Canada can look to our allies and our history to build a defensive strategy for the new paradigm. We can lean on a massive comparative advantage to improve our security situation and relaunch a defence subsector that can thrive in its own right. Our safe, capable, democratic allies have fewer resources, yet are maximizing these advantages. If we do not want to be in our present state — or worse, a 51st state — we would be wise to stop squandering ours. […]