Yes. That's my concern about the evergreen definition the Liberals proposed. It's that it would capture a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns, because even though magazines that carry over five rounds or cartridges are illegal in Canada, many of these firearms are designed in other countries without these restrictions to take magazines that would have over five rounds. Many commonly used hunting rifles and shotguns would have been banned if this amendment had gone forward.
That is a concern we have when writing an evergreen definition, and it's why I don't think it's necessary, because we already have an evergreen definition in this country that bans fully automatic select-fire firearms and that bans firearms with high-capacity magazines. This is an evergreen definition that has largely worked and that is politically not divisive in this country overall.
Now we're talking about going after semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are widely used by hunters, as we've seen from a wide array of testimony. How does the government try to come back and narrow this evergreen definition? I just don't think they are capable of doing it, because any definition is going to be redundant. It's already going to capture the existing evergreen bans or it's going to capture a lot of legitimately and commonly used hunting rifles and shotguns.
This is going to impact the way of life of so many people. Is this going to impact the way of life for folks who go through your courses and folks who are part of your association? Is it going to impact your way of life should these amendments go through again?