From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Mar 11 10:39:06 1998 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:25:23 -0600 From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #257 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23201 X-Lines: 563 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, March 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 257 In this issue: UPS not carrying firearms Re: Firearms owners. Re: Firearms Registry addresses CKPG radio talk show Road to Hell February Pointblank $ for Alberta Fish and Game Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #253 Re: E-mail Charest Re: $ for Alberta Fish and Game Firearms Registry addresses Re: CKPG radio talk show Fax the Feds web URL Re: March 8 in the Toronto Sun Firearms and ammunition dealers Journal: Dunblane again ? Re: Situation Report, Charest/Liberals/Reform Bullet rebounds at shooting ranges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:58:04 -0600 From: Howard & Sharon Sims Subject: UPS not carrying firearms About five - six years ago I sent a revolver to Davidsons in Peterborough to be repaired. No problem getting there, but it took three weeks for UPS to deliver the revolver. During conversations with the gunsmith at Davidsons I was informed of problems UPS was having in delivering firearms to the owners. It seems a few individuals (employees and otherwise) thought they should have these firearms instead of the original owners. The gunsmith and I kept in constant contact during the time he shipped it to me and the time it arrived. Good idea because UPS could not locate it for a few days. I was told that UPS was loosing, having stolen or whatever far too many firearms. If this is true about their loosing too many firearms, maybe this is why they no longer ship them. Howard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:55:11 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: Firearms owners. >Question. If a person does not qualify now for an FAC, what happens to >their firearms if C68 comes in to effect? Are they confiscated? >Just a question, as I am qualified for an FAC if I wished to pay the >money, but as I do not intend to aquire any more firearms, can't see any >reason to renew. But wondering??? A person who does not hold an FAC is free of a requirement to get a C-68 "licence" until 01 Jan 2001 [C-68's CC s. 98(1)]. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:57:50 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: Firearms Registry addresses >I live in a hamlet in Saskatchewan where we have no street names or >building numbers. My registration certificate shows my address in the >"Lot, Block, Plan" format. Is this an acceptable alternative for people >who have the traditional address? By using this legal address for the >dwelling location, and a PO Box for a mailing address, the database will >yield a "more difficult" address for criminal use. Yes, this is acceptable. In fact, CFR/FRAS often registers restricted firearms to the land description for farmers and ranchers -- which means that the firearm so registered can legally be anywhere on that land description, just as a city address makes it legal for the firearm to be anywhere on the lot. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:00:48 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (BC NFA) Subject: CKPG radio talk show I have been asked to participate in a talk show on March 24th at 9:00 am and will go until 10:00 am pst on CKPG radio in Princ George. The topic is based on the Proposed Prohibition of Pepper spray. I look forward to this opportunity to speak with Ben Misner and all who call in. I hope to speak with some of you from the chat and the digest, it would be nice to have a voice behind the words. Michelle Traver NFA-BC SSAC rmcreat@istar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:55:06 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: Road to Hell This seemed fitting for the digest, its a quote from the "Outer Limits" TV show. "It is said the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. It is with these same good intentions, that we blindly place our trust in those with power, the architects of our future, and all to often the manipulators of our ultimate fate." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:42:09 -0600 From: Linda Patrick Subject: February Pointblank The following is the NFA Ladies Editor's column appearing in the February issue of Pointblank. My column this month will center on the Petruik murder-suicide which occurred in Edmonton, Alberta, November 25, 1997. This case is a classic example of why legislation, no matter how well intended, cannot prevent real life tragedies. As a result of several violent episodes involving his wife Jennifer, Ken Petruik was arrested on January 9, 1997. Ninety firearms were seized at the time of Petruik's arrest. Petruik was subsequently released from police custody on a recognizance order issued on March 4. The order mandated that Petruik have no contact with his estranged wife and that he not be in possession of firearms. By an ironic twist of fate, Petruik's lawyer represented the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters in the provincial court challenge to the Firearms Act. Despite this order, Ken Petruik obtained a firearm to commit his crime. He did not use his Firearms Acquisition Certificate to obtain the sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun that was used as the murder weapon. This fact seems to have escaped the minds of our Department of Justice officials. Recognizing that Petruik represented a clear and significant danger to Jennifer Petruik, the Edmonton Police Service armed her with an electronic beeper she wore around her neck that would summon them on an emergency basis. All Jennifer Petruik had to do was press the button and the cavalry would come to her rescue. Press the button and she would be safe. Police receive a signal from Jennifer's residential alarm. It took several minutes for the first responding police officers to arrive at the Petruik home. At 4 p.m. on November 25, 1997, the tactical team surrounded Jennifer's home after receiving reports from neighbors who heard fighting and gunshots. FOUR HOURS LATER, police found the bodies of Jennifer and Ken Petruik in a basement hallway. Petruik had shot Jennifer once in the head then turned the gun on himself. When discussing this case with a Medical Practitioner friend of mine, the first comment he made was, "if only she had had a gun, she would be alive today, looking after her daughter". I was taken aback by this comment which came from a family man that does not own firearms. This led me to look further at various other situations involving domestic violence. The overwhelming burden of onus appears to be placed on the women within violent relationships. John Havelok, Justice Minister, Province of Alberta stated , "We cannot guarantee every individual's safety". Members of the Edmonton Police Service were quoted as saying "The only way Jennifer Petruik could have saved herself would have been to move away and assume a new identity". Jennifer Petruik was a Registered Nurse at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, earning approximately $45,000-$50,000 per year performing a job which she loved. How would you feel faced with prospect of having no recourse but to leave a good paying job with benefits in order to protect yourself and daughter. What you are about to read is viewed as being politically incorrect in Canada, and should not be read by those of weak character, or prone to heart palpitations. It seems to me that in Canada, women are perceived as victims that are unable to defend themselves or their children. As a result of this, women are murdered sometimes along with their children. Others leave their children orphans, as with the case of Jennifer Petruik. Research into the Right-to-Carry laws in the United States reveals that since the inception of this law, violent crime has plunged significantly. 31 states have adopted the Right-To-Carry laws and there is clear evidence to support the statistical claim by ALL states that violent crime has decreased significantly since the inception of these laws. Jennifer Petruik a Registered Nurse, was deemed trustworthy enough by society, to be given daily access to, and administer narcotics and other controlled drugs. In fact, in her hands was placed the safety and lives of her patients. Ursula Robinson, Jennifer Petruik's mother, claimed that her daughter on occasion did carry a handgun for her personal protection. Ironically it was Ken Petruik who suggested that she do this. When the firearms seizure occurred, Jennifer Petruik's only real defense to her husband was taken from her. The only solution to a lethal threat is lethal force. This is the very reason police officers carry firearms. Why wasn't Jennifer Petruik given the means by which she could defend herself? Was it because she wouldn't have followed the same rules of engagement that police officers MUST follow? In light of her profession, her responsibilities, and her personal nature it is highly unlikely that this woman was a danger to anyone. Although having a handgun in her possession would not have been a guarantee of surviving a lethal threat she just may have survived to look after her now orphaned daughter. Relying on the electronic beeper provided to her by the Edmonton Police Service, did guarantee her death, in facing a lethal threat. Jennifer Petruik became a victim twice on November 25, 1997. Once at the hands of her killer and once at the hands of the Canadian Justice System that disarmed her. The blood of this unfortunate woman stains this system. I can only hope that those who were actively involved in this preventable tragedy stop for a moment every now and then to think about the horror and fear racing through the mind of Jennifer Petruik as she realized the electronic device she was given wasn't going to protect her. Next month, my column will be on the fate of firearms after the death of their owner. Linda Patrick, NFA Ladies Editor ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:42:07 -0600 From: Kyle and Barbara Berry Subject: $ for Alberta Fish and Game (NOTE TO MODERATOR - if this drum pounding is becoming a little too repetitious or long winded feel free to trim as needed, or just return it and I'll back off for a while) [Moderator: Not yet, you have the ball rolling. HTB] Hampton Rifle & Pistol Club Inc. $500 (August 97) New Brunswick Terrace Rod & Gun - $500 Dawson Creek Sportsmans' Club -$500 Ridgedale Rod and Gun, Abbotsford - $500 Sherwood Park Fish&Game Association - $400, and continues to collect funds Oxford Fish & Game Protection Association, Woodstock, Ont. - $500 Moose Jaw Handgun Club (17 members) - $300 Spruce Grove Gun Club - $500.00 RFO of Ontario - $1000 The Shooting Federation of Nova Scotia - $500 (and another $500 to the NFA) OFAH [ont.federation of anglers and hunters] zone "D" - $500 Get a little sick and before I have my email sorted there's another $2000 added to the kitty. Maybe I should look for more exotic diseases other than just the latest flavour of 'flu. This is great!!! I gathered from some of the original posts that these are not necessarily rich organizations, and the sacrifice they're making is for ALL of us. For those of you getting ready to approach your club, here's the text of the original report posted in the January, 1998 issue of POINT BLANK. I was preparing to read it at our meeing when some rude individual interrupted me by moving we send a $500 donation . I believe I also have the text of the A.F.G.A. fax detailing Rock's attack on their law firm floating around on one of my computers. I'm willing to look this up and send it to anyone needing it to show just how effective this group had been in scaring and annoying this "gentleman" and his ministry. COURT CHALLENGE FUNDING (NFA Point Blank, Jan. '98) The bills keep coming in. We are now just under $100,000 in legal bills, and the case has not even been decided at the Alberta court level.... no matter what, this will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been extremely difficult to raise sufficient money to continue this fight on behalf of all firearm owners in Canada. We have got support from many individuals and clubs from across the country, but the reality is that it has only been about two-thirds of what it has cost so far. It is somewhat frustrating to hear people talk about "somebody should do something" about C-68, but when an organization like the Alberta Fish and Game Association steps up to the post and puts its money where its mouth is, the financial support we expected to get has just not been there. At this point we are extremely reluctant to continue the effort that will be required once this goes to the higher court. We thought firearm owners would financially support our endeavours, and that has not happened. We do thank those individuals and clubs who have donated funds, and those that are attempting to raise further funds. If there are individuals or club executive who can spearhead a further fund raising effort, we would appreciate it. Donations can be sent to: Alberta Fish and Game Association 6924 - 104 St. Edmonton, Alberta T6H 2L7 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:50:51 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #253 snip > >> >> One other tidbit that came up that I have not seen mentioned here was >> that the Federal Gov't approached Ontario Gov't regarding court case and >> suggested their presentation was so strong they were afraid that the >> handgun registration would be thrown out as well. > as it should be. Handgun registration is as useless and pointless as rifle or shotgun registration. - -keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:50:56 -0600 From: "H. Roy Stephens" Subject: Re: E-mail Charest To help Jean make the right decision you can e-mail him at: R:-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:51:11 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: $ for Alberta Fish and Game >(NOTE TO MODERATOR - if this drum pounding is becoming a little too >repetitious or long winded feel free to trim as needed, or just return it >and I'll back off for a while) > >[Moderator: Not yet, you have the ball rolling. HTB] Don't you dare return it. :-) It won't be repetitious until after the bills are paid. - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:51:22 -0600 From: Thomas Dirks Subject: Firearms Registry addresses My registration certificate shows my address in the "Lot, Block, Plan" format. Is this an acceptable alternative for people who have the traditional address? It is, in fact the 'only legal description' of the addressee. Anything else is a convenience of 'Le Poste du Canada'. Try and get your local FRO to argue with it, should give them all kinds of fits. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 05:51:28 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: CKPG radio talk show Michelle: I'm asking an MP friend of mine to help with your phone calls. Good luck!!!!! At 08:55 PM 10-03-98 -0600, you wrote: > >I have been asked to participate in a talk show on March 24th >at 9:00 am and will go until 10:00 am pst on CKPG radio in >Princ George. The topic is based >on the Proposed Prohibition of Pepper spray. I look forward to >this opportunity to speak with Ben Misner and all who call in. > >I hope to speak with some of you from the chat and the digest, >it would be nice to have a voice behind the words. > >Michelle Traver >NFA-BC >SSAC >rmcreat@istar.ca John T. Fowler Fine photography from Canada http://www.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 06:54:33 -0600 From: "d" Subject: Fax the Feds web URL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:19:43 -0600 From: "Dave Kratky (Marauder)" Subject: Re: March 8 in the Toronto Sun Jim Hinter wrote: > This article is in the Toronto Sun, March 8, 1998 > Gun crimes dropping but cops worry > To help police deal with new federal gun control legislation, each of > Toronto's 17 police divisions has been assigned a firearms liaison officer > to monitor local gun activity and to maintain links with the Special > Investigation Services Firearms section. You know, if they're paying these guys $50,000/year for thier "work", it seems to me that in Toronto alone we're looking at $850,000 in costs just for salery....... Where does this fit into the "$85 million over 5 years" bit??? > -- Dave Kratky O/O VAM Computers: (519) 925-3583 Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:19:48 -0600 From: alago@sioux-lookout.Lakeheadu.Ca (Allan Lago) Subject: Firearms and ammunition dealers With all the recent coverage about Canadian Tire stores dropping firearms and ammunition from their shelves, credit should be given to independent retailers, such as Al's Sports, Sioux Lookout, Ont., who have remained dedicated to serving hunters and sport shooters for over 25 years. Allan Lago Sioux Lookout, ON ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:24:51 -0600 From: dons@cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Journal: Dunblane again ? I was watching the CBC Journal last night and they said the Dunblane/Gun Control documentary will be showed tonight Mar 11th. I seem to remember other postings about this last week. I wonder if they show different Journals in different parts of the country. I'm in Ottawa. Don ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:25:15 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: Situation Report, Charest/Liberals/Reform >To help Jean Charest make the right decision, you can e-mail him at: > charej9@parl.gc.ca As you know, great pressure is being put on Jean Charest to "jump" (parachute?) into the job of Liberal Party Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party. It seems likely that he will accept the job. Let us assume that he DOES accept it, for a moment -- and then look at the situation when the next federal election is called. 1. The federal Conservatives have either been absorbed into the federal Liberal Party (likely, best), have no charasmatic Leader (likely, second best) or are led by Ralph Klein, formerly Alberta Premier (unlikely, worst case). Neither Klein nor any other major figure is LIKELY to take on the difficult task of raising the Conservatives from the ash heap where Kim Campbell left them. Klein's wife is known to be strongly against leaving Alberta and going to live in Ottawa, having said that he can go -- but without her. 2. That probably means that vote-splitting -- Conservative/Reform -- will not seriously affect the next federal election. The voters will have a clear choice -- Reform or Liberal -- with the NDP tagging along behind (as usual) and the Bloc Quebecois acting as the main rival to the Liberals in Quebec (as usual). The federal Conservatives will cease to be a major factor in Canadian politics. 3. It results in a major increase in the likelihood of a federal Reform government -- especially if the Liberals, as expected, cannot withstand the temptation to spend, spend, SPEND! 4. A Reform majority government can and will enact a sensible replacement for the entire firearms control package that we are currently saddled with. 5. The firearms community (and Reform, probably) can and will make hay out of the information that there is so little difference between Liberals and Conservatives that the Leader of the Conservatives can become a Leader of Liberals without the slightest problem. 6. Small-c conservatives will no longer be puzzled about which of two "conservative" Parties to vote for. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Losing a Leader can often result in the loss of a major battle. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 10:25:17 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Bullet rebounds at shooting ranges In message "Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #253", several folks wrote about their views and experiences with regard to the dangers associated with projectiles rebounding at shooting ranges. While Dave's original article dealt mainly with refuting the lethal threat involved, several other posters felt that it was necessary to express concern over the occasional bullet that does rebound, ricochet, spatter or otherwise find it's way back to the shooter. These concerns are genuine and though rare, they are one reason we stress the use of shooting glasses -- just as intelligent people recommend protective eye-wear for carpentry or the operation of any power tool. These hazards have existed for decades and, as with any endeavors, we accept them and prepare for them but we certainly do not otherwise let them affect the enjoyment of our endeavors. Having been splattered by lead when shooting too close to hard targets and showered by sporting clays fragments, I most certainly agree that we should be mindful of these things but I think they can be overstated - especially in the presence of un knowledgeable non-shooters. Dave was right - though bullets may hit the right combination of angles and surfaces to tumble their way back toward the shooter, anyone who is hit by one of these has managed the statistical equivalent of winning the 6/49 and will likely come away from it with nothing more than a red mark on some tender part of their body (unless they are an order of magnitude more unlucky and get hit in the eye and are stupid enough to be without glasses). We certainly don't need to be giving the anti's more "ammunition" in their fight to close down shooting. On a personal note, the most serious shooting accidents are usually the result of serious stupidity. When I was about 13, I had a "brilliant" notion to find out what happens to a hockey puck when shot with a pellet rifle. Standing back about 20 feet, I aimed at the middle of the standing disc. The tremendous whack to my forehead occurred at almost exactly at the same instant I pulled the trigger - teaching me that hockey pucks can send pellets back at just about the same velocity as when fired. The angry, red cratered welt above my left eye also taught me a valuable lesson in gun safety, I suppose God watches over fools and curious children. As Dave said, the level of danger at a range are a function of target hardness, angle, and elasticity and bullet construction and velocity. I don't think that the scenarios we see at target ranges pose any great degree of risk that can't be offset with good shooting glasses. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #257 **********************************