[Image] NFA PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO COPY AND DISTRIBUTE THESE PAGES VOLUME XI, NUMBER 12 1994, DECEMBER EDITORIAL RENEWALS: Good news. With a lot of keyboarding help from a new NFA member and the new database living up to all expectations by the time you receive this we will be current again. You will notice some format changes on cards and labels. Our accounting needs are also on line with the database and that alone speeds things up considerably. NEW DATABASE: This custom program not only includes far more flexibility than any we could find on the market but includes a basic bookkeeping. capability integral with the database. Our plans are, once we are fully satisfied all is well, to offer it to all NFA clubs at as low as practical cost. For this purpose we need to know from all clubs possible exactly what information you want to see in your records. While I doubt very many will need the level of complexity of the NFA requirements we do want to see that it meets your particular needs. Please send this information to the NFA Calgary office. Thanks. LEGAL BATTLE: We have received a number of calls from firearms owners that are discouraged with what has, and is, apparently, about to happen. We must admit that even those are determined to treat the Liberals the same in the next election as we did the PCs in the last. Don't lose that resolve. However we, realistically, never expected to come out of this unscathed. Only one has to look at the historical dictatorial methods of the Liberal party over the years since Trudeau to see why. With the help, finally, of firearms groups across Canada we did achieve something that can be called survivable. Still totally wrong. Still illegal in many areas as our court cases have, and will, show in the near future. Some will lose some property but we are determined that where this occurs they will receive compensation at least. But the bottom line still remains educating the public, politicians and bureaucrats in the next election. This was only one battle in the war. My studies showed me that the British had a disconcerting habit of losing battle after battle - but they rarely lost the war. Can we do less? NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN: Courtesy of one of the members - per Aristotle in "Politics", chapter 10, paragraph 14: "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." Personally, I think that both then, and now, it is becoming more apparent that the people also mistrust the oligarchs (read politicians). WHAT A MESS! YOUR NEXT JOB: Ask your MP for a copy of every firearms-related Order in Council issued since 01 Jan. 1991, plus the complete government handout Rock was issuing in Dec. 94. All clubs, stores, and gun owners, do that! Everyone needs to know! Flood them with requests! Under Alan Rock, the law is fouled up to an unbelievable degree. It has become impossible to tell whether particular firearms are unrestricted, restricted, or prohibited. The errors and omissions in the registration system are coming to the surface, and the system may be dead within two years. Both the validity and the meaning of old and new Orders in Council (OAC) are in question. Much of the laws may soon be ruled "void for vagueness", or "unconstitutional" using arguments available from the NFA. Kim Campbell issued 6 OICs which converted firearms, shoulder stocks, cartridges and other property to "prohibited weapon" or "restricted weapon" status. She began widespread confiscation of private property. No one paid the owners compensation. The NFA designed, ran and paid for the Simmermon test case, to prove that a rifle so "converted" by OIC was NOT a prohibited weapon. The Alberta Court of Queen's bench ruled that the OIC was invalid, because Criminal Code section 116(2) required her to put the OICs before "each House of Parliament" for "30 sitting days." She didn't; so her 6 OICs are invalid. The Crown is appealing, but does not expect to win; reversing Simmermom would have huge side effects everywhere. It would require altering the definition of the word "regulation," and no court wants to do that - it would affect railroads, dams, etc. Allan Rock issued OIC JUS-94-829-01 to convert all Campbell's JUS-92-569-01 "restricted" firearms (except M-16s and their AR-15 variants) to "prohibited" status (effective 01 Jan 95), and JUS-94-841-01 to remove them from "restricted" status. Look at those numbers; were they both "restricted" and "prohibited" for a brief time? AND he repeated Campbell's blunder, so his 94-829 is apparently invalid because of Simmermon It is impossible to tell for certain which firearms are covered as "variants", but all Italian semi-auto shotguns are apparently "prohibited weapons" as defined by OIC 94-840. Rock's JUS-94-838-01 converts "any knife commonly known as a 'push-daggar' (sic) that is designed...(with) the handle perpendicular to the main cutting edge of the blade." It is apparently invalid - usual reason. I guess they don't understand big words like "perpendicular". I've never seen a knife with the handle rising out of the cutting edge; have you? 94-839 has an exception for the aboriginal "ulu" knife. Effective 01 Jan 95, it is apparently invalid - usual reason. I find it fascinating that they outlaw push daggars - but didn't tell the public about it! They told the RCMP, but no one else. As of 01 Jan 95, many knife collectors would have been innocently in possession of "prohibited weapons" and eligible for 10 years. One interesting point is that, where Rock's OIC revoke earlier OIC, the revocation may be valid, while the new material is invalid. That's because s. 116(2) says that "regulations" must be placed before each House for 30 sitting days, but is silent on any such requirement for revocations. The language of the OICs is, as usual, atrocious. They really should hire someone with an adequate command of English. Rock repeats Campbell's use of the undefined term, "variant". The NFA's paper, "ANALYSIS OF VARIANT OF MODIFIED VERSION" is available from NFA, Box 1779, Edmonton AB T5J 2P1. We ask for a $5 donation to cover copying and mailing, but will send it if you can't afford that. The Simmermon kit - all researched arguments and decisions - is available ($15) from the same source. It's all valuable material and available nowhere else. The situation is clear. Rock is using Campbell's ideas, language and legal principles to attack the recreational firearms community. There is no difference between Rock and Campbell; and no difference between Campbell's conservatives and Chretien's Liberals. It is now necessary to prove that Rock has the same effect as Campbell:large numbers of people abandoning his party and joining the Reform Party. That's a political message. LEGAL SITUATION If anyone orders you to turn in property affected by the above OICs, we recommend that you refuse. If they believe that Rock's OICs are valid, they should get a warrant to search for and seize the "prohibited weapons". UNDERSTANDING CRIMINAL CODE SECTION 102 SEIZURES: If they have a Search Warrant, they must leave you a copy. If they don't, it has to be a "safety" problem. Even if they have no warrant, they must file a Return. Read the Search Warrant to find out which court issued it. Go to that court, and get a copy (pay for copying) of the information (data given to the judge to persuade him to issue the Warrant), and the Return (data they must give the court to explain how the Search Warrant was actually used, and that was taken). Within 14 days of the seizure, create a data set: a "claim" for the return of your property, under Criminal Code 3. 102(2) and s. 337. Include evidence (registration certificate copies, bills of sale, statement by witness) that it is your property. Make 3 photocopies of the data set you've created. Do not delay! CRIMINAL CODE s.337: 337. Everyone who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or in right of a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, or custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. Ready to act? Give one data set to your lawyer, one to your witness, and keep one. Have your witness check the original against his copy, then seal the original data set in an envelope and keep it while you go together to the police station. Get the police officer who seized your property, them claim it verbally. As you do so, have your witness hand the officer the envelope. Note: He can swear to the contents, later, in court, and has a copy of everything in the envelope - as you have. Asked within 14 days under s. 102 (2), they must return your property "forthwith." If they refure to do so, that triggers s.102(3): They must bring all your property before a provincial court judge "forthwith." Usually, rushing them into court is a good idea; they aren't ready for resistance, let alone court action in a very few days. If you lose in court, demand compensation. Peter W. Hogg, "Constitutional Law of Canada": "There is a rule of statuatory interpretation in Anglo-Canadian law that a statute which takes private property is to be read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to the private owner." Interestingly, the government apparently becomes liable to pay the compensation even if it only reduces the value of the private property to zero. If Rock's legislation bars sales, then the government is immediately required to pay for 555,239 handguns ($100 million) and 28,084 rifles/fullautos/converted full autos (an additional $20 million?) as a result of value reduction, in accordance with Manitoba Fisheries, Supreme Court of Canada. LATE NOTE: The NFA is assisting in a court case where we intend to prove that the registration system cannot beused to distinguish between a "restricted weapon" and a "prohibited weapon". As the law stands, there is no physical difference between two firearms, one "restricted" and the other "prohibited". The only difference is the government's paper trail, and we can prove that it is riddled with errors. IF YOU'RE HEADED INTO COURT, CALL THE NFA: (403) 439-1394 [Return to Point Blank Index] [Return to Main Menu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is reproduced from the December 1994 edition of the National Firearms Association's Point Blank newsletter. This has been reproduced as a public service, and may contain minor inaccuracies. Therefore, this information should not neccessarily be considered the Official Positions of the National Firearms Association. For further information, please contact Remington Nevin. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Remington Nevin remnevin@interlog.com November 1, 1995