[Image] NFA PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO COPY AND DISTRIBUTE THESE PAGES VOLUME XII, NUMBER 3 1995, MARCH EDITORIAL MEMBERSHIP DRAW: The Ontario chapter has received as a donation from an NFA member, a Winchester RCMP Centennial Carbine. This will be drawn as a prize for members who obtain new NFA members. Obtain a new member. Send in his/her paid membership and include your name and address. These will be kept separate and some lucky member will get the carbine this summer. Remember though that you will have to have a valid FAC to take possession. Good luck and thanks Ontario. BC PRESlDENT: Des Keddie has stepped down effective immediately. Dennis Horsman will take over. The new NFA (DO address) is 1706E 1st Street, Vancouver, DO V5N IBI. Temporary telephone (604) 253-3311 and fax (604) 255-2202. ELECTIONS: We are, slowly, receiving applications for positions on the Provincial Boards and executives but we do need more. Basically all that is needed is that you be a current member and are prepared to help the executive in whatever manner you are capable when asked. Executive members need to have been members for at least a years. This latter is so that you have some reasonably good understanding of where the NFA stands and where we are going. The National Board members are appointed one from each province. The 3 National Executive positions are open to election. Please help us out on this one if you feel you are able. SUBMISSION INFORMATION: This is to provide more information to you on the areas likely to be addressed in Justice(?) Minister Rock's bill. We strongly suggest that every club, and even members, submit a brief on this. Address to The Firearms Act Committee, Enclose in a cover envelope and send to Hon. Jack Ramsay MP, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 06A. He will forward to the applicable committee when it is known. Do it as soon as possible. If you are refused you have great ammunition to go to the local media on the basis that the Government Is refusing to allow Canadian citizens their right to participate in the democratic process. NFA RED ALERT We have received a series of unrelated reports from various parts of Canada, all telling or confirming bits of the same story. While we are unable to absolutely confirm the accuracy of the story they tell, on the balance of probabilities it appears that the story is true. Because of the very serious possible consequences for collectors and their families, we are compelled to issue this Red Alert. The story says that an attempt was made to steal firearms from a "grandfathered" collector of full automatic firearms. A "grandfathered" collector Is one who owned full automatic firearms before 01 Jan 1978 or "converted" (to semi-auto or manual operation) full autos before 01 Oct. 1992. One of the people arrested was in possession of a computer printout list of "grandfathered" collectors, with addresses and a list of all firearms registered to that person. I have talked to the RCMP's FRAS (Firearms Registration Administration Section) in Ottawa, and they say they know nothing of any such broach of their security of registration records. On the other hand, we have reports that "grandfathered" collectors' files are being removed from entry, of the address to the "quick response" files for alarms by local police forces. The "quick response" files are for gun stores, jewelry stores and other prime targets, and are tabbed so that the police respond swiftly to any indication of trouble at that spot. We cannot absolutely confirm the accuracy of the reports, but we strongly recommend that all "grandfathered" collectors and other large-scale collectors take security precautions, particularly against armed home-invasion criminals. Disassemble all FA and CA guns. Make sure that they will be inoperable if stolen. We request that all NFA members attempt to learn the truth of this story, and fax all Information to NFA HQ, at (403) 439-4091. If proof is found, the implications are rather horrible. it would mean that in order to save themselves embarrassment or to save the Minister's political attack on the recreational firearms community, the RCMP and its registration bureaucracy has hidden the fact that the life and safety of every "grandfathered" collector and his family has been exposed to serious risk by the RCMP's registration system - even more so that the current risk that "periodic inspectors" will be followed to collectors homes. SUBMISSION INFORMATION INTRODUCTION: Alan Rock's Liberal Party intends to piggyback the unpopular parts of its firearms control legislation onto "anti-crime" provisions, like the adding of extra penalties for the use of a firearms or imitation of a firearm in the course of a violent crime. The actual intent has nothing to do with violent crime. The intent is to focus public opinion on firearms as "the" problem in violent crime, with the clear intent of claiming that anything done to get rid of firearms will reduce the member of victims killed or injured annually in Canada, Research clearly indicates that, to the extent the legislation has the effects claimed for it, the number of victims killed or injured annually in Canada will go up, not down, Alan Rock's Liberal Party is deliberately ignoring its own research in order to attack the recreational firearms community politically. The basis for "attacking violent crime" by adding penalties for violent criminals armed with firearms is the old Criminal Code section 85. It provides an extra 1 to 14 years, which must be served consecutively to any other sentence, for such use, but: SECTION 85 PROBLEMS: In a study done by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, It was found that there were some 600,000 convictions in 1991-92, but only 12,287 were convictions for violent crimes. IN ONLY 52 OF THOSE 12, 287 CASES WAS THE CRIMINAL CONVICTED UNDER COS. IN 100 PER CENT OF THOSE 52 CONVICTIONS, THE SENTENCE WAS THE MINIMUM ALLOWED BY s.85:0N YEAR OF IMPRISONMENT From those figures, CANADA'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM appears to have no serious problems with criminals armed with firearms, If criminals were armed with firearms in only 52 out of the 12, 287 violent crimes for which convictions were obtained, then the problem is clearly minimal. However, "Research on the Application of Section 85 of the Criminal Code of Canada WD1994-20e" states [p.26], "Of charges laid under section 85, approximately two-thirds are typically stayed, withdrawn or dismissed." WD1994-9e also says [Exhibit 111-5] that 24 per cent of the accused were found guilty or pled guilty in 1991,1992, and 1993. Only 4 to 8 per cent were found not guilty, but 67 to 70 percent of such charges were "withdrawn, dismissed or discharged." There are apparently three lessons to be drawn from this data: First, it Is quite rare for a 5. 85 charge to actually be laid against an armed violent criminal. Second, where such a charge is actually laid, the chance of the charge resulting in conviction is 24 per cent, mainly because the charge is usually withdrawn before the judge can consider it. Third, the singling out of firearms for special charges is wrong. The criminal justice system reacts badly to Imposing a mandatory penalty that runs consecutively to any other sentence for being armed with a firearms during the crime, while no extra penalty is imposed for being armed with or threatening, injuring or even killing a victim with any other type of weapon. Police, prosecutors and judges are loath to lay the charge, eager to plea bargain it away, and reluctant to impose the mandatory extra sentence - probably because the singling out of one type of weapon without consideration being given to how or whether the weapon was actually used seems both unfair and unjust. If the word "weapon" had been used instead of the word "firearms" in s. 65, those three problems would probably not be so severe, and s. 85 might be used more effectively. As it is, it is an ineffective deterrent because it is not used in the real world. In the proposed legislation, the same blunder is repeated. Being armed with a firearms is given special status, even where the firearms is not used, or is only a harmless imitation of a firearm. At the same time, a criminal armed with - or even actually using - an axe, knife, machete or other deadly weapon is not at risk from the proposed legislation. No deterrence can be imposed on them by legislation silent on their armament. Clearly, the legislation makes no sense if the intent is to deter violent crime and prevent injury or death of victims. A little more research into this type of proposal suggests easily-predictable but quite horrifying results. WD1994-20e also tells us [Exhibit 111-6, p. 24] that In over half of all s. 85 cases, the attached violent crime was armed robbery. FOR THE PERIOD 1988-91, "WEAPONS AND VIOLENT CRIME" [CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, 1991, R 12] TELLS US THAT 94.6 PER CENT OF WEAPONS CAUSING INJURY OR DEATH TO ROBBERY VICTIMS WERE NOT FIREARMS. ONLY 5.4 PER CENT OF INJURED OR KILLED VICTIMS WERE INJURED OR KILLED BY FIREARMS. DURING THE SAME 1988-91 PERIOD, 71.2 PER CENT OF TOTAL ROBBERIES WERE NON-FIREARMS AND 28.8 PER CENT WERE FIREARMS ROBBERIES. COMPARING THE TWO SETS OF DATA CLEARLY INDICATES THAT VICTIMS ARE 5 TIMES LESS LIKELY TO BE INJURED OR KILLED IF THE ROBBER USES A FIREARM. THAT SEEMS STRANGE, BUT THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR IT. In a major study reported in his book, "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, "Professor 0. Kleck reported that the reason for the shortage of injuries and death in firearms robbery cases was that firearms can be used to control behavior at a distance, but nearly all other weapons required the armed robber to be within touching distance of his victim in order to make the threat seem real. Where robber and victim are in such close proximity, the likelihood of the weapon being used is much higher. Almost anything can trigger the escalation from threat to violence. It makes very little sense to deter robbers from using firearms, with the predictable result is that if they switch to other weapons, the injury and death rates will go up instead of down. if the word "weapon" had been used instead of the word "firearms" throughout the proposed legislation, it might make some sense. As is, it does not. A PARTICULARLY ASININE PART OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THE INCLUDING OF "REPLICA' (Imitation) FIREARMS. THE ONLY POSSIBLE EFFECT OF SUCH A PROVISION IS TO DRIVE THE CRIMINAL AWAY FROM HARMLESS IMITATION FIREARMS, AND TOWARD REAL DEADLY WEAPONS. Instead of being encumbered with a handful that cannot do any harm, the legislation proposes to push the criminal toward a real gun, a knife, or a machete. That is counterproductive. It is precisely the refusal to use this sort of easily-available research data that has turned the recreational firearms community against this entire legislative proposal. We are fully aware of the prejudice against using s. 85 that has become characteristic of the Canadian criminal justice system. We are fully aware that the new legislation, if enacted, will suffer the same fate as a. 85 - underused, underenforced, and a waste of effort. We are not impressed, and we reject these amateurish proposals. Go back to the drawing board, and next time offer Canadian voters something that makes sense. WE ARE FULLY AWARE THAT THE MAJOR PREDICTABLE EFFECT OF ENACTING LEGISLATION SO POORLY RESEARCHED, SO BADLY DESIGNED, AND SO BASICALLY SILLY IS AN INCREASE INTO THE NUMBER OF CANADIAN VOTERS KILLED, INJURED AND ROBBED IN YEARS TO COME. WE REJECT IT! Return to Point Blank Index ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article is reproduced from the March 1995 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 as the Official Positions of the National Firearms Association. For further information, please contact Remington Nevin. Remington Nevin remnevin@interlog.com August 24, 1995