From owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Dec 11 14:37:34 1996 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Presentation on Regulations This is the fifth in a series of analytical papers covering the Nov 96 Regulations, written for those who need source material for their presentations to the House subcommittee in Jan 97. Feel free to use, study, and plagiarize. AUTHORIZATIONS TO CARRY RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND CERTAIN HANDGUNS REGULATIONS This begins, at 1, with a silliness common to both Bill C-68 and the regulations. It defines: "'holster' means a holster...", apparently not realizing that one should not use the word being defined as part of the definition. It then adds another silliness, by redefining a subclass of the "prohibited firearm" family as a "prohibited handgun," creating an additional name for something already defined in the legislation. The situation created by C-68 -- the subdivision of firearms into a multitude of mutually exclusive but overlapping "kinds" -- is quite confusing enough without adding more terms. 2 and 3 are an example of confused thinking. "Protection of life" has two aspects: protection of human life from criminal violence, and protection of human life from the dangers of the wilderness. As usual, in an attempt to confuse the issues, these two regulations were written in such a fashion as to muddle the dividing line between "To protect life" and "Lawful profession or occupation." The criteria for issuance for protection of human life from criminal violence should include degree of danger, absence of effective protection otherwise available, and a standard of training in firearms and law equivalent to that of an RCMP constable. These criteria _should_ apply to all security guards and local police (who are often shockingly under-trained), because their only reason for carrying a handgun is "to protect life." They are forbidden to use their handguns for any other purpose. The wearing of a uniform, as required by 5(c), says nothing about whether the person authorized to carry is competent. The criteria for issuance for protection of human life from the dangers of the wilderness should include knowledge of relevant laws, an appropriate standard of training, and the degree of danger. Note that wilderness carry includes two methods of protecting life: A. Carriage of a large and powerful handgun for protection against attacks by bears, cougars, wolves with rabies, and other predators. B. Carriage of a light "survival" .22 handgun for small game hunting when all other gear is lost with the rest of the gear in a canoe tipover, or when the helicopter does not come back to pick up the wilderness camper. As usual, in an attempt to confuse the issues, these two regulations (2 and 3) were written in such a fashion as to muddle the dividing line between "To protect life" and "Lawful profession or occupation." They attempt to give the idea that "protection of life" carry permits for wilderness areas can only be issued to full-time wilderness workers. Now if someone would only explain to the _bears_ that part-time wilderness workers and people in the wilderness for travel or recreational reasons should not be attacked... 4(a) is deficient in that it does not require a knowledge of relevant law. 4(b) is deficient in that the CFO (usually a superannuated police officer who held down a desk throughout most of his career) does not have the expertise to determine "if the restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is appropriate. It is popular, but very wrong, to assume that any bureaucrat with "firearms" in his title is a firearms expert. Nothing could be farther from the truth. 5 has "shall attach" legal problems that are detailed in the first paper of this series. 6(1)(b) is even more ludicrous than 4(b), in that it requires the CFO to assess the holders "physical or mental state." Or are all CFOs going to be doctors? 7 requires sending "reasons" to the rejected applicant, but not copies of relevant laws, and not information on appeal procedures [FA s. 74-81]. And that is wrong. Dave Tomlinson, NFA Anyone who thinks the Liberals are popular and well-loved in Canada should have watched the Town Hall Meeting that Chretien staged on the CBC. Boy, what a roasting! And our Jean turning slowly, slowly on the spit...