HASSELWANDER: (SCC cost paid by OHA and NFA)

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision, 19 May 93:  A
semi-automatic firearm is a "prohibited weapon" and its possessor
a criminal because it can be physically altered to become
"capable" of firing full automatic "in a relatively short period
of time with relative ease."

Effects: Because many sporting and target firearms can be
converted to full automatic with minor changes which can be done
"in a relatively short period of time with relative ease," they
are now all, apparently, "prohibited weapons."  For example, it
takes less than 30 seconds to convert a Browning or Remington
shotgun to full auto, although very few of their owners know how
to do it, or even that it can be done.

Secondary effects: By re-defining the word "capable" in that
fashion, every magazine for a semi-automatic firearm,
regardless of capacity, is now apparently a "prohibited
weapon," although their owners don't know that.  The firearm is
not a "prohibited weapon," but its magazine is--even if the owner
doesn't own a firearm the magazine will fit into.

The penalty for simple possession of any "prohibited weapon" is
now "imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years" [CC s.
90(1)(a)].  Ignorance of its "prohibited weapon" status is not a
valid defence.

FINLAY: (SCC costs paid by NFA)

Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision, 09 Sep 93:  A person may
be guilty of a criminal offence ("careless storage" of a firearm)
where his behavior is merely negligent and not criminal per se.

Effects: This decision practically eliminates any hope that the
many parts of the Criminal Code which deal with non-criminal
behavior can or will be removed.  Because regulatory law is
frequently broken by those who do not therefore consider
themselves "criminals," it does not command unquestioning respect
and support.  Putting regulatory law into the Criminal Code
weakens public support for the criminal law, which is very
undesirable. 

TED SIMMERMON:

Simmermon's $3,000.00 MAS .223 rifle was converted to "prohibited
weapon" status by Order in Council (OIC) JUS-92-567-01.  He
refused to surrender it (because he would lose all his legal
rights if he did), but notified the Edmonton Police Service (EPS)
that he had it, and asked them to seize it.  They did not.  It
was necessary to take it to a firearms show and put it on public
display, after notifying the EPS and the media that it would be
there, before the EPS seized it.

The Order in Council is believed by Simmermon's lawyers to be
both void for improper enactment and void for vagueness.  It's
quite impossible to tell which firearms are "prohibited weapons"
and which are not by reading the OIC.

If Simmermon loses his hearing (where the evidence may be
hearsay, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required), he
may be charged with the criminal offence of "possession" of a
"prohibited weapon" and subjected to "imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years."  It is not known how the relaxed rules of
this hearing will relate to the rigorous standards which are
required in that case, if it is brought, but an adverse finding
will go far toward convicting him of the offence.  

The next part of this case will be heard on 22 Oct 93.

DAVID A. TOMLINSON:

Tomlinson applied for renewal of the registration of a firearm in
his collection, as required by the new laws.  At the same time,
he filed a letter refusing to "consent" to "periodic inspection"
of his premises, on the grounds that such a "periodic inspection"
is actually a police officer, without a search warrant, who
enters his home or office to search for evidence of violation of
the OIC regulations which deal with storage of firearms.

If any violation of the regulations is found, the result can be a
criminal charge against Tomlinson, with the possibility of
"imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

It is noteworthy that the letter refusing to renew Tomlinson's
registration certificate told him that he could appeal the
decision to a provincial court judge, but the Crown argued
successfully that he could not.  The false information supplied
to Tomlinson has already cost thousands of dollars in wasted
lawyer fees and other expenses.

This case is going into an upper court as soon as the papers can
be completed and filed.

DAVID HAMEL: 

Hamel was charged with two offences in relation to using
dog-repellant spray to stop a person who was attacking him. 
Actually, he was using the same pepper spray the police used on
teenagers recently in a mall riot; the stuff is a "prohibited
weapon" if sold, carried or used with the intention of using it
on people, but not if the intent is to use it on vicious dogs.

The NFA assisted in Hamel's case, because there is a crying need
to clarify this very murky situation regarding self-protection. 
The existing case law rests on a case where the defendant was
cleaning fish, and used his fish knife to protect himself from an
attacker.  Hit with weapons charges, he was found not guilty; the
knife was a tool until after he was attacked, then became a
weapon--but a weapon used in self-protection where needed is
lawful use of a weapon.

When the case got to court, the Crown withdrew all charges; the
entire preparation became wasted money and time.  If the Crown
was going to do that, why not do it much earlier?

GORDON DAVIDGE: 

Gordon Davidge was a clerk in the Firing Line sporting equipment
store.  Apparently, three young hoodlums came in to rob him, and
they murdered him, although he did not resist them.

The NFA is pursuing every avenue open to it to ensure that CC s.
85 firearms charges are laid in this case.  S. 85 allows the
judge to award "imprisonment for not more than fourteen years and
not less than one year" for the offence of using a firearm while
committing an indictable offence, and requires that the sentence
be served "consecutively" with any other sentence.

Frankly, the NFA is sick and tired of firearms laws being
promoted "to reduce crime" and watching Attorney Generals, Crown
Attorneys, and judges flatly refuse to consider using them
against violent criminals.  They seem to be reserved for honest
Canadians who dare to own or use recreational firearms.

MILARM: 

MilArm was broken into by a clumsy burglar who tripped the
alarms.  He was apparently stealing firearms, and had already
apparently taken one out of the building, so there is apparently
no doubt that he was in illegal possession of firearms and using
firearms in the course of a crime.

The NFA is attempting to ensure that CC s. 85 firearms charges
are laid in this case.