CDN-FIREARMS Digest 226 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Much more than mere gun control by rbryce@eagle.wbm.ca (Bob Bryce) 2) letter by Skeeter Abell-Smith 3) Throwing Rocks... by SHELDON CLARE 4) IPSC CANADA APPEARANCE AT JUSTICE COMMITTEE by graphix@passport.ca (Glenn Springer) 5) B.C. Report - 4 Stars! by SHELDON CLARE 6) Re: gun control: instructors boycott by bh718@freenet.carleton.ca (Keith de Solla) 7) local NRP guys shot a fellow officer (killed him) while practising by graphix@passport.ca (Glenn Springer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:17:52 -0600 From: rbryce@eagle.wbm.ca (Bob Bryce) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Much more than mere gun control Message-ID: <199504242217.QAA10959@regulus> Following is the entire text of the article "Much more than mere gun control" which was published in the April 24, 1995 issues of Western Report. This is posted with the full permission of Western Report who provided a text version of this article stating "We are granting you permission to distribute the story in its complete unaltered form with proper credit to Alberta/Western Report. This issue is completely sold out, so if you want a printed copy you better check your local newstand soon. You may distibute this article in any way; FAX it to your MP. Be sure to give the credit. You could email a thank-you to Alberta Report at ar@ccinet.ab.ca (Alberta Report) Bob Bryce The text of this article follows: ******************************************************* Much more than mere gun control ---------------------------------------- Rock's firearms bill tramples centuries-old freedoms for everyone, not just gun owners "In English common law the principle that anything not prohibited is permissible has existed since time out of mind," says Calgarian Ronald Cantlie, an expert on jurisprudence - the study of the origins and philosophy of law - who has been a lawyer in both England and Canada. "Whatever you were up to was taken to be innocent unless you were known to be breaking the law." The only period when this fundamental freedom was suspended, Mr. Cantlie explains, was from 1653 to 1658, when the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, having executed the king in1649, ruled Britain as lord protector. During those five years, agents of the state were free to enter private homes at any time to check for sinful, as well as illegal behaviour. Attendance at church was mandatory and the joyful celebration of Christmas outlawed. Cromwell and his parliamentarians passed dozens of laws that made criminals of ordinary citizens. "That period ought to serve warning that even when the best people start a revolution they never can guess where it will end," Mr. Cantlie says. Now there are fears that a second Protectorate is on the horizon, this time in Canada. Mr. Cantlie and others are worried that Justice Minister Allan Rock's gun control law, Bill C-68, which the Liberals forced through on second reading two weeks ago, will undermine at least four basic liberties that residents of common law countries such as Canada have enjoyed for 800 years or more. Legal experts and gun owners charge that among other things, the Firearms Act will allow police to search private homes without a warrant. It will suspend citizens' right to refuse to co-operate with police and may force them to self-incriminate or face jail for failing to do so. It allows for the confiscation of private property by the state without compensation. And it creates a "reverse onus" on those accused of offences under several of its sections; in other words, it requires those charged to prove their innocence, rather than assuming they are innocent until proven guilty. Until last month, most criticism of Bill C-68 had focused on two issues: the ineffectiveness of universal gun registration as a means of crime control and the high cost of registering Canada's six million to 18 million handguns, shotguns and rifles. Most analysts figure that registering all the country's firearms will cost about $500 million over the next five years, to say nothing of the large numbers of police officers registration will take off the street to do paperwork. Mr. Rock insists the tab will be just $85 million and that no police manpower will be diverted. But John Hardy, legal counsel for the Saskatchewan Responsible Firearms Owners, says more and more people are now reading the bill, and have found that its provisions go well beyond establishing a national firearms registry. "This bill gives police the broadest range of powers found in any Canadian legislation," he says. "[It] encroaches so much more on individual rights than any previous law that the whole concept of personal rights and liberties is endangered." The contentious sections are 99 through 102, which cover "inspection." They empower police to enter businesses and homes without a warrant, for the purpose of insuring compliance with registration and storage laws. Section 99, for example, says "a police officer may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place in which the police officer believes on reasonable grounds there is a firearm, [or] prohibited weapon..." It even allows for unwarranted searches of homes suspected of containing ammunition or any record of a gun or ammunition purchase. It also authorizes police to "examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the officer finds and take samples of it," disposing of those samples "in any manner that he or she considers appropriate." Police do not have to return property seized, even if it turns out to be legal. On first blush, the wording of section 100 seems innocuous. It says simply that citizens must "give the police officer all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to carry out the inspection ... and provide the police officer with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act." However, Mr. Hardy points out that this provision, in effect, removes the protection from unreasonable search and seizure that homes have traditionally enjoyed and that is (at least in theory) guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Until C-68 passes, home owners have the right to refuse to let police officers search their property without a warrant, unless the lawmen have good reason to believe a crime is in progress. Otherwise, before the search occurs the home owner may go to court where a judge can decide whether it is reasonable. After C-68 becomes law, citizens must first allow a search or face arrest. They may challenge it only after the fact. Sections 100 and 102 have the combined effect of removing the common law protection against self-incrimination. Section 102, which Mr. Hardy calls the "big stick" of the Firearms Act, reads, "every person who ... does not comply with section 100 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." Thus a home owner who has not double- locked his shotgun as the law demands must lead the policeman at his door to the offending weapon, thereby incriminating himself. Mr. Hardy concedes that section 101 states, "a police officer may not enter a dwelling-house except with the consent of the occupantor under a warrant." Yet it then says a police officer may apply to a judge for a warrant on the grounds "that entry to the dwelling-house has been refused." "This law represents a complete erosion of individual privacy," Mr. Hardy continues. To be subject to inspection, a home owner need not own guns, just be suspected of possessing documents pertaining to firearms registration or be guilty of refusing police entry without a warrant. "If this law is upheld by the courts it could become a precedent allowing agents of the state to 'inspect' for compliance in any number of areas," he says. "I could see social services, for instance, gaining the right to enter anybody's home to see how they are treating their children." Christopher Manfredi, professor of political science at McGill University in Montreal and author of the book _Judicial Power and the Charter_, is concerned that Bill C-68 hastens Canada's drift towards collective security at the expense of individual liberty. "To infringe on individual rights in the name of a social good," he explains, "you have to be able to show compelling evidence that there will be benefits. Gun control does not meet that standard." Furthermore, he scoffs at comparisons between registering guns and registering cars. "We don't register cars to reduce accidents," he says. But more importantly, ownership of an unregistered automobile is not a crime as long as the car is not driven on the streets. Mr. Rock's new law makes a criminal act out of possession of an unregistered firearm. Moreover, he adds, criminalizing passive behaviour and ownership of property may mean Canada is sliding into despotism. "If the government can successfully trample on personal rights behind the smoke screens of gun control and, presumably, crime control, this enhances the power of the government to do the same thing in other areas," he says. "Anyone concerned with personal liberty should be bothered by this law." Returning to the common law notion that anything not illegal is considered legal, Mr. Hardy adds that should the government get away with setting the dangerous precedents contained in C-68, "this could eventually allow the government, in the name of public safety, or environmental controls, or whatever, to criminalize everything in the country." He points out that the legislation even amends the Criminal Code to give each provincial or local firearms officer the power to prohibit someone from owning guns because he "cohabits with, or is an associate of" someone already prohibited from owning guns. "This is a direct assault on the Charter of Rights protection of freedom of association. There seems to be an assumption on the part of the government that firearms owners are all unstable people just waiting for a chance to break the law." What upsets Mr. Cantlie the most is that the freedoms threatened by C-68 are mostly hundreds of years old, and were often hard- won. Protection from unwarranted search and seizure, for example, was first codified in the Magna Carta, the foundation for limitation of the crown's power, in 1215. The presumption of innocence, according to Mr. Cantlie, also goes back at least as far. "Prior to that time most questions of guilt were settled through trial by ordeal," he explains. "If you were suspected of a crime you would be thrown into a pond. If you floated, you were innocent." This, though, was a pre-Christian practice that the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 forbade priests from endorsing, effectively ending it. At about this time it was established that a defendant should not be thrown in prison until proven guilty. The right to avoid self-incrimination was widely recognized by at least 1686. That year James II charged seven bishops with sedition. One of them is recorded as saying, "I never thought the day would come when I would claim the right to remain silent, but I'm claiming it now." This, asserts Mr. Cantlie, shows that the principle was already well established in common law. The idea that silence proved guilt died with the abolition of the Star Chamber trials in 1641. Compensation for confiscation of property, another right undermined by Bill C-68, also has a long history. "Confiscation of property couldn't be done except for defence purposes," says Mr. Cantlie. "And there was always an obligation to pay for the property taken." The origin of the right to refuse co-operation to the police is murkier. When most sheriffs were volunteers, judges expected citizens to help them. But this expectation was limited mostly to assisting with the arrest of suspects. As more and more police officers became full-time professionals, the right to refuse to go along with their investigations evolved, as did the obligation not to obstruct them, Mr. Cantlie says. Just when the common law forbade courts from judging any one guilty by association is also unclear. "Conspiracy and being an accessory to a crime have always themselves been crimes," says Mr. Cantlie. "But in ordinary times English law has never sought to implicate anyone not actually involved with the crime." Reform Party Leader Preston Manning shares gun owners' concerns that C-68 goes too far. "This point hasn't been stressed enough," he says. "Since it looks like the Liberals will ram this bill through, I hope one of the provinces will challenge it in court." Jack Ramsay, Reform's gun control critic, is even more emphatic about the threat posed by Mr. Rock's law. "When this bill passes," he says, "our freedoms are gone." However, Mr. Ramsay is convinced that gun owners take their rights seriously, and rather than give them up without a fight, will disobey what they believe to be an unjust law. "Mr. Rock is being absolutely unreasonable and irresponsible when he moves in this fashion to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens," he says. "If [the government] will seize guns, which in themselves are personal property, what will stop them in future from seizing anything they want?" Mr. Ramsay also points out that the economic consequences of the government's anti-gun bill are starting to manifest themselves. "American hunters are promising to keep the millions of dollars they have previously spent annually on hunting trips to Canada at home," he reports. "They won't register their guns at the border because their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. They don't want Canadian bureaucrats sharing registration information with their American counterparts." Mr. Rock and his officials deny their bill constitutes a threat to Canadians' freedom. Jim Hayes, co-ordinator of the Justice Department's firearms control task group, says, "It's not our intention to let the police get out of control. Firearms officers need freedom to act in situations of imminent danger, such as domestic violence cases. But afterwards they will have to go before a judge to justify their actions." Asked whether Bill C-68 represents a trend toward the criminalization of property ownership, Mr. Hayes replies, "No, the legislation does not lead in that direction." He adds, "The minister has a different perception, and besides, every property owner in the country is already affected by the Criminal Code." He also insists most of the provisions of Bill C-68 were proposed by gun clubs worried about people taking out bogus memberships just so they could qualify to buy restricted weapons. Reform MP Bob Mills says Mr. Hayes' denials are dishonest. A federal Justice Department official told him that "An unidentified enforcement agency would be sent from house to house if necessary to implement the gun registration system." And a senior federal bureaucrat, who insisted on remaining anonymous, explains that "The government does not use the terms 'search and seizure'. They call it an 'inspection power'." In this way they hope to get around the Charter. "But what they are proposing is quite wide. They are going to have to clean up that part of the act or it won't pass constitutional muster." "To say that the Justice Department consulted with gun clubs is baloney," says Jim Schille, co-chairman of the Saskatchewan Responsible Firearms Owners. "Mr. Rock came to Saskatchewan in 1994, but when he met with us he asked no questions and took no notes. Nor did anyone with him do so." Mr. Schille reports that at the time Mr. Rock revealed himself to be ignorant of existing gun control laws. "We told him that judges don't like to be constricted by mandatory sentencing laws so they routinely deal them away," says Mr. Schille. Mr. Rock denied that happened, but his bureaucrats were later forced to admit it was true. "I can't believe a man who used to be a trial lawyer could know so little about basic criminal law," he says. Paul Steckle is convinced Mr. Rock doesn't know much about politics, either. Mr. Steckle is one of the three Liberal MPs thrown off standing legislative committees because they voted against Bill C-68 on second reading. "Mr. Rock is not being sensitive to Canadians," he says. "Sure, people want safer streets, but they don't want their freedoms trampled on either. We didn't campaign on this at all. There was nothing in the Red Book about warrantless searches and seizures. There was nothing in there about criminalizing every gun owner in Canada. And there was nothing about confiscation." Within the first 10 hours after he was exiled from his committees, Mr. Steckle says, "I had over 100 phone calls. They came from every province except Newfoundland. Every one of them supported the stand I took. It's a shame that so many voters remain unrepresented by their government." It is difficult for Mr. Steckle to fathom why Mr. Rock is pushing so hard to pass a bill so detested by such a huge block of committed voters. He thinks the minister's efforts will prove the first step toward a decline in the Liberals' unprecedented popularity. He also postulates that Mr. Rock may be captive to a registration-crazed bureaucracy. Reformer Ramsay believes there is a third, more important reason for the government's haste in putting C-68 into law: it is worried that if the legislation does not pass before summer, Liberal backbenchers will be convinced to oppose it when they get back home. Shafer Parker, Jr. END OF ARTICLE ***************** I trust that Skeeter will be posting this on the FTP site. Skeeter? Bob Bryce __ ____ Bob Canadian Bible Society || | || Algonquian Translation Project ||Itwewin|| rbryce@eagle.wbm.ca cbsalg@eagle.wbm.ca || | || ||___ ___|| ----- End Included Message ----- This article is indeed available by anonymous FTP from skatter.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Miscellaneous; get morethan.rep). ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:31:07 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: letter Message-ID: <199504242231.QAA10965@regulus> Here's the letter I faxed to the Toronto Star (after their ombudsman suggested I do so to "correct" errors that were made). I guess the Ottawa Sun is next (Ron Corbett had a nice piece on the 20th...) ----- Begin Included Message ----- The article "Gun owners are lobbied on Internet" contains errors that I must address. Subscribers were quoted out-of- context and names were incorrect. Americans are not "lobbying" us. Almost all our subscribers are from Canada. No one told us to fight Mr Rock's legislation "to the death". The phrase referred to the possible death of firearm ownership in Canada. The pros and cons of civil disobedience are seldom discussed on the Cdn-Firearms Digest. We have published about 3 000 pages during the last year, including parts of Bill C-68, data from Statistics Canada, and op-ed pieces from both sides of the "gun control" debate. A wide range of opinions is expressed. However, most of the 385 subscribers are against parts or all of Bill C-68. The worst parts are Sections 99 and 100 which allow police to search a place on the reasonable belief there is any firearm or ammunition present, and Sections 110 to 112 which allow changing any part of the law in the future without parliamentary debate or committee review. ----- End Included Message ----- Please tell me if it gets/got printed... skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:48:16 -0600 From: SHELDON CLARE To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Throwing Rocks... Message-ID: <199504242248.QAA10987@regulus> I heard that Rock was on the radio making comments to the effect that his gun control bill would prevent groups like the Michigan Militia from hoarding firearms and ammunition, and prevent such groups from forming in Canada... I thought his comment was interesting, anybody else catch this? Sheldon Clare NFA RFOC of B.C. Contributing Editor _The Firearms Sentinel_ "The principles of justice and democracy are under attack, The police have never had such wide discretionary power. Now we're going to a police state with this bill. That doesn't scare people? It scares the hell out of me." -- Jay Hill, Reform MP in _B.C. Report_, April 24 1995 page 8. ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:50:54 -0600 From: graphix@passport.ca (Glenn Springer) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: IPSC CANADA APPEARANCE AT JUSTICE COMMITTEE Message-ID: <199504242250.QAA10994@regulus> IPSC Canada will be appearing at the Justice Committee on Bill C-68 on May 10th. To insure that our presentation is as strong as possible, we are seeking input from all interested parties. Due to the time required to assemble the Brief and to submit it to Justice (they have to get it in advance), the deadline for input has to be set at May 1. Topics are limited to the following agenda and the duration of the meeting itself is limited so please make your points as succinctly as possible. Although the material forming the basis of the Brief is already on hand, your input, showing us different, insightful approaches to topics and new and effective arguments will be more than helpful. Please e-mail your reply to [that's LROWE@PASSPORT.CA, but in lowercase] IMMEDIATELY! Agenda: IPSC will express its concerns on the following issues: (1) Repeal of section 90 (3.2) of the Criminal Code, Large Capacity Cartridge Magazine Regulations including the proposed changes to Code 9965 of Schedule VII of the Customs Tariff, Section 4 of the Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations pertaining to the storage of such items and other references to the Regulations. (2) Prohibition of handguns with a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length which are currently used in IPSC Canada competitions. (3) Governor in Council prohibitions on previously restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are currently used in IPSC Canada competitions. (4) Effects on IPSC Canada of a National Firearms Registration System. (5) Governor in Council regulations respecting the establishment of shooting clubs and shooting ranges, and the activities carried on at such facilities. (6) Change in the term used by the Governor in Council in prescribing restricted or prohibited weapons from not commonly used for hunting or sporting purposes to, is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes . (7) Restrictions on possession/purchase/quantities of ammunition and/or components of ammunition by individuals belonging to IPSC Canada. (8)Structure of the proposed new handgun safety course that will be required for the new Firearms Possession Certificate. Again: e-mail your responses DIRECTLY to [that's LROWE@PASSPORT.CA, but in lowercase] BEFORE MAY 1, 1995! Time is very short. By all means post your reply here for discussion if you wish, but be aware that it probably won't be picked up for the Submission. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Springer graphix@passport.ca Mailing address: P.O. Box 3333, Markham ON Canada L3R 6G6 Phone: 905 470 9370 Fax: 905 470 8747 TeleGraphix Corporation: graphic design, electronic publishing and printing FAC Firearms Academy Canada: FAC courses & exams: hotline: 416 966 7464 Ontario Practical Shooting Association (IPSC Ontario), IPSC Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I know you believe you understand what you think I said... but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:53:15 -0600 From: SHELDON CLARE To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: B.C. Report - 4 Stars! Message-ID: <199504242253.QAA11001@regulus> I spoke at a rally in Terrace B.C. on behalf of the N.F.A. on Saturday, April 22. Approximately 320 persons attended the 2 1/2 hour event. The big news from this rally is the article in the April 24th 1995 _B.C. Report_ magazine. It is a MUST read, especially for non-firearms owners. This cover story has Allan Rock's picture and a caption which reads: MINISTER OF INJUSTICE ALLAN ROCK WANTS TO: *Search your home without a warrant *Confiscate your property without paying for it *Presume you guilty until proven innocent *Assign guilt by association *Force you to co-operate with the police *Remove your right to remain silent ____________________________cut here___________________________ Pretty co-ool, huh? The article is a direct, and blunt account of how the Firearms Act and Criminal Code changes will affect all of us. The comparison of Rock with Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, and the suspension of freedom from 1653-1658 is particularly interesting. Hats off to _B.C. Report_ and reporter Shafer Parker for a job well done! The article was reprinted with permission from B.C. Report, and distributed to all at the rally. B.C Report's Address, etc: #600-535 Thurlow St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 3L2 Subscription info: 1-800-665-9849 Write and support good analytical; reporting. Even my liberal colleagues at work admit that this magazine is thorough and agressive in its reporting. :-) :-) :-) :-) Sheldon Clare N.F.A. RFOC of B.C. JPFO Contributing Editor "We're going to see a police state. It scares the hell out of me." -- Reform MP Jay Hill on Bill C-68, quoted in _B.C. Report Magazine_ April 24, 1995, page 10. ----- End Included Message ----- I think the _B.C. Report_ article is the same as the _Western Report_ one back a couple of topics... -- Skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:54:47 -0600 From: bh718@freenet.carleton.ca (Keith de Solla) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: gun control: instructors boycott Message-ID: <199504242254.QAA11005@regulus> snip > >support on this. If we don't then TOUGH TITTY, they deserve what the >government has in store for them. I have already told the government >to shove it. Let ALL FAC instructors UNITE!!! > While the sentiment is admirable, I'm not sure it would make any difference to the politicians. We already know their intent is the elimination of firearms ownership. If no one teaches the federal course (of the week), then we can't get new people involved in the sport. -keith -- Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng work: kdesolla@chipworks.com play: bh718@freenet.carleton.ca ----- End Included Message ----- Well, here's another issue for us to argue about... -- Skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 16:56:00 -0600 From: graphix@passport.ca (Glenn Springer) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: local NRP guys shot a fellow officer (killed him) while practising Message-ID: <199504242256.QAA11008@regulus> On Fri, Apr 21, 1995 9:49:36 robin young wrote: >... Police officers do kill themselves and others - a >fact not often reflected in the "figures" - heck, one of the local NRP >guys shot a fellow officer (killed him) while practising his quick draw >in the lunch room at the shooting range a year or so ago. Not quite. He was disassembling his Glock (which requires squeezing the trigger) but got the unload sequence wrong: first racked out the round in the chamber, closed the slide, removed the mag... Just a reminder that muzzle in a safe direction ALWAYS applies. Note this is second hand info, but I got it from an IAD cop in Metro, AND from an instructor at the Police College. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glenn Springer graphix@passport.ca Mailing address: P.O. Box 3333, Markham ON Canada L3R 6G6 Phone: 905 470 9370 Fax: 905 470 8747 TeleGraphix Corporation: graphic design, electronic publishing and printing FAC Firearms Academy Canada: FAC courses & exams: hotline: 416 966 7464 Ontario Practical Shooting Association (IPSC Ontario), IPSC Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I know you believe you understand what you think I said... but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 226 ******************************