CDN-FIREARMS Digest 228 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) retroactive prohibitions... by Skeeter Abell-Smith 2) National Firearms Association articles available... by Skeeter Abell-Smith 3) A possible police state... by Skeeter Abell-Smith 4) Gun control from the criminal's point-of-view by Skeeter Abell-Smith 5) problems with firearms trafficking by Skeeter Abell-Smith 6) absolute rights, crimes, and punishments by Skeeter Abell-Smith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:05:17 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: retroactive prohibitions... Message-ID: <199504251405.IAA22148@arcturus.USask.Ca> RETROACTIVE CRIMINALIZATION IN BILL C-68 Bill C-68's Criminal Code (CC) section 84(1) "prohibited firearm" (a) converts all handguns with barrels 105mm or less in length, and all .25 and .32 handguns, to "prohibited firearm" status. Firearms Act (FA) section 113(1) and (2)(b) [including reference to s. 12(6)] convert the Firearms Acquisition Certificate of any person who held a registration certificate for a handgun with a barrel at or under 105mm length, or a handgun in .25 or .32 calibre, on or before 14 Feb 95, into a licence to "acquire and possess" more such firearms. The holders are "grandfathered," forming an elite group which other Canadians cannot join. Until Bill C-68 is passed, such handguns are "restricted firearms" under CC s. 84(1) "restricted firearm" (a). It is perfectly legal to own and register them. If Bill C-68 passes, they will be reclassified as "prohibited firearms"--retroactive to 14 Feb 95. A person may lawfully acquire his first "14 Feb" handgun after 14 Feb 95 and before proclamation of Bill C-68. On C-68's date of proclamation, his firearm becomes a "prohibited firearm" as of 14 Feb 95, and he becomes a criminal, subject to prosecution under [Bill C-68's] CC s. 91(2) and/or 92(2). The penalties are imprisonment not exceeding five [91(2)] and ten [92(2)] years. (Oddly enough, it might be proper for the prosecution to use the version os s. 90 that was in force before the proclamation of Bill C-68, on the grounds that C-68 made the firearm a "prohibited firearm" as of 14 Feb 95 and that the old law was in force from 14 Feb 95 to C-68's proclamation date.) The passage of Bill C-68 will immediately result in police trying to confiscate lawfully-acquired "14 Feb" firearms from those not "grandfathered"--using threats of prosecution, heavy lawyer fees, and possible imprisonment to deter access to the courts. In effect, the police offer the owner a choice: "Voluntarily" surrender your property, or face criminal prosecution. That is apparently a violation of CC s. 346: { {{346. (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats...[or] menaces... induces or attempts to induce any person... to do anything... (1.1) Every one who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.}}} If a court rules that the actions of the police and Parliament do not amount to a conspiracy to commit extortion, the preception of Canada's huge recreational firearms community will be at odds with the perception of that court. The facts are too obvious. Parliament apparently does not wish to pay compensation to most of the owners of the many newly-"prohibited" firearms now scheduled for immediate or later confiscation. That is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. As Peter W. Hogg noted in "Constitutional Law of Canada" at 28.5(d): { {{"There is a rule of statutory interpretation in Anglo-Canadian law that a statute which takes property is to be read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to the private owner."}}} Because many Canadians have their life savings largely tied up in firearms collections that will be rendered valueless by Bill C-68, the damage to their interests will be huge--as will the damage to heirs who will be unable to inherit valuable property. If the Supreme Court of Canada follows {Manitoba Fisheries v. the Queen} [(1979) 1 SCR 101] and {The Queen (BC) v. Tener} [(1985) 1 SCR 533] it seems likely that Bill C-68's plan to refuse compensation payments to nearly everyone affected by Bill C-68 will be overruled by the courts, and Parliament will pay. Whatever happens--and it will take years to sort the mess out-- the law will have been brought into disrepute, the police will have been forced into adversarial positions against honest gun owners, and the non-system-using criminals will be unaffected. Conclusions of Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire Constabulary (writing in Police Review, Britain) after he had done a six-month study of firearms control methods and their actual (as opposed to theoretical) effects in many countries: { {{"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is small, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduced crime."}}} He was right. The latest British Home Office statistics for England and Wales show violent crime (excluding "political" crime) have doubled every 10 years since 1946. Britain's recreational firearms industry has been destroyed. Many honest shooters now keep their firearms in Belgium to avoid the next wave of confiscation. Has gun control worked? No. British firearms crime rates are at an all-time high and continue to rise. What else could one expect? Firearms are easy to smuggle, police are easy to avoid while committing a violent crime, and their government guarantees that the victim will have no effective way to protect himself or his family. Any criminal who has a firearm can totally dominate any victim situation. Our Minister of Justice, Alan Rock, has said on several occasions that no Canadian has any need of firearms for self-protection. If so, why does he regularly dip into the public purse to cover the expense of armed bodyguards to protect his own sacred skin? NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION: Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 Canada Canada Tel: (403) 439-1394 Tel: (403) 640-1110 ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:10:38 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: National Firearms Association articles available... Message-ID: <199504251410.IAA11350@regulus> Digests 217 and 225 both contain an analysis of Bill C-68 by the NFA. More NFA material is included in this digest and Digest 227. These NFA articles, and others, are also available on can.talk.guns and can.politics, and by anonymous FTP from skatter.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/NFA) and by Web browser as ftp://skatter.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/NFA skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:24:55 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: A possible police state... Message-ID: <199504251424.IAA22157@arcturus.USask.Ca> BILL C-68 -- AN EXAMPLE OF THE POLICE STATE MENTALITY Bill C-68 authorizes creation of "police officers" who are merely people "designated by the provincial minister" [Firearms Act section 98]. For the territories, that Minister is Allan Rock. C-68 authorizes entry, search and seizure without warrant where no crime is known or suspected [FA s. 99]. C-68 authorizes warrants to enter private homes to search and seize where no crime is known or suspected [FA s. 99 and 101]. C-68 authorizes imprisoning anyone who refuses to help ransack his own home, or refuses to answer, before he has any chance to seek legal advice, a question put to him [FA s. 100 and 107]. C-68 provides a sentence of up to five years imprisonment for expressing an opinion, even where the opinion is inadmissible in a court of law [Criminal Code amendment, s. 107(3) and (1)]. C-68 assumes that the bureaucrat is always right, and the citizen is always wrong. It requires the citizen to prove that the bureaucrat is wrong rather than requiring the bureaucrat to prove that he is right [FA s. 73(3), CC s. 117.11]. In many areas, there is no right of appeal against the bureaucrat's decisions. C-68 takes the actual making of criminal law out of the hands of Parliament. The scope of the Order-in-Council power lost to Parliament by these delegations is staggering [FA s. 110]. C-68 requires all Orders in Council to be subjected to Parliamentary scrutiny [FA s. 111]. It then provides very broad exceptions--to ensure scrutiny will not take place [FA s. 112]. C-68 enables the enactment of Orders in Council that change how the law applies to "any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada" by detailed groups [FA s. 110(t)]. For disarming reservations? C-68 establishes that a certificate provided by an undefined "analyst" with no defined qualifications "is evidence in any proceedings" regarding firearms matters [FA s. 117.13]. The entire tone and structure of Bill C-68 is based on the mindset that Canadians are dangerous animals who must be held in check by strong government. It enables powerful military and police forces to be largely exempted from firearms control law. At the same time, C-68 regards all bureaucrats as wise and fair herdmasters, controlling and protected from the animals. {We have seen this type of legislation before--in police states all over the world. It does not belong in Canada. We wonder why so many of our politicians support such authoritarianism. We wonder if politicians who support it can be trusted with power. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION: Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 Canada Canada Tel: (403) 439-1394 Tel: (403) 640-1110 ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:26:19 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Gun control from the criminal's point-of-view Message-ID: <199504251426.IAA22161@arcturus.USask.Ca> Firearms Control - From the Criminal Point of View By Dave Tomlinson, National Firearms Association Published in The Alberta Game Warden, Summer 1994 posted with permission of the author In order to understand the effects of firearms control laws of various kinds, it's necessary to look at their theoretical effects. then compare them to their actual effects - from a criminal's viewpoint. THEORY 1 - GUN CONTROL LAWS REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME. Imagine you are a criminal; you burgle occupied homes by night, or rob small businesses or enter basement apartments to rape women. ln the town of Justine, nearly everyone in town belongs to a gun club. has a firearm. knows how to use it and keeps it in his or her home. Just across the river in the town of Janice, there is a town bylaw which prohihits the storage of any firearm in any priivate home. Very few people own firearms and almost all of those who do comply with the town bylaw by leaving their gun locked up at the shooting range over in Justine. Speaking as a burglar, robber or rapist, whlch town would you choose as the place to commit your crimes? In Justine, would you prefer to commit your crime in an occupied dwelling or a place with no people in it? The abolishment of the private ownership of firearms is something any violent criminal fully supports. THEORY 2 - IF YOU DON'T HAVE GUNS,CRIMINALS WON'T HAVE GUNS. In southern Ontario, the new firearms laws were barely in place before handgun crime levels began to rapidly increase. The Solicitor General, alarmed, funded a massive 9-month police intelligence operatlon called "Project Gun Runner." lt found that 86% of the handguns involved in crimes had been smuggled into Canada, and had never been seen or touched by our massive Gun control system. The gun control system simply didn't work. If every privately-owned firearm were to be confiscated, it would presumably reduce the number of firearms available to criminals by 14 percent - for as long as it takes the smugglers to increase their smuggling by 14 percent. Is that cost- effective? THEORY 3 - WE CAN STOP GUN SMUGGLING AT THE BORDER. Stephan Gooding and David Gill went to Michigan in December, ]992. They illgally purchased three handguns and headed back across the bridge into Windsor. Twenty six thousand people a day cross through Customs at that point. They weren't searched. The guns took up less room than one carton of cigarettes. They paid $390(US) for three guns and sold them in Toronto for $400 to $600 each. Over the next three months they made the trip every second weekend, each time bringing in more handguns, totalling about three hundred. Then they were caught. Hooray! Astute police work! No. They were pulled over for driving with their seat belts undone. When the police checked Gooding, they found he was driving with a suspended license. When they took him out of the car, three handguns fell out of his pants. They found two more in his waistband and seven under the seat. Twenty eight had already been sold from their latest shipment of forty. Good police work, eh? The government's proven inability to stop the smuggling of cigarettes, much bulkier and heavier shipments than gun shipments, forced a tax reduction that put many smugglers out of that business. Some of them have turned to gun smuggling. THEORY 4 - THE PRESENCE OF A FIREARM IN A HOME CAUSES DOMESTIC HOMICIDES. If the presence of a weapon can cause a murder in a normal home, why are there no programs to persuade families never to argue in the kitchen? That room is full of knives. No. Normal people do not kill each other, even when arguing. The term "domestic homicide" is very misleading If the victim and killer know each other, or are related it's a "domestic homicide." Actually, a surprisingly high percentage of our very low numbers of homicides are criminal victims killed by other criminals who know or are related to each other. ls it really surprising that criminals have acquaintances and relatives? Or that they would also be criminals, killing for reasons related to other crimes such as drug dealing, squabbles over ]oot, etc.? Over half the killers and nearly half of their victims have criminal records and they really shouldn't be included in our "domestic homicide" figures. THEORY 5 - GUN CONTROL REDUCES THE SUICIDE, HOMICIDE, ROBBERY AND VIOLENT CRIME RATES. Sorry, gun control does none of those things, partly for the reasons given above. A person determined enough to attempt suicide with a firearm is determined enough to use an equally effective method when a firearm isn't available. The before and after graphs of suicide with and without firearms prove that the 1978 law had no such effect. It was supposed to, because the new Firearms Acquisition Certificate was supposed to prevent suicidal individuals from buying guns. It didn't work. After the 1978 wave of gun control legislation, our low and variable annual figures for suicide, homicide, robbery and robbery with a firearm went up and went down, but averaged out about the same as before the change in legislation. The violent crime rate, however, was significantly affected. In the three years prior to the new gun laws, it dropped every year. In the 14 years after the new laws were proclaimed, it rose eveny single year. What else could you expect? The new gun laws merely reduced the risk levels for our violent criminals. OUR GOVERNMENT'S LATEST PROPOSALS: 1. Remove all firearms from all cities immediately, except for those owned by criminals of course. They aren't registered and the criminals are unlikely to turn them in when asked to do so. 2. Confiscate all $300,000,000 worth of privately-owned handguns (without paying for them) by converting all restricted weapons to prohibited weapon status. That will only increase the smuggling problem and dash any hope of applying an effective control system. Prohibition is not a method of control, it is a way to abandon all hope of control. 3. Convert all rifles and shotguns to restricted weapon status. It currently takes one sergeant, two constables, two clerks and three rooms at the police station to handle the red tape relating to handguns. There are 20 times as many rifles and shotguns as handguns. Can we afford to divert an additional 95 police staff and 57 rooms at the police station to the clerical work associated with recreational cquipment ownership? 4. Additional prison for using a gun in a crime. This is the one idea that seems to have a hope, but, Section 85 of the criminal Code already provides for 1 to 14 years extra and consecutive imprisonment for that offence. That proposal is political smoke and mirrors acting to deceive the public; there can be no intention to make a new law where the law already exists. However, Section 85 isn't being used. You can go to a hundred trials for armed robbery or other such gun crimes and never see it before a judge. It's only used as a chip in the plea bargaining game. Is it hopeless then? No. A firearms control system is useful, providing you don't have irrational ideas about what it can accomplish. lt can deny legal, unsupervised access to firearms to those who are malicious, incompetent or untrained in safe handling and use of firearms. It can do this easily and cheaply by using the existing recreational firearms community instructors to screen applicants: 1. Does the applicant know how to use this class of equipment (firearm, in this case) safely for this class of use? 2. Does the applicant know the rules'' 3. Is the applicant the kind of person who obeys the rules' Those are the questions you must earn a favourablc answer to (from an experienced instructor) in order to get a driver's license, pilot's license, pressure welding ticket or any other document that allows you legal, unsupervised access to dangerous equipment. Only in fireams control are letters from your "dentist" and from your "minister of religion" seen as important safeguards. The Canadian Firearms Safety Training Course is a first step toward a reasonable system, but it is tragically flawed. It attempts to teach about every type of firearm and every type of use in an impossibly brief period. It's rather like saying you have to take a course that includes motor scooters, motorcycles. dump trucks, semi-trailer trucks, bulldozers and Indy cars to get a driver's license so you can drive vour Chevrolet. A proper firearms control permit would be laid out in a grid with types of firearms (there are only 4 needed) down the side and classes of use (possess, basic range, advanced range. field. professional, police) along the top. That one style of permit could replace the 12 types currently in use. The present system is incredibly wasteful. The government has the power to impose its amateurish firearms control system and lots of our tax money to pay for it. Once again, the old adage is proven: giving power and money to a governmcnt is rather like giving whiskey and car keys to a teen-aged boy. ln contrast, every gun club uses the 3-question test to give or deny legal, unsupervised access to its shooting range. As a result, any member of any gun club can buy $2,000.000 liability insurance coverage for his or her hunting, bowhunting. target shooting, archery and fishing trips, anywhere in Canada or the continental U.S. - for $4.50 per year. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION: Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 Canada Canada Tel: (403) 439-1394 Tel: (403) 640-1110 ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:48:08 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: problems with firearms trafficking Message-ID: <199504251448.IAA22204@arcturus.USask.Ca> TRAFFICKING IN GUNS The government talks about "phasing in" Bill C-68's registration and controls over several years. That is sucker bait. Every new firearm, cartridge or used firearm you acquire or part with (even by gift) is subject to controls and registration from the first day that the relevant part of Bill C-68 is passed and proclaimed. If Bill C-68 passes, Criminal Code Section 99 will say: 99.(1) Every person commits an offence who (a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or (b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of a firearm [or]...any ammunition {knowing} that [he] is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations [made by Order in Council (OIC)]. (2) Every person who commits [that] offence...is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year. So giving a firearm or an unusual cartridge to your father for his birthday earns you a minimum of one year in prison. If you don't {know} that some Act or regulation forbids the transfer, CC s. 101 reduces that to "{imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years}"--a penalty for ignorance of the law. These section of the Criminal Code are called the "Trafficking Offences." It is quite clear that the government intends to treat all transfers of firearms and ammunition in the same way that it treats transfers of narcotics. It is neither accident nor coincidence that much of C-68's Firearms Act looks like it was taken from the Narcotics Act. Both are based on the federal government's power to make criminal law, and both evade the Constitutional power split that gives regulatory power over property and property transfers to the provincial governments. The link between the Firearms Act and the Narcotics Act is so close that s. 98 to 101 of the Firearms Act are specifically designed to be used for Charter-violating police "fishing expedition" searches for narcotics, either without a warrant or with a warrant obtained on evidence that would be flatly rejected by any judge issuing a search warrant for narcotics today. The Liberal Party's interest in "trafficking" apparently stems at least partly from current United Nations interest in controlling international transfers of arms. The UN has been agitating for rigorous control over private possession of arms in all countries, primarily because most of the UN countries have problems with internal dissidence, armed or otherwise. The theory that dissidents can be prevented from getting arms by international control of every firearm in the world by the existing governments seems unlikely to prove true. It has certainly been proved untrue that criminals can be prevented from acquiring weapons by any type of firearms control law. Rather than correct the government excesses which cause rising dissidence, most of the UN's member governments try to crush dissidence. Correcting the excesses might lead to a change in government or shifting power's benefits to a new group. In order to prop up existing governments (many of which would be immediately eliminated if their citizens had the power to do it), the UN has been encouraging its members to "crack down on illicit arms and the transfer of illicit arms." Many, like Canada, are using the UN's requests as an excuse to crack down on their own country's recreational firearms community. Look a little deeper; in most UN-member countries, "illicit arms" means arms in the possession of anyone who does not actively support the country's current local government. That is a dangerous concept. Throughout the world, many government officials--like Alan Rock--believe that no one but a soldier or policeman employed by the government should be armed. The difference between a police state and a state where no one but police and soldiers employed by the existing government is allowed to own firearms is very small. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts a government quite quickly. It is one small step from "The voters are disarmed and could not stop us if we decided not to hold any more elections" to actually doing it. The idea that war and rebellion can be eliminated by arms controls is unlikely to prove true. It is very similar to the idea that criminals can be disarmed and crime eliminated by a gun control law, and that idea has been proven to be false. The concept that dissidence and rebellion can be eliminated by government repression and a steady diet of reduction in civil rights has never worked, anywhere it has been tried. It has been tired repeatedly throughout human history. The usual result is rebellion, followed by elimination of either the rebels or the government. Repression can work, but only temporarily. It is particularly interesting that the periods we historically recognize as "the golden age" of each particular nation is usually the period when government interference with the civil rights of its citizens was at an all-time low. Because most people are good, trying to repress the evil people by repressing everyone always fails; it turns the good against the government. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION: Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 Canada Canada Tel: (403) 439-1394 Tel: (403) 640-1110 ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 10:04:27 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: absolute rights, crimes, and punishments Message-ID: <199504251604.KAA22580@arcturus.USask.Ca> ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS Three people you know each possess one unregistered handgun, a Criminal Code offence; each is a criminal, committing a crime. John has a souvenir Chinese pistol he picked up during his service in the Korean war. He will not try to register it, because he's afraid the police will confiscate it. Susan has a .22 rimfire target pistol that she occasionally uses to knock over tin cans out on her acreage. Clive has a .38 revolver that he uses to hold up gas stations and milk stores. If you are like most Canadians, you will turn Clive, the criminal, in to the police, but not John or Susan. But why? There is a fundamental perception of justice, based on the correct definition of the word "crime." That word is not defined in the Criminal Code, nor in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms --but most Canadians have an unstated, gut-level definition. You just used it when judging John, Susan and Clive. About 1750, Sir William Blackstone pointed out that if you have what he called the three {Absolute Rights}--the rights to personal security, personal liberty and personal property--you are free. No one can coerce you. If no one can injure, kill, libel or infect you (personal security); detain, kidnap, or imprison you (personal liberty); or take, damage or destroy your property-- how can he coerce you to do anything you do not want to do? A {crime} is the inverse of an {Absolute Right}. If someone threatens, attacks or destroys one of your Absolute Rights, he is committing a crime, and he is a criminal. There are four levels of attack: deliberately acting with wanton and reckless disregard for the fact that the action genuinely threatens one of your Absolute Rights (criminal negligence), or deliberately taking, threatening, injuring, or destroying you or your property. You have called the police, and are about to turn in a criminal. Try to think of any "crime" which does not injure or genuinely threaten an Absolute Right for which you would take that action. {Punishment} for the criminal is simply imposing an appropriate injury to one or more of his Absolute Rights in fair exchange for the injury that he has done to the Absolute Rights of another. There are a few areas where those terms do not fit, such as dealing in narcotics. You will note that narcotics matters are not dealt with by the Criminal Code, but by the Narcotic Control Act or the Food and Drugs Act--because they are not true crimes. Our criminal justice system has fallen into a state of disrepute with the general public, and neither our government nor the government employees working within the criminal justice system understand why. The reasons are quite simple: { {{1. The Criminal Code is riddled with "crimes" which do not meet the standard, and so are not accepted as true crimes by Canadians. 2. The criminal justice system is imposing inappropriate injuries to the rights of those convicted of "crimes."}}} As a #1 example: It is a criminal offence [s. 97(3)] to acquire a .22 rimfire target rifle for biathlon use. The government will sell you a specifically-tailored defence to that particular criminal charge (a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or FAC). An FAC prevents you from being convicted. It is inappropriate that an innocent action is criminalized, and that you are then exempted from conviction and punishment by a certificate you must buy from the government. That is not rational criminal law. Bill C-68, if enacted, provides for a "license" to replace the FAC, which compounds the problem--the government criminalizes the innocent action, then sells you permission to commit the crime. Objectively, Bill C-68 looks like a protection racket. Canadian governments have already taken over many Mafia money-making schemes: the numbers racket (Lotto 6/49), other gambling, the booze racket (Liquor Control Board Outlets). One wonders if the courts will support Bill C-68's interesting extension of that. As an #2 example: A few years ago, in Edmonton, a thug demanded, at knife point, that a courier hand over what he was carrying. The courier refused, and the thug killed him with the knife. The thug's crime was plea-bargained down to manslaughter, and he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment: He lost his liberty. 3 Years later, he escaped--from the custody of a female nurse-- while attending the Ice Capades. It is inappropriate that he was considered to be suffering from loss of liberty at the time. 7 years was an inappropriate penalty; the courier lost his life through a deliberate crime, and his killer will be back on the streets far too quickly. It was inappropriate that his loss of Absolute Right penalty was mitigated so early, and in such a silly fashion. It was inappropriate that he was where he was, when he was, with whom he was, at the time of his escape. Every time the government puts things which do not meet the standard for "true crimes" into the Criminal Code, it drives wedges between citizen and lawmaker, between citizen and law enforcement officer, between citizen and criminal justice system, and between the citizen and the law. That is unwise. Enacting Bill C-68 would be unwise. Attempting to disguise what the government is doing by renaming parts of the Criminal Code as "the Firearms Act" does nothing to help alleviate the problem, particularly when the Firearms Act is enacted under the federal government's power to enact criminal law, and Part III of the Criminal Code is so thoroughly entwined into the Firearms Act. NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: EDITORIAL AND PUBLICATION: Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 Canada Canada Tel: (403) 439-1394 Tel: (403) 640-1110 ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 228 ******************************