CDN-FIREARMS Digest 238 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Did C-68 hurt Manitoba Liberals? by Ken Pisichko 2) re: transcripts of committee hearings by Skeeter Abell-Smith 3) Hate propoganda and the Liberal hate legislation by "wayne (w.) salhany" 4) Registration and crime control by dmiller@bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca 5) HIGHLIGHTS OF A.L.'s BRIEF (text - corrected) by Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA 6) BC Premiere Harcourt's semi-position on C68 by Larry_Soo@mindlink.bc.ca (Larry Soo) 7) David Tomlinson's Presentation at Hearing (first half) by "Larry J. Going" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:08:28 -0600 From: Ken Pisichko To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Did C-68 hurt Manitoba Liberals? Message-ID: <199505012008.OAA10740@arcturus.USask.Ca> Tonight the Liberals lost their leader and 4 of the 7 seats they held prior to today. The rural Liberal candidates took a lot of heat regarding "gun registration" although it was not a provincial issue, but rather a federal one. This may send a message to several Liberal MPs who support C-68, particularly my own MP Rey Pagtakhan where the Liberal candidate (Joe Gallagher) who is a former Deputy Chief of Police (WPG) and is now a lawyer in a local prestigeous firm, came in third behind the PCs and the NDP who were re-elected here in my constituency. Back to my subject line - who knows if the feds even care what happened here. I think the rural Liberal MPs from Manitoba should take heed. But who knows if they will. The political process must continue. Lets hope that Mr. Filmon continues with his conviction that "gun registration" is not the solution to controlling crime. Time will certainly tell. Regards, Ken Pisichko ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:09:56 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: re: transcripts of committee hearings Message-ID: <199505012009.OAA10763@arcturus.USask.Ca> ----- Begin Included Message ----- Transcripts of committee hearings are available for the cost of $0.25/page from the Committee clerk's office directly, or via MP offices thru PUBNET. MP's must print out the hard copies and provide them. Turn around still 4-5 days to get the stuff even posted to PUBNET. Do you know of any computer literate MPs (or staffers) who could get the stuff from PUBNET and post to skatter for ftp access? ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:12:12 -0600 From: "wayne (w.) salhany" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Hate propoganda and the Liberal hate legislation Message-ID: <199505012012.OAA10789@arcturus.USask.Ca> Well having arrived home in time to sit down to a peaceful dinner and relax only to find I was subjected to the Liberal Chief Government Whip (or is it Wimp...), big bad Don Boudria, shoveling the crap about how the Liberals were elected on the promise to do something about stiffening gun controls and therefore they should force the members to abide by party rule, I had to fire off (forgive the pun) this note. On one hand, the liberals were elected by the people, so they must do what they claim they were elected to do but on the other, they could not vote they way the people wanted. Hmmm... Smells like a rotting Spanish fishing net to me. Well, we can see the Rockenfurer is back at his sales job again and capitalizing on the deaths in the States... Quite the ethics this man has... Herb Tarlik look out! He and the media are now implying that gun owners in Canada are "Right-wing Extremist" and for that reason, registration will stop gun owner from forming "Militias" and therefore from bombing government agencies. Can we play on the publics sympathy any more than this? The government and the media talk about gun owners as if they are paranoid lunatics... then following the Rockenfurer's commercial was a news article about the army in Rwanda slaughtering 2000 people in a camp... Maybe Canadian gun owners aren't so paranoid and aren't lunatics after all... Meanwhile, Canadian Gun owners are being persecuted for the objects they own and subjected to hate propaganda by their own government. By a government which is also putting place legislation intended to punish criminals more severely for hate related crime then for "regular" crime. I guess it is more acceptible for me to beat up the old man walking down the street for $5 than to call him an "old fart" and do ther same. Hey... maybe they RCMP boys listening in will think about getting a few brownie points by invoking this law soon after it's conception. They could lay a charge on Allan Rock.... One charge for every gun owner in Canada. Oh... I forget, they don't actually know how many gun owners there really are... Quite a country Allen, Don and Jean want to live in... Wayne Salhany ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:13:38 -0600 From: dmiller@bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Registration and crime control Message-ID: <199505012013.OAA10821@arcturus.USask.Ca> The following questions were put to the Canadian Center for Justice Statistics, Mar. 14, 1994 and to the RCM Police, April 12, 1994 by Mr R. Watt and I am posting on his behalf along with the reply recieved. 1) Number of found, recovered or seized restricted weapons traced to their registered owners. 2) Number of restricted weapons as above returned to their registered owners 3) Number of registered owners of restricted weapons charged with a firearms related offence as a result of the restricted weapon traced to them through the registration system. 4) Number of restricted weapons registration certificates revoked as a consequence of the registrant being convicted of a criminal offence involving violence towards another person. 5) Number of restricted weapon registration certificates revoked as consequence of the attempted suicide of the registrant or his immediate family 6) Number of registered restricted weapons used by the registrant or a member of his immediate family in i) homicides ii) suicides iii) firearms related crime For the last five years 7) Number of persons under the age of 18, i) killed and ii) injured in firearms related accidents or criminal activities. Since 1934 8) The number of registered owners of full-automatic prohibited weapons who have been charged with or convicted of any offence involving violence with those or any other type of firearm. The portion of the answer pertinent to the above points came back from John Turner, Manager, Information and Client Services of Statistics Canada as follows; After reviewing your request the following was determined: points 1 to 8 inclusive are not available from our division but some of which you requested may be available by writing RCMP Public Affairs, Room G-317, 1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OR2. >From Sgt. V. Rambaut NCO i/c Legs. & Regs. Section, Firearms Registration and Administration Section, RCMP came the reply As requested, please find enclosed copy of the 1993 Commissioner's Annual Firearms Report which may address some of the questions you raised in your letter such as the answer to question 4 which is found on page 2. As explained, the other statistics you seek are not available at this time. **END** Mr. Watt has asked me to post this in answer to Allan Rock's statement that registration will help in controlling crime. It is my own observation that Technical Report TR 1994-9e states that only about 100 traces per year are done and not all are successful. Damn few for a budget of $5.4 million a year. Doug ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:16:59 -0600 From: Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: HIGHLIGHTS OF A.L.'s BRIEF (text - corrected) Message-ID: <199505012016.OAA10855@arcturus.USask.Ca> ....................................................................... This is a translation of the cover page and table of contents of the brief submitted by "Les Amis de la Liberte" (Friends of Liberty) to the Standing Committee on C-68. The association has been refused the right to appear, but has tabled its brief as it was invited to. The original and complete brief in French can also be found in this directory in binhexed versions (both for MS Word Mac and MS Word Windows). Paper copies of the brief (in French) are for sale at Les Amis de la Liberte. The contact person is their young president, Michel Kelly-Gagnon (address and fax after the text). Pierre Lemieux ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTLINE OF BRIEF TABLED BEFORE THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF BILL C-68 "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal "The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results." -- Benito Mussolini, Speech given by the Prime Minister before the Italian Senate, June 8, 1923. Reprinted in Mussolini as Revealed in His Political Speeches (London and Toronto: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1923, pp.308-309.) HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BRIEF - Forbidding self-defense is simply criminal. If the Government of Canada succeeds in disarming the citizens of this country, what will happen next time the police goes on strike? - Another question that MPs should dwell upon is, to which extent does Bill C-68 aim at disarming Quebecers in order to forestall any secession move? - Domestic tyranny is not more acceptable than foreign invasion, and the free man has a right to resist both. Arms are the last, but irreplaceable, means. - The right to keep and bear arms is a natural extension of the right to self-defense and the right to resist tyranny. These rights are deeply imbedded in the Western tradition of individual responsibility and sovereignty. - The government of this country, i.e., the British invader, had already disarmed the French Canadian colonists during a period following Conquest. Obviously, the conquered people were not recognized the traditional right of the English subject to own and bear arms. Today, the Government of Canada is intent to disarming all its subjects, English and French alike. - The increased police powers in by C-68 are utterly inconsistent with a free society. - While the Rambos of Fisheries and Ocean Canada bully foreigners with automatic weapons on the high seas, the ordinary Canadian citizen is liable to two years in jail if he has a can of Mace to protect himself against the criminals whom the state does not control. - Like its forerunners of 1977 and 1991, Bill 68 represents a frontal attack on fundamental individual rights, and glorifies the state's armed agents. It will turn honest citizens into criminals, and destroy the foundations of a free society and whatever was still worth fighting for in this country. - The contempt shown by the Government of Canada towards the citizens of this country is unspeakable. - The actual firearm controls in Canada are based on no serious analytical or statistical bases, as noted by the Auditor General of Canada in his 1993 report. - What, then, is the government's secret agenda, if not to finish its task of disarming the citizens of this country and make them even more dependent on a state that is financially and morally bankrupt? - The citizens who will resist these anti-liberty laws are the real Canadians. If one is optimistic about the future, one can hope that a day will come when the federal government will issue a stamp to honor their resistance -- just like it did for Louis Riel, one hundred years after hanging him TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. Individual Responsibility and Sovereignty 2 1.1. Theory 2 1.2. Experience 5 2. The Right to Resist Tyranny 6 2.1. Theory 6 2.2. Experience 9 2.3. Is Tyranny Unthinkable in Canada? 12 3. Bill C-68 and the Laws Actually on the Books 14 3.1. Towards Prohibition 14 3.2. Police Powers 16 3.3. Laws Against Liberty 17 Conclusion 19 Concerning this Brief of the Friends of Liberty 21 Les Amis de la Liberte 1, Place Ville-Marie, bureau 2821, Montreal, Quebec H3B 4R4 Tel.: (514) 491-6106 - Fax: (514) 491-1188 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:17:36 -0600 From: Larry_Soo@mindlink.bc.ca (Larry Soo) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: BC Premiere Harcourt's semi-position on C68 Message-ID: <199505012017.OAA10867@arcturus.USask.Ca> Today (Fri Apr 28) on the Rafe Mair show (CKNW), premiere Mike Harcourt (NDP) was asked about his stand on C68. He gave some wishy-washy answer saying that he supports Rock's goals of fighting crime but he doesn't want it to be an expensive, ineffective program which targets the ordinary British Columbian. He also said that it's important to remove guns from criminals and prevent people from buying "automatic...mumble mumble guns". On the good side, he isn't 100% behind C68. On the downside, he isn't against it, either. BTW, Mair is against C68. Considering how many people listen to his show, this is a great news. ..lars ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 14:20:41 -0600 From: "Larry J. Going" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: David Tomlinson's Presentation at Hearing (first half) Message-ID: <199505012020.OAA10897@arcturus.USask.Ca> THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION ON BILL C-68 Bill C-68 is a political and civil rights piece, not a Bill to improve public safety. It gives the public a false promise--the promise that the Bill will improve public safety. C-68 has nothing to do with crime control, protection of women, reduction in accidents, or prevention of suicide. It is simply an attack on the recreational firearms community, designed to generate favorable media coverage. Existing law is often difficult to interpret and administer. Even the RCMP Crime Detection Laboratories are finding it impossible to say which firearms and cartridges are "prohibited" and which are not. C-68 makes things far worse, and it is abusive. It would be simpler and easier to start over, with a clean sheet of paper. We don't want C-68 changed; we want it killed. C-68 provides for the confiscation, without payment, of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of private property. It renders historical artifacts and valuable collections worthless. It wipes out the life savings of many Canadians, rendering their collections valueless or severely reducing their value. C-68 does not provide compensation for those who are injured by it; it attempts to ignore that issue entirely. It seems unlikely that the courts will go along with that approach. It confiscates in clear and open violation of the law. Peter W. Hogg says, 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 private property is to be read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to the private owner." MPs should look at this problem before irrevocable harm is done. If that is not done, Parliament may well have to pay a very large bill when the courts finally rule on this issue. C-68 contains ominous overtones of a police state mentality. The individuals who drafted it apparently regard Canadians as dangerous persons, precariously held in check by threats. The Bill clearly violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an d it ignores rights which Canadians enjoy as a result of traditional liberties in a free society. Most of its attacks are directed at people who have done nothing wrong. C-68 reverses the burden of proof--a cherished part of criminal law in every true democracy, including Canada. Unlike earlier legislation, C-68 requires the citizen to prove that the bureaucrat's decision is wrong, instead of requiring the bureaucrat to prove that he is right [FA s. 73(3) and CC s. 117.11]. In many cases, there is no right of appeal at all; the bureaucrat's power is absolute. C-68 vests police and firearms bureaucrats with extremely broad search and seizure powers, authorizing them to enter and search the private home of any Canadian who has a firearm or ammunition, or even a record of a firearm or ammunition, including situations where no crime is known or suspected [FA s. 99 and 101]. C-68 authorizes imprisoning anyone who refuses to help the authorities search his home, or refuses to answer (before he has access to legal counsel) any relevant question put to him [FA s. 100 and 107]. What happened to the right to remain silent? C-68 authorizes imposing a sentence of up to five years imprisonment for expressing an opinion, even where the opinion is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law [CC s. 107(3) and (1)]. What happened to the right of free speech? C-68 strips Parliament of virtually all of its authority in firearms matters, placing all future legislation into the hands of the Minister of Justice alone. The scope of the authority delegated to the Minister [by FA s. 110, 111 and 112] is huge. Yes, we do realize that the wording gives that authority to "the Governor in Council." And you realize, as experienced Members of Parliament and media people, that the Governor in Council is actually a rubber stamp applied to the Minister's wishes. Even Parliamentary scrutiny of what the Minister is doing will be lost if C-68 passes. While Parliamentary scrutiny is required by FA s. 111, it is then immediately eliminated by FA s. 112.\par All of C-68 is serious criminal law, with severe penalties for anyone who violates any Order in Council (OIC) regulation. It is unfortunate that Canadians will be unable to learn what the law is, other than by subscribing to the Canada Gazette. C-68 is largely a licensing scheme. In pith and substance, it is designed as a method to control the activities of honest Canadians engaged in recreational activities and using private property. As such, it may well be ultra vires of Parliament, because that type of legislative power belongs to the provinces. When firearms control was first put into the Criminal Code, it was clearly a matter of public safety. The refrain, "in the interests of the safety of the applicant or any other person" held the key to every situation. The documents were few, permanent, and free. That is no longer true. Now the documents are many, expire frequently, and cost up to several hundred dollars. Public safety is no longer primary. While the firearms control system has been upheld in the past, today's loss of focus on public safety and the drift into regulatory areas probably will not stand the "pith and substance" test in the Supreme Court of Canada. Several provinces have indicated that they intend to take it there. The financial liabilities that the government has already incurred are quite heavy. By the time that C-68's legal status is resolved, the liabilities may well be much heavier. Between having to repay illegally-collected licensing fees and compensate for private property taken or destroyed under invalid laws and Orders in Council, the compensation to be paid may well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This is an area wor th exploring carefully, for any MP who cares about the deficit. For those interested in the Constitutional validity of charging licensing fees within the Criminal Code, Peter W. Hogg's comment in "Constitutional Law of Canada" is worth pursuing: "The federal Parliament, not being confined to direct taxation, can impose both direct and indirect charges under its taxation power [Constitution s. 91(3)], but a federal regulatory charge, like a provincial regulatory charge, may well have to fall under some head of regulatory power. Thus, the distinction between taxes and charges may become relevant to the validity of a federal law." [30.10(b)] In short, this Bill is seriously flawed. Canada can no longer afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unproven theories. In our two-page Paper III, "THE COST OF FIREARMS CONTROL REVISIONS," we show that the actual cost of simply operating the system is over $600 million, even using only figures supplied by the Minister and the RCMP Commissioner. Can Canada afford to spend $600 million on C-68? Yes, we know that the Minister says it will only cost $85 million. He should be asked to explain which parts of our analysis--or which of his figures that we used--are in error. Perhaps it helps to put things in perspective. In 1991-92, 69 Canadian women died in gunshot homicides. 4,038 Canadian women died of breast cancer; 58 times as many as died from firearms. The government has authorized $30 million to be spent on trying to reduce the fatalities from breast cancer. One wonders, if $600 million is available, why it is not allocated to the larger problem, where even a minor success would have far greater effects. A 2 per cent improvement in breast cancer fatalities would save more women's lives--80 of them--than a 100 per cent improvement in gun fatalities. Is C-68 wise use of resources? In order to keep costs down, the Minister says that registration will be done by owners, using postcards. The result of that is predictable; the error rates will be very high, and the already error-ridden system will be swamped with more errors. For example, about 20 per cent of the firearms in the RCMP's reference collection have no serial numbers. From New Zealand's experience, people use a patent number, date, model number or any other number they can find and report it as a serial number, eve n where the firearm has a perfectly good serial number. Under FA s. 102(1) and (3), every person who makes an error on the postcard by giving his opinion on an obscure point of identification can be sent to prison for up to five years if his opinion turns out to be wrong. Additionally, that method of entry means that no screening of applicants will be done. Since the alleged purpose of registration is to keep firearms out of the hands of the unsuitable, it appears the real purpose is not that which the government says it is. If it were, then the problem of automatic renewal would have been considered. The basic principles of law regarding issuance, renewal and revocation should be considered before voting on C-68. They have very interesting effects on this type of legislation. The government said that it has no intention of using the registration system to confiscate more firearms. At about the same time, it proposed the confiscation of nearly 600,000 registered firearms--almost all without compensation. Under the circumstances, it is easy to be suspicious about intentions. The members of the recreational firearms community are faced with a hard choice. We can register all our firearms, in which case we face confiscation sooner or later. C-68, in CC s. 84(1) "prohibited firearm" (d) authorizes the Minister to convert every firearm in Canada to "prohibited firearm" status, in terms which ensure that any appeal to the courts would fail. If it is not the government's intent to confiscate all those firearms, why is that section in Bill C-68? Why vest the Minister with powers that he promises he will never use? Under C-68, it is a criminal offence to possess any firearm [CC s. 91(1)]--but government will sell permission to commit that crime, in the form of a license plus a registration certificate. It is a curious perversion of the criminal law to define an action as so harmful to society that doing it incurs a penalty of long imprisonment, then offer to sell permission to do it. Anyone who operates inside the system faces the risk that this, or any future, Minister can issue an Order in Council, convert his property to "prohibited" status, and confiscate it. If he chooses to operate outside the system he is a criminal. If he chooses to operate inside it, he will become a victim. The Department of Justice commissioned the research paper, "Review of Firearms Registration TR1994-9e." It demonstrates that registration records often go "stale" and becomes meaningless. This finding suggests that the proposed registration system is not useful as a long-term crime-fighting tool. Therefore, any registration system can only be useful in the short term. There is enough information available today to prove that the registration system cannot be trusted. By the end of 1995, we expect that evidence from that system will be inadmissible in any court of law, as a result of cases currently before the courts. It is another example of legislation based on theory, with scientific evidence carefully ignored. Instead of carefully researched facts and figures, you are being asked to judge C-68's registration system on the basis of anecdotes and scare tactics. For every positive effect that the Minister predicts for a C-68 provision, there is a negative effect that his Department has not told anyone about. These merit careful examination. In his 1993 annual report, the Auditor General condemned the Department for not doing a decent job of research. He pointed out that the small amount of biased research that had been done was both inadequate and inaccurate. He requested that more research be done. It has not been done. It is still all theory, with a minimum of evidence as to the actual results that will follow if it is enacted. (continued in Digest 239...) ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 238 ******************************