CDN-FIREARMS Digest 243 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Confirmation of P.C.J. Gordon quote and source needed. by revcan@nbnet.nb.ca (Chris Bragdon) 2) Media coverage by Richard van Abbe 3) C-68 = searches; Toronto SUN by Damian Kanarek 4) Dr. Judith Ross presentation to C-68 Committee by dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) 5) Re: Ian McClelland's dilemna by jbentley@onramp.ca (Jim Bentley) 6) Re: ECO Terrorism Hits the Heart of the East Kootenay by LOHSEACH@MAX.CC.UREGINA.CA 7) Ontario Provincial Liberal Party on-line! by skeet@io.org (Mike Federchuk) 8) re instructors boycott by fses-mc@feldspar.com (Michel Chamberland P.Eng.) 9) Attention Gun Owners -- CALL 1-900-451-6005 by "Larry J. Going" 10) IPSC Canada Appearance at the Justice Committee by Rick=A=Young%ECO%DFOSF@SFNET.DFO.CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:03:23 -0600 From: revcan@nbnet.nb.ca (Chris Bragdon) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Confirmation of P.C.J. Gordon quote and source needed. Message-ID: <199505031903.NAA16022@arcturus.USask.Ca> Rumour has it that the Justice Committee is trying hard to find any cracks it can in the presentations being made wrt C-68. The NBFA has completed its brief and is in the process of obtaining sources for all statements that may be challenged. In cdn-firearms digest 7, the following quotation was attributed to a Provincial Court Judge Gordon in regard to his views on C-17 (I think). "one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship that I have had the misfortune to consider", "so convoluted that even those responsible for enforcing the provisions are apparently unable to understand it" and "a challenge to one's sense of logic". [I have corrected the above quote... -- Skeeter] We have used this quotation in our brief and require confirmation of this quote and/or more info on who Judge Gordon is, when he made this statement, and what court case it was in reference to. If anyone can provide us with this info it would be most helpful. Chris Bragdon NBFA ----- End Included Message ----- I have a document that starts: ___________ ( ) ( VANCOUVER ) ( ) ( AUG 21 1986 ) ( ) NO. CC 861283 ( REGISTRY ) VANCOUVER REGISTRY ( ) ----------- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION ) BY JAMES LESLIE HURLEY FOR A ) WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR RELIEF IN ) THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ) RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF ) MANDAMUS IN AID AGAINST W.F. ) DAWSON AND L.M. NEWSON AND ) OF THE HONOURABLE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) BRITISH COLUMBIA. ) ) ) MR. JUSTICE GIBBS ) ) THIS IS THE PETITION OF ) JAMES LESLIE HURLEY ) IN CHAMBERS ) ) ) PETITIONER ) and on page "- 2 -", lines 11 to 17 contain the following text (formatted to 72 columns): This is a difficult case. Not the least of the difficulties is due to the tortuous language of the gun control provisions of the _Criminal_Code_. In _Regina_v._Neil_ (1985) Kamloops Registry No. 25175, Gordon, P.C.J., was moved, with some justification, to refer to those provisions as "one of the most horrifying examples of bad draftsmanship that I have had the misfortune to consider", as "so convoluted that even those responsible for enforcing the provisions are apparently unable to understand it", and as "a challenge to one's sense of logic". Underlining was indicated by __. It can't be about C-17 because it's from 1985. Hope this helps. skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:05:56 -0600 From: Richard van Abbe To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Media coverage Message-ID: <199505031905.NAA16026@arcturus.USask.Ca> Skeeter, FYI, the Toronto Star published your corrective letter earlier this week - I think it was Monday. Also, the Toronto Sun on Tuesday ran a top of Page 3 article headlined GUN BILL LETS COPS IN, with an above-the-line subhead reading "Open-House Policy for Searches." In part, the article reads: OTTAWA - Canadians would be subjected to unreasonable police searches and denied the right to remain silent under the new gun control bill, says the Reform Party. And the claim is backed up by a report by the Library of Parliament's independent research branch. The report says Bill C-68 would "expand significantly" on existing police powers by giving them the right to search a home even if they have no evidence a crime has been committed. [snip] "There would be no requirement of reasonable belief that an offence had been or was being committed," says the report, which was researched at the request of Reform MP Cliff Breitkreuz. [snip] The Library of Parliament report suggests the gun lobby may have a point in objecting to the proposed law and states that any charges arising from the new powers "may be subject to charter challenges." [snip] Rock was not available for comment yesterday. -30- Small wonder. But a heartening idea: Maybe the message IS starting to get out. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | R. van Abbe an168@torfree.net | | richard.van.abbe@guildnet.org | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ----- End Included Message ----- I'm happy the Star published my letter and the above article. skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 13:15:04 -0600 From: Damian Kanarek To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: C-68 = searches; Toronto SUN Message-ID: <199505031915.NAA16099@arcturus.USask.Ca> Today's (may 2) Toronto SUN run a page three article (page 3 - right next to the Sunshine girl - good place to put something...) on how C-68 gives our police extra search powers. Now, The article apparently referred to a report by the "Library of Parliament's independent research branch." This report was requested by Cliff Breitkreuz, MP. Good news, however, it only talked about about the searches and the loss of the "right to remain silent" right, much/any mention of seizures, or anything else... The article also pointed out that any charges laid under these new laws could very well lead to Charter challenges. Toronto SUN, May 2, page 3: --------------------------- "Open-house policy for searches: Gun bill lets cops in" - Canadians "would" (not "could") be subject to unreasonable searches are denied the right to remain silent under C68. - the bill would "expand significaly" on the existing powers by giveing them the right to search even when no crime has been committed. - homeowners would be required to co-operate, and could be charged if they did not = denial of rights to remain silent and speak for a lawyer. - "there would be no requirement of reasonable belief that an offence had been was being committed," said the Parlimentary report. - "The Library of Parliament report suggests the gun lobby might have a point in objecting to the proposed law and states that any charges arising from the new powers 'may be subject to charter challenges.'" "Rock was not available for comment yesterday." I know that we already know this; I listed the points so that you'd know what was, and what wasn't being covered (the 'take samples' and don't give them back idea was not covered, as wasn't the special powers to apply different set of laws to the aborigianal (sp?) people of Canada.) Damian P.s. Hmmm... Just yesterday I dropped off a package containing photocopies of S99-S120 of C-68, along with a letter explaining them on the desk of the SUN's editor.... I wonder is there's a connection... ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Damian R. Kanarek | "The .net interprets censorship as Multipath Business Systems Inc. | damage and routes around it." email: omen@multipath.com | - John Gilmore, EFF ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:12:49 -0600 From: dvc14@fox.nstn.ca (Calvin Martin, Q.C.) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Dr. Judith Ross presentation to C-68 Committee Message-ID: <199505032212.QAA16796@arcturus.USask.Ca> Presentation to Parliamentary Committee on Bill C-68 by Dr. Judith Ross on behalf of the Ontario Arms Collectors Association, May 2, 1995: 1. Crime control and public safety are not the issues. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you this morning. You have received in advance a copy of a paper I wrote which was sent to all Members of Parliament a few months ago when this further gun control legislation was first proposed. This paper provides a detailed and factual refutation of the arguments put forth by those who seek further gun control legislation. This document along with documents sent to you and all Members of Parliament by organizations such as the Ontario Handgun Assoc iation and the Fraser Institute clearly indicate that restricting the access of law-abiding individuals to firearms does absolutely nothing to reduce crime and contributes absolutely nothing to public safety. This point has been made time and time again since Bill C-17 was introduced a few years ago. This past September, 23,000 owners of firearms took a day off from work and came to Parliament Hill to bring this message directly to their representatives in Parliament. Their rallying cry was "Crime control, not gun control". Since last summer there have been well attended rallies all across this country where firearms collectors and recreational shooters gathered to make this point. Yet the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister seem not to have heard this message and they have persisted and put forth Bill C-68. Along with many other people in this country, I have been wondering why. Why, when the point has been made over and over again that gun controls directed at legitimate owners of firearms contribute absolutely nothing to crime control or public safety, are more such gun control measures introduced? 2. Registration serves no useful purpose and the cost is prohibitive. Why would the Minister of Justice want to register all firearms? It is absurd to think for a minute that this would be a crime control measure. Criminals will not register their firearms. It has been demonstrated that the cost of such registration will be phenomenal, that funds which could be well used to do something that would reduce crime or benefit the public in some other way will be diverted to this useless activity; that many individuals will not comply and otherwise law-abiding people will become criminals. Why does the Minister of Justice, in the face of significant arguments against registration, persist in this plan? 3. Registration does lead to confiscation. Prohibitions are arbitrary. Why would the Minister of Justice state that registration does not lead to confiscation when there is abundant evidence that that is precisely what has happened and what Bill C-68 indicates will continue to happen? A number of rifles and shotguns have already been prohibited in a totally arbitrary manner; that is, there is no valid reason related to public safety to single out these firearms for prohibition. But that is precisely what has happened by Order in Council. Many firearms have been prohibited which means that their owners have had to hand them in to the government for destruction. And now Bill C-68 clearly prohibits 2/3 of the pistols owned by law-abiding individuals, many of these are collectors items and many are target pistols in current use in competitions such as the Olympic and Commonwealth games. Some of these firearms may be grandfathered but that is simply a form of delayed confiscation. Exactly what purpose does the Minister of Justice feel is served by such prohibitions? Certainly the loss to firearms collectors and recreational shooters is staggering. 4. There is another agenda; the elimination of civilian owner ship of firearms. As Canada already has very strict gun control legislation, as there is overwhelming evidence that gun control measures directed at law-abiding firearms collectors and recreational shooters contribute absolutely nothing to public safety, as universal firearm registration is useless and expensive, as prohibition of various firearms is arbitrary, senseless, and a serious violation of the right to private property, and as all this is well docu mented, we must ask why is the Minister of Justice proposing and, indeed, insisting on this legislation? This is a very serious question. It is a question that the members of this committee and all Members of Parliament should be asking. In thinking about this, there is only one conclusion that can reasonably be drawn and that is that crime control is not the purpose of this legislation but that there is another agenda. What is this other agenda? What is the reason behind Bill C-68? What makes it so important to the Minister of Justice that he invokes closure to limit debate, that he restricts access to the Bill by limiting the copies that Members of Parliament receive, that Members who question or oppose the Bill are threatened and punished, and that this committee refuse to hear the testimony of acknowledged experts and important organizations? An examination of the Bill leads to the inescapable conclusion that one aspect of this hidden agenda is the elimination of private ownership of firearms in Canada. This Bill allows for the arbitrary prohibition, ultimate confiscation, and eventual destruction of any and all firearms. This would be done through Order in Council. Both the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act of 1988 which replaced it required that orders and regulations come before Parliament for approval after debate by both houses of government. But in Bill C-68, Mr. Rock has assumed wide-sweeping new powers in that the Minister of Justice will be exempted from having his orders or regulations come before Parliament. Any thoughtful Canadian and this should include Members of Parliament, regardless of their views on firearms or their political party affiliation must be concerned about the implications of this legislation. 5. Rights abuses. There are other aspects of this Bill which reveal more about this hidden agenda. The Minister of Justice also gives himself total power to regulate every aspect of firearms use and recreational shooting. He will have the power to regulate activities at all gun clubs and shooting ranges and to decide what firearms are "reasonable for use in Canada for hunting and sporting purposes". We are looking at a situation where ownership of firearms and their use will be dictated by the Minister of Justice at his whim and with no recourse even to Parliament. The hidden agenda clearly involves the abolition of civilian ownership of firearms. But the civil liberties implications go well beyond that, and here every Canadian, regardless of his or her views on firearms, must be deeply concerned. It is not putting it too extremely to say that the extension of police powers permitted by Bill C-68 amounts to the loss of the protection of the individual from the abuse of power of the government to the point that Canada would be turned into a police state. An examination of sections 98, 99, 100, 107, among others, indicates the loss of the right against self incrimina tion, the right to private property, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. You may say that these violations would occur only to owners of firearms but you must realize that these are law-abiding individuals (you have to be law-abiding to legally own a firearm in Canada) and, in any case, an extremely dangerous precedent would be set by allowing these violations of personal liberties. In fact some of these provisions can be used against individuals other than firearms owners. Why does Mr. Rock have this personal agenda that involves such a serious loss of basic democratic rights for firearms owners? Mr. Rock may have revealed some of his reasons when he stated recently that registration was needed in order to be sure that no one was stockpiling firearms in order to start a militia. When does a collection leave off and a stockpile begin? When do you have recreational shooters and hunters and when do you have a militia? Mr. Rock seems to see sinister implications to lawful and innocent activities. His remarks were probably scare tactics that he used in light of the recent horrible and tragic events in Oklahoma. But I think these remarks reveal his motives. A democratic government should not have reason to fear its people. Canada has its domestic problems. The invocation of the War Measures Act and the stand-off at Oka are not far behind us. And the Quebec referendum is not far ahead. But firearms owners are not joining militias in Canada. They are joining new political parties. And more people who are not firearms owners will join these parties as they start to see that their government, or at least their Minister of Justice, does not trust them and is so willing to violate the basic protection of their freedom that is guaranteed them under the Constitution. Members of this committee, you really must think about the implications of Bill C-68. Whatever your views on firearms, you cannot support this frightening and dangerous Bill. Calvin Martin,QC,LLB 600 Church Street Toronto, Canada, M4Y 2E7 Tel 416 922-5854 Fax 416 922-5854 E-Mail dvc14@fox.nstn.ca ----- End Included Message ----- This article is also available by anonymous FTP from skatter.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Ross ; presenta.com). ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:36:27 -0600 From: jbentley@onramp.ca (Jim Bentley) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: Ian McClelland's dilemna Message-ID: <199505032236.QAA16958@arcturus.USask.Ca> >Michael: "But Given all that you're going to vote for the bill?" > >Ian: "Because my constituents have ordered me to do so." > > >Mr McClelland seems to be saying that if a federal Minister >successfully brainwashes voters in his (Mr McClelland's) constituency >into believing that the their safety and security can only preserved by >abrogating all fundamental personal rights and freedoms, and he >expresses recognition of that fact, his responsibility is to without >question vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents. > >He is implicitly arguing that he has no responsibility to argue against >the legislation except on the most superficial economic grounds. He has >no responsibility to argue on the grounds of this abrogation of >fundamental rights and freedoms. > >I'm sure some of our more eloquent contributors can use this to make >mincemeat out of all those who hold this position. Hey folks, we can't ask MP's to vote to their constituents wishes only when we agree with those wishes. If we demand that our MP's vote against C-68 even though they may favour more gun control we can't ask Mr. McClelland to vote against it. Where are the gun owners in Edmonton South? Get out and talk to your neighbours, get them informed and in touch with Mr. McClelland. With a little effort this is one sure turn around vote. Don't blame Mr. McClelland, he is just following Reform Party principles. If the Liberals allowed their members to do the same democracy would be truly served. Jim Bentley ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:37:43 -0600 From: LOHSEACH@MAX.CC.UREGINA.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Re: ECO Terrorism Hits the Heart of the East Kootenay Message-ID: <199505032237.QAA16963@arcturus.USask.Ca> As a founding member of the Invermere Branch of the East Kootenay Environmental Society (it took the righteous zealots about six months to drive me out), I'm not a bit surprised at this news. In private conversation with several members of EKES (including one right at the top) killing "animals" (their terminology tends to be sloppy) was often termed "murder". And their knowledge of the scientific basis for big game managment laughable. Self-righteous outrage and a keeness to bully other people is the strongest quality of the activists, while an overwhelming need to be on the side of the "good guys" characterises most of the followers. It's a classic example of the most outrageous lies and exaggerations winning the day. People and groups with a rational, ballanced view of animal husbandry are simply not as threatening, and thus fail to persuade the fearful masses to sign on the line and shell out. Maybe we hunters should call a hunting boycott for a year, and let the animal rights groups take credit for rising auto insurance rates, crop losses, and disease and starvation among their "proteges". Achim PS. glad to see you finally made it onto the Internet, Eddy. Still putting on the Steel Challenge? ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:38:48 -0600 From: skeet@io.org (Mike Federchuk) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Ontario Provincial Liberal Party on-line! Message-ID: <199505032238.QAA16970@arcturus.USask.Ca> This may be old news by now, but the Ontario Provincial Liberal Party is now on-line. Their rather impressive home page can be located at: http://www.io.org/~liberal If you are an Ontario gun owner on the 'Net, it might be a good idea to send them a note, stating our position. Lets not forget the Ammo-banning bill of May, 1994! Mike ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 8 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:40:37 -0600 From: fses-mc@feldspar.com (Michel Chamberland P.Eng.) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: re instructors boycott Message-ID: <199505032240.QAA16974@arcturus.USask.Ca> >>Besides, the willingness of hundreds (or is it thousands?) of instructors to collaborate with the government in this project is a tacit endorsement which damages our cause seriously , much more than the elaborate shooting aristrocracy proposals of IPSC and the NFA. These instructors represent the closest the government has come to "consulting" the grass roots of shooting, and as such, are the most credible single voice in the Canadian shooting community. << In Ontario we have almost 800 instructors and have processed over 4300 shooters in Jan, Feb, and March 1995. However we have almost as many people who want to be instructors waiting in the wings. SO the impact on the government of even a significant nomber of instructors leaving would be minimal. In addition most of the instructors are quite proud of their contribution to firearms safety. We believe in education, not only as a tool for safety but as the only viable method of perpetuating the shooting sports. In addition the instructors in Ontario have agreed with our CPFO and Sol. Gen. NOT to have a public opinion about firearms regulations, especially those created or applied in Ontario. This is spelled out in the individual instructors certification documents and with the Firearms Safety Service of Ontario's operating agrement with the CPFO. In exchange we have an open door policy at the CPFO's offices and access to the Sol. Gen. and get a chance to comment on all kinds of "first draft proposals". Our impact on several issues has been very significant. We may not be noisy, but we do get a surprising number of changes approved. Do we give "tacit endorsement"? Some parts of the Bill are very positive and will benefit shooters as well as the public, those we support. Other sections have failed to generate similar support from our instructors, those we voiced our concerns about in private. Frankly I feel our approach is more effective than the confrontational style used by many groups. On the other hand perhaps the "powers that be" are more willing to listen to our "measured cool logical approach" because other groups are applying political pressure. As a unified body of instructors we can have a very positive voice, but if we loose ourselves in the sea of "politically active groups" our unique voice is drowned. Michel L. Chamberland ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 9 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:42:22 -0600 From: "Larry J. Going" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Attention Gun Owners -- CALL 1-900-451-6005 Message-ID: <199505032242.QAA16977@arcturus.USask.Ca> Attention Gun Owners - Preserve Your Freedom Sponsored by the National Firearms Association URGENT!! CALL 1-900-451-6005 $1.00 per call - must be 18 years or older Touch Tone Phone Required Register your vote for the tabled gun control legislation. . . - Three key questions asked - Results of national poll to be forwarded to parliament. Your vote may make the difference. All opinions welcome. Larry J. Going home phone: (306) 694-4168 Saskatchewan President bus. phone: (306) 694-3357 National Firearms Association fax: (306) 691-0271 internet: "going@siast.sk.ca" ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 10 Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 16:49:18 -0600 From: Rick=A=Young%ECO%DFOSF@SFNET.DFO.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: IPSC Canada Appearance at the Justice Committee Message-ID: <199505032249.QAA17011@arcturus.USask.Ca> Re: Cal Martin's post in digest 241 It's just more of the same ol' same old. IPSC Ontario has a turf war underway. Rowe, Hodges et al received the appropriate feedback from the members of IPSC Canada, through the NEC, after the last presentation. The membership is obviously satisfied that they will not repeat the mistake and, indeed, they have solicited input from not only the membership, but from outside sources as well (witness the message from Glenn Springer on this list, the IPSC mail list, etc.). Cal, if you and Bud can make CPSA fly, best of luck to you. But this is a list about firearms legislation, not personal vendettas and turf wars. You're a valuable resource in the fight against C68 - a lawyer dedicated to the shooting sports. So why not direct your efforts towards that rather than resurrecting the Holy IPSC/CPSA struggle again and again and again? S___ happens, it's all said and done, and nothing can change what has gone before. ENOUGH ALREADY! ----- End Included Message ----- I chose to publish this one response because I thought it was the best. I am not about to have a repeat of the arguments from a few months back. Besides, we shouldn't air our laundry in _public_. skeeter ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 243 ******************************