CDN-FIREARMS Digest 251 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Press Release from Mr. Robert Kierstead by "Frank H.RYDER" 2) SVP URGENT. Objet: C-68 by Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA 3) Comments by committee members? by Bruce Mills 4) Shiela Copps denounces tryanny by Bruce Mills 5) Job risks & mental health by gabe@esri.com (Gabe Field [ESRI-Redlands]) 6) re:Cop deaths tied to gun law delay by "fred (f.) davis" 7) Presentation to Parliamentary Justice Committee by Taylor Buckner. by BUCKNER@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 08:42:06 -0600 From: "Frank H.RYDER" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Press Release from Mr. Robert Kierstead Message-ID: <199505091442.IAA08230@arcturus.USask.Ca> Press Release by Mr. Robert Kierstead concerning Parliamentary Justice Committee Hearings on Bill C-68 As you all know Federal Justice Minister Allan Rock has arranged parliamentary hearings in Ottawa on his Bill, C-68. Groups and organizations from across Canada including four provincial/territorial governments are presenting their concerns with the legislation. The Justice Minister has presented this bill to Canadians as the vehicle to address crime and violence in Canada. He stated the bill is aimed at criminals and won't harm hunters and legitimate sports shooters. We have been misled by the Honourable Minister, his bill doesn't target criminals and crime, it targets hunters and legitimate competitive sports shooters including the Canadian Olympic Shooting Team, as well as non firearm owning Canadians. This bill erodes the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. This bill gives broad sweeping powers of search and seizure, into the homes and businesses of Canadians, with and without a search warrant. These intrusions into the homes and business of Canadians have already started and they will intensify when this legislation reaches third reading. The Justice minister has not sought or accepted consultative expertise from the legitimate sport firearms owners in Canada. He does not appear to be listening to the concerned groups presenting briefs at his committee hearings either. He has stacked his justice committee with members who support his legislation including the chairman who has a long record of public opposition to the private ownership of firearms in Canada. This stacked committee gives him the appearance of following democratic process. He is not following the substance of democratic process. For example: three MP's were punished for supporting their constituents by voting against bill C-68. Because of his lack of receptivity, his rigidity and his unwillingness throughout the entire process including these hearings to consider effective modifications to his bill I cannot support his parliamentary committee hearings with my presence. As Canadian Olympic Shooting Coach I am scheduled to appear at the hearings in Ottawa tomorrow. I cannot justify use of the taxpayer's money to fund my appearance when Mr Rock has shown us he does not intend to accept constructive improvements to his legislation. I am taking this opportunity to announce that in good conscience I must boycott his justice committee hearings. His mind has been closed from the start. I urge all Canadians of good character to become knowledgable about the details of Bill C-68 as it impacts all our lives, with the broad power it gives to the Justice Minister and to the police. Those Canadians concerned with the erosion of civil liberties in our country should be particularly concerned with Bill C-68 Released May, 9, 1995 11:00 AM ADT ----- End Included Message ----- Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take the press release and to exercise your local media outlets on the subject, asking: What is this? What's going on? What's the background?, the whole 5 W's. Have a fabulous time! Frank Frank H. RYDER | fhryder@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca B.Sc. M.Eng. P.Eng. | Even the dog knows the difference (SM)IEEE (SM)IIE C.Eng. FIEE | between being kicked and being stumbled over. CONSULTANT | Oliver Wendell Holmes ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:09:30 -0600 From: Pierre_Lemieux@UQAH.UQuebec.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: SVP URGENT. Objet: C-68 Message-ID: <199505092209.QAA10395@arcturus.USask.Ca> Tomorrow Wednesday, the BQ will be holding a special caucus on C-68. There is a lot of dissension within the party, which is apparently split 50-50. Attached is the TPC message I just sent to Lucien Bouchard, hoping that this could help tip the balance in favor of liberty. P.L. ...................................................................... TO: remote-printer.Lucien_BOUCHARD@16139542121.iddd.tpc.int ...................................................................... (Message electronique personnel et URGENT via TPC) Monsieur Lucien BOUCHARD Chef de l'Opposition Chambre des Communes Ottawa Monsieur le Chef de l'Opposition, A la veille du caucus de votre parti sur le projet de loi C-68, la liberte -- ou ce qui en reste dans ce pays -- a besoin de votre appui. Je vous prie de trouver ci-apres un synopsis en langue anglaise du memoire que Les Amis de la Liberte ont soumis au Comite Permanent de la Justice sur le projet de loi C-68, et que celui-ci a refuse d'entendre. La version originale et complete, en langue francaise, du memoire des Amis de la Liberte se trouve entre les mains du Comite, auquel il a ete soumis dans les delais requis. Pour toute information additionnelle, la personne a contacter est le president des Amis de la Liberte, Michel Kelly-Gagnon (addresse et fax ci-dessous, apres le synopsis). Les Amis de la Liberte sont formes d'un groupe de jeunes Quebecois (dont plusieurs membres de votre parti) qui satisfaisait pourtant les exigences formelles que le Comite avait etablies concernant les groupes qui seraient entendus. Etant donne la discrimination dont les jeunes -- et surtout ceux qui aiment la liberte -- sont victimes dans ce pays, cela ne m'etonne pas outre-mesure. Allons-nous laisser le gouvernement du Canada, pour la deuxieme fois depuis la Conquete, desarmer les Quebecois -- et tous les Canadiens en meme temps? Allons-nous confier a la police des pouvoirs contre lesquels nos ancetres ont fait des revolutions? Nos ancetres francais ont aboli les controles des armes a feu apres la revolution de 1989. Et qu'auraient dit nos ancetres coureurs des bois devant l'infame projet de loi C-68? Vous trouverez ces idees elaborees dans le memoire des Amis de la Liberte. Nous devrions nous voiler la face de honte devant la sorte de pays que, au Canada et au Quebec, nous allons leguer a nos enfants, consideres meme adultes comme des irresponsables et des criminels par leurs dirigeants. L'heure n'est pas a la petite politique, mais a la defense ferme et sans compromis de nos libertes. En esperant que mes jeunes amis des Amis de la Liberte auront votre collaboration dans cette affaire, je vous prie, Monsieur le Chef de l'Opposition, de croire a mes sentiments distingues. Pierre Lemieux ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF BILL C-68 (Original in French available from the Committee's Clerk) "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 BRIEF (TRANSLATION) -"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 ten years in jail if he has a can of Mace to protect himself against the criminals that 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 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. 3 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:10:19 -0600 From: Bruce Mills To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Comments by committee members? Message-ID: <199505092210.QAA10399@arcturus.USask.Ca> Someone earlier on (sorry, I get the digest and can't remember who it was) made mention of some of the legal committee members making unwarranted comments about some of the speakers; one of the members being Patricia Torsney (MP - Lib - Burlington). Can anyone be more specific? Ms. Torsney is quoted in an article which appeared in the Hamilton _Spectator_ to the effect "This is the first time I've ever been refered to as a fascist" and she didn't like it one bit. I'd like to find out more. Bruce Mills Dundas, Ontario ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:11:06 -0600 From: Bruce Mills To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Shiela Copps denounces tryanny Message-ID: <199505092211.QAA10409@arcturus.USask.Ca> I just caught a sound bite on the radio of Shiela Copps giving a speech at a V-E Day Anniversary celebration, to the effect how "we are the Canadians; we are the opposers of your tyranny [refering to Nazi Germany]" etc. How can she say this with a straight face and still vote for C-68? What hypocracy! Bruce Mills Dundas, Ontario ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:12:05 -0600 From: gabe@esri.com (Gabe Field [ESRI-Redlands]) To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Job risks & mental health Message-ID: <199505092212.QAA10422@arcturus.USask.Ca> > According to the Toronto SUN, the CPA told THE committee that had C-68 > been enacted a decade ago, it could have saved the life of a Quebec > police chief killed last friday. Lawmen accept the conditions of service as does any man that accepts a given job. If the day comes that the risks outweight the beneifts, the employee's sole recourse is to find another line of work. Public employees must never be allowed to make use of their employeer's unique monopoly on the legal use of force and legal plunder power in order to dictate the terms of their own service. > As an experienced health-care professional, I feel that the root cause > of such heinous acts is a failure of our health-care system to provide > adequate community-based services to individuals suffering from mental > stresses. An individual alone answers for his welfare and for his misdeeds. Be he sane or insane his state of mind is what he is, and he shall not be reason for others to yield up freedoms for any greater cause. Each individual is free of responsibility for the actions of another resulting from failure to provide any services, what-so-ever. You're still tilted towards socalistic thinking. Must have been the schools' doing... Gabe ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:13:14 -0600 From: "fred (f.) davis" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: re:Cop deaths tied to gun law delay Message-ID: <199505092213.QAA10427@arcturus.USask.Ca> [about C68 possibly saving the life of the small-town Police Chief] > Jessop said that it was probable that "we would have known what was in >there, the police chief would have known." And together with the new >stricter laws, the registry could have prevented a man from getting or >keeping a firearm. > > Jessop said that such talk was "on the lips" of the 800 cops at the >chief's funeral this week. On whose lips, I would like to ask Jessop. CBC interviewed two policeman at the funeral, one a Toronto city cop who stated that "there will always be guns out there, no matter what laws are passed", and the other a Deputy Sheriff from Maine who mused that the biggest murder trial of the century in the US (OJ) doesn't even involve guns. Sounds to me like it was on *Jessops* lips. > Jessop admitted that it was not certain the new gun law would have >prevented the deaths, only a probability: "all we can do is increase >the probability ... and for us that do the job this [the gun bill] is a >step in the right direction." I would like to remind Jessop that "Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy" - (Orson Welles). Of course, Rock apparently wants to make the job of a policeman easy in Kanada... BTW, did anyone catch the replays of "the" Committee, where Allmand "reminded" Brian Ford that he _doesn't_ speak for the public? (Ford was blathering how "the majority" of Canadians want tougher gun laws). Although Allmand is definitely on "the other side", he does come up with some interesting comments every once in a while. Fred ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Tue, 9 May 1995 16:22:34 -0600 From: BUCKNER@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Presentation to Parliamentary Justice Committee by Taylor Buckner. Message-ID: <199505092222.QAA10504@arcturus.USask.Ca> Research on Firearms Registration: A Presentation to the Parliamentary Justice Committee 8 May 1995 H. Taylor Buckner, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Sociology Concordia University, Montreal I appear before you today as a sociologist who has followed the gun control debate for the thirty years since I was a police officer, as an expert in survey research which I have practiced and taught for 35 years, as a member of the Quebec Shooting Federation, an instructor for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course given by the Quebec Wildlife Federation, and, apparently, as one of the 5,000 reported members of the Coalition for Gun Control. I will confine my comments to a few points that I have researched. Under-Estimation of Number of Firearms In Canada On December 3, 1990, I wrote the Director of the Firearms Control Task Force, proposing a study based on 10,000 interviews, to determine the distribution of firearms ownership in Canada. Many months later, with no response from the Firearms Control Task Force, and only after a freedom of information request by Southam News, I discovered that the study had been carried out in February 1991, with a sample of 10,000, using a slightly cheaper, but defective, methodology. This study (Reid) became the foundation of the Government's estimate of the number of firearms in the country. According to estimates I calculated from the 1995 Gun Control Survey, organized by Professor Gary Mauser, with my assistance, the Reid study under-estimated the number of firearms in Canada by at least 24%. This is a result of women not reporting firearms ownership (which has been found in other surveys), and not taking into account those who refused to answer the question. There are also people who lie, which makes the total an unknown percentage higher. Similar problems have been reported in U.S. surveys (Erskine; Kennett; Kleck). Thus, the cost estimates for Bill C-68 based on the number of firearms to be registered are many, many millions of dollars too low. Registration - Compliance Universal firearms registration is justly controversial. Personally, I routinely send a list of all my firearms to the Surete du Quebec so that they will have it on file in case my guns are stolen or destroyed, along with my records, in a fire. But is universal registration good public policy? Even those who support universal registration can only say they hope it will reduce firearms accidents, suicides and homicides by forcing gun owners to be more careful, and by providing the police with a list for Prohibition Orders, or for seizure in case of domestic conflict. There is certainly no research that suggests that either of these hopes is realistic, but for the sake of argument let's say they are. For either to work, the weapons likely to be misused would have to be registered, and in the case of prohibition orders, the registration would have to be current, complete, and correct. In the 1995 Gun Control survey, a national study carried out by Canadian Facts in which 1,505 Canadian adults were interviewed, we asked gun owners, "If the government's proposal to register all firearms becomes law, do you plan on registering all, some, or none of your firearms?" Overall, only 71.1% (+ or - 6%) of gun owners said they would register all their guns. In other words, roughly two million firearms belonging to over a quarter of firearms owners will remain unregistered. Of course, over time with great expenditure of funds and criminal prosecutions, more than 71.1% registration could probably be achieved. As Table 1 shows, among the small number of female gun owners who admitted gun ownership, only 40% said they would register all their guns. There is less than one chance in one hundred that this difference in willingness to register between the two sexes was a result of sampling error. Propensity to register also varies widely by region of Canada (Table 2), with 86% of Quebeckers and only 58% of prairie gun owners saying they would register all their guns. There is less than one chance in twenty-five that the differences in willingness to register among regions was a result of sampling error. The reasons for reluctance to register are not hard to understand. Many farmers have an old Lee-Enfield rifle, worth about $60, and they may be reluctant to pay $60 every five years for a possession licence, plus registration fees, to register their $60 rifle. Others, perhaps including a fair number of women, do not want anyone to know they have a firearm for self-defense. Still others are concerned that their firearms will become prohibited - after all the government just prohibited by Order in Council over half a million legally owned and registered handguns, and says it wants to prohibit two kinds of rifles commonly used for hunting and sporting purposes as soon as Bill C-68 comes into force - so this concern comes from seeing what has already happened, and what has been proposed. No one seriously argues that criminals will register their guns. The black market appears to be large enough to replace those few guns that cannot be stolen because registrants store their firearms more securely (Criminal Intelligence Service Canada). The argument has been made that before domestic conflict arises, the participants are law abiding and will register their guns. But, "Husbands who kill their wives typically have criminal records and/or substance abuse problems and/or are experiencing economic difficulties. They have a history of violent disputes with their wives that has not been made known to the police. (Dansys p.47)" That many people in this situation will register their firearms seems unlikely, as Table 3 demonstrates, because only 46% of persons in common law unions, where the rate of uxoricide is eight times higher and the rate of slain husbands is 15 times higher than in registered unions (Wilson and Daly, p. 9), said they would register all their guns. Also, single people, who account for 45% of those accused of homicide (Fedorowycz p. 15), are significantly less likely (61%) than the average (71.1%) to say they will register all their guns. Thus the people most likely to misuse guns are those who are least likely to register them. There is less than one chance in fifty that the differences in willingness to register by marital status was caused by sampling error. As a former police officer, I cannot imagine a rational police officer placing any trust in a system that is likely to be ignored by the most dangerous elements in society. Registration - Logistics Let's take as the registration goal an estimated 8 million firearms in Canada. In any given year there are just over 4,000 misuses - just under 3,000 firearms lost or stolen (which would include the legal arms used in criminal acts), 1100 suicides, just under 250 homicides and about 60 fatal accidents. Taken together this means that 1/20th of 1% of the firearms are misused, 99.95% are not of interest to the legal system. Registering the 99.95% which are of no interest, to find the 0.05%, is like trying to find a needle in a haystack by registering every piece of hay. Over the last five years only 1% of applications for the Firearms Acquisition Certificate have been refused (R.C.M.P). People who are likely to be refused don't apply (Scarff, et. al.). If people who have criminal records, mental instability or domestic conflict have a gun, (perhaps inherited, perhaps bought before 1978, perhaps stolen) they are unlikely to apply for a possession licence, because, upon investigation, it would be refused. Without a possession licence they could not register their guns. If the government is proposing to issue licences to all present owners without serious investigation, then many who are likely to misuse their guns will become licensed owners, and registration will come to be seen to be a failure. The police will be required to record and approve every transaction between firearms owners (C-68, 30-33), who they have already, presumably, investigated and approved. This will necessarily require a great deal of time and paper work. There are only 56,774 (1991 - Campbell) police officers in Canada, who are already fully occupied. Investigating millions of Canadians, almost 100% of whom will prove to be law abiding, may be a less efficient use of police resources than targeting those most likely to misuse firearms (Wright). Even if 95% of owners registered, an astounding and probably impossible success rate, the guns most likely to be used for domestic and criminal homicides will be significantly under represented in the system. The notion that suicides and accidents will be reduced by registration depends on a convoluted and unproven chain of logic. First the owner has to register. Then, because he has registered he will be inspired to go out and purchase locks or a safe which he would not have purchased had he not registered. Then, because he has registered, he has to consistently keep the firearms out of the hands of other people in his household who might misuse them, which he would not have done if he had not registered. One or two potential suicides may have to find a plastic bag, or a car in the garage, or a high place because they can't get into the gun safe, but the overall suicide rate will probably not be affected. There might possibly be one or two fewer accidental deaths with safer storage occasioned by registration, but this is only conjecture. Most of the benefits which might be expected from registration have already been achieved by the Firearms Acquisition Certificate system and the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. The diversion of police resources into the registration system, for marginal additional benefit, may well mean that there is less time for investigating and preventing problems, so, overall, it is unreasonable to expect registration to produce any net saving of lives. It is also unreasonable to expect any great number of real crimes to be solved, or weapons to be usefully traced because of registration. All but the most careless and dim witted thieves will drill out the serial number on any gun they steal, making it untraceable. Instead we can expect a host of technical charges against gun owners who have not followed this complex law to the letter. In the last 20 years the firearms homicide, accident and suicide rates have all declined, and firearms use in crime is not increasing (Roberts, p. 19). There is no evidence that a registration system would, on balance, make Canadians any safer. There is a great deal of evidence, from the mail you have received, that the implementation of a registration system will profoundly alienate some members of Canadian society. Registration appears to me to be a lose-lose proposition. Finally, I would like to quote the Chairman of this Committee on the subject of universal registration, "... for the ten million long guns in Canada I believe that a registration scheme would be unworkable and impractical in comparison with its potential benefits. (COMMONS DEBATES, April 8, 1976, p. 12627, Mr. Allmand) Note: Tables and References not included, they didn't format for e-mail. BUCKNER@VAX2.CONCORDIA.CA ----- End Included Message ----- This article is also available by anonymous FTP from skatter.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Buckner ; get presenta.com). You can also try to find it at http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/index.html although there may be a delay before this mirror site gets updated with the new document(s). ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 251 ******************************