CDN-FIREARMS Digest 253 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) new main FTP site/server! ftp.usask.ca by Skeeter Abell-Smith 2) What's wrong with Bill C-68 by "Frank H.RYDER" 3) Judicial and related Professional Opinion of Gun Control by "Frank H.RYDER" 4) Counter Intuitive effects of Gun Control by "Frank H.RYDER" 5) If only one life will be saved, registration will be worth it (NOT) by "Frank H.RYDER" 6) "Will packing a gun make you safe" by Damian Kanarek 7) _Hill_Times_ article by "fred (f.) davis" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:20:59 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: new main FTP site/server! ftp.usask.ca Message-ID: <199505102220.QAA12978@arcturus.USask.Ca> Our new FTP site/server will soon be ftp.usask.ca (skatter.usask.ca will be "empty" in the near future). Please use ftp.usask.ca or one of the mirror sites (below) for your file transfers. Mirrors: ftp.cs.toronto.edu (cd pub/acs/marksmanship/cdn-firearms) and http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/index.html -> has a searchable FTP database! There may be a delay before mirror sites get updated with new documents. skeeter ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:26:52 -0600 From: "Frank H.RYDER" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: What's wrong with Bill C-68 Message-ID: <199505102226.QAA12998@arcturus.USask.Ca> What's wrong with Bill C-68 Bill C-68 is not about crime control. Bill C-68 is about gun prohibition. Bill C-68 is about confiscation without compensation of legally owned private property (Sections 12, 65 and 69). Fifty eight percent of the presently registered firearms have been declared prohibited and will be confiscated without compensation upon the death of their current owners. These include all 25 and 32 calibre firearms including those key to Canada's olympic shooting program. What is so specially dangerous about firearms of this calibre? These include all firearms with barrels shorter than 105 mm. These include almost all of the World War I and II relics and Police firearms. What's magic about 105 mm? The choices of 25 and 32 calibre and 105 mm look very arbitrary; just one step on a continuum toward total prohibition of all privately owned firearms in Canada. May we be permitted the cynical observation that it was expected that this prohibition would only affect a sufficiently few owners of firearms as not to provoke an organized reaction. Bill C-68 is about the elimination of the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure (Sections 98 through 101). Bill C-68 s. 99 authorizes any person "designated by the provincial Minister" (s. 98) to "enter and inspect any place" where he "believes... there is a firearm, ... ammunition,... or a record (of) any of those things". While inside, he may "open any container...", "examine any firearm and . any other thing and take samples (which he may dispose of in any manner that he considers appropriate)", "conduct any tests or analyses", and "require any person to produce... any records." He may also "use any data processing system at the place to examine any data... available to the system , reproduce any record... and remove (it)", and "(copy) any record... or other document." True, s. 101 says he may not enter a dwelling house -- unless he gets a warrant under s. 99's terms. That means that he must tell a justice that he "believes... there is a firearm,... ammunition,.. or a record (of) any of those things" in the private home he wants to ransack, and that he has some reason to believe that the owner objects to his idea. Note that he does NOT have to swear that he knows or even suspects that any crime is involved. The sections authorize him to get a warrant and ransack the home of any person in Canada who has or is suspected of having a firearm, a cartridge, or a record of either. Bill C-68 s. 100 then provides that "The owner or person in charge of a place that is inspected (with or without a warrant) and every person found in the place shall give" the inspecting person (a) "all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to... exercise any power. conferred by section 99: and (b) provide the inspecting person "with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations (made under s. 110 (a) to (v) inclusive) or Part III of the Criminal Code that he or she may reasonably require." Whatever happened to a Canadian's right to remain silent until competent legal advice is available? What happened to our Charter right to freedom from unreasonable search or seizure? Bill C-68 is about making criminals out of ordinary Canadians (Sections 102 through 109). Bill C-68 s. 105. Every person who... contravenes a regulation made (by Order in Council (OIC)) under paragraph 110 (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 110 (o) (by OIC) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years... s. 110 (o) "offences" include any violation of a regulation about target shooting clubs, gun collections, gun shows, anything to do with handguns or other "restricted" firearms, keeping of records about firearms, or keeping business records. In order to know what "offences" have been created by s. 110 (o) you must subscribe to the Canada Gazette and read it faithfully. If you don't, you may miss one and go to prison for two years. These penalties for red tape offenses involving firearms are quite comparable to those for real crimes of burglary rape and homicide. The objective expressed in Bill C-68 is therefore not to dissuade people from these crimes but to dissuade people from the possession of firearms. Given the equal application of these laws to both criminals and victims they will obviously be more effective on the citizen of good character than on the criminal. The obvious consequence as the evidence of Britain shows is that criminal activity will be increased not decreased. Bill C-68 is about creating guilt by association. page 82 111. (1) A peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer may apply to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things, where the peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer believes on reasonable grounds (b) that another person who is prohibited by any order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament from possessing any such thing cohabits with, or is an associate of, the person against whom the order is sought would or might have access to any such thing that is in the possession of the person against whom the order is sought. Bill C-68 is about the further regulation and arbitrary prohibition of legally owned private property without even the necessity of returning to parliament to obtain the authority so to do. (Sections 110 through 112). Bill C-68 s. 111 requires each regulation from the s. 110 list to be "laid before each House of Parliament... for 30 sitting days." s. 112 then says that FA 111 does not have to be complied with: (1) if a regulation previously made is being changed, no matter how severely it is changed, or even if it is reversed: (2) if the "Minister is of the opinion that the changes (are) immaterial or insubstantial), " (3) if it is made under s 110 (i), e), (m), (n), (o), (q), (r). or (s), where the "Minister is of the opinion that (the matter is) urgent:" (4) if it is made under s. 110 (v), where the Minister wants to change a voiding, eligibility, critical or other date affecting any provision. This provision allows sudden changes of status for large numbers of firearms and their confiscation, (5) "For greater certainty, a regulation may be made under Part III of the Criminal Code without being laid before either House of Parliament." The above exceptions seem to effectively eliminate Parliament's role, including individual MP scrutiny, and allow the firearms control system to operate almost as a Ministerial dictatorship. The penalties for the criminal use of firearms It is indeed curious that special penalties are specified for the criminal use of firearms or immitation firearms that are not specified for crimes using other weapons in general. Why should someone who uses a baseball bat to beat someone to death be subjected to less prison sentence than one who uses an imitaation firearm to do the same deed. If these penalties applied to all use of weapons they would make some sense.Failure to do so throws the real reason for Bill C-68 into high relief. Bill C-68 is not really about reducing crime in Canada. Mr Rock does not care about crimes committed with baseball bats and crowbars and axes and all other weapons except firearms. Bill C-68 is about the prohibition of firearms and whether that reduces crime or makes it worse is completely beside the point. GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL THE NEW BRUNSWICK FIREARMS ALLIANCE! ----- End Included Message ----- This article is also available by anonymous FTP from: [main] ftp.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/NBFA) [mirror] ftp.cs.toronto.edu (cd pub/acs/marksmanship/cdn-firearms/NBFA) You can also search an FTP mirror site with a WWW browser at: [mirror] http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/index.html (There may be a delay before mirror sites get updated with new documents.) ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:27:24 -0600 From: "Frank H.RYDER" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Judicial and related Professional Opinion of Gun Control Message-ID: <199505102227.QAA13001@arcturus.USask.Ca> FACTS YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! Judicial and related Professional Opinion of Gun Control ___________ ( ) ( 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 ) page "- 2 -", lines 11 to 17 contain the following text: 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". Clearly, within the confines of their courtrooms, Canadian judges have expressed dissatisfaction with the current gun control laws and with the obscure manner of writing this portion of the criminal code. The Auditor General of Canada's report to the House of Commons in 1993 re:"Gun Control Program" Assistant Auditor General: Richard B. Fadden; Responsible Auditor: Alan Gilmore said: "27.29 Our review of the new regulations indicated that important data, needed to assess the potential benefits and future effectiveness of the regulations, were not available at the time the regulations were drafted. The government proceeded with new regulations for reasons of public policy." University of Toronto criminologist, Philip Stenning had this to say about the (1991) changes to gun legislation: "The bottom line is we're legislating without knowledge about the likelihood of things that we're legislating working." "The official rationale is to reduce firearms abuse of all kinds, whether it be theft of firearms, crimes with firearms, suicides with firearms. I think the actual rationale is a more symbolic activity. It's the need to be seen to be doing something about these problems. It serves a political purpose." (The Burlington Spectator - April 10, 1993) In his paper, "Gun Control, A Counterproductive Petition", H. Taylor Buckner, Associate Professor of Sociology at Concordia University said: "A (just completed) scientific survey of undergraduate students at Concordia demonstrated that the students who signed the petition do not know what the current law is, vastly over estimate the involvement of handguns in homicides, and would have been just as willing to sign a petition that asked for the current law. Finally Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood, of the West Yorkshire Constabulary (writing in Police Review, Britain) after he had done a six-month study, at Cambridge University, of firearms control methods and their actual (as opposed to theoretical) effects in many countries: At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime: yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. 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. Clearly there is a large body of judicial and related professional opinion our Gun Control laws are a mess. That they do not positively contribute to crime control. What's needed is a management audit of the Federal Justice Department followed by a Royal Commission into the effectiveness of Gun Control to separate reality from Government cultivated perception. GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL THE NEW BRUNSWICK FIREARMS ALLIANCE ----- End Included Message ----- This article is also available by anonymous FTP from: [main] ftp.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/NBFA) [mirror] ftp.cs.toronto.edu (cd pub/acs/marksmanship/cdn-firearms/NBFA) You can also search an FTP mirror site with a WWW browser at: [mirror] http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/index.html (There may be a delay before mirror sites get updated with new documents.) ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:32:50 -0600 From: "Frank H.RYDER" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Counter Intuitive effects of Gun Control Message-ID: <199505102232.QAA13011@arcturus.USask.Ca> FACTS YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! The Counter Intuitive Effect of Gun Control Policy 1. Gun control advocates argue that Washington DC's gun laws don't work because guns are readily available to criminals accross the river in Virginia. If this were true crime rates should be high also in Virginia. POPULATION AND CRIME RATE IN WASHINGTON DC AND SUBURBS City Population Homicide Rate Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 per 100,000 Washington DC 604000 81 2542 Arlington VA 156115 6 443 Alexandria VA 109888 6 646 Manassas VA 23620 0 197 Fairfax City VA 21795 0 286 (ref: Crime in the United State, 1991) Five cities all in the same area only one chose to reduce crime by eliminating firearms. The Homicide rate rose by a factor of 14 The Violent Crime rate rose by a factor of between 4 and 12. This is a disastrous counter intuitive effect of Gun Control Policy. In simplest terms it doesn't work! Firearms prohibition only affects citizens of good character it does not affect criminals. Prohibiting citizens of good character from possessing firearms will not decrease crime it will increase crime. 2. Florida's Concealed Carry Weapons permit policy. Florida has a population of 13.277 million. The number of citizens who own firearms is a 8.325 million, 62.7%. In 1987 the Florida government instituted a Concealed Carry Weapon permit system, whereby a citizen of good character with documented training in firearms, could obtain a permit to carry a firearm. In the period from Oct 1, 1987 to May 31, 1994 227,569 permits were issued, 1.7% of the population. In the period 18 permits, 0.008% were revoked. Perception is greater than reality. In the period the homicide rate declined by 21%. At the same time the national homicide rate increased by 12% One counter-intuitive effect to this policy was the change of focus of criminals to attack unarmed foreign tourists. This got a lot of media attention. Media did not talk about the positive effects of the CCW policy. GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL THE NEW BRUNSWICK FIREARMS ALLIANCE ----- End Included Message ----- This article is also available by anonymous FTP from: [main] ftp.usask.ca (cd pub/cdn-firearms/NBFA) [mirror] ftp.cs.toronto.edu (cd pub/acs/marksmanship/cdn-firearms/NBFA) You can also search an FTP mirror site with a WWW browser at: [mirror] http://www.mae.carleton.ca/~ijeff/guns/cdn-firearms/index.html (There may be a delay before mirror sites get updated with new documents.) ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:36:13 -0600 From: "Frank H.RYDER" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: If only one life will be saved, registration will be worth it (NOT) Message-ID: <199505102236.QAA13022@arcturus.USask.Ca> FACTS YOUR GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW If only one life will be saved, the cost of registration will be worth it. On Aug 23, 1994 Statistics Canada released Crime and Homicide Statistics for 1993. The number of homicides fell from 732 in 1992 to 630 in 1993. 193 or 30% of these were shootings, down from 31% in 1992, and 36% in 1991. 90 shootings were with handguns 103 shootings were with other firearms Now if we assume that firearms registration will cut the number of shootings by 50%, the number of homicides homicides with newly registered firearms will fall from 103 to 52. If there are 7 million firearms in Canada, the number of registered firearms per homicide will then be 7,000,000/50 or 140,000 firearms per homicide. Assume the cost of registering a firearm is $100.00 (Justice TR1994-9e) If there are 7 million firearms in Canada, the cost of firearms registration will be 14 million dollars per life saved. If there are 21 million firearms in Canada the cost of firearms registration will be 42 million dollars per life saved. GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL THE NEW BRUNSWICK FIREARMS ALLIANCE ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:44:15 -0600 From: Damian Kanarek To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: "Will packing a gun make you safe" Message-ID: <199505102244.QAA13102@arcturus.USask.Ca> WILL PACKING A GUN MAKE YOU SAFE by Peter Worthington, Toronto SUN, May 9, 1995 - Wall Street Journal run a story a while back about a woman who wanted to be able to carry her legally owned gun concealed. Her desire for this was based on the following experience: her family and her were in a diner in Texas (1991) when a psycho killer pulled a gun, and started shooting people, including the woman's parents (her father was shot for trying to rush the guy, her mother for trying to help her shot husband). This woman had her legally owned gun in the trunk of her car - she says that the 21 people killer that day would be alive had she been able to legally carry her handgun concealed. - two months after that incident, two gunmen took over a restaurant in Alabana, herding customers into a walk-in cooler. Before the attackers could do anything, one of the customers used his legally owned and carried .45 to put 5 bullets into one of the bad guys. The other bad guy "was quickly reduced to non-violent status." - more and more people want the right to defend themselves. This "is not the case in Canada...yet... but we can no longer afford complacency when deranged gunmen shoot up provintial legislatures, university classes, pedestrian from cars." - Florida violent crime shot up by 17% - highest in the US. Since the introduction of the concealed carry, however, the murder rate dropped by 21%, while in the rest of the US is went up by 12%. "The attitude seems to be that if police can't defend people, citizens are prepared to defend themselves." - Burglary stats: in the UK, 39% with people in their homes; in the US, only 7% with owners in the house: burglars in America are afraid of getting shot. "The moral: the possibility of a gun in a home can be a deterrent to crime." - "While police don't want the public armed, they know it's illegal guns are not legally owned ones that are the problem. Criminals have no trouble getting guns. In fact, gun registration (banning) is likely to encourage the use of guns in crimes." - Next he talkes about registration creating another level of bureaucracy, and it won't deter crime, while possibly making criminals out of people who are not a threat to society - "The only way to curb gun crimes is to make it risky to caryr a gun while committing crimes. That's achieved by making a punitive sentence for carry a gun - or by allowing the public to defend itself, as more and more staes are doing with impressive effect. This isn't a fashionable theme these days - even thought it may be correct." --------------------------------------------- Hmmmm.... I wonder how long it'll be before some Toronto STAR writer with foam on his/her lips writes a rebuttal about how the SUN is proposing arming the citizens to fight crime... Damian P.s. - one of the letters to the editor today to the SUN was getting the police message msg across: "Why are we allowing Canada to become a police state?" The editor's reply: "We don't like this law much either, but are we really"? This from a paper which detailed the S&S police powers granted by C-68... Geeze... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 7 Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 16:46:22 -0600 From: "fred (f.) davis" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: _Hill_Times_ article Message-ID: <199505102246.QAA13178@arcturus.USask.Ca> This is not the entire article, but the most interesting parts. Seems to me that Mike Scott deserves a pat on the back. Fred ---forwarded-message----> >From _The_Hill_Times_ (Ottawa), May 4, 1995 "Reform MP says gun bill sounds like dictatorship" by Tim Naumetz Reform MP Mike Scott says he believes Justice Minister Allan Rock intends to eventually strip all firearms in Canada and the result -- an unarmed citizenry -- could lead to dictatorship. Mr. Scott (Skeena, B.C.) warned about the nearly unbelievable scenario after describing his fears for democracy in a letter to _The_Hill_Times_ last week. His comments were strikingly similar to the position taken against gun control by right-wing militia groups in the United States who were linked to the Oklahoma City bombing. "I don't think his [Rock's] intentions are lost on the legitimate gun owners in Canada and there are many millions or them and they are very, very outraged at what Mr. Rock is proposing." Mr. Scott told _The_Hill_Times_ in an interview. "I'm not suggesting there is going to be an uprising in Canada and I'm not suggesting that his goal is to disarm all the citizens so that he can pursue an agenda", he added. "But I would certainly say the apologists for big government, and Mr. Rock certainly is one of the leading lights in that area, would prefer to see government have more and more control over the lives of the citizenry. When you have the citizens disarmed, or make it very difficult for them to own and possess arms, it makes it easier to see this continued government intrusion into the lives of the citizens without worrying about any real repercussions." Mr. Scott said he is not accusing Mr. Rock (Etobicoke Center, ON) or the Chretien government of trying to pave the way for a dictatorship, but argued that could eventually happen because Mr. Rock's gun bill will allow the federal cabinet to use regulations to outlaw any or all firearms. "I don't know that we want to be so paranoid that we want to allege that that's the final goal of Mr. Rock and the government", Mr. Scott said. "But it certainly makes the government a lot more comfortable when they feel the citizens are unarmed and it makes the citizens a lot less comfortable". Mr. Scott also dismissed suggestions that such a scenario -- an elected government turning into a dictatorship -- could never happen in Canada. "I don't accept that", he said. "If we back away from the right here now and look at the big picture, what's happened over the last 25 or 30 years in terms of government intervention in so many of our lives and that continued encroachment, who would have thought possible that we would be paying half of our incomes in the form of combined taxes 25 or 30 years ago?" ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 253 ******************************