CDN-FIREARMS Digest 276 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Found on can.gov post by "hunter@comox.island.net" 2) The Hon. Allan Rock should resign... by Skeeter Abell-Smith 3) Ontario Election by Ian Jefferson 4) Is Martinoff being slandered? by "hunter@comox.island.net" 5) Saskatchewan Election by "Larry J. Going" 6) Rocks office by "fred (f.) davis" 7) Allan Rock on the radio... by Rod Regier 8) Warren Allmand *might* be relieved of his Justice Ctte duties by Rod Regier 9) Transferral of banned guns by dmiller@bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Topic No. 1 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 12:44:52 -0600 From: "hunter@comox.island.net" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Found on can.gov post Message-ID: <199506051844.MAA21511@arcturus.USask.Ca> >Path: news.island.net!news.bc.net!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!eskimo!networx.com!news.sprintlink.net!netnet2.netnet.net!news2.netnet.n >From: jdell@awinc.com (John W. Dell) >Newsgroups: can.gov.general >Subject: Open letter to the Prime Minister >Date: Wed, 31 May 95 16:23:26 PST >Organization: Jakaby Development Corporation >Lines: 126 May 31 , 1995 Open Letter to the Honourable Prime Minister John Chretien Mr. Prime Minister I am writing in regards to grave concerns I have in regards to the proposed C-68 , which your government has laid before the House of Commons. This issue has gone beyond the proposed gun registration and now is seen as a concern over the issue of personal rights and freedoms by Citizens. Your main task as the Prime Minister is to maintain the unity of our Country and all it's vast lands and diverse populations. I feel you must be informed , as strongly as possible of the danger which this legislation has placed before us. This legislation has pitted the Urban regions of our Country against the Rural. This legislation pits the proponents of the philosophies of Individual responsibility and Government control against each other. It is divisive to the people of this country and to the relationship between Citizen and Government. Our present danger exists because of , beliefs strongly held on both sides of the question , questions whether these laws attack the real problem and the inability for compromise to be considered owing to the short time before the government proposes to enact the legislation. Grievances not addressed before the bill's enactment will occupy the time and energy of our Country for years to come. Consider; Native people , according to legal opinion , under the Constitution and C-68 can opt out of registering their firearms. And they intend , from all reports , to claim this right. This poses a danger to the legislation as other citizen's of the Country question the Equality of Citizenship , when one is compelled to register and another is not. The Provinces of the Dominion cannot support the cost of registration , or allocating police resources away from the task of providing peace and order , and they oppose on these grounds the ennactment of these laws. Those concerned with civil rights are opposed to these laws as erosions of Civil Liberties. English Common law precedent against confiscation without compensation , Charter of Rights issues of the right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure , and the right to not incriminate oneself are at the forefront of their concerns. Those who believe in the right of self-defense , believe the these laws are an attack on their ability to defend self , family and country. Those who do not trust future governments to respect the citizens freedoms , oppose these laws. In a free society , all diversities should be considered and incorporated within the laws of the Land. Voluntary compliance , being the cornerstone of any just law , must be in range of 90 % of the citizens to ensure societal acceptance. Any less and two things will occur. Avoidance of one law will bring avoidance of other laws ( an erosion of lawful authority ) and enforcement will become a great expense in all resources. Individual firearms owners are prepared to initiate non-violent non-cooperation en masse in defiance of what they believe a just grievance. This train of events can only lead to erosion of lawful authority , and to be countered requires brute force creating further grievances. Let's not escalate this into a contest for power between government authority and citizens rights. No one will win in that situation. Any presently lawful citizen who supports and cooperates with the police within society , after taking the above course of action , would no longer be prepared to help the established authority as this might bring focus on themselves. This in itself will erode our ability to prevent crime through citizen / police co-operation, far greater than any benefits of the proposed laws. During the last Federal administration , many grievances arose in our country. Your work to replace the GST and your efforts at a co-operative Federalism are two examples of this governments attempt to redress some of those grievances. Distrust of Government has developed in our country. It is your task to continue building trust between the people and their government. This legislation (C-68), will only fan the flames of distrust. Mr. Prime Minister , please recognize that this is not an issue of politics. It is citizens standing for the rights and privileges that they hold dear. It is a force that during war is the driving determination of Canada , and during peace our safety and security. It is a believe in a Free and Equal Society with justice for all. By compulsion , we achieve nothing except creating rebellion against lawful authority. It is our duty to create such a climate of justice and belief in our future as a Country , that security is felt by all and no need is required of firearms. By choice , will the citizens then beat their firearms into plowshares. Mr Prime Minister , you as the leader of our Federal Government , have the right to call for a " sober , second thought " on this issue. You can remove the legislation from the table and bring the opinions on this issue together. By consensus , and solid mediation by government , to establish laws that will meet the needs of the country and preserve the equality and freedoms that are the concerns of a large part of the people. I appeal to you to remove this legislation from the House of Commons , to do otherwise at this time , will create serious grievances that will widen the existing gulf between the citizen and government. John W. Dell Citizen ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 2 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:14:18 -0600 From: Skeeter Abell-Smith To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: The Hon. Allan Rock should resign... Message-ID: <199506052014.OAA21946@arcturus.USask.Ca> A copy of my fax follows: It is the Minister of Justice's duty to uphold the Constitution and the laws of Canada. I am requesting that Mr Allan Rock immediately resign as Minister of Justice. Here are five reasons why: - Mr Rock has attacked Section 8 of the Bill of Rights via Sections 99 to 101 of the proposed Firearms Act. NO ONE should be subject to such searches unless an actual crime is suspected, and owning a registered firearm is not a crime. - Mr Rock has allowed the unjustified and illegal confiscation of lawfully-owned property by Orders in Council which have been ruled invalid in Canadian courts. Even though these Orders in Council are under appeal, the confiscations (without compensation) have continued. - Mr Rock has proposed the confiscation of hundreds of millions of dollars of lawfully-owned, private property via various sections of the proposed Firearms Act. - Mr Rock has attacked the supremacy of Parliament by proposing that Order in Council powers be increased to the extent that it would be possible for changes to be made to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act without any Parliamentary debate or committee review. - Bill C-68 has enough opposition that I doubt the Liberals will be able to form another government. If you demand Mr Rock's resignation and withdraw this unconstitutional, ineffective, expensive legislation now, voters may just forgive you. Thank you for your time, Skeeter Abell-Smith Saskatoon SK ------------------------------ Topic No. 3 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:33:48 -0600 From: Ian Jefferson To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Ontario Election Message-ID: <199506052033.OAA22053@arcturus.USask.Ca> I noticed a few comments about the relative silence of the press on the Bill C-68 issue and the Ontario election. I finally read something, in my local paper, The Kemptville Advance. There was an all candidates meeting last thursday, that I somehow missed, that raised the issues of C-68. It was sponsored by the Dundas Firearms Association. Our Conservative incumbent, Noble Villeneuve, raised the issues of jurisdiction, and wanted the bill challenged in the courts and would encourage Mr. Harris to test the legislation in the courts. The Liberal Candidate Denis Sabourin is also against the legislation and says he is looking forward to seeing the legislation going to the Supreme Court if passed. Our NDP candidate, Michael Cowley-Owen said he is in favour of bill C-68 and does not see anything wrong with it. He does say that if there is anything unconstitutional about C-68, the NDP will defend that in the courts. --- Ian Jefferson ijeff@ccs.carleton.ca ijeff@computeractive.on.ca NeXT mail welcome! Voice 613 788-2600 ext 5636 ---- "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 4 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:36:33 -0600 From: "hunter@comox.island.net" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Is Martinoff being slandered? Message-ID: <199506052036.OAA22065@arcturus.USask.Ca> >Newsgroups: can.talk.guns,can.general,can.politics >Path: news.island.net!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!hookup!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ar231 >From: ar231@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon) >Subject: Gun lobbyist echoes U.S. crazies... >Sender: ar231@freenet3.carleton.ca (Karen Gordon) >Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 00:06:05 GMT >Lines: 129 Several times on this forum pro-gun posters have asked: what have the U.S., the Oklahoma bombing, and their renegade militias have to do with Canada? The following excerpts explain it quite clearly...... ____________________ (from the Vancouver Sun - June 2, 1995 - Stewart Bell, reporter): On a sunny day in March, the Vancouver police department's emergency response team surrounded a stately south Granville mansion hidden behind a high hedge- row. With the sharpshooters in position, a police negotiator phoned the occupant, 48-year-old NFA (National Firearms Association) director Michael John Martinoff, and told him to step outside. Martinoff obeyed. Although the charge against Martinoff was nothing more serious than illegally selling a handgun, police took extra precautions. (The raid was to have taken place the night before but was called off because police thought it would be safer to visit the home in daylight.) A gun dealer by profession, Martinoff had an estimated 100 handguns, rifles and other weapons in his basement. And he had not hesitated to use them in the past to protect his property. When someone tried to break into his $621,000 home in 1984, Martinoff - who lives at an intersection with a bus stop outside his house - fired a weapon. While police believed he fired AT the fleeing suspect, Martinoff said he fired at the ground. No charges were laid. In 1989, during a second break-in attempt, he chased a suspect with a loaded .38 police say. No shots were fired and again no charges were laid. In this year's incident, police concluded a night raid would be a safety risk for themselves and the public, since they "were not able to predict Mr. Martinoff's reaction to the execution of the search warrant" given his past behavior. The caution expressed about Martinoff by police is shared by gun-control advocates who say he represents a dangerous U.S.-style approach to firearms that is seeping north and infiltrating the Canadian gun lobby. As the B.C. DIRECTOR of one of Canada's most vocal pro-gun organizations, Martinoff has been a harsh critic of federal gun-control measures, compar- ing them to the policies of Nazi Germany. The NFA, which claims 100,000 members and which Martinoff refers to as "Canada's leading civil-rights organization", promotes unrestricted gun ownership as a defence against criminals and government. "An armed population is the foundation of democracy", Martinoff wrote in a press release last December. "A government that has disarmed the people can slaughter the people any time it wants to." Gun-control advocates say they have heard these arguments before - from U.S. anti-government militias such as the one now linked to the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City. "I think it's a definite import from the States. I think it's a very ugly and scary trend that has been very successful in American politics of the ulta-far right," said Michael Magee, B.C. representative of the Coalition for Gun Control. Martinoff believes not only that citizens should have the right to arm themselves, but that they should be able to arm themselves with the dead- liest of weapons. In one of almost 2 dozen lawsuits he has brought against the government, Martinoff argued he should be allowed to own an Uzi sub-machine gun. In another case, he sought a permit to sell machine guns. Gun-control coalition president Wendy Cukier said this type of thinking has been imported by the fringes of the Canadian gun lobby and is being promoted by extremists on the INTERNET. Some recent INTERNET messages in gun-user groups include calls for Cana- dians to arm themselves to prevent Quebec from separating, and to keep Americans from stealing Canadian water, she said. "Definitely I would say there are far-fetched conspiracy theories that really lead to questions about whether these people are 'well enough' to own firearms," she said. "The arming for self-protection myth, is, in my view, one of the most dangerous tenets of the gun-lobby platform. If arming for self-protec- tion worked, one would conclude that the U.S. is the safest country in the world." (Martinoff is a gun dealer no more. His firearms business permit was not renewed due to a conviction on a firearms charge and the seizure of prohibited weapons found in his inventory. His inventory was seized, although he retains his extensive 'personal collection'. He goes to court this summer on charges of selling a firearm after his licence was expired). While police were searching his home during the March raid, Martinoff said in a telephone interview that he was the victim of a "home invasion" and accused police of harassing him. "Obviously it's political intimidation," he said. _______________________________ K: Obviously laws mean nothing to this individual. He breaks them according to his own will, while accusing law enforcers of being the aggressors. He is the source of criminal's gun....selling them illegally and stock- piling them to the extent that his home is being repeatedly targetted for break-ins. And the most important point is: he is the DIRECTOR of the B.C. National Firearms Association. What does this say about the group that would have this type of individual head their association? What do Canada's gun associations, their ideologies and their lobbyists have to do with the militia 'crazies' of the U.S.? How are they different? ----- End Included Message ----- Our friend Stewart Bell is up to his old trick(s) again... ------------------------------ Topic No. 5 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:47:41 -0600 From: "Larry J. Going" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Saskatchewan Election Message-ID: <199506052047.OAA22194@arcturus.USask.Ca> The following letter has been faxed to the three Provincial Party Leaders (Bill Boyd (PC), Linda Haverstock (LIb), and Roy Romano (NDP), as well as the four local candidates in the Moose Jaw area. If you are a Saskatchewan resident, please ask these questions of your local candidates, and fax, E-mail, or snail mail the replies to me, so we may tabulate them for release to the media. * * * * * * * Local candidates of all three political parties are talking about reducing the E&H tax, hospital closures, "staying the course", etc. None are talking about the implications of Bill C-68, "An Act Respecting Firearms and Other Weapons". Few people realize the effect it could have on their lives. Bill C-68 allows police to search a home without probable cause, and without a warrant. It forces a homeowner to answer all questions put to him. Refusal to answer, or giving an incorrect answer, can result in criminal charges. It bans certain legally-owned acquired firearms with no offer of compensation. It places a severe financial burden on firearms owners, dealer, and the provinces. In view of the repercussions of this Bill, I would like you to reply to the following questions. Please do not generalize. Answer the questions. 1. Will you work at the provincial level to defeat Bill C-68? Yes _____ No _____ 2. Will you ask the provincial government of the day to challenge Bill C-68 and take it to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling? Yes _____ No _____ 3. Will you ask the provincial government to delay implementing Bill C-68 until after a decision is handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada? Yes _____ No _____ 4. Will you work to inform the media of the loss to Canadians of their constitutional rights because of Bill C-68? Yes _____ No _____ Firearms owners of this riding will be extremely interested in receiving your reply. * * * * * * * * * * To date, I have received two replies. Bill Boyd, leader of the P.C. party, and Jim Carr, Liberal candidate for Moose Jaw Wakamow, have answered in the affirmative to all four questions. Larry J. Going Saskatchewan President National Firearms Association 1506 Warner Street Moose Jaw, Sask. S6H 7E3 Phone: (306) 694-4168 Fax: (306) 691-0271 E-mail: Rgoing@siast.sk.caS ----- End Included Message ----- I'm also asking an additional questios: 5. Will you demand a complete and thorough federal/provicial review of Canadian firearm laws and their effectiveness, as strongly recommended by the Auditor General in his 1993 report, before proceeding with provincial enforcement of any new laws? ------------------------------ Topic No. 6 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 07:32:39 -0600 From: "fred (f.) davis" To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Rocks office Message-ID: <199506061332.HAA23322@arcturus.USask.Ca> I phoned Mr. Rocks office today. His assistant asked "who is calling", so I told him. Then I was asked "Is Mr. Rock expecting your call?", to which I replied "no", so I was instantly shuffled to an answering machine (no, not even Rocks). I guess Mr. Rock can't be bothered with the lowly public. A co-worker also called and was told by the assistant that a request must be put in writing, in order to speak with Mr. Rock. (!) This furthers my resolve to see REAL justice done, with the eventual removal of Mr. Rock from office by the people of Canada, at the next federal election. I hope you get to read this, Mr. Rock. Fred Davis (fmdavis@bnr.ca) ----- End Included Message ----- I called the "firearms hotline" and halfway through my spiel the woman says "Are you part of some organisation or something? Because we've been getting calls this morning and they're all asking for the same thing..." Cool. ------------------------------ Topic No. 7 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 07:40:36 -0600 From: Rod Regier To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Allan Rock on the radio... Message-ID: <199506061340.HAA23332@arcturus.USask.Ca> According to the Cablestream News, Allan Rock (while in Ottawa) was on an open-line radio show in Nfld when our colleague Elliot Leyton phoned in on the topic of gun control. It was reputed to be quite fiery... If anyone has more details, let us know. -- Rod Regier, Software Development bus: (902)422-1973 x108 Dymaxion Research Ltd., 5515 Cogswell St., fax: (902)421-1267 Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 1R2 Canada Internet: rr@dymaxion.ns.ca ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ Topic No. 8 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:31:50 -0600 From: Rod Regier To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Warren Allmand *might* be relieved of his Justice Ctte duties Message-ID: <199506061431.IAA23358@arcturus.USask.Ca> According to the news, Warren Allmand has stated he will be voting *against* the upcoming Liberal budget because of the cuts in social programs. Assuming Jean Chretien applies the usual sanctions, The Hon. Warren Allmand would likely be relieved of all committee duties. That would presumably include the Chairmanship of the Justice Committee, currently in clause-by-clause on C-68. I doubt it will slow the committee down, but it might shift attitudes (not sure if for better or worse). Now if we could just get more Liberal MP's to also vote their constituent's wishes, rather than the party line on next reading of C-68. -- Rod Regier, Software Development bus: (902)422-1973 x108 Dymaxion Research Ltd., 5515 Cogswell St., fax: (902)421-1267 Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 1R2 Canada Internet: rr@dymaxion.ns.ca ----- End Included Message ----- I watched him on CPAC last night and my jaw dropped when I heard Mr Allmand saying he believes his party is not only undoing what he was a part of under Trudeau, but that the Liberals were going against statements made in their Red Book. It was actually quite damning. Unfortunately, the committee wrapped up clause-by-clause this morning, according to the CBC, and third reading is expected within three weeks. The CBC also reported that, despite the changes proposed by Rock, at least 5 Liberals will be voting against C-68. ------------------------------ Topic No. 9 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 09:39:08 -0600 From: dmiller@bbs.sd68.nanaimo.bc.ca To: cdn-firearms@skatter.usask.ca Subject: Transferral of banned guns Message-ID: <199506061539.JAA23725@arcturus.USask.Ca> It occurred to me that if the banned guns (short barreled pistols etc.) are registered to a company ownership then they can probably be transferred in spite of C 68. What brings this to mind is that herring licences were made non transferrable in B. C. in the early 1970's and yet they were still being sold; the reason was that those which were owned by a company were transferred with the other possessions of the company when it was sold. How this applies to guns is that if ownership of your company is transferred to your children or whoever through inheritance, presumably they would inherit possession of the guns since the company still exists. Hopefully it is not too late to try this maneuver. Doug ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ End of CDN-FIREARMS Digest 276 ******************************