Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, 26 June 1995 Volume 01 : Number 293 In this issue: Police files on DNA evidence Hamilton Gun Rally Media influience on violence Re: registration Re: Use of firearms for self-defense Would a boycott help? Re: Hamilton Gun Rally Letter to Senate Re: registration Bob Mitchell speaks up an interesting observation Mona Acker's letter to a senator Mona Acker's letter to a senator ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robin Young - CENG/F94 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:57:53 -0600 Subject: Police files on DNA evidence I believe that the results of a DNA test are supposed to be wiped out of the official police files if a defendant is found not guilty; however, I also believe that there is a secondary "unofficial" set of records kept by various police agencies. I learned of this while attending my girlfriend's psyc. lecture at Queens University a few years back - the lecture was on sex offenders and the prof worked with the police and the inmates at Kingston pen frequently so I suspect that my info is correct. Robin - ----- End Included Message ----- I got a nine-page FAX from Ramsay's office. The police can get a warrant to compel a suspect to give a sample for crimes like murder, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, torture, assault, aggravated assault, kidnappping, robbery, mischief that causes actual danger to life, incest, hijacking and arson, to name a few. =] The list is quite specific and includes attempts at any of the listed crimes. One page states that "Both the samples ... and the DNA information would be destroyed if ... the suspect was not involved or if the accused was finally aquitted." Another page says that if the DNA analysis shows no match, the samples and the results shall be destroyed "unless a judge orders otherwise". It goes on to say that "if the information is withdrawn, or the prosecution is stayed and not recommended, or the accused is finally aquitted" then samples and info must be destroyed. The text of the bill should be here soon. ------------------------------ From: "Robert A. Osborne" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 14:29:03 -0600 Subject: Hamilton Gun Rally I attended the June 17 rally put on by the Hamilton-Wentworth Concerned Gun Owners and would just like to quickly comment on the event. Overall I came away with a great many negative feelings. Most of the problems I saw at the Ottawa protest last fall were 10 times worse at the Hamilton rally. POOR PLANNING The rally was held on the same day as the Hamilton Air Show (which attracted 50,000 people). The rally was scheduled close to the same time as the Commons summer recess, we all knew the law would be rammed through by then. No one will attend if they think the law is a done deal. PLAYING TO THE MEDIA We haven't learned anything yet. There were door prizes (why?) laid out on a table - every camera operator spent a great deal of time getting nice close ups on the "gear" arrayed there. Particular attention was paid to copies of "The Shooter's Bible". At least the media wasn't wandering through the crowd interviewing everybody who looked "red-neck" enough to provide some good quotes. THE PEANUT GALLERY We should stop having rallies because of all the morons that show up - this does nothing to further our cause. I saw a number of t-shirts that were just plain stupidity. "Gun Control means hitting your target" emblazoned over a relief of a .44 magnum pistol with scope. "Kill them all and let God sort 'em" over a marine emblem. Of course when the TV camera's pan the audience these are the guy's who proudly stand up and stretch out their shirts for the world to see. A large number of bozos had to "get noticed". They'd answer rhetorical questions. They made comments at the top of their lungs whenever the speakers paused for effect or to breath. The comments made me cringe. Whenever Allan Rock was mentioned there was a chorus of "dictator" and "a___ole". One speaker was listing the real causes of crime and when he mentioned problems in our immigration system everybody started whooping and cheering, I heard "send them all home" and "kick them out" and even the odd racial slur. One speaker (a recently elected MPP and former Crown Attorney) mentioned a bar he knew where one could buy illegal guns - half the audience shouted "Where?". Nice image and at each of these outbursts you could see the press writing furiously. I felt a little out of place not having a knife on my belt. SPEAKERS A lot of speakers said the same thing. I was tired of listening to things I had known before the rally being repeated over and over and over. There were too many speakers. OVERRUN The rally was held on a Saturday afternoon on a nice day. I was supposed to run from 1pm until 3pm. It didn't break up until 4:15pm. By that time half the people had left. People have families, barbecues, dinners, dates, etc. to get to, and they attending planning for a 3pm end time. I almost missed a movie with my wife by staying to the end. They started giving out door prizes and eventually had to stop because so many people had left that they were unable to draw the seat numbers of people remaining. Instead of ending on a high note with lots of enthusiasm we ended in a confusing whimper. These events HAVE to be short, intense and end with an exciting speech by a good, motivational public speaker - they are supposed to be moral builders, not grueling marathons. GOOD THINGS All in all the speakers were very good. I'm glad we didn't give 'equal access' to the anti-gunners like we did in Ottawa - it doesn't help our cause and it just makes our bozos worse. There were a fairly high percentage of women, I'd guess 30-40%. Unlike Ottawa where it was more like 10-20%. There was still too many camouflage caps, but it was far less than Ottawa (of course we all weren't standing in the sun in Hamilton). All in all I came away from the rally with my moral at an all time low. This is the last rally/protest I will waste my time attending. Rob. - ----- End Included Message ----- The bigger the rallies are the better because the "bozos" are the last ones to stay home. *sigh* ------------------------------ From: gabe@esri.com (Gabe Field) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:22:30 -0600 Subject: Media influience on violence >I'm sure there would have been a lot fewer incidences of "Skyjacking" >if the media had not over reported the issue to death. > >Has anyone done a study on violence caused by reportage on violence? ...From what I understand, up until the 60's it was extremely common for one to carry one's firearms aboard an airline when traveling, just like any carry on luggage. Then, there was an episode of the Twilight Zone in which a man was depicted skyjacking a flight. The next month it happend for real, and here we are today. As a note, I don't agree with our esteemed leader's remarks that giving up a little freedom for proported safey is acceptable. I believe US Senator Feinstein said that the inconvenience and invasion of privacy when boarding airlines was considered unacceptable when implimented, but today we wouldn't have it any other way. She doesn't speak for me. I'd rather go it alone and be in a position, along with my fellow passengers, to deal with a skyjacker in a more immediate and prudent way ourselves, than empower government to take away any of our rights to "protect us". I don't trust where such power might lead. The truth is that media depiction does cause copycat actions. If positive depictions were made instead of today's negative ones, we'd be better off. Gabe - ----- End Included Message ----- The obvious solution is to have trained personnel on every flight, so highjackers never get a chance. Wonder what that would cost... =] ------------------------------ From: hunter@comox.island.net Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:38:29 -0600 Subject: Re: registration Please clarify the following problem that's been bugging me regarding clauses in the proposed registration plot. Rock states on the one hand that we have until 2003 to re- gister firearms. In the same breatf he states that those who don't register will face arrest. What's he talking about, now or 2003? If I go hunting and am stopped by a gamewarden who wants to see my registration, do I get arrested if I tell him I don't need to register it till 2003? Any info? Hunter - ----- End Included Message ----- My understanding is that you will a) pay more by waiting, and 2) be fined up to $2000 and/or imprisoned for up to six months if you have an unregistered firearm after 01 Jan 2003. I haven't checked the date. ------------------------------ From: steve@photcan.com (Steven W. Klassen) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:24:53 -0600 Subject: Re: Use of firearms for self-defense >From: jomccorm@cln.etc.bc.ca (W. Jon McCormick) [snip] >owners are hunters or target shooters. From my discussion with several >owners, there appears to be many who keep them for home defense, even >though "officially" it is frowned upon. It is my intention to write >objectively regarding firearms and their use for home defense. If any >subscriber would be interested in sharing their opinion and or any >experiences they may have had, I would be appreciative. > [snip] I don't have an experience to share but I would be interested in your results. Specifically, I am interested in legal decisions where the judge has accepted the self-defense argument while involving a firearm. Mr. Rock has explicitely stated that self-defense is NOT a valid use of a firearm so I would like to find cases where the courts have ruled otherwise. - ----- Steve Klassen steve@photcan.com - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 15:30:22 -0600 Subject: Would a boycott help? This year, as a protest against C-68, perhaps we should boycott Federal migratory bird stamps. Just stay home, or hunt grouse or other non-migratory game. Save that $12.00 fee, and let Ottawa know why. Any other ways we can send a signal to Ottawa? If revenues for these things go way down one year, that would be signal to Rock that hunters really are p___ed off. This government is so strapped for cash that they may actually take notice. And of course it would get some free publicity. Imagine the questions in the HofC when Reform or a Liberal with principle stands up and asks why the claims for massive support for C-68 have turned into boycotts by hunters. Unlike the American boycotts which the media turned into "the US is telling us what to do", this would be home-grown opposition. Harder to ignore.. Finally, is there any way I can find out if my MP, Murray Calder, voted for or against C-68? I suspect he "just happened" to miss this vote, but I would like proof! Chris Retterath Starview Farm - ----- End Included Message ----- I don't think he was one of the "rebellious nine" Liberals who voted against (would have been 10 if they hadn't given Len Hopkins a heart attack**). **Note: this is a little wry humour, Mr Rock. I know you didn't intentionally give him heart trouble. ------------------------------ From: acs@ALGORITHMICS.COM (Alvin Shih) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:00:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Hamilton Gun Rally On Jun 23, 16:29, "Robert A. Osborne" wrote: [...] } I attended the June 17 rally put on by the Hamilton-Wentworth Concerned } Gun Owners and would just like to quickly comment on the event. } [ Painfully accurate analysis elided... ] } All in all I came away from the rally with my moral at an all time } low. This is the last rally/protest I will waste my time attending. } } ----- End Included Message ----- } } The bigger the rallies are the better because the "bozos" are the last } ones to stay home. *sigh* I think I might still attend another rally. I agree with Skeeter. If everybody who didn't want to be associated with yahoos refused to attend rallies, then rallies would only be attended by yahoos. The press would be able to exploit this by implying that *all* gun owners are yahoos. The best thing to do is to go to these rallies dressed up in a very formal manner and sit down right beside the most Rambo-esque person you can find. When the press tries to get a shot of them, they might wind up getting a shot of you too. During a quiet moment, explain to them how their behaviour is not helpful to our (their) cause. Remember that those "yahoos" took the time to attend the rally when countless other firearms owners did NOT. So for that they deserve our thanks. Once they are reminded of our constant public-relations problem, and how it is detrimental to our cause, I think most of them will come around. ACS - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: "Larry J. Going" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:04:07 -0600 Subject: Letter to Senate 1506 Warner Street Moose Jaw, Sask. S6H 7E3 Phone: (306) 694-4168 Fax: (306) 691-0271 June 24, 1995 Senator Gerald A. Baudoin Chairman of the Committee 474F Center Block The Senate of Canada Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A4 Dear Sir: I believe the examination of Bill C-68 by the Senate is one of the most important tasks the Senate has ever been given. When people are asked if they favour more gun control, most will answer yes. If they are asked what the present regulations are, very few know. They are almost always surprised to learn of the very strict regulations already in existence for firearms. When parts of Bill C-68 are explained to them, they do not believe this could happen in Canada. They do not believe you can have property seized without compensation. They do not believe you have to answer questions that may incriminate you, and that if you answer falsely, even though you believe you are telling the truth, you can be given a jail sentence and a criminal record. They do not believe having a loaded gun by the door, as many rural residents do, can result in a jail sentence of two or more years. They do not believe the government has given itself power to change laws without debate, and without presenting the changes to the House of Commons for approval. Many rural residents tell me they will continue to keep a loaded rifle by the door ``for varmints''. Many others tell me they will not register their rifles. When people do not support laws, they defy or ignore them. I would ask your committee to talk to the people of rural Saskatchewan. I am sure if you do, you will not want Bill C-68 to become law. Larry J. Going Saskatchewan President National Firearms Association - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: nbfa@FOX.NSTN.CA Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:02:49 -0600 Subject: Re: registration >Please clarify the following problem that's been bugging me regarding >clauses in the proposed registration plot. > >Rock states on the one hand that we have until 2003 to re- gister >firearms. In the same breatf he states that those who don't register >will face arrest. > >What's he talking about, now or 2003? > >If I go hunting and am stopped by a gamewarden who wants to see my >registration, do I get arrested if I tell him I don't need to register >it till 2003? Skeeter replied: >My understanding is that you will >a) pay more by waiting, and >2) be fined up to $2000 and/or imprisoned for up to six months if you >have an unregistered firearm after 01 Jan 2003. Not only do you not have to register your guns before 2003, you will actually save money by doing so. Between 1996 and 2001, firearms owners will have to obtain an FPC. This will cost $60 renewable every five years, so for every year you wait, you save $12. Between 1998 and 2003, firearms owners will have to register their firearms. This will cost $10 for up to 10 firearms at first, increasing to $18 for up to 10 firearms by 2003. The $8 saved by registering early is easily offset by the money saved by delaying the FPC. The penalty of $2000 and/or imprisoned for up to six months is only for cases in which it can be demonstrated that registration was unintentionally avoided. If you are aware of the requirements to register and choose to not comply, the penalty is much greater. (I don't remember exactly what it is at this moment) New Brunswick Firearms Alliance Inc. P.O. Box 7153, Stn. A Riverview, NB E1B 4T8 "I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." - --Allan Rock, Canadian Justice Minister Quoted in Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", April 25, 1994, page 12. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAy/TOI8AAAEEAN6hDE4uNsEiGcGB4cc3KtnlSIi8AHTowuyfGvAmEuE1ja/d AgSn7T5JjVl+PrEoL61CoNyllBAGs6B+lgb+tOZ5eTNXmLpfC8vmaVuqNh6c3SK+ P97wRPflNfBX8MCA7EOU3kOgli1oslVT7v5/nH1VxCyXXpBZjlxvN+dRkKx9AAUR tCdOQiBGaXJlYXJtcyBBbGxpYW5jZSA8bmJmYUBmb3gubnN0bi5jYT4= =p0a7 - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- - ----- End Included Message ----- Thanks for the clarification. ------------------------------ From: Alfred.Hovdestad@sask.usask.ca Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 13:39:37 -0600 Subject: Bob Mitchell speaks up I heard on the radio this morning (26-June-1995) that Bob Mitchell is ready to get back to work fighting Bill C-68. He is pressing the Senate to hold cross-Canada meetings with the public and especially Saskatchewan (and the rest of the prairies). He also re-affirmed his intention (along with other provincial Justice Ministers) of challenging Bill C-68 in court. - -- Alfred Hovdestad -- Member of -- Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Saskatchewan Responsible Firearm Owners CRIME CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL! - ----- End Included Message ----- ------------------------------ From: Damian Kanarek Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:14:04 -0600 Subject: an interesting observation You know, ever since I started vocally questioning the logic behind Rock's "crime control" bill, all packages arriving in my mail box have been stamped with an "Inspected by Canada Customs" notice (or something to that effect). That never happened before C-68, and now ALL of them are checked at the border. Hmmmm... Coincidental or what? ;-) Damian - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----- ------------------------------ From: "barry (b.w.) glasgow" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:40:53 -0600 Subject: Mona Acker's letter to a senator Ms. Acker's letter to Mr. Hovdestad reveals some of the hypocracy that tends to permeate every bit of correspondence we see coming from those who claim to represent all concerned Canadians in their condemnation of firearms (and the men who legally use them). The hypocracy lies in casting doubt on gun owners' concerns over Universal Registration while, at the same time, giving isolated examples of tragic gun abuse that could only be prevented (maybe) by confiscating every gun from every home in the country. It is interesting to see her refute the position that gun control is a women's issue but then spend so much of her dissertation emphasizing just exactly how it is a women's issue. I don't know whether this contradiction is mere confusion or hypocracy. There is the usual inference that men are inherently prone to commit violence against women and the the mere presence of a firearm will inevitably lead to an early demise for the woman, children and/or the gun owner. As always, the focus is on the gun as the major factor in these cases. The fact that guns most often are not involved in such assaults, and these assaults would most assuredly otherwise occur, seems to escape her. And, as always, the hypocracy is made more obvious through the use of a few tragic examples of human stupidity to justify her silly position without ever telling anyone just exactly what it is about Bill C-68 that would prevent any of these things from ever happening. It is disturbing for me to know that individuals with such clouded, narrow thinking ever seek nomination for political office and that sadly, as we see with Allan Rock, can sometimes attain positions of great influence in order to implement such idealistic notions at great cost and to the detriment of other, relevant issues. ________________________________________________________________________ Barry Glasgow | We must resist the temptation to pass laws | | that we can point to as evidence of our | Woodlawn, Ont. | attitudes, without sufficient regard for | | what they can achieve in practice. | Opinions are not | | those of the people | "Arguments Against Further Gun Control | who own or operate | Measures At This Time" - William C. Bartlett | these facilities. | Canadian Law and Government Division, 1994 | - ----- End Included Message ----- There are tens of millions of firearms in private homes in Canada. Of these, a few hundred get misused: 0.001% in murders (twice as many men killed each year as women), 0.005% in suicides (nearly 10 times as many men killed as women) and 0.0003% in accidents (about 30 times as many men killed as women). "Gun control" has only been an "issue" for twenty or thirty years, yet firearms have been around for hundreds. Machine guns have been around about a hundred years and the "modern revovlver" for two hundred. Why are these _things_ suddenly a problem now? Could it be that there are other causes? I have never handed anyone a firearm and seen her (or him) turn into a frothing manic ready to kill. I will never accept that firearms make people do "crazy things". ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Saskatoon Free-Net ------------------------------ From: "barry (b.w.) glasgow" Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 14:40:53 -0600 Subject: Mona Acker's letter to a senator Ms. Acker's letter to Mr. Hovdestad reveals some of the hypocracy that tends to permeate every bit of correspondence we see coming from those who claim to represent all concerned Canadians in their condemnation of firearms (and the men who legally use them). The hypocracy lies in casting doubt on gun owners' concerns over Universal Registration while, at the same time, giving isolated examples of tragic gun abuse that could only be prevented (maybe) by confiscating every gun from every home in the country. It is interesting to see her refute the position that gun control is a women's issue but then spend so much of her dissertation emphasizing just exactly how it is a women's issue. I don't know whether this contradiction is mere confusion or hypocracy. There is the usual inference that men are inherently prone to commit violence against women and the the mere presence of a firearm will inevitably lead to an early demise for the woman, children and/or the gun owner. As always, the focus is on the gun as the major factor in these cases. The fact that guns most often are not involved in such assaults, and these assaults would most assuredly otherwise occur, seems to escape her. And, as always, the hypocracy is made more obvious through the use of a few tragic examples of human stupidity to justify her silly position without ever telling anyone just exactly what it is about Bill C-68 that would prevent any of these things from ever happening. It is disturbing for me to know that individuals with such clouded, narrow thinking ever seek nomination for political office and that sadly, as we see with Allan Rock, can sometimes attain positions of great influence in order to implement such idealistic notions at great cost and to the detriment of other, relevant issues. ________________________________________________________________________ Barry Glasgow | We must resist the temptation to pass laws | | that we can point to as evidence of our | Woodlawn, Ont. | attitudes, without sufficient regard for | | what they can achieve in practice. | Opinions are not | | those of the people | "Arguments Against Further Gun Control | who own or operate | Measures At This Time" - William C. Bartlett | these facilities. | Canadian Law and Government Division, 1994 | - ----- End Included Message ----- There are tens of millions of firearms in private homes in Canada. Of these, a few hundred get misused: 0.001% in murders (twice as many men killed each year as women), 0.005% in suicides (nearly 10 times as many men killed as women) and 0.0003% in accidents (about 30 times as many men killed as women). "Gun control" has only been an "issue" for twenty or thirty years, yet firearms have been around for hundreds. Machine guns have been around about a hundred years and the "modern revovlver" for two hundred. Why are these _things_ suddenly a problem now? Could it be that there are other causes? I have never handed anyone a firearm and seen her (or him) turn into a frothing manic ready to kill. I will never accept that firearms make people do "crazy things". ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Saskatoon Free-Net ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #293 **********************************