Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, 17 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 299 In this issue: Bill C-68 renumbering summary A reply to your defense Re: Last Line of Defence DoJ june 13 press release Latest propaganda booklet from Minister of Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 15:54:32 -0600 Subject: Bill C-68 renumbering summary For the enhancement of your reading pleasure, what follows is a description of how the clauses have been renumbered. There are some new clauses, so everything after Clause 18 got bumped down. Feb. 14, 1995 June 13, 1995 "First Reading" "As passed by the Commons" Clause Number Clause Number 1 to 18 1 to 18 19 (new) 19 to 51 20 to 52 53 (new) 52 to 95 54 to 97 98 (new) 96 to 101 99 to 104 105 (new) 102 to 107 106 to 111 112 (new) 113 (new) 108 114 115 (new) 109 to 117 116 to 124 118 (removed) 119 to 161 125 to 167 168 (new) 162 to 186 169 to 193 ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Saskatoon Free-Net Just my $1.62 (expressed in 1995 dollars and adjusted for inflation and appreciation). No one else's opinions are implied. DO NOT EAT ------------------------------ From: ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:03:38 -0600 Subject: A reply to your defense "Frank J. Pecsy" wrote: } } Dear Skeeter, } } Thank you for the reply. } } Skeeter, surely you of all people must realize what the impact of what you } just said, when you wrote regarding Revenue Canada search powers "I'm sure } Revenue Canada still requires some evidence of wrong doing" . ...because I'm trying to tell people that under C-68 there is no need for any evidence of any wrong-doing. The "inspections" can be made by "inspectors" as often as they want to make them. During an inspection of a business or a collector's garage (for example), they can "take samples of anything found" and make copies of any computer data on, or available to, the system. Now, that's an inspection! At least Revenue Canada has to have some evidence (or make something up). I have also not heard of homes being raided by RevCan in the same fashion. I have friends in RevCan who are not too keen on C-68...but they tell me it is much more rare to have similar abuses of power by RevCan. (Besides, after Bill C-68 is "finished", we will be free to fight other wrong-doings.) } Surely you realize that kind of thinking is exactly what supports the } legislation you so oppose? None gun owners will and do argue that the } police will not search your home unless they have "some reason however } flimsy" of wrong doing. So Skeeter if 'surely you won't be searched unless } there is some evidence of wrong doing, however flimsy' is the standard } for you , be happy you are not dealing with the really bad legislation! It's not my "standard", but it is easier to fight what is proposed than what is entrenched. It's also easier to fight what is outrageous (seisures without suspicion of crime) than what is marginally acceptable (search on evidence). } Your comment that owning a firearm is still legal doesn't make the } connection I am trying to point out here. Yes maybe owning a firearm is } legal, and so is having a home. You object to the search and seizure } powers invoked in C-68, but do not object to similar or in the case of } Rev. Can much worse powers. That position really says that your arguemnt } is not about fundamental rights, but rather about the niche of your hobby. Wrong. I already stated (twice previously) that it has everything to do with the pretense of the search. They can't confiscate my house because the wiring does not meet the current codes, but they can take my firearms by simply declaring them prohibited. Ne debate. No scrutiny. No chance to sell my property. No compensation. It's just gone. } Yes I do recognize that you mentioned that there isn't enough time to deal } with all these issues, and that there are other abuses. Do you not realize } that all the abuses, if you agree that they are, flow from the same } philosophical source? Actually technically speaking they are not } abuses. Because they are empowered by the legislation. The C-68 goon } squads will not be abusing their authority when they show up at your home } to search it, and seize your property,, thye will just being doing } they're job. Following orders, etc. etc. does any of this soiund } familiar to you? Very. That's why I am fighting it before it becomes law. I do not blame the police for "doing their jobs". I do blame the gov't for making these rules against us. THEY ARE OUR EMPLOYEES AND THEY ARE MAKING LAWS AGAINST US. Since when does the employee dictate terms to the employer? (Yes, I know the answer...) } That philosophical source says that the government has a right to know } what you are doing at any given moment with your personal life. And if it } can't find out one way it can simply ignore what we thought were our } rights and kick down your door. What is reasonable has moved from what a } reasonable man in a similar situation would think, to what some paranoid, } paid' for hire' professional bureaucrat can invent in his or her mind. And I agree that 'gun control' is not the only area of concern. } C-68 is gentle, my friend on your rights, compared with some other } legislation. In fact it is so gentle that you can critise it with out } fear of retribution. Try critising the powers of some other departments } such as Revenue Canada. You'll have them knocking at your door, just } after the police leave after conducting a C-68 search. And I'm not } picking on Rev. Can. either. Try customs, excise, agriculture. } } If you want evidence, then read the enforcement sections of the tax } act. They _don't need evidence_they get to make it up as they go } along. C-68 (1995) and C-17 (1991) have made so many more persons aware; we now have a better chance of fighting other problems. Every four or five years we get a chance to make things better. If enough of us are active, we can force issues and get good people elected. } In the gun debate for C-68 to be as odious as say the Rev. Can powers the } following would have to be legalized. You suffer throuh a search } becasue someone had a suspicision that you had an illegal gun. Imagine if } that suspicision wasn't based on the fact that someone saw you with a gun, } but rather was because someone didn't see you with a gun-therefore you } were hiding one-therefore it was illegal-therefore you can be searched. } And of course this mind set then says that if nothing was found, that } becomes is evidence that you were a clever crook, and therefore need to be } the subject of prosecution, unless you can 'prove the negative' to this } same mindset, i.e. prove that you do not have such a weapon. And imagine } if in this search they got not to come to where a reasonable person would } expect a gun to be kept, but to your home, you families home etc. Imagine } these same 'nice guys' get then to speak with everyone you have ever known } suggesting that you are a 'illegal gun owner', that they have 'concerns' } about you etc. } } Now this Skeeter, is a bad law! I agree. That would also be bad law. I'm not saying it deosn't exist for something somewhere, but we do only have so much spare time. } And if you don't believe me, please go down ot your nearest library and } check out the enforcement provisions of the tax act. It probably only } covers two or three pages. That is the best evidence I can give you. Please, if you have the time, concentrate on these areas that concern you and then keep us all informed. We need to pool our talents and not just complain. } This tees up with your comment that one set of abuses doesn't mean we } should allow an infite set. Unfortunately you are wrong here. The law } is precedent based. Allow it in one area and the 'genie is out of the } bottle' as it were. We are talking past each other. We can only work within the existing structure. Talking about the dept. of agric. will get us nowhere right now. We must fight C-68 (and other proposed law) first. We can deal with other problems latter. } Am I defeatest? Hardly, but I recognize reality when I see it. You can } not put the genie back in. And the irony of this is that most gun owners } _are_ tough on crime. it was that 'lets give our police the powers they } need to fight crime' that got us into this mess. So law abiding gun } owners and other 'get tough' groups suppoted limiting the rights and } freedoms of us all inorder ot get the bad guys. In fact Skeeter there } was a fellow here n this very forum who wanted to establish a retroactive } law, for the death penalty. Leaving aside that retroactive law is } universally condemned around the world as a tool for supression, and not } appropriate for a democracy, think of th eimplications of establishing } the principal o retroactivity anywhere, in any aspect of our laws. } } Think if a judge somewhere could point tothe principal being established } say for convicted murders, and then applies it to that gun you owned in } 1980. How would you feel? } } On comparing a home renovation to gun ownership, well I wasn't doing } that. I was pointing out that the state in Canada even at the level of } the most trivial bureaucrat, has vast powers to reorder your life. Abuses definitely happen. We must point them out whenever we can. We must all become Dale Goldhawks, as it were. =] } On th epoint that you would work to defeat any government that seeks to } undermine your basic rights. They are already gone, Skeeter. We are not } safe from government intervention in the most important parts of our } lives. god they evenwant to interven on thenet. to silence you and all } of its crtics and to track those they can't. } } Time to smell the coffee boys } } thanks } } Frank So what is your final point? It seems you are saying "give up! It's too late! Go home! You're finished!" I don't think so, Tim! =] "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense." -- Winston Spencer Churchill Address at Harrow School, Oct. 29, 1941 ab133@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Saskatoon Free-Net Just my $1.62 (expressed in 1995 dollars and adjusted for inflation and appreciation). No one else's opinions are implied. DO NOT EAT ------------------------------ From: Bruce Mills Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:16:35 -0600 Subject: Re: Last Line of Defence > From: tom.whittaker@the-matrix.com > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 09:16:42 -0600 > Subject: Last Line of Defence > > You forget one key element in your argument. That great array > of technology requries a logistic support system and manufacturing > capabilities. If that capability is being suppled by the civilian > populace, then the government must either go to an outside nation > or risk destruction of their own support structure, if the people > resist. > > The tanks, planes, missles, Etc are built by civilian workers. > They operate on fuel supplied by civilian workers. The military eats > food grown by civilian workers. Any government that relies on its > own people to supply its military is helpless against them in a > general armed resistance. When technology fails there is no > substitute for the armed infantryman. > > Tyranny loses its appeal when there is nothing to tyrannize! Not to mention the loss of revenue from tax dollars if such a thing (heaven forfend) did occur. Bruce Dundas, Ontario Go Big Blue! - ----- End Included Message ----- All true, however, my original point was that they have powerful technology for a "first strike". These guys who think they'll just bunker down and survive are, I think, dreaming. ------------------------------ From: me@skatter.usask.ca Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 15:54:14 -0600 Subject: DoJ june 13 press release Department of Justice BILL C-68 (FIREARMS) PASSES THIRD READING IN HOUSE OF COMMONS OTTAWA, June 13, 1995 -- Bill C-68 (firearms) successfully passed the House of Commons today following third reading vote. The Bill, which fulfils the government's commitment to providing Canadians with tough, effective and fair gun control, provides for the following: - A mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison in addition to a lifetime prohibition against possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm upon conviction of any of ten specific violent offences with a firearm. - New Criminal Code offences with stiff penalties for illegally importing and trafficking in firearms as well as other measures aimed at enhancing border control. - Bans on the future importation and sale of 25 and 32 calibre handguns as well as on handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14 inches) or less. - The creation of a national registration system for all firearms to be administered by the RCMP in cooperation with the provinces and territories. The firearms registry is the support structure for the government's firearms control package and will assist the police in fighting the criminal misuse of firearms by: - helping enforce prohibition orders; - curtailing the trafficking and smuggling of firearms coming into Canada from the United States and other countries; - encouraging gun owners to comply with safe-storage requirements; and - assisting the police in the tracing of stolen guns and guns used in crime. Bill C-68 has been improved by incorporating a number of changes to the legislation which were recommended by witnesses to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and by a number of Members of Parliament. These amendments include: 1. The creation of a summary offence in the Firearms Act for the possession of a long gun without a registration certificate. The offence would apply only to a first time offender who inadvertently fails to register his/her long gun. 2. Confining the inspection powers in sections 98 to 101 of the Firearms Act to: - businesses (including museums); - gun collectors; - owners of prohibited firearms; and - anyone who owns more than 10 firearms. 3. With regard to Relics and Family Heirlooms, the Firearms Act now permits handguns manufactured before 1946 and registered prior to February 14, 1995, to be handed down upon the death of the registrant to a family member, provided the family member is duly licensed. "This legislation will help us preserve the peaceful character of Canadian society and help the police fight crime and violence", Allan Rock stated. "While recognizing and permitting the legitimate use of firearms in this country, in passing this Bill we are making a fundamental statement about the kind of country we want for our children." - 30 - Ref.: Cyrus Reporter James Hayes Minister's Office Department of Justice (613) 992-4621 (613) 957-9628 (Version franaise disponible) - ----- End Included Message ----- Hmm. No mention of: - - the fact that many of the "banned" pistols will be confiscated without compensation. (How can they say "registration won't lead to confiscation" when 58% of _registered_ pistols are being "banned" and many must be surrendered to the crown?) - - the many firearms to be prohibited under the new Order in Council powers, because of the firearms' appearance or as a purely "symbolic gesture". - - the firearms already prohibited and confiscated, without compensation. - - the Order in Council powers, allowing the Minister to change whatever he wants, without any mechanism for stopping his dicta from becoming law. - - the fact that most of the sentences for the "ten specific violent offences with a firearm" already exceed four years. - - the ability to thoroughly search any place (as often as is desired) that is not a dwelling house, and seize certain items, without any suspicion of a crime being committed. - - the $85,000,000 of federal tax money plus $???,000,000 provincial tax money to start the new registration system. - - the $???,000,000 to enforce the registration and regulation aspects. - - the fact that police will not place their lives on the reliability of a computer that may contain accurate data about the presence of a firearm, and only if the owner chose to report it. - - prison terms and criminal records for those who thought their firearms were registered (but were not, because of a typo or other error). - - the effects these laws will have on tourism, wildlife habitats, shooting ranges, etc. Okay. That's enough for now. ------------------------------ From: "hunter@comox.island.net" Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 12:37:34 -0600 Subject: Latest propaganda booklet from Minister of Justice Edited version of latest propaganda from the Minister of Justice. [With just a _few_ comments from me. :-) -- Skeeter] Department of Justice - Canada Facts about the Firearms Bill, June 1995 Q1. How will registration of all firearms work? [Not very well. "Shhh." Sorry.] Starting January 1, 1996, firearms owners will have 5 years in which to obtain a firearms licence. Starting January 1, 1998, owners will be required to register make, model and serial number of all their firearms. Q2. Once I have my Firearms Licence do I have to renew it? Yes, every 5 years. Cost will be about $60 to renew. [Will the cost of the licence increase by 400% like the FAC? "It could. We're not sure. We'll have to see how much the new computers cost. We ARE doing this on a cost recovery basis." What if I don't renew my licence? Do I lose my firearms? "That's up to the firearms officer. You could also be charged with unlawful possession."] Q3. Once I have registered my firearm, do I have to register again? No, The registration Certificate is good until the firearm is sold or transferred. A $10 fee will be made for registering the transfer. Q4. I have heard rumours that it will cost me $100 to register my hunting rifle. How much will it cost? $0.00 to $10 in the first year for each of a Firearms licence and a Registration Certificate, with a sliding scale over the 5 year phase in period. [What do mean by a sliding scale? "It's similar to a slippery slope. Under the existing system, the actual cost of registering a firearm (currently somewhere between $60 and $110, depending on the province) is bourne by the taxpayers via funding for the federal and provincial DoJ's (Depts. of Justice) and city police. Under the cost recovery model, owners will pay the full registration and transfer fees, after the phase in period is over. We don't know what those fees will be because we haven't ever done this before."] Q5. I own many firearms. Do I have to pay to register each firearm or will there be a volume discount. Yes. Cost for up to 10 firearms will be the same as for one. [And after the phase in period? "Well, we don't know the actual final cost, but firearm owners will eventually have to pay the full cost of registering or transferring N firearms, whatever that cost may be."] Q6. What if I have an FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate)? Do I still need to get a Firearms Licence? An FAC will be good until it expires. During this period, no Firearms Licence is required. After 1 January 2001 you must obtain a Firearms Licence. Q7. Where do I register? Registration applications for Firearms Licences and Registration Certificates will be available at Post offices and other public places conveniently located in your community. Those who own firearms now will be able to obtain their Firearms Licence and Registration Certificate by mailing in the application. [I just have to mail in a form? Isn't that a little insecure? Right now the police inspect a firearm being registered? How will the police check for errors? "They won't until later. The only way to reduce registration costs is to take the police out of the registration process. Just make sure you write all the numbers down correctly and there won't be any problems."] Q8. Will I need to register my ammunition? No. [Why not? "We can't read the tiny little serial numbers. Yet."] Q9. How does the registration system affect the purchase of ammunition? When the new system is in place, there will be a requirement to present your Firearms Licence when buying ammunition. [Does that mean family members and friends can no longer buy ammo for me? I have to make a separate three-hour drive into the city? "Yes."] Q10.Do I need to take the firearms course again? Those who now own firearms, do not intend to acquire any more, and are simply applying to obtain a Firearms Licence and Registration Certificate need not take any course. Those who have already completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course or any course or test approved by the Attorney General of a province between Jan 1, 1993 and Jan 1, 1995 will not have to take another course. [What if I took my course before or after that two-year period? "Then you must take another if you think you may buy or trade one or more firearms."] Q11.Some people say it is going to cost anywhere from $500 million to $4.5 billion for the government to set up the registration system. Is this true? No. Set up costs will be approximately $85 million spread over 5 years. None of these costs will be taken out of provincial, municipal or police budgets. [Wait. Set up costs? What about operational costs? What about the provincial costs? The province of Quebec asked for $300 million. "You certainly ask a lot of questions! That's very clever." Well? "what?" I asked three questions. "Oh. Right. *sigh* The $85 million covers only the federal start-up costs of the registration system. It doesn't cover any provincial costs. It also doesn't cover enforcement costs or the costs of the licensing system. We also don't know what the ongoing costs will be."] Q12.If I am an aborigional person, do I still have to register? Yes. The firearms registration system will apply equally to all persons, but it will be implemented in a way that is sensible and sensitive to the aborigional way of life. Q13.How will registration provide any deterrent to criminal activity? Criminals will not register their firearms. It is true that criminals will not register. But by that very fact, criminals will identify themselves. It will help police determine what types and numbers of firearms they might encounter when responding to an emergency call and it will give police information on the number of guns known to be in a home when they are trying to enforce a court order prohibiting someone from having firearms because of a history of violence. [Are you saying that persons who don't own at least one registered firearm will be a criminal? "Yes. No! Wait. Um, er..." I've talked to police, and they have all said they always assume a firearm is present, so having the computer tell them 'gun' or 'no gun' won't really change anything. "But..." And someone who _was_ law-abiding and is now planning a crime or abusing his/her spouse will just sell the registered firearms and buy unregistered ones. "But..." Besides, you agreed that criminals will not register, so how can you enforce a prohibition order against a criminal any better than without registration? "um."] Q14.Registration has been tried and abandoned in other countries like New Zealand and Australia. Why are you trying it here. The system tried in New Zealand pre-dated modern computer systems and involved hand written documents. [So? "So this is different.] Q15.Isn't registration just more bureaucracy, without any practical benefit? The jury that heard months of evidence in the Coroners inquest into the death of Jonathan Yeo, who was implicated in the gun-related murder of Nina de Villiers recommended that all firearms be registered. [What? We're registering firearms because of what a jury said about the death of Nina de Villiers' murderer? How is that relevant? "I don't know. I was just told to say that." And I thought Nina de Villiers was murdered with a prohibited firearm? "um."] Q16.You have said registration would be user friendly. How are you making it easy for me? Most owners will be able to mail in the required forms after picking them up at the post office or other public place. [Didn't you say that already? What about selling (transferring) firearms? I live in the Yukon and many persons here don't speak or write English or French. Will these forms be in other languages? Is ever store selling ammo going to have to get one of those machines for swiping registration cards? How much will this cost store owners? "um."] Q17.What will be the impact of the new firearms legislation on visitors from the USA or abroad who may wish to come to Canada to hunt? Foreign residents will be issued a renewable 60-day licence, which will act as a Firearms Licence, Registration Certificate and Customs declaration. [Persons from the US won't register their firearms because you said you would share information with the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), and customs. "That's fine." Subsection 5 (3) of the Firearms Act was added to exempt non- residents from sanctions based on a history of violence, or criminal or psychiatic history. Why aren't they subject to the same checks as Canadians? "What could happen in just 60 days?"] Q18.I have heard that a computerized firearms registry would make Canada less safe because hackers can break into any system anywhere. The new firearms registry will have data that can only be obtained through CPIC. The security of CPIC has never been broken. Firearms will be registered in the system separate from the owners name and address. [What about the police officer who gave information to an anti- abortion group in BC last summer? "That's different." Why? "It just is."] Q19.Is the registration of hunting rifles and shotguns the first step toward their confiscation? Not at all. As long ago as 1977, opponents argued that it would lead to confiscation of all firearms. That did not happen. [No, it has not lead to the confiscation of _all_ firearms, but _some_ rifles and shotguns were prohibited in 1992, along with more in 1995. Under C-68, 58 per cent of legal, registered pistols will be "banned". Section 117.15 of the revised Criminal Code says that they can prohibit "any thing" that is not "in the opinion of the Governor in Council ... reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes". Not all firearms have been confiscated, but some have been and more will be, according to the Federal Minister of Justice. "That wasn't a question." I know.] Q20.Will the Firearms Act allow police to search my house without a warrant just because I have a rifle? The Firearms Act will deal only with inspection powers, which are similar to federal and provincial laws permitting inspection of gas, electricity, or fire hazards in dwellings to ensure public safety. An inspector can only enter with the consent of the owner, or if refused, with a warrant obtained from a Justice of the Peace. [How often can my house be 'inspected'? "There is no built-in limit." What about places that are not dwelling-houses? Do the old 'search and seizure' rules apply, allowing copying of computer data and other records, as well as taking samples of anything found? "Yes."] Q21.I have a World War 1 pistol that once belonged to my grandfather and that will be prohibited under the new Firearms Act. I would like to leave it in my will to my daughter. Will this be possible? Any "grandfathered" prohibited handgun manufactured before 1946 and registered before February 14, 1995, can be handed down on the owner's death from generation to generation within the same family. [It "may" be done, but will it? I "may" get a carrying permit, but it can be denied for any reason or policy. (pause.) What about the number of firearms in Canada? The gov't said 18 million back in 1976. Why do they say only 6 million now? (silence.) In 1991, they said that, over the long-term, 190,000 more firearms came into Canada each year, than were exported. That would mean there were no firearms in Canada before 1963. How is this possible? (silence.) And if gun stores sell 30 or 40 rifles and shotguns for every pistol, and there are about 1,000,000 pistols registered, there could be 30 or 40 million rifles and shotguns. (silence.) Hello? (silence.) Hello?] ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #299 **********************************