From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mon May 19 12:17:23 1997 From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #849 Content-Length: 28827 X-Lines: 755 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, May 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 849 In this issue: RE:Twists and penetration re: over-penetration of .223 8 1/2 x 11 Remember Bill C-68 Paper Signs Tragic loss to the Firearms Community Australian vs Canadian Property Rights Canadian Federal Election Cdn-Firearms Digest Compare [1/2] Compare [2/3] Compare [3/3] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 16:44:00 -0600 (CST) From: mkhughe Subject: RE:Twists and penetration Freddo wrote; >This was the case with the *older* AR15 rifles with the slower twist >barrel (1 in 12" or 1 in 14"). The new 1 in 7" twist was designed to >spin the projectile to penetrate light armour; I believe a kevlar >helmet at 200 yards had to be penetrated, this was the standard the new >projectile/twist rate had to meet. The faster twist rate of the newer >AR15 rifles means that overpenetration is almost a sure bet. Actually the 1 in 12" twist is to stabilize the 55 grain 5.56 bullet, the 1 in 7" twist was put into the new M16a2 to stabilize the _Tracer_ version of the new Belgian SS109 65 grain bullet out to 700m, the life of the "trace". The Twist required to properly stabilize the "ball" version, SS109, is 1 in 9". Commercial versions did allow shooters to order their AR15A2 with the 1 in 9" twist if desired. As to Armor penetration, this was achieved primarily through a small carbide "penetrator" in every "ball" round. The "standard" was to be able to penetrate a _steel_ helmet a 200m. We always said it was just a waste that we had to wear a 10lb "Flak" vest just to catch penetrators ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 16:45:52 -0600 (CST) From: mkhughe Subject: re: over-penetration of .223 Damian wrote: >I remember reading/hearing something about this; the .223 round is >(supposedly) very unstable on impact, and tends to tumble/shatter, >without providing a lot of penetration in a body-like material. For FMJ it is quite stable out to 100m upon hitting Human Tissue. There was a Vietnam wounds study which showed that most hits within this distance did not perform as hoped; i.e. .22 hole in, .22 hole out. Further, a Royal Marines Raid on Top Malo in the Faulklands War shows this to be true. As the Marines attacked they found that each one of _them_ hit by 7.62 went down and stayed down, while their Argentine opponents (Arg. Special Forces) took several 5.56 rounds at point blank range (one took 5 hits)and was still able to resist/fire! The Brits still won though. They did not like their "Armalites" thereafter.(BBC Documentary, interviewing participants,etc.) 100m to 200m is suppose to be the range within which this "instability" creates the devastating "yawing" and fragmentation of the 5.56 round. The fragmentation occurs around the crimping knurl causing several more wound channels and tissue disruption. > In case >of body shots, the .223 has a lower chance of overpenetration than >something like a 9mm pistol round (unless, I would imagine, full metal >jacket is used, or the evil armor-piercing round). I would imagine the Ottawa Police would use those new rounds with "Kevlar cutter" bullets.(The ATF used them in the Branch Davidian Raid). After all, they are preparing to fend off a repeat of the L.A. Robbery turned firefight, right? Someone did mention "knee-jerk". Why is it the police feel they _need_ paramilitary weapons against criminal elements, who rarely employ such weapons, but it is "beyond the pale" for the innocent,honest citizens who are to be left completely defenseless? Just something I remember from reading endless articles about the M-16/5.56 rounds from many sources. Smith's Small Arms of the World, _11th Edition_ has an excellent article on Ammunition and Battle data. 12 Edition does not include it. >From actually using it for several years in the Reserves most of the Myths surrounding the M16 (M16A2/C-7) are false! Except the Magazine problems. They still exist using first model CDN plastic mags. There are too many small parts in the Bolt Group, easily lost. But what a shooter :-) Little wonder they call it the most accurate assault rifle in the world. Now with a C79 Scope, they're deadly! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 16:46:51 -0600 (CST) From: wjbutts@nornet.on.ca (W. J. (Wally) Butts) Subject: 8 1/2 x 11 Remember Bill C-68 Paper Signs NFA Ontario has a quantity of 8 1/2" x 11" bright green paper signs available for the asking. These signs are in bulk (unpackaged lots), and are available to anyone who wants then. in 50 to 100 quantities, until the available supply is gone. For anyone who can't afford to buy them, you can't beat this FREE deal. If you can afford a donation, then please send one along. Contact Bill Rantz at brantz@vianet.on.ca by E-mail, or fax your request to 1-705-385-0054. THIS IS A CHANCE TO SPREAD THE MESSAGE FOR ONE LAST TIME BEFORE THE ELECTION!! "REMEMBER BILL C-68 WHEN YOU VOTE" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 16:52:11 -0600 (CST) From: Larry Whitmore Subject: Tragic loss to the Firearms Community The Recreational Firearms Community suffered a great loss [Thursday] with the tragic death of Ernest Sopsich. Ernie was killed instantly after being hit by a train at a level crossing near his home just outside Ottawa. Ernie was known and respected by many in the shooting community through his expertise in rifle shooting, and his lobbying efforts in Ottawa to protect our sport. Ernie was a member of the National Rifle Team for 15 years. During that time, he represented Canada at numerous World Cup competitions, the 1982 World Championships and the 1982 Commonwealth Games (Australia). Ernie was a keen competitor and one who was always the first to lend a hand and help others. Ernie worked as the Executive Director of the Shooting Federation of Canada for several years before switching to the Shooting Sports Alliance in Ontario. He was our main contact in Ottawa and lobbied on our behalf on numberous occasions. He was also an integral part of the 4 national symposiums that have been held. He will be sadly missed by all. Funeral arrangements are incomplete at this time. Larry Whitmore Executive Manager - Ontario Handgun Association Director - Shooting Federation of Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 17:04:21 -0600 (CST) From: fhryder@nbnet.nb.ca (fhryder) Subject: Australian vs Canadian Property Rights To: dgeditor@nbnet.nb.ca Dear Sir: Australian vs Canadian Property Rights Michael Staples article "Australian Official: Gun Control Can Work" raised the sharp contrast between Australian and Canadian concepts of Property Rights. The Australian government decided to prohibit all semi automatic firearms including shotguns and 22 rimfire. Your article did not mention this fact, unless the term "tighter controls" has now become the politically correct word for "prohibited". The government then instituted a buyback plan as you stated. The following table shows the cost to date to be $187 million not $200 thousand which you stated! Attorney-General's Department Firearms Buyback Program Number of Firearms Surrendered and Amounts Paid Commutative Totals Reported by Jurisdiction on 18 April 1997 Number of Firearms Jurisdiction Surrendered Amounts Paid - ------------ ------------------ ------------- Victoria 153,093 $75,880,625 South Aus. 61,062 $25,936,192 ACT 3,791 $1,898,542 Tasmania 22,850 $11,821,705 Northern Territory 5,783 $3,216,599 Western Australia 18,381 $6,509,083 N.S.W. 58,935 $35,000,000 Queensland 54,553 $27,357,487 TOTAL 376,448 $187,620,233 Source: http://www.ssaa.org.au/ No one knows what portion of the total firearms prohibited this represents, these firearms were not registered. Further research in Australia turned up the following excerpt: Letter received by National Firearms Association (Australia) from (Canadian) Federal Justice Minister Allan Rock regarding compensation "Although I agree that it is desirable to limit the adverse effects of legislation on property interests, I believe that the measures taken in this legislation are necessary because they are a major component of Canada's firearms control legislation and important to the safety of all Canadians. Therefore, where a firearm is prohibited because it is deemed an unacceptable risk to public safety, it is not in the public interest to compensate those who may have owned the firearm when the decision was implemented." source: http://www.ssaa.org.au/ Clearly, in Canada property rights do not exist, in the mind of Hon.Mr.Rock at least. Firearms registration is the first step in a two step process. Hon.Mr.Rock's letter to the Australians makes very clear what the second step is. Yours truly Frank Ryder Frank H. RYDER |fhryder@iee.org. B.Sc. M.Eng. P.Eng. |Even the dog knows the difference (SM)IEEE (SM)IIE C.Eng FIEE |between being kicked and CONSULTANT |Being stumbled over Oliver Wendell Holmes Fredericton N.B. CANADA http://www.brunswickmicro.nb.ca/~multicite/ryder1.html ----- End Included Message ----- Skeeter (the cdn-firearms digest editor/moderator), responds with: If 376,000+ firearms have been confiscated, that's much less than 10% of all legal firearms in Australia. What a waste of tax money... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 17:05:21 -0600 (CST) From: Bud Melless Subject: Canadian Federal Election Here is a slight correction of my e-mail message of May 14: There are MANY ridings in Ontario in which Reform has a VERY GOOD chance to win. The five that were mentioned in my earlier message were selected because they may be of particular interest to firearms owners in the Toronto area and because there are large shooting clubs located nearby. Another riding in Toronto itself in which many shooters are working is Don Valley West. The candidate is Jonathan Silbert, and his office is at 25 Overlea Blvd, 416-421-1590. If you live in a riding outside the Toronto area that was not mentioned in my earlier e-mail, please give them a few hours of your time over the next two weeks. It can do only good and is likely the only way you're going to be able to keep your guns. Thanks again everyone, and the bandwith is appreciated. Bud Melless, President - IPSC Ontario ipscont@ptbo.igs.net http://www.ipsc-ont.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 20:43:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Patrick A. Warner" Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest Some readers may be interested to know what kind of jobs are available at the Canadian Firearms Centre. This job poster was in the 9 May 1997 group from the Public Service Commission. Competition Classification: AS-04 Salary: $41,129 - $45,769 Selection Process No.: 97-JUS-NCR-CCID-2510 Closing Date: June 5, 1997 Department of Justice Policy Sector Canadian Firearms Centre Ottawa, Ontario Analyst, Partnerships 2 positions - indeterminate and term English Essential Open to: Employees of the Public Service occupying a position in the National Capital Region. Note: Candidates at the AS-04 level will be considered first for deployment. Duties: Reporting to the Director, Management Services - CFC, the incumbent will be responsible for information on operational issues involved in the implementation of Bill C-68; briefing notes and Business Activity Lists on the status of issues, actions and positions taken by CFC managers and partner organizations; secretariat services to the various committees convened to support the firearms initiative; consultations with staff in other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, and representatives from the RCMP, police agencies, and firearms businesses and interest groups; consultation documents for distribution to committee members; and information and support to senior managers. Screening criteria: Graduation with an acceptable degree from a recognized university with specialization in criminology, sociology, political science or another discipline relevant to the position. Experience in conducting policy studies and contributing to the analysis and development of policy options; experience in analyzing and consolidating information from a variety of sources, and producing related reports, briefing notes and correspondence; experience in analyzing research results and statistics, identifying patterns, and preparing reports and consultation documents flowing from research findings; experience in establishing cooperative relations with multi-stakeholder groups. Desirable Qualification: Experience in Lotus Notes Applications Security/Reliability: Secret An Eligibility List may be established and may be used to fill other positions. Please identify which position you wish to apply . A Statement of Qualifications will be sent with the acknowledgment of receipt of application Contact: Ginette Leroux Telephone No.: (613) 952-0549 Clearance No.: 317-097-039 / 317-097-040 Send your application to: Ginette Leroux /Louise Quevillon Classification and Staffing Programs 373 Sussex Drive, Block "C", 2nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Fax: (613) 954-3000 ANS2449 Pat Warner Firearm Owner, Tax Payer and Voter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:31:34 -0600 (CST) From: lazarus.long@freehold.rational.vaxxine.com Subject: Compare [1/2] What will Reform do for firearms legislation? The Reform Party has actively opposed the idea of registering shotguns and rifles at all stages in Committee, and in the House. That's because we believe that real crime control, and real gun control, should affect the lives of criminals. Not the law-abiding gun owners in this country. Therefore, universal firearms registration will be repealed under a Reform Government. Instead, we will implement a "zero tolerance" policy for criminal offences involving firearms. What is the Libertarian Policy on Firearms? Gun Control The Problem: Bill C-68 creates several classes of Canadians, each with different rights. Gun owners have their right to privacy infringed upon by the government through a registration process that non-gunowners do not have to take part in. Aboriginal gun-owners have valid concerns that their treaty rights are infringed by this Bill. The ability to use Orders-in-Council allow the government to arbitrarily criminalise gun owners at the will of the Justice Minister. The Solution: No registration. Registration only creates needless and expensive paperwork and is an invasion into the privacy of the individual. Permits, issued by certified instructors, will ensure that individuals wishing to use firearms are competent in their use and not a risk to public safety. No restriction on possession of any type of firearm. Since any tool or implement can be used as a weapon, the restricting of possession of certain types of firearms is unnecessary and again, a restriction of liberty by interfering with the property rights of the citizen. The most heavily restricted or banned firearms were, before their reclassification, the least used in criminal activity. Banning them has not increased the safety of the community. Persons convicted of violent crimes that involve the use of firearms would not be permitted to possess firearms until they have made full restitution. Firearms in his possession may be seized as assets which would be applied towards the debt. Anyone convicted of a crime involving the use of firearms would, besides the restitution payment that would normally be made, face an additional "endangerment" surcharge of 10% of the restitution cost. Repeat offenders would be prohibited from possessing firearms for life. Sellers of firearms are responsible for insuring that the purchaser has provided proof of their legal ability to own or purchase a firearm. This proof must be in the form of a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC). See Addendum Insurance companies may require competency certification for the purposes of determining liability insurance, but that is a matter between them and their clients and not a government responsibility. Government, through the police, would only be responsible for background checks for previous and current legal restrictions that would prohibit the applicant from possessing firearms. Such certification could be provided by competent instructors, privately or through the auspices of recognised shooting organisations. (See Addendum) Self defense is fundamental to a free society and the autonomy of an individual. The evidence shows clearly that arms in the hands of individuals enhances community safety. To this end, concealed carry must be legalised and the government, through the crown and the police, must cease punitive actions directed at those who defend themselves from criminal action. No woman or man should need to feel unprotected against criminal assault against their person or property. Addendum: An Example of a Firearm Permit certification process 1. Gunowners seeking certification for insurance purposes would train with an qualified instructor. Such an Instructor is a person certified by one of the many existing firearms associations and is not paid by tax money. Insurance companies could have their own list of instructors and shooting associations that they recognise as competent. 2. The Instructor trains and tests the applicant; the applicant has no has no insured liability during this period and is personally liable for any damages. 3. The Instructor certifies that the applicant is competent in the use of firearms and understands the safety rules of gunhandling. He also tests the applicant on his knowledge of his legal responsibilities as a gun owner. 4. The applicant then applies to the police, who check for a criminal record. Upon ascertaining that the applicant has no legal restrictions against firearm ownership, they then endorse the applicants application for a permit. This endorsement, in the form of a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) authorizes the issuance of a Firearms Permit by the Instructor. NOTE: The applicant pays a user fee to the police for this service. [cont'd in part 2] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 10:52:02 -0600 (CST) From: lazarus.long@rational.vaxxine.com Subject: Compare [2/3] [cont'd from part 1] 5. The applicant returns the PCC to the Instructor who will issue the completed permit. 6. The Firearms Permit recognises three types of firearm usage. 7. The Firearms Permit authorizes possession, acquisition, carriage, transport and use, with control appropriate to the holder's status in the law, not forever re-typed on permits. 8. The Firearms Permit is required for insurance and liability purposes only. Being able to determine the status of the possessor by a required document is useful for the police in the event of an incident involving the owner and firearms. Documenting the status of the firearm isn't nearly as useful for real police work. 9. The system sets national minimum standards for local police, security guards, and anyone else licensed to carry a loaded firearm to protect human life from criminal violence. This is done by making the Armed Forces and the RCMP exempt, then using RCMP Constable standards for issuing "Police" endorsements. 10. Instructors won't certify people who act unsafely with firearms, and police won't issue PCC's to people with legal restrictions against the ownership or possession of firearms. 11. Firearms owners are protected, because they can demonstrate who they are and what they're qualified to have and use. 12. This system allows for "grandfathering" for firearms owners and users who have already proven that they are not a menace to society; such people may use past history to apply for a Firearms Permit, without "going through the hoops". NOTE: Recognition of `grandfathering' would be left to the discretion of individual insurance companies. EXAMPLES OF FIREARMS PERMIT ENTRY PATTERNS: EXAMPLE 1: .22 rifle target-range-only shooter. Usage: RANGE CARRY - ------------------------------- Q | | - ------------------------------- Q = Qualified I = Instructor Issuer: J. Smith, Range Officer(Point Blank Gun Club) EXAMPLE 2: Police officer/expert witness; hunter; PPC shooter. Usage: RANGES CARRY - ------------------------------- | Q | Q | - ------------------------------- Q = Qualified I = Instructor Issuer: F. Reynolds, RCMP EXAMPLE 3: IPSC Range officer/Instructor; recreational hunter Type/Usage: RANGES CARRY - ------------------------------ | QI | QI | - ------------------------------ Q = Qualified I = Instructor Issuer: R C Green, NFA Certified Instructor DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED ON THE FIREARMS PERMIT RANGE: To use on a supervised shooting range. CARRY (a) To use at any place, other than a shooting range, where a firearm may lawfully be fired. (b) To carry and use for professional reasons, as a salesman, professional guide or expert witness, etc. might require. (c) To carry and use for protection of human life. (d) Requires meeting all relevant standards required of an RCMP Constable. Q and I: Qualified and Instructor; R for Range Officer The Firearms Permit authorizes its holder to acquire, possess, and transport firearms for each specified type of USAGE. It thus replaces, for example, Canada's Firearms Acquisition Certificate, Permit to Carry, Registration Certificate, and Permit to Transport. __________________________________________ Note that the LPC would simplify the NFA proposal by having only two classes of firearms use. One would be under supervision on a range, the other would be public carry. The standard of skill and knowledge for any public use...hunting, personal protection would be at the standard that the NFA deems as necessary for RCMP Constables. ******************************* Now compare...what exactly is Reform promising? All they publicly will state in their platform is that they will repeal C-68. NO mention of any alternatives. Do they mean to have no standards for firearms usage? If so, then why the blather from Tomlinson that the LPC policy doesn't deal with type of firearms, Conversions, type of Recievers etc. Is Tomlinson taking the position that it is the TYPE of firearm that makes it dangerous? A 30mm chain gun is not a public danger. It is the person who is in possession of the firearm that determines if there is a danger or not. FOCUS: Why has Reform not stated clearly what, if any, controls they will place on firearms and usage? Is Reform saying that they will have unlicensed public concealed or unconcealed carry? Why have they not come clean? [cont'd in part 3] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:09:11 -0600 (CST) From: lazarus.long@rational.vaxxine.com Subject: Compare [3/3] [cont'd from part 2] FACT: The LPC stated clearly what limits would be placed on the owners of firearms. Concealed carry would be permitted by the LPC for those who meet the qualifications. FACT: Reform is asking the gun owners to buy a pig in a poke. FACT: Under the LPC plan no one need, except your insurer, need know WHAT FIREARMS YOU OWN. Does Reform promise you that? FACT: No restriction on type/class/make of firearm under the LPC policy. Reform does not promise this. FOCUS 2: Why has the NFA and Dave Tomlinson NOT given gun owners the chance to compare? Does his interests lie with REFORM or GUN OWNERS? The Rational Anarchist HomePage at: http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html A Principled Approach to Liberty - -- | Fidonet: Cdnguns 1:247/130.10 | Internet: Cdnguns@1-247-130-10.rational.vaxxine.com >>>[Gated by the ClasLibNet Gateway, The Network of Liberty]<<< ----- End Included Message ----- Skeeter (the temp. cdn-firearms digest editor/moderator), responds with: I think Mr Tomlinson, like myself, only just received the above information. As I recall, previous posts did not contain this amount of detail. The NFA is, as has been stated many times, recommending, for this election, a party that is electable, has a shot at forming government and has a good policy for all firearm owners. Besides, people _have_ been posting information about the LPC and their policies, and there are links to the LPC sites from the http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/ web pages, so it's all easily available to interested persons. To be fair, I'll include, without further comment, some excerpts from BlueBook '96 and the Fresh Start campaign platform booklet. Readers can decide for themselves. _________________________________________________________________________ Firearms A. A Reform Government will introduce legislation to severely punish the criminal misuse of firearms and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms. B. The Reform Party recognizes the need for broad public consultation in formulating firearm legislation, including opinions of law enforcement officers, informed firearms owners, and other Canadians. C. The Reform Party supports repealing Bill C-68 and replacing it with a workable and practical alternative which will include severe automatic penalties for those who use firearms in criminal acts. Plea bargaining on firearms offences will not be allowed. D. The Reform Party supports mandatory training and testing for first time owners prior to obtaining a firearm. E. The Reform Party opposes measures which permit the government to confiscate legally obtained firearms from law-abiding citizens. The Reform Party opposes changes to firearms legislation through Order-in-Council. source: http://www.reform.ca/bluebook/ _________________________________________________________________________ A universal firearms registry is not the answer In 1995, Liberal Justice Minister Alan Rock introduced C-68, a bill which introduced a universal firearms registry. Unfortunately, this will not prevent gun-related crime because criminals simply do not register their firearms. Instead, C-68 will punish the millions of legitimate gun owners in Canada. And cost many millions of dollars to administer. [The Liberal compulsory gun registration plan] "will reduce the number of officers and the amount of money available to deal with serious crime. [It] will make the real task of gun control more difficult and more dangerous for the police officers who undertake it, and those provisions will ultimately have no significant impact on violent crime or the use of firearms by violent criminals. [INLINE] The Honourable Bob Runciman, M.P.P. Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services Government of Ontario Source: Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Thursday, September 21, 1995 We will also: * Provide for lifetime prohibitions on firearm use or ownership for anyone convicted of a violent crime: "One strike, you're out." * Provide for progressively more severe penalties for repeat violent and firearms offenders * Ensure sentences for violent crime and firearm convictions are served consecutively * Increase the penalty for theft of a firearm to a 3 to 14 year sentence * Treat crimes with an imitation gun the same as if the gun were real * Transfer to adult court all young offenders using firearms in the commission of a crime source: http://www.reform.ca/FreshStart/ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #849 **********************************