From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Jun 19 13:32:30 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 #887 Content-Length: 24925 X-Lines: 587 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, June 19 1997 Volume 01 : Number 887 In this issue: Mausers and other Registrations tidbits AOL censoring shooters Jean Charest's new-found interest in gun control The plan to follow. John Fowler urges people to take action. NFA Manitoba's 10 Point Statement - #7 re:Coalition for Gun Control Update Anti-gun lobby and city councils abusing our tax dollars Re: Grandfathered prohibited weapons? Ont. Liberal MPPs outraged ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:08:10 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: Mausers and other Registrations tidbits Regarding Dave's Mauser articles, I have a hand-built single shot rifle built on a Mauser action. I still have to look but I don't remember any serial number on the receiver. I'm just wondering how they plan to register this rifle? A few years ago I was standing beside a friend shooting a Mauser when the case separated and we were both showered with hot gas and unburnt powder. I was wearing glasses but he wasn't and came fairly close to losing an eye. If the Mauser bolts are vented then how come we got peppered with "shrapnel"? I was standing to his right so stuff came out both sides of the bolt. I had an interesting experience involving the local police yesterday. A few years ago I wrote to FRAS to sort out a few inconsistencies in my registration certificates. When they finally got around to asking me to bring in the guns, the local firearms guy "issued" a verbal permit to transport the weapons to his location. I'm fairly confident this is not legal but it was the fastest way to get it over with, without having to take two hours off work. The guy inspected my firearms and basically changed none of the problems with my certificates because in his words they were not "significant enough to bother with." After all who cares if the registration certificates are correct......FRAS certainly doesn't. After which I walked out onto the street with 5 restricted weapons (including a CA and a prohibited weapon) and no permit to transport. I figured if I got stopped by a cop I would just refer them to the firearms guy who had done the inspection. I know Albertans are more accepting of guns than the PRBC (People's Republic of BC :)) but I didn't know just how much. Peter Cronhelm Black and Green, Carbon Fibre Racing Machine SBKracer In parts at the moment but soon to race again. "I'm not the man you say I am, not radical nor mentally deranged." - -Sons of Freedom- "Without the threat of death, what's the point in living at all!" - -Marilyn Manson- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:18:14 -0600 From: margus@interlog.com (Margus Jukkum) Subject: AOL censoring shooters Like many on-line shooters I subscribe to a number of newsgroups that deal with different aspects of my shooting avocation. One of these newsgroups is the Fullbore List which deals mostly with technical issues related to fullbore rifle shooting. Many of the subscribers to this list are contributors and readers of the American magazine "Precision Shooting." A couple of weeks ago a few of the regulars on the list mysteriously fell quiet. It seems America-On-Line has deemed the list not suitable and has been blocking mail from the Fullbore List to its subscribers who are connected through AOL. The following is an e-mail from the eminent British firearms writer Charles Young who lives in Scotland: "Date: Wed, 18 June 1997 08:45:45 -0400 (EDT) From: CYoung1097@aol.com To: ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au, fullbore@winshop.com.au Subject: Censorship by AOL Dear Ian, I have had a crack at AOL this morning as to why my contact with Fullbore suddenly stopped. I was getting nowhere until the lady asked me the nature of the messages, that is, the general subjects discussed. I told her it was all in connection with fullbore target rifle shooting, and quite abruptly her tone changed. She started going on about "Conditions of Service" department, and made it fairly clear (to me at least) that AOL probably had decided that such a subject should not be transmitted to and fro via the AOL system. This is censorship of the worst kind, and if AOL has indeed taken that decision, it was disgusting in the extreme, and cowardly, that they didn't tell their subscribers what they have done. I was on the phone to them for ten minutes or so to their UK help line 0800 279 7444 I have been left that Conditions of Service people will call me back. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that. I suggest that you send a note of these facts to (a) the 20+ or so AOL subscribers and (b) to all the others world wide, to spread the word that AOL may not be a system free people would want to use. It is bad enough over here that our phones are tapped at will, and mails (including electronic mails) intercepted, but for a commercial outfit such as AOL to take upon itself to censor mails is outrageous. I shall wait to see what response I get from AOL, but frankly I don't think they have the guts to face this. Moreover, as AOL is out of commission most Wednesday mornings (when I need the service most) it may be that the time is ripe for me to change to a better system. Let's try to get ALL the Fullbore AOL users to change at one time if censorship by AOL is the reason for Fullbore being blocked. Charles." This was followed later by another e-mail: "Date: Wed, 18 June 1997 10:58:00 -0400 (EDT) From: CYoung1097@aol.com To: geof@borbar.scotborders.co.uk, fullbore@winshop.com.au, ICAMERON@leigh.winshop.com.au Subject: Re: AOL woes In a message dated 18-06-1997 04:23:29, you write: >For those following the AOL saga, it has become apparent that AOL is >blocking mail from the fullbore-list. AOL has provided me with a work >around that must be implemented by each individual AOL subscriber, which >I have forwarded on to the people concerned. In the meantime I will try to >establish the fullbore-lists bona fides with AOL and have us removed from >their "Blocked Sites List." Dear Fullbore Subscribers, This is addressed principally to USA users of AOL, who are shooters in any shape or form. Please ensure the US-NRA receives a copy. It appears from what I was told today by AOL in UK, that AOL has blocked e-mails to and from the Fullbore list because it is to do with S-H-O-O-T-I-N-G." I think it behooves any shooter using AOL as a server to seriously consider dropping the service and seeking a less interfering and paternalistic server. More Big Brother we don't need! Margus Jukkum, Toronto, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:37:07 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Jean Charest's new-found interest in gun control After reading the Progressive Conservative party's Web page on the topic of gun control, I couldn't help but realize that my initial impression of Jean Charest as being dishonestly opportunistic was on target - so to speak. The Web page lists many of the things that are wrong with the government's firearms laws yet if Mr. Charest believes any of these things, why make these arguments so long after the legislation has passed instead beforehand ? If someone can point me to any press release or Hansard entry made before the election campaign where Mr. Charest voiced these objections, I would be most happy to see them. The page's mission statement reads; "Canada needs gun control legislation that ensures that criminal use of firearms is prevented and punished, one that ensures safe firearm training, usage, storage and transportation. It does not need a law that treats law- abiding gun owners as criminals." (One might ask how dragging good citizens through court on criminal charges for forgetting to install a trigger lock on a rifle benefits anyone but one thing at a time.) The first proposal states that "pistols and handguns" (I thought a pistol WAS a handgun) "be registered with police". Let's ignore the obvious contradict- ion this presents for their arguments against long-gun registration for a moment and ask why the Progressive Conservative party would lay claim to an idea that has been with us for over sixty years ? The next proposal is interesting for a couple of reasons. It states that the "new" law will ban assault rifles and automatic weapons. Again, we wonder why the PC party would lay claim to something that has been in effect for so long. Automatic weapons were banned almost twenty ago (despite the fact that they were never really used in crime). The use of the term "assault rifles" is indeed curious. What is an "assault rifle" ? Is it one of the long list of rifles that was banned under regulations spawned by the Conservative party's own version of C-68, Bill C-17? I know law-abiding people who had firearms confiscated (under threat of prosecution) without compensation because of this. So much for laws that don't treat law-abiding gun owners as criminals. Does the PC party fall victim to the politically correct notion (ironically abbreviated PC) that rifles can be suitably judged on their appearance as they were under C-17 ? Or would they merely follow in the footsteps of the Chretien Liberals - who will ban the Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle because the anti-gun lobby claims it is an assault rifle - a purely symbolic gesture, a sacrificial offering to commemorate the actions of a madman at Ecole Poly- technique in Montreal ? What if a shotgun had been used ? The "good gun /bad gun" reasoning is why Australia has banned millions of hunting rifles and shotguns and why Britain is banning all handguns (including Olympic .22 caliber target guns). And what about my AR-15 ? I had hoped to compete with it one day at the military target matches at Connought. First the Conservatives screwed that up with their magazine capacity regulations under C-17 and now they're telling me they want to ban the rifle altogether. Can someone explain how this is not treating me like a criminal ? I had pretty well figured out that the Progressive Conservative stand on gun control was nothing more than a feeble attempt to plagiarize what they saw as the attractive parts of Liberal and Reform platforms - so none of this really surprised me but the thing that really caught my attention and showed how low the PC's have sunk was the following blatant lie, highlighted within its very own box on the page; o The Reform party does not believe in effective gun control of any kind. I offer the following as only a small part of what Reform has put forth in that regard; >From Reform's June '96 - Policy Resolution Vote Results; ===================================================================== Resolution 8.1 (i.e. Resolution 8 was amended): Resolved that the Reform Party support the addition of the following sub- clauses to our existing policy on 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 the repeal of Bill C-68 and its replacement with a workable and practical alternative which includes severe automatic penalties for those who use firearms in criminal acts. Plea bargaining on firearms offenses 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 Orders-in-Council. Passed: 95% excerpt taken from http://reform.ca/assembly/votes/policy.html ===================================================================== It is bad enough that we had to stomach Mr. Charest calling Preston Manning a bigot for his observation that Quebec politicians can no longer be trusted to properly handle the unity issue but now, for all to see, is proof how dishonest and desperate the Conservatives are. How Mr. Charest could call Preston Manning (and by extension - me) a bigot while his own party was circulating a satirical Reform party membership application (again plagiarized from a well-known "redneck job application" joke) and get away with it, boggles the mind. Although I have several "dead" cars in my yard to save money on parts and avoid Charest's GST, I certainly don't intend on sleeping with any of my cousins any time soon. Maybe Mr. Charest should look inside his own party before tossing the "b" word around). Unlike Mr. Charest, whose concern for law-abiding gun-owners magically appeared at election time, the Reform party has had it's policy on gun control from the outset and it is painfully obvious that any good ideas the PC party might have on this are filched from Reform's platform. Many PC candidates in the election even adopted the "Remember Bill C-68 when you vote" slogan that the gun lobby had championed in support of the Reform party. What many gun owners never realized was that the PC party knew there was no chance of them having to come through on their promise to repeal C-68. I talked to several gun owners who were switching away from Reform because of that promise and because of Charest, Chretien and McDonough's incessant and despicable slandering of Manning during the campaign. It is unfortunate that so many people were taken in by all this but I suspect that, like Mulroney, people will eventually wise up to Charest and the PC party and, come next election, cast them back into the obscurity they deserve. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:50:10 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: The plan to follow. In Cdn-Firearms-Digest #886, Sheldon Clare wrote: >Subject: Plan "C" >Discussions about what to do next are very helpful, but >the Plan "B" option of joining and working within the Liberal >Party is not acceptable or viable to most firearms owners here for >many reasons. [snip] >For discussion here is plan "C": > >1. Continue and expand the networking that arose out of the Langley >and other Symposiums. > >2. Link pro-gun groups together in a unified and cohesive assault >on present and future gun control. [snip] >3. We must be proactive. This issue stills does not have enough >of a profile in many areas to get our message out. > >4. We must be aggressive. Make contact with the media in your >area. [snip] >5. Begin a proactive national advertising campaign about the >very real civil liberties problems that gun control and other >people control bills create. > >6. Bluntly educate, politicians about the very real long term >effects of "gun control. [snip] >7. Encourage passive resistance as a legitimate form of non-compliance. > >Many of these steps are already being taken in some areas, but the >success of this requires more co-ordination. > >The fight for the next election began on June 3rd! > >S. Clare I couldn’t agree more. This is precisely what needs to be done - while what has been done to date (including efforts by NFA and OHA - and those now underway by AFGA) has been worthwhile, it is now time for us all to shift gears. The above proposal is great - we should all download, print, distribute and follow carefully - especially our organizations. EVERYTHING any of us do for the cause should be in support of this outline. Walk softly and join Reform You TOO can speak for Canada! John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/#Stock Photograph Library ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:58:46 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: John Fowler urges people to take action. In C.F.D #886, Larry Whitmore wrote: >Coalition for Gun Control Update > >Further to the request by the Coalition for $100,000 from the City of >Toronto. The Executive Committee has passed a motion to grant Wendy >the sum of $50,000 to offset Clayton Ruby's 'free' legal expenses. This >motion will have to be passed by the full City Council at the June 23/24 >meeting. > >Larry Whitmore >Executive Manager - Ontario Handgun Association >Director - Shooting Federation of Canada [snip] Larry - why isn't every gun owner in the Megcity on the phone, fax and snail mail to every single councilor today? What are you waiting for? Walk softly and join Reform You TOO can speak for Canada! John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/#Stock Photograph Library ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 23:05:54 -0600 From: John Bauer Subject: NFA Manitoba's 10 Point Statement - #7 NFA MANITOBA'S 10 POINT STATEMENT - #7: The NFA and the GUN LOBBY intend to be involved in provincial and federal politics for many years to come. Our next move may be to field and support several candidates in the next Manitoba provincial election ex- pected in 1999. Candidates may be encouraged to run for old line parties or as independents with the entire decision resting on the outcome of the constitutional chall- enge of Bill C-68. End of point #7. It is anticipated that Gary Filmon will win a fourth term in office but under a minority government situation. Therefore, our candidates will run wher- ever the invitation is open to hold and influence the balance of power in the next legislature and Government of Manitoba. Stay tuned for NFA Manitoba's point #6 coming soon. J.Bauer President NFA Manitoba National NFA Director JB: - --WAA52216.866691097/top.MTS.Net-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:43:43 -0600 From: "Ted Carron" Subject: re:Coalition for Gun Control Update Gentlemen, The information in the following snippet from Larry Whitmore should be brought to the attention of; 1 - the Honourable M. D. Harris, Premier of Ontario. This should be of interest to him because the Ontario Govt. is backing the challenge to C-68. As the Ontario Govt. also distributes funds etc. to the Municipalities, they could perhaps directly reduce future funds by the exact amount that are given to the CfGC. All in all, I don't think that they will appreciate any Ontario municipalities opposing them in court on this issue. 2 - the representative from the battered women's shelter. They should be really upset over this two faced political correctness of the city council. Regards Ted ....snip .... > Further to the request by the Coalition for $100,000 from the City of >Toronto. The Executive Committee has passed a motion to grant Wendy >the sum of $50,000 to offset Clayton Ruby's 'free' legal expenses. > This motion will have to be passed by the full City Council at the > > June 23/24 meeting. They also want to send a request to all Canadian > municipalities over 100,000 to donate as well. > > Last week on the news, there was a desperate plea from a battered >women's shelter in Toronto for $30,000 to keep their doors open. They >had been told that there was no funding available. Now the City wants >to waste $50,000 of tax money defending federal government legislation >in another province. ... snip ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:54:03 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Anti-gun lobby and city councils abusing our tax dollars The provincial governments for several provinces have initiated a court challenge against the federal government's ill-conceived firearms legislation, formerly known as Bill C-68. Several groups, both supporting and opposing C-68, have been granted intervenor status in these proceedings. Among them are the Coalition for Gun Control and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who have been working hand in hand to push this bill and to thwart the constitutional challenge. While anti-C68 groups are receiving donations from affected individuals to support their challenge, the Coalition has been using donations from city councils and police services boards to fund theirs. Aside from the obvious impropriety in allowing public money to fund a special-interest group, there is a question as to the incestuous relationship between the special-interest groups and these municipal boards since many of them have a police chief as a chair or as an influential figure in council. The Coalition recently made a request for $100,000 from the City of Toronto. The Executive Committee has passed a motion to grant them a total of $50,000 to offset lawyer Clayton Ruby's legal expenses (despite Mr. Ruby's public statement that this was for free). This motion goes before full City Council at a June 23/24 meeting. The Coalition also intends to send a request to all Canadian municipalities with populations over 100,000 to donate as well. Last week in the news, there was a desperate plea from a battered women’s shelter in Toronto for $30,000 to keep their doors open. They had been told that there was no funding available. Now the City wants to waste $50,000 of tax money defending federal government legislation in another province. Should our tax money be going toward special-interest groups or to those in the community who need it ? The Coalition has succeeded in getting a couple of $10,000 donations from Ottawa's police Chief Brian Ford while the same police services board refused requests to fund additional school crossing guards. As a firearms owner who has spent several hundred dollars and hundreds of hours of my time fighting this wasteful legislation, I am outraged to discover that the special-interest group who created this mess in the first place, gets to use my own money against me. This kind of funding has got to stop. It is immoral, improper and especially questionable at a time when municipalities are being forced to ax valuable social programs. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:09:37 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Grandfathered prohibited weapons? >I have a "grandfathered" prohibited weapon that I no longer wish to >own. I do not want to take a complete loss on the gun and give it away >to be destroyed. What can I do? Can I sell it? If I can sell it, how >can I do so within the boundaries of the law? I cannot answer you with this information as is. The rules differ for different guns, and I do not know what yours is. Data that I need: Make, model, calibre, semi-auto/full auto/manually operated, formerly full auto but never registered as such, formerly full auto and formerly registered as such, etc. Dave... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 13:14:08 -0600 From: damiank@repo-dev.ml.com (Damian R. Kanarek) Subject: Ont. Liberal MPPs outraged This is from today's Globe site: Doesn't it sound a bit like the OIC mechanism? Liberal MPPs don't want to give a provincial government the same ability which their federal cousins use to their full advantage. Damian - ---------------------------------------------------- Liberal MPPs walked out of the legislature yesterday to protest against proposed changes to rules that both opposition parties warn would enable the Progressive Conservative government to push legislation through without the public even having time to notice it. [ ... ] Groups facing controversial legislation -- from taxpayers in Metro Toronto, to members of unions, to parents with children in school, to tenants under rent control -- could find they had been hit by major changes in legislation that the media had had little or no chance to publicize, NDP House Leader Bud Wildman said. [ ... ] Mr. Wildman said that "the public wouldn't know about controversial legislation, wouldn't hear about it, it could be all done" before those affected by legislation understood its ramifications. "That's not what democracy is about. . . . A democracy means that government must listen to the people, must inform them and must ask them for their input. And these rules make that impossible." [ geeze - really? Wouldn't think that looking at the way C-68 was passed ;-) - damian ] - -- Damian R. Kanarek (damiank@ml.com) if( OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT ) The author takes no responsibility for this msg. \ Any resemblance to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidental. \ - The Management ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #887 **********************************