From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Jun 26 17:09:14 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 #894 Content-Length: 26346 X-Lines: 640 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, June 26 1997 Volume 01 : Number 894 In this issue: Prohibited Firearms List. Short Glocks. Are airguns restricted by age? Re: AOL and Shooters Manitoba's 10 Point Statement - #2 RE: If it saves just one life MORE on the 23-24 June NFA - CFC Meeting (Part 1 of 2). MORE on the 23-24 June NFA - CFC Meeting (Part 2 of 2). NEW LIST: cdn-firearms-chat CFC: DPMS AR-15 pump-action Public safety??? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:34:05 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Prohibited Firearms List. > Date: Wed, 25 June 1997 13:47:20 -0600 > From: Moustafa Elqabbany > Subject: Need List of Restricted/Prohibited weapons [snip] I'll see if I can find my list.... I have it somewhere....Here's a few quick ones though: It's prohibited IF: It's based on, or looks like it might be based on a submachine gun. It comes from the factory with a drop down pistol grip. (Semi-auto long arm) (This isn't ALL, but it's a good rule of thumb) It's .50 Calibre (Centre Fire Rifle) It has an under 4.12" barrel (Pistol) It's in .25 or .32 calibre (Pistol) It looks like it might be fun. Regards! D. Kratky Ontario NFA Member AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:41:19 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Short Glocks. > > 1) A friend would like to purchase a Glock Model 19. He has been > >told by the seller that the barrel is less than 4 inches. Can he (should he) > >purchase it or will he lose it when C-68 is in force? I'm not sure if that's one of the new "Mini-Glocks" but if so, Ontario Sporting Supplies in Concord imported some with JUST legal length barrels. They might know where to get more. :) D. Kratky Ontario NFA Member AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 07:57:34 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Are airguns restricted by age? > From: "David A. Tomlinson" > Subject: Re: air guns > At present, a full automatic air gun is neither a "prohibited weapon" nor a > "restricted weapon" if it has a muzzle velocity 500 FPS/152.4 m per sec- > ond, under Criminal Code section 81(2). It is not a "firearm" in CC sec- > tions 93, 97(1) and (3), 102, 104, 105, or 116, but IS a "firearm" in all > other sections. It will be interesting to see what comes of air guns. After all, did not Herr Rock say he was looking into regulations concerning such guns, due to "The potential for personal and property damage."?? Will also be interesting to see what happens with bows. (As a side note, our local police officers informed me that it is illegal in Canada for anyone under the age of 16 to acquire/possess an airgun.... Can someone confirm this one?) Regards! D.Kratky Ontario NFA Member AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:10:22 -0600 From: TSBench@aol.com Subject: Re: AOL and Shooters >The RFC demands a total boycott of AOL. >All users cancel their AOL accounts and connect with >ISPs not implementing censorship. The C.F.D moderator replies: [Although J. Dwyer is not the RFC, I can certainly understand the frustration from past postings here. The call for a boycott might be made much stronger, however, if we could get AOL's version of the story in order to provide a balanced presentation. How about it, J. Dwyer? This would allow AOL users to make a decision based on facts as well as emotion. -M. Swierzy, moderator.] Following is from another list..... AOL has decided to block access to the Fullbore list. The reason >given is that it has to do with the topic of SHOOTING.> It isn't the reason given by the guy who owns the list. I joined the fullbore list yesterday (so much for the theory that E-mail access TO the list is blocked) and have been in communications with the fullbore list owner, Ian Cameron. Ian tells me that the problem is with his listserver, which has been caught in an AOL anti-spam filter, and everything outgoing is being blocked. He says he has no reason to believe it has anything to do with AOL politics. In fact, e-mail TO the list is being handled in a very timely fashion (because AOL isn't anti-spamming its own server) , and that AOL is pro- ducing almost instantaneous access to his fullbore web page (I know this for a fact, it took 4 seconds for AOLs web crawler, or whatever they call it, to access the page (not counting the time to load the full color graphic.) Ian says it's a technical glitch (although glitch may not be the right word, since the filtering was intentional, but not, according to Cameron, due the fact that the list has anything to do with shooting. Ian does complain that AOL is taking its time fixing the problem, (but this seems to be SOP for AOL on any hardware or software problem as many AOLers can attest) Since Ian owns the list, I think I'll take his word for it. Also. AOL appears to be the most shooter friendly of any of the On-Line services, with a tremendous amount of space given to the shooting sports and firearms. The biggest bitch seems to be the AOL doesn't allow WTB or WTS ads in the GunTalk folders, but a lot of folks who use the folders don't want any ads either, since so much information is in GunTalk (100 folders, 30,000 messages) that it is becoming almost impossible to keep up with it. Which goes to show you, once again, not to chalk up to conspiracy that which can be attributed to stupidity (or technical incompetence.) Regards, TSBench [Thank you, TSBench, for providing us with the other side of the story - -M.S., moderator.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:43:05 -0600 From: John Bauer Subject: Manitoba's 10 Point Statement - #2 MANITOBA'S 10 POINT STATEMENT - #2: The NFA and the GUN LOBBY continue to be amazed by the Federal Government's obsession with a national gun registry and a firearms policy which will impact the economy and industry to the tune of $2.76 billion per year. Then add the $137 million, per province cost overrun in the next 5 years and the Liberal Government will add another $1.7 billion to the national debt. End of point #2. J. Bauer President NFA Manitoba National NFA Director JB: PS: Election 97 may have been a greater success than originally thought in view of the razor thin Liberal majority. Stay tuned for more details. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:51:38 -0600 From: "Fred Davis" Subject: RE: If it saves just one life (About the case in Ottawa where a *good* judge throws a ridiculous and outrageous charge out): >>> The complete article is on-line at > http://www.ottawacitizen.com/city/970626/917694.html > >>> Fred > > [If I were cynical, I would guess that Ms. McKinnon's attitude > probably had something to do with her taste for political office > at a future date; she certainly has the correct Liberal attitude > -M. Swierzy, moderator] Just a minor point, I believe you mean Ms. Julianne Parfett, the assistant prosecutor. Mr. Justice Colin McKinnon is the judge who put her in her place. Fred [Oopps....of course you are right. Thanks for taking the time to correct my error -M. Swierzy, moderator] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:09:58 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: MORE on the 23-24 June NFA - CFC Meeting (Part 1 of 2). What IS the CFC? It is a group of people, many of them seconded from "partners" in the firearms control system. There are apparently bodies from the Department of Justice, Solicitor General's office, RCMP, Revenue Canada Customs, and Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. At last count, there were well over a hundred of them, and recruiting is apparently continuing. Most of them are trying to do a job, and to do it well. It is not their fault that they are saddled with legislation that is complex, unclear, and frequently makes no sense at all. The conflict is between our firearms community and the defective legislation, not between individuals on either side. It is necessary to fight the bad legislation, and sometimes to cause grave problems for the people in the CFC in the process of trying to have C-68 replaced with legislation that makes sense. There is very little personal animosity involved on either side. There are problems with respect. Some CFC people appeared to think that any criticism of their efforts by the NFA or others should be taken as a personal attack, but that is bad for progress. The NFA tries hard to stick to the issues -- to deal in facts and precedents. One CFC person was going on and on about methods of "capturing" data as to how many times each shooter attended at the shooting range. We asked why she wanted that information. Her first answer was that the law required it; but we pointed out that the law did no such thing. She then said it was needed to find out if the person should have their license revoked for having guns that they did not use. We pointed out that the data is impossible to get in rural clubs, because shooters are frequently on the range all alone; that whatever rate of attendance is required, that is the rate that will be reported; and that the data she wants says NOTHING about the safety of the individual. We suggested that a simple letter from the Executive of the club, stating that the individual was properly trained and could be trusted to use firearms on the range, unsupervised, provided US with a much higher "comfort level" than the uncheckable rates of attendance she was seeking. She retreated into pointing out that the Chief Firearms Officer had to have it to determine whether or not to revoke each person's license under FA s. 67(2) when the person applies for renewal. Interestingly, FA s. 67(2) does not authorize the CFO to refuse renewal. He merely notifies the Registrar, and the Registrar "shall" revoke the owners' registration certificates when he gets such a report [FA s. 71(1)(b)]. We were also told that throughout the passing of Bill C-68, it was made quite clear that the purpose of the Bill was to reduce the number of firearms held by Canadians. Strange -- I can only recall being told the exact opposite. One section of CFC activity is trying for national standardization, but that seems unlikely. C-68 still uses provincial Chief Firearms Officers, and they have proven to be a major source of "If I didn't invent it, it has no place in MY province!" The egos of CPFOs are a deterrent to national standards. There is a great deal of CFC liaison with "outside" groups, but there is the usual mixture of those who will listen and those who won't listen in CFC. Like everyone else, many of them prefer to bull ahead with their own ideas rather than accept the comment, "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you have your head up your rear end again!" Changing their direction can be HARD. The User Group on Firearms [UGF] is a group of firearms people chosen by the government. It is not allowed to publicize what it considers, what advice it gives the Minister, or what decisions result from its attempts to change the direction of others. That makes it VERY difficult to evaluate. The UGF is, we believe, quite well-meaning. It does not and cannot act as the representative of the firearms community, because the firearms comm- unity had no voice in choosing its members, gets no reports from it, and has no control over the positions it takes. There were two UGF representatives at the meeting, but they were so quiet that we have little idea how they reacted to the NFA's positions and initia- tives. We also have no clear idea what they will do with them. The "firearms license" is to be a plastic card like a credit card, complete with magnetic strip. We raised our concern that large steel objects and magnetic strips do not like each other, our fear that touching a slightly magnetized firearm (most of them are) might "wipe" the data on the license. They said they were also considering using a bar code. We pointed out the provisions of FA s. 56, which says that only one "license" may be issued to any one "individual" and the definition of "business" which says that a "business" is a "person who carries on a business." We had understood that "person" was an "individual," but they say that "person" can be a "corporation." We pointed out that FA s. 108 creates an offence under which a "business" commits an offence if it "possesses ammunition" without a license, and 109 says that the offender can be sent to prison for up to 5 years. How does one put a corporation in prison? This is very messy law. We agreed that it will take several years of litigation to learn what it all means. License applications will be sent, by the applicant, to a central processing point in New Brunswick. The local police are apparently left out of the loop. Your name, address and firearm holdings will apparently be accessible by computer to anyone who has access to CPIC. There was much chatter about "security" and "recording everyone who gains access" but we are left with the gut feeling that information making YOU a target for criminals is going to be far too widely distributed. One object of their endeavors is to cut costs and paperwork, because the present system is strangling itself with excessive costs, excessive paper- work, police budgets being forced to "eat" costs that the government refuses to pay, etc., etc. They said, "The most costly part of the process is the first 75 minutes after the application hits the front counter at a police station." We agree with that assessment. We fail to see how ADDING new information requirements for each registration, huge amounts of largely useless data from gun clubs and dealers, etc., can do anything but INCREASE the problems. End of part 1. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:18:54 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: MORE on the 23-24 June NFA - CFC Meeting (Part 2 of 2). Their concept is that doing things by computers linked directly to the registry system will provide such great time and effort savings that much more information can be demanded without losing all the gains. We find that logic to be doubtful in the extreme. There were just too many CFC groups wanting data from too many sources. We estimate that the losses will exceed the gains, and the system will continue to strangle itself. They apparently believe that taking the "front end" processing out of the police station and installing it (under ex-FRAS people) in New Brunswick will result in "economies of scale." If they were continuing the existing system, with the addition of more computerization, we might agree -- but they are adding requirements for many MORE records, MORE tracking of MORE components of MORE (20,000,000 more!) firearms, and we do not think that the savings are going to be real. There is a drive toward "using the police only for the exceptional cases." That seems to translate as less investigation before issuance of a licensing document in most cases, and concentration of police effort on the "exceptional" cases. It is unclear who decides which case is "exceptional." There is a drive toward improving the training of firearms officers, and making them specialists instead of rotating police officers through the job (city) or making every officer a firearms officer (rural). That might help some of the problems, but we do not believe that the firearms officer will ever become a firearms expert. You have to LIVE in the firearms comm- unity to reach that status, and training just can't do it. Only a VERY small percentage of firearms community members EVER become broad-gauge firearms experts, although many more THINK they are firearms experts. The plan is to check each "license" application for completeness, enter the data from the application into the computer, scan the photo and signature into the computer, then screen the applicant electronically for criminal record, etc., hoping to pick out the bad apples. >From our experience with data bases, we question whether electronic scanning will always pick up, particularly where spellings change. They expect that the central processing office will send 16 per cent back for investigation by the province, and 6 to 8 per cent to the police. With over 20 times the number of firearms and owners being added to the system (long arms), that "lower" rate of provincial and police involvement does not look lower to us. 16 per cent of a very large number is a large number. Registration is to be done without "eyeball" verification that the firearm is what the application SAYS it is. That guarantees that much of the "first wave" of registration will be riddled with errors, or will be rejected. Rejects are to be subjected to "eyeball" identification, at high cost. Where a person fills in an application that says "Make: Unknown" and "Model: Unknown" it will apparently have to be brought in for exam- ination, at high cost to both government and owner. There is little appreciation, in either FRAS or the CFC, of how few people in Canada can "uniquely identify" a wide range of firearms on sight. Most "experts" are experts only within a very narrow field. One cannot expect a Colt collector to be able to identify every Ruger or Mauser variant, and the alternative is comparing the firearm to a series of books -- very time consuming and VERY costly. We are pessimistic about their plans here. "Eyeball" verification that the registered firearm is what the plastic says it is will apparently take place: 1. When the firearm is rejected from first try at registration. 2. Every time the firearm is transferred after it is registered. 3. Every time the Inspector comes to your home to look at it. 4. Every time the police see it (e.g., at shooting range spot checks). 5. On import or export, including for repair. 6. At any "other CFRS regulatory event" (e.g., at gun shows). 7. At any CPIC event (e.g., lost and recovered). There is a tremendous amount of work being done on training stuff. We hope that they are doing a better job that was done on the very bad Canadian Firearms Safety Training Course and the videos that Justice sent out to police forces explaining how to deactivate a firearm -- but we are only told that the work is in progress. We will have to wait to see what is in it. There will be a new "500-page" manual for firearms officers, but it is unclear whether or not it will suffer from the crippling problems the National Firearms Manual [NFM] had. The NFM was revised, on average, once every 28 days over a period of 28 years, whether any laws changed or not. The purpose of the NFM was to make sure everyone ran the system the same way -- but the constant changes -- plus allowing Chief Provincial Firearms Officers to insert pages that contradicted national standards -- rendered it largely useless. It was merely a cottage industry, providing employment for a few officers. The most alarming thing we were told was that "explanatory" pamphlets; books and manuals will be prepared and distributed in every direction. We have seen far too many items already that are riddled with errors, omissions and dubious interpretations of legal points to welcome that information. There is a strong drive toward "countering misinformation" -- but it has been our experience that much of that "misinformation" is true, or proves to be true later, while statements issued to "counter misinformation" turn out to be false. We found that our interpretations of the laws often differed sharply from theirs, and there was some unwillingness to even investigate the possibility that we might be right. To be fair, several people did take notes on our interpretations, saying that they would ask for a new assessment from the government's lawyers. We pointed out that we have won many court cases by using our interpretations, and they have lost many by using theirs. We supplied them with our analysis of the errors in the standard Customs pamphlet on entry into Canada with firearms. It is sadly defective. Their number is: 1-800-731-4000 Their email address is: canadian.firearms@justice.X400.gc.ca Their website is> http://canada.justice.gc.ca More to come. Dave Tomlinson, NFA END. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:55:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: NEW LIST: cdn-firearms-chat To subscribe to cdn-firearms-chat, leave the "Subject:" line blank and e-mail the following 2 lines to"majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca subscribe cdn-firearms-chat end After you confirm your subscription, you will receive an "intro" message which will give you information specific to the cdn-firearms-chat list. The purpose of the cdn-firearms-chat electronic mailing list is to allow a wider range of topics than is allowed on the other moderated cdn-firearms lists (although discussions should still be somehow related to firearm ownership/use in Canada). The cdn-firearms-chat list is _not_ moderated, but "flaming" will not be tolerated. Posters must be respectful and civil toward others or they may be unsubscribed and banned from the list. If you disagree with someone, please do so politely. The cdn-firearms-chat list not archived and there is no digest format. PLEASE NOTE: I will not be adding current digest subscribers to the cdn-firearms-chat list. If you wish to subscribe, you need to follow the instructions above. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:44:09 -0600 From: dons@Cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: CFC: DPMS AR-15 pump-action I guess we can add "pump-action" to the definition of an assault rifle ... Don With regards to my question to the CFC about the status of the DPMS pump-action AR-15: - ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From Canadian.Firearms@justice.x400.gc.ca Thursday June 26, 1997 To: "Don Shesnicky" Subject: AR-15 Pump Dear Sir: Thank you for your question with respect to an AR-15 Pump rifle. I contacted the RCMP in order to obtain an answer to your question. I was advised that the rifle you describe is "restricted" by Order in Council. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the order, it would fall under the category of those which are variants or modified versions of the M-16. I hope this answers your question. Please do not hesitate to contact us again in the future should you have any further questions. Yours truly, Kathleen Roussel Communications Group Canadian Firearms Centre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:49:43 -0600 From: Karen & Jerrold Lundgard Subject: Public safety??? >Are you aware that : Sometime after November 1997 you will not be able >to obtain a transport permit to take your FN (L1A1 or C1 type) to any >range!! By doing this the feds have effectively ended military matches >in most forms and rendered your property completely worthless. Gun >clubs will be required, (so that they may stay in business) to supply >your name, date of birth and firearms licence number to the Chief >Firearms Officer, in order to be granted a federal licence. This doesn't seem to have much to do with public safety at all but more finding out who is avoiding getting a possession license and not registering firearms. Kind of a 'big brother' double check. You can bet if you buy a supporting membership of a gun club there will be someone coming to "inspect" for guns, even if you don't have any. A large number of gun clubs with ranges depend on volunteers to keep them open. A new, ongoing, paperwork system will be added work for the volunteers and increased expense for the club. Not to mention if there is an error, omission, or discrepancy in the paperwork, the gun club may be shut down... This is a way of making gun clubs part of the 'big brother' system of gun control. If you cannot shoot that FN, then why should you have it?? >If you are a member of the club......they will also be forced to .... >report how many times you used the range, so that they (the faceless >feds) can assess whether or not you should be permitted to keep your >guns!!! Their rationale is that anyone can claim to be a target shooter >or collector, so now us evil gun owners have to prove we are actually >doing what we stated..... How many lives will this one save? These regulations, if put into effect, will not make Canada a safer country to live in. They will make Canada a very miserable place for gun owners who shoot at club and public ranges. And it will stop the people who didn't register from buying Gun club memberships. Some gun clubs may fold. >The legislation is wide open to abuse by firearms registrars and the police, >and of course Customs. Hey, collector.... you didn't buy a gun for two >years... so you aren't one... Over the years I have owned firearms, I have met several RCMP officers who were of the opinion no one should own guns. These people were very difficult to deal with in any matters regarding registration or transport permits. Some were aggressive and very abusive - all gave information which was their opinion and was contrary to the criminal code. I regret not taking notes. The current, and previous, federal governments have had ample oppor- tunity to consult with, and use the information available from organized provincial and national shooting associations, to create firearms legislation which was effective and reasonable. They did not do this. Now they have enacted legislation which very few firearms owners support and will be very difficult to enforce. Peace River, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #894 **********************************