From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Fri Jun 27 15:19:12 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 #895 Content-Length: 27664 X-Lines: 661 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, June 27 1997 Volume 01 : Number 895 In this issue: Difficult Identification and How To Register. re: NEW LIST: cdn-firearms-chat Re: Crossbows vets Re: if it saves just one life. Toronto the Red. Re: Freedom of Speech Under Fire Letter to the Editor Re: Registering Guns Re: NFA meeting with Canadian Firearms Centre Re: Short Glocks. C-68 Ontario Caliber Restrictions? [1/2] POWER GRAB: Fundamental principles of democracy being violated [2/2] POWER GRAB: Fundamental principles of democracy being violated ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:10:47 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Difficult Identification and How To Register. [The question itself came from: D. Kratky, . In the interest of efficiency, I took the liberty of sending it to David A. Tomlinson for his expertise. Dave’s timely replies have always benefited those seeking accurate information about our Byzantine Canadian gun laws. On behalf of the C.F.D readership, I would also like to take the opportunity here to thank Dave for the way that he always makes himself available to answer a query. -moderator C.F.D.] >>How would one register these guns: >> >>Large semi-automatic rifle. Arabic letter and serial numbers. >>The importer (Thru USA) has also had to inscribe a serial number >>(Likely just something made up, since the importers name is not on the >>gun.) scratched into the receiver. Part of that serial number has worn. >>I looked it up, and the thing is an Egyptian Hakim. Not sure of the >>factory made in. Serial number etc, I think I'll need a translator for. Strip it down as far as you can toward "naked receiver" status, then apply for registration as "Make: UNKNOWN, Model: UNKNOWN, Manu- facturer: UNKNOWN, Type: RI, Action: SA, Calibre: UNKNOWN, Shots: UNKNOWN, Barrel length (as measured, from muzzle to breech face -- drop a rod down it, mark the rod at the muzzle, then measure to the mark), Serial number: UNKNOWN (unless you are CERTAIN that IS the Serial number, and NOT a part number, assembly number, unit number or patent number)." >>Chinese AK-47. (Semi) - Serial number appears to be on the outside of >>the chamber. Looking at this gun, it'd be VERY simple to remove the >>barrel... No serial #'s on the receiver..... See above. >>Lithgow FN-FAL - Two serial #'s!! One on the upper receiver, one on >>the lower....... Also, calibre is marked as 7.62x51N and on the other >>receiver as .308REM (Obviously that one was added later.) See above... Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Hey, they want accurate data, don't they? Well let THEM figure out what it is... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:21:07 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: re: NEW LIST: cdn-firearms-chat In case I made a typo in the first message, here are the instructions again. To subscribe to the cdn-firearms-chat list, don't reply to this message. Instead, e-mail the following 2 lines to majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca subscribe cdn-firearms-chat end ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:21:22 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Crossbows >I have a 150 pound crossbow in my arms collection. No serial number. >No factory of manufacturer. Thing has a coated aluminum stock. How >the h*** is the gov't going to register this? It does not require registration. >To safely store it, do I have to destring it? Do I have to keep my spare >bolts and broadheads locked up with my ammunition? Those regulations have not yet been disclosed to us. >Also, what is the status of compound bows Unrestricted in any way >and "pistol" crossbows? So "dangerous" that they cannot be owned by anyone. Dave Tomlinson, NFA [Gee...I feel safer already! Thanks Ottawa; I was really losing sleep over the possibility of being mugged downtown by someone brandishing a 'pistol' crossbow! -moderator] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:30:55 -0600 From: dwarner@sympatico.ca (Dave Warner) Subject: vets cs> Andrew Warner wrote in C.F.D No. 890 : cs> Subject: Bill C-68. cs> On another serious note : I'm a veteran of W.W.II, having joined at cs> the tender age of 17 years. I am now 70 years old, and can vividly cs> remember the Canadian government rhetoric of the time imploring cs> young men to join the armed forces to put a stop to the dictatorship of cs> the evil that the Nazis were forcing on the world. Among some of that cs> evil that had been a requirement of the Nazi Party when they assumed cs> power was that ALL handguns in Germany MUST cs> be registered. They later confiscated all those guns. Only the men cs> in power, and of course, the armies, were allowed to handle guns. cs> When Hitler began his move of conquering other countries, all guns cs> that had been in the hands of the conquered peoples were seized cs> when possible. cs> Bill C-68 reminds of that time in my life, when all the free world cs> was touting freedom from oppression. This has always amazed me - I realize that the youth of today, and maybe the generations born after the War, seem to view the reality of the War years as if it were some sort of fictional story like Star Wars.... but why have you vets (and particularly the vets still around and members of the Canadian Legion, and family members associated with the Legion) not taken a stand on these firearms issues and the incursions into our freedoms ???? is the Legion, like the OFAH, afraid of losing status as a charitable organization? if so, I say "Shame On You" - you and your families have shed blood and given the ultimate sacrifice to try to preserve these freedoms for their children - us! the image of the Legion would be much enhanced by some backbone in this area! Dave dwarner@sympatico.ca (PGP key upon request) - --- timEd/2 1.10+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:00:20 -0600 From: dons@Cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Re: if it saves just one life. Another interesting point in this case is that according to the Ottawa Citizen "... because of the shooting, police found that Mr. Morrow was improperly storing ammunition, so he is prohibited from possessing firearms for 10 years." So Morrow shoots a guy who is apparently intent on killing him and they take away his right to have firearms! The guy who he shot was a member of the Outlaws bike gang. I'm sure they would never seek revenge. I don't know how he was storing everything but it's possible that if he did store his ammunition properly he might be dead now. To me that's the whole problem with safe storage - it takes the common sense out of safety. Who's to say what a person thinks is the most dangerous thing they face and in that light what the proper way to store things are. Don ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:08:26 -0600 From: Frank MacKay Subject: Toronto the Red. At an Ontario Arms Collector's Association gun show on June 22, leaflets were mass distributed by the Ontario Handgun Association urging law abiding firearms owners to communicate their outrage to Toronto city council over the proposal to give Wendy Kookier $100,000 to further her totalitarian private agenda. As the vote was to be held on Monday morning, this effort was conducted much too late. Never the less, I composed a long e-mail message and sent it to Mayor Barbara Hall and the councilors of all 16 wards. I subsequently learned that the shower of leftist fat cats had unilaterally decided to squander the taxpayer's money without any mandate or authorization whatsoever. I think it would be highly appropriate that these buffoons be told exactly what they are and just what a silly, bush league city this really is. I'm a Hog Town boy, born and bred. It is not an easy thing for me to say, but I'm fast beginning to believe that my city is becoming a mill stone around this country's neck politically, culturally and morally. e-mail can be sent to: mayor@city.toronto.on.ca ward_01@city.toronto.on.ca ward_02@city.toronto.on.ca ward_03@city.toronto.on.ca (goes on to) ward_16@city.toronto.on.ca >-------------------------------> | Frank MacKay | | AO566@Freenet.Toronto.On.Ca | <-------------------------------< ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:29:46 -0600 From: dons@Cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech Under Fire >> In fact the only guaranteed rights we do have are to freedom of >> religion (and even now Big Brother has that under the micro- >> scope!); and the right of a trial by jury - no right to legal defence >> mind you, just a jury WHEN they take you to court. > >Didn't I read in the paper awhile back that Britain was thinking >about taking away the right to a trial by jury and only allowing >a trial by judge?? > >Don't matter if they did, I can see it coming... > >They'll say that a jury can't really understand the fine points >of the law, that only a judge can do that and then further >down the road they'll say they're really sorry but: > > "Some animals are more equal then others." > >It ain't just freedom of speech that's under fire. > >Don [When asked, Mr. Shesnicky proceeded to elaborate a bit on how all this would affect gun owners. -M. Swierzy, moderator.] The reason that I [posted this commentary] is that we are loosing our firearms rights. Loosing our right to a trial by jury can lead to judges, who I sometimes doubt are impartial, nailing our hides to a wall when a jury would not. There was a posting sometime ago about how a jury can set someone free even when they know he is guilty because they do not like the law. That was running through my mind when I wrote the post. Don ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 18:40:28 -0600 From: Cdnguns@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Cdnguns) Subject: Letter to the Editor The following was published as a letter to the editor in the St. Catharines Standard today(June 26). It was written in response to a front page story on Judge Gowan's speech during the sentencing of a youth convicted of manslaughter using a stolen firearm. The original story appeared in the June 19 edition of the Standard. Thursday 06-19-97 It is unfortunate to see a Provincial Court Judge demonstrating publicly his ignorance of the legal concept of responsibility. He also is apparently ignorant of the concept of treaty obligations. Mr. Gowan believes that "only police officers should be allowed to have guns in Canada". He calls gun-owners dangerous since their hobby is an invitation for *other* criminal elements to steal..." Is Mr. Gowan (Sorry no honorific for someone that displays such ignorance of basic tenets of their profession) saying that gun-owners are a criminal class? I am certain that he is aware that he is slandering thousands of people who do not have criminal records nor have ever engaged in criminal activities. I am equally certain that the members of the Canadian Olympic Shooting Team would be surprised to think that a political appointee believes that they are criminals. Perhaps Mr. Gowan slept through the part of law school that teaches that the person who engages in a criminal act (theft) bears responsibility for damages that occur as a result of his actions. Should not the responsibility for the death in this case, lie with the person who stole the firearm, and the person who pulled the trigger? Yes, a unsafely [sic] stored firearm is against the law, as is possessing a stolen firearm. However, Mr. Gowan seems to imply that ALL gun-owners are guilty of this. If he is going to make irresponsible statements such as he made during a recent sentencing hearing, perhaps he could name specific gun-owners that he considers criminals. Then those named could have legal recourse. It is very easy to make blanket statements, it is also very irres- ponsible. Consider this.... since many stolen cars end up being involved in fatal accidents, car owners who fail to store their cars in a safe storage area are criminals since many criminals want those cars. On this basis, more cars are stolen than guns and more people killed as a result of stolen vehicles than are killed with firearms, perhaps Mr. Gowan believes that only police should have motor vehicles in Canada? In the future, when Mr. Gowan makes another sermon from the bench, he should consider using facts, logic and not rely on emotional rhetoric. If his use of emotionalism is indicative of his judicial rulings, perhaps he should consider doing the honorable thing and resign his position on the bench and take up a career as a talk show host. The Rational Anarchist HomePage at: http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html A Principled Approach to Liberty ... Guns don't murder people, criminals murder people. ___ - -- | Fidonet: Cdnguns 350:2/100.1 | Internet: Cdnguns@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com >>>[Gated by the ClasLibNet Gateway, The Network of Liberty]<<< ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:44:18 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: Registering Guns >in Canada has any more of those 6 rounders for their rifles. Another >question I have: Did the FRAS computer automatically set all registered >rifles' "shots" to 5 on the day C-17 came into effect? snip When I had new certificates issued after C-17, any firearms that had an 'evil' high capacity magazine, were left blank. i.e. Before C-17, my hi-power was registered as 13 rounds, and afterwards it apparently doesn't have a magazine capacity. - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:46:56 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: NFA meeting with Canadian Firearms Centre >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. WHAT!!?!?!??! (Ok, I'm not really surprised, but I'm getting more annoyed....) - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:51:12 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: 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. (should he) >> >Can 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. :) The Glock 19 is the original Glock 9mm pistol; I believe the barrel is 3.75", but it may be 4.25" The Glock 17 is basically the same pistol with a longer barrel. Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:55:43 -0600 From: Andrew Warner Subject: C-68 The question of the day ...... Are the governments of our so-called "free society" becoming alarmed that its citizens, or those that wish to, have free access to GUNS that were not previously registered? Are they running scared that the average law- abiding people of the country are going to rise up in rebellion ? Does the rise of armed militia, out of the control of government, scare them so much that they have to take such oppressive action as bill C-68. The militia may be newsworthy in the USA, but is it the case for England, Australia, Canada ? Note that the government of Ontario has officially joined Alberta in the fight AGAINST C-68. There may be some politics involved, but the reasoning for this action is basically sound and just. I fully agree that the fight against C-68 MUST be fought from the inside, for dependence on votes is obviously NOT the answer, as a great number of Ontario voters so blatantly displayed in the recent federal election. It certainly disgusted me, an Ontario resident. Never before have I joined a political party, but that is about to change. Now I will fight the good fight from within. My small voice joined by many more can become a scary thing for any party. Did you ever give pause and think that 'Rock' may become the next Liberal leader, after Chretien steps down ? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:59:34 -0600 From: Ian Dummigan Subject: Ontario Caliber Restrictions? Could someone please verify if there is a caliber restriction in southern Ontario because I read somewhere that it is illegal to hunt with anything larger than .277 bore, is this true? If so, would a .270 Weatherby Mag be legal, or is there a limit on muzzle energy too? Thanks for any help. Please respond to isd@superiway.net Ian Dummigan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:58:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: [1/2] POWER GRAB: Fundamental principles of democracy being violated POWER GRAB: Fundamental principles of democracy being violated by Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) April 25, 1997 "This Liberal administration has taken to passing more and more laws that govern by delegating everything to the regulations. Parliament is moving closer to irrelevancy one bill at a time." With this one statement, Karen Selick, a lawyer in Belleville, Ontario, confirmed a nagging suspicion of mine. That was last December. I immediately started investigating further. Newspaper headlines told the alarming truth and the articles themselves explained how Parliament is being bypassed. . Hill Times (May 18, 1995) "Shaking the foundations of Parliamentary democracy" . Ottawa Citizen (March 3, 1997) "The ultimate emasculation of parliamentary power." . Ottawa Citizen (April 6, 1997) "Amassing power, one rule at a time - Jungle of regulations gives cabinet vast powers over Canadians' lives." . Western Report (March 3, 1997) "The malignant dictatorship - Freedom and justice are threatened by an increasingly despotic Liberal attitude and an aggressive bureaucracy" . Canadian Lawyer (February 1997) "Flavour of the Month: Easy-bake regulations" I first became aware of the "power-grab" problem during my review of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. Passage of this bill effectively gave the Justice Minister authority, through the Governor in Council, to ban any firearm which, in his opinion, is not reasonable for hunting and sporting purposes. Even the Liberal-dominated Standing Committee on Justice opposed giving so much power to one minister. Allan Rock's new power is so absolute that it is immune to parliamentary and judicial review. Not even the Supreme Court of Canada can overturn someone's opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. The Justice Minister didn't take long to test his new power-tool. He banned 58% of the one million legally-owned handguns and thousands of semi-automatic hunting rifles - not because he had evidence to show how unsafe they are, but just because he personally considers them dangerous. On March 10, 1997, Allan Rock showed his disdain for property rights, and confirmed his personal opinions are paramount when, in a letter to a firearm owner, he wrote, "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." Allan Rock and his elite cadre of bureaucrats did not limit themselves to the power to ban firearms and confiscate them without compensation. Bill C-68 allows the Minister of Justice to make firearm regulations without Parliamentary review if the regulations in his opinion (there's that term again) are "immaterial", "insubstantial," or "urgent." What if the Justice Minister's opinion about what is "immaterial", "insubstantial" or "urgent" differs from that of Parliament or the people? Too late - Bill C-68 is now the law of the land. I was so concerned about what the government was doing, I asked the Law and Government Division of the Library of Parliament Research Branch to see if there was a dangerous pattern developing. They confirmed my worst fears. With only enough time to examine just six bills the lawyers were able to identify and provide a number of examples of the methods the government is using to bypass Parliament and the people including: . restrictions to the scrutiny of regulations by Parliament . increasing authority and discretion being delegated to ministers and bureaucrats . allowing ministers unlimited authority to establish guidelines and set fees . the sheer number and complexity of the regulations . use of "skeleton" or framework Acts to pass as yet unknown regulations . public not properly informed of the regulations being passed . combined effects of all these measures and "regulatory creep" Here are some revealing excerpts from this ground-breaking research: [cont'd in part 2] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:58:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: [2/2] POWER GRAB: Fundamental principles of democracy being violated [cont'd from part 1] C-25, the Regulations Act: "Under the proposed section 5(1), the Governor in Council [basically the Minister in charge with support of Cabinet] could, by regulation, exempt regulations from the regulatory process. While the Governor in Council is directed to exercise the powers under this section in accord with the principles of legality, accessibility and government accountability, there is no review mechanism to ensure that this has occurred. Secondly, the definition about what is automatically referred to the Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations has been narrowed." C-22, the Pearson International Agreements Act: "The Canadian Bar Association, in a brief submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, opined that there were two specific grounds on which Bill C-22 infringed on the rule of law: by denying access to the courts and by conferring on the Minister a subjective discretion to compensate [or not] for expropriation." C-41, the Divorce Act: "Thus Bill C-41, amending the Divorce Act, provides that the Governor in Council may establish guidelines respecting the making of orders for child support, including, for example `the determination of income for the purposes of application of the guidelines'. Bill C-41 seems to be a clear instance of a regulatory provision replacing a legislative test. Another example of a relatively new mechanism delegating authority that can significantly impact the public is a Ministerial power to set fees for the recovery of costs." C-68, the Firearms Act: "Section 117, which describes the regulation-making power, extends for over four pages. While the individual regulatory powers may not be excessive [even though many agree they are], the sheer volume of regulatory authority can make it extremely difficult for Parliamentary bodies to envisage the final scope of the Act, or for members of the public to understand how the legislation may impact on them. Aside from the formal regulation-making powers, a number of sections confer discretionary authority on the Chief Firearms Officer. The combined effect of these sections is to invest the Chief Firearms Officer with an extremely large, if not unprecedented, degree of discretion." Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act: "The regulation-making power delegated by the Act is sweeping. [Professor Ruth Sullivan, Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa stated] `Under the rule of law, we like everyone to be governed by the same rule. Under this legislation it is open to the Governor in Council to exempt particular persons on a fairly ad hoc basis. This, on the face of it, violates the rule of law, but it is open to Parliament itself to violate common-law rule-of-law principles. We may consider it anti-democratic is some fashion, but it is not illegal.' Mr. Eglington [Ottawa constitutional lawyer Graham Eglington], speaking of Bill C-71[in The Ottawa Citizen - April 6, 1997], argued that `the higher the order of rights involved, the more definitely it should be done by statute and not by regulation.' Because the tobacco regulations will affect a fundamental right, freedom of speech, Mr. Eglington felt that they should be the subject of `heated debate, not quiet regulation.' He stated, `The whole idea that regulation should be used to trespass on the rights and liberties of the Queen's subjects is abhorrent.'" Bill C-76, the Drinking Water Safety Act: "Bill C-76 appears to combine the most expansive provisions of both Bill C-68 [the Firearms Act] and Bill C-71 [the Tobacco Act]. As with Bill C-71, an inspector can enter any place, except a dwelling place, without a belief that contravention has occurred and then seize anything related to a contravention of the Act. However, an inspector may also enter a dwelling house without a warrant `if the conditions for obtaining a warrant... exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be feasible to obtain a warrant. [Proposed sections 13 and 26] would seem to imply that the level of enforcement is entirely at Ministerial discretion, since the Minister can apparently designate any number of inspectors and have their actions funded by the cost recovery provisions. The discretion to remit fees might well imply a discretion to set fees at a higher level than the specific inspection or service costs. Bill C-76 illustrates the dangers of an unfettered discretionary authority to make rules. It is particularly unusual in that the broad discretion is not justified by a national health hazard." Are you concerned? I know I am! Opposition parties have no power to stop a majority government from passing bills using these undemocratic power-grab mechanisms. The only solution is to elect politicians who, regardless of the party they represent, will refuse to delegate their parliamentary authority to ministers and bureaucrats over whom they have no control. Governments don't always do what is right or even good. It's up to the people to keep their politicians under control. If you would like a copy of the research paper or have any comments or suggestions, please call, write, fax or e-mail me.: Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Phone: (613) 992-4394 Fax: (613) 992-8676 E-Mail: breitkreuzg@reform.ca =============================================================== source: http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/Reform/19970425.txt ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #895 **********************************