From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Jul 24 19:44:21 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 #919 Content-Length: 24113 X-Lines: 577 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, July 24 1997 Volume 01 : Number 919 In this issue: Re: Inspection powers RE: Waterman report on firearm registration in Australia Uttering A Forged Document Be Part of the Solution, "JOIN OPERATION EDUCATION." Re: Article from Ottawa Citizen Re: Automation of pattern re:Automating Shotgun Patterning Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" Re: Ontario NFA Plates The Ten Most Powerful Two Letter Words We Must Burn Into Memory Inspections, Searches, Policies, Legal Wording, etc. "Unintended Consequences" Review ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 07:31:31 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Inspection powers > Kathleen Roussel of the Canadian Firearms Centre said in CFD #916 > The Firearms Act reads: > 102.(1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with > this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter > and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a > business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place One must wonder if this means our public defenders can enter and ransack... Er... I mean "Inspect" my computer business at will.. After all, they don't just believe there's a business going on.. THEY KNOW!!!!! And hey, being a dangerous, nasty, evil, maniacal, god-only-knows-what-he-might-do-next military rifle collector type, I might have my arsenal stored there. - -- Dave Kratky Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:37 -0600 From: "Fred Davis" Subject: RE: Waterman report on firearm registration in Australia ANOTHER pro-gun (anti C68, anti registration) editorial by the Ottawa Citizen! Article starts off: "Gun registration does not work." This article is a must read! There are mentions of similarities to experiences in New Zealand, Australia (specifically Victoria, where the Chief Inspector and Registrar of Firearms of the Victoria Police recommended abolishing both the registry and his job in 1987) and also the UK, where gun registration has become gun control (ie. registration leads to confiscation). BTW, I'd like to thank our Aussie friends for the continued most interesting posts. Keep up the good work! Point your favorite browser to: Fred ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:37 -0600 From: "Warren Gaebel, B.A., B.C.S." Subject: Uttering A Forged Document - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 05:12:25 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: The Halton Witch Hunt [Part 2 of 2] >>If you are, or know, a victim of the HRP witch hunt, you need the following >>information: >>1. You have a good defence agains the charges. Simply give the above >>information to your lawyer. Unless the victim admits that he or she did NOT >>take out the required PTT, the HRP have no case -- because they cannot PROVE >>that the victim did NOT do everything that was required. IF police or >>Canada Post screwed up, THAT is the reason the owner has no paper. >From Warren: I remember reading in the act or regs that there is a reverse onus. In other words, it is the defendant's responsibility to prove his case. To be honest, I can't recall what specific situations the reverse onus applies to, and I don't have time to research it at the moment (vacation coming soon). However, I caution anyone listening to TALK TO YOUR LAWYER about this matter. It may not be as cut and dry as the above implies. >From Dave: >>2. IF you still have a copy of the PTT to take your firearm to the new >>address, you are home free. That PROVES it was THEIR error. If YOU have >>such a document, PLEASE photocopy it, along with a copy of the charges >>against you, and send it to NFA, Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1. We will >>blank out your name and address, and supply copies to others who did not >>keep a copy of their PTTs -- getting THEM out of trouble by PROVING that the >>HRP do not know what they are talking about. >From Warren: The words "uttering a forged document" keep coming to mind as I read this. Dave, you are setting yourself up for criminal charges! Worse yet, anyone who sends in a PTT to allow it to be photocopied would be an accomplice before the fact, so could also be charged. And don't forget the person who receives such a document from you and uses it in an attempt to get themselves out of hot water. They would be turning the temperature UP, not down. Remember, the "authorities" also subscribe to the CFD, and they heard the entire conversation. [Moderator: I think Dave meant that someone charged could use someone elses' documents to prove that there were errors in the system, not to present them as his/her own. HTB] >From Dave: >>3. If you have ALREADY told the police that you did not get a PTT, but >>relied on your PTC and thought that was good enough, SURPRISE! You are >>right, and they are wrong. ... >>4. There is an EXCEPTION ot CC s. 91(2) IN s. 91(2), which says, "unless he >>is the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully so possess it..." If >>you have a valid PTC, that is a permit covering your "possession" of the >>firearm "elsewhere than at the place at which [you are] entitled to possess >>it as indicated on the registration certificate." >From Warren: If you rely on this argument in court, your chances are similar to those of the proverbial snowball in H-E-double hockeysticks. The word to pay attention to in the act is "so." Not a very big word, but it carries a lot of meaning. If the act had been worded "unless he is the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully possess it elsewhere," then Dave's argument may win in court. However, the wording that's used says, "he may lawfully so possess it." The word "so" means "in the manner in which he was possessing it at the time he was caught." If the defendant was caught carrying it from his home to a range, the exemption would apply. However, if the defendant was raided by police at his new address, the exemption would not apply because the manner in which he was possessing it (i.e., at the "wrong" address) was not covered by his PTT. Dave said: >>1. Shut UP! You are quite likely to get yourself into much DEEPER problems >>and much more SERIOUS charges by TALKING TO THE POLICE. You have an >>ABSOLUTE right to REMAIN SILENT. So DO that. REMAIN SILENT. Firearms >>control law is MUCH too complex for the average person to understand whether >>he has or HAS NOT committed any crime, and ANY information given to a police >>officer CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. Do NOT get sucked in by helpful >>offers to "clear this all up" if you "explain." Shut UP, and STAY SILENT. >>Your ONLY words should be, "I refuse to say ANYTHING until I have talked to >>my lawyer." And if your lawyer tells you to do ANYTHING but REMAIN SILENT, >>get a new lawyer who is not a fool. >From Warren: And this is why the RFC appreciates Dave's input so much. It's dead on the money here! Note what he says (which is what the police are supposed to say before questioning you): Anything you say can and WILL be used AGAINST you. If they intend to use what you say against you, why would you say anything at all? Don't open your mouth in an attempt to "clear up the misunderstanding," as some cops playfully put it. Say nothing until you are charged, and then direct your words to your lawyer only, in private. I cannot overemphasize how important this advice is!!! I would suggest the following wording when questioned by police: "I have been advised not to answer police questions unless my lawyer is present." Answer EVERY question that way, including the innocuous ones (e.g., name, address, where are you going, what are you doing, what's that). And to all the police officers who are our friends -- I deeply regret the rift that seems to be developing between the sport shooters and the police. Our long-standing friendship is at risk, and I don't like it any more than you do! I'm sure you are working as hard as we are to correct the injustices that exist, and I thank you for that. And to Dave Tomlinson -- thank-you for your work on behalf of the recreational firearms community. Although I don't always agree with you, I am extremely grateful for the many things you have said and done in the past. You often uncover details that may otherwise be missed. ... Warren Gaebel, B.A., B.C.S. Communications Manager Ontario Handgun Association ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:40 -0600 From: John Bauer Subject: Be Part of the Solution, "JOIN OPERATION EDUCATION." Ladies and Gentlemen of the RFC: Continual debate with the people from the CFC is an exercise in futility. "Be part of the solution to save our Historic Shooting Sports" by launching your own "Operation Education." Help educate the "General Public," "The Media," and "The Politicians." Suggestion: Get onto the "Sympatico Sites" and get involved with the ongoing political debates on "Gun Control" and "Gun Ownership" as it has been a VERY hot topic ever since June 2nd, 1997. http://sympatico.ca/ should take you there then look for "politically speaking" or go to sympatico news and use the referring button to access a very aggressive group of individuals. "Stop Preaching to the converted!" The NFA Protects, Supports, and Promotes All Safe Recreational Firearms Activities. For more information E-Mail the writer or call 204-326-1063. John Bauer President NFA Manitoba National NFA Director JB: "Confused about your legal rights as a firearms owner? Call N.F.A. today to find out how to protect yourself from prosecution at 403-439-1394." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:45 -0600 From: bblew@fox.nstn.ca (Bill Blew) Subject: Re: Article from Ottawa Citizen >Wednesday 23 July 1997 > > Just the factums > > > The Ottawa Citizen > > Gun registration does not work. Snip However the courts settle the constitutional issues, >we are endebted to the provinces' challenge for making one thing clear: >The benefits of gun registries are unsubtantiated, their failures well >documented. In implementing the gun registry, the federal Liberals chose >good politics over good government. It is not good politics either. It has already been the last straw that has turned a lot of people in Canada against the Lie-berals and I am finding as I talk to more and more people about Bills C 68, C 55, C 7 & 8, the bill giving fishing rights to whomsoever the minister wants to, etc. more and more people of all political ideologies are turning against them. Keep up the education of the Canadian Public, it is working. Regards Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:47 -0600 From: robert.pogson@mwcs.mb.ca (ROBERT POGSON) Subject: Re: Automation of pattern CD> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 05:57:01 -0600 CD> From: John Fowler CD> Subject: Re: Automated Shotgun Patterning CD> The obvious answer to this is an electronic camera - to photograph CD> light coming through the paper in a darkened environment. Difficulty will CD> be in maintaining "contrast", because pellet holes in paper aren't really CD> open holes in the case of the small shot used for clay target work. If you are going to automate this, I would suggest doing it right at the target with a camera feeding a PC. Take a frame of the target before and after. Subtract the two images and unleash hole IDing software. There should be nothing but enhanced holes in the frame which makes it easy. Anything more than x% of the range between black and white means a hole. Record the coordinates in a list to be sorted. Coordinates touching are the same hole. ... nfx v2.8 [C0000] I'd rather be hunting. [Taylor Buckner comments: Great idea. Where do I get "hole IDing software"? Maybe something from astronomy - I know they subtract star fields from one another to find comets.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:09:51 -0600 From: "Ted Carron" Subject: re:Automating Shotgun Patterning ...snip ... > [Taylor Buckner replies: Great. I am not up to speed on building > complex machines, but I do have a scanner. When all you have is a > hammer every problem looks like a nail.] > Hi, Just a thought that crossed my mind . Since you already have a scanner, I assume it is for 8.5" by 11" pages. Have you ever considered cutting up the 40" by 40 " target into 20 pieces, each 8" by 10" ( 5 across and 4 down), then doing 20 scans, and patching them back together into one file via software ? This way you won't need any extra hardware. Regards Ted [Taylor Buckner replies: Yes, I had thought of it, but is seems like almost as much work as counting the pellets. I want to create a system which is automatic and easy to use. Then a club could do hundreds of targets in an afternoon.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:23:44 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" I am reading with great interest the discussion on so-called inspections. In these discussions, the CFC viewpoint appears to be that these periodic fishing expeditions are merely administrative functions (according to how courts have previously defined such things). I would point out that these definitions do not apply to those areas of the law where the commission of a criminal code violation needs to be reasonably suspected. If you can point me to another area of the criminal code that allows for periodic inspections of dwellings for criminal code violations, I would most interested to see them. You have also mentioned that; "Hopefully, the regulations will clear up what is meant by a "collection". I am certain that, as I have, you have observed that there is absolutely no guidance in this area. There is no minimum number provided, or standards." As I have pointed out, I view all my firearms as part of a collection. My hunting rifles have common characteristics that make up my "hunting rifle collection". A few particularly nice ones were never used for hunting. I don't "need" that many rifles to hunt but I want to collect various types for my own particular reasons and so some may be used for hunting, occasional target shooting or to form part of a collection. I challenge anyone to suggest that I define them under one particular category. It is all rather moot for me anyway since some of my handguns are designed as "for collection purposes". My reason for rambling on about this is because the inspection provisions within C68 state; "Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection ......" Naturally we are more than a little concerned about what may or may not be viewed as a collection and are doubly concerned to allow bureaucrats who have revealed their ignorance on such matters to determine this. The apparent protections afforded by section 104 are illusory since all that is required is the belief that certain conditions exist. We have seen cases already where unnamed "informants" have justified raids on gun owners. As well, my refusal to submit to arbitrary inspection is itself reason to grant a warrant. The point that seems to escape the policy makers in the Department of Justice is that legal gun ownership is not, in of itself, a precursor to criminal activity. There appears to be consternation over our objections to policy decisions that greatly affect us. Not only will these policies impact us economically (as the British experience has shown) but the whole thrust behind these measures and your department's public relations statements behind them amounts to a subtle villification of gun- ownership (as seen in National Crime Prevention Council policy papers) The subsequent harrassment of gun owners would not normally be tolerated by the public were it to happen to any other identifiable group of law-abiding citizens. We cannot understand why people with a history of criminal behaviour are protected against arbitrary "inspections" and self-incrimination while those who have gone through the expense and process to qualify for and legally aquire firearms do not. This is creating a feeling of mistrust among gun owners for the DoJ in general and the CFC in particular and until such time as the DoJ establishes more rational policies regarding criminal behaviour versus legal gun ownership, there will be no end of problems for the CFC. We will fight every perceived infringement of our rights and every policy that appears to target or harrass us. I know one thing, I will never consent to an arbitrary search of my home and will force a warrant for every time. I would hope that every gun owner does the same. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:23:43 -0600 From: Gary Chambers Subject: Re: Ontario NFA Plates On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > >>> Re: Ontario NFA Plates > >>> Cool. I'll take a set. > >>> Count me in too. :) > > > >> MLTRYRFL? > >> FN FAL? > >> M14? > > > > > >AR15 was taken several years ago by a member at my club > >(Stittsville Pistol Club, just west of Ottawa). Sorry boys. ;-) > >And yes, it *does* look cool to see a personalized plate > >that says "AR15". I recall seeing a red Camaro at an Oshawa guns show several years ago with the license C1A1. Thought that was nifty. GC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:23:48 -0600 From: John Bauer Subject: The Ten Most Powerful Two Letter Words We Must Burn Into Memory If it is to be, it is up to us! Think about it. John Bauer President NFA Manitoba National NFA Director JB: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:23:36 -0600 From: Roger Walker Subject: Inspections, Searches, Policies, Legal Wording, etc. The government is obviously playing games with us. It is not really important (at this time) what the law says, what the law was intended to accomplish, etc: What is important is the fact that, regardless of the law, policy, etc, responsible firearms owners are being systematically attacked by their government and those in positions of authority. As long as those same people remain in positions of power, it does not matter what the law says or intends, the persecution will continue. As was recently pointed out, "If it walk like a duck..." This is an undeclared war, and until responsible firearms owners accept this, they will continue to be victims, just like many of the Jews and Gypsies in 1930s Germany. It has taken me a long time to read my copy of "Unintended Consequences," and there were times when I found it difficult to separate my reading of the book with my reading of the Canadian Firearms Mailing List. I can see why our government would want to ban it; there's lots of sufficiently detailed information which can be of practical value to victims of government. (Review forthcoming...) - --- Roger Walker, Director Pager (403) 470-1808, Fax (403) 440-2685 ROSCO Associates Technology Staffing Ltd. (RATS!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:23:36 -0600 From: Roger Walker Subject: "Unintended Consequences" Review Review of "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross This is a 850+ page work of fiction, with a twist. There are many bits of reality, including the names of actual people and important incidents. This is tied in very well with the fictional (and thinly disguised fictional) characters and the overall plot. This book, in its own way, is a truly great work. Many minor and seemingly unrelated events unwind to a (for me) very satisfying climax and conclusion. Mr. Ross goes into what some might call "extreme technical detail," particularly with firearms, but also in areas of aircraft and vehicle design and mechanics, etc. Normally, this level of detail takes away from a good novel, but if you understand the people likely to read and take pleasure from this book, you will realize that it is a good thing. (Since I know my audience, I can put it this way: Have you ever gone to a movie and picked it apart because you identified all the firearms (or other objects) and knew that some were out of place (and the movie was supposed to be accurate)?) It appears the Mr. Ross has gone to great pains to ensure the accuracy of any technical aspects of his novel. One should keep in mind, while reading this novel, that it is a work of fiction, and that many "true" incidents described may not contain complete or even totally correct details. Nevertheless, much of what I have personally checked out myself has been right on the money. (Things that make you go "HMMMM") I particularly like the way Mr. Ross chose to emphasize the many things we take for granted and have silently accepted; it was enough to make me rather angry for having done little/nothing at various stages of our current predicament. The worst part of the book has nothing to do with its authorship. Rather, the editting (and even a page reversal; out of order) leaves something to be desired in places. If you plan on standing up to your government (or just enjoy a good read), "Unintended Consequences" will be a great start. Obviously, I would think, there is considerable detail left out on how to accomplish the task, but there are some good pointers and a lot of inspiration. Equally obviously, unless you do not value freedom, it is a book of high morals. BTW, I am a former member of the Canadian Forces and R.C.M.P. who actually owns no firearms. I retired from both organizations, in part, because of corruption and policies that I did not want to be associated with. This is not to imply that all, or even most, of the people in these organizations are bad or wrong. However, there are certainly too many people in these organizations (as with the government itself) who are more interested in their own empire building and/or covering their butts, than in performing their duties to the best of their abilities. Also, my words here are not intended to incite people to do things that are unlawful or criminal. However, I recommend that everyone read "Unintended Consequences" and take the time to consider what could happen. (I got mine through amazon.com and, although shipment was fast, Canada Post, Customs, and the Fed Govt managed to nearly double the cost between US$ and final CAN$) - --- Roger Walker, Director Pager (403) 470-1808, Fax (403) 440-2685 ROSCO Associates Technology Staffing Ltd. (RATS!) ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #919 **********************************