From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sat Jul 26 11:30:08 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 #920 Content-Length: 26826 X-Lines: 696 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, July 26 1997 Volume 01 : Number 920 In this issue: Re: Ottawa Citizen Editorial Automated Shotgun Patterning Postcard registration Re: Inspecting Encrypted Hard Drives? non-toxic shot 45 REASONS? Constitutional Challenge Update Re: 45 Reason, plus... New Map Book Bike Gangs, Gun Owners and Re: How The Law Applies To Me.... (Reply to Tomlinson (Part 2 of 2) Gun Registry Fw: Primers (originally posted to cdn-firearms-chat) About the CFC Reply to D. Tomlinson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:24:06 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Ottawa Citizen Editorial At 07:31 AM 24-07-97 -0600, you wrote: >Subject: Article from Ottawa Citizen Correction: EDITORIAL!!! > >Wednesday 23 July 1997 > > Just the factums > > > The Ottawa Citizen > > Gun registration does not work. Walk softly and join Reform You too can speak for Canada! John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 19:24:08 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Automated Shotgun Patterning >Taylor Buckner comments: Still, I'd like to find a way to eliminate all the >counting and see if there is a way to treat the pattern mathematically. Shoot at a fresh piece of paper each time. Put the paper over a lighted screen and scan it using a king size scanner. The position of the holes will be indicated by the light will shining through. Record the x,y coordinates of each pellet hole. Enter the number of pellets in the load and the range at which the pattern was fired. From that point it should be a simple data processing job. [Taylor Buckner replies: One person has suggested building a scanning drum with a light inside which the target would be wrapped around, others have suggested video and photographic solutions. I'm not sure I, or most clubs, could afford a four foot by four foot scanner. Any suggestions regarding existing programs which could convert a scanned "scatterplot" into a database of x-y coordinates?] Ron McCutcheon P. Eng mccutcrg@mail.rose.com Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:50:03 -0600 From: "Tag" Subject: Postcard registration I agree with Bob Lickacz, we have been suckered. The "Anti-Gunners" have us running round discussing the cost and methods of "Unique" identification when the only identification they are interested in is...your name and address. T. Gee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 21:50:03 -0600 From: jf_avon@citenet.net Subject: Re: Inspecting Encrypted Hard Drives? On 24 Jul 97 at 7:31, Marauder (D. Kratky)" Interesting! If I recall correctly, C-68 allows them to "inspect" > anything in the home, including your files... Do as much correspondence on your computer... Set up your computer to use a free-for-private-use on-the-fly encryption package like Secure Drive (IDEA algorithm) or Secure File System (IDEA, Blowfish, 3DES) > It also allows them to > take anything they want, and if you argue, or demand a lawyer, arrest > you and charge you. shut up, and laugh at them when they try to read your drive. Encryption technologies are cyberworld's guns. Ciao JFA - -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming. PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:26:08 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: non-toxic shot According to OFAH news: On May 23, the CWS approved tungsten polymer shot as another non-toxic alternative to lead. Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:26:10 -0600 From: Dale Hainer Subject: 45 REASONS? Must say that at very least, I found the "45 reasons to own an assault rifle" ammusing. Many of the reasons (hopefully not used as arguments) seem very, very americanized. I'm not singing the star bangled banner for I still believe the red and white can stand for whatever I want it to! Was there ever a tradition of Citizenry/Soldiership in Canada? Any and absolutely any regards to firearms for self protection whether it be property, life, civil uprising or threat of invasion goes no where with any politician... from municipalities to the Feds. They believe that they have you protected with local law enforcement, etc, etc right up to the Canadian Military. Politicians believe they have control over enforcement and protection and shudder when you suggest anything that deviates from their control such as "self protection". Despite what we want and believe in, those are tough sells to those bleadin' hearts! Suggesting that armed citizens can support policing actions draws shudders from every street cop. In a civil disorder situation or other, the last thing the cop wants is one more non cop gun on the street. They trust each other, end of story. Quick, extra shots at game doesn't cut it either from this hunters point of view. How about "To ensure a quick clean kill"? I will agree with recreation, increased tax base through sales, as appreciation of firearms, souveniers, investments, to exercise a natural and human right, protect livestock from predators, and most of all because you believe in freedom. Those are the ones (and similar reasons) that will get a politician talking in your direction. Turning the general public to your attention with the other suggestions such as civil militia type order will likely scare the heck out of them. Fear mongering is very attackable by politicians. "Minimal government intervention" is the key to American politics... aside from the fact they have the consitutional right to bear arms. Canadian government, all levels of Canadian government believe they are there to prescribe and dictate to you rules for everthing from land ownership to lollypop licking! Go forth in numbers, sell your ideals one step at a time, morally sound and legally defendable issues will prevail. Common sense kicks em everytime! Watch the tides change. Dale Hainer shooter@mnsi.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 04:26:12 -0600 From: wildside@connect.ab.ca Subject: Constitutional Challenge Update July 2, 1997 The Deputy Registrar of the Alberta Court of Appeal advised that the Reference will be argued in Edmonton from Monday, September 8th to Friday September 12, 1997 inclusive before a panel of five justices. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:56:00 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: 45 Reason, plus... > > Subject: 45 REASONS TO OWN AN ASSAULT RIFLE!! > Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > 39 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT THE MEDIA GLAMORIZES > 40 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT MIGHT BE BANNED > 41 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT IS BANNED > 42 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT IS A WORK OF ART > 43 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT MADE HISTORY > 44 TO OWN A FIREARM THAT CAN BE FROZEN SOLID AND STILL FUNCTION > 45 BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM 46. Because there's no logical reason you shouldn't have one. 47. Because I choose to own one. 48. Because I find them fun and interesting. 49. To piss off a liberal. - -- Dave Kratky Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:56:01 -0600 From: Bud Melless Subject: New Map Book To all Practical Shooting Clubs in Ontario, Canada - --------------------------------------------------------- We are in the process of publishing a new Map Book. A great addition to any shooting bag. It includes practical shooting clubs from all over Ontario. If your club map was included in the last edition, and there are no changes, we will publish it again as it is. However, if you wish to make any corrections or other changes, please be certain to get a new map to us before August 15, 1997. Please try to keep the size of the map to 4.5" wide by 5" long. If your club was not included in the last edition and you would like it included in this issue, please let us know A.S.A.P. Also, this is a good opportunity to advertise your wares. If you have a firearms related business, ie: sales, gunsmithing, etc. you can also purchase an as in the Map Book. The cost of the ads are very reasonable. They are not intended to cover the cost of the Map Book but to help defray the cost as these map books will be given to free all IPSC Ontario members. Ad costs are: Full Page: 4.5" X 7.5" $100. Half Page: 4.5" X 3.5" $ 60. Third Page: 4.5" X 2.25 $ 35. Send all enquiries, ad copy or drawings to: IPSC Ontario Map Book 10 Wilson Avenue Lindsay, Ontario K9V 5R9 Bud Melless IPSC Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:56:00 -0600 From: "Wayne Salhany" Subject: Bike Gangs, Gun Owners and Let me start by saying I do not wish to offend Police Officers however, following orders is not an excuse for actions. Just ask some of our military. I also do not want to discuss the link between motorcycle gangs and crime. However, having watched the extreme level of coverage of the Grim Reaper/ HA's patch over in Alberta (lots of coverage from ITV in Edmonton) I could not help but see a similarity to treatment of the bike gangs and gun owners. Even when they are committing no crime, they are targeted for highway spot checks; even when they are committing no crime, the Chiefs of Police are campaigning against them in the media... Sound familiar to you? Nice to know that gun owners in Canada are being viewed on the same level as gangs accused of drug trafficing, prostitution, and murder... As I said... the issue isn't whether the Bikers are criminals... nor is it whether gun owners are criminals... but what the Chiefs of Police want the public to think and believe... The Canada I want to live in is one where we convict criminals and leave law abiding citizens alone. One thing we all should learn from this group... when asked... they replied "speak to the lawyer"... And they had their lawyers right there... Dave T is absolutely correct when he says "SHUT UP". My lawyer claims that he spends more time working on reverting situations that clients get themselves into by opening their mouth or trying to be helpful or clear something up when they should have just picked up the phone and called for information. He would rather provide free information to his clients than have to try to correct things after the fact... Which is not always successful. Oh... This applies to both criminal and civil matters... And I can tell you that the reaction you will get is negetive from the other party... simply because it means they have to play by the rules... In the end, the ends justify the means... regardless of the initial perspective. I always use the arguement that I would rather get an expert involved instead of guessing when it comes to protecting my butt... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 14:56:18 -0600 From: "William John M. Christie" Subject: Re: How The Law Applies To Me.... (Reply to Tomlinson (Part 2 of 2) Canadian Firearms Centre writes: > > I understand your frustration with respect to registering your > firearm for a purpose. I am told that the Registrar is at > present developing a policy with respect to this matter. > Again, we may have to wait and see this document before judging > the issue. It may certainly be of value to send your comments > and suggestions on this issue to him. [snip] > Again, I thank you for your comments. I hope we can continue > this dialogue on a regular basis. > > Yours truly, > > Kathleen Roussel > Communications Group > Canadian Firearms Centre At the least I would like to thank the CFC for making an attempt to answer the recreational firearms community's (RFC) questions. I hope that they appreciate that although they may receive angry, vitriolic and possibly abusive E-mail, that the frustration is not directed at them personally, but rather the "rocket scientists" who drafted this legislation in the first place. However I hope that the CFC respondants are also passing on the number of complaints and questions to their superiours. By making them aware of the number of complications and problems that the average Canadian is having with C-68, you will forewarn them of the growing feeling of non-compliance that the RFC is subscribing too. Regardless of how many flaws you iron out of this boondoggle, if no one registers the Department of Justice will have wasted hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayers money. And no, I don't anticipate feeling like a criminal in 2003, anymore than when I drive at 55km/h in a 50km/h zone. - -- "I am unsympathetic to the act of toying with or exaggerating the | Will true numbers. Please be clear that Minister Vodrey's answer that | Christie no woman in her province had been killed by the use of a firearm in | ___ a conjugal-intimate relationship in 1994 surprised the committee." | ><___> - --Senator Anne Cools on C-68, November 29, 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:09:32 -0600 From: Andrew Warner Subject: Gun Registry The following article appeared in "Letters to the Editor" of the Windsor (ON) Star on Saturday, July 26. I thought it appropriate to forward a copy to the Digest. GUN REGISTRY BILL DEPRIVES US OF OUR RIGHTS by Ben Gignac, Chatham, ON I had the pleasure of reading your editorial on July 12 (97) "Gun Registry : Time for a Second Look" ( Letters to the Editor, The Windsor Star ). It is nice to to finally see that someone in the media has taken notice of the injustice of this bill. You have quoted a number of facts that the government of the day has chosen to ignore. The purpose of this bill is to disarm the citizens of this country, and nothing more. This scares the hell out of me. I could go on and on about this subject. However, there is an even greater disregard for protocol on this issue. This country has a long-standing guideline called the "Citizens Code of Regulatory Fairness". As part of this code there are three sections which state : 1. Canadians are entitled to expect government regulations will be characterised by (minimum) interference with individual freedoms consistent with protection of community interests. 2. The government will encourage and facilitate (full) opportunity for consultation and participation by Canadians in the regulatory process. 3. The government will ensure the benefits of regulations exceed the cost, and that careful consideration will be given to regulations that could impede economic growth or job creation. This bill has failed on all counts. The non-gun owners in this country must be aware of just how dictatorial this government is. Gun owners have known it for a long time. Keep up the good work. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:49:51 -0600 From: "Charles Stansfield" Subject: Fw: Primers (originally posted to cdn-firearms-chat) Re: your question, I wouldn't advise using large rifle primers in place of large pistol magnum primers. First of all the explosive mixture in a large rifle primer may well exceed the mixture in the large pistol (magnum) primer, but most important, a large rifle primer is made of thicker material than that of the pistol primer. What that means for the reloader is that your pistol's firing pin may not be driven forward with enough force to guarantee the firing of the large rifle primer, and you will probably have a high percentage of misfires. It's best to stick to the primer that's designed for the cartridge. (Also, if one were to do it the other way around, that is, use a large pistol primer in a large rifle primer pocket, the results could be dangerous, as the powerful spring that drives the rifle's firing pin would likely pierce the primer. This could allow that high pressure within the rifle cartridge case ((about 55,000 p.s.i.)) to do nasty things to your firearm, and perhaps to YOU! ) PLAY IT SAFE! Primers are dirt cheap in comparison with other reloading components, and are the ONE TRULY EXPLOSIVE component of the lot. Follow the directions of your favourite authoritative manual(s) very closely! Also, everyone should consider teaching younger people about the benefits and satisfaction of the wonderful hobby of reloading -- the alternative is the extinction of that great pastime, which is very safe if only a few basics are religiously followed. Cheers, and Support the N.F.A. and C.W.E.W.A.F., Charles Stansfield _____________________ - ---------- > From: cmacphee > To: cdn-firearms-chat@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > Subject: Primers > Date: Saturday, July 26, 1997 3:30 AM > > Wondering if someone could advise me regarding primers ? > > I understand that one can use small rifle primers in place of small > pistol magnum primers................ > > Can you use large riflr primers in place of large pistol magnum > primers ?? > > Thanks in advance for your advice...... > > > Canadian Firearms Enthusiasts may be interested in > the Hampton Rifle & Pistol Club Inc. Homepage as > it is dedicated to personal classified Ads for > buying and selling. > > http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/cmacphee/ > > =========================== END OF MESSAGE =========================== > To unsubscribe from this list, do not reply to this message. Instead, > e-mail the following 2 lines to majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > > unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat > end - ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9942.D2B68700 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



----------
From: Charles Stansfield <cstansfi@nel.auracom.com>
To: cdn-firearms-chat@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Subject: Re: Primers
Date: Friday, July 25, = 1997 9:02 PM

Hello, Mr. MacPhee = - --
Re: your question, I wouldn't advise using large rifle primers in = place of large pistol magnum primers.  First of all the explosive = mixture in a large rifle primer may well exceed the mixture in the large = pistol (magnum) primer, but most important, a large rifle primer is made = of thicker material than that of the pistol primer.  What that = means for the reloader is that your pistol's firing pin may not be = driven forward with enough force to guarantee the firing of the large = rifle primer, and you will probably have a high percentage of misfires. =  It's best to stick to the primer that's designed for the = cartridge.  (Also, if one were to do it the other way around, that = is, use a large pistol primer in a large rifle primer pocket, the = results could be dangerous, as the powerful spring that drives the = rifle's firing pin would likely pierce the primer.  This could = allow that high pressure within the rifle cartridge case ((about 55,000 = p.s.i.)) to do nasty things to your firearm, and perhaps to YOU! ) =

PLAY IT SAFE!  Primers are dirt cheap in comparison with = other reloading components, and are the ONE TRULY EXPLOSIVE component of = the lot.  Follow the directions of your favourite authoritative = manual(s) very closely!

Also, everyone should consider teaching = younger people about the benefits and satisfaction of the wonderful = hobby of reloading -- the alternative is the extinction of that great = pastime, which is very safe if only a few basics are religiously = followed.

Cheers, and Support the N.F.A. and = C.W.E.W.A.F.,
Charles = Stansfield

_____________________









----------
> From: cmacphee = <cmacphee@nbnet.nb.ca>
> To: cdn-firearms-chat@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
> Subject: Primers
> Date: Saturday, July = 26, 1997 3:30 AM
>
> Wondering if someone could advise me = regarding primers ?
>
> I understand that one can use small = rifle primers in place of small
> pistol magnum = primers................
>
> Can you use large riflr primers = in place of large pistol magnum
> primers ??
>
> = Thanks in advance for your advice......
>
>
> = Canadian Firearms Enthusiasts may be interested in
> the Hampton = Rifle & Pistol Club Inc. Homepage as
> it is dedicated to = personal classified Ads for
> buying and selling.
> =
> http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/cmacphee/
>
> =  =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D END OF MESSAGE = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D
>  To unsubscribe from this list, do not reply to this = message.  Instead,
>  e-mail the following 2 lines to = majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
>
>  unsubscribe = cdn-firearms-chat
>  end

- ------=_NextPart_000_01BC9942.D2B68700-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 11:11:58 -0600 From: jean hogue Subject: About the CFC Reply to D. Tomlinson On second reading of the lengthy CFC discourse, I now conclude there was something of value in there: Its convoluted legalistic reasoning to the effect that an "administrative inspection" is not covered by the Charter of rights. The CFC lawyers have now disclosed the line of reasoning that will be used in a court of law to defend the wholesale fishing expeditions to be carried out against gun owners. I had wondered why C-68 used the "inspector" gimmick. It never made any sense that anybody else than police officers would be sent to enter dwellings where the presence of prohibited firearms was suspected. The reason for this "inspector" euphemism in lieu of the actual "police officer" term was not to avoid offending law-abiding gun owners (as if they were criminals being investigated by police). It is now clear it was, from the start, a basic part of the larger "administrative inspection" subterfuge devised to evade the real protections of the Charter of rights. The CFC claims that one of the characteristics of the "administrative inspection" is that no information can be collected. This does not make sense either, as it would defeat the whole purpose of ensuring public safety by way of inspections. The only way these inspections can create the impression (mostly illusory) that this enhances public safety is to make live examples out of delinquent gun owners. I conclude that the CFC has also devised its legal argumentation to get around that "no information collected" gimmick as well. I speculate it would be along these lines: 1. In the interest of public safety, the observation of unsafe storage must be considered by the court, notwithstanding the limitations of the inspection. 2. The inspection was carried in good faith and the defendant has not proved conclusively that the intent of the inspector was to disregard the limitations of the inspection even before it began. 3. Therefore, the court must conclude that the inspectors did not act in an unreasonable manner by using the information to cause criminal charges to be levied against the defendant. Farfetched ? These (C-68 / CFC) people have already told us we were protected against abuse of powers by the Governor-in-council: "forbidden to ban what in his opinion is not unreasonable for hunting or shooting". In plain English, this means the G-i-c is allowed to decide for himself what he is permitted to ban all this based on his own arbitrary opinion. This is simple English and not hard to understand. That claim of protection is deceitful. And the CFC claims another protection from invasion of privacy by inspectors: 1. who allegedly cannot collect information pertaining to unsafe storage uncovered during the inspection, 2. who are conducting these inspection to enhance public safety and will enforce safe storage without disclosing the information they need to do this, 3. while they are not obligated to respect the Charter of rights. There are several instances demonstrating the hostility of the CFC towards gun owners: 1. criminals like Homolka are protected by the Charter of rights, while law-abiding gun owners are not; 2. an upcoming Order-in-council will ban shooting lawfully registered FN-FAL's at an approved shooting range with a permit to transport: 3. deceitful legalistic newspeak from the CFC to claim largely illusory protection against abuse. The CFC can only blame itself for the distrust it has created for itself. A harsh judgement ? Perhaps. I just personally have no patience for lawyers who present outrageous statements only two-digit-IQ types would swallow. ___________________________________________________________ "I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." Allan Rock, Author of C-68 law on gun "control" Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", April 25, 1994, page 12. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #920 **********************************