From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Aug 5 05:20:49 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 #931 Content-Length: 24322 X-Lines: 597 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, August 5 1997 Volume 01 : Number 931 In this issue: Re: storage of ammo and components Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #930 Correcting legal comments PASSING DOWN PROHIBITED FIREARMS Re: Canadain Firearms Response to Glasgow. Re: Rifles Re: Alberta machine gun shoot? SFC address Re: Rifle information Re: Remote Areas Carry Permits Re: Rifles Daniel and Horace Re: ISU Regulations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 04:56:01 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: storage of ammo and components >I have been trying to find out where the re-loaders of ammo stand in >regards to C68 when it comes into effect. Are there any laws about how my >primers, powder, and bullets are to be stored? Yes, but in the Explosives Act, not C-68. C-68 enables the Minister to issue Orders in Council dictating many things, though -- including things in this area. >If my guns are in a metal >cabinet with trgger locks in a different room then my ammo, am I committing >an offence in the eyes of the "law"? Apparently not. >I guess there are no standards as to >what is considered a "safe"? I have been told that the metal cabinets sold >as "safes" by Canadian Tire are not "safes" in the eyes of the RCMP. What >comments do you have in regards to this? Black's Law Dictionary defines "safe" as "a metal receptacle for the protection of valuables. The opinion of the RCMP is valueless. They are not give any power -- by the Act -- to decide what is and what is not a "safe." The only person who can rule on what is, and what is not, a safe, is a judge in a court of criminal law. >Keep up the excellent work on helping the average Joe beat city hall. One >way or another we are going to beat these guys. We have to return Canada to >the great country that it once was. Right. There are quite a few nasty surprises waiting for the government as soon as it proclaims (brings into force) Bill C-68. The people who wrote it were amazingly incompetent and ignorant of the law. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:36 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #930 > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 04:56:04 -0600 > From: "David A. Tomlinson" > Subject: Re: COLT AR-15 > > If so, does one have to follow > >the same procedures as obtaining a handgun? > Yes. I recently had an interesting coverstation with a non-shooter. I was trying to explain why my rifle collection didn't contain any "modern" (Ex. Post korean war) military guns. It sort of ran like this: "How about M16s?" "They're illegal." "Since when?" "1978." "Why?" "They're full-auto." "So? How about the civilian versions?" "They're considered handguns." "???????????" I then showed him the Mini-14, the M-14, and the SKS. I showed him picures of the M16, FN-FAL and SK-47. I explained the differences. (None, other than the looks.) He came to the conclusion that the gun laws are really, really stupid..... And the funny thing is, the guys never touched a gun before in his life.. Now he's pissed off about 'em. :)) - -- Dave Kratky Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:37 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Correcting legal comments In Wayne Sahalny's recent posting, there are one minor and one major error. The inheritance of .25, .32 and short-barrelled handguns data indicates that the inheritance WILL succeed. That is HIGHLY unlikely. Each transferance by inheritance will have to be approved by the Chief Firearms Officer [CFO], and, given our experience with Chief Provincial Firearms Officers [CPFOs], it is VERY unlikely that the approval will be given. References: C-68 Criminal Code section [CC s.] 84(1) "transfer" says "transfer" means "deliver." Firearms Act section [FA s.] 27 requires the CFO to "(a) verify...(i) whether the [inheritor] holds a license...(b)...to determine whether the...firearm is appropriate [for the purpose the new owner wants it for, and] (c) DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER." In simple language, the CFO has all the authority needed to block any such inheritance -- and, on the basis of experience with CPFOs, will USE it. He says that, where the date of manufacture is in dispute, "the issue will be...left to the Canadian Firearms Registry to determine." That is WRONG. The Registry has NO such authority. One of the worst problems with the firearms control legislation, now and getting FAR worse when C-68 comes into force, is that bureaucrats ASSUME that they have the authority to make decisions in any area where the law is vague or equivocal. That is WRONG. They do NOT, unless the legislation specifically GIVES them that authority. Where NO official or body is specified as having the authority to INTERPRET the law, only a JUDGE in a court of CRIMINAL LAW can tell you what the law means. Where a JUDGE rules, that ruling applies ONLY to that case. It may set a precedent (for the province, if the court is above provincial court level) or for the entire nation (if the Supreme Court of Canada rules), but NO ONE ELSE has the authority to say what the law MEANS. Where illegal interpretations ARE made by officials or bodies like the CFC, CFR or Minister, the NFA fights those interpretations in court -- and often WINS. Once C-68 comes into force, a large number of cases are going to go through the system, seeking rulings on every disputable point. Because C-68 is so amateurishly written, vague, and equivocal, it is VERY vulnerable to this sort of court action. The government relies on the fact that individuals cannot an do not fight court actions at a cost of $3000 to prevent the loss of $2000 worth of property. In recent years, the NFA has served as a backup for those who could not afford to fight, as a source of expertise for their lawyers, and often as a source of funds for key cases. We do what you CANNOT do, because you cannot afford to. We can do that because we get donations from people all over Canada to fund the fight against City Hall. At the moment, we are facing: 1. C-68 is coming into force -- SOON. 2. Our funds have been depleted by the expense of fighting Election 97. 3. We urgently need donations. Please help, and please ask your gun club and gun store to make donations. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: We must all stand together, because if we do not they will hang us all -- one by one. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:37 -0600 From: wjbutts@nornet.on.ca (W. J. (Wally) Butts) Subject: PASSING DOWN PROHIBITED FIREARMS There have been many comments recently about the ability to pass down prohibited (.25, .32 and short barrelled) firearms, of those firearms were manufactured before 1946. I believe that I once heard Mr. Rock state, on a televised interview or news clip, that this was indeed so, PROVIDED THAT THE RECIPIENT WAS DULY LICENSED to receive such firearms. This is a catch-22 comment, because if you did not own one as of Feb. 14, 1995, you could never be licensed to own one. Yes, under the provisions of C-68 you can pass it to an heir, but the heir cannot be licensed to receive it, so guess who gets the firearms? - the crusher, of course. Comments? W. J. Butts ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:36 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Canadain Firearms Response to Glasgow. >Dear Mr. Glasgow: > >Thank you for your comments with respect to my response to you. > >As my role here is an informational one, I am not prepared to >argue with you how policy on firearms is driven, nor can I make >any comment with respect to the decisions made by particular >police officers. I would however, be interested in knowing the >source for your comments with respect to your contention that >firearm offences almost never result in convictions. It seems to me, from what I read in the media and what my shooting colleagues experience, that almost the only firearms offences that DO result in convictions are those charged against honest, law-abiding Canadians abused by an abusive system and discriminatory police powers. I don't see very many criminals convicted of firearms offenses. I am also >uncertain of your basis for saying that most judges do not >favour mandatory minimums. For sure defence laweyers do not favour mandatory minimums - and our former justice minister, as I recall, was fond of the favorite cop-out (wonder where that term originated, BTW?) that minimums "tied the hands of the authorities and justice system." Walk softly and join Reform You too can speak for Canada! John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:49 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Rifles > the brass to "shrink" as much as the chamber pressure falls. In a > semi-automatic rifle, your extraction will be made much more difficult > (also, the extractors on a semi-auto are nowhere near as strong as those on > a bolt action with its incredibly powerful camming action), and your rifle > will jam. The military solves this problem, evidently, by keeping their > maximum pressures much lower than those rounds loaded by companies for > sporting use. Actually, I always figured a good rotating bolt semi-auto rifle such as the M-14 would have as much camming power as a bolt..... I believed that was the whole point of the rotating bolt?? Also: I always believed the military rounds were higher pressures to reliably cycle firearms once they got a build up of dirt/crap in them... This is the reason most civilians guns that fire military cartridges have a warning on them, is it not?? Dave Kratky Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2368 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:30:33 -0600 From: sanfordr@cadvision.com (Ralph Sanford) Subject: Re: Alberta machine gun shoot? >>I love Alberta! I am planning on going to the Machine Gun shoot on Aug >Now, what kind of full-auto shooting can you do if mag capacity over 5 >rounds for anything else than handguns is verboten prohibited since the >heydays of Kim Who ? >Or are we talking about belt-fed toys which are under no such >restrictions ? >Just out of curiosity, which toys will be in action there ? I am not associated with the Alberta machine gun shoot, however I will attempt to answer these questions based on prior history. All firearms and equipment (mags) in use at the range will be legal. This means 5 rounds mags or belt fed. Usually the guns that show up at the range cover a very broad spectrum from very old to new; from sub-machine guns to crew served. In answer to a previous question about the location of the range. Go to Wardlow, AB, face North, the coulee cliff that you see about 800 metres north of town is the backstop, the range is on the north edge of town. Wardlow is not really large enough that you would need any more detailed instructions. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- Ralph Sanford - If your government does not trust you, sanfordr@cadvision.com - should you trust your government? - ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 16:30:35 -0600 From: "Bill Taylor" Subject: SFC address Note that the Shooting Federation of Canada's address changed effective July 15 last year. They can be reached at: SFC 45 Shirley Blvd. Nepean, Ontario K2K 2W6 phone (613) 828-7338 fax (613) 828-7333 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:08:30 -0600 From: griffith@comnet.ca Subject: Re: Rifle information ** Reply to note from "Charles Stansfield" Sat, 2 Aug 1997 13:43:21 -0600 > > A relatively new development, "moly-coating" (molybdenum disulfide powder) > as touted by NECO (its manufacturer in California) and by many top-name > riflemen on the precision-shooting circuit, should also help your > jamming/galling problems. > Interesting. What do they do with it? I hope they're not suggesting that you should coat your cases and/or chamber with it to ease extraction. the brass case has to be able to grip the chamber walls; otherwise the boltface takes the full pressure from firing, with the attendant possibility of a disatrous failure. Gerald Griffith " The easiest thing in the world to achieve is the effective disapproval of any sort of uncritically vested authority. " < Alexander King > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:08:33 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Remote Areas Carry Permits > I'm a semi-retired Diagnostic Radiologist with a life-long interest in >Shooting and 10yrs on our Natl Team. I have a friend who is an active >geologist and Miner (he actually has one operating in BC!) and I help by >carrying stuff and packing my .44 in an outside holster. He's had a slight >stroke and can no longer run up trees. I never could, even without the >stroke. He looks on himself as my employer. > Last October I received an interesting reply to my routine annual >renewal request for "unconcealed handgun carry in 'remote' places while >prospecting or working on mining claims". The idea is to use the absolutely >awesome muzzle blast of the heaviest load from my 5" .44Mag S&W revolver to >repel a bear by a shot into the ground in front of it, thus avoiding the need >to harm the animal. A rifle cannot achieve this even if one could unlimber >a slung rifle from one's shoulder or back-pack quickly enough, which I'm sure >I could not. This is the reason the permit has previously been approved - >and encouraged - by our local RCMP. My type of employment should be >irrelevant - bears don't know much about such matters. > The letter said, "Since you are only part time, or if self-employed >have not submitted a copy of your Mining Claims, I regret I cannot issue a >licence"! Then it says, "If you object to this, you may apply to the >Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ". > Can the family of any prospector, especially part-time, who hasn't >yet been lucky enough to find and file a claim and who couldn't afford to go >for the ' writ', sue the bear who mauled &/or killed him? Are they allowed >to sue the govt or even the clerk who signed and sent out the letter of >refusal? From the signature on the letter I suspect the clerk didn't even >give the application to the exalted official (an RCMP corporal) to read. > As for the Writ, "look that one up in your Funk & Wagnalls"! And >I doubt if I'd get one, because Webster defines it as "a writ ----- to any >person commanding the performance of some clear public duty imposed by law". >The GCB would drag me all the way to Fed Supr Ct to prove granting the >licence was Not a duty, a clear duty, or a clear public duty, or that all of >that was not imposed by law. What good is a licence if you can't get one? > If I don't carry my Revolver and if I do happen to get the rifle out >fast enough (I repeat - this is almost impossible) I would have to shoot to >kill the bear. This is unfortunate for the bear, who is guiltless, and very >troublesome for me; the same mindless bureaucrat that denied me the handgun >permit will charge me with hunting out of season &/or without a licence & >bear-tag. This is not hypothetical - it's actually been happening, and is >expensive and very time-consuming to defend against. Interestingly, we don't >see it in the papers. > I recall a notorious case, I think from a journal article about 2 >yrs ago. Forgive me if some details are incorrect. A young man shot a >grizzly and her 2 yearling cubs, not 5 yds away from him. He was in an open >area and spotted them 100yds up a slope on the edge of some bush. Although he >remained still, they suddenly trotted toward him but he could not believe >they were actually charging until it was almost too late to shoot. He took >pictures of the scene and reported immediately to the Warden who then >inspected the area and told him there was no problem. I should point out for >the record that a grizz yearling weighs at least 300lbs, is as fast as a >horse, and can kill with one swipe of its paw! > To his surprise, the authorities charged him - in spite of his >immediate report and his obvious lack of interest in the earthly remains of >his would-be murderers! A long, expensive ordeal followed. Fortunately he >had competent assistance, refused to plea-bargain and was tried by a >knowledgeable judge, who threw out the case with a tongue-lashing for the >prosecution. > I didn't pursue the Licence last year due to unexpected full-time >work in the city (could some Vancouver areas qualify as "remote" I wonder?) >followed by a sojourn in the occasionally sunny south. Should I do it now, or >should we collectively try to do something about this seemingly >unconstitutional and arbitrary behaviour? Aren't we all guaranteed equal >treatment, whether we're rich or poor, male or female, young or old and >full-time or part-time? This is a complex area. In the Hurley v. Dawson case, the Supreme Court of BC ruled that Hurley, by taking a job that required him to carry [armored car security guard] had brought himself within Criminal Code section [CC s.] 110(2)(b), and therefore "required" the carry permit. The court ignored the fact that the firearm was actually required for s. 110(2)(a) purposes, "to protect life." We attempted to extend that by backing Sheldon Clare, who applied for a wilderness carry permit because he carried too much recreational photographic equipment to be able to use a rifle. The same court rejected him, on very nebulous grounds that made no sense at all, given the earlier Hurley ruling. In Ontario, the officials quit issuing permits to carry because they were afraid that the issuer might be held liable if the permit holder committed a crime. Once the Ontario Instructors' Association started running a wilderness carry certification course, they started issuing again -- because there was an objective test, and the blame would go to the Instructor, if anything ever went wrong. Interestingly, the purpose has NOTHING to do with "lawful profession or occupation" in EITHER case (Hurley and Clare). The purpose is "to protect [human] life." This is an area scheduled for NFA court action once C-68 comes into force. It is not worth attacking now because the law is about to change, and funds are low. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:08:29 -0600 From: griffith@comnet.ca Subject: Re: Rifles ** Reply to note from "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Mon, 4 Aug 1997 14:34:49 -0600 > > > the brass to "shrink" as much as the chamber pressure falls. In a > > semi-automatic rifle, your extraction will be made much more difficult > > (also, the extractors on a semi-auto are nowhere near as strong as those on > > a bolt action with its incredibly powerful camming action), and your rifle > > will jam. The military solves this problem, evidently, by keeping their > > maximum pressures much lower than those rounds loaded by companies for > > sporting use. > Actually, I always figured a good rotating bolt semi-auto rifle such as > the M-14 would have as much camming power as a bolt..... I believed that > was the whole point of the rotating bolt?? No, the rotating bolt frequently locks into a barrel extension, thereby allowing the use of a receiver too flimsy to support the strain of firing. Also, these semis depend on controlled gas pressure to rotate the bolt. Once the gas system becomes partly blocked, no more camming power. > > Also: I always believed the military rounds were higher pressures to > reliably cycle firearms once they got a build up of dirt/crap in them... > This is the reason most civilians guns that fire military cartridges > have a warning on them, is it not?? If that were the case, when the gun was clean and allowed full gas pressure to pass, the bolt would slam into the rear of the receiver, causing damage to both the mechanism and your shoulder. Try firing a clean FN-FAL with the gas regulator wide open and you will quickly get the idea. Gerald Griffith " The easiest thing in the world to achieve is the effective disapproval of any sort of uncritically vested authority. " < Alexander King > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 20:08:35 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Daniel and Horace Horace Smith and Daniel Baird Wesson (Yes, THAT S&W!) formed a partnership in 1852 to manufacture the "rocket ball" Volcanic lever-action repeating pistol. The "rocket ball" was a conical lead bullet with a deep hollow base. The primer was put into that hole, then a feeble charge of black powder, then a sheet of cork. The firing pin punched through the cork, then the powder, then mashed the primer against the end of the hole. BOOM! Er -- more like PWFFFFFF!, actually. The pistol operated much like a lever-action rifle. In fact, after S&W gave up on it, the Volcanic was re-designed to use rimfire metallic cartridges and became first the Henry and then the Winchester M1866 -- by Oliver Winchester's company. S&W abandoned the Volcanic because they haad a new and better design -- the Wesson-designed .22 and .32 rimfire revolver that became the S&W Model 1. It ALSO used rimfire metallic cartridges, invented in Europe by Monsieur Flobert. The key to being able to manufacture the cartridge-using Model 1 lay in the Rollin White patent, which covered a revolver cylinder bored through from end to end, instead of partly drilled like a cap-and-ball cylinder. (White patented it for use in an unsuccessful cap-and-ball revolver.) S&W paid White $70,000 in royalties before that patent expired in 1869, but White had to spend a lot of that money defending the patent as people infringed upon it. He got $0.25 per revolver. The tiny Model 1 was the only handgun in the S&W line from 1856, when they formed their NEW partnership, to 1865, when the US Civil War ended. That was probably because they could sell everything they could make in wartime, so why complicate life by designing improvements? While the tiny Model 1 may seem ridiculous as a military weapon, it was actually very popular with Union officers. Forbidden to carry a large sidearm while wearing the uniform, they found that the Model 1 did not spoil the fit of their clothing. Speculation: What if S&W had realized that the same cure -- the Flobert rimfire cartridge -- that made the Model 1 possible had ALSO come as the salvation of the Volcanic design? Would S&W have become not only the great handgun manufacturer, but also have taken Winchester's place in history -- in RIFLES? Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Hindsight is always 20-20 vision. In real life, the constant moan of humanity is, "It seemed like a good idea at the time!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 04:55:36 -0600 From: "Damian R. Kanarek" Subject: Re: ISU Regulations Sometime recently, Donald T. Anderson mentioned that: >Because ISU regulations recognize, permit, and endorse usage of any >handgun which fits within a box of specific dimensions. Let's make this >perfectly clear -- the ISU disallows handguns on the basis of being too >large, not too small. > >That means, in essence, that virtually all .25 calibre and .32 calibre >handguns, as well all handguns with a barrel length less than 105 mm, >ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE ISU AS SUITABLE FOR ISU COMPETITION! > Not true. Minimum caliber for ISU Centre Fire is .30. For all other disciplines, it has to be .22 (LR and short). .25 does not fit ANY ISU discipline. Too bad... Damian ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #931 **********************************