From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Aug 13 11:26:37 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 #945 Content-Length: 25813 X-Lines: 657 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, August 13 1997 Volume 01 : Number 945 In this issue: Coated Bullets Coated Bullets re:Grandfathered Owners, Pre-1946 Mfg and UIT Pistols Molybdenum Disulfide C-68 Court Challenge Update Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #944 A great rebuttal...... Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #944 Re: Coalition for Gun Control Unsafe storage 155 million and counting Re: Well Funded Gun Lobby More on how Regulations are made... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:38:14 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Coated Bullets >1. I have fired many thousands of both COATED and UNCOATED bullets, >often bullets from the same lot and weight, and will tell you that in >the real world the recoil appears to be reduced by up to 50%, >2. I have chronographed both COATED and UNCOATED bullets, (from the same >production run), and have found that the COATED ones record slower >velocities with the same loading!! If the velocity is lower, then naturally the recoil will be less. I didn't realize that using coated bullets resulted in lower velocities. >Now why would that be ?????? Previous messages have explained that. Lower friction results in lower pressure which in turn results in lower velocity. It's the same effect you get with crimping bullets in handgun ammo. Heavier crimps give higher pressures and velocities. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I simply hadn't considered the possibility of lower bullet friction giving lower velocity. If you use coated bullets and increase the load to give the same velocity as with uncoated bullets, the recoil will be just a bit higher due to the increased mass of high velocity powder gas exiting the muzzle. Ron McCutcheon P. Eng mccutcrg@mail.rose.com Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:38:17 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Coated Bullets >4. As you are a professional engineer I can explain the principles that >govern this in a technical and scientific manner. If we >tie a long piece of rope, (say 100 meters long) to a beam and tie an >engineer on the other end, and decide to make him swing say 4 meters, we >can do it by either of two ways: >a. We could walk up to him and push gently and firmly so that he swings >the four meters in comfort, and at a slightly lower speed. >b. We could take a very large board, ( with a large and rusty nail in >the end) and hit him with it until he swings the four meters, (no doubt >howling in protest). A very graphic illustration . I THINK you are trying to say is that felt recoil is depends on more than just momentum. I agree. A light gun kicks more than a heavy gun fired with the same load. The momentum is the same but the light gun recoils faster and thus kicks harder. If you are interested in a short treatise on recoil, read the Powley Papers in the 1974 Guns and Ammo Annual. This article explains how pressure, calibre and gun weight all affect apparent recoil. In the message regarding coated bullets I mistakenly assumed that we were talking about effects of a single change (coated versus uncoated bullets) where everything else is the same. That is to say, same gun, same mass of bullet fired at the same velocity. From previous messages, it is clear that this was NOT the case. Using coated bullets with the same load apparently results in lower velocity and thus lower recoil. Given bullets of the same mass fired at the same velocity through the same firearm, I'm sure you will agree that there should be no perceptible difference in felt recoil between coated and uncoated bullets. Ron McCutcheon P. Eng mccutcrg@mail.rose.com Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:38:19 -0600 From: "Wayne Salhany" Subject: re:Grandfathered Owners, Pre-1946 Mfg and UIT Pistols In message "Grandfathered Owners, Pre-1946 Mfg and UIT Pistols", = you write: Hi Katherine: >=BBAs you note in your latest message to me, some of my answers >=BBsimply lead to further questions. There is no doubt that some >=BBof your questions cannot be answered as the legislation cannot >=BBand does not cover every case scenario or exception to the >=BBgeneral rule. It is unfortunate to say that, as with every new >=BBpiece of legislation, some questions will only be answered once >=BBthe court system becomes involved in the process. Yes. However, this is usually the exception and not the rule = which must be put to test in the courts. The fact that most of this legislation must be put to = test in court presents a very large financial burden on the = Canadian people to determine what is meant by legislation = which we have already spent money to design... whether we = agree with it or not. The fact that most of this legislation must be put to = test indicates its poor workmanship. = I understand you can not take a position on this statement. >=BB >=BBI wish to clarify how the legislation defines the exception to >=BBthe handgun prohibition to be made for some target shooting >=BBpistols. Although the handguns must be for target shooting >=BBpurposes, it is not the handguns which must be governed by UIT >=BBrules or definitions, but the competitions in which they are >=BBused. The handguns must be for use in competitions governed by >=BBUIT rules. This would in fact cover national or local >=BBcompetitions, as long as UIT rules were being used. On one hand you talk about specific firearms being included = on a "good gun" list and on the other you talk about = firearms used in competitions ruled by UIT rules. I can have a match ruled by UIT rules at any time... The book of rules is available... What about matches like the = Canadian 900, 1800 or 2700 which are very similar and fall under NRA rules. The firearms fall under similar problems. NRA is international competition too. >=BB >=BBUnfortunately, on the basis of the legislation and regulations >=BBas they now stand, it is impossible to determine what is going >=BBto happen when certain firearms or modified or when new models >=BBare manufactured. Those cases will have to be reviewed at that >=BBtime. There is certainly a mechanism built into the law to >=BBexempt firearms, by regulation, from the prohibition on >=BBshort-barreled, .25 or .32 calibre handguns. >=BB >=BBYou are correct in saying that it will be impossible for you to >=BBpass on your competition pistol to a family member if it is not >=BBmanufactured prior to 1946. You will only be able to dispose >=BBof it or to transfer it to a person who is grandfathered with >=BBrespect to that class of firearms. And upon my terminating my use of my competition pistols, deemed "cheap and inaccurate" by Mr. Rock, what or who is going to reimburse me for having to "dispose" of them and on what = fee scale. = If I were to ban your car because I said there are cheap and undesirable cars out there, wouldn't you want compensation = for not being able to obtain its remaining value upon disposal. Most of these handguns are of similar value to a used car in = magnitude. >=BB >=BBI realize some of my answers may not be very satisfactory to >=BByou. However, I must obviously answer any enquiry within the >=BBbounds set by the legislation. No they are not satisfactory to me. However, that is not because you aren't trying, it is because the answers you are required to give are not satisfactory. I thank you for trying, however I must question the wisdom of a government department who is charged with instituting a system which is as poorly conceived as Bill C-68, at the burden rate you = people demand yet they can not provide any concrete answers. I am not being rude... just honest. Financially and in light = of the state of our economic environment, the CFC is beginning to look like a really bad investment. Again, I realize you are unable to take a position on this = nor do I wish you to... Just a piece of advice from the = private sector... When the project looks flawed and there is = no hope of the control you need to change things... might be time to move on... And again, I do thank you for trying to provide answers to my questions... Your help is appreciated. Wayne Salhany P.S. I have copied this to the Canadian Firearms Digest as = your answers are of value to others I know who follow that list. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:38:10 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Molybdenum Disulfide > Molybdenum disulfide is chemically INERT. Molybdenum disulfide has been implicated in stress corrosion cracking of bolts used for flanged joints. I believe that there are recommendations that WD-40 not be used for firearms because of it has the potential to cause stress corrosion cracking due to high chloride content. I don't THINK molybdenum disulfide would cause the same problem but I'm not a metallurgist. Ron McCutcheon P. Eng mccutcrg@mail.rose.com Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 18:38:21 -0600 From: "ANDY VON BUSSE" Subject: C-68 Court Challenge Update We all were able to read the drivel that was recently posted here by the Coalition for Gun Control. It is fortunate the Wendy Cuiker is not a Liberal elected politician, as she would surely be Minister of Misinformation. The Alberta Fish and Game Association has spent over $75,000 to date preparing for the court challenge that will be heard in early September. It is interesting that the Coalition spreads its lies about the 'massive funding' that the 'gun lobby' has, when the Coalition gets donations from the City of Toronto taxpayers for $50,000 to put into their 'free' lawyer, Clayton Ruby's pocket. The question is, how many of you readers have helped fund the Court challenge... how many of your clubs have that you are a member of?? Or is it a matter of... oh... someone else is doing something and I hope it works so I can benefit??? Can you make a commitment to organize a $500 donation from your area to help the AFGA continue in OUR fight, the fight we are all in for? Can you get your club, your friends, your neighbors to kick in some dollars so we can continue in this very expensive fight. W E N E E D H E L P N O W ! ! ! ! ! We can not much longer afford to continue, and this case is virtually assured of ending up in the Supreme Court of Canada, no matter which side wins in Alberta. The AFGA represents all firearm owners as an intervener, but WE NEED FUNDS TO CONTINUE. Please send donations to Alberta Fish and Game Association 6924-104 St. Edmonton, Alberta T6H 2L7 We appreciate any assistance the firearms community of Canada can bring to help fund this case. Andy von Busse President Alberta Fish and Game Association ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:36:14 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #944 At 06:38 PM 12-08-97 -0600, you wrote: > >Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, August 12 1997 Volume 01 : Number 944 > >Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:27:10 -0600 >From: "David A. Tomlinson" >Subject: Re: AGM - President > >>I've been getting some encouragement from ***** to inquire about becoming >>President at the National level. I would like to know what's involved and >>what would be expected from me. It would be nice to discuss this over the >>phone, in person would be ideal but not realistic for the moment. > >>I'm interested in the NFA and the cause we are fighting for. > Gee, Dave, I enjoyed your answer to this query. All this time I was wondering just *what* you did for all the glory that comes from being president of such a prestigious body as NFA. :-) Seriously, tho' it was a fine posting, and gives me another excuse to say thank you with all the sincerity in my heart for what you have done and are doing for the fraternity. Walk softly and join Reform Canada can be strong. John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 22:36:15 -0600 From: Ken Pisichko Subject: A great rebuttal...... - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 97 03:47 BST-1 From: Robin Holding Reply-To: fullbore@winshop.com.au To: fullbore@winshop.com.au Cc: fullbore@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Interview Excerpt from a recent live radio interview on one of the regional Welsh stations: A female newscaster is interviewing the leader of a Youth club: Interviewer: So, Mr Jones, what are you going to do with these children on this adventure holiday? Jones: We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting... Interviewer: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it? Jones: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range Interviewer: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children? Jones: I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm. Interviewer: But your equipping them to become violent killers. Jones: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you? Needless to say, the interview was terminated almost immediately...... Robin. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 06:08:45 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #944 > Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 21:52:37 -0600 > From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) > Subject: Re: Inaccuracies in FRAS records. > WHAT THE HELL IS MY INCENTIVE FOR REGISTERING FIREARMS IF C-68 BECOMES LAW??!! > Yes, I'm yelling. I'm appalled by the mere mention of the above incident > (and too many others like it). Why would someone obviously trying to comply > with existing legislation be treated like this? > Tell me again what registration has done for anyone. I've heard from a few people about SWAT teams being used for standard "safe storage" inspections in Toronto.. Often BEFORE the first gun arrives home from the cop shop. As for what it's done, I can tell you: It's cost TONS of the gov't.. pardon.. OUR money, and has resulted in mass seizures / prohibitions of legally owned, properly used sporting equipment. Quite frankly I REALLY can't see anyone who trusted the gov't in 1992 being dumb enough to fall for it twice. Just look what happened... Now you can't even use the damned guns for target shooting! (Apparently ARs, FNs and AKs have some demonic mysterious quality that makes them inappropriate for hunting and shooting as compared to saaaayyyyyy........ Mini-14's, M-14s and SKSs.) As the old saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." - -- Dave Kratky O/O VAM Computers: (519) 925-3583 Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:57:41 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Coalition for Gun Control > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 06:15:46 -0600 > From: "jbingham" > Subject: Letter to the Editor > Sirs, > I just finished reading the Coaltion for Gun Control letter, what tripe. > They have prompted me to act, I will now join the NFA. I did not think that > I would join before this time, as I received all I wanted from you folks in > the Journal. Now I can see that these people are relentless in their fight > Enraged, > David James Parry :) Nice to see the time inputing it to the CfD was well spent. :) Thanks for the fax Bob! - -- Dave Kratky O/O VAM Computers: (519) 925-3583 Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:57:44 -0600 From: jean hogue Subject: Unsafe storage >First of all, the vast majority of computers are operating under >sophisticated and user-opaque operating system such as Windows 3.1x, >Win95, OS2, Mac, etc. *ALL* of theses systems use disk space as >virtual memory, temporary files, etc. Whenever you type something >in, it is susceptible to end up on *anywhere* your disk, whether you >saved it on the hard disk or somewhere else. Indeed. Word, for instance, can be set up to keep a backup file automatically. Those *.bak files will not even be listed by Word if the viewing option is left to the default *.doc files. Thank you for pointing this out. I have also noticed that Word creates a temporary file with an obscure name. Who knows what happens with these. The are supposed to be closed when you exit Word, but there is no particular reason why these should be flushed. Ollie North found out the hard way that "delete" only removed a file from a list visible to the user but in reality the file is left on the hard disk, overwritten, maybe, if space is required for another file. >If C-68 put you at risk due to the content of your computer, I was referring to any file you deem confidential, such as income tax filings, a personnal address book, etc. that I do not believe C-68 "administrative inspectors" have any legitimate business snooping at. Maybe in your list of friends there is one that has guns and all names in the list should be targetted for an "administrative inspection" too ? Other ways to put a person at risk: essential data for a small business that has nothing to do with guns. If the "administrative inspectors" seize your computer because of the presence of what they think is an encrypted file you did not assist in breaking, you can always buy another computer to keep running your small business using the data on your floppies. You will not be able to do this if you left the data encrypted on your seized hard disk. >if you do not want to learn how to use a computer securely I have indeed not spent any time to examine this, please elaborate on the following: when you create, edit or simply view an encrypted document, at that point you can only work on the plaintext (unencrypted) version -- back to the point where the heavy-handed operating system is now managing an unencrypted file. How does encryption deal with the plaintext files, temporary or backup, that were created in the process ? Or does your encryption program include a word processor secure from the shenanigans of the operating system ? (and smart enough to deal with Random Access Memory contents that were swapped to disk in yet another operating system trick). >then DO NOT USE THE COMPUTER AT ALL to process the >sensitive information. Period. > "Sensitive information" can be mere personnal and private information that has nothing to do with gun control. You can be at risk of something else than violating C-68. I am not giving up the capabilities of the computer to process personnal information anymore than I will have electrical power in my home disconnected on the grounds this might prevent electrocution. The point is not to teach people how to engage in criminal activities with a computer and get away with it. The point is to show that the wholesale "administrative" fishing expeditions on someone's computer are not even practical. During the course of the "administrative inspection", the gun carrying police officer acting as the inspector will not be able to find his way through the operating system anymore than the owner of the computer. The systematic search for hidden files would take hours and can only be conducted on a seized computer, by specialized personnel, at a police location. But to seize your computer, the "inspector" must first have a reason, not necessarily a smoking "I have illegal guns" file. For instance: refusal to cooperate in the administrative search because of inability to decrypt a file (does one belong to your mate ? did you forget the password for an old file you forgot to remove ?). And I forgot to mention about paper records also subject to C-68 ... Regards ____________________________________________________________ "A firearm is a fireaarm, even a replica" Heidi Rathjen, Coalition for Gun Control The Montreal Gazette, August 6, 1997, p. A7 ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:57:46 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: 155 million and counting > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:27:11 -0600 > From: "Carlo Robazza" > Subject: Complaint filed on misfired gun control deal > DMR Consulting Group Inc. has filed a complaint with the Canadian > International Trade Tribunal stating that they were unfairly judged for > the contract to write part of the gun control registry database system. > The contract is estimated to be more than $30 million. Pardon me? $30 million just for PART of the software????????????????? If I recall correctly (and I do) Alan "Iron Hand" Rock said $85 million OVER FIVE YEARS! Now.. CfC Budget=$125 million+$30 million in software seems to = $155 million........ Hmmmmmm... I guess Rock(head)'s math is about up on par with his honesty and common sense. [Moderator comments: Rock did say once that he studied law because it didn't involve math or heavy lifting. ;-) HTB] - -- Dave Kratky O/O VAM Computers: (519) 925-3583 Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 07:57:51 -0600 From: "Marauder (D. Kratky)" Subject: Re: Well Funded Gun Lobby > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 13:27:10 -0600 > From: "David A. Tomlinson" > Subject: Re: AGM - President > The CFC has a staff of well over 100, and the provinces have big staffs to > deal with firearms control. The firearms community has unpaid volunteers. > It is not fair, and it is not right -- but we are winning in spite of the > odds. Gee Dave..... You mean the anti-gunners are lying, when they talk about the "well funded gun-lobby, with access to the millions of dollars in the treasuries of the richest provinces"??????? You mean, there aren't thousands and thousands of paid "mercenaries" besieging the poor people at the Do"J" and the CCFCG??????? Why... Why... - -- Dave Kratky O/O VAM Computers: (519) 925-3583 Ontario NFA Member Sysop, AOU BBS: (519) 928-2369 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:06:57 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: More on how Regulations are made... >»Thank you for your reply to my response to you on the Orders in Council. >» >»I simply wanted to clarify the difference between a regulation >»and an Order in Council. As we have already exhausted the >»procedure for making Orders in council, I don't propose to go >»back over it. Regulations differ from Orders in Council in >»that they benefit from the full discussion and debate to be had >»before the House of Commons. The Regulations to the Firearms >»Act will, before becoming law, be subject to three readings and >»the accompanying debate, committee hearings and a vote in the >»House. That, I submit, is incorrect. Under existing law, each proposed regulation must be "laid before each House of Parliament, at least 30 sitting days before its effective date." It is not treated like a Bill, however, as you suggest, but is merely opened to "every appropriate Committee as determined by the rules of each House of Parliament." Such Committees are permitted ["may"] to "conduct enquiries or public hearings...and report its findings to the appropriate House. [CC s. 116(2)]" The House may, as usual, ignore whatever the Committee says, and the Committee may well ignore its permission to do anything about the proposed regulation. That safeguard is largely illusory, in that it is not MANDATORY for ANYONE to do anything at all about any proposal that has been "laid before...Parliament." There may well be no hearings, readings, debate or "vote in the House." Even where full Committee hearings ARE held, it is common for each House to reject the output -- if any -- of its Committee, as was done with recent regulation changes. It is much worse under C-68. FA s. 119 largely eliminates those safeguards for regulations made under FA s. 117 and 118. Those requirements may be ignored "if the federal Minister is of the OPINION that the changes [are] so immaterial or insubstantial that s. 118 should not [apply], [FA s. 119(2)]" if it is made under "117(i), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q), (s) or (r)...if the federal Minister is of the OPINION that the making of the regulation is so urgent..." [s. 119(2), if it is made "under s. 117(w) [s. 119(5)]," or if it is made "under Part III of the Criminal Code." Additionally, ALTERATIONS to existing regulations -- no matter how major the change or severe the new version of the regulation -- need not be laid before Parliament [s. 117(1)]. [Emphasis added.] Court precedents tell us that where the Minister is entitled, by statute, to do things or not do things in the light of his own "opinion," a court cannot and will not substitute the opinion of the court for the opinion that the statute says is to rule. Most of the safeguards that you see are not visible to us -- particularly since we have already seen them fail. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #945 **********************************