From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Fri Aug 15 16:41:54 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 #948 Content-Length: 26293 X-Lines: 583 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, August 15 1997 Volume 01 : Number 948 In this issue: The Real World... Message to the Freeloader new Louisiana anti-"Carjacker" law Two killed by bears in B.C. campground Re: Safe Storage Latest NFA Case Unsafe storage vs privacy Re: Message to the Freeloader Re: Storage, Charles Lee posting in CFD 947 (Part 1 of 2) Re: Storage, Charles Lee posting in CFD 947 (Part 2 of 2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 08:58:06 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: The Real World... Canada's Auditor General, in his 1993 Annual Report, strongly condemned the office of the Minister of Justice for basing firearms control policies and legislation on grossly inadequate research. The Peel, Hamilton-Wentworth, Metro Toronto, Halton and Durham police have confirmed the Justice Department's research failures. They initiated and operated Project Gun Runner, and ran it for 9 months. Then they produced a report. The Project police apparently began as subscribers to the Justice Department's theory that all handguns used by criminals in Canada are legally bought by the criminal in Canada, illegally bought by the criminal (stolen property stolen from Canadians), or stolen by the criminal from Canadians. Because every handgun in Canada is supposed to be in the RCMP FRAS computer files, it was always easy to check the truth of that assumption. No one checked. Until Project Gun Runner. For 9 months, those 5 police organizations asked RCMP FRAS to trace every firearm that the police confiscated from a criminal. The results were startling. 77 per cent of the revolvers and 91 per cent of the semi-auto pistols had never been seen by the FRAS record system. That is an average of 86 per cent of all crime handguns -- ALL smuggled into Canada. Apparently, smuggling of handguns for the criminal market is a far more important source of guns for criminals than firearms owned by honest Canadians who DO register their firearms with FRAS. They caught one pair of "major" smugglers. According to Metro Toronto police, Stephen Gooding and David Gill, a couple of young men in a beat-up Toyota, had a lucrative business. They would drive across the bridge at Windsor ON, and visit an illegal firearms dealer in Michigan. The Michigan dealer was buying cheap .380 calibre handguns at US$73.95 wholesale from legitimate sources, obeying US laws. He would then sell them to Gooding & Gill -- illegally, under US laws - -- for US$130.00 each, in lots ranging from 10 to 50 at a time. Gooding & Gill would then re-cross the border over the Windsor bridge. Over 26,000 vehicles pass through Customs on that bridge every day. The risk that their car would be chosen for search was minimal -- and they were never searched, or even seriously questioned, at the border. Guns are easier to smuggle than cigarettes. The number of cubic feet to hide per $1000 profit is much smaller. Back in Toronto, they would sell the guns on the street for C$300 to $500 each. They made a net profit of over $50,000 doing it before they were caught. How were they caught? By astute detective work? By painstatking investigation of where handguns used in crime came from? No. They were stopped on Highway 401 for not wearing their seat belts. When the traffic officer checked the validity of Gooding's driver's licence by radio, he learned that the licence was suspended. He returned to the car and asked the driver (Gooding) to get out. Gooding resisted -- for reasons that will be obvious. As Gooding struggled, three handguns in his waistband slithered down his pantlegs or came loose and landed on the highway in front of the amazed officer. Gooding and Gill were quicly handcuffed. They did not try to use firearms on the officer. Searching, the officer found two more handguns in Gooding's waistband, and seven more under the front seat. 12 handguns -- worth C$3600 to C$6000 on the street, and for which G&G had paid $US1560. Already IN Canada. They had an easy, simple and profitable business -- one that they would very probably still be operating today, if they had done up their seat belts. As the Ottawa Citizen said [03 Apr 94], "The fact is, nobody knows or has reliable statistical estimates on how many guns are smuggled into Canada." As Detective Don MacCullum said of the Toronto firearms situation [Toronto Sun, 27 Mar 94], "Now the place is out of control, and there's no chance of bringing it back." Fermo Stefanelli, Director of Intelligence Services with Revenue Canada and Customs said, "There's a lot of areas and ways and means to get into Canada without coming through Customs [although G&G apparently DID go through a MANNED Customs station on EVERY trip -- DAT]. There are lakes and rivers and backroads and unmanned locations." As the Toronto Sun observed [27 Mar 97], "Ottawa's answer is paperwork. Our new gun control law requires prospective gun owners to get their photo taken, pass a course, pay $50, undergo a police background check, and answer four pages of questions to apply for a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. As if any of it will deter the punk who buys his pistol in a back alley." In the same article, the Sun quotes 31 Division Metro Toronto police Detective Sergeant Bruce Crawford. He waved bundles of FAC applications at the photographer, and said: "All these regulations don't mean a thing. I've never arrested a bad guy yet with an FAC. It just means having to take a [police officer] off the road to do nothing but check these out." Could the Justice Department's theory possibly be WRONG? Is is POSSIBLE that the criminals are NOT complying with all the firearms control rules? Is it possible that the entire firearms control program is NOT COST-EFFECTIVE? Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: The real world problems are that the criminals stubbornly refuse to do what you tell them to do, and do what you tell them not to do. Come up with a real-world solution for those two problems, and you've got it licked. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:34:38 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Message to the Freeloader Dear Freeloader: You have been getting NFA information at no expense for quite a while now. I do not know how many NFA sources you are reading -- this email Digest, the column in Canadian Sportsman, ads in the trade papers, NFA free handouts, etc. -- but please take a look at how much you have learned, and how valuable that information is to you. Perhaps you are one of the many people who have called the NFA for help -- one of those frantic phone calls we get from someone who has been charged with improper storage of firearms -- has been refused renewal of his or her FAC -- has a friend or relative in trouble with the firearms control laws -- whose firearm has been seized. Please THINK. The NFA supplies a LOT of information and help to people who have never contributed a dime to the NFA's work. If you are one of those people, THINK. THINK about how much MORE the NFA could do if every firearms owner in Canada sent us ONE DOLLAR for each firearm they owned. That would give us $21 MILLION to defend the rights of firearms owners, protect an promote the firearms community, and do a better job. Sadly, we do NOT have $21 million, or anything remotely approaching that. We cut expenses to the bone, pay our one lonely employee a pittance, and do everything else through the work of completely unpaid volunteer NFA officers. It actually COSTS the officer money to work for the NFA, because we never pay all of their expenses -- partly because they don't SUBMIT all their expenses. Is your firearms club a freeloader? Is it gathering and using NFA information, telling a member who is in trouble to call the NFA, but staying OUT of the NFA? If every club in Canada sent us $5 or $10 per member -- or even $1 -- we could do a lot more. The NFA is carrying many freeloaders on its back -- people who take and use NFA offerings, but do not help to pay for NFA services. Some of them are quite embarrassed when they call the NFA for help -- "Hey, I was meaning to join the NFA, but I just never got around to it -- read your stuff all the time -- but now the cops have seized my rifle, and I NEED HELP! NOW!" If you -- or your club -- joined the NFA, you would have access to NFA Liability Insurance, too. For $4.75 per member covered, you would be insured for $2 million in liability -- covering all your shooting activities at proper ranges AND in while hunting anywhere in Canada or the continental United States. If you have a personal membership and the insurance, you are covered at ANY proper range; if you have the insurance through your club, at any range where you are shooting as a representative of your club. And you won't be embarassed when you call NFA HQ for help. If you believe that NFA information has been useful or helpful -- if you believe that the NFA's actions in creating, fighting and distributing WINNING court cases -- if you believe that we need a STRONG national organization that is dedicated to the promotion, protection and support of EVERY PART of the firearms community -- THEN STOP BEING A FREELOADER. JOIN THE NFA. BECOME PART OF THE HAMMER, NOT JUST ANOTHER NAIL. Send your name, address and phone number (or your club's) to: NFA, Box 4384 Stn C, CALGARY AB, T2T 5N2 with your membership fee or Visa number. There are details on membership fees at the tail end of this issue of CFD. As C-68 comes into force, the number, COST and complexity of court cases we will be involved in is going to rise sharply. How much we will be able to do depends on YOU. If you or your club can afford to send a donation to the NFA for our legal work, please DO IT. You can also donate a few bucks every month by authorizing the NFA to debit your Visa account $?? per month. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:25:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: new Louisiana anti-"Carjacker" law Heard on CBC Radio this morning... ``...and Louisiana gets a tough new anti-"Carjacking" law'' ``The "Shoot the Carjacker" law comes into effect in Louisiana today. It says a motorist confronted by a carjacker can legally kill the attacker. The new law was sponsored by state representative Emile Bruneau of New Orleans. Louisiana has been hit by a rash of carjackings, often involving gangs. Critics say the law has given citizens a license to kill and enhanced Louisiana's reputation as a violent state.'' Then they played an interview with Emile Bruneau, who explained why he thought the critics were wrong. I was surprised at the balance with which the story was presented... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:27:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: Two killed by bears in B.C. campground A bear attack in northern British Columbia has left a man and woman dead, and two other people hurt. The attack happened last night at the Liard River Lodge provincial campground, near the Yukon border. Initially the bear attacked a young boy, then turned on the child's mother. The Texas woman died, along with a complete stranger who helped her fight off the bear. The man was a resident of Fort Nelson. Another man and a young girl have been flown to hospital in Nelson, B.C., and are reported to be in "not serious" condition. Investigators think two black bears were involved. Park workers have killed one of the bears and are looking for the other one. Meanwhile, nervous campers have left the area or moved indoors. source: http://www.newsworld.cbc.ca/news/newscdn.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:26 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Safe Storage At 08:58 AM 15-08-97 -0600, you wrote: > >Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, August 15 1997 Volume 01 : Number 947 >Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 21:59:26 -0600 >From: Charles Lee >Subject: storage laws > >All this discussion about unsafe storage has made me wonder about my own >storage habits. I live in a rented 1 bedroom apartment. I have a couple >of handguns, with trigger locks, inside a locked plastic gun carry case. I >have my ammo stored in a cardboard box a few feet away. This is all in my >closet, which cannot be locked. > >Now the ammo is supposed to be stored separately, but how separate does it >have to be? A few feet? In another room? Locked in a separate case but >in the same room? 'pends where you are - if in Ottawa, NOWHERE will ever be far enough for Ford - and, in Ontario cities generally, "unsafe ammunition storage" is a favorite harrassment tactic. Remember - the objective is to take your guns away from you under any pretence, then stonewall you as long as possible to prevent you getting them (or any others) back into your possession. That's what all this is about. Walk softly and join Reform The Canada you save may be your own. John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:29 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Latest NFA Case Chuck (BC) bought a semi-auto Thompson M1A1 submachine gun converted to semi-auto only. It was registered, but had not been re-registered in 1992. Chuck is not a "grandfathered" person who can purchase "converted automatics." When it was brought to them for examination, the police seized it. For a long time, they kept trying to get Chuck to voluntarily surrender if. He did not do that. Recently, they decided to take it to court for a disposal hearing, climing that it is a "prohibited weapon" because it was not re-registered in 1992. Chuck called the NFA and asked for help. Dave Tomlinson, who IS a "grandfathered" person, promptly bought the firearm, sight unseen. Chuck arrived at a pre-hearing conference and explained the new situation. The BC firearms control bureaucracy (Chief Provincial Firearms Officer's office) insisted that the firearm is a "prohibited weapon" and could not be transferred. Tomlinson supplied Chuck with the Birkett (Ontario) case, which ruled that the "requirement" to re-register all "converted automatics" in 1992 is NOT in the law. It is only a figment of the imagination of some bureaucrat in Ottawa who cannot read law and understand what it actually says. That is quite common, because the laws are so badly written. If there was no requirement to re-register in 1992, the firearm is still a registered restricted firearm. It is not a "prohibited weapon" and Tomlinson can buy it. Once thie situation is resolved, the firearm may be able to be transferred back to Chuck, or sold on his behalf. In the meantime, the BC DPFO is in direct confrontation with the NFA. It should be interesting. This case may back up the Ontario Birkett case, and set precedent in BC, which is why the NFA is involved. Whee! Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:33 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Unsafe storage vs privacy In message "Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #947", >From: sro >Subject: re: unsafe storage > >"Barry Glasgow" wrote: > >> Bottom line is this, if you're really worried about what they >> might find on your computer then you shouldn't have it there >> (and probably should be in jail anyway). > >Barry, > >I have nothing to hide on my computer. The fact is that they can have >access to my computer. "Reasonable Grounds" just doesn't cut it in my >way of thinking. Anyone can dream up "Reasonable Grounds" to search any >part of your house or you. Heck, I bet a 6 year old could some up with >some good reasons. How would you feel some inspector going through your >wife's underwear drawer to see if there is a pistol hidden in there. >Just because he has reasonable grounds to beleive that you may be >practicing unsafe storage. And like you said, which judge is going to >argue. It comes down to the fact that we are becoming helpless -- >through law. Tommorrow, we won't have any rights. No arguements from me, Sean. I was simply pointing out that no one should _fear_ for what may be seen on a computer and that if you were, you were probably involved in something illegal and wouldn't get much sympathy from anyone. My main reason for pointing this out was that we were all getting pretty sidetracked with details instead of looking at the indignity of it all and telling the bureaucrats to shove it up their collective kiesters on that basis alone. In other words, for you public servants out there who are being paid with my outrageous taxes to lurk around and "keep an eye" on me, STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY HOUSE unless you are pretty damn sure I'm involved in criminal activity. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:35 -0600 From: griffith@comnet.ca Subject: Re: Message to the Freeloader ** Reply to note from "David A. Tomlinson" Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:34:38 -0600 > > Dear Freeloader: > > You have been getting NFA information at no expense for quite a while now. > I do not know how many NFA sources you are reading -- this email Digest, This is an interesting development. I seem to recall subscribing to this list for about a year before Mr. Tomlinson discovered it. I don't recall it being described as an official NFA source, or a resource for NFA members; certainly not as a product of the NFA. Since becoming a subscriber, Mr. Tomlinson has used the list to promulgate his opinions. It has in fact been a wonderful resource for him in getting his message out. Every subscriber gets his every message, whether they want it or not. Fair enough; that's how a mailing list works. How they don't work is, nobody owes anyone else anything for their participation. Subscribers have in effect given Mr. Tomlinson an opportunity to persuade them that they should become NFA members. However, if he fails to do so, he does not have the right to berate anyone for failing to respond to his entreaties. That's just a good way to get your name in a twit filter. Gerald Griffith " The easiest thing in the world to achieve is the effective disapproval of any sort of uncritically vested authority. " < Alexander King > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:40 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Storage, Charles Lee posting in CFD 947 (Part 1 of 2) Briefly, the storage laws say that a non-restricted firearm must be stored either with a trigger lock on, or the bolt removed, or in a "safe" or a room specially constructed for the storage of firearms. A restricted firearm must, additionally, be stored with a trigger lock on, or in a "safe." A "safe" is, according to Black's Law Dictionary, a metal receptacle for the preservation of valuables. So apparently any METAL container that locks is a "safe." That may be disputed by the authorities, but looks pretty solid. Would the CFC like to comment on it? Please do. The Orders in Council do NOT define the word "safe." Ammunition may not be stored "with" firearms, unless both the firearm and the ammunition are in a "safe." The Orders in Council do not define the word "with." They do not set out any conditions for the storage of ammunition, other than not "with" the firearm. The INTENT of the storage regulations is public safety. Because the regulations are regulatory (public welfare) offences, the accused is entitled to a defence of "due diligence" -- that is, "I didn't do it the way I was supposed to, but I did it in a way that provided adequate or equivalent public safety." "Storage" cases are very difficult for the Crown to win -- IF the accused has the NFA 7-pack of court decision transcripts. Court decisions from the NFA 7-pack: Finlay, Supreme Court of Canada: For conviction, the Crown must prove that the firearm was stored negligently, in a manner that "constitutes a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person." The Crown may NOT put the accused on the witness stand without the accused's consent, and the accused has to be proved guilty. The accused does NOT have to prove that he is innocent. "If a REASONABLE DOUBT exists either that the conduct in question did NOT constitute a MARKED departure from that standard of care, or that reasonable precautions were taken to discharge the duty of care IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, a verdict of acquittal must follow." [Lamer, J, 23 CR (4th) (521), emphasis added -- DAT]. (The NFA paid Finlay's defeence lawyer for the SCC hearing.) In Baldwin, 30 Jan 96, Ont Court of Justice, Provincial Division, Judge Bordelau ruled that "a higher standard of care" should NOT apply to Baldwin "as he is an expert in the USE of firearms." (Thieves broke into Baldwin's locked apartment and found target rifles in an unlocked closet. They did not take the rirles.) in He agreed instead with the defence lawyer, that "it has not been shown that he is a expert in the STORAGE of firearms." His final verdict was, "I am therefore satisfied in this case that the remoteness of Mr. Baldwin's actions from any REAL or ACTUAL risks of harm to anyone leaves me more than a reasonable doubt and consequently the two charges will be dismissed." (The NFA assisted the Baldwin defence lawyer.) In Baxter, District Court of Ontario, 08 Feb 85, Judge McWilliam ruled that a .45 Colt M1911 with a loaded magazine inserted partway into the magazine way and "stored" under a mattress in a home with no small children "is not such storage as might reasonably be expected to result in some danger to others by reason of the inherently dangerous characteristics of firearms and ammunition... As a result, the accused is acquitted." (The NFA advised that defence, to Baxter's lawyer.) (Continued in Part 2 of 2) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 16:19:43 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Storage, Charles Lee posting in CFD 947 (Part 2 of 2) In Bowskill, Ont Court (Provincial Division) at Brighton ON, Judge Bark ruled that a loaded shotgun "leaned...against the wall...out of sight and in a private area not accessible to the public" in his drugstore was not IN "storage," so the "storage" regulations did not apply to it. "Bowskill said that he had the gun to defend himself and most emphatically stated that the gun was not stored there...I have no reason to disbelieve him. A fair reading of the word 'store' used in this context would lead any reasonably prudent person to the same conclusion, and the charge will be dismissed." (The NFA advised his lawyer of this defence.) In Davies, Medicine Hat Criminal Division of the Provincial Court of Alberta, 21 Aug 96, the search warrant was voided because the police used the SWAT team when they had no evidence that the accused was violent. "Surely, every search warrant entry into a private residence does not justify a SWAT team because one knows guns are present in the house...I find that the use of the SWAT team in the method it was used was oppressive, overactive and must have been truly traumatic to the occupants, two of whom were a woman and a child. Accordingly, I find that this also amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure." In Joe, 25 Nov 96, Alberta Provincial Court, Criminal Division, Lac La Biche AB, Judge Demetrick ruled that a rifle and shotgun left, in a rear-window rack, in a parked truck on a downtown street, with the doors unlocked and one window partly down, did not constitute careless storage. He ruled, "The evidence does not (a) establish exactly when the guns were put in [the] truck... (b) prove that Ladouceur himself put the guns in the truck... (c) establish why the guns, borrowed for hunting purposes, were put in the truck, [or] (d) PROVE THAT THE GUNS WERE PUT IN THE TRUCK UPON AN INTENTION THAT THEY REMAIN THERE, INACTIVE, UNTOUCHED AND OUT OF THE PROMPT CONTROL OF THE PERSON WHO PUT THEM THERE FOR A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME." Again, the Crown had failed to prove that the guns were IN "storage," or who put them there, if they were. The above cases are all Criminal Code section [CC s.] 86(2) "careless storage" cases. The Crown's situation is even worse in CC s. 86(3) "storage in violation of a regulation" cases, as the Smillie case below shows. In Smillie, 06 May 96, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry No. CC950999, Mr. Justice Stewart ruled: "...the accused has established that each of the [CC s. 86(3)] counts...must be quashed as a result of the combined effect of [CC] s. 86(3) and s. 116(1)(g) and paragraph 6 of the regulation is to create an offence... with respect to which proof by the accused ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES that he did not fail to direct his mind to a risk that a reasonable person would have appreciated would NOT result in an acquittal, and that being so, as the potential penalty is as grave as imprisonment two years, the offence is not structured so that the moral fault of the prisoner is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and its penalty. Thus the accused has established that s. 7 of the Charter has been infringed or denied...To me it is readily apparent that one could store a restricted firearm in a way that did not comply with paragraph 6 of the regulation, yet not create a situation which, viewed objectively, would amount to the creation of a risk which a reasonable person would have appreciated. [Emphasis added -- DAT]" You cannot combine imprisonment and a law which voids the "due diligence" defence without voiding the law for Charter violation. Dave Tomlinson, NFA Taylor Buckner E-mail Research Papers: ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #948 **********************************