From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mon Aug 18 12:41:58 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 #950 Content-Length: 23507 X-Lines: 602 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, August 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 950 In this issue: Re: Campers killed by black bear Re: Bears and guns Re: Freeloader 1997 IPSC Ontario Provincial Championships NFA helps Re: Message to the Freeloader the truth about Wendy Change the government Restricted "gifts" re: freeloaders. Re: Lindstradt Re: Lost cheque? Militarization of the Police I ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:47:24 -0600 From: "Jim B. Powlesland" Subject: Re: Campers killed by black bear On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, SBKracer wrote: > Hmmmmmmmm........If campers carried guns they wouldn't get killed by > bears. Like Wendy says "If it saves only one life!" The news report I heard stated that a nearby camper who had a gun in his vehicle killed the first bear after the attack. Wardens are still searching for the second bear. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:32 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Bears and guns At 12:05 PM 17-08-97 -0600, you wrote: > >Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, August 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 949 > >Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 04:13:21 -0600 >From: SBKracer >Subject: Campers killed by black bear. > >Hmmmmmmmm........If campers carried guns they wouldn't get killed by >bears. Like Wendy says "If it saves only one life!" > >Now there is irony for you two lives lost because they didn't have a gun! >What does the CFGC think of that? In one story of this incident I read, some camper DID have a gun, shot the bear and perhaps did save one more life. Walk softly and join Reform The Canada you save may be your own. John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:41 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Freeloader At 12:05 PM 17-08-97 -0600, you wrote: > >Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, August 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 949 > >Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:36:23 -0600 >From: Hugh Jenkins >Subject: Re: Message to the Freeloader > >Please un subscribe me from this list. I hate to be a burden and I don't >like being called a free loader. Have a good one eh? > Don't forget folks, this list is NOT the NFA, whatever you might think about that organization. And there's nothing closer than your delete button. Walk softly and join Reform The Canada you save may be your own. John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:33 -0600 From: Bud Melless Subject: 1997 IPSC Ontario Provincial Championships 1997 IPSC Ontario Provincial Championships - ---------------------------------------------------- Well, there's only two left weeks until the big match at Sudbury again this year, we thought send this reminder so that you can still get a slot for this fun match. We think the 1997 IPSC Ontario Provincial Championships will be one of the best yet. The gang at Sudbury have been busy for some time now designing and building stages for this years match, and extend a big welcome to IPSC members everywhere to come on up and enjoy the fun. Range Officials who signed up to work the weekend will receive: Hotel Accommodations Meals and Refreshements while working Match Fees paid for by IPSC Ontario & the Sudbury Club A chance in a draw on each of three match days A Range Officer shirt, and more. All at no charge. That's right, NO CHARGE!! Just our way of saying thanks to our Range Officials Scheduled for August 29, 30 and 31, the match this year will of course be an IPSC Level III match that includes the following: * 14 Stages of pure fun - built on 11 ranges. * Approximately 200 rounds * Awards Banquet (Sunday Evening) with a huge Beef, and Pork Roast. * President's Medals * IPSC Ontario Medals * Provincial Awards * IPSC Ontario Match Certificates * Stage Awards - Sudbury Revolver Club Awards * IPSC Ontario Championship Program Awards * Free camping available with washroom and shower facilities * Breakfast and lunch is served right on the premises * Match Shirts - Printed right on-site this year * Shotgun and Pistol Side-Events * Match Fee $55.Cdn. That's right folks, $55.00 As per the new IPSC Rules, the match will be scored as two separate matches. Therefore, there will be seperate awards for Open, as well as Standard. The shooting schedule will be radically different from other years too, there will only be one start time. Eight squads of six or seven competitors will begin at 8:30am and shoot til 12: Noon. Everyone, (RO's included) will stop for one and a half hours for a lunch break, sleep or whatever, and start again at 1:00pm. This way, everyone will be done shooting by 4:00pm and can enjoy the rest of the day off. We think everyone will appreciate the break. The match is shot in one day, and no competitor has to work. Anyone who's ever been to a Sudbury match can tell you how nice the ranges are, and the fine people at the Sudbury Club. It's just a great way to spend the Labour Day weekend, and another opportunity for Ontario members to support one of your clubs. To obtain a registration form for this great match, please call: Dave Derro (Sudbury) (705) 560-9969 or, Bud Melless (Lindsay) (705) 328-3353 This year will be even better because the match begins on the Friday, and runs until Sunday afternoon only, with the huge Awards Banquet scheduled for Sunday evening, giving you the entire Monday to travel. For all you Ontario members who have Map Books, see page 39 for directions. Anyone wishing to go that needs directions, please reply to this message offline, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the map. Thanks Dave Derro - Match Director Bud Melless - Range Master ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:35 -0600 From: Bill Rantz Subject: NFA helps The federal government is about to bring into force the most antifirearm package Canadians have ever seen. Perhaps all who have had their feelings hurt should realize that the real problem is the multimillions of gunowners who are doing nothing to defend their chosen lifestyle. These are the cause of frustration in many who fight the antis at every step. If you feel personally insulted please take the time to look at the situation from other viewpoints. I have often had gunowners tell me that they don't have to pay to join the NFA because they get everything free from the sources Dave listed. Last month one of these individuals arrived at my workplace because "crimestoppers" had sent the OPP to his door and his entire collection was seized due to "storage violations". Then Dave Tomlinson immediately stepped in to help this person even though he knew he was not an NFA member. This was at considerable cost in both money and time to the NFA. I am unaware of any person who has ever been refused NFA assistance because they were not an NFA member. The problem as I see it is if the NFA does not grow in size it will not be able to afford to help all who call due to financial constraints. This would put the NFA in the situation where it could only provide legal assistance to paid members. Mr. Griffith, I hope you remain on line and that you consider joining the NFA so that you may speak as a member who will guide the NFA into the most difficult years that Canadian gunowners have ever seen. If you choose not to join that is your right. If you are ever the victim of a police witch hunt and need immediate top quality legal advice feel free to contact the NFA because we will help you. ( whether or not you are a member. ) Wm. R. Rantz NFA Ontario President ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:29 -0600 From: Karen & Jerrold Lundgard Subject: Re: Message to the Freeloader >Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 19:36:23 -0600 >Subject: Re: Message to the Freeloader > >Please un subscribe me from this list. I hate to be a burden and I don't >like being called a free loader. Have a good one eh? If you pass on and distribute NFA material at your own expense on your own time, you are not a "freeloader" . You are contributing to the NFA cause. The contribution is not direct in the sense of a membership or even a donation but it is a valid contribution. Every thing that promotes the position of the NFA, even talking about firearms issues to friends, contributes to the NFA. The people who have gone and spent a day at a trade fair, or in a booth at a flea market, and has handed out NFA information have done their part in supporting the NFA. The value of this volunteer work cannot be measured but it does contribute. Some people buy a membership, some donate money, some do volunteer work as it is all they can afford. The value of a volunteer spending three days in a booth at a trade fair passing out NFA information more than compensates for not having an NFA membership or having made a monetary donation. Dave would like to have the membership numbers reflect the number of gun owners in Canada. Maybe he forgot for a moment that people contribute in the best way they can. And maybe some people believe the membership records of the NFA may someday be used for a firearms owner "witch hunt" just as some now believe the mail in registration card will create a "firearms owners list" which may result in legal charges in the future. Right now one of the goals of the Canadian Firearms Digest (and the NFA) is to spread information to the public regarding Canadas firearm laws. The more accurate the information, and the wider it is spread, the more effective we will be in changing firearms law. Also the more volunteers we will get to spread the 'good word'. Rather than be offended by Mr. Tomlinson, tell him the error of his ways. Everyone makes errors - even politicians enacting legislation. I am sure the owner and moderator of the CFD do not agree with the context of all the messages posted, but they still post them. CFD is refreshing after the bias of the other media. Newspapers are great but only "selected" letters to the editor ever get printed. Television is even worse as very short "selected and edited" clips are used in a manner which leaves a very biased impression. The last thing firearms owners and their organizations want to do is offend or alienate those who would support them. Jerrold Peace River, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:26 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: the truth about Wendy > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Campers killed by black bear. > > Hmmmmmmmm........If campers carried guns they wouldn't get killed by > bears. Like Wendy says "If it saves only one life!" > > Now there is irony for you two lives lost because they didn't have a gun! > What does the CFGC think of that? > > Same thing happened here in Ontario 2 weeks ago,... > Just like the BC woman dragged out of her home by an assailent (Who also > beat her boyfriend of mother), and clubbed to death... One must wonder > what the results of these incidences would be if the people involved > were armed, and willing to defend themselves... 4 legged assailents or > 2. > Situations like this point out a real advantage appeasers have: no connection between cause and effect. Appeasement principles stand on there own "merits" and anyone who questions them on the basis of logic is a nasty, brutish person. For example, in the above situations, one should focus on the enormous guilt and symbolic brutality of having any weapon for any reason rather than the irrelevant possibility that some people would be alive today. Such abstractions appear to be the mark of a superior intellect, I am told. Oh, well, I guess I will never be a Public Relations Professor. > > "A firearm is a firearm, even a replica" > > Heidi Rathjen, Coalition for Gun Control > The Montreal Gazette, August 6, 1997, p. A7 Wendy is an idiot, and so is her replica alas Wendy will become a senator, and so will her replica ====================== > As a side note, a gentleman in Hamilton, Ont might be charged for > shooting at (hit one) three teens doing a little B&E on his neighbors > house. Hope he gets away with it. We are in a sad state in this country when he have to hope that a citizen can "get away" with protecting himself and his property from criminals. > was going on. (:) I rather doubt those young 'uns will ever be trying > anything like that again, at least not without wondering if there's a > shotgun being aimed at them. :))) > I'm sure the trauma counselling will focus on rebuilding their shattered confidence...even if it takes years ======================================= > Subject: "Freeloaders"; > > I welcome each and every posting from Dave. And I don't care about who > discovered the cfd first. > Me, too. Mr. T's postings cover so many topics that the few who don't pertain to me I just flip through. A trivial price to pay for all the info that does affect me, not to mention the timely responses he has given to several questions I have sent him. > > OTOH, there is no reason why every gun owner in this country should not be > a member of the NFA. Agreed. For the chronically cheap (such as me) I can say that the cost of membership is be well worth it, just for the included magazines alone. Very good value, IMO. > Gunowners are now the target of a mean, systematic attack by the government. > Staying on the sideline, not even contributing a dime to pay for court cases > is simply not good enough. > Well said. Jim Davies ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 20:37:31 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Change the government At 12:05 PM 17-08-97 -0600, you wrote: > >Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, August 17 1997 Volume 01 : Number 949 >Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:04:03 -0600 >From: mtoma >Subject: resistance > >Some thoughts on the "gun registry" that will implemented with all its >consequences soon. What can we as members of the gun culture do? Only one thing - change the government. (It shouldn't be too long before you have another chance, BTW - and let's not hear from any more bloody-minded westerners about how Ontario let the country down. One EARNS power, one does not Take it - here, at least, for the time being, if you get my drift.) Walk softly and join Reform The Canada you save may be your own. John Fowler http://www2.magma.ca/~jfowler/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 22:00:51 -0600 From: Ian Parkinson Subject: Restricted "gifts" Situation. Firearms range open day, John Q public and family come out and see how it's done. Complete stranger walks up to you and says "is this gun worth anything". Inside the box is a nearly mint M1 carbine. After attempting to ensure it is unloaded, pointing down range etc., the trigger mechanism is jammed, bolt part ways open. you say to the "owner", probably a couple hundred bucks but its restricted, got any paperwork. The "owner" says" Its yours" and vanishes. Now I could be wrong but I have a sneaky suspicion if I'm willing to jump through the hoops and the gun was not involved in a crime, I get to keep it, right or wrong? If I have to turn it in to the local Constabulary can I do it without being charged with possession of an unregistered restricted firearm? This whole story with exception of the location and the possesor of the carbine is true. I suspect many of us as firearm users will be in this situation soon. IParkins@ccinet.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 06:47:42 -0600 From: Wayne Biffert Subject: re: freeloaders. I am trying to do my bit to fight Bill C-68, in my own way. Others have different ways of doing there bit. Some are financial strapped and do what they can, when they can. We all can (and hopefully will) do our best. I am saddened to see some scrapping going on in the digest as to how to best achieve this. Yes Dave’s message was a tad strong, but everyone is entitled to a bad day. Hopefully we can all pull together, and not be offended by our allies to the point that we abandon the cause. Dave has always said to freely copy and distribute his material, and I thank him for this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:18:34 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Lindstradt >I am not a memeber or anything but I came across your post in the >Canadian Digest when searching for info on the Lindstradt air rifle. If >you know of or find anything out or any web page for the company please >e-mail me. Have not heard of that one. Is it old, or modern production? I need to know where to look! Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:18:37 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Re: Lost cheque? > Approximately two weeks ago I mailed a donation to the NFA > addressed as follows; > The National Firearms Association > Box #4384, Station C, > Calgary, Alberta, > T2T 5N2 > > Attn: Dave Tomlinson >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I've since heard nothing from the NFA, (I only asked for an >E-mail acknowledgement in the enclosed letter) and the cheque (#001) >dated July 29, '97 had not passed through my bank account as of a few >days ago. Now assuming that I did not make some idiotic mistake on the >address, I am left wondering if my $50 donation to the (gasp!) NFA may >have been intercepted by some well paid spooks in the post office. > Perhaps I am being a bit paraniod here, but some of the things >I've recently read in CFD have me a little worried. What do you think of >this, and what would you suggest I do now? I do not think it is lost. Calgary is our administrative HQ, where our one lonely emloyee works for a pittance. He processes incoming mail in batches, so your cheque may sit for a while as he does other vital work. I operate out of Edmonton. It is unlikely that a donation sent to the Calgary address could be processed, deposited, me notified (normally that happens by snailmail, at the end of the month, when I get a big fat envelope of the "stuff" that comes in, including many requests for legal help, specific NFA documents, expertise, etc.), I can find your message, and I can send you an email thank you -- all within two weeks. It takes TIME. Anway, thank you for the donation. We will not waste your money. Dave Tomlinson,NFA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 12:18:37 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Militarization of the Police I I have been reading a book that is currently being "remaindered" in the "sale" sections of"Chapters" book stores, "The Ashes of Waco," copyright 1995, by Dick J Reavis, ISBN 0-684-81132-4. It does not have as much data as later books on the subject, but what it does have is powerful interesting, and much clearer than some writing I have seen on this subject. I recommend it highly. This comes from it: In 1878, the US Congress enacted the Posse Comitatus Act [PCA]. In its present form, it imposes fines and prison terms upon "Whoever...wilfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force...to execute the laws..." It was enacted to prevent the use of federal troops to supervise elections in the south after the US Civil War. Why? A US Federal Appeals Court ruled, in 1975, "It is the nature of their primary mission that military personnel must be trained under circumstances where the protection of constitutional freedoms cannot receive the consideration needed..." Soldiers are trained to intimidate, maim and kill the enemies of the nation. The police do not deal with the enemies of the nation -- they deal with the citizens and residents in the nation. More restrained behavior is expected of them. The US Coast Guard is exempt from that restriction, apparently because it does routinely deal with citizens, behaving more like a police force than a military one. In the US, the PCA has been weakened over time. That was probably inevitable; almost any government is very reluctant to pay for a "force" system that it cannot use as it sees fit AT THE MOMENT. After all, Canada has been using its Army as "police" for many, many years. Perhaps that concept should be re-examined. It may be that WE would be better off with a "Posse Comitatus Act." The legislators who enacted the PCA were probably wise. The use of soldiers as policemen almost always results in abuses, and the people are likely to resent that. The routine use of soldiers as policemen is routine in many countries -- and almost always drives wedges between the citizens and their government, between the citizens and the law, and between the citizens and their criminal justice system. Those effects are a grave social evil. In 1981, Congress authorized the military to participate in interdiction efforts as part of the Drug Wars. That failed to stop drug smuggling, so in 1989 Congress authorized military forces to train civilian force drug warriors. Currently, the military may not take any active role in any "police" activity other than drug interdiction [prevention of drug importation, primarily by air and by sea]. However, military personnel may train a civilian lawman to use military weaponry, loan him a weapon, supply him with ammunition for it, and even load it for him. The military man just cannot pull the trigger. Where the civilian force asks for and gets military training, equipment or assistance, it must pay the military force for it -- unless the matter is drug-related. That has led to much "fudging" of the applications -- attempts to make matters SEEM drug-related when in fact they are not, to save money for the civilian force and shift the billings to the military force. It has led to police dishonesty. The US military forces now have formal law enforcement training plans of various kinds to provide these services to those who request them. According to Associate Director for Law Enforcement Hartnett of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF], in the House hearings after the botched raid on Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, he apparently viewed the intent of the PCA as not to ban military involvement in police affairs, but to set forth rules for handling reimbursement. On 28 Feb 93, the BATF raided the Branch Davidians. It was not surprising that the operation was conducted like a military raid ("no-knock search") rather than a normal police search. That was the normal method of BATF operation. In the 36 months prior to the raid, the BATF called out its SRT (the BATF's name for its SWAT team) 578 times, and executed 603 search warrants, "mostly against drug dealers (!?)." One wonders why they were in on or doing drug raids. In that period, it seized 1500 "weapons," an average of 2.5 per raid. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #950 **********************************