From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Aug 28 06:35:49 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 #966 Content-Length: 23962 X-Lines: 549 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, August 28 1997 Volume 01 : Number 966 In this issue: The AR-10 and Dept. of Justice expertise Our overworked police... Re: More Bear Stuff Trail Firearms Australian trip at canadian taxpayers' expense Letter to Editor Use of force on burglars cfd1-964 Math? SWAT Teams: Police Paramilitary Units (Part 1 of 2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:06:26 -0600 From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: The AR-10 and Dept. of Justice expertise In message "Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #964", Dave Kratky writes; > >Watch yourself. AR-10's are restricted as an AR-15 "varient" to the best >of my knowledge. Order in Council JUS-92-569-01 lists them as "AR Model .223" and specifies; "the firearm of the design commonly known as the M-16 rifle, and any variant or modified version thereof, including the: and itemizes 27 variants, most of which are Colt AR-15 models but also include Armalite AR-15, AAI M15, AP74, SGW CAR-AR, SGW XM15A, EAC J-15, PWA Commando, SWD AR-15 and "any 22-calibre rimfire variant, including the (A) Mitchell M-16A-1/22, (B) Mitchell M-16A/22, (C) Mitchell CAR-15/22, and (D) AP74 Auto Rifle [not to be confused with the AP74 mentioned previously :) ] Nowhere is the AR-10 mentioned and we know that it is not a variant of the M-16 since the reverse is true. Why they didn't target the AR-10 while including various other .308 military rifles of that era is anybody's guess but I suspect that the overpaid dimwits who dreamed up the list did not happen to have a catalogue with the evil AR-10's picture in it. Looking at the list, I would suggest that manufacturers simply remove the carrying handles, use pink molded plastic and use model names such as "The Comforter" and "Old Reliable" in order to avoid getting into hassles with the DoJ. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:06:29 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Our overworked police... At the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police [CACP], a new police group was set up. It is called the Police Futures Group [PFG], and it is trying to predict what the future of policing will look like. The future is bleak. CACP President John Moodie said, "The role of police officers in criminal investigations could appreciably diminish in future. Already we see private investigators, forensic accountants and computer specialists assuming a larger part in fraud and other white-collar crime investigations." Tonita Murray, Chairperson of the new PFG, said, "With limited resources, where should the public [?! -- DAT] police focus their efforts?" Edmonton Police Chief said that law enforcement agencies can no longer provide ALL the policing required in Canada. He said that there will have to be more co-operative relationships with communities and private organizations. "The resources available today in Canada generally don't meet the needs expected of police, but that also raises the issue: 'What IS expected of the police?'" The PFG will be primarily police officers, but will also include people from the private sector, government organizations and universities. It will also look at the relationships between private {?! -- DAT] and public police forces. Tonita Murray: "The numbers of public police are going down, and the numbers of private police are going up. That is indicative of a shift in RESPONSIBILITIES [emphasis added -- DAT]. Source: CP story, 27 Aug 97, Edmonton Journal page A12. I have known for some time that Canadian police -- including the RCMP -- are backing away from white collar crime investigations. That apparently began when the Commissioner of the RCMP was made a Deputy Minister in the government -- hopelessly compromising the independence of the RCMP. As soon as that happened, RCMP investigations of government corruption went into a decline. What else could we expect? At that point, all "politically sensitive" investigations became matters that the Minister could quiz his new "Deputy Minister" about -- and get ANSWERS. The state and status of RCMP investigations became material easily available to anyone in the political end of our government. Just TRY investigating a corrupt politician if he can peer into your files at any time! Discouraged, RCMP investigators apparently nearly abandoned any attempt to deal with frauds involving government figures. Because it was often not clear whether or not government people were involved, they have also apparently abandoned the investigation of most large-scale monetary and fraud crime -- because politicians MIGHT be involved. Now, with this article, we see the rot going deeper. Other police forces are abandoning monetary and fraud crime, citing "limited resources." Perhaps the real reason is political corruption and political influence trying to have the police stay OUT of that lucrative and relatively safe area of crime and corruption? We should also be taking a long, hard look at that concept: "private police." Think about it -- then comment on it. Spread this information around -- too many people do not know what is happening to our police forces. Additional note: In the 26 Aug 97 Edmonton Journal, on page A3, Southam Newspapers reported that Quebec Supreme Court Justice Robert Flahiff is about to be arraigned on a charge of laundering drug money. After a four-year investigation, begun by the Montreal Urban Community police and continued by the RCMP (in the days BEFORE Flahiff was appointed to the bench by the government), special prosecutor Bruno Pateras laid six charges: 1. Possession of more than $1000, knowing that it had been obtained through drug-dealing. 2. Transferred to or from Geneva Switzerland more than $1000 with the intention of hiding or converting it, knowing that it had been obtained through drug-dealing. 3. Conspired with a convicted drug dealer to launder the money. 4. Had a total of $1,675,000 in the possession of Flahiff and co-accused Gerald Lavoie (a little-known civil lawyer from Laval PQ), who knew that the money had been obtained through the commission of an indictable offence. 5. "Laundered" more than $1000. The sixth charge was not reported in the article. One wonders if this investigation would have been pursued to the point of charges actually being laid if the government had appointed him as a Quebec Superior Court Justice much earlier. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: It is a sad day when the criminal justice system contains too many criminals -- on the wrong side of the prisoners' dock railing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:40:31 -0600 From: Kyle and Barbara Berry Subject: Re: More Bear Stuff I just spoke to a Fort Nelson Conservation Officer about the bear involved in the Liard Hotsprings attack. His partner had done the investigation, so he was not willing to hypothesize on anything he had not seen himself. Age of the bear has not been established yet. When I asked about the berry supply north of where we had been, he confirmed that this food source was generally good all over. He did verify a few things for me and set me straight on a couple of other issues. 1) If you take a look at bear droppings you'll see that the berries go through them the same way they go through a human. Meat offers a much better way to gain calories for the winter. 2) Gaining enough calories for the winter is a survival situation for the bears. While they may not be "starving" at this particular time, the drive to gain winter fat is just as strong. 3) Humans, especially the young, closely resemble the size and weight of their natural prey (herbivore calves). 4) There ARE predatory black bears out there. He was quite adamant about this. He has had to do some investigations on these animals in the past. Their general profile is "young, slender, active males". The attacking bear at Liard appeared to be an older male. Carrying a loaded firearm may be proof of intent to use it. >Check out the latest "Canadian Sportsman", Sep/Oct ' 97, p. 67, to see how >The Law is apparently becoming an advocate of the Bearpersons.... The article did not state whether the hunter with both the cancelled tag and loaded rifle was charged, simply that he was asked why he had a loaded rifle if he wasn't hunting. There's enough history of predatory bears across this country to answer that question. The other incident of a loaded shotgun, in a power driven boat, in a duck marsh, is either a case of guilt or severe stupidity. There's not too much of a problem in this part of the world when it comes to carrying a rifle for bear protection, provided you have a hunting licence or carry permit for the firearm. I buy a bear tag just in case I need to pull the trigger. I've killed enough black bears and have no desire ...oops, I started to lie. I'm an incurable optimist (most hunters are) and just maybe I'll spot a 7 foot black or monster brown phase. I suspect those of you living in "civilized" areas, where the cute little black bears frisk with Bambi, may encounter less understanding from a C.O. who's never had to view a shredded human being. The signature I've been adding is the way Marilyn ends her talks to the caravans of tourists passing through on their way to Alaska. Even a .22 or 20 ga. tucked away in the RV could save someone's life. "If it saves just one life...." is a wonderful philosophy if correctly and consistently applied. "...and remember, when you step out of that vehicle, you become part of the food chain." Marilyn Croutch, Dawson Creek Tourist Information ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:40:29 -0600 From: BOB LICKACZ Subject: Trail Firearms Trail Firearms is alive and well. Their address is: Trail Firearms 6529 - 104 Street Edmonton, Alberta T6H 2L3. I spoke with Bob Prestash August 27 and he said that the supply of short barrels, .25's and .32's has dried up. The "program" is over. However, Bob indicated that these firearms come in on trades fairly frequently and they will certainly be re-cycled. Has anyone seen the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association's study of the firearms siezed at crime scenes in 5 different Canadian cities? Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:40:39 -0600 From: jean hogue Subject: Australian trip at canadian taxpayers' expense In the middle of the federal campaign, Ottawa area police chief Brian Ford grabbed the headlines with an official from Australia who came to state how wonderful gun registration is. Despite the complete flop previous attempts in Australia and New Zealand turned out to be as was reported by the NFA. Just out of curiousity, I asked an Australian subscriber to this digest if he could enquire as to who paid for the trip (he had also asked if the Australian police was keeping a library of various studies on gun control and he could have access to such documents.) Here is the answer (actual letter as scanned) from the Australian official: the canadian Department of Justice paid the bill -- see para. 4. >Dear Mr. , > >Thank you for your letters dated 12th and 13th of August 1997. > >Firstly on your letter of the 12th, I have read numerous articles on >firearms related matters. > >Should I need to identify appropriate bibliography in reports or >statements I make in public I will do so, other than in those >circumstances, I do not propose to even try and identify the many >articles, reports and books I have read on the subject. > >My trip to Canada was funded by the Ministry of Justice in Canada and >the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police > >As for your letter of the 13th, I confirm the words attributed to me are >part of a media statement I made in the Canadian Media. > >1 am able to make such statements which I attribute to my experiences >and those of my colleagues who have been involved in the investigation >of crimes where firearms have been involved. > >Regrettably most debate on the issue remains focused purely on >registration and it is important to note that firearm registration is >not the only component of the Firearms Act in Western Australia. Issues >such as firearm security, fitness of individuals to possess firearms, >voluntary safekeeping of firearms by the police for owners who may leave >on holidays etc., early intervention in domestic violence where firearms >are located and many other aspects of the legislation contribute to the >prevention and solving of crime. > >Yours Sincerely, > >(signed) >SUPERINTENDENT >SPECIALIST SUPPORT SERVICES >18 / 8 / 1997 Of course, I was not expecting that the canadian Department of Justice would have invested a single dime procuring the Newgreen and the Waterman reports which roundly condemned universal registration as a complete waste of money. As for the debate having been centered on registration, this was the call of the gun control politicians and of the lapdog journalists. On the surface, it was so easy: roll down the current wave of gun control as mere registration and stare down gun owners with this bird-brain throw-away one-liner "we register cars and dogs, so why not guns". Detailed analysis of registration showed it was absolutely unworkable and a huge waste of money, much to the embarrassement of the politicians who no longer find it so easy to sell. Regrettable indeed ! (The NFA report on Australian and New Zealand gun registration flops must have really annoyed Allan "Alibi Al" Rock if he went through the motion of flying in an Australian official to prop up the sagging image of his pet registration scheme.) One thing Australia seems to still enjoy: officials who do reply to questions put to them. ____________________________________________________________ "A firearm is a firearm, even a replica" Heidi Rathjen, Coalition for Gun Control The Montreal Gazette, August 6, 1997, p. A7 ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:40:33 -0600 From: Quoc Pham Subject: Letter to Editor On Wednesday, August 27, in "Study finds legal guns popular with criminals" (CP), (www.canoe.com) it is reported by that: " But there has been strong resistance and sometimes violent protest by gun owners who believe the government is punishing law-abiding citizens with controls that have little effect on criminals. " (underline added) Could you please provide me with examples of these "violent" protest by gun owners in Canada? If none can be found, I believe that you should issue a retraction and an apology to Canadian gun owners who have been maligned with this hate-mongering propaganda. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:40:41 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Use of force on burglars In DAT's response to the following; >>All three teens sought hospital treatment for pellet wounds. ... he says; >The answer is probably yes, this person will be charged. You can ONLY use >deadly force to STOP a criminal when you are in a state of REASONABLE fear >of death or serious injury from that criminal. While I do not have details >of this case, that seems unlikely to be the case here. > >You cannot use deadly force against a thief, or against someone who is >running away. This is all oversimplification, but it is generally accurate. Especially when it comes to defining deadly force. Throwing an ounce of 7 1/2's at some punks runing at 40-50 yards could hardly be called "deadly force". What this person will be up against is whether the crown and judge subscribe to the notion that a shotgun is some magical implement of death and destruction - at distances of up to several hundred yards (as most citified folk do). >The PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES must ALWAYS be considered -- >and they can be VERY complex. .. and clouded by the afforementioned emotional predispositions. As to the real issue about inflicting wounds on burglars, well, let's just say a significant part of society (but not a majority by any means) has decided that criminals are to be treated with the same respect and dignity as the rest of us. In the old days, those boys would be enduring the painfull lesson of having lead pellets plucked from their arses while everyone had a good chuckle over it - and these would-be John Dillingers would have some cause to mull over their choice of careers. Now, of course, our "vigilante" will likely get raked over the coals in court (who knows, maybe there's even some cash to be had in a lawsuit), they and their mommies will feel somewhat vindicated and, after doing some token community service, will feel quite confident about returning to "business as usual". - ---------------- Re: Joe Widdup's observation on the Discovery Channel's presentation on guns in society; >I would recommend this program >because of totally unbiased presentation of all the info, stories, and >interviews that they had. There were no anti's screaming for banning >guns nor NRA members demanding their right to bear arms. Why can't we >get this quality of informational programming here? But that's what the CBC is for, isn't it ? OK, you guys, stop laughing now - a small attempt at humour. Small wonder that such petty outfits need government interference in order to compete with U.S. outfits. Wendy Cukier's been chomping at the bit to get more into the public eye. Maybe the CBC's the place for her and her brand of measured, logical and insightfull reporting. OK, I'll stop now. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 22:37:46 -0600 From: BChow2or81@aol.com Subject: cfd1-964 Math? >By my math, 1.5" is 37.7mm., so the SKS case length of 39 is ok. Must be the "New" math. By the old math, which used to regard 1" as equivalent to 25.4 mm, we get 1.5 x 25.4 = 38.1mm., not 37.7... but it doesn't really matter because I personally don't hunt with an SKS. :) Bud. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 06:23:47 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: SWAT Teams: Police Paramilitary Units (Part 1 of 2) Part 1 of 2: My rants about the dangers of police paramilitary SWAT teams are confirmed by a paper just sent to me. Entitled "Militarizing American Police: The Rise And Normalization Of Police Paramilitary Units," it was first published in "Social Problems" Vol 44 No 1, Feb 97. As you know, we dumb Canadians copied the "romantic" SWAT team from our American cousins. I have been saying for some time that we should look more closely at the RESULTS of forming paramilitary groups within our police forces. In this scientific paper, authors Peter B Kraska and Victor E Kappeler [K&K] studied the rise and unquestioning acceptance of the SWAT team. This is what they found: The use of terms like the "war on drugs" or "war on poverty" is a way of saying that you are using a war metaphor -- inappropriately. Use of a "war metaphor" (referring to some social problem as a "war" when it clearly is no such thing) can be very damaging to society. It leads to inappropriate militarization of counters to social problems, formation of inappropriate units, and dangerously murky thinking. In the US, the process of social effects of the "war metaphor" has gone further than it has here --yet. It shows up in "boot camps" for young criminals, and the Waco, MOVE and Ruby Ridge incidents (where civilians were treated, by PPUs, in "military" fashion, as "enemy forces"). K&K noted two major paths. As the "war metaphor" took hold, the US government started involving purely military forces in civilian policing -- and the civilian police began forming police paramilitary units [PPUs or SWAT teams], units more of a military character than of a traditional police character. With time, the number and militarization of the PPUs steadily increased. The PPUs became the "elite" units in many of their home police forces, and other police began to copy their uniforms, equipment and behavior. In Canada, several entire major police forces have already switched from the traditional blue police uniform to "SWAT-team black" for the ENTIRE force. That is worrying. Not much attention or study has been devoted to PPUs yet, and that may be a serious error. K&K say, "Underlying the inattention...might be the assumption that they are sociologically and politically insignificant. Initially, these units constituted a small portion of police efforts and were limited to large urban police departments. The[ir]...publicly understood role was confined to rare situations involving hostages, terrorism or the 'maniac sniper.' Despite the camouflage of these common assumptions, there have been recent unmistakeable signs of intensifying military culture in police departments. (3)" They quote earlier papers: "For the first time in history, soldiers and policemen from different societies have more in common with each other than with the societies from which they come. [Kothari et al, 1988 (22)]" K&K: "PPUs are equipped with an array of militaristic equipment and technology. They often refer to themselves in military jargon as 'heavy weapons units,' impying that what distinguishes them from regular police is the power and number of their weapons... most popular among these units is the Heckler and Koch MP-5 submachine gun [with] laser sights and sound suppressors... Other weapons include tactical semi-automatic shotguns, M-16s, sniper rifles, and automatic shotguns referred to as 'street sweepers.' "PPUs have an array of 'less-than-lethal' technology for conducting 'dynamic entries.' These include percussion grenades, stinger grenades, and shotgun-launched 'bean bag systems...apparatuses for opening doors, including battering rams, hydraulic door-jamb spreaders, and C4 explosive [charges]. Some PPUs purcahse and incorporate a range of 'fortified tactical vehicles' [armor -- DAT], including military armored personnel carriers and specially-equipped 'tactical cruisers.' (3)" K&K graphed the rise of PPUs in the US. They first appeared in 1960, then "took off" about 1970, rising to 584 PPUs in action by 1995 -- as smaller and smaller police forces reacted to "big-city" PPUs by forming their own. Then they graphed how often PPUs are used in each year. In 1980, the PPU was used an average of 13 times per year -- reflecting the rarity of situations that required them. By 1995, the average for all PPUs had risen steadily to 53 times per year. That figure included the newer PPUs, which were still used relatively rarely. Those PPUs that had been in existece throughout the period 1980-1995, on the other hand, were called out an average of 83 times a year, or 7 times a month. The longer they exist, the more they are used. K&K tried to find out what the PPUs were being used for. The results of their study are chilling. For 25,201 call-outs in 1995, the PPUs were called out for: Terrorist incidents: 23 times, 0.9 per cent of 25,201 callouts Civil disturbances: 338 times, 1.3 per cent Hostage situations: 913 times, 3.6 per cent Barricaded persons: 3,880 times, 13.4 per cent High risk warrant work: 19,125 times, 75.9 per cent (8) Most of the "high-risk warrant work" was simple drug raids, using "no-knock entries." Paramilitary police units -- seen, in the 'war metaphor," as appropriate for use in the 'war on drugs,' are being used for routine police duties. (Continued in 2 of 2) ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #966 **********************************