From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Sep 2 11:26:13 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 #974 Content-Length: 24056 X-Lines: 655 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, September 2 1997 Volume 01 : Number 974 In this issue: Bear Attack, Liard River Hot Springs Prov Park, BC Reloading passed, assented to, and proclaimed to be in force explained... Re: Pepper Spray, Safe Storage (CFD 971) Reservation of First Peoples Is Our Government a Legitimate One? Re: case cleaning Re: Which Provence\Territory is the most conservative? Hail Caesar (CFD971) Re: FAC exam requirement DCRA Slap on the wrist; Another great controversy ballistics (was: Re: The gov't is not...) Heard in a Kiwi Gunshop You must see this... (humour) how to subscribe to SSAA-alerts (Sporting Shooters Assoc. of Aus.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:35:49 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: Bear Attack, Liard River Hot Springs Prov Park, BC The bear attacked a child, 13-year -old Kelly Connell, then the Kelly's mother when she tried to help her child. It gravely injured the child, then killed the mother. Then it killed an unarmed BC man, Raymond Kitchen, who heroically tried to save the mother. Next, it attacked Frank Hedingham, who fended it off with a 5"-diameter log. Abandoning him, it headed for a group of people -- who ran. Then it attacked Arie van Gelden of Calgary, one of that group, who had fallen. At that point, an American tourist arrived with a rifle and shot the bear dead with one shot. He then added two more for certainty, a reasonable precaution. His name has not been released, but he was an Alaskan. He was using a rifle that belonged to a tourist from Oklahoma, although no details of that have been released -- or will be. Better to keep the EFFECTIVE ways to deal with such a situation dark, right? It is legal to have a rifle in the car in that park, but not legal to take it out of the car or to shoot a bear. The tourist was, however, covered by the "doctrine of necessity." That little-known principle of law allows you to break into a home -- if it is on fire and you intend to save life. It allows you to do things which violate the letter of the law -- but are clearly necessary IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. Firearms work about 98 per cent of the time when dealing with bear attacks. Pepper spray works about 75 per cent of the time -- significantly poorer. Playing dead or fighting back works about 35 per cent of the time. Not good. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: When travelling through or in wilderness areas, always remember that SOME bears regard you as lunch. They are rare -- but NOT so rare that you can afford to ignore the possibility of meeting one. Be prepared -- like a Boy Scout. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:38:40 -0600 From: robinl@nait.ab.ca Subject: Reloading Re comments to the guy who wants to start reloading. My advice has always been to start small and simply. If the urge to continue reloading, then the equipment purchased can be kept, then later used for rifle. If the urge lessens, then the investment has not been too high. Robin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:43:44 -0600 From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: passed, assented to, and proclaimed to be in force explained... }> No sweat, if you arrive this year. Bill C-68 has been passed, but has not }> yet come into force. It is scheduled to come into force "sometime in 1998," }> but there are severe problems with it and no one knows when -- or if -- it }> will be proclaimed. }> Dave Tomlinson, NFA > [Moderator: Actually it was "proclaimed" on the Ecole Polytechnique > anniversary (for the symbolism), it has not yet been "brought into force." > HTB] Just to be technical: First, Bill C-68 was passed by the Commons. Then it was passed by the Senate on 05 Dec. 1995. It was given Royal Assent the next day. A small part** of what is now Chapter 39 of the 1995 Revised Statues of Canada (RSC) was proclaimed to be in force on 01 Jan 1996, but the rest has not yet been. **One clause modifying a few sections of the Criminal code dealing with homicide, kidnapping, etc. are in force. These changes dictate minimum four-year penalities for committing certain crimes with a firearm, while committing the same crimes with another weapon has no such minimum. In the case of the new minimums in Chapter 39, a judge in a Truro NS court already declared them unconstitutional, as there are circumstances where 4 years in prison -- for an act such as criminal negligence causing the death of a friend -- would be "cruel and unusual" punishment. Minimum additional sentences are often dropped or served concurrently, or the original sentence is reduced. This happens with Section 85 a lot. Section 85 offers an additional sentence of 1 to 14 years for each crime committed with a firearm, and has been in the criminal code since at least 1979. Gov't publication WD-1994-20e deals with the application of Section 85. The WordPerfect version can be found at http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Orientations/CCAF/rapports/sec85_en.wp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:43:45 -0600 From: Louis Raphael Subject: Re: Pepper Spray, Safe Storage (CFD 971) Peter Cronhelm wrote: > Did anyone see the article in the Calgary Sun (Aug 28 pg11) regarding > pepper spray? This female reporter is bitching about a new plan to make > pepper spray a prohibited weapon in "the name of puplic safety." > Apparently criminals are using it to commit crimes and control their > victims. Anyways she is pissed that the government wants to limit her > ability to self protection and treat her as a criminal for possesing a > legally obtained piece of property. Not to mention treat her the same as > someone possesing a machine gun(prohibited weapon). Actually, my understanding of the *current* law is that it is legal to possess/use pepper spray *only* in defense against vicious animals (which does not, to my understanding, include vicious criminals). Carrying it with *intent* to use against vicious criminals is an offense, carrying it with intent to use against vicious animals is *not* (to the best of my knowledge). Our friend the reporter might be placing her in potentially hot legal waters *already*, as it sounds to me as if she might be carrying (does she? I haven't read the article), and for protection against vicious criminals, which is not allowed. For her own sake, someone ought to point this out to her... The distinction might seem moot, but legally, it is the difference between a (possible) 10-year prohibited weapons and 100% legality. A rather thin line, I'd say. Indeed, my understanding is that carrying pepper spray for protection against rapists carries the same penalty as rape itself... which requires no comments... > People are so stupid they can't see how these laws will affect them even > if they don't own firearms. Looks to me as if she might find out soon, if a vindictive PO/CP happens to be reading her column... BTW, I've often pointed out the pepper-spray case to non-firearms people, to prove my points. Of course, they believe that the law wouldn't be applied to them, etc. "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I wasn't Jewish..." > My restricted stuff is locked, in a locked box AND in a locked room (my > appartment) which I lock when I leave so what is the problem here? One > concern is the "cannot be readily broken open" stipulation. Who is to say > what is or is not readily broken open. Are locked firearms cases ok? How > bout a locked metal locker? Or do we need to have Fort Knox in our > closet? I'd say it would be hard to argue that a locked safe doesn't qualify. *Personally*, I'd want something resistant to a crowbar attack, to feel that I've taken reasonable precautions, regardless of what the law says (i.e., over and on top of). Many gunboxes out there could probably be pried open with a screwdriver. They're probably okay, but that's the problem with vague laws - nobody knows what to expect. Louis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:43:48 -0600 From: Grey Knight Subject: Reservation of First Peoples I have wondered lately if the proposed C-68 will also apply to the members of the First Nations and the Eskimo people of the arctic regions. A great many of these persons depend on long guns to provide food and protection. Who in the world is going to monitor the registration of firearms in the frozen north if such law will include them ? For that matter, how many of them will even know about the law ? Also of interest is the reservation on the St.Lawrence which is partially on Canadian soil and partially on American soil. If this law applies to the First Peoples they only have to step over a line, depending on the moment, to be legally meeting firearms control. Knowing the thinking of the government, they will probably exempt those peoples from C-68 as being too unmanageable for their limited ability to monitor. Am I correct ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 20:25:42 -0600 From: "GoPlayer Kootenay" Subject: Is Our Government a Legitimate One? This is really just the beginning of what I hope will turn into true multi-logue among not only the RFC, but the Canadian people: What makes a government, at any level, "legitimate"? Is it a line or two in some Statute Book or Constitution, or is it the Continued Assent of The People That Are Governed? I think it's the second choice; our current government at the Canadian federal level thinks it's the first choice. It IS "against the law" to advocate, or to attempt, the ousting of the Canadian government by any method except by the process of voting. These laws were framed in a day when the ideals of Democracy were held high by Government, and the rights of the individual were of the order that the Libertarian movement advocate today. Government RESPECTED the wishes of the people, and generally didn't try to do any propaganda to mould public opinion (except in time of war against the common foe). In turn, the People respected their Government(s) and their laws and statutes, because their elected representatives truly strove to REPRESENT their constituents, and their concerns. Prime Ministers did not beat up on MPs that spoke their minds in favour of the folks "back home" in the Riding. Members of Parliament and Legislatures were honour-bound to resign at the first hint of involvement in Scandal. Times have changed. The Canadian People no longer respect their government, by and large. They do not believe that their elected representatives are much better than confidence-men. Canadians know that MP's and Members of Legislatures will follow what the Party Leader and his Cabinet decree. Ministers and Members no longer think of Scandal as something repugnant to Honour -- just as a temporary embarrassment. Their Leaders rarely pressure them to resign. Democracy is a mere shell of what it once was. Justice peeks through her blindfold when it suits her. Canadian Government has lost its legitimacy. It no longer has the True Assent of the People; it keeps its power by increasing its level of visible intimidation of the People, relying on Rule-by-Statute and Orders-In-Council. Canadians increasingly are afraid of their Government. And the Government knows that. In turn, the Government is increasingly estranged from the People, and passes Laws to coerce "desired behaviour", rather than Good Law that is a REFLECTION of the Peoples' morals and standards. I'm sure most of you have noticed the steep rise in the use of SWAT units to attend incidents where conventional uniformed police officers would have been the norm a decade ago. I'm certain that you have noticed an increasing lack-of-regard by the police for the rights of the Public. I know that most of you are aware that the police are tending to over-react in many clearly non-threatening situations -- take the Chilliwack BB gun incident, for example. And our police do what they are told by their bosses. Just like good little Germans did what they were told by their bosses not so long ago. Good little Canadians are becoming "good little Germans". Only the uniforms are different. When the Russians had had enough of their pre-1917 totalitarian royalist regime, they backed an equally-repressive revolutionary Communist regime. It took them over 70 years to dump that one. People will always opt for a "change", when they are pushed far enough. Bills C-17 and C-68 are just two examples of the Canadian government's thinking, "Perhaps the People *have* been pushed nearer the breaking point". It's food for careful thought. And speech. Shhhhh! - ------------------------------------------------------ | Where do you want to get your Email today? | http://www.goplay.com/email/1000000 - it's FREE! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:07 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: case cleaning > >Now someone, not really knowledgeable on the subject said Brasso weakens >brass by chemically attacking it. I polished enough goddamn brass in my >recruit training, from light fixtures, buckles, taps, plaques, what have >you, and so did thousands of other hapless recruits before and after me. >The fixtures are still there to this day, probably tarnished, Zanu/Zapu >types probably not as motivated as we were. The point is, the brass did >not wear away in any way. You will wear your brass cases out, rifle ones >anyway, long before you let Brasso do the job. The fixtures are a lot thicker & not subject to 60,000 psi of pressure. :-) - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:07 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: Which Provence\Territory is the most conservative? >> I am an 18 year old,conservative male American from Pennsylvania. I am >>contemplating(when I have the funds),a move to your fair country. uh, ...why? I was thinking Pennsylvania would be a likely destination for refugee gun owners from Canada should C-68 become law. (Or Vermont, or New Hampshire or....) - -keith "Live Free or Die" Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:09 -0600 From: stamp@nbnet.nb.ca (stamp) Subject: Hail Caesar (CFD971) The posting "Hail Caesar" in CFD971 wants to know the motivation for civilian disarmament in Canada/the world. I believe we probably can't come up with an answer, just a series of possible answers, listed in order of decreasing probability.My #1 reason follows these observations: A liberal acquaintance of mine, intelligent ( can sometimes beat me in chess), giving all appearances of an industrious, foresighted, talented (commercial pilot licence) and well meaning individual, says, in all sincerity, " an atom bomb is dangerous, but a man with a gun is more dangerous" (Psst...I'm setting him up to read "Unintended Consequences") A wife has demanded that her husband keep his hunting guns locked in the garage. She explains to me it's because in a fit of anger he might grab one and kill her in a moment. She is cuddling up to her husband as she says this, not seeming to realize that she has just said she believes her honey-bunny capable of the most ghastly crime a human can commit. Incidently, he is so big and strong he could easily kill her in less than a minute with his bare hands. Another liberal,a very friendly and helpful person, a perfectionist, who constantly uses analytical deduction in his profession, and is very anti-gun, engages me in debate about C-68. He gives his beliefs, mostly feelings and a smattering of media fibs, which I proceed to eviscerate and demolish. I'm careful not to say things in such a way as to imply criticism of him, as I want to keep him debating as long as possible. The end result, I don't make a dent. The ancient Greeks knew the distance from the earth to the moon, and knew the earth was round and knew the diameter of the earth; yet Columbus was wondering if he might sail off the earth. Why? Because in the 3rd or 4th century some Pope decided that the Greek teachings did not mesh with the word of God and suppressed their teaching, personally setting the human race back a thousand years. We could have had a man on the moon in the 17th century, instead we were burning witches. One of the greatest minds of our time, the late religion historian Dr. Joe Campbell said "The World Runs on Lies." To conclude, I believe it is likely not NWO conspiracies, Corporate dominance or some other kind of orchestrated onslaught that we are up against, but some kind of raw ignorance which is deeply ingrained in a portion of the human race, an ignorance of mystic strength among that portion, where truth and logic count for nothing. The ignorance that burned witches is the same ignorance that is attacking us. We need to know the dynamics of how this ignorance is triggered, grows and developes. Our success lies in seeing that neutrals are not sucked into its maw. John Stamp "Juden haben waffen!Juden haben waffen! [The Jews have arms...]".(Astonished outcry of retreating German soldier.) Gutman, Israel. "Resistance: the Warsaw Ghetto uprising". New York: Houghton Mifflin.1994.207 "A publication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:08 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: FAC exam requirement >On 29 Aug 97, Dave Tomlinson wrote: > >> Subject: Re: New Exam required when renewing ?? >> >> >Dear Dave, could you please clarify your remarks quoted by Genn >> >Springer in CFD 965 about the requirement anticipated that hunters >> >who have a valid FAC now will have to go through another course and >> >exam when they renew the next time ?? Which would mean another >> >expense and waste of time. >> >> This entire area is a mess -- not an unusual situation with our >> witless firearms control laws and the untrained people who operate >> the system. >> >> 1. To get an FAC, you must take the Canadian Firearms Safety >> Course. > >Not quite. You must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Exam. The >course is not mandatory unless you are a minor, you are coming off a >prohibition order or you want to become an instructor. > This needs to be re-iterated; I think a lot of people are under the impression that the course is mandatory. - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:18 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: DCRA The Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA) has a web site: - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:19 -0600 From: jean hogue Subject: Slap on the wrist; Another great controversy Slap on the wrist - ----------------- Source: Canadian Access to Firearms September 1997, p. 19 summary of article in Kamloops this week, July 16, 1997 This individual got drunk at a party, to the point where a concerned citizen hid the drunk's car key. The drunk became furious when he could not find his key. He produced a handgun and waved it at the other partygoers with a stern statement that he'd better have his key back before he could count to 3. The drunk pleaded guilty in May for the offense he committed in January. RCMP constable Chad Netherway, White Rock, got a $ 500 fine and was prohibited from possessing a firearm for the next three years _when not on the job_. - --- In the evil USA, as opposed to civilized Canada, anyone convicted of a misdemeanor, regardless of how long ago, is barred for life from owning firearms. This also applies to police officers ... [Moderator: Misdemeanors involving domestic violence, I believe. HTB] - ------------------------------------------------------------- Another great controversy - ------------------------- Is WD-40 safe or harmful for guns ? I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard ... that WD-40 causes rusting. YES or NO ? I heard WD-40 can also deactivate primers. YES or NO ? ____________________________________________________________ "A firearm is a firearm, even a replica" Heidi Rathjen, Coalition for Gun Control The Montreal Gazette, August 6, 1997, p. A7 ____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 00:21:08 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: ballistics (was: Re: The gov't is not...) snip >************************************************************************ >Enough politics for one night. I have not been receiving the digest all >that long, so maybe this is old stuff. > >Lets play stopping power and expanding bullets. >1. When a bullet enters flesh, and starts to expand, what is absorbing >the bullets energy, the target or the bullet? The target primarily (though some energy would be expended during bullet deformation). This is part of the rational behind hollowpoint bullets I believe; you want the bullet to stay in the target and 'dump' all of its energy instead of exiting and taking most of that energy with it. >2. When a car folds itself around a telephone pole, (the old wood ones, >not the newer aluminum ones) what absorbs the cars energy, the pole or >the car? The passengers :-( >3. Does energy transfer really mean all that much? Or is just drilling a >hole in the right spot the answer? Depends on the objective. >Opinions please, I am conducting research here, well research on >opinions anyway. well, there's mine. :-) - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 06:07:03 -0600 From: John Subject: Heard in a Kiwi Gunshop I work in a gun shop. Just yesterday a well dressed and well spoken man (whom I had not seen previously) came in and during the course of our discussion he said................ It is very difficult to justify a "need" to have anything at all, except the basic necessities to sustain life. It wouldn't matter to me if I didn't have a gun - what worries me is the removal of my right to have a gun. That is the real problem as I see it. Regards JohnH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:08:38 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: You must see this... (humour) http://www.osha.igs.net/~hooya/lib-file.htm It's priceless. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 11:10:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: how to subscribe to SSAA-alerts (Sporting Shooters Assoc. of Aus.) The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has set up a mailing list for press releases, alerts, etc. It's an excellent way to keep up with what is happening in Australia. If you want back-issues for the month of August, just ask me and I will forward them to you. ______ To join the alert list, send the following line to mailserv@adelaide.on.net subscribe ssaa-alerts ______ To leave their list, send the following line to mailserv@adelaide.on.net unsubscribe ssaa-alerts ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #974 **********************************