From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sun Feb 15 06:08:42 1998
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:54:50 -0600
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 V2 #211
Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Content-Length: 24309
X-Lines: 669
Status: RO
Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, February 15 1998 Volume 02 : Number 211
In this issue:
Re: Transferring a M1 Carbine
Re: What's Wrong In Washington D.C. Letter from Senato
Re: stuff and news
New Pictures on Web Page
CFC: Can't learn anything; Notes on Concordia U. Debate
HAPPY HUNTING GROUNDS
life goals
Re: UN
Error in Cost Quotation, C-68
Re: CPIC outages.
Registering an M1 Carbine
Fisheries Law
off topic
Kooky Wendy
American Revolt?
Re: Pepper Spray - Prohibited Weapon
Customs Crash in Montreal (1/3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:45:05 -0600
From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla)
Subject: Re: Transferring a M1 Carbine
>A friend of mine has to determine what to do with a M1 he has inherited.
>
>He does not currently possess any restricted weapons and his FAC is no
>longer valid.
>
>Is this one of those weapons which have been perfectly safe to have owned
>by responsible people up until now but will now be destroyed?
>
>Can this only be transferred to someone else who owns firearms in the same
>catagory?
I belive it is restricted but not prohibited, so it can be transferred to
anyone with a valid FAC & registered to the new owner.
If not, it could be converted to non-restricted by putting an aftermarket
barrel (more than 18.5" long) on the rifle.
>Even if he can't keep it, he would like to have it go to someone who can,
>rather than have it destroyed.
I'll take it off his hands, no charge at all. :-)
- -keith
Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer
kdesolla@cyberus.ca
http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:29:33 -0600
From: "Rheal Bourgeois"
Subject: Re: What's Wrong In Washington D.C. Letter from Senato
The only thing that was GUN GOOD about the letter was the SIGNATURE.
The rest of the letter was the usual POLITICIAN's " GOING Around in
CIRCLES "
DvC
Rheal (Rae) Bourgeois
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:30:01 -0600
From: "Rheal Bourgeois"
Subject: Re: stuff and news
Allan Rock must be STUCK on Computers
A REGISTRY for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING !!!!
DvC
Rheal (Rae) Bourgeois
IPSC Canada
NB-92035
REMEMBER:
THE TRUTH BELONGS TO US ALL
____________________________________________________
GUN CONTROL LAWS may seem to be sensible, but it
is unrealistic to think that people with no compunction
against murder, rape, etc. WILL OBEY GUN LAWS.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:25:59 -0600
From: taylor_buckner@sympatico.ca
Subject: New Pictures on Web Page
By popular request I have put a couple of images on my web page.
The first is my new t-shirt, which you could also put on your front door:
The second is a poster you can print out and give to your friends who
support gun control to put on their front door.
Taylor Buckner, Moderator, Canadian Firearms Digest
E-mail
Research Papers
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:38:56 -0600
From: Jean Hogue
Subject: CFC: Can't learn anything; Notes on Concordia U. Debate
1. CFC Can't Learn Anything
--------------------------
>Although the word "occasional" is not defined in the
>regulations dealing with authorizations to transport prohibited
>long guns to the shooting range, it is clear that those
>regulations were developed specifically to allow military type
>shooting competitions to take place legally. It will be up to
>the person issuing the authorizations (the Chief Firearms
>Officer of your province or territory) to determine what is
>occasional.
>
>I hope this is of some assistance to you.
>
>Yours truly,
>
>Kathleen Roussel
>ommunications Group
>Canadian Firearms Centre
1. Talk about missing the point
------------------------------
Since the basis for (maybe) "allowing" prohibited long guns at approved
shooting ranges is _competition_ , it should normally be expected that
in order to be good at competition, the competitors should _practice_
_often_ _before_ the competition.
The CFC got it on backwards: regular practice will not be acceptable,
only "occasional" usage will be tolerated.
2. The little governor
---------------------
The CFC is writing blank cheques to individual bureaucrats, allowing
them to make arbitrary and capricious rulings. Effectively, the CFC is
washing its hands of it and letting others carry out the dirty work of
not permitting what is not officially banned.
Depending where you live, you may face an intelligent Chief Firearm
Officer who can see beyond the gun control hype:
- situation A
a law-abiding individual undergoes a regular check-out to obtain a
carry permit for restricted weapons to use a prohibited FN-FAL.
- situation B
an unchecked person carries an unrestricted Ruger Mini-14 without any
review.
Situation A is not a higher risk to public safety than situation B.
Or you may end up with an Ayatollah CFO who made it his personal
mission to harass shooting of prohibited military rifles out of
existence, as a first step to demand confiscation of such guns since
they are no longer being used.
3. About that so-called "prohibited" stuff
-----------------------------------------
I am getting thoroughly confused with the legal concept of
"grandfathered prohibited" firearms.
It would be very simple to define grandfathered firearms are restricted
as long as they belong to the current owner or transferred to another
similarly lucky owner of similar types of firearms. When the firearm is
no longer in the possession of qualified owner, then it becomes
prohibited.
It does not appear to be this way in the CFC regulations or whatever.
The firearm is already prohibited but by some oddity, can still be
owned legally.
What a mess.
The CFC is only paying lip service to the idea of letting law-abiding
citizens pursue hobbies which are no threat to public safety.
Yet another reason why the CFC is reaping contempt.
------------------------------------------
Notes on the Concordia U. Debate this week
-----------------------------------------
Out of a crowd of about 100, the impression was there were about 15 gun
owners who grumbled at the appropriate times. For instance, when Heidi
claimed no guns were ever confiscated, severely undermining her
credibility.
B. Taylor's delivery was the polished presentation of a teacher.
Heidi could offer no better than acknowledge that gun control would not
solve the problems of violence in society, but it might help it.
Heidi used the authority gimmick to try to give herself credibility.
She essentially told the audience to look who was talking, sort of: who
are going to believe - police officers or gun owners ?
In the closing moments, the last outburst from Heidi was to the effect
that gun owners chose to become gun owners so they have only themselves
to blame for being penalized by government actions.
Questions from the audience were not hostile. There was the tired-old
question about why guns could be of interest to anyone but I feel the
curt reply to refuse to answer that could have been delivered more
politely, something along these lines:
- I do not live in a society where I have to justify my hobbies to
anyone
- I could talk to you for hours about why but in the end you would
not be convinces - a passion is not communicated so easily
- All too often, this was not a question but a disguised statement to
the effect that no reason for this hobby can stand in the way of public
safety.
- Law-abiding gun owners are not a threat to society and the onus is
on the gun grabbers to justify the abusive powers they claim over our
lives.
Heidi's lame performance was a surprise considering the audience would
have been expected to be sold on gun control from the start. Well, when
you don't really have anything of substance to say ...
Although the debate took place in a school where anti-gun fanaticism is
supposed to be the norm, the debate was not a sorry case of the city
snow blower (a packed assembly of gun haters) ambushing the 6-day old
poodle (gun owner debater).
Probably not the killer punch in the gun control debate, but
congratulations to Mr. Buckner for investing his energies to show gun
owners are not rolling over and this is not the end of it.
[Moderator: Thanks for the kind words. HTB]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:38:59 -0600
From: mtoma
Subject: HAPPY HUNTING GROUNDS
During the past few years I have been collecting tales of modern day Indian
hunting practices. Yes, I know the PC term is aboriginal. I prefer Indian.
I have personally noticed on some Indian Reservations that there does not
seem to be a single living thing other than a few birds. I have read two
separate accounts of nothing living within a days ride by snowmobile around
Inuit settlements.
I have heard stories about bands of Indians arriving in an area with
freezer equipped semi trailers which are then filled with moose and deer.
Everything is shot on sight from vehicle bush drives and left for the women
to butcher.
Does anyone else have any stories to tell about this kind of activity?
Cheers Mike Toma
[Moderator: Replies to this message should go directly to Mike Toma. HTB]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:05:52 -0600
From: mtoma
Subject: life goals
I have decided to keep myself appraised of any dire but just
consequences that may befall the anti gun crusaders. And like Mark
Twain's revenge on a certain barber, I shall dance a jig on their
graves.
Cheers Mike Toma
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:49:16 -0600
From: Bill Farion
Subject: Re: UN
>
>
> Is that WENDY?!
>
Hi:
Just checked out the list of delegates at the Firearms Control Conf. in
India. Seems that 90% of the delegates have good reason to fear their
own people. They are rather dictatorial in their views. Perhaps the list
could be posted as I do not know how to do it. Or a list of the
countries?
Thks
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:49:56 -0600
From: Karl Schrader
Subject: Error in Cost Quotation, C-68
To all people writing on the C-68-cost-overrun !!!
===================================
There has been an error in the quotation of 157 million spent so far on
C-68. I am deeply sorry to have posted misleading information on the
CFD. It will not happen again, I assure you. This will be my last
posting to the CFD. My integrity as a citizen has been severely
compromised by C-68 directed mainly at decent, normally lawabiding
people and in the anger over this mistreatment, I went overboard trying
to put some common sense into the actions of the government. It seems
that I have failed miserably.
Please hold off with any material you have been preparing on this
subject until clarification and verification.
And to the Canadian Firearms Centre: If you are monitoring the Canadian
Firearms Digest, please accept my sincere apologies and , if possible,
delete my posting of Feb.11 (CFD # 207) as being completely out of
line. Thanks.
Karl Schrader
[Moderator: There are many ways of calculating costs whre government
departments are concerned. It would be interesting to know whether
both direct and indirect costs are being included, whether expenditures
for ongoing systems (FRAS for example), court challenge costs, etc. are
included. Some costs may have been transferred to a capital budget
(e.g., computer program development) and only a portion may appear in
yearly figures as amortized costs. Costs involved in using established
services (e.g. Human Resources, Communications), may or may not have
been apportioned. It is like when someone asks how much it cost to
run your car. You can say I spend $25 a week on gas, or you can take
into account depreciation, insurance, the extra taxes required to build
roads, and come up with a much higher figure. The only way to find all
this out for a government department is a forensic audit.
Another way to look it it is cost/benefit. Since there is no benefit
(no reduction of homicide, suicide, or accidents) which can be
attributed to the expenditure, all expenditures are in excess of the
benefits. HTB]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:03:24 -0600
From: Roger Walker
Subject: Re: CPIC outages.
I see that things have not changed since my day. One should note,
though, that the reason verification is done on any/all information
obtained from CPIC, is that it is the *originating* agency's
responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the data, not the R.C.M.P.'s,
and as noted, many agencies are deficient when it comes to keeping the
information they make available on CPIC up to date.
- ---
Roger Walker
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:03:27 -0600
From: Terry Warner
Subject: Registering an M1 Carbine
The M1 was one of the first long arms villianized by gun control. The
minimum barrel length used to be 18" then it was changed to 18 1/2" to
catch the M1. The legal de-registering solution is to have a gunsmith weld
a short tube to the muzzle. There should be no holes to the outside, just
at the muzzle. A 1" length of old .22 barrel free-bored to something
larger than .30cal that is permanently attached will take a conventional M1
from illegal immoral and obscene to innocuous.
The new inheritor, if I remember some of Dave's posts on inheritances and
executors, is in a unique situation to convert the M1 without the same
encumbrances the rest of us would face. Act quickly before someone changes
their mind.
Terry Warner
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:03:56 -0600
From: Jason Hayes
Subject: Fisheries Law
WERNER BURGHARDT wrote;
> "It`s my intention to continue with the pilot program in 1998, however,
>the department of fisheries and oceans will meet with
>the affected parties to seek their views. [He knows our views
>stay with the law of the land! Don`t create a division of people!]
>He made his comments within hours of Reform MP John Cummins
>receiving an absolute discharge from provincial court
>Judge Howard Thomas after being convicted of illegal fishing.
>
> While finding Cummins guilty Jan. 26 the judge also declared
>that the policy that allowed aboriginal-only commercial fishing
>to be illegal.
>
> Anderson dismissed the judge`s findings and said they had no effect
> on his decisions as fisheries minister.
I know its off topic so this will be very short.
The problem with this is that *technically* he is correct. Fisheries
law within BC is enforced by provincial enforcement officers.
(Although, he was charged for fishing in the Fraser River - which is
technically under the jurisdiction of the Feds). It would depend on
where on the Fraser R. he was fishing.
Anderson is the Minister of the Federal Ministry of Fisheries and
Oceans. Any provincial court decision regarding the dismissal of a
charge under BC's jurisdiction would not touch his decision to allow
native only fishing on the Fraser R (both are Federal
responsibilities).
He would need a SCC decision backing up Judge Thomas' decision before
he (again) technically had to pay attention to it.
This only reinforces our need to dump the present party from power and
put a party in that will give the power back to the people and
communities (i.e. the Reform or the Libertarians).
Later
JT
[Moderator: It _is_ off topic so further discussion should be
private. HTB]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:41:14 -0600
From: Norm Frei
Subject: off topic
Hey Dude,
Like, I been watching these Olympics eh, and like Elvis Stoiko is ok
and all that, after all he did get a Silver medal but I figure like
anyone with his experience shouldn't be affected by a few minor aches
and pains from like a pulled groin muscle or pinched nerves or the flu
like you know what I mean dude? If he'd really tried he could have got
that Gold medal. Like what's the big deal about doing a few jumps and
spins anyway.
On the other hand look at "the Man" man, like Ross Rebagliatti. Now
there's a rad dude if there ever was one. Hey man like getting Gold
for sliding down a slope faster than anyone else and all the time
severely handicapped and mellowed out by that Marijuana he accidentally
inhaled, well that is a Gold medal performance If I ever saw one. Like
I had to tape it and replay it several times dude, fog was a bit heavy
in the room if you know what I mean.
Like compare Elvis and Ross? What's to compare man, apples and
oranges? Have another toke dude.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:41:17 -0600
From: Ron McCutcheon
Subject: Kooky Wendy
>"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
> -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis (1952).
So THAT's her problem
Ron McCutcheon P. Eng
mccutcrg@mail.rose.com
Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:41:13 -0600
From: Mkhughe
Subject: American Revolt?
Moderator Wrote:
> Americans fought a revolution to
>keep their guns; Canadians didn't. HTB
Let's remember that these were British Citizens under Common Law who
fought to keep their guns. I've read Period Newspaper articles which
proclaimed that the they could not be refused the possession of arms as
they were British Subjects! A right guarranteed them under common law.
They even went so far as to quote Blackstone's Commentaries.
The more things change...the more they stay the same...
There is only one difference between Americans and Canadians...
The 49th Paralel!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:41:20 -0600
From: "H. Roy Stephens"
Subject: Re: Pepper Spray - Prohibited Weapon
In an era when our violent crime rates have been declining the
technophobic and anti-gun diatribes are bad enough, but when the police
who are well armed begin to cry "wolf" over a rather benign form of
self-defense that is widely used by women, the weak or handicapped, and
all kinds of people while in the woods, one can easily become
terminally cynical of the institutions that give support to policy such
as this which based on fear, self-interest, and hypocrisy.
R;-) - Professional Skeptic
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:54:40 -0600
From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA"
Subject: Customs Crash in Montreal (1/3)
Peter Kearns, of Kearns & McMurchy, Edmonton [phone (403)413-9755] is a
dealer in deactivated firearms, especially full auto firearms. When
K&McM went into business, it quickly established a reputation for
honesty, fair dealing, and excellent goods. It was well on its way to
monopolizing the deactivated guns market, but...
After a number of shipments of museum-quality deactivated firearms had
been imported through other Ports of Entry, a shipment arrived at
Montreal Customs for clearance into Canada. Customs at Montreal began
handling the goods in a very strange and apparently illegal manner.
First, they claimed that the shipment had not arrived. When Peter
explained that the shipment had been carefully tracked as far as their
door, and that he was about to notify the RCMP that the shipment had
been stolen, they relented and admitted that they had had the shipment
for several days.
When a shipment is temporarily "detained for inspection" by Customs,
Customs is legally required to notify the importer -- AT ONCE. That
was apparently not done.
In an attempt to get off that hook, Montreal Customs faxed a backdated
copy of a detainment notice to K&McM. Unfortunately, they did not
realize that their own fax machine would put the name of the sender,
plus date and time of sending, on the top edge of the fax. Oops!
Then they attempted to bully Peter. It did not work -- Peter does not
accept bullying. The tried threats -- the usual, we can hold your
goods forever, you have another shipment coming in and we will seize
that one too, etc., etc. Not smart.
Peter, well aware that there was NOTHING wrong with the shipment, kept
on demanding the release of his goods -- and pointing at CC s. 337 for
emphasis.
Montreal Customs dragged the Minister and Deputy Minister in at an
early stage. Rather than deal with the situation objectively and
fairly, they apparently began running in small circles. A Ministerial
letter told K&McM that all of the goods conformed to standards, and had
been released. In the same envelope, another letter notified K&McM
that the goods had been seized - -- again.
Two officers went to K&McM's broker, and bullied a clerk into sending a
very damaging fax to K&McM suppliers in Britain. Fortunately, the
clerk had enough presence of mind to get their badge numbers. Ooops!
Montreal Customs somehow transferred the goods from a bonded Customs
warehouse into a decrepit warehouse belonging to the Surete de Quebec,
where the goods sat under a drip from the leaking roof and were
surrounded by civilian workmen trying to patch the dump up. Goods in
Customs bond are not, by law, in Canada -- and do not get into Canada
unless released to the owner. How those goods got into that position
is unclear -- but that is where they were when Peter and I did an
expert-witness examination on 11 Feb 98.
Peter doggedly kept on demanding release of his perfectly legal goods.
No way. Peter went to Montreal, and attempted to lay criminal charges
against those who were behaving in a criminal fashion. The police
refused to accept the charges -- a crime in itself.
When it became obvious that this gadfly would not stop attacking, worry
set in. It became necessary to JUSTIFY the seizures.
K&McM was told that the goods would be released if it would agree to
add one more trifling weld to each gun. That was a trap, and it was
avoided. K&McM flatly refused to agree to ANY change being made to the
goods, and pointed out that Customs own rules made altering goods held
in Customs bond ILLEGAL.
(Had they agreed, the government could have claimed that there must
have been something wrong with the guns, or there would have been no
need to "fix" them.)
The time came, after many months -- as Peter and the NFA knew it would
-- when it was obviously necessary to prove that there was SOMETHING
illegal about that shipment. Montreal Customs took the matter beore a
judge on 12 Feb 98. Another big mistake.
The case was set to run through all of 12 Feb and 13 Feb 98. It
didn't.
In his opening statement, the Crown attorney stated that the goods ARE
NOT "prohibited weapons." He had a novel theory that he wanted the
judge to buy, that the deactivated guns each CONTAINED one or more
parts "designed exclusively for assembly into a prohibited weapon."
As soon as he said that, Peter and I relaxed. We had won. The
shipment consisted of Bren light machine guns, Browning Automatic
Rifles, Browning M1919A4 medium machine guns, German MP44 machine
pistols, German MP-40 machine pistols, Sterling submachine guns, and
Vickers medium machine guns.
There is no part in any of those guns that is "designed EXCUSIVELY for
assembly into a PROHIBITED WEAPON."
Huh? Aren't machine guns "prohibited weapons"?
Nope. Not ALL of them. There are specimens of all of those guns --
fully operational, and fully capable of full automatic fire, in the
hands of advanced collectors. Each was registered, in Canada, on 01
Jan 78 -- and every one of them is classified, IN LAW, by CC s. 84(1)
"restricted weapon" (c), as a "RESTRICTED weapon."
(Continued in 2/3)
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #211
**********************************