From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Feb 24 16:46:32 1998
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:33:57 -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 #227
Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Content-Length: 23496
X-Lines: 515
Status: RO
Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, February 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 227
In this issue:
Where is the NFA going?
Where is the NFA going?
Is the Justice Department a party in illegal prosecutions ?
ATT&T funding firearms prohibition groups
AT&T Anti-Gun Contributor
new book for police
Re: CONVERTED FULL AUTO TRANSFERS
Re: A T & T
Cree District Patches Club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:38:58 -0600
From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA"
Subject: Where is the NFA going?
Part II of III
The firearms control bureaucrats HATED it. It would reduce THEIR power,
staff and budget -- while providing superior, cheaper and easier firearms
control that would benefit the public, the police and the firearms
community. Therefore, they STRONGLY lobbied their Minister to have nothing
to do with this "crazy" concept, and to refuse to meet with or talk with the
National Firearms Association that proposed it. That situation continues
today.
It is necesary to realize that the bureaucrats control the Minister at least
as much -- and usually far more -- than the Minister controls the
bureaucrats. Usually, also, the bureaucrats control ACCESS to the
Minister, so that the Minister only ever sees those chosen by the bureaucrats.
In "Gulliver's Travels," the author described a society in which the
Ministers could only listen while a servant batted at the Minister's ear
with a bladder (an early type of toy balloon), and only speak when the
servant batted at his mouth with the bladder. Things have not changed much
since Gulliver's time...
Canada has been governed for a century by alternating Liberal and
Conservative governments. Over the years, those two Parties have grown so
alike that they are today, for all practical purposes, one Party with two
faces.
They had become complacent -- regarding themselves as the "two natural
governing Parites." Surely, the two would alternate as Government and
Opposition forever? That illusion crumpled when we obliterated Kim Campbell.
Both Parties are dedicated to the idea of a large, expensive and POWERFUL
government. Both borrowed money as if there was no tomorrow, simply to be
able to spend big bucks without increasing taxes -- to court the voters by
providing "bread and circuses" in the way of the old Roman emperors, with no
thought for tomorrow.
You and I learned, by the time we were twelve, that one cannot spend more
than is coming in without getting into BIG trouble. Neither the Liberals
nor the Conservatives have learned that simple principle. Right now, the
Liberals are about to start SPENDING again -- not because they are out of
debt, but because they did not have to BORROW last year -- or at least, not
borrow VERY MUCH!
As succceeding Liberal and Conservative governments had to bleed off
ever-increasing percentages of all available tax money to pay the INTEREST
on their ever-expanding debts, the money still available for spending freely
began to go down. And down. And DOWN. Today, one third of all tax dollars
must go to pay the INTEREST on $600 BILLION in debts -- with NO money going
to REDUCE the amount that is owing. We will be paying 33 per cent more
taxes than is necessary to provide all goods and services for generations --
to pay that interest.
Why is that important? Because nearly all governments are composed of
control freaks. It is why they WANT the power to dictate how you and I will
live our lives, how the nation will behave, how the very structure of our
society will be set.
As the money disappeared into the Black Hole of debt, government and its
bureaucracies began uneasily detecting a loss of CONTROL. Voters became
less dependent on government, because government was no longer offering so
many "free" goods and services. Succeeding govertments began frantically
trying to REGAIN that lost control.
One of the chosen methods was severe firearms control. An armed citizen is
a citizen who cannot easily be bullied into line.
Frankly, I doubt that most politicans realize what is happening, or why.
This is a "gut level" reaction to a poorly-understood loss of CONTROL.
National governments have also lost control of the flow of money in and out
of the nation. Today, money moves by bouncing electronic signals off
satellites, and governments cannot "seal the borders." They have lost
control over corporations: "You forbid us to make submarine propellors for
the Iraqis? OK -- we will make them in our factory in [another nation],
where we only have to answer to the [that nation's] government." National
governments are becoming steadily less important.
Loss of control breeds, in politicians, the demand for INCREASED control.
The firearms community became a prime target -- first under Bill C-17,
enacted by the Conservatives, then under Bill C-68, enacted by the Liberals.
Once again, we saw the twins at work -- Liberals and Conservatives,
Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We have no EFFECTIVE friends in either Party.
The NFA had recognized this pattern a very long time ago. It became obvious
that there would have to be fundamental changes to our political scene if
our firearms community is to survive, let alone grow and prosper.
At first, we tried to persuade firearms community members to join the
Liberals and Conservatives -- to change those Parties from within. It
should have been easy -- under three per cent of Canadian voters belong to
ANY political Party, so ALL of them are easy to alter if a large group
decides to move in and outvote the "traditional" Party members.
After all, if we could presuade ten per cent of the firearms community
members to join the political Party of their choice, firearms community
members would be a MAJORITY in every political Party in Canada. Delicious!
But politicians have been presuading Canadians to stay OUT of political
Parties for generations. By doing that, they have turned each Party's
Riding Associations (you know, the local Party group that gets to choose the
Party's candidate for each election -- whatever name it goes by) into a mere
fan club for the local politician and his Glorious Leader.
A Riding Association (or whatever it is called locally) is frequently
composed of 40 per cent retired people, 40 per cent lawyers, and 20 per cent
- -- how can I put this? -- flakes. It usually has between 2 and 90 members
who actually come out to meetings. The meetings are social -- not political
- -- occasions.
Yet that tiny fraction -- under three per cent of voters -- chooses every
candidate in every election. You get to choose from among THEIR choices.
Continued in III...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:40:48 -0600
From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA"
Subject: Where is the NFA going?
Part III of III
Attempts to educate the firearms community in how vulnerable the "two
natural governing Parties" actually were to hostile takeovers failed,
apparently because the politicians had done too good a job at persuading
Canadians to stay OUT of their "fan-club" political Parties.
In a few areas ONE outstanding firearms community member realized that the
target Party was very tiny and very vulnerable. Unable to affect the big
picture, that member sometimes succeeded in recruiting a voting majority of
firearms community members into the local Riding Association, then using
that majority to donate all the carefully-gathered Party funds to the local
battered women's shelter. Hey, that's reasonable -- money can do more good
there than it will by being used to elect another MP for one of the "two
natural governing Parties."
Then a new factor arose -- the Reform Party. The NFA expended a great deal
of time and effort to prove to the Reform Party that the firearms community
is a huge and powerful voting bloc -- one composed of good Canadians from
overy walk of life, and one that is becoming more and more united under the
persistent attacks by the Conservatives and Liberals.
We did that because we needed one Party as an ally, to prove to the other
Parties that we were a huge, united bloc of voters -- and therefore worth
courting. At first, Reform was purely a Western Party. The NFA helped to
change that -- it was actively recruiting Easterners into the Reform Party
two years before Reform decided to move across the MB-ON border.
Today, Reform recognizes the firearms community as a large and important
factor in elections -- and therefore is willing to enact good firearms
control legislation if and when it becomes the government of Canada. Until
it does become a government, of course, there is little that it CAN do.
That is how the Parliamentary system works.
In order to try and bleed off Reform strength, the Conservatives and NDP
both began, during the last federal election -- tentatively and weakly -- to
court the firearms community. The NDP activity mostly failed, but the
Conservative effort was taken more seriously than it deserved to be in
Ontario. That mistaken swing to the Conservatives within the firearms
community split the small-c conservative vote in Ontario, allowing the
election of Liberals in the pattern: Liberal, 40%; Reform, 35%;
Conservative, 25%. The will to dump the Liberal was there -- but the voting
tactics were sadly wrong-headed. Uniting behind Reform would have elected
many Reform MPs -- in ONTARIO. Think of the message THAT would have sent.
Many people do not believe that Reform will ever form a national government.
When gathering intelligence of what HAS happened in order to predict what
WILL happen, it is necessary to study not only what IS, but the continuing
pattern of HOW IT GOT TO WHERE IT IS. Any Intelligence officer can tell you
the value of that. In WW II, for example, frequent-coverage air photos told
the Allies in February how many submarines the Germans would launch in
April, May, June and July -- by making clear the PATTERN that was developing
on each building site.
In three federal elections, Reform has gone from a sngle, lonely MP to 50
MPs to being the official Opposition. That is a steeply-rising curve for
Reform. Reform has not formed a national government YET -- but its path
indicates that it WILL.
There is no sign that the Conservative Party will rise from the ashes of Kim
Campbell's self-destructive campaign. It is, and has been for the last two
federal elections, the smallest, weakest and most ineffective Party in the
House of Commons. It has a weak Leader (with a pathetic record of
attendence in the House) who is at odds with the rank and file of his own
Party. It seems unlikely to ever recover, except in the hearts of a few
die-hard loyalists. The Conservative Party has been, for all practical
purposes, replaced by Reform.
Politically, the NFA has been largely responsible for the fact that we have
gone from having EVERY national political Party hostile to the firearms
community to having one federal Party -- Reform -- as a staunch ally, and
two other federal Parties -- Conservatives and NDP -- starting to court us
for our support. That is progress.
The NFA worked long and hard to convince the Reform Party that members of
the firearms community are valuable assets, and not dangerous liabilities.
Today, Reform often recruits at gun shows and shooting competitions. Have
you ever seen a Liberal or Conservative recruiter at a gun show or
competition?
To those of you who snort that we have not yet elected a favorable
government or achieved favorable legislation, I point to that tug turning
the ocean liner around out in the harbor. Before that great ship can start
steaming in the direction it should be going, it is necessary for the tiny
tug to turn it slowly, slowly around -- over a long period of time.
It takes determination, and a long hard period of work to turn a liner when
you are just a tugboat. It takes, more than anything else, CONSISTENT
pressure in a particular direction. It takes minor adjustments to keep the
movement going in just the right direction. It is NOT easy -- AND IT CANNOT
BE DONE AT ALL IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
Turning an ocean liner is much like moving an elephant. The dogs that mill
around an elephant, barking furiously, tend to move it at random. The end
result of such movement is often zero, or a worse situation than when the
attempt to move it began.
One dog -- pulling gently but CONSISTENTLY at a line attached to a fish hook
stuck into the elephant's ear -- is far more effective at moving the
elephant in a
desired direction.
If the elephant or the ocean liner is determined to go straight ahead, the
dog or tug can be easily overpowered. It is therefore necessary to work on
a liner or elephant that is NOT totally committed to going straight ahead --
by replacing the uncontrollable monster in a federal election.
That takes a lot of time, dedication, hard work and MONEY -- over a LONG
period of time. Liners and elephants are not easy to turn, and they are not
easy to replace.
The strength of the NFA lies in its long-term committment to CONSISTENT
policies, CONSISTENT actions, and skillful maneuvering of its giant charges.
The NFA knows where it is going, and is quite successful at achieving its
goals -- although it has a long way to go yet. Our path is clear before us.
Want to join the winners?
Think about it.
Dave Tomlinson, NFA
FOCUS: Winning in the courts. Winning the hearts and minds of political
Parties. Winning. Victory, dammit, VICTORY. There is no substitute for
VICTORY.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:20:58 -0600
From: /dd.id=1090114/g=barry/i=bw/s=glasgow/prmd=bnr/@nortel.com
Subject: Is the Justice Department a party in illegal prosecutions ?
to: Canadian Firearms DIgest
Canadian Firearms Centre
cc: The Ottawa Citizen
In message "Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #221",
>
>Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 10:01:18 -0600
>From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA"
>Subject: The NFA
>
[snip]
>
>The attack through the courts has been very successful, although few
>understand just HOW successful. The most common abusive charge laid against
>firearms owners -- improper storage of a firearm -- was the government's
>"big gun on a prime tactical position" as soon as it became law.
>Hundreds were charged, convicted, and prohibited from possessing firearms.
>
>The NFA fought a long, difficult battle -- actually, an entire set of minor
>battles -- to establish minor gains that we have now consolidated into a
>major gain. Today, it is almost impossible to convict anyone of either CC
>s. 86(2) "careless storage" or s. 86(3) "storage in violation of a
regulation"
>- IF the accused has an NFA 7-pack of favorable court decisions.
Given that the government relies on endless legal resources to accomplish
this harassment, would it not be a good idea to stretch those legal resources
to the limit by putting together another package that would make it easy for
those wrongly convicted of storage violations to regain their non-criminal
status and to be compensated for their legal, financial and productivity
losses (not to mention the mental anguish caused by the criminal proceedings
and the resulting social stigmatization inflicted by them) ?
Additionally, the Justice Department is well aware of the NFA defense
against such charges - charges that are constitutionally illegal.
Is it not illegal for them to not make prosecutors aware of this and
to allow the continued prosecution of charges that contravene our
constitutional rights ?
Is not the Canadian Firearms Centre guilty of gross negligence in not
informing gunowners of this fact in its bulletins ?
Regards,
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ontario
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:20:56 -0600
From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Subject: ATT&T funding firearms prohibition groups
sent to talktous@attcanada.com
AT&T is trying to make inroads into Canada's
long-distance market by phoning up Bell Canada
customers to convince them to switch to AT&T.
Recently the following appeared in a Canadian
newspaper;
>From the Toronto Star, Sat. Feb. 21,1998, an
article by Outdoors writer, John Power, on page
D12.
"According to the Great Lakes Basin Report, AT&T
long-distance customers are givng money to
anti-gun groups. It seems AT&T
Telecommunications Foundation has formed a
coalition and provided a $3 million grant to
fund a campaign to ban firearms".
Between 30 and 40% of Canadian households own
firearms and we will make sure that this fact is
broadcast on the appropriate Internet
newsgroups so that those affected will know what
to say when AT&T comes a-calling.
- --
===================================================================
Barry Glasgow "If it's true that man can't govern himself,
Woodlawn, Ontario what is man doing putting his life and liberty
in the hands of another man ?"
Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:21:28 -0600
From: gonfishn@interlog.com
Subject: AT&T Anti-Gun Contributor
>>A representative for AT&T Canada told me this morning that
>> they do NOT support Anti-firearms groups, nor give them
>> funding. However, he confirmed AT&T U.S. does. This
>> person stated twice that AT&T Canada and AT&T U.S. are
>> separate companies.
AT&T Canada is VERY much related to AT&T US. Don't believe the PR spin
that the customer service reps employed by AT&T Canada are fed to confuse
Canadian consumers.
The Canadian long distance operation of AT&T Canada was established by AT&T
US... was funded by AT&T US... and borrows heavily on the marketing
expertise and programs from AT&T US. You probably remember the previous
company as "Unitel," before AT&T moved in and took over operatons.
The Canadian representative who spoke with you probably also failed to
mention that "AT&T" stands for American Telephone and Telegraph Company,
the original long distance provider of the Bell System of the United
States.
I'd stay far clear of AT&T as a long distance provider, as they are
obviously anti-gun.
When you cancel your service, make sure the rep understands it is because
of AT&T's anti-gun funding. Often this collected information makes its way
back up to the marketing staff studying attrition trends.
Regards,
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:21:32 -0600
From: Michael Cooper
Subject: new book for police
I am glad to see the CFC is still monitoring the digest. It provides proof
that they are aware of the problems. My comment concerns Mr. Vanwyk's
assertion that "75,000 persons will receive some form of training". Based
on my experience both giving and receiving training and budgeting for such,
the average cost of a training program is about $500.00 per day per person.
Assuming that "some form of training" on something as involved as the
Firearms Act would require at least one full day the math speaks for
itself. 75,000 X $500 = 37.5 million dollars. I would like to know if the
training costs associated with the Firearm Act are included in the
estimated cost of implementation or they will be buried in some other
department as "Job training/retraining". I would welcome any input from
the CFC and if they consider my $500 per day per person cost out of line
(Don't forget to add wages if these are paid employees that will receive
the training.) If the cost is less than this to learn the complexities of
the Firearms Act, then sign me up.
Mike Cooper
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:21:36 -0600
From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA"
Subject: Re: CONVERTED FULL AUTO TRANSFERS
>I am seeking info on the grandfathering status of converted full autos.
>Does their status differ from grandfathered full autos (not converted)?
Yes. The CA "critical date" is 01 Oct 92, while the FA "critical date" is
01 Jan 78. FAs may be bought, sold and traded among "grandfathered" owners
(always being careful not to fall below ownership of ONE and thereby become
"ungrandfathered), while CAs have some additional restrictions regarding
paperwork.
>My local OPP firearms registrar has been told by RCMP that I cannot acquire
>C/As although I am grandfathered for F/A.
"Grandfathering" for FAs does not "grandfather" you for CAs, or vice versa.
>(At least I THOUGHT they knew I was grandfathered for F/A).
>They have been dithering on the matter for more that 2 years now.
>They even required it to be examined to ensure that it was a C/A and not F/A.
>That appears to mean that they in effect DO have C/As and F/As in
>separate classes and will not allow movement between them.
Yes, they do -- and that is what the LAW says. However -- if the CA was
registered on 10 Jan 78 as a "restricted weapon," it is still LOCKED into
that class -- as a FA! If that is the case, you CAN acquire it -- just by
converting it BACK to FA, which as a "grandfathered" FA collector, you CAN
legally do with any firearm that was registered as a "restricted weapon" on
01 Jan 78.
And, incidentally, that applies even if the firearm was registered as SA on
01 Jan 78.
Dave Tomlinson, NFA
FOCUS: It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It's GOVERNMENT POLICY.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:21:38 -0600
From: "H. Roy Stephens"
Subject: Re: A T & T
I spoke with the PR office of AT&T and they said that they do not and
have not given a penny to any groups(s) that are opposed to firearms. It
seems that the Toronto Star printed a misleading article and have been
asked to publish a retraction.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 16:33:55 -0600
From: "Alfred.Hovdestad@usask.ca"
Subject: Cree District Patches Club
Saturday, February 21st 1998 was the second meeting of the Cree
District Patches Club. Several of our members were unable to
attend as this was the start of the midterm break for our
public schools. Those that did show up had a great time.
I had contacted a local bowling alley and asked them what they
did with their cracked and chipped ten-pin bowling pins. The
technician told me that he usually just throws them out. I
explained to him that I would like to use them as targets for
our shooting club. No problem, he said.
I picked up a box of 10 ten-pin bowling pins and spray painted
them black. The kids got a real treat of shooting bowling pins
(and they were quite successful I might add). The pins are
heavy enough to stand up in a light breeze but light enough
to be knocked down by a .22 rifle.
If your shooting club is looking for a way to encourage kids to
shoot, you might want to ask your local bowling alley for some
discarded ten-pin bowling pins (the five-pin bowling pins
are rarely discarded as they take less punishment from the
lighter bowling balls).
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
"Give me a good canoe, a pair of Ojibwa snowshoes, my beaver and
10,000 square miles of wilderness, and I am happy."
- Grey Owl
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #227
**********************************