From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sun Mar 8 09:29:42 1998 Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 05:27:58 -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 #251 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23412 X-Lines: 579 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, March 8 1998 Volume 02 : Number 251 In this issue: CFSC Paperwork Rock's Dilemma "Any Questions?" (RCMP FAQ for the Firearms Act) bureaucrats and education RE: Canadian Tire CFD #250 - re: CC 117 Two Things Canadian Tire Rumour about bullet bouncing off tires at range Wildlife Surveys hollow point ammo / .50 BMG gun bans and UK constitution Copyright Japan : A Nation Without Guns Full Auto Homicides in Canada Should we feel safer? Re: gun bans and UK constitution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:22:37 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: CFSC Paperwork >I don't know what FAC application form they're using in BC, >but the one I filled out in Nova Scotia required proof >of passage of CFSC as one of the items to be submitted. Same here in Toronto. >What will be interesting is when I have to >renew the next time. I'll only be able to supply >photocopies of the student copy of the completion >document, because the other two copies have already >been consumed by the vast maw of the firearms >control bureaucracy. When I challenged the test, I was given two copies paper which showed that I passed. I had to attach one copy with my first FAC application. That left me with one copy. When I applied for a second FAC, I presented my only remaining copy. The clerk photocopied my original copy, attached the photocopy to the application and returned the original copy to me. I order to get the original from me, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers. Course their record of my first application SHOULD include the fact that I have passed the test and no further proof should be necessary. YEAH RIGHT!!! Ron McCutcheon P. Eng mccutcrg@mail.rose.com Good gun control is a keen eye and a steady hand. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:08 -0600 From: Karl Schrader Subject: Rock's Dilemma Mr. Allan Rock, M.P. Minister of Health House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Re.: Lack of funds for adequate healthcare - ------------------------------------------------------ Dear Mr. Rock: There was a news item on CBC radio today in which you are deploring the lack of funds for adequate health care. The last budget did not provide any relief for the beleaguered health care sector but instead provided for increased spending on education. Education is very important, however, if somebody is sick, he or she can not wait for treatment. A recent flurry of letters to the editor in the Ottawa Citizen which are deploring the out of control spiralling costs of the implementation of firearms registration caught extensive attention. Some writers pointed out that the "improved, automated registration system" will be riddled with errors and will not stand up in court. They further calculated, since the proposed mail-in registration can not be relied upon and that a physical examination of firearms would be absolutely neccessary, the costs would escalate to appr. $ 2.8 billion. The Liberal Party could save considerable political face if this registration system would be quietly dropped and the otherwise wasted amount of $ 2.8 billion could be redirected towards your desperate attempt to raise funds for health care. I realize that you are a very busy man, however, if you could delegate someone in your Department to provide a reply, I would be grateful. Sincerely ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:20 -0600 From: Jason Hayes Subject: "Any Questions?" (RCMP FAQ for the Firearms Act) Here is the text of a handout titled "Any Questions? First in a series / The Firearms Act - General Information". I recieved it from a RCMP member who is also a member of our local rod and gun club. He informed us (at the meeting) that this was stapled to every RCMP paycheque for the last pay period. He told me that it was no problem to distribute this to CFD subscribers. What do you guys think? Comments would be appreciated b/c I will pass them on to the fellow who gave this to me. (Any typos are more than likely mine) Implementation of the Firearms Act is approaching and firearms owners have many questions. Members of the public often turn to police agencies for answers. These are answers to police agencies don't often have. The right answers are easier to find than you might think. Here are just a few answers to the questions being asked about Canada's new firearms legislation by police and members of the public. Q - What are the major components of the Firearms Act? A - The Act makes many changes to Canada's firearms legislation. Two of the most important changes are universal registration of all firearms and the replacement of Firearms Acquistion Certificates (FAC's) with firearms licenses. Starting in 1998, all firearms owners will need to obtain a firearms license. All owners will also need a registration certificate for each of their firearms. (Side note, this information pamphlet is giving RCMP members ambiguous and incorrect information if they only read this far. "Starting in 1998" When in 1998? And we do not have to have our firearms registered until Dec, 2002. That is if they manage to get the registry working by Oct 98 JTH) Q - Are there different types of licenses? A - Yes. All firearms owners will need either a possession-only or possession and acquisition license. As the names indicate, the possession and acquistion license allows the license holder to acquire new firearms (by trade, gift, or purchase) while the possession-only license does not. Q - When will I have to get my license? A - Licensing will begin October 1, 1998. All firearms owners will need a license by January 1, 2001. Q - How much will a license cost? A - A possession-only license for non-restricted firearms will cost $10 from October 1st, 1998 to September 30, 1999. By the end of 2000 a possession only license will cost $60. Possession and acquistion licenses will cost $60. Q - But I have an FAC, is it still valid? A - FAC's will be valid util thier expiration date or January 1, 2001, whichever happens first. If an FAC expires after January 1, 2001 the FAC hold will be given a partial credit towards (sic) his/her licens purchase if the application is made in the year 2000. (Haven't we seen this somewhere before - like a CFC posting? JTH) Q - All firearms owners will need to be licensed by January 1, 2001. How long will I have to register my firearms? A - Registration will begin in 1998 at the same time as licensing. All firearms owners will have until December 31, 2002 to register all of their firearms. Q - How much will regsitration cost? A - From October 1st, 1998 to September 30, 1999 registration will cost $10 for any number of non-restricted firearms providing they are all registered at the same time. This fee will climb to $18 for any number of non-restricted firearms in 2002. To qualify, a firearms owner must have owned the firearms before the start-date for registration. Registration of firearms purchased or recieved after the start date will cost $25. In either case, registration is a one-time requirement good for as long as you own the firearm. Q - What about registration of my restricted firearms? A - If you own restricted firearms, you will be asked to verify the current registration information. There is no fee for this transaction. This brochure is just one of the many resources available to answer questions about the Firearms Act. Police officers and members of the public can call the trained operators at the Canadian Firearms Enquiries Line at 1-800-731-4000 from 8am to 8pm Eastern Standard Time. (RCMP Crest @ the bottom) Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:39 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: bureaucrats and education On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > One would think Customs had learned a little from tangling with the > NFA-K&McM combination, but perhaps not. > Sadly, if one looks at our bureacracy and its history, it is hard to find an example of any time that a logical conclusion has been drawn from any of their many debacles. Examples that come to mind include the DIA and DFO. Etc., etc., of course. Where there is no accountability, there is no responsibility. Instead of responsibility, the 3 "P"s prevail: pensions, perquisites and public relations [spin doctoring]. Jim Davies ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:42 -0600 From: "Joel Patriquen" Subject: RE: Canadian Tire Malcom Baron made mention on his new CTC cataloge not having a GUN section, yes I believe this is a seasonal thing. You may find interesting though, that I suscibed to Canadian Tire's "e-flyer" a few weeks back. You have to complete a survey to customize your flyer. There has everything you could think of listed except, yup, GUNS & HUNTING! I e-mailed them the question "why not" and three weeks later, no reply. Joel Patriquen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:45 -0600 From: "Kali J." Subject: CFD #250 - re: CC 117 CC 117 really does sound "EVIL"! How can parliament even "think" of allowing ONE person to make such regulations and laws in this country? Even in accounting procedures, everything must have a "counter-check" or double entry in order to be balanced and accountable. This sounds like it gives full power to "one" person alone, and one not even elected by the people for this position? Where is the accountability? What's to stop this "one" person from using his own biases and personal opinion in his actions? Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation, but that is what this sounds like. Correct me if I'm wrong. Will our Constitution help here at all, or the Bill of Rights? So Dave, et al, it sounds like the only way of stopping this is by stopping C-68 itself (again correct me if I'm wrong please). We are of course all reaching for this goal, but with October looming VERY quickly, we all need to take a lot more notice and scream a lot louder. Perhaps we could see more items on what actions we can take. When suggestions come on this digest to contact various political folks and papers, etc., could we also see more phone numbers, e-mail addresses, fax numbers, names, etc.??? Or web-sites that link to these??? Linda J. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:04:46 -0600 From: bo109@freenet.carleton.ca (Lloyd Ellam) Subject: Two Things After subscribing for some time I have finally sent off the membership for my son and I. Item 2. I have an expired FAC. Never needed to buy another firearm so just let it lapse. What is the best thing to do now. and what should I suspect to hear as a response. Sorry if this has been asked before Lloyd Ellam ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:08:35 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: Canadian Tire : Just got my 1998 Canadian Tire Catalogue. While flipping throught the : catalogue of my favourite store I noticed that they do not have a gun : section any more. They used to have a really good gun selection. : Is it some sort of political statement or is it just : too much hassle with the new regs? I too have always enjoyed looking through the CTC catalogue and weekly flyers to enjoy the selection of firearms, and other shooting accessories, however, it has sadly come to an end.:( In this area, THE CITY, the CTC stores are getting out of the Firearm selling business. They will continue to sell ammo, and other hunting and shooting accessories, but will not sell firearms any more. I've spoken to several managers and specifically asked for a reason, --answer-- "too much hassle, due to the new regulations" In some cases they are also considering not carrying ammo either, due to the paperwork involved, FAC requirements for employees, etc. Other CTC's in rural areas state they will continue to service the needs of their customers, which includes having a selection of firearms and related accessories. Each CTC store is different. The Liberals continue to whittle away at our sport. They realize that an outright ban would cause a social upheaval, so attack it with economics, - ---make it more and more expensive and soon it will die off itself. ttfn Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 14:08:48 -0600 From: Bill Ryan Subject: Rumour about bullet bouncing off tires at range Can anyone confirm or de-bunk the following rumour: "A police officer was killed at a shooting range in the USA by a bullet he fired that bounced back off a tire or a stack of tires used as a backstop or safety wall." or anything that resembles that rumour - any person killed or injured - any country - not at a shooting range - not a tire - even a fiction story or novel. This is alleged to be a reason that the BC Chief Firearms Officer and Attorney General are ordering inspections of BC shooting ranges. Thanks Bill Ryan -- billryan@island.net -- 250 753-6749 -- fax 250 753-9206 IT'S TRUE! IT'S TRUE! I KNOW IT'S TRUE! I SAW IT ON THE INTERNET! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:38:22 -0600 From: cougr41@peacenet.com Subject: Wildlife Surveys Every year I receive surveys from Environment Canada concerning "waterfowl hunting in Canada". I usually respond as accurately as I can. I not only enjoy hunting ducks and geese, but I also believe in good conservation practices. Perhaps that is why I receive a survey every year, despite the claim "I have been randomly selected". Another Canadian Wildlife Service survey arrived at my door this morning. I may sound paranoid, but I will no longer participate in these surveys. I do not believe this government department will keep the information confidential. (Despite a promise to do so) A recent post concerning the illegal release of K&M tax information by Customs officials highlights my concern. While on the surface the questions are conservation oriented, the fact that they know I am a hunter and firearms owner concerns me. Once again I become a number on a data base. I know I am probably on several data bases. I also know I am a known firearms owner, due to my occasional posts to the Digest. Thanks to the NFA I have become very conscious of personal information that I provide to the various government groups. WHERE will that information finally end up? If I am being paranoid, tell me. If I am being foolishly suspicious persuade me. Otherwise I suppose there are several conservation groups that will no longer receive responses from me concerning my personal hunting and fishing successes/failures. Perhaps I will drop off the data bases due to this lack of response. Then again, perhaps not. In the end, my suspicions may be well/poorly founded, but proof of confidentiality is the REAL issue. Like Dave says - Victory, dammit VICTORY! Bruce Beswick "Words Or Bullets - Shoot Straight And You Won't Have To Track 'Em!" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:38:34 -0600 From: "Bill Taylor" Subject: hollow point ammo / .50 BMG >From time to time the subject of hollow point ammunition comes up, as well as the legality of .50 BMG ammo. For anyone interested, you can get all kinds of information right from the source: Natural Resources Canada (explosives branch) has most documents available for download. A search for "ammunition" at the following site will give the bulletins relating to hollow point ammo, the list of all Canadian commercial reloaders, the list of all explosives approved for import, etc. Elsewhere on the site it mentions that 5,000 kg of "safety cartridges except hollow point handgun ammunition" may be imported without a permit for private use and not for sale. Last year received a written confirmation from the explosives branch confirming that I could import of 100 rounds of .50 BMG (I didn't get around to doing it yet, so I can't guarantee that you will not get hassled by an over zealous customs inspector). Regards, Bill Taylor ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:38:54 -0600 From: dhammond@cadvision.com (Dave Hammond) Subject: gun bans and UK constitution I found this UK web site the other day. It contains a lot of historical/legal evidence as to the unconstitutionality of the UK gun control laws. Those of you interested in the British common law/royal prorogative tie in to Canadian law may be interested. Of partucular interest was the section on Blackstone. If you want to learn how numerous British governments subverted the UK constitution with their gun laws and want to see how the same methods are being used in Canada, point your browsers to: or DH (RFOA) "And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights." (Sir William Blackstone, British common law, commentaries 1786) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:38:57 -0600 From: BChow2or81 Subject: Copyright Re posting in cfd2-248, re query on possible infringement of Gun Digest copyright by CFC, DAT wrote: No. One can photocopy small excerpts without violation. How small is "small"? The poster mentioned "Copied the digest", & "Distributed portions". Perhaps he/she would like to check on this? It might just be far enough over the line! - Bud ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 18:38:59 -0600 From: "a.warner" Subject: Japan : A Nation Without Guns For anyone interested in one American's views on gun control in Japan go to- The author, Mark Schrieber, "A NATION WITHOUT GUNS" is sadly out of touch with the present crime rates in Japan, but does cover the government side within his own perspective. A good read if only to find out what some think. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 05:27:38 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Full Auto Homicides in Canada >There are only two incidences when fully auto firearms were used to kill >people in Canada, right? One was when the SQ kicked down a hotel door, >and shot two people. Where they workers at the hotel, or people who >were staying there? Guests, two carpet-layers on their way home from an out-of-town job. The local police decided that they met the description of two bank robbers thought to be in the district. The cop in front kicked the door in and entered. He tripped, and accidentally fired his handgun. The cop behind thought his partner had been shot, and sprayed the room. MOST unprofessional conduct -- especially because they did NOT evacuate the other rooms of the motel before attempting entry. >The second incident was when a guy took an army >rifle into the Quebec parliament, but did anybody get killed? What >years did these incidents happen? Thanks in advance, please reply by >private email. He was using a Canadian Army Sterling. There were three fatalities, but my memory has faded as to that and to the dates. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 05:27:46 -0600 From: MJ Subject: Should we feel safer? >From: Center Right >Subject: CENTER-RIGHT Issue 1, March 2, 1998 >Edited From: No Smoking Guns: Answering Objections to Right-to-Carry Laws >National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 246 (by >Morgan Reynolds & H. Sterling Burnett): > > Since 1986 the number of states in which it is legal to carry >concealed weapons has grown from nine to 31, representing 49 >percent of the country's population. Should we feel safer? > > Opponents of right-to-carry laws predicted a sharp decline in >public safety because minor incidents would escalate into killings >and more children would be victimized by more guns in irresponsible >hands. Further, critics claimed that criminals would be undeterred >by any increase in armed citizens. Indeed, they claimed that >right-to-carry laws would increase crime rather than deter it. >Experience has proven them wrong. [for example].... > Objection #5: Concealed carry increases accidental gun deaths. > * The fatal firearm accident rate has declined to about .5 >per 100,000 people -- a decrease of more than 19 percent in the >last decade. > * The number of fatal firearms-related accidents among >children fell to an all-time low of 185 in 1994, a 64 percent >decline since 1975. > Conclusion. > Concealed carry laws have not contributed to a big increase in >gun ownership. Nor has allowing citizens the right to carry >firearms for self-protection led to the negative consequences >claimed by critics. In fact, these laws have lowered violent crime >rates and increased the general level of knowledge concerning the >rights, responsibilities and laws of firearm ownership. > > Putting unarmed citizens at the mercy of armed and violent >criminals was never a good idea. Now that the evidence is in, we >know that concealed carry is a social good. > > > > This Brief Analysis was prepared by Morgan Reynolds, > Director of the NCPA Criminal Justice Center, and H. > Sterling Burnett, Policy Analyst with the NCPA. > > Original document is on the Web at > >More on this topic: > > "Myths About Gun Control," also co-written by Morgan Reynolds >of the NCPA, ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 05:27:56 -0600 From: "Judy Josephson" Subject: Re: gun bans and UK constitution > I found this UK web site the other day. It contains a lot of > historical/legal evidence as to the unconstitutionality of the UK gun > control laws. Those of you interested in the British common law/royal > prorogative tie in to Canadian law may be interested. Of partucular interest > was the section on Blackstone. If you want to learn how numerous British > governments subverted the UK constitution with their gun laws and want to > see how the same methods are being used in Canada, point your browsers to: > > > > or > > Absolutely brilliant site !! I have bookmarked it for future reference , perhaps I'll be able to make use of some quotes from it in my letters to the editor while I try to get public opinion on our side . Many thanks for posting this . Graham Hampton ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #251 **********************************