From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Mar 10 14:42:59 1998 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:21:24 -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 #255 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23455 X-Lines: 527 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, March 10 1998 Volume 02 : Number 255 In this issue: letter to the Ottawa Citizen from MP Garry Breitkreuz RCMP commish says DoJ misrepresent stats for firearms during debate Re: Frame only Registration for .32s .25s and short barreled handguns How to send a FAX to your MP by E-Mail! Re: metro toronto firearms unit RE: Full Auto Homicides in Canada Re: metro toronto firearms unit Re: flexible registration Re: Customs demand another donation Kustoms playing games again.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:50:13 -0600 From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: letter to the Ottawa Citizen from MP Garry Breitkreuz February 23, 1998 Mr. Brian Sarjeant, Letters Editor The Ottawa Citizen 1101 Baxter Road, Box 5020, Ottawa, Ontario K2C 3M4 Dear Mr. Sarjeant: Re: Setting the record straight on gun control? Criminologist Matthew G. Yeager is confused about why insurance companies don't ask, "Do you own a firearm?" on their application forms ("Setting the record straight on gun control," February 22, 1998). The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada say it's because gun owners are "not an identifiable risk group." Insurance companies make their money assessing risk and they do so by collecting and analyzing "empirical evidence". If owning a firearm represented any "identifiable risk" to anyone, insurance companies would ask everyone if they own a firearm on all their applications and charge higher premiums to gun owners. As I pointed out in my last letter, insurance companies don't ask because no "empirical evidence" exists to suggest we are a danger to ourselves, our families, or our neighbours. In July 1997, the Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed as much in a letter to the Justice Department, "Furthermore, the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms." The Liberal government is trying to convince taxpayers licencing 5 to 8 million law-abiding gun owners and registering 18 to 21 million legally owned guns is a cost-effective way to reduce violent crime by spending hundreds of millions on 0.08% of the problem. Registration of legally-owned firearms won't affect criminals who use guns or reduce violent crime in the slightest. I maintain there are far better ways to spend these millions to improve public safety, such as: women's crisis centres, suicide prevention programs, youth crime prevention and intervention programs, etc, etc.) I'd be interested in what common-sense Canadians have to say about where these millions could be better spent. Self-serving bureaucrats and academically-challenged criminologists need not respond. Sincerely, Garry Breitkreuz, MP Yorkton-Melville. source: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/letter.OttCit02.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:55:37 -0600 From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: RCMP commish says DoJ misrepresent stats for firearms during debate NEWS RELEASE March 9, 1998 For Immediate Release RCMP COMMISSIONER SAYS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISREPRESENTED STATISTICS FOR FIREARMS AND VIOLENT CRIME DURING DEBATE OF C-68 Ottawa -- "Last July, the Commissioner of the RCMP accused officials in the Department of Justice with misrepresenting RCMP firearms statistics by overstating the number of firearms involved in violent crimes. He also criticized the use of these false and misleading statistics during the debate of the still controversial Bill C-68, the Firearms Act," revealed Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville. The Saskatchewan MP released copies of the Commissioner's damning letter which was obtained through an Access to Information Request. Here are some excerpts from RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray's letter to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice dated July 21, 1997: "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms." "`The Firearms Smuggling Working Group was concerned with the number of long guns involved in crime.' This statement is not significant when we consider that in 1993, the RCMP investigated 333 actual homicide offences, including attempts, but only 6 of these offences involved the use of firearms according to the statistics provided to the Firearms Control Task Group." "We determined that our statistics showed that there were 73 firearms involved in a violent crime compared to the Department of Justice findings of 623 firearms involved in a violent crime." "It is of particular concern that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police relied on these statistics while Bill C-68 was being processed in Parliament as evidenced by statements in the report, ``Illegal Firearm Use in Canada''." "The incorrect reporting of RCMP statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering the data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these reasons, something must be done to remove it from circulation." "We depend on public servants to implement laws passed by Parliament, however, we don't expect them to manipulate RCMP statistics to help politicians achieve questionable political objectives. How will we ever know when Justice Department officials are telling the truth? Justice Minister Anne McLellan has to tell us if she and her predecessor, Allan Rock, knew about and condoned the use of these false statistics by their officials. Public servants should not be playing politics." concluded Breitkreuz. -30- For a copy of the RCMP Commissioner's Letter, please call: Ottawa office: (613) 992-4394 Yorkton Office: (306) 782-3309 source: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/19980309.txt ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:11:50 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: Frame only Registration for .32s .25s and short barreled handguns >I owned (and had registered) numerous small handguns prior to >Feb 14, 1995 and so should be included in the handgun grandfathered >class. >Subsequent to Feb 14, 1995 I bought a ************* and a ****************** >******. These guns were not available prior to that date. As you know both >barrels are significantly under 4.13 inches. They are currently registered >with the original short barrels. Should I > 1)re-register these as frame only? > 2)buy 106+ mm barrels and register them with these barrels? > 3)leave the registration as is? >Pros and Cons as I see them. If I select #1 and C68 is proclaimed >at some point, doesn't the spare short barrel itself become a >prohibited device? So with this scenario I can never legally use >the Glock as is or even keep the original barrel in Canada. I guess this >way the risk of losing the gun is reduced. With #2 the risk of losing the >gun is also reduced but again the original barrel is a problem I think. >It would have to be exported wouldn't it? These barrels generally go for >about $175 plus tax each. So this option adds some cost. These long barrels >are not necessarily available for all guns and generally look stupid and add >bulk to guns which are designed to be compact. In #3 I risk losing the guns >when C68 is proclaimed unless the stupid Feb 14, 1995 date is amended to >some later date -- possibly proclamation date. If the date is amended then I >can keep and use the guns in their original size/state which would be the >best scenario, other than C68 never coming into force. This is, as you say, a messy area. It is NOT clear when the barrel is defined as a "prohibited device" and when it is just "part of a legal firearm." I would recommend that you go for option 3 because that is the clearest for you -- as a "grandfathered" person. Beware, however, of later OICs that will outlaw your short- barrelled firearms without "grandfathering" and of court decisions that "grandfathering" is illegal. >I would still like to purchase a few more of these before proclamation >date e.g.. Kahr MK9, Kahr K40, North American Arms Guardian .32 etc. The >.32 is banned I believe because of caliber. So a longer barrel won't help >in this case will it? I guess here frame-only reg. is the only way unless >the date is changed. Any recommendations on these? I don't want to spend >$3,000+ only to have my property taken by the feds. .32: No, but you and it will be "grandfathered" -- for what that's worth. >I also have a green slip for a ******************** in .25 which I registered >around Feb 20, 1995. I never took delivery of the gun though since it >was dealer registered and I felt that this gun was at risk. It is not at risk. The date on which the particular gun was registered has no part in "grandfathering." It is just when YOU became "grandfathered" that matters. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:05 -0600 From: "Pre-installed User" Subject: How to send a FAX to your MP by E-Mail! Anyone out there wishing to send a hard copy of an e-mail to their MP or a Government official can use the following web site to FAX over the internet! This site also contains links to Provincial MPPs. It's a free service and there are instructions on the site. Pretty easy to use too. Let the Ontario MPPs know that we want them to keep on with the court challenge in Ontario! John M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:12 -0600 From: "Terry Readman" Subject: Re: metro toronto firearms unit > When he went back with the green registation certificate to pick up his > Glock, he found the following; > - the pistol was in a different position in the box > - there was powder residue in the chamber > - the trigger lock was beside the pistol, open It is not only in Toronto that this happens. This reminded me of the time in the NWT when I had a firearm "held in trust" with the local detachment. There was a long delay in getting it back (months) and when I finally did get it back, it was in pieces. I found out later that there were a few new members there and one of the more seasoned members conducted a class in "firearm inspections" and couldn't get it back together. Oh well we all have to learn sometime.............................. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:15 -0600 From: "Fred Davis" Subject: RE: Full Auto Homicides in Canada On Sunday, March 08, 1998 6:28 AM, David A. Tomlinson, NFA [SMTP:nfadat@telusplanet.net] wrote: > >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. I believe that was Denis Lortie, who was stationed at CFS Carp, just west of Ottawa (home of the famous Diefenbunker, which has been sold and is now running tours!) Lortie drove to Quebec City with two C1 SMG's (the Canuck modified Sterling) and at least one issue Inglis HP if memory serves correct, in order to murder a bunch of PQ politicians. He arrived early and the only ones present in the National Assembly were civilian workers, who he shot and killed. Lortie served ten years and is now managing a corner store in Gatineau, just north of Ottawa. Such is justice in Canada. Own a magazine for your pistol that holds eleven rounds and be liable for ten years imprisonment, the same sentence handed to Mr. Lortie for murdering two innocent people. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:17 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: metro toronto firearms unit How NOT to register a firearm: >After spending over a year jumping through all the hoops required to get >an FAC and a C-302 permit, our member dutifully presented his Glock 21 >for registration. Altough he had bought it "gently used" in a gun store, >it was immaculately clean when he picked it up and took it in to the >registrar. After unsuccessfully attempting to leave only the frame while >the registration was processed, he consented to leave the entire pistol, >but with a trigger lock in place. He kept the key. Do NOT take the entire handgun in. Remove the magazine and slide-barrel assembly BEFORE taking it in, and hand them to some other person until registration is COMPLETED. Then registration of the "frame or receiver" is MUCH easier. Any questions about where the "missing parts" are should be met with the flat satement, "I do not have those parts." No one has any right to demand any information beyond that, and any further questions should be answered, "I prefer not to answer that question, and I have a constitutional right to SILENCE." >When he went back with the green registation certificate to pick up his >Glock, he found the following; >- the pistol was in a different position in the box >- there was powder residue in the chamber >- the trigger lock was beside the pistol, open >When he politely requested an explanation, he was called "paranoid" and >was threatened by the registrar with having his pistol consifiscated >while the his complaint was investigated if he didn't "drop it". Sigh. See what happens when we do not discipline our employees? Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:22 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: flexible registration > I am wanting to send off a request for changing my green card to >" Frame Only ". I have no idea where to send the request or how to word >the request. Also, Should I help them out and tell them that my serial >no. is 550-33XXX not 55033XXX. Can you help? Thanx. CFR Box 8885 OTTAWA ON K1B 3M8 Serial number correction -- sure, why not? All we are trying to do is OBEY THE LAW. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:12:27 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: Customs demand >This morning I received from ******* Customs Mail Centre a demand to inform >them what make and model of handgun a magazine and return spring, that I >had ordered from G.P.C. in New York, was for . They are for a legally >owned and registered CZ Model 24 in .380 , this has a barrell length of >89mm and is therefore a ' grandfathered ' prohibited weapon . I have owned >it since June ' 93. My question centres around whether they have the >right to demand this information ? Tell them that it is for a "pistol" that is to be "used for sporting or compteitive purposes" only, as specified in "Notice to Importers" Serial No. 352 dated 15 Aug 88. That is all they need to know. > I am reluctant to furnish it because >of the class of the handgun, I can see panic setting in up there as some >knee-jerk beaurocrat ' decides ' that I should not have these parts and >destroys them . They have threatened to do that anyway if they do not get >the information they want. They had the kindness to send along a page >from a memo , quoting it as their authority . It reads as follows : " 8. >For all importation of firearms parts, the TYPE of firearm that the parts >are being imported for must be named on the invoice or the accounting >document. " ( emphasis added GH ) This is from Memorandum >D19-13-2 , dated March 19,1993 , page 22 (8.). Now as I do not know what >is on the invoice as I have not seen it yet , it may well state that this >is for a pistol , or it may not state anything . My interpretation of the >above quoted clause leads me to believe that all they have to know is that >it is for a hangun, it does not say anywhere anything about make or model . > Am I right about this ? You are. >If that is the case how do I go about >retrieving my goods without supplying this information ? Supply the above answer, IN WRITING. Add this to your letter: "I have, by giving you the above information, complied with the requirements of D19-13-2, and have informed you of the position taken by Customs continuously since 1988. I draw your attention to Criminal Code section 337, and to the fact that if you do not deliver my goods on demand, I may, under the provisions of CC s. 494, arrest you for the commission of an indictable offence. "I hereby demand that you deliver to me the goods in question, demanding them in the specific way covered by CC s. 337. I will come to your office to pick them up at ____________ AM/PM on ______________, at which time we will see how this matter will proceed." Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: It is better to be a live jackal than a dead lion -- but it is better still to be a live lion, and usually easier. -- Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long and Time Enough For Love" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:20:57 -0600 From: Gord Heins Subject: another donation I would like to mention that the OFAH [ont.federation of anglers and hunters] zone "D" are donating $500.00 to the hard working Alberta Game and Fish for the fight against bill C68. Gord ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:21:22 -0600 From: Kearns & McMurchy (by way of DAT) Subject: Kustoms playing games again.... >From Peter Kearns: I had an upset customer come in today. He had ordered an AR15 upper from Bushmaster in the US. Some clown from Kustoms called last Friday and told him they were holding his part until he pays for, and supplies an Import Permit... The Kustoms person also told him they would send him a K26 in the mail. (I hope he gets it tomorrow, or I will advise him to pester the Kustoms supervisors, and complain to the Minister of National Revenue for an enquiry into why they are not following the rules set down in N-177, the Customs Enforcement Manual and the Customs Act). They are required to send the notice by priority post, immediately, they decide to detain goods, and if they don't do it, then they are in trouble.... Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday......... He went away with a copy of the import permit requirements [Notice to Importers Serial No. 352 of 15 Aug 88. That, and N-177, are available from the NFA (with NFA commentary and explanations) for a $10 donation -- or free, if you cannot afford the $10. Enough people send a bit extra to cover the poor. Ask FOR THEM from NFA, Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1] and will happily inform Kustoms that the part is EXCLUSIVELY for recreational target shooting and as such does not require any import permit, and will no doubt give them the (now famous) 24 hours to either release the item or be ready to defend him / herself against a Section 337 violation charge. That should enable him to get his goods. (Kustoms inspectors are not gods, just mere mortals, and they can (and will) be made to account for their actions in criminal court).... The days of Kustoms officers being above the law are looooooooooong gone.... There is a more disturbing aspect to this case... My customer contacted Atlantic Ordinance and asked them if he could buy an upper, and a 10 inch barrel kit from them. They (apparently) told him that they were out of stock and could not supply Bushmaster items in the future, as to do so was too much of a hassle. (He said that Bushmaster will not ship to Canada because of problems with Kustoms..... Kustoms was grabbing anything with the Bushmaster name on it and demanding an import permit. (This is no problem to us dealers as our brokers would automatically apply / receive the permit / clear Kustoms and forward the goods......... OR WOULD THEY.......... What follows is the sinister part..... On two occasions, (according to A.A.) the permit (automatically granted) failed to appear and the goods were held up. When questioned External affairs blithely stated that they "lost" the permits. How can they lose something which is purely automatic? Really easy, when their head nitwits tell them to! It seems to me that when we prove that they are acting illegally, they just let us plug that hole and invent another unethical / illegal way of delaying lawful goods until we catch them again. Maybe you Dave, should point out to our fe(de)ral internet monitors that we are on to this latest ploy, and maybe we should put together a file of cases and file a class action suit for this criminal harassment. Kustoms is required to treat everyone equally and fairly under the Charter requirements, so they are sloughing off the delaying tactics onto External Affairs. Cute....... but really dumb...... We gottem and we won't let go! I hope my customer is so pissed off that he does go and arrest the Kustoms Klown, (although rank stupidity is not a criminal offence) and charge him under Sect. 337 cc.. Maybe we can have my customer demand damages for Kustoms illegally witholding his lawful goods, and failing to act as defined in Notice to Importers, (Export and Import Permit Act) and the (now famous) Customs Notice N-177. For any Kustoms official to detain goods, he / she must be sure that they have a military purpose. Notice to Importers states: "This notice does not apply to small arms (rifles, carbines, pistols, revolvers) used for sporting and competitive purposes". If a Kustoms official is bright enough to determine that a part is for a rifle, pistol or carbine, then it follows that they must know that these restricted arms can only be used on a licenced range, and that the only purpose of such a range is target practice for recreation or competition...... For them to detain the goods means that they believe the recipient would use them for an unlawful purpose. For them to release them, (even with a permit) makes them an accessory to this "imagined" military misuse...... (They can't win, can they?)... By issuing a permit, the gov't acknowledges that the permit holder MAY convert the items to military use.......... Which is a crime in Canada.... By issuing a permit the government is condoning criminal acts...... They can't have it both ways. I am importing a Chieftain main battle tank through the port of Halifax in the near future......... hey feds......... wanna play???? Peter Kearns Before Kustoms tried their little number I was ignorant about the laws. They caused a perfectly content, middle aged fat guy to turn into an amateur lawyer / part time anarchist / political writer / malcontent and philosopher. Then instilled an automatic mistrust in me of anything wearing a federal label or badge, or of any information purporting to be "for your own good".. They are now getting back exactly what they deserve..... ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #255 **********************************