From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Mar 12 17:13:28 1998 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:56:46 -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 #260 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23251 X-Lines: 568 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, March 12 1998 Volume 02 : Number 260 In this issue: Re: What can I do? Re: CCW Non-resident CCP UPS strikes again..... CBC National Rebounds Re: Review of Kleck, "Targeting Guns" Gun Control Saves Crooks CFD2-258 Re: CFSC Certificates CCW thoughts Cdn CCW Fraser Institute Endangered Species Act Seminar Scope Wanted Re: CKPG radio show & CCW ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:33:00 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: What can I do? > I have been a gun owner for only a year. After conducting a small >research on my own on the Criminal Code and Bill C68, I am angered by >the discrimination against honest gun owners in these legislations and >the political motive behind them. Besides joining NFA, what can I do to >protect my right and make my voice heard in Ottawa? Join the political Party of your choice and work within it. If the Simon Jester program attracts you, join the Liberals and work to persuade your local Riding Association to spend money on good works (donations to the battered women's shelter, etc.), parties, and advertising -- anything to prevent their money from being available for use during the next federal election. Or join the Conservatives, and encourage Jean Charest to jump into becoming the next Leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec -- so that he and his Conservatives will not be draining votes away from the only Party that currently supports the firearms community -- Reform. If you are more conventional, join the Reform Party and work to make it the next federal government. It is, of all the Parties, the ONLY one that has not demonstrated active hostility toward the firearms community. > Before I join NFA, I would like to know NFA's stand on certain issues. >The first and foremost will be the issue of magazine capacity in >semi-automatic rifles. Does NFA oppose the 5rds limit? We do. It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to limit magazine capacities in the "permanent" way demanded by the current (and C-68) regulations. Any home tinkerer can easily take a couple of "5-round" magazines and make a magazine of double that capaciety with simple home tools. The NFA believes in realistic, practical, cost-efffective controls -- and the "reduced-capacity" concept is beneath contempt in those areas. >The second one >concerns the prohibition of certain semi-automatic rifles. Currently, >AR-15 is the only military style semi-automatic rifle allowed in >Canada. Is NFA doing anything at all to try to lift the bans on other >semi-automatic rifles? Have anyone challenged these bans in the past? Yes. The NFA is working to replace the entire firearms control system with the "Practical Firearms Control System." Under the PFCS, you can have and use ANY small arm that you are QUALIFIED to have and use. Qualification is determined by a firearms Instructor, not a police officer. You can be prevented from legal unsupervised access to any firearm ONLY if you (a) fail to prove your qualification or (b) fail the mandatory police criminal record check. The PFCS also eliminates firearms registration, because (a) it is VERY expensive, and (b) it is not and cannot be made cost-effective, accurate and useful to the public, police and firearms community. Send me a SSAE and I will send you a four-page outline of the "Practical Firearms Control System." Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:33:02 -0600 From: "David A. Tomlinson, NFA" Subject: Re: CCW A copy of this is going to the CFC. I hereby request that they comment fully on what lies below. I will bet that they pass on this one! -- DAt _______________________________________________ > Malcolm Baron wrote "I am not advocating the passing of a concealed >carry law in Canada,". > > Why not?. I bet less than one percent of gun owners would apply for a >CCW, and they would really have to know their stuff to get one. If what >happened in the States, holds true in Canada, The benefits to the general >public would be enormous. The "bad guys" wouldn't know who had a gun and who >didn't. Sounds good to me. Any comments?. At present, the law says that it is a criminal offence if a person "carries a concealed weapon." "UNLESS he is the holder of a permit under which he may lawfully so carry it [CC s. 89]." There are TWO elements that must be proved to convict: 1. The weapon must be concealed, and 2. the weapons was put out of sight to prevent people from SEEING it. If you put it in your pocket for ease of carrying -- or under the seat of your car to keep from stepping on it -- and had no intention of "concealing" it - -- you are not guilty. You can be convicted of "carrying" if the weapon is put out of sight IN YOUR CAR, or is in a case that conceals it. This law is in direct conflict with the "transportation" regulations. The definition of "weapon" INCLUDES "a firearm" [CC s. 2] -- whether it is for use as a weapon or not. BUT -- there is a fascinating possibility in this area. In the Morgentaler case, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion law because the licensing document -- "a specifically-tailored defence to a particular [criminal] charge" was "illusory or so difficult to obtain as to be practically illusory." That is a perfect description of the concealed carry permit situation. Parliament, in its wisdom, frequently enacts laws that say certain behavior is a crime -- "UNLESS [the criminal has this piece of paper]." It is saying that the behavior is not ALWAYS criminal, and that people SHOULD be allowed to behave that way IF they are not engaging in CRIMINAL behavior. It then provides a system for issuing bits of paper to IDENTIFY those who are behaving in a NON-CRIMINAL fashion. When the issuers REFUSE TO ISSUE, they criminalize the people that Parliament intended to recognize as NON-CRIMINAL. By doing that, they overstep their authority. They are no longer issuing the documents, they are EXTENDING THE LEGISLATION BEYOND PARLIAMENT'S INTENTIONS -- and that is something that only PARLIAMENT it authorized to do. Therefore, in the Morgentaler case, when the issuers were at fault, the only remedy open to the court was to strike down the abortion law. The same arguments apply to any charge of carrying a "concealed weapon." To this point, the courts have not considered this interesting precedent. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:32:58 -0600 From: BChow2or81 Subject: Non-resident CCP Re: Canadian Tourists easy targets It is easy to obtain an Alien Firearm Permit in Washington State if you can pass rigorous vetting. This enables transport of a non-concealed firearm (any size). It could be a life-saver if you are threatened. There may be reciprocity in several other states, but you'd have to check. Then you can get a "Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit", if you like, by showing your AFP and paying a fee, with a very short waiting period for confirmation of your status. N-R CCPs can also be obtained in OR, CT, FL, ID, IA, MD, MA, NH, PA, RI, TX, UT at last report (at least a year old). WA has reciprocity for its N-R CCP in IN, MI, NH, RI, VT and WY. The other N-R CCP states could have various other reciprocal arrangements - I don't know. Perhaps an NRA member out there could supply the latest info. Have a safe trip! B. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:33:06 -0600 From: Kearns & McMurchy (by way of DAT) Subject: UPS strikes again..... >From Peter Kearns: I was contacted by an irate distributor yesterday demanding "we" do something about UPS. It seems this gentleman imports combination trigger locks from the United States. UPS refused to ship or handle several shipments because the goods had the word "Gun" in the description.... The product is actually called "Gun Blok" and as I said, is a metal combination trigger lock. By doing this, the hierarchy in UPS is again clearly demonstrating it's anti-gun bias, and following it's own agenda. No one that I talked to at UPS could explain why the ban was imposed, and neither could they cite any instances of unsafe or illegal firearms being transported through their company. Their PR flak told me that the ban "only" applies to international transfers, and we could still use their services to ship goods within Canada. No we can't.......... We no longer have an account with these people. We will not use their services for anything at all, and will never send another thing via UPS. The whole RFC should do this. Hitting these fascists in the pocket is the only way we have of demonstrating our displeasure at their actions. (Canada Post has provided us excellent service within this country, and we have shipped to the United States using their services). It makes you wonder if this is part of a combined effort by our government and some of the courier companies to "discourage" international trade in firearms. Firearms manufacturers are refusing to ship to Canada, citing the import regulation nightmares, now they can add lack of willing shippers. This whole matter stinks of federal involvement. *** As always you are free to use this e-mail for any purpose you deem useful. ______________________________________________________ It would be very useful if everyone stops using UPS -- and TELLS THEM WHY. In today's highly competitive marketplace, NOTHING gets a company President's attention faster than a message telling him that his company is being abandoned in favor of a competitor. Anybody got the address for the top honcho in UPS? Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:33:00 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: CBC National The CBC did air the UK gun control story last night. Quite interesting as I had never seen it before. I thought the story was at least reasonably balanced and showed gun owners in a good light. One of the men who lost a child at Dunblane and was one of the driving forces behind the UK pistol ban has now branched out to work with the international gun control organizations. Seems the international groups are gaining speed. Too bad we couldn't send him letter reminding him to keep his nose out of our country's business! Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:37:38 -0600 From: Juha Askola Subject: Rebounds We've had an incident were a bullet was shot at a steel plate at 100 yds. The rifle used was 338 Win. Mag. When the bullet hit the target, lead core stopped alright but the copper core came right back and cut the web of the shooters hand. The point of wound was only 4" below bullseye, 100 yds away. Very good trajectory for a rebound, wouln'd you say. We did find the copper and it looked like a piece of pipe, wrinkled though. So, been there, done that. I've heard people being hit by a rebound from a bowling pins, ( light loads with wadcutters ) but still it happens. As far as someone being KILLED by a rebound from a tire, practically impossible but it's concievable that you might get hurt. Chao, Juha ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:37:38 -0600 From: Karen & Jerrold Lundgard Subject: Re: Review of Kleck, "Targeting Guns" At 07:01 AM 3/12/98 -0600, you wrote: >Gary Kleck. "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control." Aldine De >Gruyter (Hawthorne, NY) 1997. 450 pp. ISBN 0-202-30569-4 Available from > I just ordered this book from my local bookstore who are getting it direct from the publisher in Hawthorne, New York. All they needed was the ISBN. Here is part of a review of "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control" from Amazon.com > Of special >interest to Canadians is the scrupulous exposition of Thomas Gabor's deceit in his report to the >Canadian Department of Justice, a report that was so influential in Great Britain's post-Dunblanne >gun legislation hysteria. Of special interest to all is the encyclopedic exposition of the data on the >issue of guns and violence. Also of note; Mr. Gabor may be(was?) part of the "peer review" group which critiques articles for the Canadian Family Physician published by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Jerrold lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca Peace River, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:38:06 -0600 From: BChow2or81 Subject: Gun Control Saves Crooks CFD2-258 Dr. Sobrian wrote: >The only proven benefit of gun control is to make the life of the crook safer and that is why Japan is behind it, but why is our government so enthusiastic about supporting it? Just finished re-reading Ayn Rand's masterpiece, "Atlas Shrugged", which I thought was tripe when it first appeared in the late 50s. McCarthyism was dead or dying, and Gun Control was unknown to me. But now, the relevance is shocking. Jules' question is obviously rhetorical, but read that book (and re- read "-- Consequences" by J. Ross, just for kicks) if you have any doubt at all! Regards. Bud ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:44:14 -0600 From: Michael Cooper Subject: Re: CFSC Certificates In regard to the posting about keeping the student copy of your CFSC. After taking the CFCS in Oct 97, I received a full color glossy paper 5x7 certificate with the Gov't of Canada logo on it certifying that I had completed all requirements of the CFSC, dutifully signed by the provincial firearms officer George Reid and containing my FAC number on it. I metioned this to some other guys with FAC's I know who took the course earlier and they never received such a certificate. The post mark on the envelope containing my FAC was exactly 28 days from the time I applied. I wish the restricted weapon cerificate would come in such a timely manner, I have been waiting 3 months with my firearm in "GUN JAIL" the whole time and upon inquiring with the local firearms unit, they expressed their frustration at the number of phone calls they are receiving in regard to this same problem from other people also waiting for their registration. [Moderator: It must vary by province. In Quebec we get either a notation on the hunting course card, or a separate card for having passed the CFSC. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:44:17 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: CCW thoughts Yesterday while driving home from a days hunting I had a thought which was triggered from a "conversation" going on over at . The entire day that I was out hunting I was in fact going around armed. Every place I stopped; corner store, CT, McDonalds I was ipso facto armed even if the firearms never left the car. It got me wondering how many people go hunting or to the range or for whatever reason are legally carrying firearms and ammo within easy reach. In a big city I would guess that this would total a few hundred people every day. These are people who wether they know it or not are carrying CCW at least for the time they are out. Seeing as mass shootouts are essentialy unheard of in our cities, we know that these people are in fact responsible enough to carry firearms in and among us on a daily basis. So what would be the difference if they had the legal means to carry a handgun CCW? Can anyone seriously argue that a pistol is more dangerous than a rifle or shotgun? If so then how come to this date it has been overwhelmingly handguns which have been prohibited? Or maybe it is that handguns turn otherwise normal citizens into rabid homicidal sociopaths? Hmmmmmmm.......... Would our CFC peeping toms like to comment? Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:45:27 -0600 From: MJ Subject: Cdn CCW Malcolm Baron wrote "I am not advocating the passing of a concealed carry law in Canada,". Why not?. I bet less than one percent of gun owners would apply for a CCW, and they would really have to know their stuff to get one. If what happened in the States, holds true in Canada, The benefits to the general public would be enormous. The "bad guys" wouldn't know who had a gun and who didn't. Sounds good to me. Any comments?. Albert NFA member The only thing that deters criminals is the threat of instant irreversable bodily harm. They know they can always beat the justice system in the courts while they spend a few more months back at Crime College with their buddies. Canada could start with laws at the municipal and provincial level to require all off-duty peace officers to carry a concealed weapon. However to be effective it would have to be well publicised Also this would establish standards for training and performance. A typical CCW course in the south is about 3x the time of the current FAC course. mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:46:50 -0600 From: Ray Laycock Subject: Fraser Institute Endangered Species Act Seminar The Fraser Institute is hosting the following: for further information go to Wednesday, April 15, 1998, Vancouver One Day Conference PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES: ALTERNATIVES TO LEGISLATION Co-hosted by Canadian Property Rights Research Institute (CanPRRI), Alberta The implementation of endangered species legislation could adversely affect many industries including forestry, mining, aquiculture, farming, ranching and real estate. Given the potential negative impacts and the failure of legislation in the U.S., there are many critical questions that need further consideration. Central to this debate is the question of who should bear the cost of protecting species. Under American legislation, property owners are not compensated for losses in the value of their land due to regulatory seizures--they bear the entire cost of species’ protection. This has made wildlife a liability and has led to a "shoot, shovel, and shut-up" mentality among some landowners. The U.S. Endangered Species Act, while costing millions of dollars, has failed to save any species since it was implemented in 1973. Does Canada have a serious endangered species problem? Should Canada pass an Endangered Species Act? What is the best way to protect endangered species--legislation or private initiatives? Who should bear the cost of protecting species? What lessons does the U.S. experience hold for Canada? This conference addresses these and other important questions. Conference Sessions Reviewing the Legislative Approach • Alternative Approaches to Protecting Wildlife • Specific Impacts Of Endangered Species Legislation • An Alternative to Legislation: Private Approaches to Conservation. Confirmed Speakers Keynote Luncheon Speaker - Becky Norton Dunlop, Former Secretary of Natural Resources, Virginia R Glenn Fox, University of Guelph R Robert Gordon, National Wilderness Institute Randy Simmons, Utah State University R Dean Lueck, Montana State University R Dennis Hollingsworth, Golden State Resource Management R Grant Madsen, Defenders of Property Rights. Conference Information: Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 Location: Renaissance Hotel, 1133 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC Fee: $125 until March 23; $135 until April 14; $145 on site. Luncheon only $40 until April 14; $50 on site. Includes GST. GST#R119233823. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:47:57 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: Scope Wanted I'm looking for a reasonably priced scope mount for an M14. used would be fine. Peter Cronhelm [Moderator: Please reply dierctly. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 16:56:37 -0600 From: Joseph Lockhart Subject: Re: CKPG radio show & CCW Michelle, Here are a few tips for you during your radio show on the proposed prohibition of pepper spray. I'm going to assume that the government will call pepper spray a "weapon," The use of this word is incorrect. Here is why. S 2 of the Criminal Code defines a "weapon" as: (a) anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) anything used, designed to be used or intended for use for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes any firearm as defined in subsection 84(1); The question is; does pepper spray fall under that definition? The answer is an easy no! Remember the word "intent." By carrying pepper spray is D's "intent" to cause death or injury to any person? No. Is D's "intent" to threatening or intimidating any person? No. D's ‘intent' was to protect him/herself from harm. This is not a crime. (Yet) In R v Roberts (1990), 60 C.C.C. (3d) 509 (N.S. C.A) - The definition of "weapon" in s. 2 involves a _subjective_ test. D must intend to _use_ the object _as_ a weapon. Proof that an object was being used as a weapon will depend on all the circumstances of the case. Since we have the Common Law right to self-preservation, we have the right to posses the means to protect that right. We don't need the permission of the federal government, who by the way has no legal jurisdiction in the matters of personal property. This was an EXCLUSIVE right given to the provincial legislature. BNA Act 1867 92. 13. On another matter. Hi Folks:-- -- Malcolm Baron wrote "I am not advocating the passing of a concealed -- carry law in Canada,". We should remember not to use words use by anti-gunners. The term "weapon" is not accurate when carrying a device for self-protection. The enemies of freedom love to use the words; "weapon," and "assault rifle" as a means to turn public support against us. As far as carrying the means for self-protection goes; the trend in the United States shows that crime goes down in most states that have a carry permit. Here are a few stats you can chew on: * In Florida, since the passing of their carry law in 1987, over 383,400 people have received permits. The FBI report shows that the homicide rate in Florida has actually fallen 36% in the several years following the law's passage. In the same period the nation wide rate has only fallen 1%. Source: Compare FBI "Crime in the Untied States," Uniform Crime Reports, (1988) and the same FBI report 1996 * In 1982 Kennesaw GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglar rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in the rest of the state. Source: "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Gary Kleck Feb 1988 Page 15 Joseph Lockhart ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #260 **********************************