From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Mar 18 05:57:41 1998 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:42:18 -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 #272 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 24568 X-Lines: 606 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, March 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 272 In this issue: Right over Might $ for Alberta Fish and Game motion picture regulations Comparison of two approaches Re: Coalition For Gun Control RE: UPS Brokerage 6000 registered CAs AR-15 Lower Receiver Petitiion Canadian Justice RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray March HACS show Small Town Newspapers [Fwd: Permit fees in Cranbrook...] Decoy Deer and mens rea ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:48:59 -0600 From: "Judy Josephson" Subject: Right over Might Yesterday I received a fax from the Customs Intn'l Mail Centre who were holding my gun parts that were coming in from the US. The message was as follows ; " Parcel has been released to Canada Post today ". This is after a previous letter from them informing me of their 'detention 'of my gun parts , and that I had 30 days to supply them with all sorts of info. on the gun that these parts were for , - - - info. they were not empowered to collect - - -, or they would ' dispose ' of them. A quick email to D.A.T. resulted in him informing me of the correct wording to use when formulating a reply to them, and demanding the release of my parts under N.I. Serial No. 352, complying with D19-13-2, drawing their attention to CC s. 337 , and informing them of my right to use CC s. 494 against them . WAY TO GO DAVE , AND THE NFA !! I was aprehensive about using that approach initialy as I thought that would just aleniate them further, but upon reflection , I realized that appeasement is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all costs, using their laws to force them to act within them pays off . Thanks also to Peter Kearns for his advice on the matter. Now I know why I joined the NFA !! Donation on it's way ! Graham Hampton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:48:57 -0600 From: Kyle and Barbara Berry Subject: $ for Alberta Fish and Game I messed up! My apologies to the Alberta Provincial Rifle Assn. whose donation was somehow deleted from the last two posts; and my thanks to the sharp eyed people who pointed this out to me. Here they all are, as they should be. Hampton Rifle & Pistol Club Inc. New Brunswick - $500 Terrace Rod & Gun - $500 Dawson Creek Sportsmans' Club -$500 Ridgedale Rod and Gun, Abbotsford - $500 Sherwood Park Fish & Game Association - $400 Oxford Fish & Game Protection Association, Woodstock, Ont. - $500 Moose Jaw Handgun Club (17 members) - $300 Spruce Grove Gun Club - $500.00 RFO of Ontario - $1000 The Shooting Federation of Nova Scotia - $500 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, zone "D" - $500 Alberta Provincial Rifle Association - $500 Valley Fish and Game Club of Lake Cowichan BC - $500 Prince George Rod & Gun Club - $1,000 Send your donations to: Alberta Fish and Game Association 6924 - 104 St. Edmonton, Alberta T6H 2L7 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:21:45 -0600 From: "Clive Edwards" Subject: motion picture regulations I work with firearms in the motion picture industry. The following is = pure, unadulterated bovine excreta, and because of the way the motion = picture industry operates hasn't a hope in hell of working: The fees for a business licence to supply firearms for > > theatrical/television productions will vary depending on the > > type of firearm supplied. The licences are valid for one = year. > > If you supply only non-restricted, restricted firearms and > > section 12(6) prohibited handguns (barrels less than 105mm = in > > length, or handguns that chamber. 25 or. 32 calibre > > ammunition), the fee will be $400 if your licence is = purchased > > between October 1, 1998 and September 30, 1999. The fee = then > > goes up to $500. If you supply prohibited firearms other = than > > the handguns described above, as well as other firearms, the > > fee will be $1000 from October 1, 1998 and September 30, = 1999, > > and then goes up to $1250. There is an additional fee of = $50 > > per year to supply replicas. > > You must store replica firearms in a container, receptacle, > > vault, safe or room kept securely locked and constructed so > > that it cannot be easily broken open or into. As prohibited > > devices, replicas must be transported in an opaque container > > that cannot be easily broken into or open accidentally = during > > transport. The container must be sealed so as to prevent it > > from being opened without breaking the seal or otherwise > > clearly indicating that it has been opened and must have no > > marking on its exterior indicating the content. > > If the vehicle in which the replicas are being transported = is > > left unattended, the container must be placed in a locked = trunk > > or compartment. If there is no such compartment on the > > vehicle, it must be left inside the locked vehicle, out of > > sight. > > Any employee travelling with the shipment must be able to > > communicate at all times by some form of telecommunication > > device such as cellular telephone or CB radio. > > The business transporting the replicas must keep records of > > what is in the shipment, the route taken, the names of the > > employees transporting the goods and the names and = warehouses > > where they are temporarily stored during transport. In your > > case, as you are supplying motion picture and television > > productions, you must also report to the Chief Firearms = Officer > > of your province or territory the location of the replicas > > immediately after they are moved from one location to = another. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:04 -0600 From: Karl Schrader Subject: Comparison of two approaches Re.: Gun-registration doomed to failure ============================== Referring to the posting by Mkhughe in CFD 2-270 I would like to share some findings: I just completed a comparison study of the German Gun Control legislation (Waffenrecht {which implies the right to own arms} current edition , March 8, 1976, amended October 25, 1994) and Bill C-68. The findings are as follows: 1.) The clarity of the German law just amazes me if compared to the convoluted mess of Bill C-68. Bill C-68 is much more stringent than the german law. 2.) Since there is absolute protection of private property in the German constitution, the people there are not too much concerned with the registration aspect, but as was pointed out in the posting, still 80% of firearms have not been registered. (And Germans are known to be very law-abiding and they have generally respect for their authorities because they are strictly uncorrupt ). 3.) A german citizen who has been given a clean bill of health by the police has to be given a firearms permit without undue delay and without any more questions ask. The police is compelled to issue that permit forthwith. There are no "discretionary" powers, period. ( in Bill C-68: The firearms officer "may" issue and not "shall" issue.) 4.) All muzzle loading firearms are completely free of any registration restrictions and are freely available to anyone over the age of 18 years. ( Since when has anyone heard of danger to public safety by muzzleloaders ??) 5.) Anyone who has a valid hunting license is automatically entitled to own and CARRY a handgun during his/her hunting activities. No special permits are required. ( C-68 renders all handguns worthless unless one jumps through the paperloops even to take it to an approved range and then one has to be a member of that particular club to qualify ) There are many more glaring differences to the approach taken by the German Government and the Canadian Government, too numerous to list them all here. In short, the German law is respectful of it's citizens while the Canadian law treats it's citizens with contempt. The foregoing is not to be construed as being anything else than an attempt to compare two legislative bodies in their treatment of it's citizens. I dearly love this country, Canada, and I only wish Canadians will eventually get an accountable government by the people for the people, with strict ethical guidelines and representatives in Parliament who truly follow the wishes of their constituents, can think for themselves and are not bullied to vote the partyline everytime. So long ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:07 -0600 From: Gerald Griffith Subject: Re: Coalition For Gun Control > Incidentally, Simon Jester told me that Wendy will be receiving not one, > but two, copies of last year's City of Edmonton phone books - courtesy > the pre-paid return envelope. She would probably have been a lot more pleased if you had returned the envelope stuffed with lead ingots, and a note saying that you are sending them so you won't be tempted to cast them into bullets. Gerald Griffith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:11 -0600 From: Gerald Griffith Subject: RE: UPS Brokerage When I was in the gun business, a few years back, I found that the most economical way to have shipments sent from the US was Air Parcel Post. I could always count on receiving the package within a week, and the cost was generally less than a dollar more than surface mail (which could take forever). The only problem I ever had was in convincing Cimmaron Arms to use it; but then they were the people who lost my prepaid order for two months, and then wanted more money because the price had gone up since they received the order. (I rather suspect they haven't tried that one on anybody since.) To give you an idea of the difference in cost, Brownell's once sent me a package by UPS Air (their error). When I pointed it out to them, I got a credit for the difference in cost; almost $30.00 US. Gerald Griffith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:22:13 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: 6000 registered CAs > Note also that of the estimated 60,000 "converted automatics [CAs]" (full > automatic firearms that had been converted to manual operation or semi-auto > only) imported into Canada BEFORE they required registration, only about > 6000 were ever registered. The rest became "prohibited weapons" on 01 Oct 92. And the 10% of us who were naive enough to go through registration now feel like fools for going along with this scheme. For our troubles and for being law abiding we will no doubt lose our firearms to confiscation sometime in the future. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:24:29 -0600 From: heibo@barrie-central.net Subject: AR-15 Lower Receiver >I have been comtemplating purchasing an AR-15, ... In >CFD-Digest 268 David talked about purchasing just the lower receiver >and then purchasing the rest at a later date. Are there any dealers out >there who will sell just the lower receiver and at what price. Anybody >have an AR-15 used for sale? I am interested in same. Please pass on any info on dealers who stock/sell these items. [Moderator: Please reply directly to HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:24:28 -0600 From: "Robert Boswell" Subject: Petitiion I got this from the office of Gary Breitkreuz Bob Boswell PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS OF CANADA, draw the attention of the House to the following: THAT while violent crime is a major concern and all law-abiding Canadians want safer streets regardless of whether they live in a big city or a rural community, a 1995 Canadian Facts public opinion poll found that over 90% of Canadians do not believe that stricter gun control laws are a solution to violent crime; THAT a 1997 report by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics showed: (1) 1994 represented the largest annual decline in police strength since they began surveying in 1962, (2) the number of Criminal Code incidents per officer went from 20 to 47 per officer since 1962, (3) the fewest number of police officers per capita since 1972; THAT the Commissioner of the RCMP in a July 1997 letter to the Department of Justice reported, "the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms."; THAT in an attempt to do something about the criminal use of firearms (0.08% of the problem) the government passed Bill C-68 into law in 1995 and is now spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to licence between 5 and 8 million law-abiding firearms owners and register between 18 and 21 million legally-owned firearms; THAT this multi-million dollar licencing and registration scheme: (1) will do nothing to curtail the criminal use of firearms, (2) is not a cost-effective way to address the violent crime problem in Canada, (3) is putting tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy, and (4) is opposed by the majority of police on the street and by the governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Yukon. THEREFORE, your petitioners request Parliament to repeal Bill C-68 and redirect the hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted on licencing of responsible firearms owners and registration of legally-owned guns by doing something proven to be more cost-effective at reducing violent crime and improving public safety such as: more police on the streets, more crime prevention programs, more suicide prevention centres, more women's crisis centres, more anti-smuggling campaigns, and more resources for fighting organized crime and street gangs. Signatures (Sign your name. Do not print.) Addresses (Give your full mailing address.) 1.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 2.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 3.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 4.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 5.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 6.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 7.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 8.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 9.____________________________________________ _______________________ __________________________________ 10.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 11.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 12.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 13.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 14.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 15.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 16.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 17.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 18.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 19.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 20.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 21.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 22.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 23.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 24.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ 25.____________________________________________ ______________________ ___________________________________ Note: Signatures and addresses must be handwritten originals only. Each signatory must indicate his or her address Each petition must be free from erasures, crossed off signatures or changes to the text. Each petition must have at least 25 signatures to be valid. The subject matter must be shown on each attached sheet of signatures and addresses. PLEASE RETURN POSTAGE FREE TO YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, K1A 0A6, OR TO: GARRY BREITKREUZ, MP, (YORKTON-MELVILLE) ROOM 252, WELLINGTON BLDG., HOUSE OF COMMONS, OTTAWA, ON K1A 0A6 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:16:21 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Canadian Justice >Please outline the legal procedure to be followed in case of a violent home >invasion Die quietly in an politically correct manner Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:16:46 -0600 From: Bob Lickacz Subject: RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray In many previous postings to the CFD police officers have been maligned. I am one of the people who has pointed out certain "shortcomings" of the boys in blue. I do not make any apology for any of those particular statements. BUT. It is extremely important to give credit when and where that credit is due. I would really like to salute RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray for the courage to point out to the Justice Department that they were using inaccurate statistics. This takes a hell of a lot of balls. I received a copy of Murray's letter from Jack Ramsay. The letter is to the point and in a most professional manner raises a concern regarding the actions of the CFC and the Justice Department without being accusatory. (presumably giving those mentioned the opportunity to explain themselves) I did have the chance to speak to a high ranking RCMP officer after the release of the Murray letter, who indicated that explanations were no doubt on their way. When I remarked that I was anxious to see what spin the CFC and Justice Department could put on this episode, the officer in question replied by just chuckling. Once again a tip of my hat to Commissioner Murray. Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:16:50 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (BC NFA) Subject: March HACS show Just a reminder for those in the Lower Mainland; March 22 is the monthly HACS show, 8:30 - 1:00 at the OE Hall, 4333 Ledger Ave., Burnaby, BC Michelle Traver NFA-BC SSAC rmcreat@istar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:21:04 -0600 From: someone@somewhere Subject: Small Town Newspapers For a good list of small town newspapers that might publish letters see: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:42:00 -0600 From: Thomas Dirks Subject: [Fwd: Permit fees in Cranbrook...] > >Recently the RCMP in Cranbrook have imposed a fee of $25 to issue a Permit to > >Carry (C-302), citing the City of Cranbrook as requiring the fee. C.C. s.110 (1) Permit to Carry Restricted Weapon. ...a permit....may be issued by the Commissioner, the Attorney General of a province, a chief provincial firearms officer or a member of a class of persons that has been designated in writing for that purpose... s.110(2)(c) ..for use in target practice..... s.110(9) Permits mentioned in subsections (1)....shall be issued without payment of a fee... s.123(1)Every one who (b)being a municipal offical, demands...from any person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the official.. (f)to perform or fail to perform an official act, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. s.126(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressley provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. I see all kinds of possibilities here. Might not be a really good week to be a detachment member or a municipal 'official'. (and that does include clerks). Happy hunting. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:42:13 -0600 From: Thomas Dirks Subject: Decoy Deer and mens rea From: Rick Lowe Subject: Poachers and Weisgerber >I'm not a lawyer, ...but (there's always a BUT) >Courts....have upheld convictions where.....people attempted to traffic a substance.. >turned out to be sugar or something else.... accused believed the substance/object was something other than >what it turned out to be It's called mens rea, and it's a prima facia requirement in ANY charge under the criminal code. It means, you were attempting to commit a crime, you knew you were attempting to commit a crime, and it was with every intention in your whole being that you were in fact, going to commit that crime. Specifically. >If an appeals court can uphold a conviction of a trafficer who found out later >he was actually trying to sell sugar, I'm pretty certain that a lesser court >shouldn't find the fact that a decoy isn't actually the deer the shooter >thought it was any problem. Stretches in logic always have amazed and intrigued me. Those decisions are, with unsurprisingy, regularity, overturned. Check the actual game regulations. There is NO offence to shooting AT or HITTING a 'simulation' or 'representation' of a deer. The charges are: shooting wildlife out of season. As far as I know, there is not now, or ever has been, an enforcable season on 'artifical representations of wildlife.' >Certainly, nobody else in Canada is having any problems with offenders and decoy animals. While I do not now or ever will condone those who disregard basic hunting principles, neither will I support or endorse those policies of 'entrapment' which seem to be the only way the countries C.O.'s have of finding court time. Check out the non-prosecution of native poachers of Vancouver Island Roosevelt elk. (It's our right since time immemorial to pitlamp game with 4 X 4's, landing lights, and high powered rifles) Excuse me again, but in just about every place where the the dumb S.O.B. who was stupid enough to hit (or shoot at) a decoy has had the financial capabilities to fight the charge; they have won. >Irregardless of all the above, Weisgerber, if he didn't do the shooting, was >just as guilty as the guy who did if he was anything other than an unwilling >witness in the vehicle. The driver certainly has care and control of the >vehicle and by stopping and allowing a passenger to do the shooting the driver >is equally at fault. It's called 'being an accessory'. Trouble is, you still have to prove 'mens rea'. Was Jack aware of what his passenger was doing, or was he concentrating on driving the vehicle? Did he stop? Did he stop for the purpose of allowing his passenger to shoot the 'deer'. Did he give him advice on aiming/hitting/taking care of the eventual kill? >To me it doesn't matter whether or not Weisgerber left the Reform Party for >whatever reason nor how he sits these days. If he did indeed deliberately >break provincial law like that, he doesn't deserve to be an MLA. Agreed; however, in Canada (so far, sometimes) we have something called 'rule of law'. You actually are, in some circumstances; (sorry not firearms owners) to be considered innocent, until PROVEN gulty, beyond a reasonable doubt. (in criminal charges) Spend some time in your local library: check: legal, cases, or maybe Revised Statutes of Canada, or Revised Statutes, or Revised Regulations of B.C. Just a hint, mind. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #272 **********************************