From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mon Mar 23 07:36:33 1998 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:24:23 -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 #278 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 27757 X-Lines: 604 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, March 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 278 In this issue: OPPA Yearbook. University of Laval Bulletin #33 Re: Senseless allocation of scarce resources. A Report From Wendy Cukier Re: You guessed it! RE: Howard interview regards Australian Premiers Conference Number of Offences Update on urveryugly@logicallink.com Custom's $5.00 Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 14:14:17 -0600 From: Alan Harper Subject: OPPA Yearbook. Here's something I ran across, from the Ontario Provincial Police Association Yearbook of 1996-1997, just recently issued. The title of the story is, "High Risk Offenders and Public Safety", by Larry Reesor, Director, OPPA. This is the first paragraph. "In keeping with its philosophy of appearing to do something about public safety while actually doing nothing, the federal government has enacted its high-risk offender legislation. While the new laws appear to provide some solace to a concerned public, one wonders if anything has really changed. It appears, on the surface at least, that these Criminal Code amendments have the same potential to affect public safety as does the new firearms legislation. Is it really anthing more than mere window dressing?" Comment on my part would be superfluous. Bye. Al. ==============Colt - the Ultimate in point & click hardware========= = Al Harper, email - ce331@freenet.toronto.on.ca = = Box 51027, Eglinton Square, Scarboro, Ontario, Canada M1L 4T2 = ===="Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" Appius Claudius the Blind, 281 BC=== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:36:27 -0600 From: Larry Luzny Subject: University of Laval Bulletin #33 I think I have found another website in Canada that is related to the gun control debate. The website address is: This website is in French, so I was wondering if anyone who spoke French could review it and tell us what it says. Much appreciated. [Moderator: This is a pro-gun-control, pro UN small arms initinative site. Our Francophone readers might keep up with it to see what Laval's international studies institute is up to. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:36:53 -0600 From: "H. Roy Stephens" Subject: Re: Senseless allocation of scarce resources. An open letter. Senseless allocation of scarce resources... According to health care professionals the health care system is in cardiac arrest. It is hemorrhagging red ink while at the same time scarce resources are being committed to the proven futility of programs such as universal firearms registration. The irony of this appears to be lost on Alan Rock, who as Justice Minister, rammed Bill C-68 through the Commons with deliberate fear mongering, ad hominem arguments to marginalize the reasoned voices of dissent, falsified statistics, fraudulent studies, and deliberately skewed polls. Now as Minister of Health he’s crying NSF. The mind boggles! Rock and his ilk have learned well how to bend with the winds of perceived political opportunism - at the expense of taxpayers. Contrast this: RCMP statistics for 88,162 violent crimes revealed that 73, or .08% involved the use of firearms. The great majority of this minuscule number were committed by criminals with smuggled or stolen firearms. Hence the millions spent on universal firearms registration may result in information useful in solving 7 to 9 crimes annually. On the other hand more than 24,000 women die each year of cancer, one approximately every 22 minutes. Evidently neither the federal government nor some of it’s provincial counterparts would recognize a valid statistic if it fell into their morning coffee. Since even my 6 year old daughter can grasp the witlessness of this trade off of resources, what possible excuse is there for our legislators? H.Roy Stephens cc: AWWL (Anyone who will listen) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:36:55 -0600 From: Larry Luzny Subject: A Report From Wendy Cukier Re: You guessed it! The message below is found at: UPDATE ON THE ECOSOC COMMISSION [snip] ITEM 1. Wendy Cukier, President of the Coalition for Gun Control in Canada, submitted the following for posting on Prep Com. To: Prep Com From: Wendy Cukier, Professor, Ryerson Polytechnic University (71417.763@acs.ryerson.ca) Re: UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission [snip] The NGOs which have participated to date include: BASIC, IFORGun Control Network (Great Britain), World Victimology Society, World Society for Consultation, The National Rifle Association, and Arms manufacturers and dealers through other accredited NGOs. Although the emphasis is on regulating firearms to control illegal trafficking and the "grey market" in the context of crime prevention, these proposals are also significant for reducing the flow of small arms to conflict. Groups interested in small arms should consider these recommendations which place considerable emphasis on improving transparency and tracking of all firearms and participate in the discussions. A resolution on firearms will be presented at the upcoming meeting of the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission in April 27, 1998. Only NGOs with ECOSOC status are allowed to participate. Contact Slawomir Redo, UN Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission for details (tel: 431-21345-4278, fax:431-21345-5898). A copy of the resolution follows. 9 May 1997 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE Sixth Session Vienna, 28 April-9 May 1997 Agenda item 5 (a) CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AND STRENGTHENING OF LEGAL INSTITUTIONS MEASURES TO REGULATE FIREARMS Revised draft resolution (typed from original) Co-sponsors: Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Burundi, Canada, Columbia, Croatia, Fiji, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Tanzania, Russian Federation. The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice recommends to the Economic and Social Council the adoption of the following draft resolution: Firearm regulation for the purpose of crime prevention and public health and safety The Economic and Social Council, Recalling resolution 9 of the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Report of the Ninth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Cairo. 29 April - 8 May 1995 [A/CONF.169/16/Rev.1], chap. 1.)Recalling its resolutions 1995/27, section IV.A, of 24 July 1995 and 1996/28 of 24 July 1996, Mindful of the need for effective implementation of those resolutions, Taking Note of the report of the Secretary-General on measures to regulate firearms, (E/CN.15/1997/4 and Corr.1.) Also taking note of the findings in the draft "United Nations international study on firearm regulation" prepared by the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division of the Secretariat, Further taking note of the work of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission of the Organization of American States on the question of the control of the international movement of illicit firearms and explosives, including the proposal for the model regulation for the control of the international movement of firearms. 1. Urges Member States that have not already replied to the draft "United Nations international study on firearm regulation" questionnaire to do so by 30 September 1997; 2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue the data collection and dissemination of information on firearm regulation, including, among others, the revised survey format referred to in the report of the Expert Group Meeting on Gathering Information on and Analysis of Firearm Regulation, and the ongoing and regular maintenance of a list of contact persons and organizations in each Member State with responsibility for the provision of such information and the enhancement of the existing database on firearm regulation; 3. Takes note with appreciation of the proposal by the Secretary-General to convene an ad hoc meeting (E/CN.15/1997/20, para. 10.) of representatives of relevant international organizations with a view to better coordinating the data collection that is necessary for a more complete understanding of the issues affecting firearm regulation; 4. Requests the Secretary-General to promote, within existing resources, technical cooperation projects that recognize the relevance of firearm regulation in addressing violence against women, in promoting justice for victims of crime and in addressing the problem of children and youth as victims and perpetrators of crime and in re establishing or strengthening the rule of law in post-conflict peace-keeping projects; 5 Encourages Member States to consider, where they have not yet done so, regulatory approaches to the civilian use of firearms that include the following common elements; (a) Regulations relating to firearm safety and storage; (b) Appropriate penalties and/or administrative sanctions for offences involving the misuse or unlawful possession of firearms; (c) Mitigation of, or exemption from, criminal responsibility, amnesty or similar programmes that individual Member States determine to be appropriate to encourage citizens to surrender illegal, unsafe or unwanted firearms; (d) A licensing system, inter alia, including the licensing of firearm businesses, to ensure that firearms are not distributed to persons convicted of serious crimes or other persons who are prohibited under the laws of respective Member States from owning or possessing firearms; (e) A record-keeping system for firearms, inter alia, including a system for the commercial distribution of firearms and a requirement for appropriate marking of firearms at manufacture and at import, to assist criminal investigations, discourage theft and ensure that firearms are distributed only to persons who may lawfully own or possess firearms under the laws of the respective Member States; 6. Requests the Secretary-General to include in the provisional agenda for the four regional workshops on firearm regulation to be organised in 1997 in accordance with the work plan (Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1996, Supplement No. 10 [E/1996/30], para 73 (g).) approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1996/28, within existing resources or subject to the availability of extrabudgetary funding, inter alia, the possible development of a United Nations declaration of principles, based on the regulatory approaches suggested above, the collection of comparable information on firearm regulation, the provision of technical assistance, training and information-sharing and the need for implementing bilateral, regional or multilateral agreements or arrangements on combating illicit trafficking in firearms, in order to ensure that all Member States have sufficient capacity in the area of firearm regulation, and also requests that interested non-governmental organizations should each be allowed to make a statement at the regional workshops on subjects covered in their agenda but should not be permitted to attend workshop meetings where sensitive law enforcement issues will be discussed; 7. Also requests the Secretary-General to seek views of Member States, institutes comprising the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme network, relevant United Nations entities and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the development of a declaration of principles, based on the regulatory approaches suggested above, and to submit a report containing the views received to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its seventh session; 8. Further requests the Secretary-General to explore ways and means of developing a programme of continuing education for criminal justice administrators and of public education and awareness-building in relation to the links between firearms in civilian use and the unacceptable levels of violence in cities, communities and families and to disseminate that information in order to encourage Member States to undertake similar programmes; 9. Encourages Member States to ensure the tracing of illegal firearms and accurate and accurate and prompt responses to requests from other Member States for firearm-tracing; 10. Invites the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) to review the firearm and ballistic tracing capabilities of its member States, with a view to advising the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice on the adequacy of these capabilities, and to clarify and compile common firearm terminology and descriptions, preferably in the form of an index, in order to enhance the sharing of investigative information on illegal firearms among Member States; 11. Invites the United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms established in pursuance of GA resolution 50/70, B, and other relevant specialized intergovernmental organizations to provide the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice with available information about the results of their work in relation to the unlawful proliferation of military-style small arms in Member States; 12. Invites the Customs Co-operation Council, also called the World Customs Organization, to review international customs practices relating to the movement of firearms for civilian purposes and worldwide trends in firearm smuggling, including such matters as processing of import and export licensing, monitoring, standard protocols, including a common import and export certificate, and an advance notification system, with a view to advising the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice on the effectiveness of controls concerning the international movement of firearms; 13. Invites the other relevant intergovernmental organizations to re-analyse their data on issues related to firearms, within the scope of the international study on firearm regulation, with a view to informing the Commission on Crime Preventi on and Criminal Justice, through the Secretary-General, of possible steps towards improving the collection and analysis of the related interdisciplinary statistics; [snip] ITEM 3: The Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy development has released two working documents for discussion. Public Health Perspective on Firearms and Small Arms - A report on an international workshop held in Quebec on 7 February 1998 AND International Small Arms/Firearms Control: Finding Common Ground - a draft background paper for discussion by Wendy Cukier. For more information on obtaining these documents contact the Centre at: Tel: (613) 944-4150 FAX: (613) 944-0687 Web-site: http://www.cfp-pec.gc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:43:36 -0600 From: SHEPPARD Greg Subject: RE: Howard interview regards Australian Premiers Conference > Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 07:43:08 -0600 > From: ALERT (by way = of > DAT) > Subject: Howard interview regards Australian Premiers Conference >=20 > The "buy-in" of every pump-action shotgun, pump-action rifle, > semi-auto > shotgun and semi-auto rifle in Australia (folloing their outlawing by > the > federal government) cost so much that an extra charge had to be made > -- ON > EVERYONE'S MEDICARE PREMIUM. (Hey, government buying guns IS a = health > care > issue, right?) Now the POLITICAL repercussions are hitting the > politicians. >=20 > Howard interview regards Premiers Conference > 20/3/97 >=20 > [snip] > =A0 > REPORTER.. Mr Howard is also angry over the Premiers' refusal to > discuss > the national guns agreement, warning he could raise sales taxes in > states that watered down the laws to make high powered guns too > expensive > to buy. > =A0 Actually, there's even more to it than that. The above quotation is from a news report reporting the mass walkout of ALL Australian Premier's/Chief Ministers after just 90 minutes of the annual "Premiers Conference", wherein all assemble to divvy up the Federal bag of gold extracted from the longsuffering taxpaying public for the next year. When johnny coward and his finance minister put, funnily enough, the medical funding package on the table (that's the one where he raised HALF A BILLION in extra dollars to pay for the firearms = confiscation...) as his first item of business, with the attitude 'take it or leave it = - - we won't discuss it' - the Premiers told him in which dark place to shove it and walked!=20 =20 Eyewitness reports had him plaintively calling to them as they turned and left, words to the effect: "but we haven't talked about the gun = laws yet ... I want to talk about gun laws...but... but... awwww!" =20 =20 Pity they didn't have the guts to do the same about 2 years ago!! But then, there hadn't been bye-elections fought on the gun issue then, the "gun lobby" (well, the press told everybody there was one, so we formed one) now can count on about 6% of the national vote, which is currently enough to unseat almost ANY federal or state politician.............. To summarise - the State ministers spat their dummies, took their plastic footballs and went home. johnny coward wiped some of the egg = off his face, went on national TV and tried to sound positive, whilst looking like what he is - a very LITTLE man going nowhere. Perhaps a leadership spill in the offing? - particularly if he calls an election in the near term (as things are currently heading) and loses it - = almost a given at the moment! =20 Interesting times DownUnder! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 23:40:58 -0500 From: John Backhaus (by way of "H. Taylor Buckner" ) Subject: Number of Offences From: John Backhaus < Subject: Calculating firearms offenses Two and half years after Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was passed by Parliament, we find out the truth about the number of firearms involved in violent crime and that this information was deliberately withheld from Parliament and the Canadian people. Through Access to Information, I obtained a copy of a letter from the Commissioner of the RCMP which criticizes your department for misinterpretation and misuse of RCMP firearms and violent crime statistics. RCMP Commissioner Murray said in his letter, "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms. 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." Your officials put out a number 9 times higher than the RCMP. Why? Hi, Looking at the above Figures they did not look right so I did some calculations and I believe it should read. "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.0008%, which is less than 1 firearm per 1000 offences. [Moderator: I think the confusion (caused by different ways of calculating and reporting percentages) can be cleared up by saying that less than one in 1000 violent crimes involved firearms. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 22:43:37 -0600 From: Norm Frei Subject: Update on urveryugly@logicallink.com >Anything posted or emailed should be considered readable by everyone. >If you're really concerned about security, use encryption. >Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer >kdesolla@cyberus.ca Update on "urveryugly@logicallink.com" attempt at purchasing a restricted firearm without proper proceedure and documentation. Keith is quite correct. Here was an individual who posted on can.talk.guns that he was interested in purchasing a handgun for under $500.00. A friend of mine had a 1911A1 Colt for sale and answered the ad, including mention- ing the FAC requirement and contacting the local RCMP for more info. The next e-mail stated that he didn't get along with cops and if he threw in a couple of hundred more bucks, would that be ok. All information, including the origional posting was passed on to the RCMP and a complaint filed. The ONLY identifiable information was his e-mail address and the name "Curt", as well as the name of the town he lived in which came up in the communication. The local RCMP passed on the info to the detachment in the town Curt lived and within a week my friend got a call (at 10:00pm) from an RCMP officer there stating that the individual had been identified as a 15 year old kid who had a pellet gun and wanted to move up. His mother had been totally unaware of what her son had been doing on Internet and among other things, immediately chopped the kid's Internet priviledges. >From what their RCMP officer stated, it won't happen again :)) The mother was very appreciative that the RCMP was contacted and she made aware of the situation. So, as you can see, an e-mail address can be enough to track you down. BTW, the logicallink Calgary office apparently went out of business just before the investigation and the RCMP went through the Saskatchewan office for the info. Norm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 07:24:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Custom's $5.00 Fees Graham said: > answer a question for me ? When I received my goods from Customs they > had charged me $8.05 ( $3.05 GST and $5.00 handling fee ) .There was no > duty assessed against this parcel , the rate and the ammount boxes both > state zero in them . If this a duty-free parcel , then surely there is no > GST payable? What good or service did I purchase in Canada that would > entail a GST levy ? It doesn't work quite that way. Imported goods can be subject to customs duty, excise duty, excise tax, and GST. Excise duty and tax usually only applies to alcohol, tobacco, certain jewellry and watches. So that leaves duty and GST. GST is payable on the "duty paid value. So if the object is dutiable, they add the duty to the cost of the item before calculating the GST. As I recall, the original concept behind this was that the duty charged then brought the value of the item up to something approximating fair market value in Canada. The concept of duty was originally to protect the internal manufacturer/seller from imported goods he couldn't hope to compete with. I suppose the free trade agreement is based on the idea that such protection shouldn't exist, although duty collected has been for a long time a valuable source of revenue for the government. Of course, if they don't get the revenue they think they need there, they will get it somewhere else... The short answer is that even if items attract no duty, they still are subject to GST if they would be subject to GST as domestic goods. So they can ding you GST. > Do they have the right to impose a handling fee on a parcel that they had > no right to detain in the first place? It stated quite clearly on the > outside of the parcel what the contents were and what they were for. Customs has the right to detain and inspect all good and persons entering the country. That includes goods that are both free of any duties and any taxes. They can even detain and inspect private mail, although they can only inspect it in a manner that does not allow them to read the communication ie X ray inspection, feeling the outside of the envelope for enclosures, etc. So I think you would be in error to assume they didn't have the right to detain it - although there is a limit on how long they can detain it and what they detain it for. They can't, for example, detain it because they don't like it or don't think you should have it. They can only detain it for inspection, payment of duties and taxes, to ensure it meets other legislation ie Marking Act, etc. Once all that has been met, it has to be released to you. Is the handling fee fair? No, absolutely not. Customs about 1990 decided that providing personal service to people at front counters was too time consuming and expensive to them. So they entered into an agreement with the Post Office whereby they simply rate the package for monies owing and then give it to the post office. Your local post office holds onto the package for them until you pay up; they forward the duties and taxes to Revenue Canada and the post office pockets your $5.00. The Feds win all the way around. Only the taxpayer loses - less service, and more expensive. Think about it. The government is charging you $5.00 for the priviledge of paying them duties and taxes you owe them - and more often than not the $5.00 is more than the money you owe... The government claims it's to Canada Post to reimburse them for getting your parcel to you - but since when do we accept paying CP for delivering already postage paid mail to us. It really sucks. There is a way to fight back. The form that comes with your package allows you to contest the duties and taxes that were charged. Whether the assessment was right or not, I ALWAYS contest the classification of the object. The appeal has to be dealt with by a real live Customs Inspector, perhaps even a Commodity Specialist if you can get real inventive. That takes time out of their day, a reply letter has to be drafted, etc. Bottom line: by the time you're finished it has cost the Feds a hell of a lot more than the $5.00 that they got out of you for the delivery of your parcel. Now... if EVERYONE appealed every single parcel they were charged $5.00 on... this scheme wouldn't last long. Fees like this don't last when people resist them and make them cost more than they collect. Same thing as speeding tickets. They aren't really to deter anybody. If they wanted to deter you, they would compel you to appear in court or fine you so much you wouldn't think of speeding - in other words REALLY deter you. They do neither. They fine you just enough that 99% of those charged will just pay up without fighting it. So it's a moneymaker. And the reason that 97% of all traffic tickets written are speeding tickets is because they are easy to write and easy to win - again, because they are a moneymaker and not anything to do with "traffic safety". Ask your MLA how the traffic infractions in your province break down. Then ask him how many of the non speeding tickets were written after an accident... Now, if EVERYONE contested every speeding ticket... photo radar and speeding enforcement would disappear overnight because it would no longer be a moneymaker. Even when you lose in court, the government has to pay for that courtroom time, the police and other personnel, etc. All to get their lousy $75 plus victim surcharge or whatever like here in BC. The cost to the government would probably be in excess of $1000. There's a lesson in this regarding gun control. I'll try and write on this sometime later. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #278 **********************************