From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Mar 24 15:43:31 1998 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:19:54 -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 #282 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23090 X-Lines: 493 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, March 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 282 In this issue: Gun Registration Take A Look At This (2/2) Take A Look At This Look At This Press Releases Re: Registration action Rick Lowe's aricle re: total registration SWAMPING THE CFC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:08:21 -0600 From: SBKracer Subject: Gun Registration Someone mentioned that unregistered guns will be unavailable to take to the range or field once C68 comes into force. I am here to inform you that many registered guns are or will be unavailable to take to the range or field. The government can, at a whim, make anything prohibited and refuse to give out transport permits. I know, I have two firearms that fall into this category at the moment. I dutifully complied with the law and got screwed for my troubles. I am not advocating noncompliance here but there is one important distinction between a registered gun and an unregsitered gun. The government has NO control over the unregistered gun and thus cannot tell you what to do with it or whether or not you can sell it. I think that the swamping of the registration system has merit but I am still a bit shy about registering after my experiences with C17. I propose that people buy up all the cheap junk they can find at gunshows and register those firearms if they don't wish to put their cherished firearms on the government chopping block. Once a firearm is in the system it is never coming out of it, just like once a law is passed it is never repealed. Even with the 3+ million presently registered firearms we could cause major havock by access to information requests. I do not intend to send any moneys with my postcard registrations. They can hardly refuse to register my firearms simply because I didn't pay. Besides, think of all the money they will spend trying to get the $10 fee out of me. If the government insists on registering my firearms against my wishes, I am hardly going to pay them to do it. The C17 registrations didn't cost anything and I got screwed. I can't imagine what paying to get bent over a chair will feel like! I think I can safely say that there will be so many bogus registrations that the government will spend years chasing its tail trying to figure the whole mess out. Now did I mail in those registrations or not? Maybe I should send them again. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:15:59 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Take A Look At This (2/2) > I could complain to the Almighty and get the same results faster.., and it > would cost less of MY tax dollars. Geez, I called the Privacy Commissioner at the 1-800 number and had action within a day. What particular experience of yours led you to say that you would have gotten results from God faster? As far as your concern over it costing you tax dollars... well Thomas, if you're more concerned about your tax dollars and inconvenience than retaining some freedoms and your firearms, then of course you should do nothing. A lot of firearms owners have been doing that for years and look how successful that has been. As I said, to me, my freedoms and my firearms are worth paying additional taxes to fight legislation that would strip me of both. I would rather pay for this program as a taxpayer than as one of the much smaller group of firearms owners in this country. Your priorities may well be different, and of course we each have the right to set our priorities as we see fit. > There you go again. I can believe that you've spent a lot of time working > for the Government. You really don't have a handle on where that money > comes from. I know exactly where it is coming from. And I know what Privacy Act requests do within a department, something you don't, I suspect. This is a logistics strategy; the specific intent is to consume government resources to the point where they can't or aren't willing to continue trying to inflict this on us anymore. If this strategy SAVED the government time and money... well, it would be kind of pointless wouldn't it? At any rate, if you place your concerns regarding your income taxes over your concerns regading your freedoms and firearms, I can understand your response. It probably will be cheaper to pay gun owner specific fees - especially after the government has all your firearms and you don't have to pay them anymore. You might even manage to get some compensation - more money! And hey, think of all the money you'll save when you don't have to buy reloading components, pay range fees, etc. > They don't have to. All they have to do, as usual, is ignore those they > don't like. Have a problem with that? Take them to court, that's what they Much as you might be dreaming so, the government can't ignore the Privacy Act and requests made under that request. What specifically leads you to say that, anyway? As far as going to court, the federal government spent millions of dollars convincing a judge that they didn't have to deal with Clifford Olson's repetitive and harassing Privacy Act requests despite his rights under the Privacy Act. More money. More time. > count on. That way, you get to spend twice as much money: for the defence > (taxdollars) and your own. Again. You really should sell all your firearms Thomas. I know damn few shooters who manage to make a profit out of owning and using firearms. And I don't mind having one federal department spending tax dollars fighting another federal department also spending tax dollars over a Privacy Act request. I don't need to spend any of mine, and any request of mine is only a tiny fraction of the whole. So if I let a Federal court challenge die after they've gone to the time and expense of filing in Federal court, no problem. > And at what point did the 'media' become our 'friends'? Certainly not in > the last paper I read. Don't read many Alberta newspapers, do you? Irregardless of that, the media is going to be firmly against any government proposal which would limit their access to information. The original comment was in a sarcastic tone of voice, but I guess you missed that. > Same place as always, YOUR pocket, and mine. Send me a list of the firearms you own and your price, Thomas. I might be able to buy them off you and you won't have to worry about costly firearms anymore. Might even be able to suggest a few good mutual fund managers to invest the money in to ally your fears of where all your money is going. > Laws are seldom, if ever, removed from the books and legislation is rarely > overturned for any reason. Check any SCC decision in the last 10 years. The fact that laws are seldom removed is simply untrue. The suggestion that the Supreme Court rarely finds legislation to be in violation of the Charter or ultra vires is also untrue. I don't need to go review the CCC's or DLR's to know that. Irregardless, my point was that I had no faith on a Supreme Court decision saving us from C-68 or a closely rewritten bill. Or that a government will remove this piece of legislation. That's why I suggested this in the first place. Taylor Buckner E-mail Research Papers: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:10 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Take A Look At This Mike Toma said: > are. I would suggest a variation of the idea. There is nothing stopping > Simon Jesters from filling out registration forms using names and > addresses of anti gun politicians, anti gun crusaders, cartoon > characters etc. These of course would be eventually seen as bogus. What > comes to mind next is fictional names, addresses, number of firearms > what have you. These will be harder for the gestapo mentality to detect This is probably a criminal offense. Mischief and uttering false documents are the most likely offenses that immediately come to mind and there are probably a few others that might apply here. I will not now or ever commit a criminal act to fight this, and more importantly, I don't believe it is necessary to do so and can only leave us open to criticism as being criminals who can't be trusted in the first place. John Fowler said: > Well, I'm not screaming, but I don't think this approach is likely to do > much for us but waste a lot of time and energy and possibly result in a lot > more bad media attention. John, all I can tell you is that you have to see the disruption that Privacy Act requests cause to believe it. All information, by law, must be reviewed before being released - because other people have rights under the Privacy Act as well and you aren't entitled to THEIR information. This is not a matter of simply pushing a few buttons and spitting out some computer printouts. Let's look at your concerns: Waste of time: It takes five minutes to fill out a Privacy Act request and drop it in the mail. Total cost - one envelope and one stamp. Waste of energy: Theirs or ours? How much energy does it take a person to fill in their name and address, write that they want to see all records related to their registration of Winchester Model 70, serial #123456789, then drop that in an envelope, address it, lick a stamp, then drop in the mail. Hardly any. Media criticism: What's bad about using the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act? The media lives off these now - can they criticize us for doing the same? What's bad about ensuring information is correct when the penalties for incorrect records are so harsh? Is it protest? Sure, but it's legal protest. They want us to comply with the law; why would it be unreasonable for us to expect the government to similarly comply with law. There might be editorials about it, but it will be pretty weak and more than a reasonable price. If people want to snivel about it, remind them of what our compliance with that legislation is costing us. If we are expected to make some sacrifices and comply with the law, then they can make a few themselves. > I believe there is only one solution - change the government - and that's > where I'm putting most of my effort. The little that is left will go to I respectfully disagree. I lost faith in Reform when they failed in their promises to be different, and Preston Manning happily moved into Stornaway while claiming that overwhelming public urging had caused him to do so. Gimme a break. If Reform becomes the government (hah!), they will want to stay in power. Gun owners are always going to be outnumbered by others, and I can't see that changing anytime soon, and power is always a function of catering to the majority. I vote for Reform because they happen to be the least of the evils I'm faced with, but I personally don't believe that victory lies there. That doesn't mean I don't pursue the fight in government, however. I just believe that the greatest hope for a clear victory that leaves the door open for a new approach is a logistical victory. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:33 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Look At This A. Warner said: > For those of use not familar with requesting information under the > Privacy Act it might be helpful for a short informational on the > subject. > My hats off to Rick. Glad to oblige. First, get a request form, officially called a Personal Information Request Form. I have found them all over the place - federal government offices, MP's offices, and public libraries. Worst comes to worst, call your MP at his 1-800 number and tell him to send you a couple of dozen... Next, fill out the form, takes about two minutes, most of which is your name and mailing address, what you are demanding the government send you, and whether you want it in English, translated into French (or vice versa), or to view the original copies. Next, you need the address to mail it to. You can find it through your MP or through going to the library and looking through Info Source, the federal publication. The easiest way is to call 1-800-267-0441 and ask the Privacy Commissioner's office to provide you with the address. Address the envelope and drop it in the mail. Within 30 days you will get a letter signed by the department's Privacy Coordinator regarding your request and acknowledging it. They may tell you they need an additional 30 days to comply, they have that right. Sometime after that, a very large brown parcel will arrive at the post office, depending on how much stuff you netted. If they don't respond within 30 days, complain to the Privacy Commissioner by phone and shortly thereafter you will get a letter from the Director of Investigations and the fun and games begin. If they are overlong in actually getting the material to you, again phone the Privacy Commissioner and the fun and games begin. If you don't think they included all information, call the Privacy Commissioner and the fun and games begin. If you think there are errors... well, you get the idea. The army was reluctant to go to the trouble of digging up all my past records and I went to the Privacy Commissioner. I heard through the grapevine back at my home unit that the Investigator handling my complaints made all kinds of people very unhappy indeed harassing them for that information. From that and a few other experiences, I have no doubt that the people working in the Privacy Commissioner's office work very hard for the people making those requests - that is there specific mandate. Ed Machel said: > Sounds plausible to me.The only problem here is to convince every gun-owner > in Kanada that it is the way to go. Therein lies the problem. The apathy of firearms owners has always been our major problem here, and is probably the only reason the NFA strategy of taking control of riding associations didn't work except in some ridings. It was a wonderful idea - imagine if firearms owners could have controlled just about every single riding association in Canada. And we could have, easily. Riding associations or logistical attacks are similar in that they are nuclear first strikes, but they require people to get off their asses - and I don't have the answer to that problem. > won't learn about the program. If that 70% registered sooner rather than > later Rick Lowes scenario would take place. You can find the Mauser-Buckner > study on my web site HTB] So that would leave the potential for.... ummmm... only about fourteen million registrations to be dealt with and Privacy Act requests to be fielded... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:37 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Press Releases Michelle Traver said: > Many thanks to Donna Ferolie for her diligence in getting the > commissioner's letter and making sure it got to everyone. I haven't seen the full transcript of that letter posted here yet. Did I miss it? [Moderator: No one has sent in the complete letter. If they do it will be posted. HTB] > The result of that was to have two RCMP cruisers park > in front of the house - one hour after the release. So... did they come in and bother you? > On another note, I understand that some of you had some > problem with HOW Rod's release was written. For those > people - please REWRITE however you think is necessary for > your area to get the information out. YOU live there so > YOU know how something should be written for YOUR area. > DON'T SIT ON IT - GET IT OUT THERE. DON'T WAIT FOR > SOMEONE ELSE. This doesn't go far enough. Press releases should be properly written or edited BEFORE release - editing afterwards is pointless. Hoping people will find errors, correct writing, etc before spreading it even further is unrealistic - YOU'RE the source of information, not the reader. And like it or not, most people aren't going to correct and edit before simply hitting the "forward" button. It is all about communication. Errors detract from the impact of the rest of the message because the other information itself becomes suspect. Vague rumours of NDP ministers cooperating with the feds are just that, rumours, unless you provide some specific information. And like it or not, the manner in which it is written is important. Wendy Cukier has known this for a long time and we better learn it really soon. As I said in the previous email, criticism of problems in a communication does not mean somebody is your enemy or doesn't appreciate your efforts - it's a little like the parable about the freezing bird who gets buried in a cow patty and then gets dug out by a cat. I have written media releases and communiques for organizations before. If you're going to take responsibility for doing them, take responsibility for ensuring accuracy and ensuring they are written for best impact. That's part of the job as well. If you can't edit them well enough yourself, find an assistant who can. I did. There's no shame in using somebody elses specific expertise in one tiny area - rather, it is a mark of intelligence. But no editor can pick out erroneous information you have given him to work with, nor can they fill in the blanks regarding vague accusations. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:16:41 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Registration action Mac said: > Questions. Will it work? Can it be sold to the shooting community? > Does the NFA have a position on this? If it is to be done, how can our > club help? If shooters simply do it, it will work. The Privacy Act is law and binding on the government; they cannot simply close their eyes and pretend it cannot exist. Furthermore, requests can also be made regarding income tax returns and other federal records held on each individual. There is no way those requests could be specifically filtered out as being related to a gun registration request - people use them all the time. How do you get the shooting community to act in concert? That's the big question and the one I have no answer for. The people who are devoted to show up at Rod and Gun meetings aren't the problem, it's the rest that just sit at home and bitch to their spouse that are the problem. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:19:33 -0600 From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Rick Lowe's aricle re: total registration I agree full-heartedly with the intent of the article but where I have serious concern is that we have an ongoing problem with communication and on reaching agreement for plans that require a coordinated approach as this needs. We're still having a hard time convincing those people who do not have electronic access that C68 poses a significant threat to them and we get widely varied attitudes from them ranging from "I'll never register a damn thing" to "I'll fully comply" based on their limited knowledge of the facts and whatever analysis has presented to them (which may only come from bureaucrats). That communication gap is a serious issue as is the troubling noises we hear with regard to some new Legislative Initiative group that is attempting to fragment gunowners at a time when the NFA has just started to see some success in pulling us together. I would like to address the writer who felt that the major flaw in Rick's plan was the cost to WE taxpayers. I would point out to him that the government currently wastes far more on things we could never imagine and that they do this for their own gain. What Rick suggests makes perfect sense - - we would be forcing them to waste a pile of money they didn't count on wasting and for something that does nothing to benefit them and, in fact, makes them look bad. It is this kind of mismanagement that has the Fisheries Department in a shambles and I hope that if we force the issue enough, appropriate bureaucratic heads will role. As we said, all this takes time but we are rapidly gaining ground and I'm sure we have some pretty nervous bureaucrats waiting to see where we're going to hit them next. I will make it my personal goal to expose certain other criminal activities intitiated by Justice Department bureaucrats and fully support any action that will cost that department any and all resources and finances we can manage. We need people constantly monitoring the accounting of these departments to keep track of the costs and to spot the clever accounting gymnastics they will use to try and cover it up. We are now privately building our communication lists and I suggest everyone do the same. Even if you can only reach a dozen non-internet associates, it is a start. And they need not be limited to shooters - lot's of people are starting to get pissed about this huge waste. Personally, I will comply with the system so much they will be sick of hearing from me and I expect that my local police will also not be happy about it - particularly if I can convince the 150 or so people on my own personal list to do the same. I will be evolving a non-electronic network to reach those hunters who have remained out of the loop. I think it is a great plan and like Rick says, the sooner we do it, and the more who participate, the better our chances. Never surrender, Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:19:29 -0600 From: Bob Lickacz Subject: SWAMPING THE CFC I've read the posting by Rick Lowe. While I think he makes some excellent points I have a fundamental problem with the Registry. Even if the CFC is swamped, it is only a matter of eliminating the backlog. More bureaucrats anyone? (maybe the Liberals could use this as a shining example of their job creation program.) As someone pointed out, Annie will just phone Paul and ask for a billion dollars for more office supplies, or job creation. Describe an actual firearm and you will have to account for it some day. The question as to why you will have to account for that actual firearm, is quite transparent. It will be for confiscation or taxation to the point of surrendering your firearms. In my opinion, registering an actual firearm is only inviting the fox into the hen house. Now if the mail-in postcards were describing pieces of pipe, firearms owners have the advantage of swamping the CFC with data that is useless. HTB indicated that in his research, he estimates 70% compliance with the registration. We need to grab these people by the neck and pry open their eyes. Remember, the Registry is NOT a done deal. We don't have to put up with this crap. Caesar did not reign forever and neither will the Liberals. Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #282 **********************************