From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Mar 25 15:47:44 1998 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:27:18 -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 #289 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 23118 X-Lines: 500 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, March 25 1998 Volume 02 : Number 289 In this issue: NFA COMMENTS on RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray's Letter (2/2) CILA Founding Announcement Take A Look At This [1/2] Breitkreuz Petition Take A Look At This [2/2] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:33:23 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: NFA COMMENTS on RCMP Commissioner J.P.R. Murray's Letter (2/2) >Furthermore, the RCMP >investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of >these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms. If we display >the RCMP 73 offences in the same manner as the Firearms Control Task >Group, we would say that rifles and shotguns were involved in 79.5% of >violent firearm crimes investigated by the RCMP. This is not surprising >when we recognize that rifles and shotguns represent 84.4% of all >firearms in Canada. Here, the Commisioner is giving out data which HE knows to be false. There were 1,221,179 registration certificates on file in the RCMP's FRAS record system at the end of 1993. Of those, at least 221,179 represented firearms that either no longer existed, had been exported, or were no longer at the address and/or in the hands of the person shown on the certificate -- something he had known since the DofJ's own "Review of Firearms Registration TR-1994-9e" was published in mid-1994. That deletion leaves 1,000,000 REAL registered "restricted" firearms. It is certainly quite obvious to anyone active in the firearms community that the ratio of registered "restricted" firearms to unregistered long arms is AT LEAST 20 long arms for every "restricted" firearm. Add it up -- that comes to 1,000,000 plus 20,000,000. His statement that "rifles and shotguns represent 84.4% of all firearms in Canada" is nonsense. If true, it would mean that 15.6 per cent of all Canadian firearms are "restricted" firearms -- that Canadians have one "restricted" firearm for every 5.4 long arms. Clearly, that is nonsense. We do NOT. So where did he get those figures? From the infamous "telephone poll" that the government and Coalition for Gun Control proclaim as gospel. It "proved" that there are only about 7,000,000 firearms IN TOTAL in all of Canada -- 6,000,000 long arms and 1,221,179 "restricted" firearms. Clearly WRONG. WHY does the government stick to the WRONG figures found by that telephone poll? The answer is obvious. The percentage of success in getting firearms registered will be inflated by calculating the number actually brought in for registration against a WRONG and very low number. Whatever number of firearms is the final number registered, it will be a bigger percentage of 7,000,000 than of 21, 000,000. >The difference between 623 violent firearm crimes >credited to the RCMP, compared to the actual number of 73 is >significant. >The Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) staff were unwilling to meet to >confirm where the problem occurred with the interpretation of the 1993 >RCMP data. Their efforts were focused on producing a report on the 1995 >firearms data. The CFC offered to make comparisons between the results >of their current research project and other similar research conducted >in the past. This proposal was not acceptable since there was no means >to validate the 1993 data, only a possibility of some comments on >differences between the findings of the two years. This would leave the >1993 data in circulation. The incorrect reporting of the RCMP >statistics could cause the wrong public policy or laws to be developed >and cause researchers to draw erroneous conclusions. Considering that >the data is clearly marked as belonging to the RCMP, we must accept >ownership and responsibility for the harm the data may cause. For these >reasons, something must be done to correct the data or remove it from >circulation. This letter was never intended to become public knowledge. As proof of that, compare what is said here with this quote from a 20 Mar 98 damage-control letter to the Editor of the Edmonton Journal sent by "A/Commr Cleve Cooper, Director, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services." (I have a copy of that letter, on RCMP [Ottawa] letterhead and signed.) "I am responding to Lorne Gunter's column of Mar 15, 1988 titled "False stats used to support gun registry." The column did not indicate that on December 30, 1997 the RCMP Commissioner wrote to the Department of Justice indicating that we had reached an UNDERSTANDING on the statistics and how they were reported in "The Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada. "There was simply a different methodology used by the RCMP and the Firearms Smuggling Work Group in interpreting the original data [boy, I'll say! -- DAT]. As part of our examination, we were focussing on criminal incidents in which A FIREARM WAS ACTUALLY USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. The Firearms Smuggling Work Group's examination criteria were broader, gathering information on ALL FIREARMS RECOVERED [including those 'recovered' which the police had actually never seen before -- DAT] BY POLICE and categorzing them according to their circumstances [how's THAT for vague? -- DAT]. Not surprisingly this generated a [ninefold -- DAT] discrepancy which was the source of our original concerns. With this methodological approach WE WERE SATISFIED THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE SMUGGLING REPORT ARE REASONABLE, AND ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO AMEND THE REPORT. "I want to ONCE AGAIN STATE THAT THE RCMP CONTINUES TO FULLY SUPPORT THE NEW FIREARMS LEGISLATION AND ITS OBJECTIVES emphasis added throughout. -- DAT]." The fraud continues. Damage control is being applied. >Since the data in our Police Information Retrieval System (PIRS) and >Operational Statistics Reporting (OSR) special reports is open to >interpretation, it was necessary to suspend further release of similar >firearms data pending an agreement on regulating this problem. >I am, therefore, requesting your assistance to resolve this issue. In >addition, you may wish to inform the Minister of Justice about this >issue to ensure that she does not refer to the RCMP statistics quoted in >the Department of Justice report. The WORST part of this problem is that the Commissioner -- head of the RCMP - -- is ALSO a Deputy Minister in this government. That change in his postion, made a few years ago, is WRONG. It divides him. Instead of being loyal to and committed to the public, and to his subordinates in the RCMP, he is now PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND LOYAL TO THE MINISTER. And that is WRONG. It should be CHANGED. Among other things, it causes full disclosure of all RCMP datta on investigations of politicians to politicians WHILE AN INVESTIGATION IS IN PROGRESS. David A. Tomlinson National President, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 13:33:28 -0600 From: "Tony Bernardo" Subject: CILA Founding Announcement CILA ______________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Canadian firearms, shooting and outdoor sports organizations form a national coalition to defend Canada's firearms heritage; The Canadian Institute for Legislative Action _____________________________________ Vancouver, B.C. March 1, 1998 _____________________________________ CILA is the product of a series of symposiums held in Canada during the last five years for the purpose of forming a national, and international, representative organization for the Canadian recreational firearms community. CILA is a coalition of pro-firearms and sport shooting organizations which studies, preserves, promotes, protects and enhances the ownership, use and enjoyment of firearms and related activities and interests. CILA is committed to providing a stable environment for firearms related activities in Canada CILA is a federation based upon solidarity, not differences. CILA will perform many functions on a national and international level, such as political representation, media representation and education. CILA will provide the highest quality insurance and legal services available ______________________________ For more information contact: CILA "Defending Canada's Heritage" P.O. Box 82578, 285 Taunton Rd. E. Oshawa, ON. Canada L1G 7W7 Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail: teebee@sprint.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:17:35 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Take A Look At This [1/2] Dave Kratky said: > You mean what a waste of public money. :) One must remember who funds these > wackos. Making the public realize they will pay a price, not just firearms owners, in a low percentage strategy is part of it. Anybody will buy into a scheme, no matter how hare brained, if they think it won't affect THEM. We should make sure it costs them as much as possible - which is still nowhere near what it is costing US. Hey, we're just trying to help the general public who support gun control. They think registration will help the government make them safer, so we're getting on the wagon as quickly as possible to help them with THEIR safety. Whatever can they bitch about? And what are billions of extra dollars where safety is concerned? Unless, of course, public services decrease and the firearm crime rate doesn't drop one iota in response to those billions spent. And budgets and manpower, as I keep pointing out, are finite. Robert Schultz said: > I like the logic, but think getting people to register on day 1 is an > impossibility! It doesn't have to be day one. Month one and even month two still works. Twenty million individual forms which have to be handled and data entered is a very big number. Is the problem getting people to follow through? Yes. > Historically, registration has lead to confiscation and increased > regulation. That is a given. Once again, if we win in the courts (permanently) or legislature at any time, early registration is immaterial - the registration is gone whether you registered early or late. If we don't, then at the end of the period you're still either going to register or become a criminal who has to hide and have little or no use of their guns. And registration will no doubt be pretty pricy by that time, because people like me will be legally monkeywrenching the system in every way we can think of, and they'll be looking to recover those costs. Finally, last minute registration allows them to get the system up to speed, start recovering costs through increased registration costs, provides the government with all sorts of readymade excuses, and eliminates this opportunity to nuke 'em. It's a pretty good bet that NO confiscation will take place until the end of the registration period anyway - unless the government WANTS to drive firearms underground and so not have to pay to register them. That in itself should tell you something. In a battle, there is no move that is without risk. There is no more risk in this strategy than holding off until the very end, gambling that the legislation will be turfed before the last day of registration. > We know this system is doomed, but simply registering our firearms on day 1 > may not do anything. And what if the get the system working pretty well for > day one and manage to register a good portion of the firearms? I can assure you that dumping twenty million entries into a small office's lap which isn't set up to deal with that number in that short a period of time is going to have a significant effect. I can also assure you that any significant number of information requests is going to cause even more chaos. Will the system work well from Day 1? The system they have NOW isn't working even adequately. This new system has to be able to track over 25 million entries, with data entry done by hand from all over the place. It doesn't include a single firearm yet. How do you beta test this system? Why do you think you encourage business owners to begin registering early? Why do you give people five years to register, knowing they will do so slowly at first, then in increasing numbers to the end? Database managers have told me this kind of system is incredibly vulnerable at this point in its' existance. Some of them have commented here. I talked to a friend who is one of the senior software engineers at Oracle and asked him what he thought. Oracle knows the database biz... He told me that with all probability this logistical attack would completely overwhelm the system and support personnel. Errors can become cascading errors or even crash software. His analogy was that it is not just like picking spilled pennies off the floor and putting them back in the jar. Whether you like the concept or not, for everyone's general info, I spent the better part of the last year and a half trying out the Privacy Act, the Privacy Commissioner, Access To Information, talked to software designers, etc, and everything else I could think of. I know I can't have thought of everything, but I worked pretty hard at it before putting it out in the public where you - and the government - can see it. I would bet a large chunk of change that any government manager/beaurocrate who has been reading this thread the last few days is defecating heavy square objects at the thought of having his department or MP's office subjected to this sort of logistical load. Hi guys! Yes, I know you're there! > Scenario: a line up of 100 people each wishing to register 2 or 3 firearms - > this is hours of time that people will stand in line -- average working > citizens that may not be able to afford this kind of time to waste. There are all sorts of scenarios possible, but we won't know for sure until we have the hard and fast answer in how we can register. But a few comments. Are your firearms worth a couple of hours of time? What price do you put on them? If it is a lineup scenario, what happens to the rest of that police detachment's business while members, civilian members, etc are occupied with those hundreds of people in line first? Who answers complaints, who answers phones, what does the public think about being told they have to wait hours or even days for service because the government is busy registering their neighbor's firearms. Who pays for the overtime within that office? > I've heard that they were considering a self identified registration card > that you mail in -- this could be an alternative and allow them to register > firearms over an extended period of time. Once the government takes possession of that registration form, whether they enter it in a compuer or not, it is a federal government record with your name on it. That makes it subject to access from both the Privacy Act and the Freedom Of Information Act. They HAVE to comply with information requests; they cannot ignore them. That is exactly how Reform MP's are getting all this damaging information we have seen showing up here the last few weeks. Furthermore, they have the problem that they can be taken to task for restricting business. I've sent in a registration. Now I want to sell my rifle to a business, or a business wants to sell me one in stock. I tell the purchaser that the rifle has been registered. He wants the registration number. Or he wants to sell me a rifle he has registered and needs the registration number. In both cases, he doesn't have the registration yet. So legal business cannot be conducted because the government has not provided the certificates the owners paid for within a reasonable time. If a lawyer can't make all kinds of trouble with that scenario... > New firearm purchases will be registered at the point of sale. Yes. Part of the idea to give the system a nice easy startup and lots of debugging time. I propose we don't give it to them. > This is planned to come into effect 1 October 1998. Will the standard > registration be on-line by then? If not, then they have some time to check > the system and work out the bugs. When registration comes into existance legally and physically, the only time they will have to check the system and work out bugs, is the time firearms owners decide to give them. If we wait to the last day, they will have a very leisurely time to debug indeed. Twenty million forms to enter into the system within the first month or two will leave them precious little time. Especially if those registrations are followed within a month or two by a swarm of Privacy Act requests. Of course, when they give you the data to comply with your Privacy Act request but inform you they can't give you registration information from the databank because you haven't been entered yet, you will then want to send in another Privacy Act request a few months later to see if they've finally got around to it so that you can fully check all data... [continued in 2/2] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:27:05 -0600 From: "a.warner" Subject: Breitkreuz Petition Went through the 'yellow pages' of my area phone-book and obtained the address of each gunsmith, gun shop, and sportsmen's club. Sent a copy of the petition to each along with a letter of explanation. Also included a brief explanation of the dire effects of the proposed legislation and it's effect on all Canadians. Another way to get the message out. Am fiddling now for a list of area gun-owners. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 15:26:59 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Take A Look At This [2/2] > I have heard a rumour that the system is much more complex than originally > planned and is causing the system designers to re-work much of the design. Geez... imagine that! I'll bet you those system designers would sure appreciate all the time they could get to do this reworking, eh? October is only six months away and there isn't a single firearm in that database yet beyond whatever phoney guns they have in it for testing. Here's an important thought. They might be transferring FRAS registered records to the new database. Maybe what we need right now are a bunch of privacy act requests re handgun registrations which specifically mentions also wanting copies of any records that are presently held in the new, under development registry. That means a privacy coordinator is going to have to go over there and bother that group to retrieve anything they might have in there... Beta or not, if they're in there, they have to retrieve them and give us copies of that. I hate to sound like a schmuck, but I'm in the process of getting married, going back to school, and starting a business all at once. I'm spending too much time on this already. So how about a few people out there who own handguns exercise their Privacy Act rights and maybe sort of keep an eye on what is happening with this new registry to boot - while checking your existing records, of course. Don't everybody put your hand up at once. > I work on the fringe of this type of database design and think that > designing a working firearm registration system is quite possible. Sure it is. Especially given five years and a slow startup curve to debug the end product. How much would you care to gamble that you could design and write a database system like this that could work to full capacity from day one with human data entry of twenty million records and a handful of staff? All of whom will be dealing with Privacy Act requests for data OUT at the same time? > Maybe it was started by the anti-gunners to trick the firearm owners into a > false sense of security -- it may be working! (wry smile) I doubt anybody who knows me would describe me as being part of the anti gun fraternity... > However, I like the idea of checking one's record through the privacy act. > Do you have any more details on this? I think I may give it a try now just > to see how it works. Posted previously or call your MP. > I know that I would rather buy another firearm or accessories than pay > an additional $20 or $50 registration fee. This is a wild assed guess on my part, but I will be surprised if it only costs you $50 if you wait to 2003. The costs are going to be sky high and the government will make every attempt to collect them directly from firearms owners - they're already pissed off, so more doesn't make any difference. The last thing they want is those costs coming from the general public, who currently favour this bill out of sheer ignorance or otherwise. > And what happens if we register and firearm crimes decrease -- we've seen the > fed's falsify RCMP statistics to meet their objective so why not some more to > show their legislation is working? Then the government has a "See, we said it Crime statistics and the RCMP firearms report are a matter of public record. We have just seen that the RCMP wants nothing to do with falsifying records, and that wonderful Access To Information Act is always sitting there. I'm sure I'm not the only guy with a criminology degree here, but anybody with any kind of a degree should be able to look at statistics to see if they have been properly compiled and collated. With their attempt to falsify statistics blowing up in their faces with Commissioner Murray's letter now becoming public, I think it will be a long time before the Minister of Justice tries this again and those statistics will be looked at a lot more closely from this point onward. > We have to be careful about attempting to hit them in the pocket book as > they could say that they were going to phase in the registration fees, but > seeing as the 7 million firearms have been registered in the first month we > will put the fee up to full cost recovery as why should the average citizen pay for > registering a gun? Possible but very unlikely. They have publically claimed all along that the low fees at first are to encourage firearms owners to register and regulated their sliding scale accordingly. Now they're going to rescind all that? I don't think so. Furthermore, anybody who waits past the "cut rate" period to register their firearm knows they are taking their chances and that rates are only going to decrease. Register early, register cheap - let the general public pick up the tab. > Or you now need to pay a yearly possession fee to pay for this registration > system. What makes you think this isn't going to happen even without this strategy? This is just one more reason why this bill MUST be killed. > However, how long do you think it would be before they institute a fee > for checking these records? Privacy Act requests, whether by a gun owner, a former soldier, a concerned pensioner about their CPP, a former commercial fisherman, or anything else are free. Period. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #289 **********************************