From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Mar 26 07:18:48 1998 Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:08:45 -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 #291 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 22811 X-Lines: 545 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, March 26 1998 Volume 02 : Number 291 In this issue: Tactics for sale Take A Look At This Conspiracy Look At This re: Take A Long Look At This Re: Computer Games Radio Talkshow in Prince George Alberta Fish and Game C-68 Court Challenge TAKE A LONG HARD THOUGHT..... Re: Take a look at this re: officer involved in shooting Shooting at Calgary. Law abiding... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:42:05 -0600 From: Ron McCutcheon Subject: Tactics >There is no doubt that Allan Rock and the Liberals "what if'd" every >scenario right from the beginning, including non compliance, court challenges, >etc. I am very certain, however, that the one scenario they did not war game >to death in preparing for this is the scenario where gun owners would promptly >register EVERYTHING and dump the whole mess right back in their laps >practically overnight to be dealt with. FAR OUT! Where do I get in line?? Ron McCutcheon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:43:07 -0600 From: Gord Heins Subject: for sale I have a High Standard mod. 103 sharpshooter with 5" bull barrel and also a 7 1/2"bull barrel that is fluted and drilled and tapped for weights or laser sights.It also has right hand target grips made by Herrets.The pistol is in very good to excellent condition.asking price $550.00 call me at 705-869-4670 or email gheins@etown.net FAC required Thanks Gord Heins ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:41:56 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Take A Look At This Margus Jukkum said > there are also huge risks involved that in my opinion outweigh any > potential advantage. I happen to know a great many people who got badly > burned with Bill C-17 and now regret the time they took to register their > guns that were covered by that piece of legislation. Where is the parallel between that small registration and a mass registration of twenty million firearms followed by an equally mass use of information requests? I'm sure many people do regret registering under C-17. I don't, although I didn't like registering either. Let's talk about huge risks, a concern you brought up. For those who didn't register, they will never take that firearm to the range again. They will never take it to a gunsmith again (of course, it's unlikely to wear out or break from use while buried or squirreled away in the rafters), nor can they offer it on the open market. They have to wonder when a child might say the wrong thing to a neighbor. They have to wonder what happens if the spouse gets angry some day and calls police. If any of these situations come to pass and the police find out about it, not only will they lose that firearm they couldn't use anyway, but when court is over they'll likely find themselves with a lifetime prohibition against owning any firearm. If somebody can explain to me the advantage of being in that situation and looking over your shoulder the rest of your life, it would be most interesting. > I think that if you can afford to lose the gun only then can you seriously > consider registering it. I think you can only consider NOT registering when you can afford to worry about what the kids or wife might say the rest of your life, don't mind going to jail, don't mind having ALL your firearms seized, and don't mind ending up with a lifetime firearms prohibition. > It seems to me that the effect of absolutely no one registering a long arm > in this country would be just as devastating for the government as all gun > owners registering at once. Probably a lot less risky for the individual > gun owners. What's so devastating? First, new guns will have to be registered, and that is that. Gunsmiths aren't going to have anything to do with non registered guns if they want to stay in business and out of jail, and that is that. Going to put all the gunsmiths out of business? Businesses are not going to buy unpapered firearms, and that is that. Ranges are going to have nothing whatsoever to do with unregistered firearms, on pain of being shut down, and that also is that. But most guns still go underground? The government profusely thanks you from the bottom of their black hearts. They removed those guns from public circulation without it hardly costing them a dime. When asked why the violent crime rate isn't falling, they can just sigh and point to all the criminal firearms owners. With so few firearms in legal circulation, shooting ranges will close, gun businesses go under. Meanwhile, gun owners get picked off one by one, providing the government with a new parade of criminals to run before the media. Some guys will get nailed when a B&E artist gets caught with an unregistered firearm they stole. Others who decided to risk it and go hunting or to the range and got picked off at roadblocks run by CO's or police. A few wives and kids will talk, deliberately or otherwise. Some will offer a gun for sale to the wrong guy. And that's how it will go. No mass roundups. Not necessary. And all the owners of those unregistered guns will watch the parade of criminals while looking over their shoulders and wondering who's next or what the kid said at school today. More devastating to the government - hardly. Less risky for the individual - not likely. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:42:56 -0600 From: Jim Smith Subject: Conspiracy You don't have to see black helicopters on every corner and Belgian Blue Berets in every gopher-field to think a conspiracy is afoot. Items: In 1977 I was present at a meeting attended by then Solicitor-General of Alberta Roy Farran. He said "Restricting the proliferation of firearms is the policy of the Govt. of Alberta.". He is the unsung father of gun control in this province and to the unending shame of Ralph nothing has changed since then. That's why we have so much trouble getting all the Ottawa folks to listen - because policy wise - Alberta has always pushed gun control agendas. Shortly thereafter there was a rumour that a union functionary - and a secret gun-owner I guess saw a briefing document laying out a "Thirty year" initiative to eliminate private gun ownership in Canada. That would be 2006 -- 2008 folks. I've explored this one for all those intervening years and have concluded that this is a true report. When Kim took justice dept. portfolio there were all sorts of gun control initiatives for her to choose from - she was going to create a gun control program " only the 'extremists' couldn't support". It was all there waiting for her. When Rock needed something quick for his boss, there again were lots of 'initiatives' on the burner. justice dept flunkeys routinely go to international symposia on justice issues of which the "gun control problem" (read usually as bannings) are on the agenda. Now, You Be The Judge: conspiracy? Hint: go to your dictionary and see what the word really means James E. Smith and Associates Forensic Firearms Consulting (403)672-5440 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:43:10 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Look At This Roger Walker said: > History has shown us that the government is prepared for us, no matter > what we do. I don't believe that. But if I did, I'd just have to conclude that I might as well roll belly up and go devote my time and interests somewhere else because it's all over but the crying. I don't believe the government is prepared for this, and I don't believe in their wildest dreams they ever imagined everybody would register as soon as possible. In fact, I believe they're depending on quite the opposite. Furthermore, never before has it ever occurred to a group to use mass Privacy Act and Access To Information Act requests as a weapon of mass destruction. > By this I mean that they will happily ignore logic, facts, stats, or > will put a particular "spin" on the whole issue. As I keep trying to stress, I don't really care what the government ignores or takes notice of in the way of facts and arguments. This is not a strategy of appeal to reason or a media war. This is a strategy of overwhelming an opponent logistically to the point they no longer have the capacity to function and have lost all support from the public they supposedly represent because of that. > It is an objective fact that our government is no longer legitimate. The government of the day is legitimate as long as they hold power by virtue of the majority of seats won in a general election open to all eligible voters. This government is quite legitimate no matter what any of us think of their morals, their legislation, or anything else. If we can convince a high court that a particular law or piece of legislation is ultra vires or violates the Charter (unless somebody pulls a "notwithstanding" fast one), then we can get rid of that particular law or piece of legislation. But the government will still be a legitimate one - and the legislation we got turfed out will probably be back, in slightly different form, once the legal draftsmen have figured a way to rewrite it around the decision. > One should work within illegitimate laws ONLY when one has to. If you can get a law ruled ultra vires or in violation of the Charter, you won't have to work within it. If you can't get that, it isn't illegitimate and you're the one the term "illegitimate" applies to if you choose to refuse to comply. This is the way democracy works. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you personally think are legitimate and which are illegitimate. When a majority of the house passes it into law, and until a court says it is toast, it is the law of the land and if you're a law abiding citizen like we all claim to be, you obey it. You might be working like hell to change that law or the government who passed it, but you still obey it. If you don't, then you're a criminal by definition, and obviously only believe in democracy when it works in your interests. > Civil disobedience is a perfectly reasonable response for protest, in > this case. Sure. But don't confuse civil disobedience with ordinary criminal activity. Civil disobedience means openly violating the law, usually prominently in front of law enforcement personnel, and practically forcing them to arrest you and process you under the law you are protesting through your civil disobedience. If you're going to bury your firearms, hide them in the rafters, etc, you're not engaging in civil disobedience - you're just another criminal. Civil disobedience by those willing to lose all their firearms, their freedom, face lifetime firearms possession bans, etc may well have some effect if enough people are willing to go this route. But simple criminal acts will have no negative effect on the government whatsoever - in fact, quite the opposite. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:43:11 -0600 From: Jim Dowdell Subject: re: Take A Long Look At This If great numbers of gun users register as soon as possible the government will point to this as "proof" that "even gun owners support this legislation". This will prove how popular this law is and give the governmedia the chance to dig deeper in our pockets for the funding required to make it work. A similar thing happened when the great gun round up brought 10 times the anticipated response. The CFD even had some suggestions to turn in rusty junk for the art junk paid in reward. The governmedia fell over themselves with how successful they were in reducing evil guns on the street. Instead if great numbers of firearms users wait till the very end to register then they are protesting the fact of the registry. If many gun owners see this reluctance to register then they may feel confidence in support for NOT registering even after the deadline. Sheep can only be sheared when they follow their masters to the pen. Will you follow your Ottawa masters? Jim Dowdell ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:42:03 -0600 From: "Jim B. Powlesland" Subject: Re: Computer Games On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, "donald slaunwhite" wrote: > ...the number one selling game > for the last few months has > been .... Deer Hunter > Check out I'm getting confused. I couldn't find anything at www.gtinteractive.com but the info at PCData's web site refers to "Deer Hunter (GTInterative)" as #1 for February 1998. While the Deer Hunter claims to be #1 so does Cabela's Big Game Hunter at But Cabela's Big Game Hunter is from Head Games while Deer Hunter is from WizWorks, a subsidiary of GTInteractive Software Inc. What is going on here? Are both games derived from the same source code? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:54:00 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (BC NFA) Subject: Radio Talkshow in Prince George On one side, it was a great success. The other, there was virtually no opposition to me so there wasn't the chance for a good debate. It was the shortest hour I have ever spent, or seemed so. So much information to cover and so little time. For those who are interested, I have requested a copy of the tape. It will take some time for the station to get it to me, however it will be available. Michelle Traver NFA-BC SSAC rmcreat@istar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:16:44 -0600 From: "Andy von Busse" Subject: Alberta Fish and Game C-68 Court Challenge Roger Walker wrote: >My understanding (I invite clarification) is that this >organisation chose to join the C-68 court challenge as an "Intervener." >Is this status like being a third party, more like a witness? I fail to >see why this organisation decided to go through this kind of expense to >present information that could possibly have been (better?) presented >through the Alberta Government in a co-ordinated effort. As the prime individual responsible for the AFGA's intervener application, it was felt important that the courts were presented with the ordinary hunter's point of view in its hearing of the case. Although the Alberta government worked closely with us on this case, they were bringing forward a point of view that involved an infringement on provincial rights, as opposed that of the grassroots firearms owner. We believe we did so well, and were the only organisation other than the Shooting Federation of Canada, which represented the competitive shooters, to do so. Our 15,000 members told us they wanted us to be part of this, and we could not see how we could abrogate that responsibility..... SOMEONE had to represent the ordinary firearms owner. Our discussions with other Wildlife Federations and Responsible Firearm groups from across Canada indicated that they felt our actions were the correct ones, and we have received assistance from many of those groups. Unfortunately, their budgets are limited also, and the vast majority of funding came from members and clubs right here in Alberta.. funding that was spent on behalf of ALL firearms owners in Canada. Those individuals or clubs that wish to assist us in off setting the costs can send donations to: Alberta Fish and Game Association 6924-104 St Edmonton, AB T6H 2L7 Andy von Busse Past President Alberta Fish and Game Association ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:17:13 -0600 From: "Joel Patriquen" Subject: TAKE A LONG HARD THOUGHT..... TAKE A LONG HARD THOUGHT.... I just don't get it. There seems to be a fair amount of support for Mr. Lowe's plan. We are to mail in our registration on day one, how is the system swamped? I get swamped with e-mail from time to time, I don't crash, I just "get around to it when I can", the same with your registation. If you showed up in person to register there would be huge line-ups, but there doors would still close at 5pm and you will be back on day 2, what a waste of time! Okay, now they got all the firearms registered(really they have until 2003 to enter this info, to complete their process), then someone with a .410 single shot shoots someone or something and they BAN .410's, and comes the knock on your door. Then lever action's, then ........ If you register your frame only with your UNKOWN spec's, it will just be a matter of time before you get a letter to bring it in for identification, at you expense, maybe re-registration at your expense. Of course this would happen after the 2003 deadline as not to discourage registration. (of course this would be the only safe way to register) They are laying down the rules, not us, we will have to play by their rules once the game is under way. I've said it before, a un-registered gun will be useless, a registered gun may be confiscated. WE MUST GET A BETTER PLAN! Spread the word, use the media, write your Politician. Joel Patriquen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 21:17:16 -0600 From: JBachyn797 Subject: Re: Take a look at this I had been leening towards the idea of a mass registration on day one from the beginning. First of all there is every indication that the system will crash. Secondly this will ensure the greatest possible cost to the government(remember all those polls that showed massive support for C68, but only if it didn't cost the taxpayers). For those concerned about their valuable firearms I highly recommend registering lengths of pipes as muzzle loaders. Perhaps as an added bonus we could also combine this plan with a refusal to include the requested fees. Will the system ignore these requests? I can't believe they would. The best case senario is that they have to request the funds repeatedly, we then win again by driving the costs up even more. Comments? James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:27:02 -0600 From: Charles Lee Subject: re: officer involved in shooting SharpshotX wrote: >All I have heard about the incident is that the officer was returning fire >after the suspect fired 8 rounds in the direction of the constables. >Considering that the suspect was able to fire this amount of ammo tells me >that she was probably shooting a .22 Do not underestimate the .22 rimfire. I have seen numerous individuals who have been killed by the .22 Long Rifle cartridge, even when fired from handguns. This includes cross-torso shots where the bullet nearly perforated the body, after passing through a few bones, and some vital organs. It doesn't take much to kill someone. Lungs are extremely vascular and bleed like stink even from small wounds. >and that since not one of those 8 rounds >found their target they could very well have been warning shots. It is unreasonable to believe that anyone, whether they are a police officer or not, would consider a shot in their general direction to be a warning shot. Certainly, I would not wait until one of those shots hit me before I returned fire. >Understandably, shooting a firearm at police is a sure way to get killed, but >why did a 9 year old child have to be shot to death? Did the officers have >any consideration about the background of their target? There were about 5 >other children in the house at the time. >From the reports that I have heard, only one shot was fired by the police officer, which passed through the first target and struck the second, killing both. I don't know who was in front of whom. I am _assuming_ that the child was behind the mother. I don't know what handgun the Alberta RCMP uses. I know the Vancouver City police use the Beretta 96D (DAO) chambered for the .40 S&W, and that they use Hydra-Shok hollowpoint ammo. I assume that the RCMP uses something similar. However, even hollowpoint ammo can perforate (over-penetrate) a target and be a threat to anyone downstream. This is indeed an unfortunate incident, and an unnecessary loss of life. However, I don't think criticiziing the officer for the shooting is justified. One can question why the officer was indeed there (my understanding was that the mother threatened a social worker who was there trying to apprehend the children), or whether this situation could have been handled differently from the start. But once the situation started playing out the way it did, I believe the officer had no choice. Basically, it boils down to: She fired. The police officer returned fire. She missed. The officer didn't. ********************* Charles Lee olyar15@rogers.wave.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:27:03 -0600 From: MIKE HARGREAVES Subject: Shooting at Calgary. I have read all the Postings on this RCMP Officer involved incident, and I have to say, if the Officer was doing the smart thing after the shooting, he would not make a statement to anyone, and would demand a Lawyer, and go home!! If the above course of action was taken, no one has a real good idea of what actually happened in this shooting, other than Witness statements, and physical evidence, once the changes that take place in the mind and body, the instant a violent incident starts, have been triggered, the actual shooter might not know much about it either! So, leave it be, till the Court Case, or Inquest hits the Media, then we might! have a better idea of what really took place, { But dont hold your breath!} ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:08:39 -0600 From: mtoma Subject: Law abiding... We should clarify what we mean by law abiding in regards to gun owners. In my experience by law abiding we (as gun owners) do not use our guns for nefarious gain, ie. robbery etc. This is of course a moral issue. Or by law abiding do we (as gun owners) obey when the law requires more and more fees, paperwork restrictions or outlaws our guns, one type after another? When does it stop? Grudgingly giving in to new legislation one piece at a time is still appeasement. The issue here is freedom. Free men own guns, slaves don't. Mike Toma [Moderator: By definition FAC holders fit the first category. They are also inclined to be law abiding in general, so the first reaction is to follow new rules. Whether this is a slave mentality is open to question. HTB] ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #291 **********************************