From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Fri Mar 27 23:21:28 1998 Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (majordomo@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by skatter.USask.Ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA06998; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:21:26 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA09564 for cdn-firearms-digest-out; Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:08:59 -0600 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:08:59 -0600 Message-Id: <199803280508.XAA09564@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f 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 #303 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Status: RO Content-Length: 27136 Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, March 27 1998 Volume 02 : Number 303 In this issue: Early Registration Majority Stuff Re: Minister of Justice Announces Regulations CFC Bulletins Re: C-68 Petition in Adobe Acrobat - Size? Wendy Cukier's misleading statement Re: who's getting to who? NS Election Response to Rick Lowe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:22:58 -0600 From: dons@cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Early Registration > > The liberals do have a majority government and if they can pass > > C-68 surely they can amend the Privacy Act. > > How are you going to amend the Privacy Act and come up with legislation that > says "Everybody can use the Privacy Act except a firearms owner)? Not amend it to exclude firearms owners, amend it to start charging $5 per request, amend it to change "must reply in 30 days" to must reply in 60, 90 days, amend it to...whatever it takes to stop what they will bill as frivolous. I was just talking with another gun owner and he said he tried to do a Privacy Enquiry. He asked his MP multiple times for forms and/or info and hasn't received anything. Is that all it takes to shut/slow down the whole register-early plan? They could probably do this a hundred different ways. "Ooops the enquiry forms were printed out with incorrect wording, we sent them back to the printer", "We ran out of forms they'll be here in two weeks." We continually discuss this as if we're hitting a stationary target, they're not. Don ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:23:10 -0600 From: cougr41@bigfoot.com Subject: Majority Stuff Rick Lowe wrote: (big snip) > Of course, I strongly disagree with what the majority of Canadians > support and > forgive each time the results of a federal election come in, but they > ARE the > majority and to date the status quo is exactly what they want. > > Maybe someday I will be in the minority no longer, but I'm not going > to hold > my breath. Well Rick, I'm in the minority with you. I am an average guy, with an average job. Married with a wife and 2 kids that all told me they loved me this morning prior to work. I have the occasional beer. Drive an average vehicle. Pay my taxes. Do the odd bit of work for the children's clubs. Read the paper on the weekend. Sleep in on Sundays, unless the family drags me to church. Try to keep the house and yard in some semblance of order. Etc., etc... In short, I'm an average Canadian. The again, maybe I'm not. For that matter, maybe you are not. I own a few firearms, I refuse to believe everything the media prints/says, I ask questions, I question authority, I husband my limited financial resources, I work hard at what I do, I expect no outside help for my efforts, I like to shoot the odd coyote, I am very fond of pheasants over Brittany and moose over BBQ, etc. While serving on a ship board exchange with the United States Navy I shared a state room (bunks in a 12' x 10' cabin) with a German exchange officer. He told me that the average Canadian was usually a very well informed, reasonable individual. He also stated the same average Canadian "usually had an opinion, but was afraid to voice it unless it was politically correct, or unless it seemed to benefit the collective"! It used to drive me crazy, arguing this with him. Perhaps he had a more valid point than most of us are willing to admit. On the other side of the coin, perhaps that is why people like Rick and myself are in the minority. Perhaps that is why any Canadian that disagrees with the status quo is viewed with suspicion. Wanna make changes? Get away from that damned computer and get out to that political party meeting. Contact the local paper. Call the local radio and agree / disagree with the invited "expert" on that talk show. Make it a point to "educate" at least one person per day / week. Those of you who are doing something will agree.....those of you who aren't.....prepare to lose your firearms! Look in the mirror....what type of person do you truly see? Flames to personal e-mail, discussion to the Digest please. Bruce Beswick [Moderator: I agree with everything but, "get away from that damned computer." :-) ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:23:49 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Minister of Justice Announces Regulations Mr. Prime Minister, Ms. Minister of Justice, Mr. Abbott, CFC: > MINISTER OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES FINAL REGULATIONS > TO THE FIREARMS ACT Before we go any further, would you folks at the CFC and the Justice Minister explain to me why you continued to use grossly exaggerated RCMP statistics and refused to quit doing so for well over a year? Explain to me why this practice was so pervasive that the Commissioner of the RCMP had to finally write to his opposite number in your department and ask that you cease this practice. Tell me why you allowed this falsified figures to be introduced into a significant court case. Furthermore, in view of your deliberate distribution of false information, how can I be sure of any of the information in the notice? You have knowingly handed out false information at least once before. > "Firearms safety is everyone's concern. These regulations will > help foster a culture of safety across Canada." I was not aware that a safety issue existed with firearms. Please provide me with the figures that show where accidental deaths and injuries due to firearms fall when compared to drowning, falls in the home, auto accidents, etc. If auto accidents cause more injuries and deaths than firearms, will you soon be implementing national programs to enhance the safe ownership, possession, and use of motor vehicles? > The Firearms Regulations were developed following thorough > consultations with firearm users, industry groups and others, > including the Minister's Advisory User Group on Firearms, victims > of violent crime, police, Chief Firearms Officers across Canada, > shooting organizations, women's organizations, health > professionals, and businesses. How many of those groups were represented by people who actually will be personally affected by these regulations - as opposed to being people who made presentations regarding regulations which will only affect OTHER people? How many people such as Ms. Cukier and the Minister of Justice used deliberately falsified figures in those consultations? > "We have consulted extensively with firearm owners and various > groups of stakeholders and have addressed their concerns voiced > through the Standing Committee on Justice", added Minister McLellan. I don't believe this. You people won't even answer my letters and Emails. > "The regulations strike a balance between the interests of firearm > owners and the objective of increased public safety in Canada." Again, please give me the necessary statistics to put the danger firearms pose to members of the public in perspective. Not the bogus cooked up ones - the real ones. Am I more in danger of drowning or being accidentally shot? If drowning is a greater threat, will I shortly have to take swimming lessons or be licensed to go swimming or own a backyard pool? > Stiffer Criminal Code penalties for firearm crimes were > implemented on January 1, 1996. Do you still proceed in about only 15% of all instances when a firearm is used in a crime, or have you finally decided to actually lay this charge? When you won't lay the charge or bargain it away, it doesn't matter how much stiffer you make the penalty; zero times any amount of time is still zero. > The new computerized system will combine licencing data and > firearms registration data on a single system which will, amongst > other things, provide on-line access of firearm information to all > police officers through the Canadian Police Information Centre > (CPIC). Does this mean the police will approach me with drawn guns if they are ever called to my house because my neighbor complains of my dog barking? How am I being protected from police who are more inclined to shoot when they think they are dealing with an armed person? What redress do I have if I am treated with excessive force simply because of a CPIC notification the police received en route to the call? Furthermore, respecting CPIC, it is an extremely old and unreliable system which is frequently down for hours at a time. Is money being spent to upgrade CPIC, if so, who is paying for that? > The legislation also provides for stringent background checks, including > spousal notification for anyone applying for or renewing a firearms > acquisition licence. If I am involved in a bitter separation/divorce and my spouse lies about her concerns, knowing how much I value my shooting recreation, what redress do I have to correct this? Or will the spouse's concerns arbitrarily be taken as fact and I denied an FAC? What redress to I have against this sort of malicious misrepresentation? > This will enhance public safety. Again, I was not aware there was a problem. Please provide me with your figures regarding spousal injuries/deaths and the weapons involved so I can fully appreciate this problem. > To help firearm users understand their new obligations, the > Canadian Firearms Centre(CFC) is developing a plain-language > Guide to the Firearms Act. Will that plain language guide have any force in law? Everything they ever release always has a disclaimer on the bottom that it is not necessarily correct. If it is not correct nor to be relied upon, what good is it? They won't even answer Emails! > the Minister announced a number of modifications which addressed > practical considerations expressed by firearm owners. These are > included in the final regulations made public today. What modification has been put in place to address my concerns re confiscation - - or not even being reimbursed if my belongings are confiscated? What modification has been put in place regarding my concern that the Minister of Justice can do just about anything they want through Order In Council under this act and without debate and approval in the House of Commons? What modification has been put in place to get rid of this legislation if it becomes prhibitively expensive to taxpayers yet we see none of the promised decreases in firearms accidents or firearms crimes? > The verification on transfer of restricted and prohibited firearms > will begin on October 1, 1998. As originally proposed, the > verification of non-restricted shotguns and rifles will take > place only at the time of the first transfer of the firearm to a > new owner on or after January 1, 2003, or if the firearm owner > chooses to do so, on a voluntary basis. Verification on I wish to have verification done with all my firearms, immediately after October 1st, 1998. Please provide the details of how I do this. > individuals will commence October 1, 1998. The creation of a > verifiers network is already underway by the Registrar > of Firearms, in consultation with provincial Chief Firearms > Officers and the User Group. How can I get a list of who these verifiers, businesses, etc are and what they have as qualifications, short of an Access To Information request? > The Registrar of Firearms will have a sufficient number of verifiers in place > on October 1, 1998 to support the registration process. Please detail the registration processes available to me October 1st and who my local verifiers will be. I live in Cranbrook, B.C. Please tell me who the Registrar of Firearms is, their mailing address, and their designated person actually in charge if such a situation exists. > Verification involves the > confirmation of key identifying features of a firearm, such as > the make, the model and serial number, by a knowledgeable person. What are the requirements which make up a "knowledgeable person"? What testing will you be doing to ensure they are indeed as knowledgeable as they claim to be? Who will be selecting these people and what are their qualifications in turn? How do I apply to be a verifier, or am I selected because of political loyalties by local government functionaries? > Registration Certificates > The information appearing on the registration card will be limited > to the firearm owner's licence number. There will be no other information regarding serial number, caliber/gauge, barrel length, action type, etc? > Fees > The Regulations set a bulk rate (maximum rate of $250) for the > transfer of firearms registered by a single beneficiary of an > estate. Yes, but what is the complete fee structure already in place regarding registering now, registering later, one gun at a time, twenty guns at once, etc? > The CFC will work closely with its national and provincial > counterparts involved in tourism to ensure that the firearms > legislation does not have a negative impact on hunting, tourism > or business. How are you going to "ensure" it does not have a negative impact? Are you offering some sort of free insurance to cover lost business, clients, etc? Or are you only going to "attempt" to not have a negative impact. My fiancee's business deals with the US. She has been told by Americans that they will not come up here and support a totalitarian country, so she is losing their business. She is also being told that Canadian firearms owners are appealing to American firearms owners to take both their business and their recreation elsewhere. We are going to lose a large amount of money because of this. How do you propose to reimburse us for these losses? Thank you very much for your expected answer to my concerns. I await the replies in particular of Mr. Chretien and Ms. McLellan Yours, Rick Lowe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:23:01 -0600 From: red rambo Subject: CFC Bulletins It's now a proven fact, anyone who submits a posting to the Firearms Digest, automatically has their E-mail name and address recorded by the FEDS. I just recieved a E-mail notification regarding Final Regulations to the Firearms Act from the CFC. Also I have not given them my e-mail address, so there's only one place they could obtain it. This is considered "SPAM" at its finest, and by our Government. There is also a interesting "Note" at the bottom: The CFC will work closely with its national and provincial counterparts involved in tourism to ensure that the firearms legislation does not have a negative impact on hunting, tourism or business. It is on record that the Manitoba Government will not support or enforce Bill -C68, also, it will literally destroy Manitoba's Tourist Industry, and Competitive USA Shooters and Hunters will not come to CANADA, they will not register their firearms at the border. George Remember your only as good as your first shot! [Moderator: The CFD is a public forum. Posting to the Digest is not a good way to maintain a low profile. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 19:25:17 -0600 From: Kyle & Barbara Berry Subject: Re: C-68 Petition in Adobe Acrobat - Size? Jim asked: >Then why did the mailout package I received from Garry Breitkreuz's M.P. >office contain an 8.5 x 11 letter sized photocopy of the petition? > >Which is the correct offical paper size? Legal or letter? If you have a "shrink to fit" option on your printer driver it will come out on an 8 1/2 X 11" letter size, but things are a little too small for those of us who find our eyes fine, but our arms too short when we try to read. The ones I printed out for the Dawson Creek gunshow went great on the legal (8 1/2 X 14") size. Print easy to read and a proper spacing between the sign up lines. "To me a mountain with grizzlies on it is ten times as interesting as one without." - Jack O'Connor Kyle Berry Dawson Creek, BC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:59:45 -0600 From: Wayne Cooper Subject: Wendy Cukier's misleading statement Thanks for the copy of the RCMP letter. But I must ask is any of this stuff being sent to people who listened and took her information for gospel in the first place? What if anything do you suggest we "the regular folk" do with it? Will the Senate see this? Has it gone to the NFA? The Alberta court system? The Canadian Chief's of Police? Bye the way, who is "someone at somewhere" ? [Moderator: "someone@somewhere" is the pseudonym I use when a poster, who is known to me, request anonymity. I will not use it for anyone who doesn't let me know his name - it is to protect the innocent. Why don't you show your local police the letter? Why not include it in a letter to the editor of your newspaper. Granted, people who promote their agenda by deliberately spreading falsehoods will not be bothered by being found out. For example, the Justice Department has yet to explain why they did this, and surely you do not expect that the CfGC would be concerned about the truth. But there are lots of decent people in the criminal justice system who will be appalled at the way Justice distorted the facts. HTB] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:08:40 -0600 From: "Bill Pernokis" Subject: Re: who's getting to who? No major gun advertisements in the March issue of Canadian Sportsman! The same with the April issue of, Ontario Out of Doors! Are we now fighting two fronts? An explanation sure would help. I like fishing, but, lets have some gun material from advertisers. Under the present circumstances I don't need any of these magazines, and I will most likely let it be known to the NFA and the OFAH. I will still remit my annual dues though. Under the circumstances the point blank newsletter is good enough for me. Maybe I am wrong in what I am thinking,but something looks fishy to me! If the magazine is not accepting advertisements, fine, drop them. If its the gun manufacturers, fine also, don't buy from them. But, what is it? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:08:41 -0600 From: Mark Hughes Subject: NS Election The Media are calling Dr. John Ham (PC Leader) the "King Maker" after the outcome of the election. With both the Lib and NDP being tied. Ham is on record as being opposed to C-68 and the Firearms Registry, reportedly estimated to cost the NS Government $2 Million to implement. (likely a lot more than that). His Riding is heavily populated by avid Firearms owners, so he's likely to stick to this if he wishes to keep that seat. The NDP will be under pressure to oppose it as well, since they promised more money to Health Care, etc and will be looking for the government to spend more money there, as promised, not on the Registry which only drains limited resources away. I plan on writing them soonest, as I am in a Local Union with many Firearms owners, a lot of which are NDP supporters. I shall be bringing this to their attention! It is said in the Media that MacLellan, No.2 Man under Rock, was the BIG _loser_ in this election...They say he _CAN'T DO ANYTHING_ without cooperation from the other parties. He's not going to be able to pass a budget with any reference to a Firearms Registry Cost in it at all!!! :-) So far the Conservative and NDP Leaders are even refusing to meet MacLellan in requested audiences...It is also said that while the PC's and NDP are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, they did campaign with similar objectives, so long as they don't look like there are losing politically, they are very much likely to work together _against_ MacLellan if he strays were they don't like... :-) So far everyone seems quite happy with a minority government so far, except the politicians, we figure we may just get that "Good government" we've been hearing about for 130 years ;-) In Summary: The Gun Registry looks snagged in the Herring Nets down here folks...now to make sure it gets good and CHOKED! ;-) Mark ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:08:57 -0600 From: margus@interlog.com (Margus Jukkum) Subject: Response to Rick Lowe >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 19:41:56 -0600 >From: Rick Lowe >Subject: Take A Look At This > >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. > I guess it's not for everyone. Basically I refuse to let some bureaucrat dictate what I can own or build or shoot. When I first started shooting around 1980 I just missed out on the full auto permits. I've had a serious complex ever since. Are you suggesting I can't indulge in a little rock and roll if I really want to and if sensible precautions are taken? I've shot matches in other provinces in this country, travelled by plane, train, bus, and car. People at times have asked to glance at the paperwork. Invariably they haven't a clue as to what they are looking at. At the matches themselves judges will weigh triggers and take the dimensions of a gun but no one has ever asked if I have a transport permit or if I even own the gun I'm shooting, never mind if it's registered or not. The only time I've seen credentials being checked are at P.P.C. matches and they're checking out the shooter not the gun. At club nights who's going to ask? In almost 20 years of active competitive shooting I've never been asked on a range if the particular gun I'm shooting or the other one in my box is registered. I think the new reality Bill C-68 will create is that most people will have two gun collections. One that is open to public scrutiny and one that is shared within a select circle of friends. >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. A lifetime prohibition? Who are you kidding!! Downtown Toronto people are flogging all kinds of stuff.Negligble collector value as serial numbers are usually ground off but quite often new in the box. Never heard anyone getting refused because they have a lifetime firearms prohibition I suppose if I ever did end up in jail it wouldn't be for any considerable length of time. This is after all Canada and the penal system is more about rehabilitation than punishment. Who knows, I could do another post secondary degree and I'm sure it would introduce new and different career opportunites. After all I'm sure there's money to be made in teaching criminals about arms and ordnance. The last car I blew up was for a T.V. commercial. I'm not sure if my wiring is up to current I.R.A. standards but I'm sure in another league than the Rock Machine and Hell's Angels. > >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. C-68 will create an official market where everything new is registered. Even I accept that. There will however be a large grey and black market. > >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. I don't think the government is going to thank me. They're scared witless. Two years ago I was having a conversation with a Toronto area Liberal M.P. She visibly blanched when I said I would take any firearm they requested for confiscation to Regent Park with a few thousand rounds of ammunition and auction it off to the crack dealers there rather than hand it in. This was not meant as a joke and it certainly highlighted the general breakdown of trust and social communication between myself as a gunowner and an urban member of the federal Liberal government. > >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. Only if they're dumb enough to admit to the police they had unregistered firearms that were stolen. 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. I've always had a firmly held belief that there's two people you always lie to. Your wife and the police. 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. These things usually go in waves. I'm sure when full registration kicks in there is going to be heightened scrutiny of gunowners and police are certainly going to need a crop of statutory criminals to justify their budgets with their political masters. But who's to say how long this wave of repression and detailed examination of documents is going to last before it becomes routine and then finally by in large ignored. Finally for the Justice Department and CFC lurkers a few words by Charles Young a writer for Precision Shooting and Tactical Shooter culled from a message he authored on the Fullbore List just last month: "The most dishonest man, and the most treacherous to his like fellows, is the man who, for personal gain, spies upon his peers on behalf of a government that is so corrupt that it cannot trust its own citizens to be free, for fear of losing power. "Tax collectors we can tolerate, and policemen when they perform their role of crime-fighting, but we shall never tolerate or admire those men and women who work so studiously for government agencies whose objectives include the suppression of the people, and the reduction of their freedoms. "We mostly despise those men because they, having the inner knowledge of what they are doing, know what they are doing, and know that it is against the interests of the freedom of the people." Margus Jukkum, Toronto. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #303 **********************************