From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Apr 1 07:13:44 1998 Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:57:18 -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 #317 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Content-Length: 29178 X-Lines: 696 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, April 1 1998 Volume 02 : Number 317 In this issue: Re: Registering, false statements and grinding serial #'s Re: Frame Registn. Mini-14, FAC? Re: "Two Inches at Seven Yards"?? Buying Powder Re: Barrel Length Calibre... Re: Early Registration Re: Early Registration bores 'n stuff Re: Customs versus K&McM Armed and Dangerous on a Saturday Night. Information... Ontario C68 debate Early Registration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:05:16 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: Registering, false statements and grinding serial #'s >>It occured to me that some may be opening themselves up for prosecution >>with the "Make: UNKNOWN" declaration. I know that Dave has been advocating >>against filling this for fear of running up against those funny scenarios >>where the maker isn't really the one stated on the piece but given as how >>the judge gets to decide whether you knowingly made a false statement or >>not, how could someone in good conscience write down UNKNOWN for a rifle >>that clearly says Winchester right on it ? > >Er... WHICH "Winchester" would that be? The Winchester factory and name >have been owned by several DIFFERENT companies, and quite a few Winchester >guns -- their over and under shotguns, for example, have been MARKED >"Winchester" -- but MADE elsewhere -- fr example, in Japan. Do YOU know all >the ins and outs of Winchester production from the 1860s up to 1998? I >certainly don't. > And if its a new "Winchester", then its not really a Winchester at all. "Winchester" is a trade marked name owned by Olin Corporation (who make Winchester ammunition and components). "Winchester" firearms are currently made by US Repeating Arms (USRAC) (except for the o/u shotguns). USRAC was owned by GIAT in France (along with Browning). They are now both owned by FN in Belgium, which was almost sold to Colt, but now apparently has been purchased by a Belgian munincipal or state government to keep it out of foreign hands. So when you register your Winchester Model 70, what will you put down for make or manufacturer: Winchester, USRAC, FN, the Belgian government or its taxpayers? Or how about Browning, who apparently doesn't make any guns at all? (They are all manufactured by sub-contractors of a sort) - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:05:19 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Frame Registn. >Do you recall which CFD issue contained your [DAT] detailed explanation of >Frame- >only registration, and which one had your suggestions for changing existing >conventional (i.e. risky) registrations to Frame only? Sorry, no. I lost a great deal of archive material last week in a hard drive crash. Sugggest you put out a query on CFD, and someone will tell you. Dave... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:05:23 -0600 From: anthony moniz Subject: Mini-14, FAC? Can anyone tell me what the new Firearms regulations mean with respect to my ownwership status of the ruger ranch rifle model mini-14 ? It came standard with a 5 round clip . If I need to renew my FAC which expired last nov/97 what new hoops do I have to jump through now ? Please advise soonest , Thanks in Advance ! Anthony j. Moniz amoniz@direct.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 23:05:23 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: "Two Inches at Seven Yards"?? >I understand that the NFA has course material for beginning handgun >shooters entitled "Two Inches at Seven Yards". If this is true, could you >please inform me how I may acquire it. This short course tells an Instructor how to teach a non-shooter to shoot a 2-inch group at seven yards with a .22 handgun -- or a non-shooter can use it to teach himself or herself to do that. Send a SSAE to NFA, Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 with a note asking for it. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:05 -0600 From: Lonn Moen Subject: Buying Powder I just bought some powder for reloading and I had to sign a sheet specifying how much of what I bought. Is this a C-68 thing or just Wholesale Sports' new policy. I've bought powder there a month ago and didn't have to sign. If this is just new policy of WS, I'm sure they'll lose a lot of customers like me! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:11 -0600 From: Patrick Dubois Subject: Re: Barrel Length >[Moderator: The chamber is part of the barrel length on a bolt action, >lever action or semi-auto (rifle, shotgun or pistol), but not on a >revolver. Go figure. HTB] Actually, the 'chamber' of a revolver consists of the cylinder, which is not directly attached to the barrel of the revolver. On any semi auto or bolt action firearm the chamber is fixed and can not be easily removed, hence it could be considered part of the barrel length. Just my two cents.... - -- Patrick Dubois ICQ #1873717 Bishop's Rifle Club. Lennoxville, Qc Canada. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:18 -0600 From: starwind@ibm.net Subject: Calibre... Ok, it is late, I am tired, so please excuse any typoes which are about to follow!! :) And dancing on pin is soooo much fun just after midnight [the best time of course for such dancing!! :) ]. Someone asked about "calibre" and what exactly is ussed to determine the calibre of a firearm. Well, last semester I took a fourth year university course called "Forensic Biology/Anthropology" and part of the course dealt with firearms and toolmark analysis. Among other things, a widely regarded forensic firearms expert came and spoke with our class. I'd have to dig up my notes to find out his name, but what he said corresponded with what our textbook said, so I am going to quote the textbook, with one exception. The following quoted information comes from "Criminalistics: an introduction to forensic science", 6th edition, by Richard Saferstein. It is published by Simon & Schuster, and is copyright 1998 [yeah, yeah, and we used it from September - December 1997 :)) ]. According to our professor, it is considered *the* intro textbook on criminalistics. It is also an epensive hardcover book; so I will quote you the stuff so nobody has to go out and buy it, even supposing you could find it :))) Ok, so, onto "calibre"... < ... signifies that I have clipped text > First of all, some basic barrel manufacturing information. From page 467 we find: "The gun barrel is produced from a solid bar of steel that has been hollowed out by drilling... The manufacture of a barrel requires the additional step of impressing its inner surface with grooves, a step known as rifling. The surfaces of the original bore remaining between the grooves are called lands... As a fired bullet travels through a barrel, it engages the rifling grooves; these grooves will then guide the bullet through the barrel, giving it a rapid spin. This is done because a spinning bullet will not tumble end over end on leaving the barrel but will remain instead on a true and accurate course." Onto calibre, also page 467: "The diameter of the gun barrel, ... , measured between opposite lands, is known as the calibre of the weapon. Calibre is normally recorded in hundredths of an inch or in millimeters--for example, .22, .38, and 9 mm. Actually, the term caliber, as it is commonly applied, is not an exact measurement of the barrel's diameter; for example, a 38 (.38 inches) caliber weapon might actually have a bore diameter that ranges from 0.345 to 0.365 inches." Note the use od "term caliber, as it is commonly applied" which suggests that there is a technical, "proper" use of the word, and then the common use that most people use when referring to firearms [eg. my Glock 23 has a caliber of .40; well, I bet if I were to get out some calipers and actually measuer the bore diameter it would not be .40 inches; so is there is a "real" caliber, and then a "common" caliber??? And what does the Registration form want???????? How is one to know?? "UNKNOWN" sounds good to me!!! :)) Heh... and those .25 's and .32 that they are going to ban?? Well, dig out your caliper and find that it isn't exactly .25 or .32 inches; so does that mean that a gun whose "real" caliber is not that diameter isn't prohibited under C-68? Oh, we could dance on the head of a pin; or in this case, a caliper :))) Anyone know if "caliber" in PROPER usage [e.g. scientifically] refers to the bore diameter and NOT the numebr commonly used to describe the gun???? Some interesting info, with regard to the forensic analysis of bullets; p.473-374 "Frequently, the firearms examiner is presented with a spent bullet without any accompanying suspect weapon and is requested to provide information with regard to the caliber and possible make of the weapon. If a bullet appears not to have lost its metal, its weight may be one factor in determining the caliber. In some instances, the number of lands and grooves, the direction of the twist, and the widths of the lands and grooves are useful class characteristics for eliminating certain makes of weapons from consideration. For example, a bullet that has five lands and grooves and twists to the right could not have come from a weapon manufactured by Colt, because Colts are not manufactured with these class characteristics. ... In this respect, the FBI maintains a record known as the General Rifling Characteristics File. This file contains listings of class characteristics, such as land and groove width dimensions, for known weapons. It is periodically updated and distributed to the law enforcement community to aid in the identification of rifled weapons from retreived bullets." Ok, so, in order to register my firearms, I have to put "unknown" in many of the spaces [as per other discussions on this list], especially since I don't have access to the above database and the technology required to do the counts so that I might be able to better identify the manufacturer, etc. of my firearms,... right? :) Now the book moves into shotguns, on page 474: "Unlike rifled firearms, a shotgun has a smooth barrel. It therefore follows that projectiles passing through a shotgun barrel will not be impressed with any characteristic markings that can later be related back to the weapon. <> Shotguns generally fire small lead balls or pellets contained within a shotgun shell. ... By weighing and measuring the diameter of the shot recoverd at a crime scene, the examiner can usually determine the size of shot used in the shotshell. The size and shape of the recovered wad may also reveal the guage of the shotgun used and, in some instances, may indicate the manufacturer of the fired shotshell." The book then continues, also on page 474: "The diameter of the shotgun barrel is expressed by the term gauge. The higher the gauge number, the smaller the barrel's diameter. For example, a 12-gauge shotgun has a bore diameter of 0.730 inches as contrasted to 0.670 inches for a 16-gauge shotgun. The exception to this rule is the .410-gauge shotgun, which refers to a barrel 0.410 in diameter." The footnote to the word gauge reads (P. 474): "Originally, the number of lead balls with the same diameter as the barrel would make a pound. For example, a 20-gauge shotgun is one having an inside diameter equal to the diameter of a lead ball that weighs 1/20 of a pound." So, wheere it asks caliber of a shotgun, should one enter "none"?? :) Finally, the section talks about the automated computer programs that can assist with bullet comparisson and identification [scan in the image and they compare away...]. Anyhow, I hope that answered some people's questions, and that I didn't bore too many of the rest of you!! 'Sides, this is a nice exercise after getting A's on both midterms I took today! :))) SW. - -- Starwind System Administrator, Khijol starwind@ibm.net Moderator, CWEWAF-L Co-Founder, Canadian Women Educating Women About Firearms ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:29 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Early Registration >Regarding Dave Tomlinson's comments on early registration: >Henry Vanwyck of the Canadian Firearms Center attended the March meeting of >the Algoma Rod and Gun Club. The transfer process will go something like this. >The 2 parties involved in the transfer call a toll free number and identify >themselves with their firearms licence number. The firearm to be >transferred is identified and seller receives an authorization number >permitting the transfer. The buyer also receives an authorization number >which enables him to take possession at that time. >Transfer fee is charged to a credit card. The buyer receives registration >card for the firearm at a later date. Sorry. That transaction, as described, violates the FA s. 23, 27 and 31 requirements up down and sideways. Anyone who uses it commits criminal offences. Stop listening to bureaucrats and READ the LAW. Bureaucrats are NOT trustworthy. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:32 -0600 From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Subject: Re: Early Registration >Henry Vanwyck of the Canadian Firearms Center attended the March meeting of >the Algoma Rod and Gun Club. The transfer process will go something like this. >The 2 parties involved in the transfer call a toll free number and identify >themselves with their firearms licence number. The firearm to be >transferred is identified and seller receives an authorization number >permitting the transfer. The buyer also receives an authorization number >which enables him to take possession at that time. >Transfer fee is charged to a credit card. The buyer receives registration >card for the firearm at a later date. > How about it Henry? Is this true? Will I be able to buy a handgun, register it on the spot & then take it home? Can I have this in writing? - -keith Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng - NFA Field Officer kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:34 -0600 From: Jim Smith Subject: bores 'n stuff >So is it .22, or 5.56 or is it actually .2226" or 5.55644mm or.... >Everyone, get out there and slug the barrels and get a really fine >micrometer. Oh, and is it *land* or *groove* diametre (what calibre is my >.303 really!) > my land diameter guages show 4 Different diameters for 303 They are safely locked up with the guns so Kimmy and one or two other old maids will sleep better, but if you want I'll have a look and give you folks the exact #'s! Jim Smith: The oldest name in trouble (shooting that is) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:45:38 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Customs versus K&McM >I heard a rumour that the head of Customs was recently removed from his >job, alledgedly as a result of the K & McMurchy debacle and that all the >goods seized illegally (again) in Montreal were immediately released. >Does this means that the multi million dollar lawsuit will increase as a >consequence? Yes, that has apparently happened -- at least, we have been told that Alan Cocksedge has disappeared and his office has been cleared out. Yes, it went up from $10 million to $12 million -- and possibly more. We're working on it. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:57:03 -0600 From: PATHJM Subject: Armed and Dangerous on a Saturday Night. Definite must read for everybody on this digest; "Armed and Dangerous" in the April 1998 issue of Saturday Night Magazine. Details the increasing use of SWAT teams and tactical units in everyday police work, with chilling first hand accounts from some of those on the receiving end of these little police boo boo's. With C68, we all face this prospect now. SWAT teams will be used to enforce C68, and these guys will know you have a gun, 'cause it's registered. Your chances of coming out alive are 50/50, or if you believe this article, 60/40 and not in your favor. The message seems to be; do not get up and confront anybody who breaks into your home late at night, because it might be the police. What the hell is happening to this country? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:57:06 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Information... Wally Butts said: > About two years ago, after Wendy & Co sent massive packages of > letters (copied to her by the Justice Department), that supported her > version of Gun Control, to all of the newly elected MPP's in Ontario. My Copies of private letters sent to an MP? Too bad one of my letters wasn't in there; the government isn't legally entitled to just blithly send your private communications off to whoever they might think would like to read them. I think I would find it necessary to take exception to my private letters being shared with all and sundry. > local MPP subsequently sent a letter to then Justice Minister A. Rock > requesting copies of all letters from those opposed to C-68. In that the > "Pro" letters carried the Justice Dept fax logo, the MPP felt that we had > the right to hear the opinions of the other side. Don't think the MPP had a right to view those letters, although that sounds a little ridiculous after the Minister had handed over stacks of private mail for general distribution - we're not talking about petitions here, right? > So much for anyone's theory that a minister has to respond to a citizen's > letter, if he won't even respond to an elected MPP. I've never had a problem getting an answer, myself. If I don't get an answer in what I think is an appropriate length of time, my next letter goes to the party whip with a copy of the original letter - and "cc'd" to the appropriate Opposition critic. That hasn't failed yet. On the other hand, I usually "cc" all my correspondence to my MP and to the appropriate Opposition critic. I suspect that cuts a lot of problems off at the pass. > Good golly!! maybe an Access to Information Act request for copies of ALL of > the letters sent to Rock that opposed C-68 might be in order. After all, > they did supply copies of "Pro C-68" letters to Wendykins (and we have a > set to prove it!). I think you will find the Privacy Act will protect a lot of that stuff, not to mention once you've got your $10 worth of photocopying, it will get pretty pricey. Petitions would of course be fair game... Now if EVERYBODY asked for their $10 worth... but only the Privacy Act is free. On another subject, I see the Reform Party took another step forward in gaining power so they can free us from C-68 by losing yesterday's byelection to a Liberal candidate. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Preston to come save me at this rate. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:57:14 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: Ontario C68 debate Reform MP, Jack Ramsay, and an Ontario MP from Burlington, Ont. were shown on CPAC prior to last weeks debate which was held in Burlington. The Liberal MP stated, on CPAC, "that C68 was important to show Canadians we were diferrent than Americans, that it was a "cultural thing", that Americans have the "right" to own guns, but Canadians have a "privilege". As this is next to Sheila Copps riding, I almost cried. Is this the best the Liberals can come up with? Hamilton/Burlington area has a lot of shooters/hunters upset with C68. If it were not so serious, it would be funny. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 06:57:14 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Early Registration David J. Wiebe said: > As I tried to make clear, Rick, it is a bit dream-like in that you get to > obey the law (do as you are told, comply) and still get the government to > bend to your desires. Can you show me any instance where the government has NOT had to comply with the Privacy Act? They have to, and that is no dream. As I have mentioned before, it took them years and millions in legal fees to eventually shut down Olson's ongoing and malicious use of the Privacy Act. And is it not a fact that the government abandoned previous attempts to simply verify records they already had, because the effort of taking such a task on simply overwhelmed them? > I know that twenty million records sounds like a lot of data, but really, > it isn't. No, it's not - once it is there. How long does it take to decipher individual handwriting setting out the data on each of those individual records and then key that data in. Let's say about a minute to process the whole thing, and I think you would be dreaming to get that kind of speed when you consider handling the paper, reading handwriting, and whatnot. Figure everybody works remarkably consistently, hour after hour, day after day, without a single glitch to slow them down. Let's also ignore any other work that that office normally is doing when firearms registration is going on. Take three weeks off the work year for holidays, sick, etc. A little really rough head math says that it will take 174 man years at one per minute just to enter this data. Spread that over five years, it's not too bad. Stick it into one year, add interruptions to retrieve personal data, the fact that the "normal" work of the Department can't stand still just for firearms registration to go on straight for an entire year... well, it really isn't that simple. > for Income tax, CPP, EIC, etc. Consider what similar software systems must > be like in the US. I have a database here that contains over 22 million Show me one that started up overnight, had data entry personnel who had normal duties to keep up with while doing so, and had extensive data retrieval requests working against the system at the same time it was trying to start up. Stuff that has been developing and growing at an organized pace for the last thirty years bears little equivilent to what the government bit off with this one. > you're not playing with some serious power. Don't think for a moment that > the technology and the ability to do this job doesn't exist. In case you I have no doubt that it can and it will. Particularly if we are obliging enough to wait five years to give them the time to get things up and running at a nice leisurely rate. > are worried about the parallel, this is a tracking system that I am talking > about, and it has never crashed. Did this tracking system start up overnight with millions of entries and little beta testing, with all data entry done by hand from hand written, not printed information? Was this tracking system subject to intensive data retrieval of the original, handwritten information and confirmation of same while trying to start up? Your mention of tracking systems reminds me of Dave's reminders to us of what happened in the past when FRAS tried to simply confirm the data they already had on file. That was essentially a tracking system as well, with less than a million records at the time, and they couldn't even verify what they already had. > Chaos doesn't necessarily preclude success. Certainly doesn't help it a lot; particularly in a beaurocracy staffed by low paid data entry clerks. > The Alaska Highway was tough to build too. Are you suggesting that the nation is as mobilized about gun control as they were about the Alaska Highway? During the war the phrase was "At ANY cost". Regarding gun control, the public has said, "As long as it DOESN'T cost..." > If the Liberals can one day *say* that it has saved a life or aided in > capturing a criminal, they will be able to justify the system to > the public at any cost and it will, indeed, have become a success. Yes. If we don't bother to point out what that money would have bought in the way of medical research, health care, and all the other programs that did without to save that single life, and the lives that were lost because of that. > There will not be a problem with the system (the hardware or the software). The people working in the system say there will be, and I suspect they know it better than any of us here. I don't find that particularly surprising - government employees and contractors have never been able to get FRAS working properly nor CPIC to be anywhere near reliable. I don't see any indication their track record is going to miraculously improve with this one. > a. We can't get seven million people to agree to this plan. It is a > completely unreasonable goal. What is the minimum we need? At what point does it cease to work? What is the more reasonable goal? That we can put Manning in office before 2003? Reform just lost the byelection here in BC. Assuming that we could put him in power, would he toss firearms legislation if it would cost him power in the next election because public opinion across Canada was opposed to this action? Want to bet on his success and word after that. Aside from the recent byelection, have there been any bingo games in Stornaway lately? How about the courts? Are they our more reasonable goal? If C-68 is ultra vires or violates the Charter, why haven't we brought the case before them already that will kill it? If the Alberta challenge succeeds, then perhaps, depending on the ruling, this won't matter anyway. But if the Alberta challenge fails, is it reasonable to assume that we will win again at a later date? Are you aware that, historically, the Supreme Court of Canada NEVER reverses itself? > We can't do this because the end result is exactly what they want! The immediate result of overload isn't exactly what they want. Giving them lots of time to get things working, excuses for why crime isn't dropping, and hiding firearms so they don't have the cost of registering is what they are hoping for. > REGISTRATION. We have to fight this. Compliance, regardless of the cost to > the Liberal party image and the Canadian pocketbook, is not an option! And the alternate is what? If they have the support from the public (one which this system isn't costing a dime just as promised) to ban registered firearms, then they have the support to ban firearms which are unregistered and, in addition, obviously in the hands of criminals who are disobeying the law. The end result is the same. And will those with firearms squirreled away be loud and vocal about this and possibly draw attention to themselves? I think not. So it will get a lot quieter around here. That makes us less visable. We have to fight it, indeed. But if Preston and the courts don't come through, and you haven't killed the registration, then you're going to have exactly two options. Comply or become a criminal. The strategy we have available to us now is not going to exist in a couple of years. > Rick, are you sure we can't organize a few thousand people to march on the > Hill? Hell there has to be a few thousand of us that live near the hill > (relatively speaking). This would be a legal protest! No problem for a > bunch of gungrabbers to go out there! What the hell are we sitting around > for???? I think we should do things like that as much as possible. But if you can organize that many people to take all the trouble to drive to Ottawa, hang around in a crowd, etc, then you shouldn't have any problem getting people to do a couple of minutes paperwork in their own home. > You are the one that keeps talking about the effectiveness of the > "democratic" system in Canada. Let's go out there and tell those twits that > the people of Canada do not want this law and that we will not comply! I never said it was effective. I never even said I liked it. What I said is that we all get a single vote, he with the most votes wins the seat, and those with the most seats in the House get to make the rules. I also said that while they are legally in power, until a judge says otherwise, legislation they pass IS the law and IS legitimate. And I'm not going to tell anybody that I'm above firearms law any more than I'm going to tell them I'm above drug laws or any other kind of firearms legislation that has been passed. The only valid reason for telling people that is if you have the courage for civil disobedience, and I for one am not going to stick my neck out that far. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #317 **********************************