From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Thu Jun 11 19:16:41 1998 Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by skatter.USask.Ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA17188; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:16:37 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA30640; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:05:28 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:05:28 -0600 Message-Id: <199806120105.TAA30640@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 #431 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 X-Status: X-UID: 1324 Content-Length: 25172 Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, June 11 1998 Volume 02 : Number 431 In this issue: Fw: CFD V2 #430 Why Do We Need Bear Attack Advice Fw: Some Quote Seen..., Fw: Buy and Sell Policy Fw: Killing Canadians in Quebec with Full Autos Fw: Tatics Should Support a Strategy Fw: Begging for Exposure Fw: Prohibition Hearing Fw: What Happened to Can.Talk.Guns Fw: Gov"t Treatment Fw: Can the RCMP Do This ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:48:18 edt Subject: Fw: CFD V2 #430 Why Do We Need From: BChow2or81@aol.com The letter inquiring why we need big mags, etc, was from a U.S. citizen and resident. The reference to the Constitution was for his benefit. He happens to be my brother, so I waxed a bit over-enthusiastic and forgot the auto/semi- auto distinction, etc., (we've been having a prolonged and heated, but friendly, discussion re these and related subjects for a long time). I must digress for a minute. About 2 years ago, my brother finally took good advice and went into a local dealer, got some competent coaching and decided to purchase a pistol, and the necessary local licence. (He sent me his targets and they were awesome!) By coincidence, the media showed up at that point to do a story about gunshops, and guess who his wife saw on TV that evening? He forfeited the licence fee and still doesn't have a pistol. He can't bring himself to refute her argument that he's safer without one, although he's a natural in shooting! Back to our subject - Thanks for reminding me of the facts. Enthusiasm is no excuse for my forgetting the basics! "Wouldn't it be loverly" if our political leaders had the kind of peer review we are so fortunate to have in this Digest. (As if they would heed it !!) ... Bud. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:37:03 edt Subject: Bear Attack Advice From: lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca The July, 1998 edition of Canadian Living has an article describing a bear attack in Algonquin Park. One child was injured. The councilors had been warned by park rangers that there was a bear at one of the portages. This group camped near the trap set for the bear at the end of a portage. During the night, a bear entered their camp, clawed into a tent, and mauled a child. The councilors ran to the canoes and got paddles to fight off the bear and save the childs life. The article goes on to mention comments by Dan Strickland, chief park naturalists for Algonquin Park. He said "Chances of coming up against a bear like this are more remote than being struck by lightning or being gunned down in a restaurant." Advice given to handle a bear attack: "Always keep a long stick or paddle beside you when you sleep." and "keeping a knife beside you to cut your way out of the tent." No mention of using a firearm, the traditional means of dealing with an aggressive bear, was made. Much of the grief and injury to the child may have been avoided had these folks chosen a campsite which wasn't near where there was a known problem bear. Also a firearm, had one been present, would have cut the bear attack very short as even the noise of a gunshot is enough to startle a bear and change its activity. I think the comment about "being gunned down in restaurants" is at best ludicrous. I would suspect the number of bear attacks in Alberta far out number the number of individuals "gunned down" or even threatened by individuals in restaurants. This statistic may be true of downtown Toronto where bears are very rare. lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca Peace River, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:49:55 edt Subject: Fw: Some Quote Seen..., From: "Jean-Francois Avon" Here is an interesting one, from one US author unknown: "The three boxes of freedom: the ballot box, the soap box and the ammo box" Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds (Montreal), Canada Unregistered Firearms in the hands of honest citizens: Liberty's Teeth Strong Cryptographic tools in the hands of honest citizens: Liberty's Voice He who beats his sword into a ploughshare will get coerced to plow for those who don't... PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 06:17:16 edt Subject: Fw: Buy and Sell Policy From: rmcreat@istar.ca (BC NFA) >I know there have been items in past on the digest/chat about the Buy & >Sell Press, but I wonder if anything further can/should be done? > >Our Lower Mainland (BC) issue has the following printed in their #730 - >Hunting Equipment category: > >"PLEASE NOTE OUR POLICY - Buy & Sell Press, at its discretion, reserves >the right to limit the advertisement of guns in this section to rifles >and standard shotguns only; Buy & Sell Press shall within its discretion >refuse to advertise any ad relating to handguns or similar types of >guns." > >What do you think folks? I have sent my own e-mail to this publication >questioning their policy, but perhaps others could be sent as well? > >They have a web site at: www.buysell.com > >Kali NFA-BC has suggested an on-going Boycott of the Buy and Sell becuase of the response we got from the administration. Bottom line is that they say if they advertise handguns they would be contributing to the black-market trading of hanguns. We have informed them that if their concern was to catch the "criminal element", they would encourage advertisements in the paper. Anyone buying or selling illegally through this publication would instantly be found out. They continue to refuse. Michelle Traver SSAC NFA-BC rmcreat@istar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 06:16:12 edt Subject: Fw: Killing Canadians in Quebec with Full Autos From: Ken Pisichko Cpl. Lortie did not use a M16A2. This is the US designation of a US military rifle. Cpl. Lortie who was stationed at CFS Carp (just NW of Ottawa) took Canadian built 9mm SMGs (one or two, I cannot remember) and a supply of 9mm ammo and did his thing at the legislative building in Quebec City. These SMGs are full auto and are issued to units who use vehicles a lot and who are also in buildings. CFS Carp is a Communications facility and because of this the SMGs were standard issue to personnel there (along with the Browning HP (9mm pistol). The Canadian version of the M16 series was just being phased in when Cpl. Lortie did his thing. This weapon/firearm is useless in close quarter defense (as in buildings etc) Ken in Winnipeg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 06:22:37 edt Subject: Fw: Tatics Should Support a Strategy From: Larry James Fillo In the Digest #415 on May 26, David Tomlinson wrote " No, I >personally went to Ottawa a couple of times (at their expense) to try and >help clean up some of the major problems in the old firearms safety >course, but the NFA and I both refused to take any payment above and >beyond actual expenses for my assistance." While I agree errors in the Federal Firearms Safety course have needed correction I question the tactic of assisting an organization, the Canadian Firearms Centre, whose "raison d'etre" is to exterminate our constitutional rights and cultural heritage. This is an example of why we should have 'no truck nor trade' with the Federal government on firearms regualtions. For the past four year, and until C-68 is proclaimed, we have not been legally obligated to do so regarding the content of the Federal Firearms Safety Course! Please note the following quote from the Criminal Code of Canada: "Section 106(2)part(c)fails to produce evidence in conjunction with his applicationfor a firearms aacquistion certificate that he has (i)successfully completed a course in, or a test relating to the safe handling and use of and the laws relating to firearms, that was approved for the purposes of this section by the Attorney General of the province in which he took the course or test is administered, (ii) been certified by a firearms officer, in circumstances prescribed by regulation, as meeting the criteria of competence in the safe handling and use of firearms and the laws relating to firearms prescribed by regulation. excerpted from Martin'sCriminal Code, 1993 The above, (part of Kim Campbell's C-17) excerpt "that was approved for the purposes of this section by the Attorney General of the provicne in which the course or test is administered, meansthat the appropriate pressure for correction should have been placed on each and every provincial government not on the federal one. It is their responsibility as outlined in the Criminal Code. It is the federal government who is ursrping provincial jurisdiction with the federal course. In Febuary of 1994 I stood up at the Sask. Wildlife Federation annual meeting and read this quote outloud and caused a near riot. It took some time for the Justice Department of Saskatchewan to admit it had jurisdiction. This section was also how many have been able to take the challenge exam and have been able to avoid taking the flawed and in someplaces expensive Federal Firearms Safety Course. Fighting Ottawa, alone as citizens, gunowners or not, is seldom a successful strategy. It reminds me of the famous poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade". It did not work against campbell's C-17 and has not worked against C-68. Note that the while all the opposition parties fought valiantly on behalf of the Hepatitis C victims the Chretien and the little Rock, arrogantly refused to budge. Only when Ontario Premier Mike Harris stood up to Chretien's abuse and went toe to toe, besting him politically and morally did the Liberal's retreat. The Hep C victims had a champion with real power. Soon after Quebec and British Columbia joined with Ontario and then their were three. This is a political lesson for us all. Presently, we are ruled by a system of "Executive Federalism". All power lies in the hands of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Individual MPs, as we have just seen in the Hep C vote, under the Liberal's are forbidden from representing either their own conscience or their constituents. Chretien's support for 'Civilian Disarmament' is more than just prejudice against rural Canadian culture. There is an arrogant abuse of power from the feds. Make no mistake this is about more than gun control. Chretien also curries favour with Bill Clinton who wishes to use the Canadian government's C-68 as a model for the United States. Both in Australia and in the United States firearms are mainly under the control of indinidual states. Citizens have notable successes resisting the federal incursions into their jurisdiction. Here the only strategy which has had significant success is that of using the provincial governments to fight Ottawa on our behalf. 1. Provincial governments, even little P.E.I. have more power than all the Federal opposition parties combined. They have full time lawyers, part of whose job is provincial jurisdiction. They have budgets and elected officials who Ottawa not dismiss or avoid dealing with. Numerous areas of provincial jurisdiction are being violated by Ottawa with C-68. (hint-"a law may beunconstitutional either in its purpose or in it's effect"-then Supreme Court Justice Dickson) 2. No provincial government in the land could have gotten away with supoorting C-68 and note that none of them did. Rural voters, farmers, ranchers, etc all political clout in every province. 3. The provincial opposition and court chanllenge, (token though it seems which our fault for not requiring a professional standard from them) has allowed us enough breathing room to pressure provincial governments to do to their duty. That is to claim and fight for their jurisdiction in this matter. If we make it clear to Harris, Klein, Romanow and Filmon (and the others) that our support for them is conditional on their asserting provincial jurisdiction. And yes it will be a provincial election issue if wemake it one. Alberta's is due in Oct 98, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario should follow in a year or so. Our survival in the face of the federal plans for our extermination will depend on our influence with the provincial governments. Had such a strategy been followed against Kim Campbell's C-17 it would have been withdrawn. In conclusion, the RFC should have raised the issue of misleading and dangerous content in Federal Firearms Safety Course with our provincial govrnments. Historically they have had jurisdiction over the subject through their departments of resource management. They would have learned one more example why we can't trust the feds. Also, they have to learn to view our survival as a political asset to them . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:52:59 edt Subject: Fw: Begging for Exposure From: Jon & Eileen Taylor GOODALE FLOPS ON THE RUBBER CHICKEN CIRCUIT Ralph Goodale Lieberal MP (Saskatchewans only) failed in his bid to address his constituents in Sedley-Francis on the occasion of the school graduation ceremony. His office apparently contacted the local officials with the gracious offer to attend the event, partake of a free lunch( how fitting) and then repay the hospitality with some Lieberal doggerel. My informant tells me that the reply was: "Sure you can come but you have to buy your own ticket and no thanks we do not need the progaganda" This information was passed on to his office and the response was reportedly cool. Those of you who are not familiar with Ralph should know that his riding is almost exclusively rural. However a little adroit gerrymandering of the riding managed to include the S.W corner of Regina , where dwell all the moneyed class, the vast majority who know what is the best for the peasants and will tell us so. 11 out of the twelve polls went solidly anti Lieberal so the elite again had their say. You may also remember Ralph as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.This is the outfit which sends farmers to jail for attempting to sell the product they produce. The memory of the farmer in Manitobs, shown on TV, arms and legs shackled , is a forcast of what the Lieberals have in store for the rest of us. Sorry Ralph, no free lunch in Sedley Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 06:35:35 edt Subject: Fw: Prohibition Hearing From: Chris On June 10, I have a prohibition hearing here in Toronto. This will be round two. The first hearing was a joke. The Crown had absolutley no idea what she was doing, and as a matter of fact the "officer" in charge (who replaced the corrupt Paul Mullin) got angry at the Crown attorney because she kept stopping to find out where she was on the page. The disclosure was chaulked full of nonsense....traffic violation, talking to a witnesses mother while at work, they even adduced evidence that didn't even come from me. What really got me by suprise was the fact that none of the firearms seized were present at the hearing. The officer claimed the morning of the hearing that he didn't want the guns at court because of "safety concerns". My only question is why didn't he call my attorney months before the hearing and tell her he wasn't going to bring the firearms to court. I guess they were stolen by Paul Mullin. This time we have requested that the firearms seized be present at the June 10 hearing. I bet the guns won't be present. This hearing is really going to be a "mud sling". We have great evidence to use against my ex-cop friend to prove he lied in his statements. Any way I will keep every one posted on the results...hell I may even submit the court transcript for posting on the NFA websight. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:42:21 edt Subject: Fw: What Happened to Can.Talk.Guns From: "R.J.K." Does anyone know what happen to the news group can.talk.guns Can not find any post newer than 6-30-98 - - - - UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES _____________________________________ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are incline to obey the law. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:47:09 edt Subject: Fw: Gov"t Treatment From: Bob Lickacz John Ross said: > Write each paper you know of, make the voice heard, point out how no other > group of people anywhere in our history has ever been treated like this, > ask who will be next. This is not quite so. On February 26, 1942, the Canadian government ordered people of Japanese origin in coastal areas to be relocated to the B.C. interior or to inland farming areas. Their property was CONFISCATED, they were FORBIDDEN to OWN or USE cars, radios, cameras, or FIREARMS. Why else do you think southern Alberta cities like Lethbridge have some of Canada's best Japanese restaurants. Several thousand Ukrainians were also held in labour camps during the first world war. Many of these "undesirable aliens" were naturalized Canadians. The process of naturalizing apparently did not prevent the Canadian government from seizing their property either. There were at least two large stalags here in the west. One was at Banff, the other was at Castle Mountain. Much of the development in Banff National Park was due to what amounted to Ukrainian slave labour. These historical incidents make me feel more than a little uneasy about the Canadian Police Association and a man like Scott Newark. I think the RFC needs to be wary of Mr. Newark because he may be using the firearms issue to pressure the Justice Department to go ahead with the DNA data bank. It wouldn't surprise me to see the CPA roll over and die on this issue if Annie coughs up with the DNA data bank. Remember the CPA gave CONDITIONAL endorsement of Bill C-68. This endorsement was on the condition that the legislation did not criminalize law abiding firearms owners. I spoke to Mr. Newark a little while ago and he said that the CPA continues to endorse the Firearms Act, in the face of the Justice Department's liberal interpretation of firearms facts, the statement by the RCMP that the much vaunted registry is going to be useless to the beat cop investigating a domestic violence complaint, and the statement by the Liberal government's handpicked genuflecting User's Group that the postcard system will have a 50% error rate. When I tried to remind him of the condition specified in the CPA position paper, he brushed away my comment by saying that HE didn't need to be reminded about the CPA position because HE wrote it. It really makes me wonder why all of a sudden a lightning bolt has managed to strike Mr. Newark. Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 05:43:31 edt Subject: Fw: Can the RCMP Do This From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assist. 1" Can anyone who has had similar experiences advise these sport shooters how best to deal with the RCMP in this situation? > -----Original Message----- > From: > Sent: June 7, 1998 5:59 PM > To: breitkreuzc@reform.ca > Subject: RCMP > > Sir: > > My wife and I are competitive handgun shooters. We are members of > different > shooting organizations, and I had at one time been a member of United > States > Practical Shooting Association . When I lived in Calgary, I was able to > get > a permit to travel to US to shoot. The permit would cover any port at any > time of the year. > > I moved from Calgary to Carstairs and now the RCMP has say in what I do > and > how I do it. I applied for a permit to go to US to shoot, but was > informed > I had to have sent a paid registration form to the organization which was > putting on the match, bring confirmation of payment, than I would receive > a > permit, which would have to be approved in Edmonton. I would have to > return to Canada through a specific port on a specific date. I complained > to Myron Thompson's office, they checked with the RCMP and I was told > that's > the way they do things. That's not good enough. > > Does the RCMP have the authority to do this? I shoot for sport. If I > want > to go to US to play baseball, I don't have to cross a specific port, nor > do > the people living in cities. I realize guns are a political issue, but I > also thought RCMP were a police force, an investigative agency, not the > eyes > and ears of the Liberal government. > > I am starting to feel like a second class citizen and I haven done > anything > wrong. > What does it matter to RCMP what I do with my gun in US, and where I take > it? The onus is on me to obey the laws there, not the RCMP to watch over > me. > Do they have authority to place these restrictions on my movement to US, > if > US has no objections, or are they just trying to be a paramilitary arm of > the Liberal government? > > When I applied for my western Canada permit in January, I was told that > next > year I will have to supply the addresses of the shooting clubs and matches > where I will go throughout the year, if I want my western Canada permit in > 1999. Is it in the RCMP mandate to be so restrictive? Can they put these > limitations on me? > > Thank you > > > ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #431 **********************************