From - Fri Oct 9 10:01:48 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 HAA23534; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:21:39 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA26623; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:01:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:01:01 -0600 Message-Id: <199810091301.HAA26623@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 #626 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: O X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 360c873d00006b89 Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, October 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 626 In this issue: A Quote I'm Back Re: Ted McWhinney, M.P. 1-800 number CFRB 1010 Radio Commentary on C-68 Re: Attendance Records at Gun Clubs in Quebec; Re: draganov Re: Re Registering Illegal Change in registration "WHO BELIEVES GUN LAW WILL STOP DEATHS?' "GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT FLAWED" Contributions to Coalition of Gun Control NFA & NRA Fed UP II Rally Website Renamed Re: Out of Here ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:13 -0600 From: "Trowell" Subject: A Quote I'm no scholar and not too well read so I have to thank my wife for suggesting the following quote (which I looked up in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations). Though I don't wish to discourage anyone, it is worth remembering... ****************************************************** "With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain." Friedrich Von Schiller (1759-1805) - Die Jungfrau von Orleans - Oxford University Press, ODoQ, 3rd Ed., 1979 ****************************************************** It is often quoted as: Against stupidity, even the gods struggle in vain. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:48 -0600 From: David.Parry Subject: I'm Back Sorry for any inconvience that my absence caused, but as Skeeter said, my computer took a dive. It took my entire mail programme with it, so if you made a submission that has not appeared, please resubmit. Cheers, David Parry Moderator CFD ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:39 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Ted McWhinney, M.P. Charles Stansfield wrote: > > Now, *here* is a man who is a classic liberal in the real sense. If > Professor MacWhinney were persuaded to become leader of the United > Right, Canadians would have a REAL choice, and perhaps a Prime Minister > that we could be proud of. Above all, he is an honourable gentleman. > Peter Kearns wrote: But nevertheless "an honourable gentleman" who has thrown in his lot with the Cretin lieberals....... How could anyone justify heaping praise on another zip lipped lieberal pork barreler..... Yessir!! Mr. Chretien.......Anything you say Mr. Chretien..... Yep, another great leader...... Don't we call this CLOG? Peter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:24:49 -0600 From: ken drake Subject: 1-800 number > > Of course, I have not personally checked the number to see if it works yet, so > if some of you would like to try it for me and let me know if you get through, > I'd certainly appreciate it! It would be a shame if the number was wrong and the > form had to be reprinted. Don: I tried this number and it is the number for the Canadian Firearms Centre. If you call it they will give you another number to call to obtain the names of verifiers in your area. When I did that I was told that verifiers are not ready yet. They are being trained and their names will be available before Dec. 1. They also said they may not have verifiers available in rural areas, especially in Alberta where response was low. Ken Drake ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:24:05 -0600 From: Aaron Burns Subject: CFRB 1010 Radio Commentary on C-68 Howdy. Yesterday, Dick Smythe, a commentator on a local talk-radio station with good listenership in the Greater Toronto Area, commented on Bill C-68. He: - - identified himself as a non-firearms owner, with some distaste for hunting, then - - slammed Bill C-68 as a waste of money, useless in crime prevention! - - did this eloquently, persuasively, and in very little time. Finally, a commentary for 'our side' from someone who is not a member of our community! It's akin to a non-smoker speaking out for the rights of smokers (which describes me, for example). I've sent the following letter in a fax. You could also contact him, with a politely-worded compliment followed by some rational (or emotional and yet reasonable) attack on C-68: Dick Smythe CFRB 416-924-5711 416-323-6830 fax This is the fax I sent. If I got some facts wrong, please correct me. While I don't believe this issue will be won on facts, and our opposition is pretty loose with reality, I'd not like to give anyone a wedge to attack our arguements (or knowingly spread false information). Dear Sir: Your commentary regarding Bill C-68 was a pleasant surprise. It is unusual to hear a balanced view from a non-firearms person - which speaks to your attitude of tolerating that which may not directly interest you. If only the firearms community had someone with your gift for quickly and glibly summarizing, in a way to ordinary people can understand, why this bill is bad. Your assertion that C-68 will not reduce crime is correct. As a law-abiding firearms owner and Canadian citizen, I am more than happy to store my firearms safely, to register my handguns (if any), and to prove that I am mentally stable without a history of violence before acquiring a new firearm. I have to do this already, under existing legislation. C-68 uselessly extends registration to long arms (rifles and shotguns), allows for the arbitrary confiscation of firearms through the Order-In-Council process, and criminalizes simple mistakes on the registration of firearms. Many in the firearms community sees C-68 as a prelude to confiscation, and much of the media has dismissed this concern as paranoia. In fact, firearms have already been confiscated - just under half of all legally-acquired and legally-possessed handguns were recently designated as prohibited weapons through the Order-In-Council process because they fell into a caliber or barrel-length category that the government of the day does not like. Once prohibited, they must be destroyed (without compensation). This flies in the face of hundreds of years of common law, and common sense. No criminal will have noticed the prohibition. No criminal will be affected by any provisions of C-68. Canada already has effective and stringent firearms-control legislation, and the money going into C-68 would be much better spent on, for example, Hepatitis-C survivors, stamping out gun-smuggling operations, curbing of domestic violence, suicide prevention programs, and so on. Again, thank-you for your commentary on C-68. I may tune in to CFRB more often! - --Aaron Burns Comrace Resources Inc. (905)332-7430 "They were answered as I have been answered - aaronb@acm.org and for the same reasons." BMW R1100RSL '95 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:25:23 -0600 From: "John E. Stevens" Subject: Re: Attendance Records at Gun Clubs in Quebec; At 11:45 AM 10/7/98 -0600, you wrote: >1. Record of presences at gun clubs > -------------------------------- > >The new format used in Quebec calls for one sheet per day. >The new day-page method makes it a very painful chore for the gun club >operator to determine the number of presences of each club member. For >each member, the operator would have to go through each day-page and >note on a piece of paper the days where that particular member was >present. Then, move on to the next member, go through the entire >day-page record set again, note the days of presence of that member, and >so on. In essence, regenerate the original logbook. I'm not a "gun club" person. Am I reading this correctly? Is there now a legal requirement to prove how many times club members use their memberships? Did I miss that in the legislation, somewhere? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:07 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: draganov >> I am a big fan of soviet small arms, particularly the draganov >> sniper rifle. ( It has recently been chambered to fire nato ammunition ) My >> problem is that I am unfamiliar with Canadian gun laws and am unaware as to >> the prohibitions on these weapons. Are they restricted? Prohibited? If so what >> are the specific restrictions placed on them? The Dragunov went from unrestricted to restricted to prohibited, with grandfathering for the current owner ONLY. Any "restricted" Dragunov becomes prohibited if an attempt is made to transfer it. When/if C-68 comes into force, it will be transferable. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:10 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Re Registering At 11:40 AM 10/6/98 -0600, you wrote: >>I chopped this out of the digest. Are you sure we HAVE to re - register >>them? I was told there is NOTHING in C-68 or its regs which mandate this. > >All current registration certificates expire on 31 Dec 2002 [Firearms Act >section 127(2)]. Reregistration is necessary -- but not until that date, or >an earlier date prescribed by an Order in Council. READ FA s. 127(2). ALL your current registration certificates EXPIRE on that day. If you have not reregistered them, you are automatically criminalized under CC s. 91 and become eligible for five years in the slammer on 01 Jan 2003. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:24:19 -0600 From: "Larry Going" Subject: Illegal Change in registration With the help of Peter Kearns, this is the fax I sent to the R.C.M.P. Public Complaints Commission: RCMP Public Complaints Commission, P.O. Box 3423, Postal station D, Ottawa K1P 6L4 RCMP Public Complaints Commission: Complaint against member, (Criminal Code violations) Dear Sir or Madam: I wish to criminally charge Sergeant Michael Foran, (NCO I/C) Firearms Registration section of the Canadian Firearms Registry in Ottawa, Ont. That he did violate the following sections of the Criminal Code: Sect 113 (2) (False statement to procure firearms acquisition certificate, etc,) Sect. 122 (Breech of trust by a public officer.) Sect 126 (1) (2) (Disobeying a statute) Sect 128 (Misconduct by officers executing a process) Sect 465 (c) (d) (Conspiracy.) With the help of Cst. R. J. Becker, F.A.O., I supplied registration details for a pistol frame and answered truthfully all of the questions on the Application to Register a Restricted Firearm (C-300) I was warned on the form that if I supplied false or misleading information I would be liable to receive two years in jail, so of course I answered honestly. (Sect 113 (1) cc.) The form was transmitted to Ottawa where the information was altered from that supplied by me. If it is an offence for me to supply false and misleading information, then it is also an offence for the registrars to change information supplied by me. Their alternative would be to charge me with supplying false or misleading information, which they have not done. By failing to do this they acknowledge my information was truthful and honest, whereas I believe they are guilty of altering or defacing a registration certificate, (which is a criminal offence.) The registration certificate number (C-306) is L-245013. The make was changed from "UNKOWN" to "MAB", and the action was changed from "UK" to "SA" on this certificate. The date given is 1998-08-11. Please inform me when the charges will be laid, and in which criminal court they will be heard. Yours truly, Larry J. Going ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:36 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: "WHO BELIEVES GUN LAW WILL STOP DEATHS?' PUBLICATION: The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE: 98.10.06 PAGE: D8 To The Editor: That most hated and maligned law, control, is back in the media forefront once again. With yet another delay by the feds in implementation, the absurdity of this bill is highly evident. Who in their right mind would believe that registering hunting rifles and shotguns will cut down on the number of shooting deaths? At the onset, let me and my organization, the New Brunswick Guides Association Inc. express our deep sympathy to all those families who have been affected over the years by shooting deaths. The Marc Lepine murders in Montreal come to mind, along with the Lortie murders in Quebec City some years ago. These kind of dramatic actions by twisted and demented minds are never pretty. Neither, however, were the 3,000 deaths caused by alcohol and motor vehicles in Canada last year. There are laws against drinking and driving, yet the slaughter continues, and nothing is being done out of the ordinary to stop it. There are deaths, accidental and otherwise, from stabbing, drowning, fires, etc. every year but nothing out of the ordinary is done about it. Why, then, control? Will it appease the Torontonians who lobbied so hard for it? Will Allan Rock sleep any better after Dec. 1? I don't think so. My members find it extremely offensive that our government has no trouble allowing concealed weapons to be carried into the country by so-called bodyguards of foreign heads of state (Suharto's gang in Vancouver), yet they require citizens to register and maintain guns in an offensive manner. As well, American citizens are required to register and pay an exorbitant fee at the border to bring a hunting rifle into Canada. Why are the feds introducing a new system of tax grab when the premiers, finance ministers and health ministers of the provinces are locked in battle with Martin and gang over how to spend not one, but $20 billion of surplus tax grab already obtained under false pretenses? And why are we expected to obey this new law without complaint when the feds themselves are ignoring their own laws that require them to reduce this $20 billion surplus by reducing employee and employer EI premiums? Instead they are fighting over whether to use it illegally to reduce the deficit, or use it to reinstate some of the health care funds reduced over the years to go toward the deficit. I think it is high time this, and every other government in our democratic system, is held accountable for its actions. They must be forced to obey the law, as ordinary citizens are, and go to jail if they don't. There should also be severe penalties for any government stupid enough to introduce the type of control legislation we now have in Canada. Lorne D. Amos, President, N.B. Guides Association Inc., Boiestown ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:23:29 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: "GUN CONTROL ARGUMENT FLAWED" PUBLICATION: The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE: 98.10.06 PAGE: D8 To The Editor: I read the article by Norbert Cunningham (Oct. 1), supporting the registration of guns, with amazement. Mr. Cunningham does not make a compelling case for the registration of guns. His article is directed primarily towards the arguments presented by anti-registration proponents. His theme seems to be that registration seems good, therefore it should be done. His own text admits that there is no evidence that registration reduces crime, but takes the vague position that common sense says that registration cannot hurt and ought to help. His references to the registration of guns to that of motor vehicles is ludicrous, and to American society and the NRA is boring and predicable. This type of rationale is common in Canada these days. It is not a sensible, practical rationale but one which emanates, not from precedence, but from a theoretical assumption or opinion, promoted by few, often with a personal agenda, and sold to the many. In fact, Mr. Cunningham himself refers to this type of rationale as the national The bottom line in this issue is that this is big government, not the people themselves, and it is deciding on registration without any factual, credible support to back up its position. In the true manner of someone who cannot defend their position, registration supporters attack the other position and divert questions on their own. Mr. Cunningham's article is written in this manner and takes the position of big government over the individual and the theoretical over the factual. Let us not allow the to indiscriminately curtail the individual's spirit as well as responsibility. Let us look for those politicians with a backbone to say to registration and transfer the funding for this new bureaucracy to the RCMP for fighting crime. David Tripp, Riverview ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:25:47 -0600 From: "T. Zinck" Subject: Contributions to Coalition of Gun Control I will be sending the CGC a copy of my donations to the NFA. - -Tom > >Here is the address of the Special Interest Group we >have all grown to know over the years... > >I plan on sending a copy of my donations to the NFA. > >-Tom > >>From: Wendy Cukier <71417.763@compuserve.com> >>Sender: Wendy Cukier <71417.763@compuserve.com> >>Content-Disposition: inline >> >>Dear Tom: thanks for your support. >>Donations may be sent to Coalition for Gun Control >>PO Box 395 Station D Toronto M6P 3J9 >> >>wendy >> >> > Tom Zinck, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA PGP key can be found at : http://www.pgp.com/keyserver/pks-toplev.cgi ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 07:25:51 -0600 From: dongres Subject: NFA & NRA Very often I read that NFA is not in any way connected to NRA and doesn't accept any support from NRA in any shape or form - bla bla bla. While that may be true we make it sound as if it needs reasurance or defence that it is really so. And by the same token the Media use it often enough trying to imply we just could be in some way "associated". Two national gun clubs are associated. What's wrong here ?! Shouldn't we strive to be in association? Why should gun clubs distance themself from each other?. Some clubs are associated worldwide and no one ever questions it. It's in fact reported as something POSITIVE. We are being brainwashed AGAIN, without even knowing. Time to back up a little and take a second look on that road sign again, we may not be on the main highway. Saipan /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 11:58:26 -0600 From: Fed Up II Webmaster Subject: Fed UP II Rally Website Renamed Members of the RFC; Some of you have been using the FED UP II Rally Website (renamed the FED UP CANADA site) to plan your participation in the most successful political rally in Canadian History. This web site (http://www.fedupcanada.org) will continue to operate to help the RFC to continue to unite our efforts to repeal this draconian legislation and replace it with just, unbiased firearms legislation. (Remember that the acronym, FEDUP, stands for Firearms Enthusiasts Demanding UNBIASED Policies) We have added a few new sections to the site since the rally; Post Rally Bulletins, Rally Speeches (Only a few so far, but I'm working on them!!) and a new section on the activities of the Coalition for Gun Control. This section will be expanded in the next few days to include a list of CGC Sponsors. I strongly recommend that each member of the RFC study this list; You may be shocked to find that an organization you belong to or your local school board or police services board is donating your hard earned tax dollars to Wendy's attack on our community! The FED UP CANADA Oganizing Committee urges you to contact these groups/organization and register your concerns about inappropriate donations to Special Interest Groups like the CGC when we lack the resources to provide adequate police/school services, etc. Please keep us bookmarked and check in regularly to see what we are up to; We have some interesting things planned for the future! Frederick Wm. Guse webauthor@fedupcanada.org http://www.fedupcanada.org/ ``Politicians on the make offer easy answers - try children as adults, censor the Internet, proclaim more gun control legislation - - without a shred of evidence to show how they would help.'' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:00:56 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Out of Here At 11:35 PM 10/6/98 -0500, you wrote: >You lose! I'm out of here. Whatever respect I had for N.F.A. is gone! I think you have overstepped your mandate to represent the ordinary gun owner. I do not appreciate having things stuffed down my throat. Thank you >*********** ******************* Your choice. But first consider the options: 1. We NEVER offer an alternative firearms control law, and continue to REACT to whatever this and future governments use to attack us. NOTE: You cannot WIN if you are always DEFENDING. To win, you have to go over to the attack. 2. We offer a multitude of half-baked ideas, each coming from a different source within the firearms community, with most of them utterly impossible to get enacted into law. We continue forever with our usual internal catfighting over which ones (if any) are "good" ideas. 3. The NFA -- which is now firmly established as the firearms community's main legal expert -- proposes a complete, comprehensive firearms control law that makes sense, is difficult to object to, is very difficult to amend, eliminates firearms registration, and operates as a close parallel to the very respected pilot's licence system and to the system we use to control SAFETY on our own shooting ranges. 4. Rather than rejecting the NFA's proposed law on the basis of knee-jerk reaction, the bulk of the firearms community STUDIES it, accepts it, and supports it. Then Idle Annie's "emergency" legislation to replace Bill C-68 is faced with COMPETITION -- a firearms control system that is simpler, more COST-EFFECTIVE -- and makes perfect sense to anyone who reads it, particularly if that person has a copy of C-68 and/or our current law handy to compare it with. The NFA's job is to assist the firearms community with our hard-won legal and political expertise. It is our job to come up with solutions to the problems of bad law and bad politicians. The firearms community has a long history of ineffective DEFENCE. It is time -- and well past time -- for someone to propose a plan of ATTACK. The firearms community has a long history of internal catfighting, rejection of anything that is new -- whether it makes sense or not -- and refusing to even look at plans for ATTACK. Perhaps it is time for members of the firearms community who behave in ways that are counterproductive to realize that DEFENCE does not win wars. If we are EVER to have firearms control laws that are stable, predictable and harmless to the firearms community, WE are going to have to write those laws. Neither Chretien's CLOG bureaucrats nor any other CLOG's bureaucrats have ever done it -- and, almost certainly, none ever will. Some firearms community members deeply resent the fact that the NFA is showing LEADERSHIP in the legal and political fields. We do not apologize for what we are doing, because what we are doing is necessary for VICTORY. We are using our hard-won skill and knowledge to open a path to VICTORY -- and we invite every member and every organization in the firearms community to join us in battle -- to help us achieve VICTORY by all following the same war plan. There is nothing that the enemy loves more than intertnal catfighting, and nothing that Chretien's CLOG wants more than to see us engaged in internal catfighting when we should be UNITED. Look at this situation, and THINK. Was it possible for the NFA to talk to every single member -- or even every single organization -- and get prior approval for every clause in a complete firearms control law system -- a replacement for ALL of today's Criminal Code sections 84 to 117 inclusive -- or would that have bogged down in endless argument? The person I am answering says, "You lose!" and bombs out of supporting what the NFA is doing -- BEFORE HE HAS EVEN LOOKED AT IT. My question is, "Did the NFA lose, or did he?" Think, people, THINK. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #626 **********************************