From - Fri Oct 9 10:01:39 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 HAA23539; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:22:07 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA27337; Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:08:24 -0600 Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:08:24 -0600 Message-Id: <199810091308.HAA27337@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: 360c873d00006b8a Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, October 9 1998 Volume 02 : Number 627 In this issue: Letter in St.Catharines Standard Damned if we do and Damned if we don't FIREARMS FORMS "REGISTERING FIREARMS WILL NOT PREVENT CRIME" Clog Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #625 - reply Re: draganov Re: New gun registration forms Re: Warning Re: Important information re CFC verifiers! Verifiers in Edmonton, Alberta Re: Database requirements for handgun clubs Liberals on the attack in Ontario ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:05:37 -0600 From: "The Gayders" Subject: Letter in St.Catharines Standard Dear Sir, Although I have a great deal of sympathy for Karen Vanscoy on the loss of her daughter, I must remind her that hardship and sorrow is no license for irrationalism or bigotry. The gun used to kill her daughter was an inanimate piece of steel, which had no mind, or motive power of it's own. It did not steal itself, float through the air unassisted, aim itself at her daughter and pull it's own trigger. The person responsible for the death of Jasmine Vanscoy can in no way be described as a legitimate gun owner. The legitimate gun owners Ms Vanscoy seeks to oppress did not write or enact the Young Offenders Act with which her daughter's killer had previously been dealt with. Nor did they stack the courts with Judges who are unable or unwilling to deter crime by giving strong, meaningful sentences to wrongdoers. Gun owners do not administer this country's leaking parole system, or make cutbacks in prison capacity. Violence, and our justice system's inability to deal with it, is a great concern to legitimate gun owners. But by endorsing gun controls that unfairly oppress honest citizens, Ms Vanscoy alienates over 7 million responsible Canadian gun owners who would have heartily endorsed her otherwise noble goal of reducing violence. Blaming pieces of steel is illogical. Blaming innocent gun owners for criminal acts they did not commit is wrong and counterproductive. Finding the solution to violence requires cooperation and bridge building, not marginalization. 247 Words Sincerely, John A. Gayder Rondelle Place St.Catharines, ON ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:05:55 -0600 From: "Aaron Deschene" Subject: Damned if we do and Damned if we don't Ok, the argument has been made that filling out the registration form with "Unknown" is going to get us in trouble. I am not a lawyer but I think that is true. (Practically speaking however, there is not room in the courts, never mind the jails, for 3 million firearm owners so the government should think twice before charging people with misleading statements. Even if they do, they cannot possibly enforce it without being selective. Given that laws have to apply equally and be enforced equally on everyone, arguing that you were picked out to be made an example of may be one way to have the charges dropped or be acquitted) Now, on to my main point which is we are damned if do use "Unknown" and damned if we don (The sections referred to are shown below) Section 106(1) uses the word statement, section 106(3) defines the word statement. Now, replace the word statement in section 106(1) with the word opinion. Ok, lets assume you are registering a Mauser you got from your grandfathers estate; is it a Brazilian Mauser or some other type? (A Mauser is perhaps not the best choice for this example but it the only one I could come with in the heat of the moment. Nonetheless, the principle is the same) You are not sure as you are not really a gun buff but just wanted the gun as a memento. If in your opinion, and to the best of your recollection, you say Brazilian but it turns out to be some other variety, it would appear from reading section 106(1) that you are guilty of an offence. Conversely, if you wanted to hedge your opinion because you are honestly not sure and put "Unknown" and it turns out that it is in fact an identifiable type of Mauser, you are also guilty of an offence. Remember, 106(1) appears to say that your opinion better not be wrong (this is the thought police stuff that everyone should be frightened of). Finally, if you also own your grandfathers old shot gun but mix up the bore diameters on the registration form (IE. Putting 12 ga. for the Mausers calibre and 7mm for the shot guns) it looks like you are guilty here too. Funny thing here, but I cant seem to find any provisions in this act for "honest mistakes". To sum up this part, if you say "Unknown" and its clearly a Mauser, you are guilty. If you put down Brazilian Mauser, in your opinion, but are wrong you are guilty. Ok, so now according to 106(1) you have falsified information therefore section 107(a) applies. This section says that you are guilty until proven innocent; enough said. Section 109 now lists the penalties for having an opinion. 109(a) is self explanatory - up to five years in jail. 109(b) says you get a fine but I am not sure how much that fine would be. With all that said, would somebody please tell me Im wrong?! 106. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring a licence, registration certificate or authorization for that person or any other person, knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading or knowingly fails to disclose any information that is relevant to the application for the licence, registration certificate or authorization. 106(3) In this section, "statement" means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not. 107. Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse the proof of which lies on the person, alters, defaces or falsifies (a) a licence, registration certificate or authorization; or 109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:01:12 -0600 From: Bob Lickacz Subject: FIREARMS FORMS I just called the 1-800 do-do line at the CFC requesting 350 non-restricted firearms forms and 75 restricted firearms forms. The polite lady on the phone asked why I need the forms, to which I relied "I'm a firearms owner". The lady then asked what do I use my firearms for. (Line Edited, DJP) She then said that she was instructed that she could only send out a maximum of 5 forms. I then asked how I was supposed to register ALL of my firearms on only five forms. She asked me if I could photo-copy "just the back" of the form with the bar code. If all of your forms don't have the same bar code there is a chance you will be charged $10 for each bar code. I impressed upon the lady that there was NO CHANCE of me photo-copying ANYTHING. She then replied that she would see what she could do. I then asked her what those people with A LOT of firearms were supposed to do. She didn't know. Now, just suppose that a bunch of naughty firerams owners got together and in the confusion of their meeting they managed to mix up their bar coded forms. Would these people be charged $10 per bar code if it could be demonstrated that ALL of their induvidual forms were mailed in in the same package? What happens if Annie, Joe, Mary, Wendy, and Heidi register their firearms using the same bar code form? Just suppose that you were doing some re-loading and you had case lube all over your fingers. Would touching the bar code then mean some poor CFC clerk had to MANUALLY enter the codes? Methinks the form printing budget will need some amending. Bob Lickacz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:05:05 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: "REGISTERING FIREARMS WILL NOT PREVENT CRIME" PUBLICATION: The Financial Post DATE: 98.10.08 EDITION: Daily SECTION: 1, News PAGE: 24 COLUMN: Letters to the Editor BYLINE: David Hunt DATELINE: Edmonton, AB Registering firearms will not prevent crime Let me begin by stating I do not own any firearms. Your editorial Firearms Act Takes Potshots At Cherished Civil Liberties (Oct.6) shocked and disgusted me. You pretend to oppose bill C-68, at the same time singing the praises of registration. ``Like a majority of Canadians, we strongly favor firearms registration and licensing as a matter of principle.'' On what principle? The principle that registering citizen's private property while incurring an obscene cost to the taxpayer is going to accomplish something? Registering firearms will not, I repeat, will not, prevent one crime. Criminals do not register their firearms, and even if they did, how does registering a prevent someone from committing a crime with that ? You say ``centralized registries better enable police to trace ownership and gather information.'' The police and government in this over-policed , over-governed country do not need more information about the citizenry they are supposed to ``serve and protect.'' I have often said the editorial board of The Financial Post is the only common sense voice left in the country. I was wrong and I am eating crow today. David Hunt, Edmonton, Alta. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:01:07 -0600 From: "ross" Subject: Clog While at the rally on the Hill Sept 22, I listened to Reform, some Liberal Senator, and a Conservative all spouting off (Lib and Cons) that they will fight for us. well If Joe who gets in power, he wont fight for us, he will betray us pretty quick. If the Libs get in power again, they will not think once about doing us all in. So that brings us to reform. While i do not think that Presto is the man to Unite the right, the reform party if they quit shooting themselves in the foot could make the jump from Opposition to Government. As much as DAT tells us to focus on what we have to do, I feel that reform has lost it's focus. Too many small things interfereing in their usual stick it to the government. In the summer they went soft, hardly a peep out of them. We heard nothing from the Clogs as well. Perfect time to put your opponent on the ropes is when they arent around. Anyway, reform needs to get tough, we as members and potential voters need to direct them to be tough, or we lose. We got all our eggs in the reform basket, and I know that I dont want an omlette at the end of the day. J Ross ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:03:46 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #625 - reply Why don't we all go to the sub-stations/postal outlets, main POs, etc., and pick up all the forms we can. In a week or so, they should be out of forms. Also, it might give the gov't the idea that there are many, many firearms owners out there. Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:04:05 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: draganov *** Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum *** >>> I am a big fan of soviet small arms, particularly the draganov >It is listed as an 'other model' in the AK-47 category which is a >restricted firearm. Isn't it prohibited with grandfather? I thought no trade was allowed, but the present owners could keep them. Which means I can't buy one. Bye. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:00:45 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: New gun registration forms >I got the new forms today and I am honestly confused. My 25 and 32 calibre >pistols are already registered as restricted but now they are prohibited. >My other handguns are all registered also. I am somewhat of a minor >collector who likes rebuilding these relics. Your current registration certificates expire on 31 Dec 2002 -- or earlier [FA s. 127(2)(b)] -- if C-68 comes into force. >Other guns total maybe 30, all of the non-restricted/non-prohibited type. >The new forms give me the impression that I've only got to register one and >then they are all registered. Wrong. Each firearm must be registered. >Do I need a slip for each and every >one of them in my name or my kids' names? Some are useless other than show >pieces. Yes, one per gun. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:00:54 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Warning > At the Oct 4 gun show in Cornwall (ON), the Ontario Provincial Police >carried out an entrapment raid. One of them, in civies, went around asking >to buy high capacity magazines. Although I did not personally witness it, >others apparently attempted to buy firearms without showing their FACs. >Three sellers were "processed" for past or present omissions. The good news >is that at least one of them may have grounds for suing for wrongful arrest; >he was apparently not even at the show where he was supposed to have >committed the offense. > This may also happen in other jurisdictions, so beware and take care >to jump through the proper legal hoops; they are out to get you. The NFA is assisting in two of the three cases. We have not heard from the third person. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:03:19 -0600 From: "John E. Stevens" Subject: Re: Important information re CFC verifiers! At 11:45 AM 10/7/98 -0600, you wrote: >Fellow firearms owners, I'd like to draw your attention to an item I just >noticed on the new firearms registration form. I have no idea why the CFC has >not already posted this to the digest (possibly too busy getting ready for the >flood of registration forms ?) but in box 22 on the registration form there is a >1-800 number that you can contact to find out the name of a verifier in your > >1-800-731-4000 for the name of an Approved Firearms Verifier. > >Of course, I have not personally checked the number to see if it works yet, so I called. This gets to CFC. As of Oct 7/98, they do not have a list. Expected date is unknown. But I must say that the young lady was very pleasant. And for $200,000 I guess we deserve pleasant. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:05:32 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Verifiers in Edmonton, Alberta This is for information purposes. Police sources indicated to me that two major dealers and one smaller one will supply verifiers in Edmonton, Alberta. (One of the major ones previously said that his company would not be providing verifiers two months ago, and now he has TWO.) These dealers suggest that they are providing "Quislings" to verify only their own stock.... (Got any swamp land you want to sell?) They are the reason that the CLOG gets it's way. I INVITE THEM TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS TO THE READERS OF THIS LIST.. (Right Allan?) By their selfish attitudes they are undermining the work of the rest of the firearms community to defeat this law. Now repeat after me "Baaaaaaaa, Baaaaaaaa" Peter Kearns Simon says: "This type of selfishness is what got us into this mess...." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:04:42 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Database requirements for handgun clubs >I was wondering if anyone out there had put together a database for >gun clubs that would include all of the Critical Records Awaiting >Perusal (CRAP) that clubs will be required to record and keep >under the provisions of C-68? If someone who knows databases >has put together a generic database, I'm sure sharing it with the list >would make a lot of club secretaries happy. It is far, far better to produce CRAP in handwritten, looseleaf books that contain all the Chretien's CLOG's desires in illegible handwriting. Remember -- anything you put into a computer can, under C-68, result in the computer being seized as "evidence" and held until they get good and ready to return it. It is DANGEROUS to produce records that are fully computerized, easy to access and easy to print out. It just encourages them! It is, therefore, far better to produce records that are the exact MINIMUM required by the new laws, in a format that is as difficult to scan as possible. After all, we are not in the business of making the Chretien's CLOG employee's life simple and easy. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 07:02:44 -0600 From: CILA Subject: Liberals on the attack in Ontario CILA Defending Canada's Heritage - ---------------------------------------------- The following is the Hansard for October 6th, 1998. as you can see, the Harris Gov't is continuing their support for the firearms owners of Canada. In spite of extreme pressure by the Antis, they are remaining true to their promised course. This would be an excellent time to send a correspondence to our friends in the Ontario Legislature, congratulating them on the excellent job they are doing. Thanks and keep fighting! Tony Bernardo Executive Director CILA - ----------------------------------------- FAX Numbers: The Hon. Michael Harris MPP: 416-325-3745 The Hon. Robert Runciman MPP: 416-326-5085 Jerry J. Ouellette MPP, Firearms Committee Chair : 416-327-9188 Toby Barrett MPP: 416-325-8408 Chris Hodgson MPP: 416-314-2216 - ---------------------------------------------- HANSARD -- LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO October 6th, 1998 Mr. Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to give you an opportunity today to explain your position to this House on gun control. We both know that the majority of Ontarians support gun control, and so I. We favor the registration of all guns. If you live in Ontario and you own a gun, I want that gun registered and I want the police to know about it. The police think this is a good idea and so do the victims support groups, including caveat, chaired by Priscilla de Villiers. What I want to know from you today is your position on the registration of guns by all Ontarians who happen to own one in this province, a move supported by the police. Hon. Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Solicitor General has spoken out on behalf of our party and our caucus and I refer it to him. Mr. Mike Cole (Oakwood): Come on, Premier, answer the question. The Speaker (Hon. Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood Hon. Robert W.Runciman ( Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This government does support gun control, real and meaningful and effective gun control. The federal government's legislation as it relates to registration of long guns in our view is in no way, shape or form an effective way of gun control. We've indicated and the Court of Appeal in Alberta has indicated clearly with a division that there are strong concerns with respect to the intervention of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions. That's one element of this. The other concern from our perspective is the fact that were dealing with the situation related to scarce resources in the Public Safety sector across this country. We believe you should be setting priorities and funding programs that are going to have the most impact on fighting crime in our country and getting guns off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. If you use the example of the program this government has instituted, where were spending $150 million over five years to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of Ontario, that's what we're doing with taxpayers dollars. Mr. McGuinty : I can understand why the Premier ducked the question and I can understand why the Minister is trying to complicate a very straightforward issue. Speaker: Stop the clock. Leader of the official opposition Mr. McGuinty: The issue here is very straight forward. Either you believe that if you own a gun in the province of Ontario it ought to be registered and police put on notice of that fact, or you don't. The police happen to believe it's a good idea. They feel it's going to make our province safer. They feel it's important for them to know when they approached a certain house that there's a gun located inside that house. I think it's a good idea for guns in Ontario to be registered so our police are made aware of that fact. All I want to know from you is, you think it's a good idea? Hon. Robert W.Runciman: I indicated earlier that the idea of registration in an of itself may not necessarily be bad. There are two elements to this. This is a decision and a responsibility that should be left in the hands of provincial governments and territorial governments, not the federal government. It's an additional intrusion. The other element is priorities and where you spend your money in the most effective way in terms of fighting crime across this country and getting weapons off our streets. We have a very serious problem with weapons been smuggled into this country. We have problems in terms of handguns, which are already required to be registered under the Criminal Code. This is not going to, in any way, have an impact on getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminal simply will not register their weapons ; that's a proven fact. The other reality in this is that the federal government has up to this point in time, spent $134 million on this program and they have not registered one single gun. Mr. McGuinty : Let me tell you how out of sync you are with Ontarians on this issue. Not only do you not appreciate how important is to them to have every, single gun in this province registered, but where you come out with this crazy idea of deciding whether it's in the interests of our children to give them the right to bear arms? It's one thing to give them computers, it's another thing to give them school books, and many, many cases it would be very important that we put food into their hands, bit where do you come up with this hare brained idea to put guns in the hands of 12 year olds. Ontarians want to know that. I've been to the 905 area of this province and they're very concerned about this plan on your part (Interjections) Speaker: Stop the clock. Can I have some order, please. I appreciate the fact you all want to answer, but the Solicitor General will answer the question. Mr. McGuinty : Minister, quite simply tell me: why is it in the interests of children in Ontario that they be given the right to carry a gun and shoot it? Hon. Robert W.Runciman: A couple of things: You talk about being out of sync. This is a leader who would not even get up and stand today with respect to the employment insurance fund. (interjections) Speaker: Order. Solicitor General. Hon. Robert W.Runciman: The member raised C 68 and then talks about 12 year-olds. The reality is that this is a component of C 68, allowing 12 year-old to discharge weapons. The Ontario government has responded in a very appropriate way by ensuring that they take the appropriate hunter safety courses. They have to pass those. They have to have an adult with them who has to be at arms length and they share a long gun. Ontario is clearly doing what is appropriate to deal with the federal legislation, Bill C 68. In respect to the other matter, the $134 million that has been spent so far, if we have that money in Ontario-as I indicated earlier, we're spending a hundred and fifty million to put a thousand new police officers on the streets of this province-we could double that. Ask the Leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario residents would rather have another 2000 police officers out on the streets versus registration which will have no impact whatsoever on crime in this country. - -30- For more information contact: Canadian Institute for Legislative Action P.O.Box 82578, 285 Taunton Rd. E. Oshawa, ON. L1G 7E6 Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail: teebee@sprint.ca Home: www.cila.org A proud member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #627 **********************************