From - Tue Oct 20 16:08:45 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 GAA25693; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:31:04 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA08381; Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:17:37 -0600 Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:17:37 -0600 Message-Id: <199810181217.GAA08381@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 #646 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: 0000 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 360c873d00007285 Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, October 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 647 In this issue: THE PURPOSES OF THE CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM Speeding an FAC application? Re: Verifiers ANALYSIS OF THE CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM Re: fees Another cheque to the Legal Defense Fund... Re: MY GOOD FRIEND ANNIE Re: DISSENTING OPINION Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #641 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:44 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: THE PURPOSES OF THE CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM Well, it is out, and I have had an opportunity to play with the famous CFR/FRAS CD ROM. For those of you who do not understand what FRT (Firearms Reference Table) is, this is a briefing for the next message -- "ANALYSIS OF THE CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM." The need for better identification of firearms arose from an early NFA analysis of the registration system, which was later confirmed by the Department of Justice's own "Review of Firearms Registration TR-1994-9e." We pointed out that CFR/FRAS (then just FRAS) was "identifying" a particular firearm in 40 to 60 ways at a time. That made it nearly impossible to search the database successfully for a particular firearm, because one would have to enter ALL of the different ways that the firearm MIGHT be registered into the search question -- or the firearm could be IN the files, and not be found. The problem was severe, and no successful attempt to control or improve the situation had been made since 1934. Obviously, the NFA's offer to provide an expert witness capable of blowing out of court any information offered from the CFR/FRAS registration system touched a nerve. It would no longer be possible to merely have a CFR/FRAS officer go into court and lie about the quality of the data in the system. CFR/FRAS needed a way to ensure that a simple question would find EVERY firearm of that type that was IN the system. That sounds easy -- but it is NOT easy. The NFA knows where the pitfalls lie. CFR/FRAS set out to "identify" every firearm in the world, and provide a "standard" way to "identify" each one. In theory, every firearm of a given type would be registered in EXACTLY the same way -- no more using 40 to 60 ways of "identifying" the same firearm. A firearm would be identified by the same old (and defective) "identifiers" - -- Make, Model, Type, Action, Calibre, Shots, Barrel length, and Serial Number. Only one new "identifier" was added -- Manufacturer, for situations where more than one manufacturer made the same firearm. That was grossly inadequate. While CFR/FRAS was working on this monumental project, the NFA warned that it would probably fail, because firearms are murderously difficult to "identify," and the ONLY useful way to "identify" them is UNIQUE IENTIFICATION -- a standard that CFR/FRAS has failed to reach after trying continuously since 1934. There are just too many "correct" answers to each question, and too many pitfalls for the inexpert or unwary -- even in Serial number data. However, CFR/FRAS tried, and the FRT CD ROM is the result. In theory, an untrained amateur "verifier" becomes a world-class expert on firearms identification just by gaining access to the FRT on the CD ROM. Once he finds the firearm on the CD ROM, the CD ROM entry should tell him EXACTLY how that firearm should be registered, listing the "correct" entries for Make, Model, Type, Action, Calibre, Shots, Barrel length, Manufacturer, and Serial number. Serial numbers are a particular problem. Many manufacturers DUPLICATE Serial numbers. Because the Serial number is the ONLY key to "identifying" a particular firearm among a group of firearms in which the other 8 characteristics are all the same, it is vital to know WHICH Serial numbers cannot be trusted. To handle the Serial number problem, CFR/FRAS invented the FIN (Firearms Identification Number), a unique number that must be added to every firearm that does not already have a UNIQUE Serial number. Remember how the Serial number problem works -- it is IMPORTANT in the next lesson. The CD ROM was a good idea, but one that seemed unlikely to work -- particularly because the expertise required would be formidable, and no one person would be able to ensure accuracy of every one-firearm block of data in the FRT. In the NFA's estimation, CFR/FRAS had probably bitten off more than it could chew. In my next posting, I will describe what I have seen in the FRT on the CD ROM. AAAAARRRrrggghhhh... Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:17:01 -0600 From: Aaron Burns Subject: Speeding an FAC application? I just took my FAC paperwork (all in order) to the local firearms officer (Halton region, Ontario). She told me that it would be at least 3 months before anything happened, and kept evading my question about who to call to establish progress. As it happens, I have my eye on a nice Anschutz .22 target rifle - and I don't particularly want to wait 3 months. At the posted price, I'm pretty sure it won't be there in three months. I especially don't want to wait without knowing what's happening with the application. Does anybody know: - - how to possibly speed things up? - - how to determine at what stage the application is? Thanks. - --Aaron Burns (905)332-7430 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:07 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Verifiers Wayne Biffert wrote: > > My $.02 worth on Verifiers. > If businesses have verifiers to verify their own stock, > I think this would assist the gun owners in buying guns. Peter Kearns wrote: Businesses providing verifiers would colaborate with the government to force this unfair and unjust law into place. I own a firearms business and will not provide verifiers. It is YOUR opinion (and suggestion) that police MAY delay for months. As a dealer I certainly would not allow them to delay even for a matter of hours, and I resent your "opinion" and your "solution". The tone of your message indicates that you are like the majority of Canadians looking for "compromises" and "consensus"...... (Nice words that really mean "They'll do it anyway so we may as well go along with it.") In our area we have been advised by the majority of our customers that they will indeed boycott "quislings" until they go out of business (dealers who provide verifiers.) Lately we are receiving a number of calls each day demanding to know which dealers are providing this "service" to the government...... and we tell them. I would add the following. You refer to Dave Tomlinson and say that you believe he would say "He would be doing an added service for a paying customer." Dave would say no such thing, (and I think he may choose to unleash a blast in your direction himself!) To offer an opinion and then attempt to claim that the president of the NFA would condone this activity is a bit of a stretch.... If I were a suspicious type, I might form the opinion that Wayne is either a verifier, or maybe someone who wishes to provide them in his business. I am probably wrong about this, as I believe most subscribers to this list would never dream of colaborating with the feds in any way to allow this act to become law. regards, Peter Simon says: "The spelling is q-u-i-s-l-i-n-g and the word is Baaaaaaaa...." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:37 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: ANALYSIS OF THE CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM I gained access to the CFR/FRAS FRT CD ROM through a chap who received one in a plain brown envelope. It took us a while to get it on line, but we managed it. Our computer analysis person studied it carefully before we started trying to actually install it, trying to get a handle on the expertise demonstrated by the programming. He decided it was a "kludge" -- computerperson for material produced by hamfisted, inexpert programmers. After installing it, we began by asking it to display all Mannlicher-Carcano firearms, a firearm chosen as being a bit unusual, but very common in Canada. The 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano was used by the Italian Army in both WW I and WW II. Many have been sold in Canada, and still exist here. It was a bad first choice. The FRT apparently does not contain any data on the Mannlicher-Carcano or any of its many Models. If the data IS in there, we could not find it. Perhaps CFR/FRAS thinks that the Italian Army was unarmed during those two wars? Next, we tried the FN SAFN49 -- a 10-shot semi-auto military rifle made by Fabrique Nationale d'Armes de Guerre in .30-06 for Belgium, in 7X57mm for Venezuela, and in 8X57mm for Egypt. There were three entries for it, indicating, apparently, that there were three Models. Unfortunately, the "identifying" data for all three is the same. One is shown as .30-06 or 7mm or 8mm. The other two are both shown as .30-06, with all "identifying" entries identical -- but one is "prohibited" and the other is "unrestricted." No explanation is given, and no method for the "verifier" to tell which is which is suggested. Why? There were a few .30-06 SAFN49s made with selective-fire capability (semi-auto and full auto). They proved to be uncontrollable in full auto fire (rifle too light and/or cartridge too powerful), so later ones did not have the full auto capability. All full auto specimens -- except for a few in museums -- were factory converted to semi-auto only before being released for sale in the civilian marketplace. The problem here is that the poor "verifier" is MOST unlikely to know that. He will probably try to register your SAFN49 according to whichever one of the three entries he tries FIRST -- because it SEEMS to fit. The display shows the "possibles" as a result of your "search object." You select a "possible" and get a "page" of display -- what the program knows about that particular firearm. There are a number of buttons on the page, which glow if they will show you additional information about that "identification" entry. Push a glowing button, and you get a bit more information (e.g., pushing "Serial number" on any Husqvarna rifle will bring up a little window that tells you the Serial number is located on the right front of the receiver -- which is WRONG, because Husqvarna Serial numbers are on the BARREL). Few of the buttons glow, and many of the "pages" are sadly short on information, or display incorrect or inadequate information.. CFR/FRAS has "solved" the problem of bad rifle data by putting off the use of "verification" for long arms until 01 Jan 2003. A poor "solution" -- the problem is NOT going to evaporate, and the system will be filled with un"verified" garbage by 2003. WHY is that acceptable? What USE is a system full of garbage? Then we went to handguns -- which ARE all subject to "verification" from the first day C-68 comes into force. After bouncing around a bit, we hit the Browning-FN problem. John M Browning was a firearms designer, and a very prolific one. He licenced companies (Colt, Winchester, Remington, Fabrique Nationale, Stevens, etc.) to produce his designs. Many of the Browning designs PRODUCED by FN were sold in the US -- marked "Browning," because the Browning brothers set up an import-and-distribute company. Many later firearms marked "Browning" were made in Japan -- or the US (Buckmarks). Many of the FN-made firearms show up on the CD ROM as "Make: Browning; Manufacturer, FN." A lot of them show up as "Make: Browning; Manufacturer: [blank]." There are apparently no standards for when a "Manufacturer" entry should be there, and when not. The Japanese manufacturers do not appear. The 1910 - 1922 Browning handguns made CFR/FRAS's methods of entry very clear to us. Apparently, clerks were set to copying material into the system from books. Unfortunately, the books did not agree on the identification of this group of closely-related firearms -- and the result is chaos. The 1910 Browning pistol was created for FN, and it was an interesting concept. You could buy it in .32 ACP (also called 7.65mm) or .380 ACP (also called 9mm Browning short). The only differences between the two are the barrel, and the number of holes in the sides of their magazines. Either can be changed to the other calibre by simply changing the barrel -- and NOTHING else. The 1922 Browning pistol was created by FN. It is a 1910 with a longer barrel, an extension for the slide, a longer grip, and a longer magazine. Like the 1910, it came in the two calibres, and calibres could be changed by simply substituting a barrel in the other calibre. Oy, oy, oy. From that simple 4-gun set, they made many "different" guns. The 1910 is there -- and it is followed by the "1910 22" -- which is simply a 1922. I do not know where they found that "1910 22" identification, but it should not be in there -- twice -- once for each Calibre. However, there is also the "1922" -- which is the same gun. Then there is the "1922 Pocket" -- which is a misidentified 1910. There is no such gun as the "1922 Pocket." In at least one of the 1922 entries, there is a list of Calibres it came in - -- and the list includes 9mm Luger, which is simply wrong. The 1922 is in no way capable of handling the 9mm Luger cartridge. Two major European companies -- Suisse Industrie Gesellschaft and J P Sauer und Sohn -- have been amalgamated into "SIG Sauer" -- even for firearms made and sold ONLY by SIG or ONLY by Sauer. Their recent commercial links have been pushed back in time to a period when there was NO link. We expected that the FRT would give some indication that a Serial number was not unique, a warning that an FIN would have to be applied. No such warnings are given. Not even for the Mauser 98. And the glowing-button "extra" Serial number data given for the German military Mauser 98s is WRONG, as it merely tells you that the "Serial number range is 1 - 9999z." Apparently, the duffers who entered the data did not know about the 5-numbers, 5-numbers and one letter, 5-numbers and two letters, or 4 numbers and two letters patterns that were also used. Or that such systems DUPLICATE Serial numbers with monotonous regularity. In most cases, the program shows only partial data. For example, the Calibre, Shots and Barrel length boxes are very often empty. The "verifier" is expected to find the "correct" display, then print it. It would make sense for the program to have the capacity to allow entry of the missing data before printing, but it apparently does not. As a result, the missing data must be entered with a pen AFTER printing, which is awkward and will lead to many transcription errors -- particularly Serial number errors, which are the single most serious error that can be made. The programmers who designed this were not thinking clearly. It would have been easy to allow entries -- before printing -- that would print, but not alter the PERMANENT record. The Calibre problems are severe. Calibre identification is defective more often than it is clear. For example, does "9mm" mean .380 ACP, 9mm Makarov, 9mm Ultra, .38 Colt, .38 Super, 9mm Luger, 9mm Mauser, 9mm Steyr, 9mm Largo, or WHAT? Sometimes you get full identification of a Calibre (e.g., 7.62X39mm or 7.62X51mm or .308 Winchster or 7.62X54R) but on most firearm "pages," you do NOT get ENOUGH Calibre "identification" (e.g., only 7.62mm or 9mm or .30) for it to be useful as an identifier. Calibre identifications are NOT standardized, and often two or more names for the SAME Calibre are given AT THE SAME TIME (e.g., 9mm Browning short and .380 ACP and 9mm Corto), apparently because the person entering the data did not know that they are the SAME Calibre. For those of you who DO know your firearms -- at least better than the CFR/FRAS people who passed this kludge as ready for use in "identifying" firearms -- I offer this tidbit: The Russian Tokarev 40 semi-auto rifle was made in 7.62X54R calibre -- and ONLY in that calibre. After WW II, they appeared on the surplus market, but did not sell well because of the odd cartridge. An enterprising company -- Globco -- converted large numbers of them to .303 British, a similar cartridge that was very commonly available. This apparently confused CFR/FRAS. The FRT CD ROM thinks the .303 specimens were made in Canada at Long Branch! The FRT's initial CONCEPT was valuable -- if uniformity of "identification" could be attained, then all firearms of a particular type would be registered identically. This effort is a sad and defective failure. The mountain has labored -- and delivered a deformed mouse. Far from being an argument that registration can be made practical, cost-effective and useful, this latest CFR/FRAS boondoggle is another costly failure. It is yet another reason to SCRAP the entire CFR/FRAS registration system as unworkable, unfixable and impossible to make cost-effective. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:18 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: fees >If it costs $10. now and $60. in the year 2000, Then I opt for the 60. I would >not give them the satisfaction of registering early.I don't have a gun to >register but I hope gun owners agree,and will wait until the last day. Hey, if you wait until C-68 Titanic slips below the water's surface, then you won't have to pay ANYTHING to obey it. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:17:12 -0600 From: "Redmond, Gerry (DNRE/F&W)" Subject: Another cheque to the Legal Defense Fund... Hi folks: Just forwarded another cheque for $26 to the NFA to add to the coffers of the Legal Defense Fund. So, what are the rest of my fellow NEW BRUNSWICKER'S doing? Have you set up your Lousy Loonie Bin at your office or workplace? If not.....why not? It is easy and painless, and you will be surprised at the interest (even from non-firearms owners). Come on, NBers... get off your duffs and get active.....if you and I don't take an active role in fighting for the rights of firearms owners, then who will?? NEW BRUNSWICK has the second highest (per capita) percentage of hunters in Canada.... second only to Newfoundland. With 100,000+ hunters plus many other firearms owners, surely we could raise $250,000 towards the overall goal of $7 million. LET'S DO IT!!! Gerry Redmond NFA Member email: alces@nbnet.nb.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:17:19 -0600 From: Mark Hughes Subject: Re: MY GOOD FRIEND ANNIE Bob Lickacz you wrote >Perhaps I hang around with the wrong type of firearms owners. Maybe I >listen to the wrong radio talk shows. I suppose that I happen to attend the >wrong meetings. It may very well be that I talk to the wrong politicians. >I might be completely wrong. It's just that I have this nagging feeling that >a LOT of firearms owners are going to tell Annie to go to Hell and stuff it. >We are merely arguing about how many. ROTFL! Ha! Well Bob, your right. I live on the other side of the Country and I'm sure many Westerners feel its really another world, but I seem to bump into these same "wrong" things all the time too! STRANGE isn't it? Why I can only recall two people ever telling me they would register and only one guy who said he supported the garbage. Funny thing is, the rest said they wouldn't register anything! Or, being crafty, said they might register one gun so as to go hunting, but not the rest....hmmmm. Now how are they suppose to know who didn't, did/didn't and did? I dunno know! There was that West German experiment in the mid 70's that only 20% registered, then there is our last major registration drive of "evil" looking military semi's that didn't seem to get all them...can't remember the numbers but wasn't something like 6000+ registered out of 24,000+. It would be interesting to know the ratio/percentage as it may be an indicator of what the government can expect and we sure want to help them see what to expect. Maybe they should invest in more dumpsters for the cities, seems to be some firearms being turned into these metal "boys in blue" in preference to human "boys in blue". Now I think its just tragic how people can trust a garbage bin more than a professional Police Officer to help them out of a jam! Maybe we should start putting "To Serve and Protect" on our Cities Dumpsters and "Please Recycle" on Squad Cars. Makes more sense to me at least. (under a Liberal re-engineered society.) UNKWN, UKN, UK, UNK, UN, Unk, Unkwn, Unkn, uKn, uKnWn, ukwn, unkWn... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:52 -0600 From: "Alfred.Hovdestad@usask.ca" Subject: Re: DISSENTING OPINION > As of late, there has been some discussion on the use of the word "unknown" > on registration forms. I believe I have the definitive answer for those who > are a bit timid. I have registered a handgun with several of the blanks > filled in as "unknown." In October, 1997 I purchased a Bill C-68 Special (.32, 57mm barrel) at a local auction. The vendor described it as a H. Bergsmuller (which as I recall is stamped on it somewhere, I'll check it this weekend). The application to register was filled out as Make: H. Bergsmuller. The registration certificate came back as Make: UNKNOWN Alfred Hovdestad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:58 -0600 From: "Glenn Springer" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #641 On 16 Oct 98, BChow2or81@aol.com wrote: > Subject: F.Safety Course > > Can someone tell me the answer to questions I've just received? > > 1. Is Dec 1, 98 the (present) deadline for FAC renewal? No. and Yes. Up to November 30, 1998 you can still apply for an FAC (or renew one). After that you have to apply for a Firearms License. In either case, you have to show proof that you have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Exam if you want the "Possession and Acquisition" version. After January 31, 1999 the course/exam will be split into two separate parts, one for non-restricted and the other for restricted firearms. > 2. How long is the Course (# and length of classes)? About 12-16 hours. Most courses run on a weekend. > 3. Which instructors (from the following list) give classes in the Wilson > / Bathurst area of Toronto? > > Antero Takkala, Clifford Gissane, Jacob Friedberg, Alec Shipman, > Carl Filippazzo, Doria Ciallella, Gerhard Schmitt, James Simzer, Julia > Ciallella, Lorne Rowe, Lynn Coughlin, Michael Brassard, Nelson Anastacio, > Nicholas Bartiz, Robert Filipazzo, Alec Davis, Dan Fedosenko, Ralph Lowe > > Hope for an early reply. Thanks, Bud I'll answer this one off-line. - ---------------- Glenn Springer gspringer@shaw.wave.ca Chief Instructor CPFO Master Instructor # ON-0095 - ---------------------------------------------------------- FAC Firearms Academy Canada hotline: 416 966 7464 mailing address: PO Box 3333, Markham, ON L3R 6G6 website: http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~glenn/fac ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #647 **********************************