From - Wed Oct 21 11:18:44 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 RAA19456; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 17:14:38 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA07031; Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:54:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:54:08 -0600 Message-Id: <199810202254.QAA07031@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 #648 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: 360c873d0000744c Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, October 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 648 In this issue: Re: Verifiers Calgary Sun Letter UN succeses NOW Magazine and Some Thoughts on Verifiers Timmins Daily Press Letters Re: short barreled handguns? Re: Speeding an FAC application? Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #645 NRA Wins a Pair GUN REGISTRATION HIGHER PRIORITY.., Registration of a 4" barrel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:16:15 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Verifiers >If businesses have verifiers to verify their own stock, >I think this would assist the gun owners in buying guns. Unfortunately, it ALSO helps the government to "prove" that their defective system CAN work. If the dealer demands SERVICE from the government -- demands that the government supply the "verifier" who is the GOVERNMENT's creature -- then C-68 Titanic will sink FASTER. The >(RCMP? CFC? Provincial?) government verifiers could delay for >months before they verified a gun I wanted to buy. However if >the business has a verifier right there the transaction can be >completed more quickly. So what do you want? Personal convenience in the short term, or C-68 Titanic underwater in exchange for a very little personal hardship -- a short DELAY in firearms transfer time? Think, people, THINK! >I can't see a business having a verifier to do non-customer >firearms. He is NOT getting paid to do this. He would have to >divert attention from a paying customer to do this. >As Dave would say THINK. Would you do all that work >for non-paying customers? He would be doing an added service >for a paying customer. Even doing it for a paying customer is WRONG. The dealer is working for the federal government -- and NOT getting paid for that work. If he does it, C-68 Titanic will float a little longer. If he REFUSES to do it, and sets up a clamor when the government PROVES that it CANNOT supply the promised "verifiers," C-68 Titanic will SINK. Simon says, "I rate personal convenience far lower than the opportunity to discipline our employees for their failures." Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:25:26 -0600 From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Calgary Sun Letter >From the 18 October Calgary Sun letters section: A LITTLE while ago, the Sun reported the courts upheld the new gun-control laws by a decision of 3-2. The judges said the law was against the Constitution but was still legal. My knowledge of our Constitution is vague at best but after doing some research I found this: The Constitution Act (1982) Part VI, 52.(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. This means the law is "of no force or effect!" The judges who upheld it should be removed from their positions. I challenge the Sun to print our Constitution and Charter of Rights that all Canadians may know exactly what our rights are. Stuart Thompson (Their reasoning was more complex.) Mark L Horstead If it saves just one one person from voting lieberal, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:25:31 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: UN succeses On Sat, 17 Oct 1998, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: Re: DISARMAMENT OF THE WORLD...! > > I have snipped parts of "Jaded Junker's" submission and my > comments are attached....... (They principally apply to > remarks by one Kofi Annan Secretary General of the UN) > > However Annan forgets to mention that in Ruanda the UN had > the option of intervening and saving lives, but instead > waited around while millions of innocent people were > butchered BY GOVERNMENT TROOPS, WITH "LEGAL" GOVERNMENT > WEAPONRY. Mr. Annan was also the ranking UN official in charge of this area at the time of the atrocities and bares a major part of the responsibility for it because he was the one who personally ordered that no precautions be taken before or during this sad episode. > Remember East Timor? IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE U.N. IS ONLY > INTERESTED IN PRESERVING THE STATUS QUO, AND MAINTAINING THE > GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTLY IN POWER. THE U.N. DOESN'T > GIVE A DAMN WHAT THOSE COUNTRIES DO TO THEIR CITIZENS, AS > EVIDENCED IN RUANDA AND KOSOVO, THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT KEEPING > CONTROLABLE GOVERNMENTS IN POWER........ (AND THAT IS WHY > THEY LIKE GOOD 'OL CRETIn AND HIS PIGLETS.) The UN seems to have been hijacked by its own bureaucrats. They have set up a self-perpetuating financial black hole whos only successes seem to be in the field of PR. No wonder it is the darling of the Lieberal Party. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:25:40 -0600 From: Mark L Horstead Subject: NOW Magazine and Some Thoughts on Verifiers A couple of weeks ago, I posted an article published in NOW Magazine, a very left, student/artsy/gay tabloid distributed for free in the Toronto area. It was surprisingly balanced and the reporter actually did some research and even openly admitted her biases. Four letters, all from firearms owners including people from these lists, were published in the following issue. I expected a hefty backlash from antis, but none has materialized in the subsequent two issues. They all like firearms? They're all as against C-68 as we are? They just don't care? I don't know, but I'm curious, and a bit disappointed - I was hoping to keep the issue in the NOW spotlight and further educate its readers. Oh, well. As for verifiers, there have been a few posts of late concerning some Edmonton dealers who appear to have volunteered. They have been instantly vilified as traitors and quislings, and demands have been made to boycott and piquet them. Let's back off for a bit and think. When France was liberated in the last war, a lot of collaborators and traitors were rounded up for swift and brutal reprisal by jubilant locals out for revenge. In most cases this was justified, but a few of those unfortunates were resistance fighters and allied agents who had perfected their covers a little too well. Not too many got a chance to explain themselves. Let's find out WHY these dealers have signed up BEFORE getting all worked up. To ingratiate themselves with the lieberals? To protect their business from police attentions? To provide a "service" to their customers? Out of ignorance? To sabotage the system? Don't forget - a couple of people have posted here that they might become verifiers just to get that shiny FART CD and distribute it. Even DAT has spoken on this. I'd get a good giggle if three thousand Simon Jesters were signed up and wrote "unknown" in all of those blanks on millions of forms. Wouldn't you? We may or may not approve of their reasons, and we may never find out what they are, but we should perhaps temper our reactions a bit until we know more. Anybody in Edmonton care to pop in and have a chat with these people? Then we can react as we should. Mark L Horstead If it saves just one person from voting lieberal, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 06:25:50 -0600 From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Timmins Daily Press Letters This letter was published in the Timmins Daily Press (okarls@timminspress.com) on 17 October. My response follows. Bill C-68 captures praise from reader NORMAN NEATHWAY of Foleyet in a letter to the editor last Thursday headlined `Backer of Bill C-68 off the mark. . .' says absolutely nothing in his letter to address the issues on gun control except to provide us with a sanitized definition of lobbying that I'm sure he does not believe himself. He says lobbying ``means people exercising their right to solicit legislation to vote for or against proposed measures.'' I agree it might be soliciting, but in that other connotation. His dictionary definition is as far removed from the real world as would a dictionary definition of communism be and bears no resemblance to the way the Politburo practiced it. He should become more informed on what goes on in the real world. It is money and PR that moves and influences I not dictionary definitions. This, like his label of my being ill-informed, is only meant to obfuscate to detract from the central issue which is the establishment of a universal gun owner's registry that can be quickly and easily accessed on a new database link-up. The gun lobby is disseminating all kinds of misleading information, half truths, false analogies and alarmist scenarios to further their cause. The classic one being that the government's ulterior motive is the eventual confiscation of all their firearms (once the registry is in place). This is about as likely as the Reform Party forming the next government. Some of the anti Bill C-68 protesters who journeyed to Parliament Hill compared the government tactics to the way Hitler took power when in fact it was just the reverse. Hitler's brown shirts armed secretly in defiance of the legitimate government of the day in Germany and when sufficiently armed took over the streets and eventually the government. It is these false analogies and half truths that frankly scare me if they will go to this length. The tobacco/smoking Lobby in the U.S. went so far as to try and convince the public that smoking and tobacco might actually be good for you but definitely not harmful to one's health. There is a Jewish saying that goes ``A half truth is a whole lie.'' By quibbling and dwelling on minor details and technicalities, Mr. Neathway misses the point of the entire legislation. It reminds me of the fundamentalist who knew every word of the Bible, but missed its meaning, unable to see the forest for the trees. Throughout this debate we must always keep this perspective in mind: Guns are designed only to kill and to maim and that 80 percent of the population support gun control. J. Joyce, Timmins Please forgive me for coming in in what appears to be the middle of a conversation, but due to my place of residence I'm not a regular reader. Regardless, I do have to respond to some comments by J Joyce in the letter entitled "Bill C-68 captures praise from reader", published on 17 October. It is the government, not the "gun lobby" (ie seven million ordinary Canadian citizens), who is disseminating misleading information. One notorious example is the falsification of statistics based on misuse of RCMP criminal use-of-firearms data, resulting in a demand for correction from the commissioner of the RCMP himself. Another example is deliberate under "estimate" of the costs of the registry: supposedly $85,000,000 over five years, already over $200,000,000 plus untold millions in "buried" costs, and most likely to end up in the one to two BILLION range. The government has consistently lied to generate public support, the truth is finally starting to come out, and support is evaporating. The confiscation motive is far from being merely an alarmist scenario. This is exactly what is happening in the UK and Australia today, has already happened in Canada to a more limited degree, and provision for which is specifically included in C-68. There are definite parallels to Hitler's regime. Scapegoating a whole class of harmless citizens is the same whether it's based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or mental health in Hitler's case, or the ownership of a particular type of property in Chretien's/Rock's case. Denying their fundamental rights, stealing their lawfully acquired property, criminalizing them when no crime has taken place, and otherwise harassing them is no different either. Guns are NOT designed to kill and maim as claimed. They are simply designed to propel a projectile with accuracy and at high velocity. The use to which they are put, like any tool, depends solely on the user. It could be putting food on the table, punching holes in paper targets, winning Olympic medals, hanging on the wall and admiring, committing criminal acts, or defending against those criminal acts. As for the 80 percent of the population supporting gun control, well, so what? As a firearms owner, I support gun control too. Sensible, workable, practical, effective, fair gun control. C-68 is none of those things. You can also word the questions in a poll to get exactly the answer that you want. Ever wonder why the specific questions are never reported? Judging from J Joyce's letter, being labelled ill-informed was accurate. I seriously doubt that he/she has even so much as glanced at C-68, much less studied it. I also seriously doubt that he/she has studied much history. Mark L Horstead Newmarket, Ontario If it saves just one person from voting lieberal, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 07:08:17 -0600 From: "Alfred.Hovdestad@usask.ca" Subject: Re: short barreled handguns? > From: Joseph Widdup > If not, does some one have/ know of a dealer who has a few very cheap > short barrel firearms in stock. Try the Saskatoon Gun Show November 6,7,8. If you don't find anything there, I have a 6.35mm Webley & Scott with a 54mm barrel that I am willing to sell for a good cause. Alfred Hovdestad ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:20:12 -0600 From: lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca Subject: Re: Speeding an FAC application? At 06:17 AM 10/18/98 -0600, you wrote: >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? Buy the gun but do not take possession- have the current owner hold it for you til you get your F.A.C. , or have a friend with an F.A.C. hold it for you until you can take possession. The law only stops you from possessing the firearm, not buying it. lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca Peace River, Alberta, Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 08:20:17 -0600 From: mred@cujo2.icom.ca (iCOM Subscriber) Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #645 >Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 19:59:30 -0600 >From: Wardrop >Subject: Verifiers charging a fee > >I was in an Al Flaherty's Outdoor Store here in Toronto about a week ago >and the clerk behind the counter very matter of factly told me that they >had signed up two or three of themselves as Verifiers. The reson was that >they were not going to be political about it and as they were in the >business of selling firearms this was a necessary new requirement. > >The clerk further told me that it was clear in talking with the RCMP (or >whoever signed them-up as verifiers) that verifiers working on private >sales could charge what they liked but $10 - $15 a firearm was the >suggested retail price as fair compensation for their 'work' as do FAC >instructors etc. Thanks for letting us here in Ontario know who the Quislings are. Let this be a notice to Al Flaherty that I will encourage all gun-owners in Ontario to boycott his premises forthwith. There are lots of other stores to choose from in the Southern Ontario region.!!! ED.Ontario Kanada( without prejudice) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:53:55 -0600 From: CILA Subject: NRA Wins a Pair CILA Defending Canada's Heritage Pair of Defeats for Brady Backers 10/19/98 The Brady law's five-day waiting period will be history on Nov. 30, and gun- owners will not have to pay a fee to support the background-check system that will replace it, USA Today reported Oct. 16. Congress handed the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun-rights groups a pair of victories last week as federal budget negotiations wound down. A proposal by the Clinton administration to retain the Brady waiting- period -- slated to be replaced by an 'instant-check' system -- was dropped by budget negotiators. And Congress also went along with a plan by Sen. Robert Smith (R-N.H.) and rejected a fee that would have been charged to gun-buyers to support the $42 million background-check system. Instead, legislators voted to appropriate the money to pay for the system. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), who unsuccessfully tried to get fellow lawmakers to substitute a three-day waiting period for the five-day period, predicted that voters would push to reinstate the system when they find out it has been dropped. - -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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:53:46 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: GUN REGISTRATION HIGHER PRIORITY.., NEWS RELEASE October 20, 1998 For Immediate Release WHY DID THE RCMP CUT FUNDING TO FIGHT ORGANIZED CRIME BUT STILL SUPPORT WASTING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS ON THE GUN REGISTRATION SCHEME? Ottawa - This morning, Saskatchewan MP, Garry Breitkreuz was dumb-founded by the RCMP's and Solicitor General Andy Scott's misplaced priorities. "They're cutting the RCMP budgets used to fight organized crime and have even stopped training new cadets in Regina but they continue to support the government's useless billion dollar gun registration scheme," exclaimed Breitkreuz. Today's Ottawa Citizen headline read, "Funding cuts making crime families 'untouchable'". The article quoted heavily from a piece published in the RCMP Gazette in which Inspector Ben Soave complained about Ottawa's last minute funding cuts to Operation Omerta - a high-profile bust of a suspected global crime ring. The RCMP Inspector said the investigation was salvaged by an emergency cash injection from Ontario's criminal intelligence service. In response to the RCMP cuts, Inspector Soave said, "I cannot continue to operate. Not if we're serious about organized crime. The result is that we will continue to allow these people to be untouchable, like some already are." Breitkreuz commented, "Criminals must be laughing their heads off at the government for robbing Peter to pay Paul so the real criminals can go about robbing Peter, Paul and the rest of us." "Andy Scott talks big about combating organized crime but when it comes to putting a few million dollars where public safety really counts, he balks," said Breitkreuz. "Both the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP know that by the end of this fiscal year the government will have spent about $200 million on an ineffective scheme to register between 20 million legally-owned guns in the country. They also know the Department of Justice has said it will cost $50-60 million a year just to operate the firearms registry. "How many RCMP could we hire to combat organized crime with that amount of money?" asked Breitkreuz. "Last year Statistics Canada reported that Canada had the fewest number of police officers per capita since 1972. What does the government do? It suspends training recruits. That's just nuts." In the midst of all these cuts, here's what RCMP Assistant Commissioner D.C. Cooper had to say in an October 1st letter to the Ontario Handgun Association about the gun registration scheme. "It is the position of the RCMP, however, that if the conclusions of the report and the subsequent legislation result in even one life being saved, then the investment will have been worthwhile." Breitkreuz concluded, "This shows you how political the top-brass at the RCMP have become when they can't defend their position with the truth. Instead of statistical analysis they resort to tossing out platitudes coined by the anti-gun lobby. One wonders why the RCMP and the government haven't compared how many lives would be saved if the hundreds of millions being wasted on the firearms registry were invested in real crime fighting measures." - -30- For more information please call: Ottawa office: (613) 992-4394 Yorkton Office: (306) 782-3309 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 16:53:51 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: Registration of a 4" barrel I own a S & W model 686. It was purchased new, in 1988. It had at that time a 4" barrel. Just prior to Feb. 1995, I had the 4" barrel removed and replaced with a 6" barrel, as I had been told that after Feb./95 I would not be able to use the firearm for target practice or competitions if it had a short barrel(4"). I kept the 4" barrel. Now I understand that effective Dec. 1/98 my 4" barrel will become a prohibited device, and I must surrender it for destruction. Even though I am grandfathered to own short barreled firearms and own several others. It seems because it is not attached to the firearm, I can't keep it!! I also have a Erma Werke Mod. ESP 85A target pistol in .22 cal. with a .32 S&W long conversion barrel which is registered to the pistol as a conversion barrel. It's not always attached to the pistol, naturally, as depending on the competition, I may be using the .22 version. It will not become a prohibited device, because its registered to the pistol. I have been emailing the CFC, and they have now told me that I can not register the 4" barrel with my Model 686, that I must re-attach it to the gun, re-register the gun with the 4" barrel and then register the 6" barrel! This doesn't make sense. I believe I have the right to register my 4" barrel as a conversion barrel for my S&W., just like my .32 barrel is registered for my Erma. Any advice Dave? I'm sure there must be others out there in a similar spot, or who might like to have this type of option available to them. thanks Bill ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #648 **********************************