From - Fri Oct 23 17:13:55 1998 Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (majordomo@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by skatter.USask.Ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA24207; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:49:46 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA24240; Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:35:54 -0600 Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:35:54 -0600 Message-Id: <199810232135.PAA24240@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 #660 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: X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 360c873d0000771c Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, October 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 660 In this issue: Re: Trigger Locks NFA Comments on CFC BULLETIN NO. 24 Re: Gun registration Re: Registration of Gun Owners Re: Just a question RCMP threatening dealers [Fwd: [Fwd: liberals]] application to re-register registered firearms Re: Annie lying again......... Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #658 Let's get Ontario to opt out, just like SK and AB...MAYBE EXTORTION Robert Bateman condemns the firearms community "PLAN BACKFIRES" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:50:46 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Trigger Locks >Hi Dave I have a question for you. I talked to a lady at the CFC told me >that the metal gun cabinets like at Canadian tire are not considered a gun >safe. This would mean that a restricted firearm would need a trigger lock on >it. Do you agree with this. Hogwash. Black's Law Dictionary ( commonly used in Canadian courts) defines "safe" as "a metal receptacle for the presevation of valuables." A locked tool box would qualify as a "safe" for handguns. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:08:21 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: NFA Comments on CFC BULLETIN NO. 24 >Canadian Firearms@CFC, 10/22/98 02:35 PM >Bulletin No. 24 >Placing the Firearms Identification Number >If your firearm has no serial number, or if the serial number, >combined with other features of the firearm, is not sufficient to >tell it apart from all other firearms, Due to the sheer impossibility of knowing the policy of each and every firearms manufacturer on the issue of whether or not Serial numbers should ever be duplicated, there are very few firearms that can be GUARANTEED to have a unique Serial number. Because, for example, Iver Johnson used a machine to stamp Serial numbers, and that machine was only capable of stamping 5 digits, there were some 9,000,000 Iver Johnson revolvers made with Serial numbers ranging from 1 to 99,999 -- indicating that there WERE duplicate Serial numbers in their production. All German military rifles, handguns and other firearms were Serial numbered with a complex system that produced many, many firearms with duplicated Serial numbers. Most companies that produce large numbers of military and/or police firearms under a contract from another country will stamp Serial numbers on such firearms in any range chosen by the customer. And some firearms -- like the Fabrique Nationale Browning M1910, variant "Model 115" -- have TWO perfectly valid Serial numbers on each firearm. THEN what do you do? It is not known what criteria will be applied to determine when a firearm has a Serial number "not sufficient to tell it apart from all other firearms" -- but it is quite clear that MOST firearms -- and particularly early firearms made before WW II and military surplus firearms -- suffer from this problem. Therefore, MOST firearms will require the FIN. What IS clear, however, is that the CFR/FRAS Firearms Registration Table CD ROM is utterly useless for determining anything whatever about Serial number problems. Most firearms described on that CD ROM have NO Serial number information at all, and much of what IS there is WRONG. >you will have to put a >Firearms Identification Number (FIN) on your firearm when you >register it. Depending on the circumstances, you will either >attach a special sticker provided by the Registrar This is gravely worrying. It seems unlikely that the "sticky" will survive the assault of every solvent, cleaning fluid, lubricant and preservative used on firearms. The glue may dissolve, the "paper" may dissolve, or the printing may wash away -- we will have to wait and see. There is also a question as to whether or not the "sticky" will adhere well enough to EVERY material that a firearm "frame or receiver" may be made or, and every surface finish that may be applied to a firearm. And there is the problem of normal wear and tear -- how LONG will a "sticky" stay readable? > or permanently >engrave or stamp the FIN on your firearm (see CFC Bulletin #23 >for details). Either way, you must put the FIN on the frame or >receiver of your firearm. With some firearms -- particularly small handguns and muzzle-loading single shot firearms of all types -- that is going to range from difficult to impossible. The CFC says that the "frame or receiver" is a muzzle-loader's breech plug, but the RCMP say that the barrel is the "frame or receiver." The RCMP is clearly wrong -- a barrel is a barrel. What IS clear, though, is that there may be no ROOM for the "sticky" on the "frame or receiver" -- at least, not enough to lay it out flat and straight. > In most cases, the FIN must be visible >to the naked eye and easily readable without having to take apart >the firearm. The FIN does not have to be visible on the frame or >receiver if the Registrar agrees that: 1) the manufacturer of that >type of firearm usually places the serial number in a hidden place; >2) the firearm does not have a visible space suitable for attaching >a sticker or engraving; 3) making the FIN visible would greatly >reduce the value of a rare or unusually valuable firearm; or, 4) a >licensed business specially imports any firearm for a short time >only. If for whatever reason your FIN sticker falls off or the >number can't be read, you must let the Registrar know immediately. >The Registrar will issue you another sticker that you must attach >to your firearm as soon as possible. Undoubtedly some people, when trying to apply the "sticky," will fail to adequately remove all lubricants and/or preservatives, causing failure of adhesion and the need for a replacement "sticky." Fortunately, replacement "stickies" are supposed to be free. If the demand for replacement "stickies" is high -- each with its own unique number, which will have to be manually typed in to make one -- it will be very costly. >Modifying Firearms >A Registration Certificate will be valid for as long as you own >your firearm unless you modify your firearm one of two ways. If >you modify your registered firearm in a way that changes the class >of the firearm (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited), you must >notify the Registrar within 30 days of the change. 1. It is frequently not possible to tell what class a firearm falls into, due to the sadly defective language of Bill C-68. For example, a handgun (e.g., Browning M1922) may be "prohibited" if it is .32 ACP Calibre, and "restricted" if it is .380 ACP Calibre. If it has no barrel, slide or magazine, it is NEITHER Calibre, and falls into NO class. 2. There is no provision in the law (FA or CC) that orders notification of a change of class. It is a criminal offence to possess a friearm that you are not licenced to possess -- but if you alter a firearm so that it shifts from rifle to shotgun to handgun and ARE licenced to possess all of those, you are not in violation of any law. It is one of C-68's defects that it did not cover this area. 3. There is no provision in the law (FA or CC) that allows the issuance of an Order in Council having that effect, and the defective legislation can only be amended by PARLIAMENT. 4. If the change is reversed within the 30-day period -- say, by stripping the firearm for routine cleaning -- a new 30-day period begins. Therefore, even if a court finds this defective rule to be valid, prosecution for violation will be extremely difficult. It will be necessary for the Crown to prove that the firearm has been IN that class CONTINUOUSLY for 30 days, WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE ACCUSED. > If your firearm >is registered as a frame or receiver only, and you modify the frame >or receiver so that it can fire ammunition, again you must notify >the Registrar within 30 days. A new Registration Certificate will >cost $12.50. Hogwash. A firearm is either registered, or it is NOT registered. If it IS registered, there is NOTHING in the law that can be used to prosecute you for violation of that non-rule. This is merely some CFC bureaucrat trying to cure the defects in C-68 by Order in Council -- and that does not work. The above "rule" would have to be created by a change in C-68 itself, made by PARLIAMENT. I DO wish that the CFC would stop LYING to the firearms community through its defective Bulletins. I am forwarding a copy of this analysis directly to the CFC, and asking the CFC this question: Is the CFC (a) hopelessly incompetent, (b) completely ignorant of the relevant law or (c) a government organization designed to deceive the people who read its witless Bulletins? I request that the CFC reply be made to the Canadian Firearms Digest, where this analysis will be published. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:21:51 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Gun registration >In regards to all the confusion about how to legally throw a wrench into >the governments C68 registry system, I have this suggestion. Why not have >every firearm owner wait to the very last minute, Dec 31 2002, to >register. Good, but insufficient. It leaves everything hanging for four long years. There has to be more active resistance DURING that period. >Then start in on the CFC, asking continually, how many guns they've >registered, how much has the program cost so far, what have they done to >ensure compliance, etc. etc. Have your M.P. ask at every opportunity. >Keep bugging them for answers. Good. >If the general public got wind of a program that has operated for 5 >years, without dollar one coming in, and yet still maintaining a >staff/bureaucracy and budget,I think that the pressure to adapt/scrap the >program would be immense. >This would be perfectly legal, as the law states that you have until that >date to comply. WRONG. Every firearm bought or received or inherited during that 4-year stretch MUST be registered when transferred. The delay to 01 Jan 2003 applies only to firearms that DO NOT MOVE. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:23:02 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Registration of Gun Owners >Are we not shooting ourselves in the foot when we advocate the registration >of gun owners instead of guns? Would the gov't not love this as a fall back >position? Perhaps somebody could explain the differences? It is not possible to use the Practical Firearms Control System to confiscate firearms, because a person may have a PFCS Firearms Permit -- but no firearms. The Firearms Permit merely certifies that the holder is QUALIFIED to have an use firearms of a particular class for a particular type of use. The system does not register gun OWNERS -- it identifies people who are QUALIFIED to possess and use firearms -- whether they actually do or not. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:25:14 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Just a question >>Of course. MANY people have already done that. Go to the post office, and >>get a "re-registration" form. When C-68 comes into force (if it ever does), >>reregister all your handguns -- and tick Box 6, to reregister them as "frame >>or receiver" ONLY. >Peter Kearns says not to check that box, that it is not required. So, >which is it, Peter and DAT? Check or don't check? Check it. If THEY put it in the form, why not USE it? Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:46:30 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: RCMP threatening dealers I would suggest that dealers who are being threatened verbally (of course it won't be in writing) by the RCMP or CPFO's to become verifiers go out and purchase a micro-casette recorder and capture these conversations on tape. The recorders come with a very good, tiny clip-on microphone and you can also get another specially made to stick on the earpiece of a telephone. I'd suggest collecting as much of this as possible without letting on what's happening in order to give time for other dealers to to the same. When enough of this has been gathered then it's time to hit the media with this further outrage committed by a government out of control. Maybe they'll be more cautious about doing this now that it's semi-public but there is simply no way for them to threaten you without doing it in writing or verbally so let's see what happens. Also, it would be very interesting to see what the criminal courts have to say about refusing licenses for no apparent reason. Don't let them intimidate you. I know it's easy to say but if I were a dealer I'd be telling them where to get off and then documenting every abuse that comes as a result of it. I agree with the posters who have condemned those who have placed their own financial well-being ahead of the interests of the firearms community. It's shortsighted, help guarantee the elimination of private firearms ownership and smacks of the same sort of selfishness that saw Jews working for the SS during WWII. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:56:24 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: liberals]] As possibly the next Leader of the Liberal Party , can you not do something to rein in Allen Rock - eveything he touches turns to kaka! And Axworthy- with his secret Un Meetings over firearms - not permitting our representatives to report to us on what he is doing. As a Former Canadian ServiceMan who served under the Un Flag I can only tell my fellow Canadaians - lets leave theUn - it has become a haven for subversiveness paid for in large by us and directed against us - -probably. I have never voted other than liberal in my life, but with out some drastic turn I cannot - ever again. And it appears no one else but Ontario ever will - and that margin is eroding! Will you become the leader - as Campbell experienced in the fall of the Mulronyites. God I hope not - I have admired your service so far ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:58:14 -0600 From: "James Bachynsky" Subject: application to re-register registered firearms Just picked up my pile of forms in St Albert(By the way there are still lots left, as I was the first person to ask for any).These are very puzzling forms.Types of firearms includes commercial version, which is "a firearm designed and manufactured as a semi-automatic version of the same full-automatic firearm". Eh? Looks like another spot for unknown. Purpose- allows target practice, but you must enter the name of your club on the form(note that this could change weekly, do we then need to notify them?), also the instructions list this option only for restricted firearms or prohibited handguns(what of my M14 target rifle?). Protection of life is also an option, but you need to call them first before choosing this option(probably so that they can tell you that it isn't an option). Note the disclaimer, "it is an offense to knowingly make a false statement". Not at all the wording in the legislation! The final indignation is the fact that the envelope is not postage paid. So one gun per form, times a collection starts adding up to some real money for postage. James ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:04:55 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Annie lying again......... Quote by Minister of Justice (AKA Idle Annie) > > > >No new firearms are being prohibited as part of these changes. In > >fact, three models of the Valmet Hunter rifle, a semi-automatic > >rifle that is commonly used for hunting in Northern Canada, have > >now been re-classified from prohibited to non-restricted. Peter Kearns wrote: OOOOOH Annie, you are a terrible liar! What about the short barreled handguns that you prohibited. Our Justice Minister tells lies, and should not be trusted. (I understand she is being issued with fireproof undergarments by Herr Cretin.) regards, Peter > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:14:03 -0600 From: "Jean-Francois Avon" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #658 >=========== Simon would certainly agree that: ============== > >What are the Liberals willing to spend for a woman's life: > >1 billion $ (10 years) for 800 firearms deaths = 1,250,000$ / life >20 million (5 years) for 22500 women dying of breast cancer = 888$ / life >============================================================ >[Well, I'm not Simon, but I won't agree that 800 lives will be saved by >C-68, so the cost per life is much higher... -- Skeeter] Oops, sorry. I agree with you Skeeter, I only had in mind the Lieberal lies in mind when I composed the text. Actually, since it will increase the number of death (800 saved minus a lot induced), it means that the govt will be willing to *pay* to *get* peoples killed! :-) [exactly! -- Skeeter] Anyhow, here is another example of all sort of creative conclusion we could have the numbers say... :-) Ciao jfa "torture a set of data long enough and it will confess to anything" - an old research lab saying ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:15:59 -0600 From: CILA Subject: Let's get Ontario to opt out, just like SK and AB...MAYBE The Government of Ontario has repeatedly said "they will not allocate one penny to registration or transfers in the Province of Ontario". As with most things, they have remained true to their word. Last weekend, I worked the Ontario PC Convention of behalf of CILA's Participating Organizations and the results were very positive. While some firearms owners have criticized the Harris Gov't's "one foot in, one foot out" policy, it should be remembers that this forces the feds to divide their ridiculous system into two separate pieces. One of registration and one of licensing. Indeed, this introduces an element of complexity into a system already too complex to be workable. The RCMP must devote huge amounts of scarce resources to registration of Ontario's estimated 1.2 million firearms owners (numbers from the CPFO's office). This will severely cripple their already burdened budget and cause even more wind down of essential services across the country. As well, it allows Canada's largest province to "interpret" the laws imposed by C-68 and seek solutions beneficial to our cause. For example; 3 year "Permits to Transport", renewable by telephone. There are many others but the essence is clear. It must be remembered that the feds will have to have at least four separate C-68s. 1) One for the provinces that comply. 2) One for the provinces that do not comply. 3) One for the province of Quebec (totally implemented by the QPP) 4) One for the province of Ontario (split into two parts) What a mess! Tony Bernardo Executive Director CILA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:18:06 -0600 From: Bob Lickacz Subject: EXTORTION If anyone knows ANY dealer, ANY store, or ANYONE who has been visited by ANY police service in the Province of Alberta, that claimed if they did not become verifiers, their licences would be yanked please get in touch with me IMMEDIATELY. Take down their badge number, name, and preferably have a witness. Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:29:05 -0600 From: "Matt River" Subject: Robert Bateman condemns the firearms community I thought readers to the Digest would be interested in the following exerpt from renowned wildlife artist/naturalist Robert Bateman. These are transcripts from remarks he made at the "Endangered Species Rally" held [Monday, 28 Sept. 1998] outside of the Harbour Tower Hotel, Victoria B.C. while the federal and provincial wildlife ministers were meeting inside: "Thank you all for coming. This is an excellent turnout. We may not have the numbers that showed up in Ottawa last week from the gun control lobby . However, they were acting from their own selfish interests (paranoid though they may be). You are not here for any selfish interest. We are here to speak for those that have no voice.... those thousands of different species which are being destroyed by the activities of one species, homo sapiens......." For those of you who would like to comment directly to Bateman, his address and fax is as follows: Box 115, Fulford Harbour, Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 2P2 Fax: 250 653-9211 [You could also send e-mail to this address mailto:remote-printer.Robert_Bateman/Fulford_Harbour@12506539211.iddd.tpc.int and it should print your e-mail on his fax machine... -- Skeeter] I've admired Bateman's artistic talents in the past, but will now put him on my personal boycott list. PS....Had a call from ATT Canada the other night. Told them to "take a hike" until they change their policy with respect to funding groups that attack the firearms community. Matt [You can still sign up with Glentel by calling 1-800-700-0017 and giving them the NFA associate number F10413. Glentel offers 10 cents a minute (etc.) just like the others, but a percentage will go to the NFA, and not some anti-gun org. -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:35:36 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: "PLAN BACKFIRES" PUBLICATION: Kitchener-Waterloo Record DATE: 98.10.23 EDITION: Final SECTION: INSIGHT PAGE: A21 BYLINE: Bob Phillips Several thousand opponents of the federal registry took the time and trouble to protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa last month but the media gave them the brush-off Bob Phillips mailto:recordletters@southam.ca Plan backfires; Sweeping legislation curbs the rights of gun owners For the past few years, Canadians have endured a continuing barrage of opinion about gun control and have seen the subsequent passage of this legislation by the Liberal-controlled parliament. When the Liberals launched their sweeping gun control legislation in 1995, they had all their publicity and propaganda machines ready and moved quickly to get as wide an endorsement as they could from a variety of groups such as the Association of Chiefs of Police, women's groups and medical organizations. The legislation was steamrolled through the House of Commons and hit millions of gun owners as a fait accompli. The problem is, it is now late 1998, and those millions of honest Canadians who happen to own and use firearms have refused to roll over and play dead. While caught unprepared in 1995, gun owners have since done their own homework, examined the issues and statistics presented by the successive Liberal federal justice ministers, (Allan Rock and Anne McLellan) and simply proven them wrong. Statistics inflated The statistics, used to sway those special interest groups to support the gun legislation, were revealed by the RCMP to be inflated by 70-fold. The claim that women's lives would be saved in great number is cast into doubt by revelations that most deaths by firearms are suicides. And the fact remains that those who wish to acquire firearms for criminal purposes have not been deterred by more than a decade of restrictive firearms acquisition legislation. As more than 10,000 citizens picketed the front lawn of Parliament Hill protesting new gun legislation, Justice Minister Mclellan declared "the debate" was over. The mandatory registration of firearms would continue, albeit several months late and already $35 million over budget. This means, too, that police have the right to invade homes without search warrants and that many types of legally owned firearms are prohibited. Shooters will be subject to random police inspections, police harassment at shooting ranges and gun shows, and the general presumption by justice officials that they are all guilty of some evil conspiracy on the basis of firearms ownership. Sadly, these claims are not paranoia, but facts, as revealed in Bill C68. As the stakes increase and the resistance crystallizes, McLellan and her Liberal cronies countrywide are moving toward a smear campaign against critics of the new gun legislation. During the protest by firearms owners, McLellan said the liberal politicians had no intention of confiscating the guns of legitimate owners and that the new law did not "violate anyone's civil rights." This is utter hogwash and we readily remember the many other promises made by this brand of politicians: the promise to end the GST, to renegotiate free trade, to repay civil servants their legitimately owed back pay, the pepper spraying of Canadian citizens lawfully protesting, etc., etc., etc. McLellan's assurances that "confiscation" will not occur is a half truth which quickly degenerates into a lie upon inspection. Currently, by order in council, without debate, any can be named as restricted or prohibited. This has been happening now for several years. Firearms that were legally purchased, owned and used have now been restricted to the point where they can be neither used nor sold. The owner's investment is lost, as is the enjoyment derived from using the . To claim that this does not amount to confiscation is to play semantics. In a letter to McLellan, Canadian Police Association executive Scott Newark stated that the new firearms legislation will be compromised if the government proceeds with its plan to confiscate between 20,000 to 30,000 privately and legally owned firearms. "We were nothing short of amazed to hear questions of constitutionality, concerning confiscation without compensation of property previously lawfully acquired, swept aside as non-existent," wrote Newark. Now that the legitimacy of much of the firearms legislation is under attack, the Liberals have realized that the only option left is to try and throw as much mud at their critics as they can, and hope some of it sticks. A media brush-off In a recent column, Calgary Herald writer Catherine Ford led the charge for mediocrity in the media by attacking the protesters on Parliament Hill. she describes the protesters as "Eddie Bauer meets K-Mart," that "rock concerts turn out more noise and verbal violence" than did the protesters, and that they dispersed "more like a crowd leaving the bingo parlor than a protest of principle." It's too bad Ford didn't open her eyes a little wider. It's too bad that 10,000 citizens, who went a long way to make an important point, got another media brush-off. Is it any wonder gun owners are fed up? The essence of the debate is not about firearms at all; it's about the rights Canadians should enjoy, without equivocation and interference by politicians of any stripe. Without basic fundamental rights, such as the right to own and enjoy private property, the right to be presumed innocent and honest until proven otherwise, and to have security of home and person, we have a country doomed to fail. It's not gun owners who don't "get it," it's people like Ford and the rest of the anti-gun lobby who have still failed to address the fundamental issues raised by gun control legislation. While the Liberal anti-gun crowd continues to talk out of both sides of its mouth, it has not yet publically admitted its fear. The Liberals have a lot riding on this legislation. It had counted on a brief period of protest by gun owners, followed by compliance. But gun owners will not simply go away. Violent crime will not be reduced. And if a majority of firearms owners refuses to comply with mandatory registration, then this ill-conceived legislation will be dead in the water. Regardless of what side of this debate people stand on, doesn't it seem reasonable and logical that what we really need is legislation and leadership that will draw together the disparate cultural components of our large country, not further alienate millions of honest, hard-working people who happen to own firearms? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #660 **********************************