From - Mon Nov 2 08:43:42 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 NAA04388; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:37:35 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA19681; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:59 -0600 Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:59 -0600 Message-Id: <199811011920.NAA19681@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 #673 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: 360c873d00007dba Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, November 1 1998 Volume 02 : Number 673 In this issue: Re: Hunting with FAC Re: FAC needed or not needed RE: Collective VS Individual Rights Re: "No Registration" campaign Re: Setting the record straight Re: Hunting with FAC Re: Verifiers No Respect Wake up Liberals Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #670 Lousy Looney Report #20 Reason # 101 not to subscribe to the NFA Re: RCMP Verifier's? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:41:25 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Hunting with FAC >I have no intention of applying for the FAC until I see what is going to >happen with the firearms legislation. Correct me if I am wrong but in my >understanding is that you do not have to produce the FAC if you are >hunting. Although I picked up the application, I have no intention of >applying for one. Some of the questions that are on the application are >very disturbing and in my opinion not the governements business. Under C-68's CC s. 98(1) to (3), you are "deemed" to have an invisible C-68 licence until 01 Jan 2001 and an invisible C-68 registration certificate for your hunting firearm until 01 Jan 2003. As long as you are able to produce those two invisible documents on demand, you should have no trouble at all. However, you should realize that an FAC becomes a C-68 "possession and acquisition" licence on the day C-68 comes into force, and stays valid until its expiry date, 5 years after issue. And that the FAC screws up the C-68 system, because it does NOT have the information on it that the C-68 licence itself DOES. It is worth picking up a fresh FAC -- just for the sheer joy of being able to screw up the C-68 officials for five long years. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:40:02 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: FAC needed or not needed >Recently, my Mother who has a current FAC apparently needed for an >antique (1890's) muzzleloader, a shotgun, and a couple of .22 calibre >rifles, went to renew her FAC. She was told that should would only need >to renew her FAC is she was to purchase more (new) firearms. Otherwise, >she can continue to keep her current firearms without having and FAC. >Is this scenario correct? Was this scenario always the case? If she buys that scenario, she will be "deemed" to have an invisible C-68 style licence until 01 Jan 2001 and an invisible registration certificates for each of her unrestricted rifles and shotguns until 01 Jan 2003. She will NOT be able to buy any more firearms, and a law change (made by Order in Council, and NOT seen by Parliament) may shut her out PERMANENTLY at any moment. Therefore, we recommend that she SHOULD get a new FAX, which will automatically become a visible "possession and acquisition" C-68 licence on the day C-68 comes into force. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:40:06 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: RE: Collective VS Individual Rights >In my opinion, The Liberals could "split the bill" as was requested when the >bill was going to the senate for approval. This way the increased sentences >portion of the bill could remain intact, while removing the registeration, >search & seizure, etc.. that we all object to. Bad tactics. You are proposing to gut the bill, leaving MANY objectionable portions in force, and gut the opposition to it by doing that. It is far better to refuse compromise when any compromise offered is guraanteed to be a loss for our side. The NFA rejects the "OK, we'll only chop off one of your arms instead of both arms and both legs" type of compromise. We want GOOD firearms control legislation -- and we will settle for nothing less. The above type of "compromise" is sadly amateurish -- it would result in Chretien's CLOG giving up 10 of the 137 pages of Bill C-68, then claiming "We gave you what you asked for!" Beware of fast, amateurish and PARTIAL "solutions" to the problems of firearms control. It takes YEARS of study to KNOW what is possible, and more years to know what is desirable. Avoid this type of "solution" like the plague. It cannot work. It is just more "patches on the patches" for a system that has never worked as advertised, and never CAN work as advertised. C-68 Titanic IS going down. It has NO chance of survival -- the Bill is just too defective in too many areas. We have a golden opportunity to hit them with OUR replacement Bill -- the "Practical Firearms Constrol System" - -- as C-68 Titanic goes under. Start blithering about compromise of this type, and the result is that you will be trying to float the stern of C-68 Titanic after the bow half breaks off and heads for the bottom. WRONG idea. We want ALL of C-68 Titanic resting on the bottom, never to be used again. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:39:55 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: "No Registration" campaign >2. Would it be necessary to de-register all "items" presently registered, and >if so, how? In Britain, when the confiscators came to the door and said, "All handguns are now illegal. Our records show that you have six -- so hand them over!" it did not work. The "owners" simply smiled at the officials, and replied, "Good heavens! I sold those firearms quite a while ago, and went through all the proper legal steps of transferring them. You are trying to confiscate non-existent firearms, based on errors in your records." When the confiscators made ugly threats of arrest and court action, the "owners" replied, "Go right ahead and try to prosecute me. I know, and my association can PROVE, that your registration system is a crock -- RIDDLED with errors and omissions and dual registrations and information that is merely meaningless trash. Arrest me, or prosecute me, and I will sue your butt off for usng data KNOWN TO BE DEFECTIVE in an attempt to harass me and violate my civil rights." That faced the confiscators with a disturbing problem. If they failed to arrest and prosecute, it would encourage others to follow the same path. If they DID arrest and prosecute, they KNEW that they would lose -- because the registation system IS that defective. And the publicity surrounding that proof being made in open court would REALLY encourage others to take that path. So -- they backed off, and went away, muttering. It is believed that they actually confiscated only 16 per cent of registered handguns. The other 84 per cent have vanished -- somewhere. The New Zealanders actually tested their registration system -- and found that 30 per cent of the registered guns/owners were NOT at the address on the registration certificate. The Americans have found that their registration system for full automatic firearms has an error rate of 40 to 50 per cent. Our proud Canadian registration system is no better. It, too, is RIDDLED with errors and omissions. How could it be otherwise? Every time a registered owner moves, dies or emigrates without bothering to notify the registration system, every registration certificate in the name of that person becomes meaningless trash -- AND THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL THAT IT HAS HAPPENED. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:39:58 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Setting the record straight >3. My dictionary defines paranoia as "exhibiting fear of persecution". Incorrect. Paranoia is "exhibiting UNREASONABLE fear of persectution." Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:39:43 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Hunting with FAC >I have no intention of applying for the FAC until I see what is going to >happen with the firearms legislation. Correct me if I am wrong but in my >understanding is that you do not have to produce the FAC if you are >hunting. Although I picked up the application, I have no intention of >applying for one. Some of the questions that are on the application are >very disturbing and in my opinion not the governements business. Under C-68's CC s. 98(1) to (3), you are "deemed" to have an invisible C-68 licence until 01 Jan 2001 and an invisible C-68 registration certificate for your hunting firearm until 01 Jan 2003. As long as you are able to produce those two invisible documents on demand, you should have no trouble at all. However, you should realize that an FAC becomes a C-68 "possession and acquisition" licence on the day C-68 comes into force, and stays valid until its expiry date, 5 years after issue. And that the FAC screws up the C-68 system, because it does NOT have the information on it that the C-68 licence itself DOES. It is worth picking up a fresh FAC -- just for the sheer joy of being able to screw up the C-68 officials for five long years. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 09:39:46 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: Verifiers >What if the Wendy Cuckiers (sp?) of this society become the verifiers? Maybe >people that are involved in the firearm community should reconsider the >volunteer work. Oh, we would LOVE it if the "antis" became verifiers. The NFA analysis of the FRT CD ROM that verifiers will be relying on to "identify" firearms for them is such a botched-up crock that every firearms owner will be able to SUE the verifiers for errors, omissions, professional misconduct and mopery with intent to gawk! Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:23 -0600 From: "Len McLaughlin" Subject: No Respect The following postings that appeared in a single issue of the digest emphasizes just one of the long term reprecussions of C-68 . A high percentage of law abiding citizens will never hold law enforcement people in the same high regard again. From those pursuing this bill we have often heard something to the effect that we don't want to become like the U.S. Maybe this bill will do just that. Many Americans no longer trust their law enforcement agencies thus talk of conspericies, cover-ups, militas etc. Canadians have always been known to be the reverse, respecting authority to a fault. That will change. >Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 >Subject: Re Camp storage ??? >...the question has never come up. We have never thought of these people as >the "enemy" but I'm afraid that has changed forever. >------------------------------ >Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 13:47:18 -0600 >Subject: Ottawa Gun Store >While in my local shoppe this past Friday, I was annoyed to find a Police >person going through the registry books of the shopto buy while that clown was around. Just >kind of gave that place a real bad smell. I know I felt like I had to have >a shower when I got home.>Some people just do that to you. >------------------------------ >Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1998 06:00:03 -0600 >Subject: Re: Re Camp storage ??? >"Do NOT report a poacher - it could be your neighbour whose legitimate >firearms were siezed!" - ---------------------------------- I wonder if the police chiefs who supported the Liberals and C-68, ever gave any thought to the legacy they are leaving to the officers on the streets or in the front lines. Its understandable that the chiefs may have been pressured by other considerations such as funding, blind party loyality or post retirement appointments but the guy on the street will probably never get to double dip. It is he who will be stuck with enforcing this bill long after the chiefs and their political counterparts have moved on to greener pastures. Consider how a single pepper spray incident, with repeated replays and many headlines, has affected the public perception of our "friends" in the RCMP. The legacy of C-68 will be evident for many years as law abiding citizens are having their homes invaded, property seized and they are left with jail terms. Who will feed the kids?( sick humor) The media who have been, on the whole, irresponsible in reporting on C-68, will be just as irresponsible in their reporting on these search and seize operations. They will very quickly hang the police out to dry, simply because it sells . We see how quickly the politicians were willing the hang the mounties out to dry. Its the mounties who are facing the loss of both their jobs and reputations while the PM makes jokes. If all those boys in blue would speak up in mass, somebody might listen. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:17 -0600 From: "Len McLaughlin" Subject: Wake up Liberals Its difficult to keep politics out a gun digest when there is really only one party that stands between gun owners and confiscation or jail. Joe Clark has taken such a wishy washy position that you know he will cave in to the bureaucrats as soon as they put on any pressure. And these bureaucrats are the root of the problem, make no mistake. Every government has in turn come under pressure to change the gun laws and the one commonality is justice department mandarins. . Reform, with all their possible faults is, in my opinion, the only party with a firm enough commitment to stand up to these guys. The only Liberal that has shown any backbone is Paul Martin, who has been heard to utter those sacred words," b.s.", at meetings with this bunch. Can anyone out there picture their Liberal MP saying "b.s." to any one, except the voter of course? Unfortunately, Martin is not on our side and is in the party that either fears or worships the bureaucracy and loves big government. . As one writer to the digest stated, Canadians sadly use the wrong criteria when choosing their politicians. This criteria is personified in such as a Ms. Ford, who I watched on a talk show, putting Preston Manning down because of cosmetic changes he is supposed to have undergone. This is a woman whose hairdo and make-up would make a street walker blush. The street walker probably couldn't afford the hairdo alone and Ms. Ford is criticizing Manning??? Check her out the next time you see her on T.V. . These same people try to EQUATE a single flip remark about a bingo hall made in question period to broken election promises about the GST or free trade or you name it. Talk about comparing apples and oranges but voters buy it. I listen to Elsie running down Reformers as a no good bunch of bums but in the next breath she wants these bums to rejoin her party - can't you smell it? I know any new party may have to water down its policies a bit to accommodate the public's perceived wants but I hope Manning is not willing to go too far in achieving a united alternative, we do not need more of the same. . In this modern day and age of space age communications and an educated populace, how can the modern Canadian have unthinking blind loyalty to any party? A party is only as old as the people in it, only as good as its current policies and people. There is really nothing in a name as look at how easily Charest changed names, but I'm probably preaching to the converted.. What the PC party stood for 100 years ago ( no free trade for one) has no bearing on what it stands for today. . Chretien and C-68 may do to the Liberal party what Mulroney did to the P.C.s, so Liberals, give your head a shake and WAKE UP before the damage is done. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:27 -0600 From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #670 Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > guns must be stored securely and that at present they weren't. He was > somewhat incredulous when I explained C-68 storage requirements and the > eventual registration requirements and licensing he would have to comply > with. I can't help but feel the issue of C68 has been largely ignored in > Quebec. This is much to our detriment. I also realize that certain people Hi; Unfortunately most could not care less! We can not even get people to buy memberships to our club! But they will put up targets in some rather strange places! Were there not some "Rember C-68" signs translated to French! These could be put to some use since Bouchard and Charest both supported the bill! Cheers Bill (;-) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:46 -0600 From: Mark Hughes Subject: Lousy Looney Report #20 Friends, Lousy Loonies continue to trickle in! A sea to sea campaign! We will continue to raise funds for the coming Court battles. The past two weeks I was able to collect C$ 13.45 and C$ 20.00 repectively for the NFA Legal Defence Funds. A cheque for C$145 from R. Keith King on behalf of the Vancouver Island Arms Collectors Association (VIACA) has been confirmed sent to NFA Calgary via the Lousy Looney Campaign. Thanks Keith for alerting me to this donation and thank-you for your support. Don Clarke has informed me, on Oct. 7th, that he had met my small challenge. The only one to do so, at least publically. Thanks Don! I appreciate your dedication and sacrifice to all our cause! Jim Hinter will be updating me on the Calgary end donations soon, he promises, so stay tuned. As well new updated posters are being produced, watch for it. If you have not already got one and got started you can get your "One Lousy Loonie Poster" at; Fred Davis' Page: http://infoweb.magi.com/~freddo/guns.html Robert Schultz's page: http://www.wwwdi.com/fishgame.html or mailto:mkhughe@north.nsis.com and I'll happily email you one in abode acrobat format. Direct Donations or Forwarding Loonie Collections via M.O., Cheque, or VISA; National Firearms Association BOX 4384, Station C, Calgary, Alberta, T2T 5N3 1-(403)-640-1110 (NFA Calgary Office) State you wish to make a contribution to the "One Lousy Loonie Campaign" for the Legal Defence Funds. Or, if by mail, please be sure to earmark it "Legal Defence Funds" DECLARATION OF FIREARMS OWNERS FRIENDSHIP, take the pledge! http://magi.com/~freddo/Declaration_ff.htm I have many friends in this struggle. Regards, Mark J. Hughes Lousy Loonie Campaign Driver, NFA Legal Defence Funds, NFA\NS President (KSO) Reform Party of Canada, Member USWA, Local 3172, Member ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:50 -0600 From: Jean Hogue Subject: Reason # 101 not to subscribe to the NFA > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:17:56 -0600 > From: Gordon Hitchen > Subject: Gordon > [snip] > Now as to belonging to the NFA - I have not yet found a place in > Edmonton where I can walk in and pay cash for a membership. I once > talked of this with Mr Kearns. I will not send a check in the mail as it > takes forever to clear and I tend to forget it and lose track of my > balance! How about a bank draft or postal money order ? take the cash out of your bank account -- you immediately know what your balance is the day you go out to buy the draft or m.o. The NFA also now accepts regular charges to your credit card. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:20:56 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: Re: RCMP Verifier's? > Had a call yesterday from a fellow claiming to be "The New" >RCMP firearms officer for southern ********, (*********************). >He did tell me his name but I was not thinking far enough ahead >to write it down and I do not remember what it was. He did >mention his residence was in **********. He introduced himself >as being with the RCMP but when I questioned him further he >said he was working for the RCMP so I'm not sure if he is actually >an RCMP officer or civilian under contract or ? His purpose >for the call was that he wants to come and verify our stock of >restricted firearms. He made it clear he did not want to verify >any long guns? He wanted to come today, sat. oct. 31, I said no >way. He wined allot about time constraints but I assured him >that was his problem, not mine. I did agree to meet with him on >*************, at the shop. > My questions: > If he is an RCMP officer, I think I have to let him inspect the >firearms in stock if he wants, but I'm not sure about the verifying >part? If he takes it upon himself to fill out forms and verify our >restricted stock, can he do that? I will refuse to sign anything. Yes, let him do it. you'll see why from the other message, which will be going out as an NFA Newswire on 01 Nov 98. You DO have to register all "restricted" firearms TO YOUR STORE on the day C-68 comes into force, or you will be in violation of C-68's CC s. 91 and/or 92. >I thought it odd he only wanted to verify restricted firearms? >Any thoughts about that? I told him all restricted stock was already >registered with Ottawa Technically, NO. It is "recorded" but not "registered," because that is all they can do under today's law. No firearm can be "registered" to a STORE under today's law. Technically. > and I didn't see why they could not use >the records they have. He didn't want to talk about that and >insisted our stock needed to be verified. Because it has to be "registered" AND because the "identifying" entries (Make, Model, Manufacturer, Type, Action, Calibre, Shots, Barrel length, Serial number) have to be written down exacly the same as they are on one particular "display page" from the Firearms Registration Table CD ROM. Have you been keeping up with that mess through the Canadian Firearms Digest? > If he is civilian, working for the RCMP, can I throw him out? >I can't imagine he is a volunteer, I'm sure someone is paying >for his service. What if he is civilian, but shows up with an RCMP >officer? Am I correct that an RCMP officer can inspect the stock >if he asks? Nope. Let him do it -- because it HAS to be done so you can register all your "restricted" guns TO THE STORE on the day C-68 comes into force. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #673 **********************************