From - Mon Nov 16 14:35:55 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 LAA29697; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:00:34 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA29189; Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:46:44 -0600 Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:46:44 -0600 Message-Id: <199811161646.KAA29189@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 #703 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: 360c873d00008ae4 Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, November 16 1998 Volume 02 : Number 703 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #700 FAC references Fac questions Re: slugs/shot/moose hunting Not Nitpicking Re: Revised Gun Registry Costs: $140,000,000 per year Liberal Government funds subvesive groups. Re: FAC application Re: Fac questions RCMP & U.S.GUNSHOWS Why? Verifiers Not me... Re: slugs/shot/moose hunting Re: FAC references Exempted Handguns (SBH) East & West & C68. FAC Cree Survey? Re: Cree Survey? Why MilArm Co Ltd has verifiers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:21:30 -0600 From: mbonner@techplus.com (Mike Bonner) Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #700 Last time I looked Canada is a free country, and if John St Amour feels it necessary to become a verifyier in order that his business survives, that is his business. Obviously not everyone knows of the raid on Marstar and the horror John and his family had to endure. In a case like John's, living in the boonies, he pretty much has to be his own verifier, where is he going to find one? Personally I will not do this, but's that's my choice, too ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:21:37 -0600 From: "G.Morris" Subject: FAC references I've seen and read alot about the required references for an FAC. I'd like to know what the hell makes a 'teacher, doctor, lawyer, etc'. any better judge of character that a less fortunate neighbor who is not a 'professional'. I recently applied for an FAC. My best friend outside of my family is a retired truck driver who is a part-time farmer like me. I couldn't use him as a reference if I had wanted to since he's less than the people above, politically speaking, of course. Am I the only one who finds this offensive? Maybe I need to join the Church to get the pastor as a reference-maybe I'll get Jimmy Swarggart. Or I could get a Priest who's out of jail after a mollestation conviction. Come on, this is pre-war Germany already! Congrads to Ray Hiens (Heins?) as a "dealer dialer". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:21:43 -0600 From: Gordon Hitchen Subject: Fac questions I wonder what the subsistance classification of FAC is exactly? And who in Canada can qualify? Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:21:52 -0600 From: Gordon Hitchen Subject: Re: slugs/shot/moose hunting Having hunted moose in BC and Alberta for over 45 years now I must admit that i too have never considered using a shotgun! While i do not doubt the effective close range effects or abilities of the shotgun- the devastation and loss of meat appalls me. I have not , I think seen a 23 cal rifle although I think, years ago, I saw a 223. cal rifle. The .243 seems to have replaced it nowadays, and is legal for Moose and Deer and excellent for coyote and wolf! Nowadays we, my family and I are strictly using .30-06 and .308 cal rifles. Thanks for the reply! Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:29:24 -0600 From: The Brindles Subject: Not Nitpicking Not to nitpick, but crossbows with their low rate of fire and limited range were generally less effective on the battlefield even against heavy armour than the longbow. The obsolescence of heavy armour was as much to do with the introduction of effective anti- cavalry tactics, and the switch to fighting on foot as it was to do with the introduction of gunpowder weapons. Crossbows and their evolution had minimal impact on the shape of war in Europe. In regard to arrows or crossbow bolts against modern body armour, I think you will find that because of their high sectional density, and non deforming, sharp or edged points they actually are superior at short range in penetration against these types of protective devices to most normal varieties of bullets. (Note that kevlar is largely inneffective against knives!) Jolyon Brindle Okay, no more crossbow stuff. David Parry Moderator CFD ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:29:28 -0600 From: Gordon Hitchen Subject: Re: Revised Gun Registry Costs: $140,000,000 per year everyone should forward this to their MP asking for comments! Great work Larry! Gordon Larry Luzny wrote: > Below is my revised cost estimate for the Gun Registry: > I believe a more accurate estimate is in the range of $140,000,000 per year..., ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:29:33 -0600 From: "Ross" Subject: Liberal Government funds subvesive groups. The Liberal Government under Chretien funds a group called Prep-Com. This group is a NGO accredited to the UN. The purpose of this group is to eliminate the ownership of firearms in the hands of all but Police, Military and government. (Heard that before) Of course they are based in the USA and funded by Lloyd Axworthy department. So here is a Canadian Government Department paying a US based group to devise ways and means to remove the rights and properties of individuals worldwide. That in and of itself should send the FBI crashing down their doors, as this would mean that the second amendment is being trashed by this group. Further because they are being funded by a foreign government (Canada) this would put it into the realm of International Conspiracy. Of course our PM (Chretien) funds a demonstration group in Malaysia to assist their complaints of human rights abuse. These same students confronted the Police in Jakarta violently, demanding the removal of the Malaysian PM. Now we have two groups whose aim it is to outright remove the rule of law, and government of foreign countries. The protester group which Canada funds may not like the current Malaysian PM or his government, and they have opportunity to change that through the soap box and the ballot box. Pity that Canada is funding them so that they can use the ammo box. Only a matter of time before it happens here. Perhaps Canada should now be put on a list of nations that support terrorism. J. Ross ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:04 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: FAC application Gordon Hitchen wrote: > > Went to the Edmonton city Police to pick up the forms this AM. A > pleasant surprise - quick courteous service, advice on how to get it > done properly and avoid errors etc. Altogether different attitude than > I have been reading about! Made me glad to be an Albertan and an > Edmontonian! Gordon Peter wrote: You were obviously dealing with Rose or Marian, (our soon to be unemployed best firearms registration clerks around.) I will pass on your compliments to the ladies, and ladies they are, super people... regards, Peter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:09 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Fac questions ********Dunno, but they give 'em out free to everyone in the NWT and the Yukon.... Gordon Hitchen wrote: > > I wonder what the subsistance classification of FAC is exactly? And who > in Canada can qualify? Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:13 -0600 From: Jon & Eileen Taylor Subject: RCMP & U.S.GUNSHOWS Just had a call from a U.S. friend who has a contact in the CID (criminal investigation division) in one of the northen state capitals. It seems that the is individual has had two phone calls from the Mounties. One from Regina and one from Ottawa. They are very interested in learnig whether Canadian citizens are bringing guns across the border and selling them at U.S. gunshows. Looks like the budget cuts are starting to tell and now they are going after easier targets than organized crime. Then again maybe the Feds look upon us as "organized" criminals Still this has a chilling effect. Are we, as a group, to be stigmatized by the very police force that we are fast losing all respect for? First the over acheivers who are pushing C-68, then pepper spray, what's next? Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:17 -0600 From: "Ron McCutcheon" Subject: Why? >IN OUR CASE THEY (the police) DID ABSOLUTELY AS THEY PLEASED, THEY HAD GUNS AND >WE DID NOT.... Is that not EXACTLY what this fight is all about?? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:20 -0600 From: "Tom and Jessica Byers" Subject: Verifiers I noticed you are now doing Dealer Dialer Updates. I have talked to Neil Burnham of Millers Rod and Gun in Florenceville, NB and as stated he will definitely not become a verifier and even had to get his lawyer to come and close the shop for a whole day to get out of their harassment. There is also a rumor that Curry's Hardware of Woodstock, NB will provide up to three verifiers, could you please call them at 506-328-8788 and explain to them the folly of their ways. Tom Byers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:25 -0600 From: "Len McLaughlin" Subject: Not me... I cannot understand why, in this country, abortion doctors appear to be living in fear for their lives. Did Mr.. Rock not assure all Canadians that they would be protected by our police forces? Did he not say that self protection was not necessary in Canada and indeed was an option Canadians did not have? Did he not say that we were different than the Americans? We even have some misguided souls thinking that gun owners may be next on the endangered list . Not me. Some may think this because their gun inventory, with names and home addresses, will gradually become available to the criminal element thanks to a more efficient, Liberalized and computerized registration system. Not me, . Some may think that the Liberal Party of Canada doesn't know what it is doing and hasn't thought this through. Not me. Some will say that this party has made lots of mistakes, will make more and admit to none. Not me. Some will say that this is a party that literally worships the truth and if their justice minister looked us in the eye and said that he ( or she) didn't have sex..oops ...I mean if he( or she) said that we have nothing to worry about, we will believe them. Not me. I'm no dummy and thats final. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:31 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Re: slugs/shot/moose hunting Gordon, The .223 Remington is the same as the NATO and US military cartridge called 5.56 something or other. If you ever go to a shooting range when machine guns and other full auto shoulder firearms are being used and displayed, you will see that many of them are 5.56 or .223. The sister cartridges of the .223 are the .222 Remington, and the .222 Remington Mag. I have an even smaller one in pistol, a Remington XP-100 in .221 Remington. The .243 is none other than the .308 Winchester necked down to .24 calibre, or 6 mm. The .308 Winchester is nothing more than the 7.62X??mm or 7.62 NATO. Winchester made a very smart move by snookering the 7.62 NATO and calling it the .308 Winchester. The lady of the house here uses a .243 Winchester in a Remington 788 bolt action rifle. Frequently, I pick up scads of Canadian military .308 brass. One pass through a die puts it into .243 Winchester. Regarding the .23, or 23 calibre as being stated in the Alta game regs as the minimum calibre for hunting big game! The powers that be knew that things occurred in either some form of .22 calibre (.22 Hornet through to .220 Swift), with a very, very few obsolete cartriges that use .228 calibre, with nothing between there and .240 calibre. So, being bureaucrats, they chose .23 as the minimum. All the had to do was state something like this: "The minimum bore diameter for big game hunting is .240 calibre, or 6.0 mm." Actually, in the old days, there was almost nothing in the .24 calibre either, though things like the .257 Roberts were around. The 6 mm Remington, or .244 Remington (same thing, but the cartridge came out under the .244 designation before being changed to the 6 mm designation. This cartridge is nothing more than the .257 Roberts necked down to .240 calibre. Actually, there is a series that goes like this (from minimum bullet diameter to maximum bullet diameter) with the same case size and length for each: 6 mm Rem.; 257 Roberts; 6.5x57 mm; 7X57 mm; 7.62x57mm; 8x57mm; and 9.3x57mm. For the original .30-06 Sprg, there is another series. You probably know it, but I will give it here: .25-06 Rem.; 6.5-06; .270 Win.; .280 Rem.; .30-06; 8mm-06; and .35 Whelan. Whenever a new cartridge comes out, the first thing that wildcatters do is neck it up, neck it down, make the case sides more parallel, etc. It has been going on for a long time. What started out as the .300 Savage became the .250-3000 Savage, which in turn became the .22-250 Remington we know so well today as one of the top varmint guns. I don't think anyone necked the .300 Savage above .30 calibre as it is not a powerful .30 calibre cartridge. Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:35 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Re: FAC references I believe that the reason "professionals" are called for as references for an FAC is that a reference who is a member of a registered society or agency or group can be located easily if something unexpected comes of the person applying for the FAC. A professional who signs such a document can be called on by his professional group for making false or poor statements. Yes, it is offensive, as it means that regular citizens have no standing. Have you ever applied for a passport? The references usable for a passport application are of about the same status as those for an FAC application. Do you object to the nature of the status of the references for your passport? Both are federal applications. Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:39 -0600 From: Marc Moussseau Subject: Exempted Handguns (SBH) There are 22 handguns exempted from "C-68" Ask the CFC for a list of them. They will send you document SOR/DORS/98-465 from the 30/9/98 Canadian Gazette Part II, Vol.132, No.20 The list includes 22 and 32 cal guns (yes they still leave off the period "." on the calibre listing) There are no .25 cal listed There are various makes listed: Hammerli, Walther, Unique, FAS, High Standard, Pardini, Sako, Benelli, Erma, Manurhin, Vostok. I am not going to type all the models listed, besides I might make a typo and you may end up in jail. Get your copy from the CFC. No, they would not send me a copy via e-mail, just fax or mail. - -- Marc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:52:45 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: East & West & C68. I read with interest response by DAT to my Posting re Postal Outlets and visitors to the Toronto Hunting Show. Perhaps we do have an East/West mentality, or at least a reading/writing comprehension problem. I can assure anyone who creates lineups, hazzling Postal Clerks who know nothing about C68, holding up people who know even less will not endear people to our cause. What would we have these Clerks do, quit? Write Ottawa? Throw out the forms? They are employee's of the store, not Ottawa. What do we expect the people we delay to do, vote Reform? As for Verifiers, I made no comment, ever. Not yet, anyway. Our argument is with Ottawa Politicians, not Postal Clerks. Certainly not with the General Public, stressed as they are these days. As for SOME (not all) of the visitors to the booth, and fighting amongst ourselves, example, one man wanted legal assistance for seized firearms. There was a Lawyer present, looking for work on firearms related charges. (talk about chasing ambulances). Turns out it was after dark, it involved the mans wife, womens shelter, booze, guns fired, guns seized, charges pending, is this the type I want to hunt with? Never. To deny SOME should not have firearms is paramount to saying ALL should have firearms. Case in point. Before the FAC program, a Toronto woman broke up with her boyfriend, went to the local Canadian Tire store, bought a .410 and a .22. The clerk showed her how to use them. The .410 was for the demise of the boyfriend, the .22 was for her pretty face later, as she had read a shotgun did a nasty on features, she wanted to look good in her coffin. She missed with the .410. The case was defended by one John McKay (pronounced MacKIE for the record). Our interest was political, as some changes were being planned in Ottawa at the time. We sat in on the Preliminary Hearing only, not the trial. I then became a convert for the FAC program, or something like it. It's not perfect, but it did help some. Henry Bayard Swope wrote 'I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure, which is, Try to Please Everybody'. I could paraphrase Olde Hank, 'the formula for failure is to pee everybody off'. Now lets get back to the issues. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:56:44 -0600 From: Dan Lupichuk Subject: FAC Gordon H. had an interesting post about an FAC application in Edmonton. Well times and/or situations must have changed. The following is a very breif outline of some of the bullshit we went through. In 95 my brother-in-law passed away in Alberta. His children came to live with us. In June 96 the oldest boy decided he would like to return to Edmonton where he had spent a large part of his life. Having completed all the required education and safety courses I advised that he apply for his FAC as soon as he was eligible, (turned 18 in first part of July) as I was holding in my possesion both his firearms and those that were to go to him, (his recently deceased dad's). Picking up the forms was no problem but that is as far as it went. Edmonton City Police absolutely refused to accept a completed FAC application. They didn't refuse him an FAC--they just would not take the application. I contacted everyone from Edmonton Police and their firearms unit to MP's and Minister. Dave Tomlinson was asked for advice. The total result of all this was that the young man was threatened to be arrested twice--keep in mind all he was trying to do was drop off a completed application--he had no criminal record, was not in any kind of trouble or conflict with the law, had passed all the required courses, proper references, stable home and finacially secure. He is very easy-going, polite and respectful. He tried from July until Dec. to put in an application. In Dec. he returned here for X-mas visit. On Dec. 23 we walked into the local RCMP detachment spoke to the Staff. Sgt., answered a few questions, waited while he done a record and background check, enclosed the proper fee, wished a very nice RCMP officer a merry X-mass and left, (total time: less than 15 min. NOT 6 MONTHS TO PUT IN AN APPLICATION). In Feb. FAC arrived - -no problem. We have heard some horror stories where facts, circumstances and/or situations may have been questionable but what I have related is first hand experience where EVERYTHING was in the proper order with all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed and ALL the requirerments met. It is nice to here that things are proceding as they should but please keep in mind when handing out the praise that it was not always like that and there are a lot of horror stories too....... Dan Lupichuk Chairman Board of Directors Sask. NFA Ph. (306) 332-6444 > Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 11:47:35 -0600 > From: Gordon Hitchen > Subject: FAC application > > Went to the Edmonton city Police to pick up the forms this AM. A > pleasant surprise - quick courteous service, advice on how to get it > done properly and avoid errors etc. Altogether different attitude than > I have been reading about! Made me glad to be an Albertan and an > Edmontonian! Gordon > > ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 06:56:47 -0600 From: Maurice Subject: Cree Survey? Is it me or my imagination running away on me, that has me curious about why the feds would do a survey on the Cree People and their firearm ownership? It wouldn't have anything to do with Quebec would it? Separation? James Bay region? Naww...... www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/reports_2/cree_survey.en.html< Moe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:25:08 -0600 From: Gordon Hitchen Subject: Re: Cree Survey? I think the problem here is that until the mid sixties Treaty Indians were regularly issued rifles on request along with 200 rounds of ammuniation. I witnessed this many times in Dept. of Indian Affaires offices. The clerk simply reached under the counter pulled out a boxed rifle and then stacked the ammuniation beside it. No Signature was asked for - the persons's name was simply checked off on a list. I am still around so many of the receipients of these firearms as well as the firearms are still around. how will the Government now proceed against these people for possession of the firearms? So far the answer seems to be wholesale distributation of FAC permits. Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:46:41 -0600 From: "Milarm Co Ltd." Subject: Why MilArm Co Ltd has verifiers. We are in a similar position to John St Amour and became verifiers for similar reasons. Without the ability to sell newly aquired firearms there would be a reduction in staff. We can wait a reasonable amount of time for a government verifier to verify new stock but will not allow a volunteer to be in our storage area. One of our staff and myself have become verifiers because we were informed by the government that they will not verify any firearm purchased or imported by a dealer after the bill is proclaimed. I have asked them to state that position in writing. We will, of course, use them if they are available. However if they will not verify newly aquired firearms we will have to verify them in order to transfer them. We have stated that we will only verify our own firearms and those we have sold in the past in order that our past customers can sell them. We will not charge to verify firearms that we have sold in the past. We will not verify firearms for the general public . Dealers that only sell new firearms will already have them verified by the importer when they receive them. However, as we sell mainly military collectibles, all that we aquire after the bill is proclaimed must be verified before they can be transferred. I recognize that John St Amour has done more than most dealers and individuals to fight proposed firearm legislation and will only do what is required to continue in business. Marstar is one of the main importers of military surplus firearms and parts in Canada and must be supported by the firearm community. Sharon and Allan Kerr Owners MilArm Co Ltd ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #703 **********************************