From - Fri Dec 18 09:47:54 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 GAA22842; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:34:39 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22703; Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:20:29 -0600 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:20:29 -0600 Message-Id: <199812181220.GAA22703@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 #764 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: 360c873d0000b39c Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, December 18 1998 Volume 02 : Number 764 In this issue: Re: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Comments. Replacement Green Cards British Columbia Firearms Acquisition Certificate Holders re-registering previously registered restricted firearms. re:[alert] Re: OOOPS!! SPREAD THIS ONE... F.Y.I....Ontario FAC info line.... Help in Processing Firearms Forms 30 round magazine Possession Only Licence Class Action Winnipeg and Bill C-68 Re: AB Verifiers, non verifiers and ranges Re: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Comments. Permits to Transport NFA RED WARNINGS Re: More tales of CFR trained personnel.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:00:30 -0600 (CST) From: someone@inter.net.ca Subject: Re: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Comments. > The ultimate in Civil Disobedience: refuse to pay taxes. Don't pay the > GST. Don't have your income taxes payroll deducted. Start Jan 1, 2003. > Hit them where it hurts - the pocketbook. > > [yeah. Good idea. After all your assets are seized, problem solved! > -- Skeeter ] I resent your snide comments, [Skeeter]. There is no compulsion on anyone to pay their taxes until they are due - why give the Feds _your_ money to play with until absolutely necessary? If a couple of million firearm owners deferred paying their taxes until absolutely necessary (if at all), how long do you think it would be until the Feds rolled over? And if we all did, do you think it would stop with us? They can't arrest the whole friggin' country. [There is always the "if we all resisted what could they do to us?" argument, but we have to have a large segment of the population willing to go along. You can stop payroll deduction, but the rules state you must pay at least 3/4ths of your taxes every 3 months or something. -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:55:33 -0600 From: "James R.C. Cox" Subject: Replacement Green Cards Well folks, I just had a wonderful run around care of Annie.... You see, I was trying to confirm that replacement copies of my green cards were sent out since for personal reasons I ordered them about 2 months ago and hadn't received them. Since the two ladies that I dealt with before Dec 1st were extremely efficient, I decided that it must be ottawa's fault. So I called the 1-800 number. First the clerk that I talked to wouldn't process my request since he felt it was a job for a verifier. "That's what they are trained to do..." was what I was told. My response was to be directed to someone else since I felt it was my legal obligation to have current registration slips. So off to some other dept I was sent. Low and behold I end up talking to someone in Quebec, who was very friendly but not too helpful. But he did give me the number to CFRAS in Ottawa (613-993-5235). So now I get to call on my coin... The lady I get quickly informed me that they don't take personal requests over the phone and I had to deal with my local registrar. I don't know where she has been since there is no local registrar any more. So on hold I wait..............10 minutes later she hums and haws till I get permission to fax a request for my cards. In case anyone else wants copies of their green cards, the fax # is 613-993-5548 Good Luck James ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:00:39 -0600 From: "W. Jon McCormick" Subject: British Columbia Firearms Acquisition Certificate Holders Just received a fax from a friend who received the following from Tony Heemskerk, British Columbia's Chief Provincial Firearms Officer: "Under the new licensing regulations, all firearms owners must pass and maintain standard eligibility checks to possess or acquire firearms." There are other items in the letter that are standard items sent to, it would appear, all handgun carry licensees. This item is very unnerving. What are "Standard eligibility checks"? Can anyone comment? Another item: In the December Canadian Access to Firearms, Ed Burlew, attorney and firearms law specialist, writes about inspections and warrants. He makes several comments: "You do not have to consent to the firearms officer's request to visit your home (to inspect if they believe you have more than 10 firearms-not sure even what that is suppose to mean). Your refusal requires the firearms officer to produce a warrant and prove why he/she suspects you have more than 10 firearms-is the number 10 the cut off number between collectors and those who are not and the former fall into different laws? " Burlew says you have the right to appear at the warrant hearing. Burlew goes into considerable detail about the warrant and compliance but the above is enough hopefully to generate comment. Those of us in the Cariboo do not want to become reactionaries but we must know what is what and I can not find any information in all of the C-68 data I have received to answer the above. Any one who can shed light, your efforts will be greatly appreciated. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:02:38 -0600 From: "w petrishen" Subject: re-registering previously registered restricted firearms. This one is for DAT Received note from Sask CFO along with notice from Canadian Firearms Centre advising, among other things, that you must confirm registration information is complete and up to date . Form is available at the post office. Afterward you will be issued a "new" registration certificate free of charge. Is this a legitimate requirement? It sounds to me like something is wrong here. Can you confirm what we are required to do please? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:04:20 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: re:[alert] Re: OOOPS!! SPREAD THIS ONE... >>That was this morning.** This afternoon**, my fax spat out a complete set of >>"Prohibited Firearms Orders" in which the firearms converted to "prohibited >>weapon" status by Kim Campbell and Alan Rock (PWO Nos. 12 and 13) were >>converted to "prohibited firearms" under C68, effective 01 Dec 98, and as >>defined by CC s. 84(1) "prohibited firearms." >So what is this ? New OIC's or OIC's that had been previously >drafted and we knew nothing about ? Old OICs reformatted and punched through as if they were new in order to conform to the C-68 definition of "regulations." >If it was the former, how did they get by the 30 day deal ? Interesting question. The 30 day deal is for OICs made under C-68's FA s. 117. These were made under CC s. 117.15 -- where no delays or testing by the courts are allowed. Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:17:16 -0600 (CST) From: Maurice Subject: F.Y.I....Ontario FAC info line.... Hi, I got this number from the CPFO, Ontario, to check on the status of my FAC renewal application. 1-800-731-4000, ext.7536 Hope it helps a few of you.. Merry Xmas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:18:14 -0600 (CST) From: Gordon Laptos Subject: Help in Processing I have recently, (56 days ago) submitted an application for an FAC. Although I have been in possession of previous FAC's, for over 15 years, I could not understand why the whole process is repeated to renew the former (recently expired) FAC. For that matter even having to take a Firearms course to verify my (safety?) knowledge of firearms that I have owned, and been able not to shoot myself, (or others) in the foot with, for the last 28 years. And the way the hunting regulations are becoming more difficult to interpret, one needs a legal degree to understand it all, not to mention the escalating costs to partake. It kinda makes it so difficult if not impossible to NOT contravene some part of it, somewhere along the way. Weather doing so intentionally or not. Is it possible ??? that the message is; WE REALLY RATHER YOU DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THESE ACTIVITIES. (Just venting) =========== My question is who do I call to expedite my FAC, it has been twice the number of days (56) that have been prescribed as the "waiting" period. I know the local RCMP have reviewed the application, and made all the reference calls. So it should be out of their hands. =========== Now this is for a permit to allow me to trade or buy (more) firearms that I already own. DUH! Thanks (for someone's answer) G. Laptos ====================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:19:09 -0600 (CST) From: lundgard@ccinet.ab.ca Subject: Firearms Forms Those who own restricted firearms may be interested the following forms available from the Canadian Firearms Centre. Transfer and Register restricted firearms and new owners JUS-681E Transfer and Register non restricted firearms JUS-683E Application for authorization to transport restricted firearms and prohibited firearms, including handguns JUS-679E ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:22:08 -0600 (CST) From: Paul Meyer Subject: 30 round magazine After Dec 01, 1998, I ordered a 30 round fixed magazine for an SKS. Old US stock, still legal to sell in US. It arrived at Customs in Vancouver Dec 109 and was duly confiscated as "prohibited weapon." Question: Is there a way to pick this up, modify it so it can't hold more than 5 rounds, and then be legal? Question: does the "gap" between Dec 01, 1998 and Dec 15 when the old Order in council was rescinded and the new one not in effect apply here? Paul Meyer 250-368-2407 pmeyer@hasimons.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:25:54 -0600 From: "P.DAKUS & or R.W. McKNIGHT" Subject: Possession Only Licence I was reading my copy of the firearms officer desk manual today and I noticed an item regarding Possession Licences. It seems that after January 1, 2001 these licences will no longer be available. All individuals who do not licence themselves by this date will then require a possession and acquisition licence to register the firearms they already have. Of course you must also pass all the tests and pay the extra costs etc., that are required. I wonder if in the future people who no longer want to aquire firearms will be able to downgrade from a possession and aquisition to a strait possession licence. By the sounds of it no. Oh by the way I am not a firearms officer, I got my manual the Loonie ( not Canadian loonie) way. TANSTAAFL R.W. McKnight ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:26:50 -0600 From: BChow2or81@aol.com Subject: Class Action In CFDv2 - 760: > .... Class Action suit...full cooperation from almost every major firearms organization in Canada I would be very interested in seeing a list of all those who are co-operating. Cheers, Bud. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:29:25 -0600 From: Ken Pisichko Subject: Winnipeg and Bill C-68 Today I was a delegation of 1 and spoke to the assembled city council regarding this issue. EPC has the authority to request intervenor status (in support of C-68) to the Supreme Court of Canada. It appears that the Mayor and EPC did an end run on the democratic process as as few as 4 elected officials out of 15 councillors got this approved. The council received this EPC motion today as information. However, there is another motion asking the EPC to reconsider their earlier motion. It appears that there is more dissention than earlier thought. Now half of EPC are opposed to this recommendation to ask for this status. I indicated to the entire council that I would send a letter-to-the-editor as a concerned citizen to every magazine in Canada and the USA, asking hunters to consider bypassing Winnipeg and to spend their money in surrounding smaller communities that actively support hunting. I indicated to council that registering hunters shotguns and rifles was not shown to be an effective means of crime control. I also indicated to council that I was concerned that no one at city hall could tell me the cost of this "intervenor thing". I indicated that the Mayor and all councillors knew what their clother and other purchases cost them. Why couldn't they tell me, a taxpayer, what their jaunt to the SCC would cost the citizens of Winnipeg. The Mayor and several councillors just smirked and grinned. Enough of this, now to send them another message via magazine readership. In closing, I have about 7 names and addresses of Canadian and US hunting oriented magazines. If you have a name and address please e-mail me directly. I will check with what I have and perhaps there will be another few that I will send the letter to. Please send the reply to kpisich@mbnet.mb.ca mailto:kpisich@mbnet.mb.ca Thanks. Ken Pisichko ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:32:29 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: AB Verifiers, non verifiers and ranges Peter Cronhelm wrote: > I am still looking for guns shops confirmed to be verifiers and > non-verifiers as well as ranges in Alberta. I am compiling a list for > use by the listies and anyone else who is interested. > > Please send replies directly to me. > > Peter Cronhelm > Wholesale Sports, (Edmonton) Milarm, (Edmonton) CX SHooters Supplies (Edmonton|) and Westgate Gunsports (Edmonton.) regards, Peter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:38:03 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Comments. anon@inter.net wrote: > > I'm sure if we put our electronic heads together we can come > > up with some pretty amazing ideas. > > The ultimate in Civil Disobedience: refuse to pay taxes. Don't pay the > GST. Don't have your income taxes payroll deducted. Start Jan 1, 2003. > Hit them where it hurts - the pocketbook. > > [yeah. Good idea. After all your assets are seized, problem solved! > -- Skeeter] Peter Kearns wrote: I thought the moderator said he would not publish submissions from ficticious e-mail addresses........ (Just my own personal observation.) If someone doesn't put their name to a submission, then we shouldn't have to read their thoughts, as we have no way of knowing if they ever recieved our replies, or if they are one of Wendy's flower children trying to cause dissent amongst us......... Answer please moderator. Peter [Skeeter here, filling in for David Parry... My policy has been to stick "anonymous" in the From: header at the author's request, but I also felt it necessary to have a valid address for the author. Not everyone agrees that is needed, but I think it creates fewer problems. When you see "anon" it's usually a regular poster who wants to give info without getting a source into trouble, etc. -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:19:58 -0600 From: "James Bachynsky" Subject: Permits to Transport Just spent 30 minutes on the CFC 1-800 line trying to sort out my 1999 permit. When I was finally transfered to the Alberta office, the clerk was surprised I was calling. She put me on hold to talk to a supervisor, then came back and asked why I didn't know that the current permits were being extended one year. I asked for a letter to this effect and was told that the clubs had all been sent letters, and I should get a copy from them. Why the letters were not sent to the permit holders is beyond me. Also very strange is the fact that copies of the letter were for some reason sent to most cadet corps in the province. I have no idea why. James ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:20:08 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson Subject: NFA RED WARNINGS 1. If you are in possession of an unrestricted long arm that was not registered on 01 Dec 98, you cannot be charged under CC s. 91(1), 92(1), 93(1) 94(1) or 95(1) for not having a registration certificate for it until 01 Jan 2003 [because CC s. 98(3) issues you an invisible "deemed" registration certificate for it]. 2. ANY firearm that is "transferred" [CC s. 84(1) definition of "transferred" after 01 Dec 98 must be registered by and to the new possessor. That new possessor must have the registration certificate for that particular firearm IN HIS HAND before he can take possession of the firearm. To get one, he must follow all requirements set forth in FA s. 23, 27 and 31 plus those in the March 1998 Regulations, pages 27 to 33 inclusive. 3. ANY firearm that is loaned or rented after 01 Dec 98 is NOT "transferred" [special FA s. 21 definition of "transferred"], but "the registration certificate for the firearm" must be loaned or rented WITH the firearm. The person who has borrowed or rented the firearm and its registration certificate automatically becomes the "holder" of that registration certificate for the duration of the loan or rental. All requirements of FA s. 33 must be complied with. Read FA s. 33 for special conditions that may apply. 4. According to the CFC's new police training videos, any police officer who spots a firearm in your home or vehicle is authorized and encouraged to seize it unless you can produce a licence authorizing possession of that CLASS of firearm, and a registration certificate for that PARTICULAR firearm. 5. According to the CFC's new police training videos, every police officer is to report ANY behavior that might indicate a ttendency toward violence by entering it into the FIP (Firearms Information Police) files. In the training video, a loud-stereo noise complaint made by a neighbor irritates the stereo's owner. He makes a couple of angry remarks and throws a pop can onto the lawn. That is behavior that should be typed into the FIP files, so that if he ever applies for a firearms licence he can be refused on the basis of his uncontrollably violent behavior. 6. According to the CFC's new police training videos, a police officer can search any home without a warrant if there are "exigent circumstances." It says that "exigent circumstances" can include circumstances where public or a person's safety is NOT a factor. The video appears to be encouraging the officers in training to search homes as frequently as any excuse can be made. 7. According to the CFC's new police training videos, a police officer can and should seize firearms for a bewildering array of reasons -- some arising from "public safety" concerns, some from "safety of a person," and some from "regulatory" concerns -- like improper storage. The officers in training are encouraged to use their discretion, and err on the side of "public safety." 8. In the CFC's new police training videos, a police officer is NEVER shown as RETURNING a seized firearm, and NO training is offered as to when, why or how a seized firearm SHOULD be returned. The nearest it gets is a police officer telling a driver (from whom he has seized the driver's brother's rifle, left in the truck when the truck was borrowed) that his brother can get it back by bringing his licence and the registration certificate for the rifle to the police station. THE ENTIRE SERIES IS DEVOTED TO GETTING FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF THEIR LEGAL OWNERS, WITH NO TRAINING ON RETURNING THE SEIZED PROPERTY. 9. According to the CFC's new police training videos, a police officer who is asked by an elderly, freshly-widowed woman for assistance regarding her late husband's gun collection should immediately send the SWAT team (as experts in firearms identification!) to her home to "take" all the firearms to the police station. No training is offered that tells the officer watching it that all those firearms belong in the legal custody of the executor, or that all of them automatically became legal firearms as they passed into the hands of the executor. THIS IS A RED WARNING: PRINT THE "INHERITANCE" POSTING THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS, AND STAPLE IT TO YOUR WILL!! Dave Tomlinson, NFA -- CLOG: all Conservative or Liberal Ottawa Governments ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:20:27 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: More tales of CFR trained personnel.... Henry Vanwyck wrote in a recent reply to an enquiry: > > firearm - the firearm is recorded as stolen or lost, the description > given is incomplete or does not match FRT, the firearm is a > Section 12(6) prohibited firearm with no record, the restricted firearm > cannot be found in the RWRS database. > > When events such as these occur, the file is sent electronically > to a separate work queue at either a CFO office or to the Registrar's > office for review. There will be some delay. Peter Kearns wrote: The CFR relies on the FART disk to identify firearms and to put it very mildly the disk is garbage! CFR is now working with the second generation disk, which was redone to attempt to solve some of their problems, but unfortunately they left some vital information off the "new and improved" that resulted in it being worse than the first attempt! The problem now is that CFO's and the registry clerks at Miramachi only have the "new and improved" which promptly rejects around 75% to 85% of the firearms descriptions entered....... As Henry so aptly says, "There will be some delay." It may help if the CFR fires some of the incompetents it hired and tries to recruit people of at least minimal intelligence to perform the registry function. We sold a Bushmaster XM15-E2S lower receiver over a week ago. There was a problem, (don't ask, nobody knows) and the customer was told that he would be contacted and told when he could pick up his receiver. Last Saturday someone from Miramachi called him at home and told him to give the number XXX to the dealer and he could take his new toy home. There is a problem here..... Said dealer is grumpy, untrusting and definitely opposed to the whole C68 issue, (and described by some as "an activist.") The customer stood at the counter and said "transfer number XXX, (changed to protect the recalcitrant) and I have come to pick up my gun!" The uncouth dealer immediately retorted "Piss off, you can't have it without a valid registration certificate!" The dealer should have been contacted with the transfer number, but never was, (and would have refused it anyway as illegal.) The by now somewhat annoyed dealer called the CFO direct...... at lunchtime. He was put on hold while listening to soothing music for around ten to fifteen minutes, then passed on to voice mail. By now an excited and slightly upset dealer redialed the switchboard and received the promise that he would certainly talk to a real live person and then he got to listen to the soothing (politically correct) music again for another fifteen minutes...... Then clicks and whirrs and "You have reached the voice mail of..........." The now somewhat irritated dealer did indeed leave a message, (the contents of which will not be revealed so as not to offend the gentle reader) that stated his customer had a problem etc.. etc.. (There were a few uncomplimentary phrases as the now really unhappy dealer knows the official quite well.) Hit redial again and got the nice (and now quite flustered) lady, who assured him that XXXXXXX would get back to him immediately after lunch and the mess would be sorted out. It appears XXXXXXX takes four hour lunch breaks, which confirm the dealers opinion of the overall quality of the help at the federal registry. Those people tell lies to get rid of us, and kind Uncle Henry says "There will be some delays." The dealer called the CFO office again.... (Four hours later.) This time a male voice who clucked and tutted about the problems. After a five minute conversation the male receptionist said he would pass the message to XXXXXXXXX and immediately hung up..... The fact there was no message or telephone number to call didn't seem to worry the receptionist.. As I said earlier, it would really help if the CFR could recruit people of even minimal intelligence. To recap: We have a FART disk that is a dismal failure. The dismal failure is being used to attempt to register firearms, and will not complete the function for which it was (supposedly) designed. The clerks who rely on the dismal failure are unable to process information, so in true federal style either a) Put you on "hold" until you lose interest. b) Promise to call you back. c) Transfer (and promptly) forget you. d) Tell whatever lies will get you off their backs. e) Claim the computers are down, (usually truthful.) f) have a nervous breakdown, and mutter, "they don't pay me enough to take this shit!" Humourous eh? Not really, because our tax dollars pay these people to try and do a job that is by any stretch of the imagination impossible. While they attempt to get their so called registry up and running businesses are closing as a result of their ineptitude and good peoples liveleyhoods are going down the drain....... Oh Annie, I am so glad my business is in your riding, just you wait until election time....... Peter Kearns (Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, although most are probably similar to those of the other poor suckers who are forced to try and do business in Herr Diktator Cretin's new model empire, and in no way officially reflect the views of the National Firearms Owners its directors or members.) Simon says: Henry and Annie, you can stick your new Act where the sun don't shine....... ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #764 **********************************