From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca 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 Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, December 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 771 In this issue: Meet ME at my home page C-68 effects Monitoring E-mail Restricted Firearms Permits Re: Rick Lowe's submission Early registration - not for me! Re: Let's Help Now!!!! Re: [alert] Re: OOOPS!! SPREAD THIS ONE... a) registration timing debate b) cooling off period ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:49:41 -0600 From: Donna Ferolie Subject: Meet ME at my home page INVITATION TO MEET ME You are cordially invited to meet me at my new home page at http://www3.sympatico.ca/donnaferolie Please keep in mind that this is strictly an introductory website with some background on " moi " and an outline on my goals and objectives and some insights into the upcoming U.N workshop in Vienna in January. If you click on my single picture a " bio " should pop up. Please tell me if it is working ! Donna Ferolie ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:39 -0600 From: "Joe MacDonald" Subject: C-68 effects I was In Canadian tire yesterday,picking up some .22's and asked the counter clerk how they were doing with gun sales this christmas season. His response: Thanks to C68, we're not going to be selling firearms through this branch anymore(4 Corners in Sudbury Ont.) I guess another of Annie's lies just popped up-"this law is not designed to inconvenience anyone", guess it'll be harder and harder for the gov't to collect their fees when no one is selling firearms anymore Joe (Joe_Macdonald@sudbury.falconbridge.com ) - ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BE2BEA.B9F5FC00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was In Canadian tire = yesterday,picking up some=20 .22's and asked the counter clerk how they were doing with gun sales = this=20 christmas season. His response: Thanks to C68, we're not going to be = selling=20 firearms through this branch anymore(4 Corners in Sudbury Ont.) I guess = another=20 of Annie's lies just popped up-"this law is not designed to = inconvenience=20 anyone", guess it'll be harder and harder for the gov't to = collect=20 their fees when no one is selling firearms anymore

Joe

(Joe_Macdonald@sudbury.falc= onbridge.com=20 )

- ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BE2BEA.B9F5FC00-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:49:47 -0600 From: Don Clarke Subject: Monitoring E-mail Maurice asked; > Can anyone tell me if they can monitor my outgoing > e-mails? Other than talking to the Austrian's about > this hunt, I havent mentioned it to anyone via e-mail > (except the various lodge's I was enquiring to) Maurice, anytime you send an E-mail it's like you are standing up in the middle of a crowded restaruant and shouting out loud. You can use an encryption system (pgp type) to hide the contents, which means you're yelling in Sanscrit which nobody understands, but they still know you're talking. I've been told (can't remember who told me) that two students (wish I could recall those names, but my memory is terrible with names) in a Sudbury college entertain themselves by routinely scanning all the other students E-mail and passing on the "juicy" ones... Consider an E-mail to be a "post-card" passing through the hands of the mail-sorters in the post office. If it's private, say it in person! PS; for the Justice watchers, if you read my e-mail, you're going to be "sooooo boooorrrreeeedddddd" because I follow my own advice. Don ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:12 -0600 From: "Larry Going" Subject: Restricted Firearms Permits I just received 30 copies of Form# JUS 679 EF (98/06), "Application for Authorization to Transport Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Firearms, including Prohibited Handguns". There is only room for one club on each form. Am I going to have fun! I would appreciate names of handgun clubs in your area. I might want to shoot there in the near future! Too bad I'm not sure of the serial number, make, model, etc. of my handguns........ That forces me to enter everything as unknown! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:27 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Rick Lowe's submission Peter Kearns said: > This is my personal opinion. Rick like most of us has what > he feels is the ultimate solution to C68. We all have good Peter, Peter, Peter... If you care to reread ANY of my submissions on this strategy, nowhere will you see this idea posed as the "ultimate solution" to C-68. I have constantly urged that it be just ONE of a number of initiatives. In fact, one of my criticisms of the NFA's current approach, I trust you will recall, is that there are NO alternatives for those who, for whatever reason, won't vote Reform. There are NO alternatives beyond depending on Reform winning the next election and/or being able to have this tossed out as unconstitutional in a higher court. Just curious Peter - can you tell me when the last time you and the rest of the NFA leadership put out a public call asking for members to submit any ideas or strategies they might have, and discussed them in public? I don't recall ever seeing that done, and it seems to me that by not doing this, the NFA leadership is ignoring 99.99% of the brainpower within the organization. I think it is a safe bet that, within any organization, brains and ideas are not restricted to those who hold the reins of power. Now, don't you think that is one of my excellent suggestions? How about putting out a public call to the membership to post any ideas and suggestions they have for fighting C-68. How about ASKING for some help with coming up with ideas. > The problem as I see it is that an individual has what he > believes is a perfect solution to C68, and then resents the > fact that the president of a national organisation doesn't > agree it is that great. I can tell you, (and obviously Not at all Peter. Let me clarify your confusion on this matter. First off, you have already been reminded that I have always proposed this idea as one part of a multipart strategy - not as one standalone perfect solution. Second, if DAT had responded to the idea, there had been some public discussion of the pros and cons, and then it had been rejected, I may have indeed continued to feel it was a great idea, but I would have accepted that as the reasoned conclusion of Canadian firearms owners. I don't resent anything Peter, but let me tell you what I reject. Long before this idea was ever posted here in public - just after C-68 was tabled in the House - I sent it to DAT by snailmail. Several times. And as a card carrying NFA member at the time. The last time, I requested at least an acknowledgement of receipt. I never did receive an answer, much less a discussion of the idea. Later, frustrated with DAT's refusal to even acknowledge the idea existed, I posted it here. People that were around then will recall that the topic was current on this list for about three weeks. During that time, while he had time to comment on everything else, DAT acted as though the topic didn't even exist on the list. Only at the very end, when pushed, was there one very short pronouncement from DAT. It never did receive any sort of discussion/debate with DAT. Curious, don't you think? I reject an officer of any organization I belong to feeling they don't even have to acknowledge an idea brought forward by a member trying to make a contribution. That isn't appropriate, not to mention being arrogant. I reject ANY reasonable suggestion from ANY person not being given a fair hearing and discussion - particularly when the stakes are so high. Does it really matter who are the authors of the ideas who pull our bacon out of the fire regarding this legislation? To me it sure the hell doesn't. I want to hear ANY suggestion that has a chance of being effective, and I want the opportunity to discuss it without it being dismissed by either being ignored or simply shot down with a simple "no" from the leadership. Furthermore, I reject DAT or anybody else in a group like this not being man enough to deal with an issue in the open, but instead backdooring the moderator and crying to have somebody's right to post censored because they were possibly swaying people from DAT's decreed plan. That, frankly, is contemptible. If you dispute that this occurred, I invite you to ask Taylor Buckner about this; he still monitors the list. That is nothing less than an attempt to interfere with somebody's freedom of speech because you don't like their ideas or their ideas being discussed. Think of all the sneering that goes on around here about the "sheep" that follow the government's suggestions and instructions re C-68. Yet the NFA leadership in their turn demand sheep who will blindly follow the direction given by DAT, and God forbid that somebody disagrees or proposes a strategy that DAT doesn't want discussed. Then the solution is to censor the author by trying to persuade the moderator to turf them off the list. You consider that sort of censorship and manner of dealing with an issue appropriate? Isn't that the sort of behavior we despise in the government? If I object to government deciding what's good for me and attempting to censor me, why should I find DAT - or anybody else - attempting the same thing acceptable? So that's MY personal opinion, and now you know what I reject - as oppose to resent. If you support that sort of attempted interference with somebody's freedom of speech because somebody doesn't like their ideas or discussion of ideas, I will be very much surprised. > instant communication. I now use a marvellous system called > "delete" and have found it to be perfectly sattisfactory up You may have noticed that the "delete" key doesn't work with snailmail, Peter. And threatening mail disturbs my wife who has equal access to this computer and our email address. > causing the system to break down. I personally think the > idea had merit, but right now the system is merrily self > destructing without requiring us to do anything, so early > registration would achieve nothing. Really? Look at the chaos a small trickle of firearms is causing. Now the reader should ask himself what would be going on in Miramachi if instead they were dealing with millions of registrations. The reader should ask themselves what would be happening if those registrations - irregardless of whether they had been entered or not - were being updated by notices that a shorter barrel had been installed, the caliber had been changed, Privacy Act requests were being entered and requiring action, etc. I don't agree with you at all. I think the extra load this would put on Miramachi would be backbreaking, no matter how many shifts Valin put on there. And again, it would force the government to deal with everything right now, while it's still a news item. No spreading the costs over years. No warmup time to get the computer system working properly, work out smooth arrangements with provincial governments, etc, and years of excuses for why the registry isn't working (well, they haven't registered all their firearms yet, you see). I might also note that DAT is encouraging testing the ability of the system to handle the flow of work. If reregistering firearms is going to test the system, imagine what registering millions of new firearms and then promptly updating them with barrel changes, caliber changes, barrel on and off, etc would do... > I won't comment on Rick's spat with Dave Tomlinson as I > believe Dave can do that himself if he chooses. I would Don't have any personal problems with DAT. I have a problem with the way he deals with suggestions that don't come from him, and I have a problem with ANYBODY attempting to have my freedom of speech censored by a moderator because they don't have the courage to deal with an issue in public. And yet again, for the record, I will acknowledge that the firearms community owes DAT a huge debt for all the work and effort he has put into working for us the last twenty years. But that doesn't mean he is always right, and in the issues raised above, I don't believe he acted properly. > suggest to Rick that he refrain from personal attacks on > anyone, as I seem to remember he said many times that an > attack on anyone fighting C68 would damage us all. My I have not made a personal attack on DAT. Everything happened just as I have recounted above. If you don't believe it, then speak with Taylor Buckner, the previous moderator. If you wish, I will also forward you copies of my correspondence with DAT regarding this strategy from long before it ever occurred here. There is significant difference between an ad hominum attack and criticism of improper conduct... Finally, I have again received several emails from people who said they were computer systems engineers and whatnot and they said they thought this would be an extremely effective strategy. I would invite some discussion from those people as to just what sort of effect they - computer professionals - think this sort of "immediate registration" strategy would have. I'm not a computer expert, I've just seen what this does to a federal department first hand. So let's see what the computer experts have to say. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:14 -0600 From: Bill Rantz Subject: Early registration - not for me! The topic of early registration has again been raised. In prior discussions it has received minimal support. I am totally against the concept. In order to register ones firearms you must pay hard earned dollars to our federal government. These dollars will be counted and used by the bureaucrats as proof that the system is going to raise large sums of money for government coffers. The Liberal politicians in Ottawa could care less if the system isn't working, so what if gunowners must wait months for certificates and the paperwork is inaccurate. They will only count the dollars raised and then use this same money to continue their attack on the RFC. Early registration is simply not for me! Bill Rantz NFA Ontario President ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:49:51 -0600 From: "Steven W. Klassen" Subject: Re: Let's Help Now!!!! "Gord Heins" wrote: >Let's buy. Buy every gun that you have ever wanted. What a time to buy >your son or daughter a real gift for Christmas. > Let's try and make it at least better for our friends the Owners of all >the small sporting goods shops. Our Friends. I agree. If you have an FAC go and buy something. If you don't have much money then buy something cheap. Many WWII era rifles can be purchased for under $100. These have the advantage of being difficult for the verifiers to find in the FART. If you have never owned a handgun or restricted rifle before (I never have) because of the headache involved then buy one now. You have to go through the headache anyway so there is no longer any reason to favor a non-restricted firearm over a restricted one. Either way the gun stores need our help. - --------------------------- Steven W. Klassen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:44 -0600 From: Charles Schafer Subject: Re: [alert] Re: OOOPS!! SPREAD THIS ONE... Dear Dave: I am getting the impression that the folks at NFA may be inadvertantly helping to fix the C-68 loopholes. If I am right, it would seem to me that it might be better to discover these but keep them in reserve for future use in an appropriate court case. Court cases that show the weaknesses, stupidity and cost to taxpayers of C-68 activity would seem to be of more value than that gained by pointing out these flaws to the bureauocracy as they become evident to NFA staff. Maybe I am missing something but I get the impression that your letter is describing how the CLOG is retrofitting C-68 with using NFA brain power? Best wishes and thanks for all your hard work. Hope you received the items I mailed to you several weeks ago. Regards and Season's Greetings, Charles Schafer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:50:03 -0600 From: Jean Hogue Subject: a) registration timing debate b) cooling off period a) Late or early registration debate - again - -------------------------------------------- In the early vs late registration debate and the wake of the Dec. 1st implementation fiasco, these are the point that I am seeing: 1. WHAT was tested and WHAT was NOT tested The only test conducted was on the gun control bureaucracy's capability to deliver on their promise of "real-time" ON-LINE registration of NEW transfers. At the TRICKLE level. This has nothing to do with the entry, without errors, OFF-LINE of firearms ALREADY OWNED, which will handled through an entirely different process. At the 7 to 20 MILLION level. Ironing out the kinks of ON-LINE NEW registrations does NOT guarantee that the MASSIVE OFF-LINE workload will be a cinch. 2. "Size DOES matter" From bitter experience abroad with a database system, I can testify that an initial success with only one terminal means nothing. The actual operation under fully loaded conditions is a critical test. Late registration denies the gun control bureaucrats the critical mass of data they need for this judgement day test, pushed out at the edge of the "go to jail" deadline. 3. An early flood of registrations is of no consequence So what if tons of applications had been piled up to the ceiling ? Unless I missed something, the gun control bureaucrats never committed to a maximum response time. They can't handle the forms right now ? No problem, just stack 'em, they won't become unreadable passed a "best before" expiry date. The system has to be redone ? No problem, the paper forms are still available -- the CFC does not need to enter all "7" million records to see the problem. 4. They still got to swallow the whole thing Holding off until a few months before the "go to jail" deadline forces the gun control bureaucrats to do a 4-year job in a few months. That in itself, even on a "wrinkle free" system, shall be interesting to watch. The CFC has mentioned the possibility of triple shifts. The best they can achieve is to do a 4-year job in 1.3 years, provided the gun lobby triggers the flood at that time instead of the last few months. I think early registrations would have provided the gun control bureaucrats the time they need. 5. Results so far Numerous press articles have shown the Dec. 1st implementation is a fiasco. The gun lobby cannot even be blamed for trying to sabotage the system by creating an overload. The system bombed by itself. La Presse [Friday, Dec.18, p. A7, Paul Roy] reported many Canadian Tire stores in Quebec are getting out of the firearms business. Even at $ 195, they can't unload a Mossberg 500. Newcomers face a $ 200 fee upfront to get a firearms permit and are deterred from taking up hunting. Too much hassles, too much costs, none justified by the slim profit margins on these guns. 6. Hindsight is always 20-20 vision When Rick took the stand last year to provoke massive discussion upon the early vs late registration strategy, we did not have the benefit of the end result. I want to commend Rick for his initiative. The hoped-for sna/foo (for C programmers: related to foo/bar) of Dec. 1st, 1998 gun registration DID occur. How much of it was hope versus absolute certainty ? This is now moot. My compliments to the few persons who had the actual knowledge to be certain of this -- most of the digest subscribers did not. It now turns out that Wendy is raving about how late registration will save the system. Rght ! OK Wendy, I shall follow your advice. b) A cooling off period - ----------------------- The present situation is as follows: - - Dec. 1st C-68 implementation is a well-publicized fiasco - - The evil gun lobby has plenty ammunition to fire at the CFC: - question how much more excess expenses will be required to do the job; - question CFC commmitments as to the accuracy of their registry; - government interference, not a change of mentalities, are killing off interest in hunting. I am truly baffled as to why, when the National Firearms Registry is bombing all on its own, some in this digest advocate action that will distract from the CFC major problems and will instead tarnish the image of gun owners. I just do not see why, 4 years before the "go to jail" deadline, there is any point in creating a list of people who say they will break the law. I do not believe creating roadblocks will result in anything else than unfavorable press coverage about selfish persons creating hardship for others. Sympathy will come easier for a pig producer about to lose his farm than for a gun owner represented as paranoid about losing his firearm. Recent press coverage has not been favorable for the gun control bureaucrats. I think we will get farther by slowly getting the press to discover the error of its ways than to force instant change. The unfair coverage of the Sept. 22 gun owners rallye in Ottawa should be remembered. (Wendy, I worked also my little bit in to help in the rallye and no, I did not expect the government would back down or that the press would become honest. I expected a massive display of the gun owners' resolve and a clear message to the lieberal party: we did not fold. The rallye was a huge success.) I pledge to obey the law. I will abide by the letter of the law and nobdoy has any business I abide by the spirit of the law -- it does not have any, it was dutifully crafted as ordered by twits. Obedience to the strict letter is still obedience. And I am following Wendy's advice to register late ! Maybe I should contact her at her Ryerson e-mail to ask for a medal ? (Not !) I suggest we use the upcoming holidays to cool off and wish you all a Merry Christmas. Joyeux Noel a tous ! ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #771 **********************************