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 V3 #28 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: 37247a250000226f Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, June 10 1999 Volume 03 : Number 028 In this issue: THIEF SHOT - HOMEOWNER MAY BE CHARGED Story of the Gun original sin and the Lieberals CFC VIDEO .32 cal handguns RE: CFC - NUMBER OF TAN's ISSUED? Re: It's about SPIN Re: Winchester M14 status Insurance replacement of SBH US: GUN LAWS PROMPT SURGE IN SALES Lousy Loonie Fund B.C. Re: CILA SBH Case Re; Winchester M14 status Re: AMNESTY EXTENTION Re: crossing the border Ontario black bears again! Re: Importation of Longarms Re: Winchester M14 status Ban guns you say? Think again!! (fwd) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:23:26 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: THIEF SHOT - HOMEOWNER MAY BE CHARGED PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 99.06.09 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: B7 BYLINE: Earle Gale SOURCE: Sterling News Service Suspected thief shot at by trailer owner, Surrey police say: The suspected thief was wounded and the homeowner may be charged, an RCMP officer said. The RCMP in Surrey is considering charges against a 55-year-old man after he shot a suspected thief he had found ``poking around'' outside his trailer. A 43-year-old man was shot in the back of the leg Tuesday morning after being confronted by the homeowner. The incident in an industrial area of Bridgeview triggered a police blockade around the trailer until the homeowner surrendered. Surrey RCMP Constable Janice Armstrong said police surrounded the home in the 13900-block of 117th Avenue after receiving a frantic telephone call from a nearby business where two men had fled after being shot at. Armstrong said the men claimed they were "poking around" outside the trailer when the occupant came outside and confronted them with a shotgun. The owner told police the men were trying to steal from his yard, which contained sheet metal and wood, and he tried to take them into his custody. Armstrong said he apparently opened fire when the men tried to flee. Armstrong said it appears the property owner fired the shotgun twice and hit one of the men in the back of the leg. The injuries were not life-threatening but warranted hospital treatment. Surrey RCMP blocked off the area around the trailer and spoke to the homeowner on the telephone. He surrendered a short time later. The public is allowed to use as much force as necessary to protect life and property, but people not in immediate danger are expected to abstain from using force, Armstrong said. Armstrong said investigators are considering asking the Crown to prosecute the homeowner for dangerous use of a and are expecting to lay charges of break-and-enter with intent against the other two men. She said the shooting victim remains in hospital and the other man is in police custody. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:19:27 -0600 From: Garry Dormody Subject: Story of the Gun Hello folks, I am interested in buying the documentary The Story of the Gun, which, I believe, ran on PBS or a similiar station a couple of years ago. I have approached several movie rental agencies and done a couple of web searches but can't find a source to get this from. Can anyone point me in the right direction ? Thanks. dorm P.S. You can reply to me directly at malamute@nt.sympatico.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:21:44 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: original sin and the Lieberals > Subject: Winchester M14 status > > Having seen some discussion recently re M14 it occurred to me that a > difficulty MIGHT arise with a Winchester receiver which was welded to > remove full-auto capability. > > Would these items ACTUALLY be C/A in legal terms? > Were they SUPPOSED to be restricted but forgotten from the lengthy list > which includes BM59, etc? > If the reciever has the milling cut for full-auto then it is *evil* and has no hope for forgiveness according to the lieberals. The BATFboys seem to have dreamed this one up. The lieberals, as always, simply copied it. > Would one take a risk ASKING the question to "officials"? > Considering their incompetence, who knows? They may lose the info, forget it, or even give you an $800,000 grant. Or, they may launch a midnite SWAT raid on the house next to yours ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:22:43 -0600 From: "P.DAKUS & or R.W. McKNIGHT" Subject: CFC VIDEO On Friday I received a 20 minute video from the CFC explaining the new gun laws. Has any one else received same. I phoned and asked how many people were sent this video and how much it cost to make and distribute. As usual they could not answer the question. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:28:19 -0600 From: "Jeffrey Edwards" Subject: .32 cal handguns I have sent these questions to the C.F.C. but they say they will take several weeks to answer and I wouldn't really trust their answer anyhow so maybe someone here can shed some light. Given that the government is poised to confiscate .32 caliber handguns: 1. What determines the caliber of a revolver ? 2. If a revolver that was originally .32 caliber had its cylinder and barrel removed, would it still be a .32 ? If yes, what would this determination be based on ? Can a revolver with no cylinder or barrel be registered and how would its caliber be determined? 3. If the cylinder and barrel were replaced to accomodate another caliber, would it still be classed as a .32 or could it be reregistered ? What would be the proper procedure for reregistering a handgun using the new caliber ? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:29:28 -0600 From: Brett Glaysher Subject: RE: CFC - NUMBER OF TAN's ISSUED? >I am amazed that Ms Roussel could not answer this simple >question. If the " Communications Group, Canadian Firearms Centre " cannot >answer this basic a question as regards a TAN, God help you if are caught >with a firearm and only a TAN number. Hey, I'm still waiting for a reg. cert. for a gun I bought in Dec/98. I call up the CFC, ask them what's up - here's my TAN number. They say 'sorry we can't look up that info with just the TAN - we need the serial number'. I hang up, MAWGAH (me at work, gun at home), call back the next day with the serial number, they say ok, blah blah blah - oh yes your certificate will be mailed soon. That was more than a month ago. Argh! Since Dec., I've registered 5 restricted firearms - and haven't recieved a single certificate. Brett. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:31:35 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: It's about SPIN >As to the Gun Jails - perhaps the Dealers could be compensated by the Justice >Department to store guns on a per diem basis while awaiting the proper papers so >the owners can take them ! Since all this crap is rapidly approaching a billion >dollar cost the dealers may as well make a buck too ! Sorry, a dealer cannot do that. The moment he accepts money in exchange for a firearm, the dealer's registration certificate for that firearm expires [FA s. 66] -- and it becomes a criminal offence for him to be in possession of it. Catch-22 David A Tomlinson National President, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:32:27 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: Winchester M14 status >Having seen some discussion recently re M14 it occurred to me that a >difficulty MIGHT arise with a Winchester receiver which was welded to >remove full-auto capability. >Would these items ACTUALLY be C/A in legal terms? >Were they SUPPOSED to be restricted but forgotten from the lengthy list >which includes BM59, etc? >Would one take a risk ASKING the question to "officials"? No -- because whatever they answer is merely their personal opinion. The law does not authorize them to RULE on what the law means. Only a judge in a court of law can do that. David A Tomlinson National President, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:34:01 -0600 From: Jean Hogue Subject: Insurance replacement of SBH A recent posting mentioned a case of a stolen Short-Barrel Handgun ("SBH" - barrel length < 4.14") Walther PPK which was replaced by the insurance company. I am not sure about the "grandfathered" status of the person the original PPK was registered to. The argument made was that the person still was the rightful owner of the handgun even though he no longer has "possession" of it. 20 years ago, my hi-fi system was stolen. The thief left behind a Magneplanar speaker, which only come in matched pairs. The insurance company replaced the pair and left me the orphaned speaker as they did not want to bother with it -- I was told if I ever sold it (I did not), it was now the property of the insurance company and any money received had to be sent back to the company. Since the stolen PPK was replaced, does not the original, grandfathered PPK, become the property of the insurance company -- meaning the original SBH owner no longer owns a grandfathered SBH ? __________________________________________________ Those who claim gun ownership is a mere privilege, not a right, are in fact claiming the right to abolish the privilege. __________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:37:11 -0600 From: "Linda (Kali) Jordan" Subject: US: GUN LAWS PROMPT SURGE IN SALES THREATS OF NEW GUN LAWS PROMPT SURGE IN SALES The gun market booms every time consumers perceive a threat that regulations will make it harder to obtain firearms -- and this year is no exception. Industry insiders report that weapons are flying off the shelves. o A Minneapolis gun and ammunition retailer says sales are up 112 percent for the first five months of this year. o A Bellevue, Wash., gun-shop owner reports a stampede of first-time buyers. o A Santa Fe Springs, Calif., manufacturer of ammunition clips is predicting a 50 percent jump in sales this year and says business has never been better. Observers say the Capitol Hill debate on gun-control legislation is not the sole cause of the current brisk business among firearms dealers. Two other factors are also at work. First is the rash of lawsuits cities are filing against the industry -- which, if successful, could also dry up supplies. Second is the approach of the year 2000. Those who are worried that widespread malfunctions of computers will occur and lead to social chaos are stocking up on weapons for personal protection. Source: Paul M. Barrett, "Industry Under Siege, Threats of Regulation -- and a Surge in Sales," Wall Street Journal, June 8, 1999. For more on Self Defense http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/crime51.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:38:42 -0600 From: Desmond Keddie Subject: Lousy Loonie Fund B.C. The Lousy Loonie Fund has raised over $2400.00 at the Historical Arms Collectors Society shows in the last 6 months.Many thanks to those who have donated so generously. The NFA will spend these funds wisely, on important,precedent setting cases.We have a couple of interesting ones coming up soon in B.C. H.A.C.S has been a wonderfull supporter of the NFA for over 10 years and has given thousands of dollars toward our legal fund.H.A.C.S. also gives the NFA 2 free tables at its' monthly and 2 day shows.Thank you for your generosity,it is much appreciated. Desmond Keddie B.C. NFA Director, Public Affairs ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:41:50 -0600 From: "Linda (Kali) Jordan" Subject: Re: CILA SBH Case [This message and the one from Tony Bernardo were edited to exclude anything I thought may be perceived as sniping or insults. Let's please all try to be very polite and not waste time attacking each other. We are never going to totally agree on how to fight, but everything we do to oppose will have some effect. -- Skeeter] - ------------------------------ From: Gordon Herbert McKay asked! He was answered! He seems not to understand! Mr. McKay when non natives sue the Federal Government we must pay our lawyers in advance - hence CILA is seeking donations now! I am not aware of your Status but suggest if Treaty - your Chief should be representing you in conjunction with The Indian Association of Canada - contact Phil Fontaine there! If you are metis or non status there are organizations in place to defend you! However if you are a C31 (Mulrony Indian) I have no suggestion - - perhaps Mr. Mulrony will defend you - in which case God Help You! Aside from all that you are welcome to throw you hand in with us- but expect to be asked to contribute from time to time ! - -------------------- Skeeter, you are right that sniping is not required, but unfortunately at times it is done through sheer frustration by the best of us. That is not saying that the subscribers at large need to be subjected to it, it is simply admitting that it is human nature at times, and that it does at times have its place, and serve a purpose, the same as practices or games like "flirting" have their place. (Gordon, you and I will have to continue to disagree on some points like the one you have made here.) Herb MacKay is completely within his rights to have asked his questions. Anyone in their right mind would ask "how" their donated money is to be spent. When one invests or contributes money to "any" forum, it is only to be expected that questions will be asked. What would the receiving folk have to hide? If the funds are being legitimately requested, then their purpose and their books would be open. The key here is of course accountability. Many on this list complain loud and long about the misuse of our taxpaying dollars being unreasonably spend to fund things like the gun registry, yet you do not think our own orgs should be accountable to their members. Isn't that two-faced? Yes legal fees are high, and really good lawyers cost money. However where such significant and crucial legal cases are to occur, most orgs will consult with legal counsel, pick who they wish to represent them when they are advised that yes they have a case, and ultimately that legal counsel can set up a trust fund. If insufficient funds are collected, the lawyer has the obligation to return all trust funds. But the point here is that all those folk donating and contributing to such cause will have the assurance that YES their funds are going to a legitimate account and will be accountable. When you have REAL accountability, the majority do not hesitate to donate or contribute. You have to remember that when that accountability does not exist, we have been too conditioned through greed and mispent funds by successive governments to just "blindly" donate on a constant basis. If you "give" money to a homeless person on the streets, because it is your nature to help others less fortunate, you do not expect accountability. Ultimately your main purpose was a gesture of human nature and you do not need to "ensure" that it is spent on food, even though the possibility is there that it could be spent on booze or drugs. But most of us who donate to organizations do so with a specific purpose in mind and expect that money to spent accordingly, which never happens when it's donated "blindly". And accordingly, just cause you "ask", don't "expect" others to give. It's your own choice to give blindly, or to ask for accountability, but at least show the intelligence to recognize that seeking accountability is not "wrong". Directing such people elsewhere merely suggests something "shady" about something that might be legitimate, and will only defeat the purpose in the end. Far easier to provide the assurance and accountability some seek. Far easier to ! even "plan and organize" your request to provide this also, knowing the questions will be asked, if not by all, then at least by many. As they say, it takes less to smile than it does to frown. Linda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:43:20 -0600 From: "Pierre Leblanc" Subject: Re; Winchester M14 status Seems the answer has already been written... I have a Winchester M-14 registered as C/A... DVC Pierre ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:44:29 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: Re: AMNESTY EXTENTION I would suspect Paul Martin has totaled the Bill and shown the real costs to the Boss - probably while he was still looking at the election results of NB and Ontario! I doubt if he said tell Annie to keep up the good work! BOB LICKACZ wrote: > Do you suppose Annie's registration system is so starving for private > registrations (ie not cop guns) that this could be the underlying reason > for this apparent benevolence? > > Bob Lickacz > NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:51:31 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: crossing the border > I have planned a trip to Alaska this year and I want to go from the Ankorage to Haines. This requires me to cross in the Yukon for about 200 miles. I will have a firearm with me and I don't want to leave it behind while in Haines,AK. I understand that they use to tape the gun case as you cross the border into Canada and cut the tape when you get back into Alaska... Please advise... Gun laws here in a state of flux while new law is failing. Call 1-800-731-4000 to get the latest requirements (which will probably be obsolete in a week). Then get it IN WRITING -- because if you have an official letter telling you to do it the way you are doing it, you are bombproof. Any charge against you will be thrown out because you did what you did through "official misdirection." David A Tomlinson National President, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:52:28 -0600 From: Kevin Watson Subject: Ontario black bears again! A woman who resides just south of Sudbury Ontario had a black bear look into her house window, she called the police, the police regarding the situation as dangerous called in the MNR who darted the bear only to have it escape into the woods.The woman says she is concerned about her daughter playing outside the home. Kevin Watson, Ontario trapper. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:55:53 -0600 From: hylands@ibm.net (Jon Hylands) Subject: Re: Importation of Longarms On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:16:46 -0600, Alan Harper wrote: > Keep in mind that the BATF attends gun shows and they record out-of-state > license plates. They may stop you at any time after you leave the show. > They will also communicate with the RCMP and Canada Customs. Yeah, so you make sure you park a good ways (several miles) away, and take a cab or a bus or something. Also, I'm not advocating trying to smuggle said guns into Canada. You declare them at the border, show your FAC, pay your GST and duty as applicable, and go home. And, of course, immediately call 1-800-731-4000 and register them. Later, Jon - -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hylands Jon@huv.com http://www.huv.com/jon Project: Micro Seeker (Micro Autonomous Underwater Vehicle) http://www.huv.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:57:29 -0600 From: Alan Harper Subject: Re: Winchester M14 status >Having seen some discussion recently re M14 it occurred to me that a >difficulty MIGHT arise with a Winchester receiver which was welded to >remove full-auto capability. >Would these items ACTUALLY be C/A in legal terms? There is no "might" about it. It was originally a full auto. It is prohibited, as of Oct 1, 1992. If it was not registered as a converted auto (CA) by then, it can never be registered. So, if it is registered as a CA, it is now a prohibited firearm, but legal. It must be handled as required by law for prohibited firearms. If it is not registered, it is totally illegal to possess. It is not a CA, unless it is registered. In this case, you could remove everything from the frame and destroy the frame. Then, everything you possess would be quite legal. You could advertise the complete gun, minus the frame, and sell it without a permit, to anybody. Or, you could buy a frame (a semi-auto only frame), install the parts on the frame, and you'd have a legal gun. >Were they SUPPOSED to be restricted but forgotten from the lengthy list >which includes BM59, etc? They are not restricted. They are prohibited by bill C-17, as of Oct 1, 1992. The long list you refer to, which includes the BM-59, was done by Order In Council (OIC), effective Jan 1, 1995. That OIC does not pertain to an original Winchester M14. >Would one take a risk ASKING the question to "officials"? Ask them, and you might get a visit from the SWAT team at 4AM. This is a good forum to ask for such information. I am recounting this from memory, but I'm sure I'm correct. Someone correct me if I have screwed up any details. Bye. Al. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:00:04 -0600 From: Ken Pisichko Subject: Ban guns you say? Think again!! (fwd) Here is the header of a message I sent to Michael E. of CBC's "This Morning". In spite of the message that the media and legal types like Michael and Clay Ruby continuously spout off, more and more of Canada is not listening to that type of guff. To save band width I have stripped out the 3 clips since we have all read them in today's CFD. Ken - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:05:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Ken Pisichko To: thismorning@cbc.ca Subject: Ban guns you say? Think again!! Hi Robert, Here are several clips regarding the new government of New brunswick. Obviously they seem to think in the same way as 4 other provinces and 2 territories regarding current "gun-control laws" in Canada. Obviously those urbanites in Canada who think that banning all guns and registering them first should reconsider their position. Much of Canada does not believe these stupid and short-sighted ideas coming from urban Canada. In addition, we do not believe in wasting money to make people feel good! These three clips were reposted from the Canadian Firearms Digest. Clearly the debate is NOT OVER - no matter what the Justice Minister sez! She CAN be defeated by the ballot box in the next federal election. Ken Pisichko - ----------------clip 1 follows------------------------------- Subject: NEW BRUNSWICK TO JOIN C-68 CHALLENGE - -------------clip 2 follows--------------------------- Subject: New Brunswick and Canadian Political SitRep - -----------------clip 3 follows------------------------ Subject: majority now oppose C-68 as law ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #28 *********************************