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 #43 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: 0000 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: 37247a2500002ad5 Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, June 23 1999 Volume 03 : Number 043 In this issue: Re: Fw: Ottawa's advice to the police Fw: C-68 - Gun Control THE SUPREME COURT POST CARD FORMS Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #37 Re: Tomlinson-Cukier Debate on WIC Network Thoughts from an American gunner Sectional Densities and Ballistic Coefficients - How to Calculate GUNS WERE ONCE COMMON IN SCHOOLS FW: CABINET SECRECY INVOKED TO HIDE TRUE COSTS OF GUN REGISTRY Annie on the way out ?? Police Association of Ontario Re: THE SUPREME COURT Re: HOMICIDE IN CANADA Re: B.C Information Meeting (New Range Rules) Transportation of firearms Firepower Magazine News from the South CILA Letter to the Ottawa Citizen Opinion Page Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:42:17 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: Fw: Ottawa's advice to the police >Initially the registration fee for >> already-owned firearms will be $10 for an unlimited number of firearms >> registered at any ONE time, rising to$18 in the year 2001. >Where does it say ONE time in the legislation? March 1998 Regulations, page 59. >I think they are making up rules again. >Can I register all my firearms "one-at-a-time" once I have paid the >initiation fee. No. There is no "initiation fee." The $10 special rate is the fee "for all registrations certificates contained in AN application." It is therefore a bulk rate. You may, however, break your applications into several "groups" and pay $ 10 for each. David A Tomlinson National President, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:44:12 -0600 From: "Douglas R Calvert" Subject: Fw: C-68 - Gun Control TO ALL ACTIVISTS. I just received this response from Alberta re this mornings email! Doug - ----- Original Message ----- From: Sharron Theuerkauf To: Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 11:13 AM Subject: C-68 - Gun Control > Thank you for your e-mail regarding C-68. > > The Government of Alberta opposes the licencing and registration provisions > of the federal Firearms Act (Bill C-68). Alberta has commenced a legal > proceeding to challenge the constitutionality of these provisions. The > Supreme Court of Canada will likely hear the arguments on this challenge in > the Fall of this year. Alberta takes the position that the licencing and > registration provisions are matters that fall within exclusive provincial > authority and are, therefore, beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the > federal government. > > The Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights is another example of the > Government's commitment to private property rights. This Act was brought > into force on June 1 of this year. A provincial enactment will be rendered > of no force and effect by this Act if the enactment allows for the > acquisition by the provincial Crown of permanent title to tangible personal > property, unless a process is in place for the determination and payment of > compensation. > > Alberta's initiation of the constitutional challenge to the Federal Firearms > Act and the enactment of the Alberta Personal Property Bill of Rights > demonstrate this Government's willingness to stand up for the rights of > Albertans. > > Yours truly, > > > > Dave Hancock, Q.C. > Minister > MLA - Edmonton Whitemud ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:48:32 -0600 From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: THE SUPREME COURT A new poll asks the question: Will the Supreme Court of Canada rule against C-68 (the Firearms Act) this fall? Do you suppose that Prime Minister Chretien will DIRECT the Supreme Court of Canada to rule in favour of the Provinces in order to extricate himself with some semblance of face saving, from the grasp of his tar baby? Bob Lickacz NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:49:36 -0600 From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: POST CARD FORMS Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #37 Everyone should print this our and keep a copy with your firearms - carry it when hunting etc. It may save some over zealous person from trying to seize your firearms or charge you with some deemed offence! Dave Tomlinson wrote: > >Hold on, I don't recall hearing or seeing this bit of information > >before. So all FAC's will expire 01/01/2001 ? Even if the expiry > >date on the card is xx/xx/2003 ? Is this true?..., ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:52:55 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Tomlinson-Cukier Debate on WIC Network > Hi One and All, > > I recorded the entire one-and-one-half hour discussion between Dave > Tomlinson and Wendy Cukier. I may be able to squeeze it onto one 90 > minute tape if I delete the news and the advertising. Once the copy is > nice and clean, I will turn it over to Dave and the NFA > > Robin Leech I'd like to hear it. Perhaps it can be put into mp3 format and made available to subscribers of the digest, or available at the NFA web site. Bye. Al. "I drank what?!?" - Socrates ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:01:38 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Thoughts from an American gunner > Regarding licensing: > I have long advocated that each state should offer firearms licenses analogous to driver's licenses. Each state would have its own licensing criteria, and would administer its own licensing system. The only nation-wide result would be that each state would be committed to recognizing license holders from other states temporarily within its borders, again precisely analogous to driver's licenses. Again, while each state would set its own standards, I personally would favor requiring that a holder: (1) complete an N.R.A. certified firearms safety course; (2) be able to pass a test regarding both firearms safety and the laws permitting using a firearm for self-defense (again, similar to a driver's license); (3) and pass a range test demonstrating basic firearms competency with both handguns and rifles (or with one or the other if the license holder didn't care if his off-range use would be restricted to that category. The license would have a magnetic strip which could be swiped through a reader each time it was presented for a purchase, thereby checking to make certain it was still in effect. It would be temporarily invalidated during the time someone was under indictment for a felony and permanently should he ever be convicted of a felony, or of reckless use of a firearm during which another person was injured. However, just as you do NOT need to have a driver's license to own a car, neither should you need to have my proposed firearms license in order to own a firearm. Moreover, neither would you need to have such a license in order to shoot your firearm at authorized ranges (such as the American Shooting Center in my own vicinity). Again, this is analogous to a driver's license in that you do not need such a license in order to drive (or practice driving) on private property. To satisfy the anti-gunners, without the license you would be limited to the amount of ammunition you could purchase at one time and the type of ammunition, and it could only be purchased at the range prior to a shooting session with the idea that you would be using all of the ammunition during that session. Neither would you be allowed to buy the raw components needed for reloading without the license. On the other hand, the possession of the license would permit you to: (1) carry concealed anywhere in the United States. (2) Transport your locked and unloaded firearm by air carrier without problems when traveling. (3) Immediately purchase firearms anywhere in the United States or by mail. (4) Purchase ammunition anywhere in the United States, at any time, and in any quantity. In other words, having the license issued by your state would give you virtual freedom regarding firearms. How do you feel about such a proposal? I believe it would have at least one certain positive effect, which would be to take the wind entirely out of the anti-gunner sails. ===================== Here's an interesting posting from an American list. Bye. Al. "I drank what?!?" - Socrates ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:13:35 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Sectional Densities and Ballistic Coefficients - How to Calculate Some months ago, someone inquired about sectional densities/ballistic coefficients. I finally found the article that gives these. It is super. You can do ALL your calculations with the formula given in the article. Here is where the article is: 4th Anniversary De Luxe Edition, edited by John T. Amber. Handloader's Digest, 1968. Article titled "Sectional Densities and Ballistic Coefficients" by Earle Clarke and the technical editors, pages 49-51. Last night, just for the fun of it, I ran calculations on a bullet for which I had the SD and BC (e.g., Speer Pointed Boat-tail). I arrived at exactly the same figure (BC=3D 0.556). Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:15:51 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: GUNS WERE ONCE COMMON IN SCHOOLS National Centre for Policy Analysis - Idea House Guns Were Once Common In Schools http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061799a.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:18:15 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: FW: CABINET SECRECY INVOKED TO HIDE TRUE COSTS OF GUN REGISTRY > NEWS RELEASE > June 21, 1999 > For Immediate Release > > CABINET SECRECY INVOKED TO HIDE TRUE COSTS OF GUN REGISTRY > "The documents do prove that the government's cost and revenue projections > are completely shot." > > http://www.reform.ca/breitkreuzgpress/fire44.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:20:19 -0600 From: Tom Zinck Subject: Annie on the way out ?? http://www.southam.com/ottawacitizen/newsnow/cpfs/national/990620/n062037.html Another Liberal is about to take the heat for C-68!!! Chretien considers new faces for his cabinet Quote : "Elsewhere, there is speculation John Manley could move after six years at Industry, perhaps swapping jobs with Justice Minister Anne McLellan. " I propose that when Annie gets "the boot", we should celebrate by dedicating out next shooting range visit as an un-official "Idle Annie : Will will always remember you" shoot. Comments ? - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck Frustrate a Liberal : Buy a gun ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:40:35 -0600 From: "Skeeter T. Abell-Smith" Subject: Police Association of Ontario http://www.newswire.ca/releases/June1999/22/c6299.html Attention News Editors: Police Association of Ontario Reviews Support of Federal Gun Registry MISSISSAUGA, ON, June 22 /CNW/ - The Police Association of Ontario, which represents over 13,000 police personnel in the province, will be reconsidering their support of the Federal Gun Registry, at their Annual General Meeting being held in Mississauga from August 17-20, 1999. ``When the concept of a federal gun registry was proposed in 1994, by then Justice Minister Allan Rock, the support of the Canadian Police Association and its provincial affiliates was seen to be crucial to the government's efforts,'' says Bill Baxter, President of the Police Association of Ontario. ``At that time our membership was assured that the total cost of implementation and administration would not exceed 85 million dollars and that registration would in no way affect front-line policing. Costs have now skyrocketed to the point where last year alone, the government spent over 133.9 million dollars on this initiative. Meanwhile public response to the registration system has been minimal thus drastically reducing the anticipated benefits to our members.'' ``We are constantly being told that funding is scarce for front-line policing and public safety issues'', says Baxter, ``however it is evident the government is having little difficulty finding the financial resources to sink into a program that seems headed for failure. The priority for us continues to be police and public safety. For this reason I will take this issue to our membership in August for reconsideration. Given the escalating costs accompanied by apparently limited value, I cannot be optimistic that our support will continue. - -30- For further information: Bill Baxter - President, (416) 707-3925; Paul Bailey - Administrator, (905) 670-9770 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:47:57 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: Re: THE SUPREME COURT The Prime Minister direct the Supreme Court of Canada??? Definitely not the thing to do - but you have suggested a way out for him ! But it looks like he is quitting anyway! and McLellan will not be replaced in the upcoming shuffle by the Prime Minister. No one will take the job! Now who will be the Prime Minister next? Allan Rock I hope - that would be the kiss of death for sure ! And they could fade into oblivion like joe Who's mob! BOB LICKACZ wrote: > A new poll asks the question: > Will the Supreme Court of Canada rule against C-68 (the Firearms Act) > this fall? > > Do you suppose that Prime Minister Chretien will DIRECT the Supreme Court of > Canada to rule in favour of the Provinces in order to extricate himself with > some semblance of face saving, from the grasp of his tar baby? > > Bob Lickacz > > NFA Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:49:30 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: Re: HOMICIDE IN CANADA Gun running , the newest business spawned by the Minister of justice is a good example of this Jean-Francois! It is just coming into vogue now and will be in full bloom by 2003 if C68 continues that long! Canadians will jump into this business as quickly as they jumped into rum running during the United States sad attempt at prohibition! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:52:10 -0600 From: Brian W Bedingfield Subject: Re: B.C Information Meeting (New Range Rules) >Are these new range rules specific to British Columbia? Apparently this is the case as this manual was drawn up by and published by the BC Attorney Generals Office. > i.e.- Are the same rules going to be applied across the country No! >is our very own Attorney-General responsible for this attempt to shut down all >of the shooting ranges in the province? You better believe it. >Is a copy of the new rules available on the internet? The Security >Programs Division of the A-G's ministry doesn't even have a website >that I can find. > Unknown, and It is highly unlikely that they have either the time or the interest in creating a web site. Brian. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:53:58 -0600 From: Damien Subject: Transportation of firearms ATTN: Thea UPS International Customer Service Dear Thea I sent you this message below way back in January and I still have no responce to the questions in it. I sent you this message because I wanted an answer, not to polish my typing skills. I'll have you know that since March of this year I can confirm that you are losing at least $5000 a month due to your policies. Unfortunately, I still have no official information regarding your actual policies on this issue. I can only assume, by your silence, that you have nothing good to tell me so better to leave me hanging than reply. That's fine, because I tell every company I deal with to NOT ship UPS when sending me anything and needless to say, me and my affiliates do not use your service for ourselves any longer. It may not be much but it's the least I can do to return the favour. Your disappointed ex customer, Damien Gendron >ATTN: > >Thea >UPS International >customer.service > >I have just become aware that your policy regarding the transport of firearms in is becoming more stringent. On behalf of me and the companys I deal with, could you outline exactly what has changed and perhaps the reasons for them. I can't help wondering if this has anything to do with the new gun laws (Bill C-68) that just came out. If so, I would suggest that you think this through carefully. These laws are under appeal at the Supreme Court level as we speak. This is a VERY hot political potato. I and many of my co-workers are outdoorsmen and are quite concerned about any restrictions regarding firearms. We ALL feel that the Government is going way overboard and effecting our civil rights in the proccess. I suggest that UPS stop this search for Government "browny points" otherwise as word gets around it may find a loss of business is the result. Thank you for your time. > > > >Damien Gendron > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:54:57 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Firepower Magazine Never heard of "Firepower" magazine but there is magazine called SAR "Small Arms Review" which focusses on full-autos, supressors and the like. It is available at Chapters bookstores. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:55:53 -0600 From: EUGEN SINGER Subject: News from the South http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560012899-f32 *** Also: Patrons turn out for gun show, see Some very interesting developments South of the border *** Also: Pawnshop target of Fed gun agency, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2560006489-8e0 *** Also: Texas gun law a campaign issue, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2559996764-448 *** And: Summary of current federal gun laws, see http://www.infobeat.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=2559991035-19d Singer Eugen Toronto, ON. Canada "Much better to be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6 !!". "Good gun control is keen eye and steady hand!!" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 05:59:28 -0600 From: Al Dorans Subject: CILA Letter to the Ottawa Citizen Opinion Page Editor Defending Canada's Heritage - -------------------------------------------- Canadian Institute for Legislative Action / Institut Canadien pour l'Action Legislative Firearms a Net Benefit to Society Why do members of the media consistently fail to report the beneficial impact of firearms on Canadian society? Particularly, in times of rare shooting tragedies, certain members of the press and special interest groups rush to exploit the emotion of the moment by resurrecting their anti-gun agendas. In truth, banning guns would cost thousands of Canadian lives annually. In Canada, Mauser and Buckner (1997) found that firearms are used 64,000 times a year for self-protection against criminals and animals. The resulting impact is that 3,300 lives are saved every year and a safer Canada. For every life lost with a firearm, approximately 40 lives are saved. In truth, guns are a net benefit to society. In the United States, the best scientific evidence demonstrates that the civilian ownership of firearms deters violent crime. It also deters mass killings (Lott, 1998). Using extensive FBI statistics for all 50 states and 3,054 counties over 18 years, Lott concluded: "More Guns, Less Crime." In states where gun availability was higher, crime rates were significantly lower. For every life lost with a firearm in the United States, Suter reported approximately 65-75 lives are saved. Apparently, non-gun owners benefit from a "shield of protection" provided by those who do own firearms. This is especially effective, if criminals have no idea where firearms are located. How do firearms save lives? Wright and Rossi (1994) discovered that criminals feared an armed homeowner more than the police. This was especially true in areas where there were high levels of civilian gun ownership. Since police officers were generally subject to severe restrictions, they demonstrated a reluctance to use their firearms. Criminals specifically avoided burglarizing houses when citizens were at home because they were afraid of getting shot. Consequently, criminals preferred committing less risky crimes, such as stealing cars. If criminals received assurances that all civilians were undefended, however, open season would be declared on citizens, their families and their private property. Banning firearms will not reduce suicide, gun accidents or domestic violence. Where gun bans were implemented in Wales, England, New Zealand, Australia New York City, Washington, D.C., Detroit and Chicago, crime rates soared. Criminals simply move into the undefended vacuum and bless politicians for their ignorance. If guns were banned from cities, Canada would become less safe. Generally, there is no compelling evidence that more gun control laws reduce violent crime. Moreover, current research reveals that additional restrictive Canadian gun legislation since 1977 has had no impact on violent crime. In Canada 44% of rural households own firearms compared to 11% in cities. Since violent crime in cities is 40% higher than in rural areas, here is demonstrable evidence that more guns equal less crime. At least 7 million law-abiding Canadians use 21 million firearms to pursue their recreational shooting lifestyles and their cultural hunting heritage. Responsible gun owners enjoy the freedom to use firearms for recreational target shooting, hunting, trap shooting, skeet shooting, Olympic competition, protection against animals, protection against criminals, biathlon competition, collecting, pistol competition, rifle competition, defense of country and security jobs. Canadians value firearms that have been passed on from generation to generation as their treasured inheritances. They take great pride in creating and participating in safety programs that have led to a steady decline in gun accidents over the past 40 years. Because firearms owners are the safest citizens in Canada, insurance companies make profits by granting them $5 million of liability insurance for only $3.00. The shooting sports contribute $6 billion, 35,000 jobs and 35,000 taxpayers annually to the Canadian economy. For no just cause, the Liberal government has arbitrarily determined to destroy Canada's entire shooting sports industry. This is the gross act of injustice known as Bill C-68. Through license fees, hunters pay for Canada's conservation and environmental programs. Millions of gun owners donate their money, time and energy to preserve the environment and diminishing wetlands. During times of financial cutbacks, gun owners act as the eyes and ears of conservation officers in the field by reporting poachers and violators of wildlife laws. Hunters participate cooperatively in research studies that ensure the survival of many wildlife species. Banning guns would eliminate these magnificent contributions to Canadian society and the environment. Lest we forget, in World War II 45,000 trained marksmen in the shooting sports laid down their lives to defend the Canadian democracy against Nazi tyranny. In WW 1, more than 80,000 Canadian soldiers paid the ultimate price. It would be a colossal breach of faith to relinquish the democratic freedoms they fought so valiantly to protect. This is compelling historical evidence that firearms save lives. Al Dorans Director of Operations Canadian Institute for Legislative Action Al Dorans, Director of Operations Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, Ottawa Office 27 Cedar Grove Court, Nepean, Ontario K2G 0M4 Phone: (613) 828-8805 Fax: (613) 828-6967 Email: aldorans@magma.ca Web: http://www.cila.org/ A Proud Member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #43 *********************************