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 #55 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: 37247a25000032df Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, July 2 1999 Volume 03 : Number 055 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #54 the Loony-Left and the NRA Re - NS Provincial Election Issue Updated : New Letters to the Editor PFCS Storage Laws Re: Handing down .25, .32, and short barrel Re: Digest?... of _WHAT_? Re: Handing down .25, .32, and short barrel RCMP supplied guns for instructors CFC lawyerspeak High Cost? Elite? NSRA? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:17:33 -0600 From: "Larry Going" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #54 >I apologise if this note offends anyone who finds every word on >the Digest valuable and important, but as it is, I am one millimetre >away from unsubscribing from the Digest and saving the disk space. >But I _like_ keeping in touch via the 'Net. Any suggestions? > >David T. Anderson David, you might want to check out the RFC Sask web page. I copy what I consider the most important articles from the digest to this site. Keep in mind, however, that what you consider the best and most important articles may not be the same in my opinion. Also, my web site is restricted to two megs by Sympatico, so I have to add no more than an article or two a day to the site. The emphasis is also on important firearms happenings in Saskatchewan. Larry Going RFC Web Page: http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/going/rfc/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 05:58:25 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: the Loony-Left and the NRA On Thu, 1 Jul 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > DATE OF RESPONSE : 29/06/99 > RESPONSE TO ENQUIRY : > Dear Mr. Gallant: > > Thank you for your request for information. > The question with respect to what firearms you wish to > acquire should be answered in the affirmative, as this is the question > that will be used to determine what privileges will be granted to you... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Yours truly, > Kathleen Roussel > Communications Group > Canadian Firearms Centre > One would never guess how incompetent they are from their language... - ----------------------- And now, a Canadian moment: > > I do have a high regard for the NRA BUT: > > > > It has been my experience that most Canadians perceive of the NRA as wild, > > gun toting, shoot em up, wild west types and view them with great disdain. > > Of course this comes from the bad press the NRA gets in Canada. Most Canadians do not percieve the NRA as anything, because most Canadians are not very interested in the rantings of the Loony-Left Animal Crackers that spout such nonsense. One of the biggest mistakes one can make is to pay any attention to the irrational ravings of such as the CBC and other peripheral, single-issue pressure groups. The reason they hate the NRA is simple. The NRA is professional, organized and ready to stick up for what is right. The NRA deflates the Loony-Lefts fatuous noodlings by shining the cold light of reality on their inventive use of "facts." [Gee, that sounds like our own NFA too] If we want to be polite, tentative, apologetic, deferential and losers we can simply follow the lead of the British NRA. Never heard of them? As useless as they were, the Brit press hated them, too... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:01:12 -0600 From: m_adams@ns.sympatico.ca (Michael Adams) Subject: Re - NS Provincial Election Issue Response from my recent email to candidates from the PC's of Nova Scotia. Dr. John Hamm is their leader. Dear Mr. Adams, Thank you for your e-mail. I have spoken to Dr. Hamm regarding your communication. He has asked me to respond on his behalf. As you can understand, he is extremely busy meeting with Nova Scotians across the province. Dr. Hamm's policy concerning firearms is very clear. He believes that hunting and fishing are integral parts of life in Nova Scotia, and therefore, so are the implements used for these activities. The party platform "Strong Leadership ... a clear course" contains the following passage: Hunting and fishing are traditional outdoor activities in many parts of Nova Scotia. The license fees paid by outdoor enthusiasts help make it possible for us to preserve wildlife and their habitat. A John Hamm Government will support the well-established Nova Scotian tradition of ethical and safe hunting and fishing. It will legally recognize heritage hunting and fishing practices in Nova Scotia and acknowledge the role anglers and hunters have played in environmental conservation. A John Hamm Government will: * Legislate the right to hunt and fish in Nova Scotia with a Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act; * A PC Government will join the effort by other provinces, including Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, North West Territories, Yukon, Nunavut, New Brunswick and Ontario in legally challenging Ottawa's gun control legislation. I hope that this adequately answers your concerns. If you have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail us again. As well, feel free to visit our website at http://www.pcparty.ns.ca to view our complete platform. If you wish to have a paper copy, send us your address and we will send you a copy. Yours sincerely, Carl Dholandas Policy Response -----Original Message----- From: PC Webmaster [mailto:pcparty@netcom.ca] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 1999 2:34 PM To: pcpolicy@netcom.ca Subject: FW: Election Issue - FYI **************************************************************************** ******************** * Mike Adams * President / Search Director Colchester Ground Search & Rescue Assoc. * Professional Emergency Services Communicator * NASAR Certified Search Manager * Level II Firefighter * Fire and Safety Educator **************************************************************************** ******************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:03:05 -0600 From: Tom Zinck Subject: Updated : New Letters to the Editor Hello. I have added 14 new letters to the CILA Letter Writing Page : http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck/publish.htm Congradulations to all of you who have taken the time to write, and express your views. Canada will become a better place because of your efforts !!! Happy Canada Day ! - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck Frustrate a Liberal : Buy a gun ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:07:20 -0600 From: Chris Gelowitz Subject: PFCS Hi everyone, Just to clear up some confusion... I'm not trying to re-write any of the actual specifications of the PFCS, just the exterior to make it more understandable and user-friendly to politicians and media types. I believe first-time readers of the information on the first couple of pages will be slightly confused because of a lack of clarity in the writing. I know I was, and others I have talked to agree. In addition to the re-write of the introduction, I've posted a proposed re-write of Page 1 of the PFCS at http://www.gelowitz.com/pfcs Please have a look and send me your comments. I believe it won't take long to come to a consensus as to what is clear and understandable and what needs to be said. Also, after writing the two proposed changes, I've come to the belief that we should have ONE page that combines both the intro and Page 1 together, since they both say similar things in different ways. Agree? Disagree? Mail me. Chris - -- - --- Chris Gelowitz Wetaskiwin, Alberta, Canada Email: chris.gelowitz@bigfoot.com Phone: 780-361-1133 Cell: 780-361-5622 Gelowitz Holdings Ltd. Fibreglass Tanks - - Septics, Cisterns, Hauling, Storage - - Indoor/Aboveground/Underground Toll-Free: 1-877-222-TANK Phone: 403-625-4114 http://www.gelowitz.com Email: info@gelowitz.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:19:58 -0600 From: hylands@ibm.net (Jon Hylands) Subject: Storage Laws Question: Do restricted firearms require a trigger lock when stored in a gun safe that is bolted to the wall? My reading of the law is they don't, but many people seem to think that they do. Also, what are the rules for ammo storage in your gun safe? Can you store ammo in your gun safe, sitting on the top shelf? Or does it have to be in a separate locked container? Thanks, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:23:22 -0600 From: Brad Thorarinson Subject: Re: Handing down .25, .32, and short barrel >From: Andy Krywonizka >I recently read on the digest that someone grandfathered with a .25, .32, or >short-barrelled handgun that was manufactured prior to 1946 could hand it >down as an heirloom to their child. This would then allow the child to >purchase additional handguns of the same class. Apparently the handguns >could be transferred by sale, gift, will, etc. > >I called the CFC to confirm this and they told me that handguns could only >be willed to the child. Knowing just how accurate the folks in Miramichi >are, I decided to ask here. I would very much like to add short barrel and >.25/.32 handguns to my collection but I'm not interested in waiting for my >father to pass away. Anyone know the scoop on this? > >Andy K. > FA 12(7): (underscores added for emphasis) "A particular individual _is_ elegible to hold a licence authorizing the particular individual to posess a _particular_ handgun referred to in subsection (6) _that was manufactured before 1946_ if the particular individual is the spouse or a brother, sister, child or grandchild of an individual who was _eligible under this or that subsection_ to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess the particular handgun." Not only can you get those guns, I'd say you can obtain other pre-1946 grandfathered SHGs (small handguns) _from any source_. What the law says (as opposed to what the drafters meant) is that if your spouse, brother, sister, parent or grandparent is grandfathered by section 12(6) or 12(7) for SHG, _you_ are grandfathered for any 12(6) handgun that was manufactured prior to 1946. This can be by bequest, gift or purchase from the listed relatives - or any other person. Of course, just because the wording is obvious to me, doesn't mean it's obvious to the CFC. Put in to transfer one or two (not all, or your father will lose his grandfathered status) and see what they do. If they reject the application, you can if you wish go through the court route, and see if a judge agrees with me, or the CFC. Brad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:25:23 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Digest?... of _WHAT_? unsubscribe to cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca subscribe to cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca then, you'll get the individual messages. Delete the ones you don't wish to read. And hey, what about my name? Don't you like my stuff Bye. Al. "I drank what?!?" - Socrates ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:26:37 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Handing down .25, .32, and short barrel section 12(7) says, spouse, brother, sister, child or grandchild of an eligible person. As such, the spouse, brother, sister, child or grandchild of an eligible person, appears to be eligible any time. You don't have to wait for anyone to die, and you are not restricted to inherited guns. They may be purchased anywhere, anytime. I am no lawyer. If I am in error, I would appreciate being corrected. Bye. Al. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:30:12 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: RCMP supplied guns for instructors While attending the reception, last Friday night, for the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario (FSESO), I got chewing the fat with a fellow about some firearms issues (what else?). I thought he was another instructor. I asked him where he was from. He said Ottawa, and he is not an instructor, but a guest speaker. Turns out he is the head honcho, for firearms, at the Central Forensic Laboratory. He's Murray Smith. Murray is a very clear talker. He articulates. We were talking about cutaways and disabling firearms to the point where they can no longer be considered firearms. I attended his talk the following day, where he talked more about disabled firearms, for use in the CFSC & CRFSC course and test. The former chief instructor, Michael Chamberland (recently retired), Murray & others, worked, at length, to arrive at a method, which guaranteed that the firearm would be permanently disabled. Murray brought 2 revolvers which were no longer considered to be firearms, under the definition of the criminal code (CC). Murray is actually the guy who makes that decision. His standard is that it must be as hard to return the gun to usage, as it would be to make it from raw materials. That's a pretty tough standard. One was an S&W 686 (I think), which had an unblocked 6" barrel, a swing out cylinder, which still swung out, and a functioning trigger mechanism. There was no firing pin. The frame hole into which the firing pin would move was TIG welded, in a special way, with special materials (I couldn't repeat the welding process. I'm not a welder). The cylinder was not removable, although it still swung in and out. The screw hole and screw, for removal of the cylinder, were welded solid. Each chamber of the cylinder had a hole drilled in it, about 7 mm wide, near the rear of the cylinder. The other was a single action, solid frame, Ruger revolver. The barrel looked like a 6.5", unblocked barrel. The trigger mechanism worked. I removed the cylinder and replaced it. The firing pin, normally in the frame on a Ruger, was welded, like the Smith. The cylinder had holes drilled in each chamber, like the Smith. Where the pin was located to pivot the hammer, there appeared to be welding, on both sides of the frame. I don't know what that was for. They said they were working on a semi-auto pistol. After that, they could look at long guns. One of the instructors, who I know has plenty of experience, thought the whole idea was BS, and said so. He said he could deactivate a gun, without going to so much trouble. Murray addressed that issue. He said, that a federally approved, disabled firearm, sold through the FSESO, to the instructors, was a good idea because: 1. Since it is federally approved, no charges would ever be laid 2. A recognized, high standard would be set for FSESO, disabled firearms. 3. The price would be inexpensive, because the RCMP has a large number of firearms, every year, which get destroyed. They can be had for free, then the only cost would be for the disablement. I was impressed by how much effort was put into this teaching tool. I could use those revolvers in my classes. There is always a chance that live ammo can get into your class. Safety always come first. Bye. Al. Planning and preparation prevent poor performance. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:33:40 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: CFC lawyerspeak At the recent Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario (FSESO) annual general meeting, a question arose, from the floor. An instructor asked how he could buy a pistol for instruction purposes, when the CFC does not allow any such reason, on the application for registration. I posted to the CFD, about this, a couple of weeks ago. I can't find it now. Anyway, you must apply to register, under section 28 of the Firearms Act (FA). There are 4 reasons to apply: 1. to protect life 2. lawful profession or occupation 3. target practice 4. gun collection Section 106 says you may not lie on your application. That is an offence. Section 109 specifies your punishment for an offence, up to 5 years in jail. Of course, your firearms would be confiscated and you'd spend an arm and a leg on lawyers. On Feb 22, 1999, a communique was issued to FSESO instructors, telling us that lawful profession or occupation did not include giving the CFSC or CRFSC course, and that only the reasons of target shooting or gun collection may be used to obtain a registration. I think that puts any instructor between a rock and a hard place. If you tell the truth, you don't get the registration of the gun you need to instruct. If you lie, you get the registration, but, down the road, maybe not too far down the road, you are liable to prosecution for violation of section 106 of the FA. So, when the subject came up, it was addressed by Wally Baumann, deputy CFO Ontario. He says there is no reason why you can't change your mind for the use of the firearm, after you register it. He says that the CFO will issue an ATT to instructors for the use of whatever firearms we possess, and we are covered, no problems. He says that, in this case, the application of section 106 is "argumentative". I spoke to Wally after we broke for lunch. Wally assured me that we are covered by any ATT that the CFO issued. I am disturbed about a couple of things here. Wally has a great deal of respect from the body of FSESO instructors, and he said there would be no problem from his office. However, Wally is only one person in the CFO office. I am satisfied that Wally would not pursue the matter with one of the instructors about the registration issue. The ATT issue, which seems to be in Wally's jurisdiction, is separate from the registration issue. Telling a lie on the application to register is a clear violation of section 106, at least it is to me. I have read and reread section 106. Section 106(3) defines the term statement: "In this section, 'statement' means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether or not and whether admissable or not." Wally seems to be a decent guy, but he can't redefine the CC. It is simply not in his purview. I brought this up to the CFC lawyer during the seminar on the Firearms Act. I said, on one hand we have the verbal assurance of Wally that nothing bad would happen, and on the other hand, we have the CC, with its punishment of 5 years in jail (and confiscation and lawyers fees). He said we should accept Wally's words. What about when Wally retires and some prosecutor decides to go after someone regarding section 106? Far fetched? Maybe, maybe not. Should I take the word of a lawyer from the CFC? When we discussed the problems pertaining to using a TAN to take immediate possession of a firearm, I mentioned that there are cases where that information has been lost in the CFC files somehow, and that people were left only with some unknown number that they wrote down. The lawyer, Claude Richer, said he had never heard of such an occurence, but yet he knew that "some people out west" were saying that section 23 did not allow a transfer, until the registration was in hand. I have called the CFC for information, as have many of you. We know how knowledgeable they aren't. We have heard duplicitous statements from people like Jean Valin. How much credibility do they have? I believe Wally is talking in good faith, but the registration matter is federal, not provincial, and Wally is talking beyond his jurisdiction. What about Claude Richer, the lawyer for the CFC? I would not be inclined to accept anything he says at face value. Respect and trust have to be earned. How much have respect and trust have the CFC earned? Bye. Al. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:35:34 -0600 From: Brad Browne Subject: High Cost? Elite? NSRA? >Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 05:25:07 -0600 >From: Tom MacMillan >Subject: Re: Announcement: Where to Shoot in Nova Scotia > >Many of us are not willing to pay the high cost of >joining the NSRA and have to sit idle while the few >"elite" people with $3000 rifles use the range in >Bedford, NS. > The NSRA annual membership for a senior member is $85. This is the cheapest in the province. Is that really so high? Elite? No. We are not an elite group. We're regular people that hold down regular jobs. We have people that work for various manufacturing companies, IT companies, people that run their own businesses, retirees, people employed by the government. We come from all walks of life, male and female, and we welcome new participants. $3000 rifles? Some of them cost more than that. Do you need a $3000 rifle to participate? No. There are numerous programs that the association runs, none of which require $3k rifles. Examples: -basic handgun (club handguns available for use) -service rifle (a .303 Lee-Enfield is still competitive) -sporting/hunting rifle (your .22 Cooey is all you need) My first involvement with the NSRA was shooting my FN L1A1, that I paid $260 for. Do you need a $3000 rifle? No. Is Bedford the only range we have access to? No. We use the following ranges: -Bedford rifle range (DND) -St. Patrick's High school (indoor smallbore range) -Bull Meadow Range (NSRA owned and run range) On average, I shoot 3 nights per week, plus matches about every other weekend. All for just $85 per year. I figure that over the course of a year, I probably go to the range about 100-150 times. This means that the membership ends up costing me less than $.75 per trip to the range. Is that unreasonably expensive? (I spend more on gas to get there.) >Or do the provincial powers that be, hope we will use >the old gravel pit, illegally, thereby giving them the >oppurtunity to show how irresponsible and law breaking >us gun owners are? Join the NSRA, and you don't need to be in this position. Support your local rifle association, and join the NFA as well to support the national fight. Brad Brad Browne LS NET(A) HMCS Charlottetown 1996&1997 CF Bisley Rifle Teams E-mail to: coffee@ns.sympatico.ca ICBM's to: N 44.39.6 W 063.35.6 Member: NSRA, NFA, DCRA, Navy Shooting Team ICQ UIN: 13426162 http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/coffee/bradpage.htm Last update: 26 Apr 99 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #55 *********************************