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 #62 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: 37247a250000397d Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, July 8 1999 Volume 03 : Number 062 In this issue: Response in then paper EMILE THERIEN STANDS CORRECTED Re: Guns in America, an opinion. Pre 1946 Handgun or not? Issue #1 of "Verifier's Review" Re; storage of ammo. NB's Support of the C-68 Challenge Re: Ujaal Dosangh is a BS Artist and A Lost Cause Re: Shooting in the Atlantic Provinces. Re: Guns in America, Tech 9 Re: The phoney Hitler quote - again ! Sure hope it is the LAST time Pedophiles better protected than us. 4" may not be prohibited! Re: Causal Factors of Violence GUN OWNERS CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR DOOMED LAW We won't, but we will. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:21:30 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: Response in then paper Gun law infringes on provincial jurisdiction: Green Attorney-General says bid to take part in court case is not about firearms By CATOU MacKINNON - Telegraph Journal BATHURST - The province's Attorney-General says his government's challenge in a reference case on gun control law is not about guns, but about jurisdiction. The Progressive Conservatives included the challenge to a federal law enacted by Bill C-68 as part of their "200 days of change" election platform. Last week, Marcelle Mersereau, the former Liberal minister for the status of women, wrote a letter to Premier Bernard Lord denouncing his decision to fight the controversial gun control law. But Mr. Green is not entering into a debate about guns when it comes to the province's stance. "We feel there is a very legitimate argument that the federal government is encroaching on an area of provincial responsibility." Mr. Green requested that the deadline for intervenor status in the Supreme Court of Canada reference case be extended so that New Brunswick could add its name to the list, along with Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and all three territories. Intervenor status means the province has a direct interest in the outcome and the court would allow arguments from New Brunswick. "The heart of the argument in this particular case," Mr. Green said, "is whether or not Bill C-68 falls within the scope of the authority of the federal government." He said that in the Constitutional Act of 1867, more commonly known as the British North America Act, the respective areas of jurisdiction for the federal and provincial governments are clearly set out. "The provinces involved in this reference case are saying that the federal government is overstepping its authority with Bill C-68 in having created a law that deals with property rights. Property rights are a provincial jurisdiction." Mrs. Mersereau says it's a step in the wrong direction. "To go back and say that you're going to question the constitutionality of the bill, I think that's a step backward," Mrs. Mersereau said. She said the latest changes to the bill have brought compromises everyone should be able to live with. The federal government's firearms legislation was introduced as Bill C-68 on Feb. 14, 1995, and received Royal Assent on Dec. 5 of the same year. It included the new Firearms Act, which established a licensing program for firearm owners, a registration program for firearms, and Criminal Code amendments that strengthened the penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The first challenge to the new law was initiated Sept. 26, 1996 in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Ten governments or groups were recognized as intervenors: Manitoba; the Northwest Territories; Ontario; Saskatchewan; Yukon; the Alberta Fish and Game Association; the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters; the Chiefs of Ontario; and a joint intervention by the Coalition for Gun Control, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Corporation of the City of Toronto, the City of Montreal and the Shooting Federation of Canada. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a 3-2 decision handed down Sept. 29, 1998, found that the legislation was within the federal government's power. The court decision said: "Guns preserve lives; guns employ people; guns are used for legitimate recreational pursuits; and guns are the tools of some trades. At the same time, guns intimidate; guns maim; and guns kill. It is precisely because of this paradox - that guns are used for good as well as evil- that controversy surrounds government efforts at gun control." The decision further noted that the only issue the courts were to address was whether the firearms law was one which the federal government has the power to enact under the Canadian Constitution. The New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women has added its voice of dissent regarding the Tories' decision. The council said in a letter to the Premier that it fully supports the "registration of all firearms and the banning of particular types of weaponry. . . . "We, in our province, have particular cause for concern. New Brunswick has the dubious distinction of having the highest ratio of gun related deaths in Canada, after the NWT. In the five years before 1996, 10 New Brunswickers have died in firearm incidents, a rate of 0.5 deaths per 100,000 residents annually, compared to a national average of 0.2." Mrs. Mersereau said gun control can't stop violence altogether, but it is one component. She said the message being sent by Bill C-68, that you have to register guns, lets people know that it's a privilege, like driving a car. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:28:58 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: EMILE THERIEN STANDS CORRECTED PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 99.07.06 PAGE: 15 COLUMN: LETTER OF THE DAY LETTER OF THE DAY COLUMN IN THE Letter of the Day on July 2, Emile Therien attempted to rebut Peter Worthington's June 24 column on the failing registry. There are numerous errors and misleading statements made by Mr. Therien that must be corrected. First of all, he states that the " death rate in Canada dropped" due to the control laws, but neglected to provide any proof of his hypothesis. (As pointed out by your editorial staff). Secondly, he states that a "large majority of Canadians ... support the legislation," but does not show the proof of his statement. He says that "police" support it. Wrong again. The president of the Ontario Police Association, Bill Baxter, said: "Given the escalating costs accompanied by apparently limited value, I cannot be optimistic that our support will continue." When Mr. Therien then speaks of "provincial governments who support Bill C68," he is once again incorrect, due to the fact that Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Yukon, Northwest Territories, New Brunswick and Nunavut, comprising of over 58% of the Canadian population, are opposed to the Firearms Act and are fighting it in court. He then goes on to say that there are "compelling reasons and widespread consensus in favor of compulsory gun registration." What are the "compelling reasons"? He doesn't say. Where has Mr. Therien been hiding out the last few months? There have been dozens of anti--registration letters, by ordinary people, in the papers, while the only "pro-registration" letters were by the department of justice and their mouth-pieces. Finally, he states "the social order demands it." Since when does his ideal of a new "social order" take precedence over the voices of the majority of Canadians who do NOT support registration? I only hope that the safety information put out by Mr. Therien's Canada Safety Council is more accurate than this letter. Tom Zinck Nepean Editor's Comment: (From where we sit, the opposition to the registration law is clearly snowballing. That said,most polls show Canadians still support gun control) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:38:11 -0600 From: Tom MacMillan Subject: Re: Guns in America, an opinion. Dave, I must disagree with you about the Tech 9. Ban the damn thing. This whole gun debate seems awfully similar to the abortion debate. Neither side will give a millimeter. Both sides feel the other is decietful, lying and out to get them personally. And in the case of several Federal politicians, I certianly feel this way! I live in a small, rural village in central Nova Scotia. There is a LOT of violence just under the surface. It shows in the day to day activities at the three schools we have in the community. I understand your train of thought about not banning the Tech 9 but I think you are wrong on this one. This product is designed for big city gang warfare. Let's take a chance on this one and take some wind out of Idle Anny's sails. One other point, I personally think the NRA in the US are way off base when they advocate NOT locking up one's guns. With the little stinkers we have next door, the Lee Enfield is chained. The bolt is locked inside an ammo box and the ammo is locked in another steel box and the bedroom door deadbolted when we are out of the house. I cannot understand how any responsible owner could leave home and not secure their hardware first. Tom MacMillan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:39:28 -0600 From: Daryl LaBine Subject: Pre 1946 Handgun or not? How would someone find out if a handgun was a pre 1946? I have a Harrington & Richardson, hammerless .32 short barrel handgun, serial number 249xxx. I have been informed that I can't keep it as it was bought after Feb. 14, 1995 and have to turn it in. Hmmmmm??? As there are so many handguns and if we don't know when they were made, the ..... might try and have us turn them in. As the green slips don't tell us when they were made, we might give up our right to owning these unique and historical items. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:41:07 -0600 From: Tom Zinck Subject: Issue #1 of "Verifier's Review" Hello. While surfing the RCMP WWW site (why not, they check me out), I noticed the following document : http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/verrv_1e.pdf This is Issue #1 of "Canadian Verifiers Review" and is designed as an information tool for the supposed 2000 verifers across Canada. Any bets that there will NEVER be Issue #2 of this newsletter ? Yet another waist of our tax dollars. - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck Frustrate a Liberal : Buy a gun ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:48:27 -0600 From: Alex Subject: Re; storage of ammo. Interesting question Drew, it is legal to store your guns, including your hand gun in the safe with the ammo and without trigger locks. however your magazine is part of the gun and storing it loaded with the gun may constitute a loaded gun which is illegal.( Look forward to some of the other definitions ) ---Alex. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:49:34 -0600 From: Tom Zinck Subject: NB's Support of the C-68 Challenge Hello. I encourage all of you to send a quick email to the Premier of New Brunswick, Bernard Lord (premier@gov.nb.ca) and thank him for his governments support of the challenge to C-68. Mr. Lord has taken quite a bit of flak from the NB media for his position on C-68, and could sure use our support. Cheers, A former maritimer. - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck Frustrate a Liberal : Buy a gun ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:50:43 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (Michelle Traver) Subject: Re: Ujaal Dosangh is a BS Artist and A Lost Cause Rick Lowe wrote; (snip) > >I suspect all Michelle will get from Ujaal in answer to her fax is more >bafflegab along the lines of "promoting a climate of safety". Ujaal is >definitely NOT on our side and NOT reasonable when it comes to firearms. Rick, I couldn't agree with you more. I don't expect a reply of any sort, really. A point that hasn't been made, but possibly should be; when you send a message of importance, include various recipients for all sides of the concern. No one can deny they didn't hear or read about the subject, regardless whether you get a response or not. Appologies for the delayed response to this. Privacy is a sacred thing, Michelle Traver (owner) SSAC NCBCS Spokesperson HACS, NFA member http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/9460/index.html 604-253-3311 fax 604-255-2202 1708 E. 1st Ave. Vancouver, BC V5N 1B1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:52:10 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Shooting in the Atlantic Provinces. > My wife 'to be' and I, will be honeymooning in the Atlantic provinces in > August and hope to get ATT's to take our handguns with us to shoot..., Please advise us about how you made out acquiring the permits. Bye. Al. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:53:37 -0600 From: Tom Cohoe Subject: Re: Guns in America, Tech 9 Joseph Robichaud wrote: > I tend to agree with B. Bailey`s coment that guns such as the Tech 9 are > nothing else than crowd sprayers and that there are very little need for > them. Those who have chosen them and own them will not consider you to be their friend. Why should anyone say what is "needed"? > I cannot see how we could > expect them to listen on what type of gun to remove. They already have people telling them what kind of gun to "remove". The people advising the government on what kind of gun to "remove" are our enemies. This is what we are fighting. If you want to advise the government to ban certain guns, you want to become our enemy. > I have > always believed that the person who has noting to lose becomes a very > dangerous individual and the US system is king at producing those > conditions. > > I believe that Canada's social net is the reason why we have not seen > the crime rate experienced in the US. Typical anti US propaganda that is used by the authorities in this country to promote bad policy. > Unfortunately the same government > that is sinking billions of dollars in Gun Control is slowly > disintegrating this net. Gun control is a huge waste of money that is unfortunately typical. Canadian government program spending, in the long run, is unsustainable, with or without C68. Tom Cohoe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 05:55:36 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: The phoney Hitler quote - again ! Sure hope it is the LAST time Whew! Good work, Jean. That's some impressive detective work. We better not make any bogus quotes with Jean watching! :^) I, too, have noticed that comparisons to Nazis are counter-productive. People look at me like I'm some kind of whacko radical, when I say that Allan Rock reminds me of Joseph Goebbels. Nazis are considered to be like the anti-Christ, and comparison to them is considered to be beyond the bounds of good taste. Persuading people takes diplomacy. Words must be chosen carefully. We must choose words which will convince the listener, and we must take into consideration the decades of propaganda, that our listeners have absorbed. Bye. Al. "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war.) Appius Claudius (the Blind), Roman Senate, 281 BC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:00:44 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Pedophiles better protected than us. In the wake of a Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the sanctity of a pedophile's privacy, I am left to wonder where it was that I went wrong. The ruling (as I see it) confirms a person's right to enjoy personal property (pornographic material) so long as that property was not illegally created or obtained. Many Liberals voted against a Reform motion that would have used the "notwithstanding" clause to criminalize the possesion of such material and I think that they were right. Freedom of speech, privacy and the right to enjoy legal personal property ought to be vigorously protected. The subject of how to deal with sexual predators can be addressed without violating these principles. But what puzzles me is why Liberal MP's can readily accept the fundamental rights of people who prey on young children while having no reservations about voting away the rights of millions of non-criminals. My MP, Ian Murray, who has had brushes with non-criminal sexual misconduct and who has been accused (perhaps wrongly) of criminal harrasment in relation to it, should understand this more than anyone. Yet recent firearms laws the Liberals voted for allow for periodic "inspections" of my house to see if I am breaking one of a hundred complex firearms laws. A crime need not be suspected nor is a warrant required - but one is automatic should I refuse to volunteer for the search. Additionally, the protections normally afforded criminals who are questioned do not apply to me. The law states that failure to provide information to an inspector is a criminal offense. That's right, despite the fact that most police are unaware of all the intricacies of the convoluted Firearms Act (gun owners even less so) we are being forced by that law to incriminate ourselves under threat of imprisonment. So we have the rights of good citizens being stripped away without reservation while the rights of established sexual predators remain sacred. The Liberal track record is littered with examples of extraordinary consideration for the rights of criminals and for some reason, the rights of victims and ordinary citizens are left by the wayside. And while over $200 million has been wasted on a useless computer system and bureacracy to register the legal guns of previously licensed owners, police demands for a criminal DNA registry remain unanswered. And I'm still left to wonder why the the federal Justice Department and its government turned its focus on me. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario 613-832-2449 613-763-3097 (w) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:02:41 -0600 From: BChow2or81@aol.com Subject: 4" may not be prohibited! Re item in CFDv3-044: >As police switch over from .38 Spl, 4" revolvers, they are being destroyed ....... The government has prohibited ownership of them. Measured a 686 barrel recently and it was 105.15mm, viz. OVER the prohibition length! The certificate said it was 101mm!! (Copied from the Dealer's invoice, which was copied from the S&W box, etc, etc. A verifier checked it with his digital callipers and confirmed my measurements. How many other 4-inchers are actually over 105mm? Awaiting the CFC reaction. More when it's available. Hoist on their own petard I hope. Cheers, Bud ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 06:04:27 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: Re: Causal Factors of Violence You make valid points. The media certainly bears a lot of responsibility for their glorification of violence (I think its fair to say plane hijackings & other forms of terrorism were successful in their goal for publicity due to wide media coverage) & generally inaccurate portrayal of firearms use. Hollywood's constant display of bad firearms techniques even manifests itself on the firearms range. I have taken many 'newbies' to the range & after teaching the basics of safety, I have had to break all their bad habits they learned from TV/movies. - -- Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng NFA Field Officer IPSC Range Officer (NROI - Canada) http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:41:55 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: GUN OWNERS CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR DOOMED LAW PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 99.07.08 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Letters PAGE: A13 BYLINE: G.R. Shewchuk owners can't be blamed for doomed law While the June 27 editorial is correct in its assertion that Bill C-68 is doomed to failure, the contention that this is the result of recalcitrant owners is incorrect. It is true few legitimate owners have sought to have previously owned firearms registered. However, the system cannot cope with the new purchases let alone the 25 million which were possessed before the law came into effect. The fact that 1.2 million handguns are catalogued under the old system is a minus, not a positive, for the new system. All these must now (before Jan. 1, 2003) be re-registered under the new system. So far they've done 106. To our peril, the government scornfully ignored the National Firearms Association's proposals which were effective, cost almost nothing and had the support of the legitimate firearms community. They offered no potential for Liberal pork-barrelling, however. G.R. Shewchuk Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:56:19 -0600 From: bjbyers@webster.sk.ca (Brent and Judy Byers) Subject: We won't, but we will. The following is the response I received from Sask.MOJ Nilson. The first paragraph doesn't say the they will not administer the act, it does say that they will still be opposed to it. In all I find the letter very un-committal and lacking in any firm stand against the act. They would appear to have the position that if we win in the Supreme Court it's good, but if we lose it good to. Just my $.52 worth. Brent June 25, 1999 Dear Mr. Byers: Your letter of May 17, 1999, to Premier Roy Romanow was forwarded to me for reply and received in my office on June 11, 1999. With respect to Saskatchewan's position should the Federal Government offer to pay the Province to administer the federal gun control bill, I can advise you that any such offer would not affect the Province's opposition to the federal Firearms Act. As you may be aware, the Government of Saskatchewan used to administer the federal firearms system in this Province. After Parliament enacted the Firearms Act, I advised the federal Minister of Justice that Saskatchewan had serious objections to the new law, and that we would not administer the new system. We made this decision because of our strong opposition to the proposed federal firearms registry. Our decision was not based on the recovery of the costs of administering the old program, since the Federal Government had reimbursed -the Province for all of our costs. With respect to your second question, the Government believes that property rights are sufficiently protected by the common law, supplemented by statutes such as The Land Titles Act, The Homestead Act, The Personal Property Security Act, and The Expropriation Procedure Act. In particular, The Expropriation Procedure Act ensures that if the Government of Saskatchewan expropriates land, it must pay a fair value for it. The owner of the land has the right to go to the courts for a determination of compensation. The Expropriation Procedure Act applies to expropriations within provincial jurisdiction. It does not apply to matters within federal jurisdiction, which are governed by federal law. Under the Constitution's division of powers, the Province cannot pass a law that governs the activities of the Federal Government, so more provincial legislation protecting property would not assist in opposing the new federal firearms legislation. Instead, the Government of Saskatchewan has joined with Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Yukon and the Northwest Territories in challenging the federal Firearms Act in the courts. We argue that the Firearms Act in reality is a regulatory law, and is not authorized by the federal power to enact criminal laws. Although we were not successful in this argument before the Alberta Court of Appeal, we will continue the challenge to the federal Firearms Act in the Supreme Court of Canada. Thank you for taking the time to write to express your views on this important issue. Yours sincerely, John T. Nilson, Q.C. Minister of Justice and Attorney General cc: Premier Roy Romanow, Q.C. Honourable Lorne Scott, Minister of Environment and Resource Management Inglis Kennels http://www.webster.sk.ca/Users/bjbyers ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #62 *********************************