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 #71 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: 37247a2500003f12 Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, July 14 1999 Volume 03 : Number 071 In this issue: [Fwd: Dr. Frankenstein's "Of Love and Guns"] Greater Vancouver shooting ranges Letter to the Editor Re: True Reason for Gun Controls. Re: True Reason for Gun Controls Re: Authority to Transport Land address Versus mailing address Re: FAC refusal Quizlet Cars and Firearms -why not register both? Airsoft Replica Firearms Bear facts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:33:08 -0600 From: Charles Stansfield Subject: [Fwd: Dr. Frankenstein's "Of Love and Guns"] I sent this to The Globe 'n Mail in response to that pathetic "Of Love and Guns" piece of tripe (attached) authored by someone who should know better. Comments? Cheers, Charles - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Dr. Frankenstein's "Of Love and Guns" Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:59:00 -0700 From: Charles Stansfield To: Letters@GlobeAndMail.ca Dear Editor, The Globe And Mail: Wendy M. Cecil-Cockwell's piece, "Of Love and Guns", which appeared on page A-16 of your July 14, 1999 edition, has the leaden clunk of forced-moral fiction, rather than the pure tone of fine crystal experience. I could more easily suspend my skepticism if the author were a beginning writer, or had been condemned to the straitjacketed style that marinates accountants, mathematicians and other less-lateral literal professions, but the ostensible Chair of the Governing Committee of the University of Tronna should be capable of much better-crafted prose, when presented as recalled fact. "Of Love and Guns" is more reminiscent of a Wish strapped to a table, complete with the mad scientist's exhortation, "Live!", while stark, jerking shadows are cast by wild electrical lightnings. Has Political Correctness come to this, that doctrine and propaganda must masquerade as cherished Child's Truth? - 30 - Sincerely, Charles Stansfield ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:31:22 -0600 From: "kaiten6" Subject: Greater Vancouver shooting ranges Hi! all,I live in South Burnaby where the local council in their collective wisdom?recently closed all three local ranges. I would like to go target shooting at a range within reasonable driving distance of Burnaby,could anyone suggest one? I have physical handicaps which makes it difficult for me to drive more than 45 minutes from my residence. Any info would be much appreciated. Cheers-Cody ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:35:13 -0600 From: Myles Bruns Subject: Letter to the Editor Letter to the Editor Winnipeg Sun Dear Sir Following the letter submitted by John Gayder ("Cassels can't speak for cops") you state: "Registering a gun is no more insulting than registering a car." Liberal spin-doctors are fond of using this analogy to justify firearms registration: we register cars, why not guns? Have *you* ever attempted to register a firearm? The process of attempting to register a firearm or obtain a firearms licence under C-68 is much more insulting, intrusive, and frustrating than any vehicle registration will ever be. Forget for a moment that automobiles and drivers must only be licensed to operate on public roads. One can own an un-licensed automobile and keep it one's yard or garage; one may drive a un-licensed vehicle on their own land without a driver's licence. Persons applying for a firearms licence may be insulted by the intrusive application; get a copy of the application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (Form JUS 670 E); have a close look at Schedule 2. Waiting seven months to get your licence may be a bit annoying or inconvenient, but getting the licence seven months later with the wrong picture or licence information is definitely insulting. Attempting to register a firearm has its own pitfalls. You may be told, after carefully completing the several page form with all the pertinent details, that your firearm cannot be registered because it does not exist in the FRT database. Or after five or six months of patient waiting you receive a registration certificate with incorrect information requiring you to spend several weeks and many phone calls attempting to correct the mistake. Mistakes made by the federal government's firearms bureaucracy. An inept and very expensive bureaucracy. And what makes all this even more insulting for the law-abiding firearms owner is that after all the inconvenience and expense of attempting to comply with the complicated firearms regulations and legislation of C-68 they read of armed robberies or drive-by shootings with firearms that are un-registered and illegal, possessed by criminals who will never register, and who if caught will likely have the penalties for criminal use of a weapon plea-bargained away. Registration is insulting to law-abiding firearms owners because we realize that *registration* is not going to solve criminal misuse of firearms. We are insulted because we realize that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on *registration* could be better spent -- in so many ways to make our society a safer one. Law-abiding firearms owners believe strongly in safety and we are insulted that the government, and the media, are attempting to convince us that firearms registration will solve the ills of our society. See for yourself. Attempt to get a licence. Spend the time and money to take the course and test. Attempt to buy a firearm and get a registration certificate. Then you can more credibly comment on the comparison between registering firearms versus cars. And while you are at it, check out the alternative to C-68 long-proposed by the law-abiding firearms community as a simple, effective means to better gun control in Canada ( http://www.nfa.ca/reports/PFCS.pdf or http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/NFA/PFCS.pdf ). Yours very truly, Myles Bruns Kelowna, B.C. 250-765-1384 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:38:59 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: True Reason for Gun Controls. Gee, Dan, that's pretty pessimistic. Unfortunately for Canadians, I believe you have hit the nail right on the head. When I raise these concerns in the union atmosphere, they look at me like I'm some kind of raving lunatic. Oh, it's just Al, talking about his guns again. Like it won't affect them. You mention the Elite, who want to disarm the peasantry. That is exactly the point. I have tried to tell the readers, many times, to get involved in their unions, and get union training. I find that union training and firearms activism are perfectly complementary. I notice that my ranting frequently doesn't make it to the digest. Somebody is deciding that I am too radical, I guess. Oh, it's just Al talking about the union again. Like it won't affect them. Learn how to fight back. Get the training and experience wherever it is offered. You sure won't get it in public schooling. I am back in school now, at the age of 52. All I hear is corporate propaganda, how to improve productivity and wealth for the company. Nowhere is there any mention of things these young people really need to know, like personal financial planning, or personal documentation (record keeping), or how our political system works (it's a mystery). Bye. Al. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:48:54 -0600 From: "RJK Sr." Subject: Re: True Reason for Gun Controls I wonder about those incidents. Here in the states, they wanted a terrorist bill with many restriction of basic rights, but could not pass it, right after the Oklahoma bombing it passed, Conservatives in Congress wanted to roll back some of the gun control law, but after the school shooting, it's dead. 31 states had passed conceal carry laws, but no new state passed it since the school shootings started.. Could there be a power behind this??? Just South of the Border.... RJK Sr ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:50:04 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: Re: Authority to Transport Land address Versus mailing address stupidity must have rubbed off on them after the visit by miramachi people! I the place has mail service why should that not be enough!??? Ian Parkinson wrote: > It has come to my attention that at least in Edmonton. People applying > for an ATT are being asked for the legal description address rather than > the mailing address of the range. Has anyone else been asked for the > legal address. > Ian P ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:51:14 -0600 From: Brad Thorarinson Subject: Re: FAC refusal >From: Richard Colvey >A friend of mine was recently involved in an argument with his wife. >Police showed up, searched his house, found a registered handgun which was >not stored according to regulartions, several long guns 5 I think, also not >secured. The firearms were not part of the argument and there was no >physical violence. He was charged, fingerprinted, appeared in court, given >a years probation and $100 fine. His application for an FAC which was in >the system for 2 months was denied within days of the incident. He was told >that his firearms could not be recovered until he had an FAC. He was told >by the Firearms Registry that he may be denied his FAC for up to 5 years. > He has 30 days to go to a magistrate and launch an appeal of the refusal to issue the FAC or PAL, and should have been informed of this in the notice of refusal. In addition, he should (or should have) asked for a stay(?) of prodeedings to give him time to gather evidence to show that there is no public safety concern regarding his possession of guns. If there was no prohibition order granted, there is no reason to prevent him taking possession of his firearms again. He does not need an FAC/PAL to take possession of his own firearms as this is not in law a transfer. I could find the references in law if you need them, but I don't have time right now. Does he have a current valid FAC? If so, was it revoked, or did they just refuse to issue or renew on the new application? He would still have the deemed licence issued by CC 98 even if he had no current FAC. >What criteria would be used to deny a subsequent application for an FAC? Safety of the applicant or any other person, generally. Prohibition order in force. Conviction under Firearms Act or Criminal Code part II. [Firearms Act, s. 5] >If >he has a clean record, would there be any reason to deny a subsequent >application? No, IMO. Authorities may disagree. >Would he have to take the course again and pay all of the >application fees? Possibly, as the previous safety course has been split in two; he might have to take the handgun course if his licence lapses. Or maybe not; this is a confused area right now. > >I think a warning, with a requirement to meet the safe storage requirements >would have been sufficient. The unsafe storage charges could possibly have been won, with NFA help. >He has no previous record of any firearms or >criminal charges. He is not eligible to hunt or posses a firearm for at >least a year or possibly 5 years. I'd suggest he appeal, if it is important to him and the 30 days has not expired. Get a lawyer with expertise in the area of firearms law. Get help from the NFA. > >He was represented by a lawyer but I think the representation was lacking. >The lawyer was not familiar with the legislation and he got shafted. > >any comments? Much hinges on the exact details of the whole event, from start through to the legal procedures to date. Brad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:52:03 -0600 From: "Larry Going" Subject: Quizlet Someone sent me a question to put on the RFC web page quizlet. My computer died (new computer-- still has bugs). Would that person kindly resend me his name and the question. Thanks, Larry Going RFC Web Site: http://www.sk.sympatico.ca/going/rfc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:53:44 -0600 From: Paul Meyer Subject: Cars and Firearms -why not register both? The anti-firearms crowd often unfairly compare the licensing of drivers and automobiles with the licensing of firearms. I know this topic has been dealt with before, but it's worth reminding the public what they are suggesting drivers should be subjected to. 1) You will need to pass a criminal record check and a former girl/boy friend check to get a drivers license. 2) You will need to produce a valid driver's license every time you purchase gasoline. 3) You could have your vehicle confiscated for failing to pay a parking fine, and you could be prohibited from owning any other vehicle for the rest of your life. 4) You will need to "prove" why you needed a 4x4, instead of a regular car. If you can't prove this need every five years, the 4x4 would be confiscated without compensation. If you own a 4x4, you can only lend or sell it to a person who already owns a 4x4. 5) If your vehicle is stolen, you will automatically be charged with a criminal offense, and the onus will be placed on you to show that you took all reasonable steps to prevent the theft. Don't own a lockable garage?...sorry, you can't own a vehicle... 6) All vehicles, except police and military ones, must have their computer chips programmed to prevent them traveling faster than 100 km/h. Older vehicles must have such a chip installed or be destroyed without compensation. Removal or modification of the chip will result in serious jail time. I know there are other odious comparisons that can be made, but these are the ones I find most impress (and distress) my non-hunting friends. Paul Meyer, P. Eng. If they aren't testing it on animals, they are testing it on you. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:55:49 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: Airsoft This just in from the CFC, Take a look Digest Readers, the writing is on the wall!!! Anyone have any thoughts on how to combat this nightmare?? Bill - -----Original Message----- From: Canadian Firearms Centre To: 'sherman@sprint.ca' Date: Wednesday, July 14, 1999 8:16 AM Subject: FW: The enquiry that has been assigned/forwarded to me. >Kathleen Roussel@CFC >07/13/99 04:37 PM > >This is the action taken for the Enquiry (E199971384022) made by William R. >Sherman HBA (sherman@sprint.ca ) on 12/07/99 > >DATE OF RESPONSE : 13/07/99 >RESPONSE TO ENQUIRY : >Dear Mr. Sherman: > >Thank you for your request for information. Unfortunately, I do not have an >answer to your question. I have not seen the opinion with respect to the >Airsoft and do not know whether it extends to other airguns. My >understanding, however, is that the opinion was focused on that one type of >firearm and that others would have to be looked at on a case by case basis. >The law is essentially captured in the definitions of replica and firearm. >A replica, according to section 84 of the Criminal Code, is a device that is >intended to exactly or almost exactly resemble a firearm but is not a >firearm. A firearm is defined as a barrelled weapon that discharges a >projectile and that can cause serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, in >the case of an airgun, if it exactly or almost exactly resembles a firearm >and is not capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, it would be >considered a replica and as such prohibited. >What constitutes serious bodily injury or death, and what is considered >"exactly resembling" a firearm are subject to interpretation. The view of >the Department of Justice is that the firearm does not need to resemble a >particular model of firearm but must resemble a firearm to the extent that >it could fool someone into believing it to be a real firearm. With respect >to whether bodily injury or death can be caused would have to be examined on >a case by case basis. >Again, I hope this is of some assistance. >Yours truly, >Kathleen Roussel >Communications Group >Canadian Firearms Centre > > >QUESTION ASKED : >Dear Kathleen Roussel >Thankyou for your prompt reply. I guess my question to you, and your legal >department, is.... >Are Airsoft Guns, classified as airguns with a velocity less than 500 >ft/sec, and therefore not firearms nor ?Replica?s? Are all airguns, with a >velocity less than 500 ft/sec, classified as non ?Replica?s? as they are non >firearms and discharge a projectile at a speed of less than 500 ft/sec? I >was of the understanding that a ?firearm?(loosely described) that discharges >a projectile, at less than 500 ft/sec, is not a firearm, nor is it therefore >a replica. This would fit all airguns, with a velocity of less than 500 >ft/sec including Airsoft Guns would it not?? The opinion of this scientist >employed by the CFR, is only clouding this issue. >I want to know what is the law not what this scientists opinion is, unless >the law is so open to interpretation, that it will have some people charged >and some not depending on the OPINION of the officer on duty that night!! >We need some definitive clarification here and I?m respectfully requesting >this of the CFC. >Thankyou once again for your attention to this matter > Sincerely > William R. Sherman HBA sherman@sprint.ca > > CFSC Master & CRFSC Instructor/Examiner > Hunter Education Instructor/Examiner > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:57:07 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: Replica Firearms Dear Kathleen Roussel Thankyou for your prompt reply. I guess my question to you, and your legal department, is.... Are Airsoft Guns, classified as airguns with a velocity less than 500 ft/sec, and therefore not firearms nor "Replica's? Are all airguns, with a velocity less than 500 ft/sec, classified as non "Replica's" as they are non firearms and discharge a projectile at a speed of less than 500 ft/sec? I was of the understanding that a "firearm"(loosely described) that discharges a projectile, at less than 500 ft/sec, is not a firearm, nor is it therefore a replica. This would fit all airguns, with a velocity of less than 500 ft/sec including Airsoft Guns would it not?? The opinion of this scientist employed by the CFR, is only clouding this issue. I want to know what is the law not what this scientists opinion is, unless the law is so open to interpretation, that it will have some people charged and some not depending on the OPINION of the officer on duty that night!! We need some definitive clarification here and I'm respectfully requesting this of the CFC. Thankyou once again for your attention to this matter Sincerely William R. Sherman HBA CFSC Master & CRFSC Instructor/Examiner Hunter Education Instructor/Examiner - -----Original Message----- From: Canadian Firearms Centre To: 'sherman@sprint.ca' Date: Monday, July 12, 1999 3:51 PM Subject: The enquiry that has been assigned/forwarded to me. >Kathleen Roussel@CFC >07/12/99 03:57 PM > >This is the action taken for the Enquiry (E1999712131649) made by William >R. Sherman HBA (sherman@sprint.ca ) on >09/07/99 > >DATE OF RESPONSE : 12/07/99 >RESPONSE TO ENQUIRY : >Dear Mr. Sherman: > >Thank you for your request for information. The sum total of the >information I have was contained in my previous e-mail and I was simply >relaying information about a conclusion made by a scientist employed by the >Canadian Firearms Registry. >I am unaware of any legislative change that would result from the above >opinion, given that it is simply an interpretation of the definitions of >"replica" and "firearm" as they are found in the Criminal Code. >Yours truly, >Kathleen Roussel >Communications Group >Canadian Firearms Centre ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 19:07:59 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Bear facts [the opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author and not of the service provider] to: The Ottawa Citizen subject: The bear facts In Sunday's article on the effects of the cancelled spring bear hunt, Derek McNaughton falls victim for the same kind of government spin doctoring that he help dispense in an April 8th article (discussing the inability of firearms registration to prevent acts of violence). The article ended with Department of Justice statistics boasting of the number of firearms applications that had been "refused" in the interests of public safety. Readers were not made aware that these numbers were a deceitful attempt to justify the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars and that Justice has failed to respond to information requests asking how many of these refusals were caused by computer or operator error, by faulty matches or due to reasons that should not prevent people from legally buying firearms. In short, we have yet to find one example where anyone has been charged for illegally attempting to aquire a firearm. Now we have government employees telling us that there has been no increase in unwanted bear activity as a result of the cancelled spring hunt - with one MNR spokesman actually claiming that the number of nuisance bears is down while noting that he does not have the exact figures. Have we not yet learned to distrust the expansive claims of government employees who hold back on the hard facts ? Oddly enough, one fairly large city, Sault St. Marie, has had three bears killed within the city in one month by police - with several others being chased off or trapped and relocated. The spring hunt was cancelled for no other reason than Mike Harris being panicked by the seedy ad campaign orchestrated by the Bear Alliance and the International Fund for Animal Welfare and funded by wealthy industrialist, Robert Shad. Conceptually flawed legislation launched under pressure from self-interest groups, sold by undiscerning journalists and justified by career bureaucrats is a pervasive pattern that seems beyond the comprehension of most Canadians. Either that or they've come to rely too heavily on the mediocre perceptiveness of today's crop of journalists. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. 613-832-2449 613-763-3097 (w) ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #71 *********************************