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 #97 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: 37247a2500004f50 Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, August 1 1999 Volume 03 : Number 097 In this issue: Le N.-B. peut contester le projet de loi C-68 INTERNATIONAL-TRAFFIC-IN-ARMS REGULATIONS (ITARS) GUN CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT'S 10 FLIMSY EXCUSES FOR GUN REGISTRATION Exchange with CFC Cooey History Replica 1873 Colt and Cape Outfitters 45/70 Sharps kit. Sudbury Star Article Canadian Firearms Safety Course [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:17:42 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Le N.-B. peut contester le projet de loi C-68 PUBLICATION: L'Acadie Nouvelle DATE: 99.07.29 PAGE: 2 SOURCE: PC DATELINE: Fredericton Le N.-B. peut contester le projet de loi C-68 La province du Nouveau-Brunswick vient de se faire accorder la permission de se joindre a quelques autres provinces canadiennes, dont l'Ontario et le Manitoba, afin de contester le projet de loi C-68 sur les armes a , selon l'argumentation que cette loi federale, si adoptee, brime les juridictions provinciales. Le procureur general et ministre de la Justice, Brad Green, confirme que le Nouveau-Brunswick logera sa position aupres de la Cour supreme du Canada d'ici quelques semaines. L'instance supreme canadienne devrait entendre la cause vers l'automne. M. Greene y voit l'occasion de respecter l'un des engagements de son gouvernement en campagne electorale. Le Nouveau-Brunswick aurait l'un des plus hauts taux de proprietaires d'armes a au pays. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:14:10 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: INTERNATIONAL-TRAFFIC-IN-ARMS REGULATIONS (ITARS) July 26, 1999 (4:30 p.m. EDT) No. 168 CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES TO CONTINUE CONSULTATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL-TRAFFIC-IN-ARMS REGULATIONS (ITARS) While attending the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Regional Forum (ARF) meeting in Singapore, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reviewed the bilateral consultations thus far on the International-Traffic-in-Arms Regulations (ITARs). They had previously agreed, April 22, to use the 120-day review period to "implement the ITAR regulations in such a way as to mitigate the effects on the North American defence industry and to determine what those effects are. Both [were] committed to evaluate and revisit the core issues of technology transfers and safeguards by the end of this period." Senior officials have been working diligently and will continue to do so in fulfilment of our joint objectives. We recognize that additional time beyond the initial 120-day period will be required to complete this effort. Both governments remain committed to reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution of all outstanding issues at the earliest possible date. - - 30 - For further information, media representatives may contact: Debora Brown Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (613) 995-1851 Media Relations Office Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (613) 995-1874 <<...>> <<...>> http://webapps.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?FileSpec=/Min_Pub_Do cs/102503.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:20:03 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: GUN CHALLENGE CATEGORY: General and national news DATE: 99.07.28 Challenge INDEX: Politics FREDERICTON -- New Brunswick has been granted leave to join a Supreme Court of Canada challenge of the federal control law. It allows the province's new Conservative government to keep a key election promise. New Brunswick has one of the highest rates of ownership in the country. Attorney General and Justice Minister Brad Green says the province will file its position with the court within weeks. Premier Bernard Lord's election platform contained a promise of join Alberta in fighting Bill C-68, saying it encroaches on provincial interests. The deadline for joining the case had passed by the time the Tories were sworn in. That forced Lord's government to request special consideration. Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, as well as the three territories, also intend to intervene in the case. The federal legislation requires owners to register their guns and obtain a licence. (Fredericton Gleaner) --- jac TIME: 16:17 (Eastern Time) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:11:37 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: THE GOVERNMENT'S 10 FLIMSY EXCUSES FOR GUN REGISTRATION THE GOVERNMENT'S 10 FLIMSY EXCUSES FOR GUN REGISTRATION by Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) July 29, 1999 I was browsing the Department of Justice website and came across a document called, "10 Reasons for the Registration of All Guns" [http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/General_public/Reason_register/Reason_E.html]. What a bunch of baloney the Liberals are trying to pass off on unsuspecting taxpayers as "information" - phony facts trying (but failing) to add credence to the Justice Minister's "culture of safety" mantra. Since the Firearms Act (Bill C-68) was rammed through Parliament in 1995, the Department of Justice has failed to come up with even one valid reason to justify the government's controversial registration scheme. In the meantime, the government has spent $216 million on the gun registry as of March 31, 1999 and the Minister admitted that the annual operating costs will run between $50-$60 million per year. That's a billion dollars by the year 2015! Flimsy Excuse #1 - The Federal Government is concerned that gun owners might be buying stolen firearms. They claim that registration of all guns will reduce gray and black market gun sales. Rather than spending hundreds of millions to register between 7 and 21 million rifles and shotguns, why didn't the government just list the 87,043 stolen, lost or missing firearms in Canada? Then set up a system that would allow anyone to check the guns they plan to buy against this stolen firearms list. Too cost-effective I guess. Flimsy Excuse #2 - The Federal Government claims that the registry will keep guns away from people who should not have them. Since 1979, the government has had this capability because everyone who wanted to buy a firearm (legally) had to present a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). All the government had to do is revoke the FACs of those individuals the police and the courts declare are "potentially dangerous". Flimsy Excuse #3 - The Federal Government claims that the registry will allow police to return firearms to their rightful owners. Everyone is required by law to report lost or stolen firearms to the police. Rather than spending hundreds of millions in a vain attempt to register millions of legally owned guns in Canada, why not just compare the list of firearms stolen with the list of firearms recovered by police? Flimsy Excuse #4 - The Federal Government claims that charging people that fail to register their rifle or shotgun with a Criminal Code offence gives police a new tool to fight criminal behaviour and break up networks of organized crime. Duck hunters, sport shooters and collectors are not criminals and are certainly not part of any organized crime network. To say that people who fail to properly fill out a piece of paper required by some Made-in-Ottawa edict are the same as firearm wielding violent criminals is ridiculous in the extreme. Or to try and make us believe that this useless exercise will be of any benefit to help police combat organized crime is truly laughable. No wonder the police have called the gun registry a "farce". Flimsy Excuse #5 - The Federal Government claims that the registry will provide police officers with information on how many firearms to remove from the homes of violent spouses. The government is foolish to think that police officers would put any amount of faith in a computerized registration system that is already riddled with errors and will have millions of firearms missing from its records. Flimsy Excuse #6 - The Federal Government says the registry will help them trace firearms used in crime to their last known owner and potentially result in a higher rate of solved crimes involving a firearm. Violent criminals don't use firearms that can be traced to themselves (unless of course they're insane). Criminals seldom leave a firearm at the scene of a crime so in the vast majority of crimes involving firearms, the police have nothing to trace. This is the main reason why the 65-year-old handgun registry has failed to help police solve a single crime. The other reason is that both the old and the new registration system are riddled with errors; consequently, most traces are unsuccessful and a complete waste of time and money for police. Flimsy Excuse #7 - The Federal Government claims that registration of all firearms will ensure responsible firearm owners will take better care of their firearms, store them more safely and more likely to report them stolen or lost. Failure to store a firearm properly and failure to report a stolen or lost firearm have been Criminal Code offences for more than twenty years. All the government has to do is enforce the existing laws, not create a horrendously expensive, highly ineffective registration system. Besides the priority for police is trying to catch the real criminals who break into our homes, invade our privacy and steal our property. Flimsy Excuse #8 - The Federal Government claims that the firearm registry will give them more opportunities to review the complete status of a firearm owner. As stated in response to Flimsy Excuse #2, the government has had this capability since 1979 and didn't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars implementing a firearm registry to conduct periodic reviews of individuals licenced to acquire firearms. Real criminals don't apply to the government for a firearm licence and they don't register their firearms. The government is wasting scarce resources reviewing honest people - instead of chasing real criminals who acquire their guns illegally. Flimsy Excuse #9 - The Federal Government claims that the registry will reduce firearms smuggling by tracing firearms that are imported into the country for sale. This is the flimsiest excuse of all. Firearms smugglers don't acquire their firearms by legal means, they don't register their firearms with any government, they don't declare them at Canada Customs and they don't pay the GST. That's why it's called smuggling. Flimsy Excuse #10 - Finally, the Federal Government claims that having the registration done at a central site will put more police on the street. The sad fact is that there are between 600 and 800 bureaucrats working in the federal gun registry and another 300 working in a special, separate registry in Quebec (paid for with federal tax dollars, of course). Politics is about choices and priorities. The Liberal government chose to spend a billion dollars and hire more than a thousand paper-pushers to harass honest citizens instead of hiring a thousand police officers and giving them the financial resources they need to fight real criminals. For the government to try and convince Canadians to believe these ten tall tales is like trying to convince them that if they kiss an ugly toad, it will turn into a handsome prince. No amount of kissing this ugly toad of a registry by Minister McLellan is going to turn it into a prince of a program in her "culture of safety" fairy tale world. Ask yourself this question: What possible difference will laying a piece of paper beside a firearm make to someone intent on using it for criminal purposes or to commit suicide? None! Nor will this billion-dollar registration scheme hinder in any way a real criminal's ability to acquire firearms illegally. It's time to scrap this politically motivated registration scheme and spend the money we save on real crime fighting initiatives - measures that will actually improve the safety of our police officers and the safety of the general public. If you would like more information, please call, write, fax or e-mail: Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Phone: (613) 992-4394 Fax: (613) 992-8676 E-Mail: breitg0@parl.gc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:26:07 -0600 From: Karl Schrader Subject: Exchange with CFC Dear Ms. Roussel: Thanks for your prompt reply. So, the law as it presently stands does not allow me to use a lightweight handgun for survival purposes in the wilderness. It only allows the use of a handgun against another human being. This is weird. I can take a heavy 12 gauge shotgun along into a wilderness where I most likely will not meet another human being, but no, no handgun, especially not a .22 cal. handgun which is not very efficient against another human being or even against a bear. It really is very weird indeed but I will have no other choice than to comply with "the law". Some people are saying that this law is an ass and I gradually am coming around to believe it. Thanks anyway for doing your job. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At 09:08 AM 7/28/1999 -0400, you wrote: >Kathleen Roussel@CFC >07/27/99 12:15 PM > >This is the action taken for the Enquiry (E1999722145251) made by Karl >Schrader (schrader@magma.ca ) on 22/07/99 > >DATE OF RESPONSE : 27/07/99 >RESPONSE TO ENQUIRY : >Dear Mr. Schrader: > >Thank you for your request for information. >In order to carry a handgun in the fashion you are describing, you would >require an authorization to transport. Unfortunately, the Firearms Act and >related regulations would not provide for this authorization to be issued in >these particular circumstances since these authorizations can only be issued >where required to protect the life of an individual from other individuals, >or for use in connection with a lawful occupation. >I hope this is of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us >again if you require further information. >Yours truly, >Kathleen Roussel >Communications Group >Canadian Firearms Centre > > >QUESTION ASKED : >Leaving the middle of August and returning before freeze-up I am planning an >extended canoe trip into the remote wilderness of northern Ontario. Since >the nature of this trip does not allow me to take any excessive gear with me >and though it will be hunting season, I can not take a hunting gun with me >in order to gather survival sustenance in the form of small game in case I >am running out of supplies. I will be completely out of touch with >?civilization? although I will make arrangements that somebody knows where >approximately I will be. >My question to you is: Is it possible that I can take my .22 cal. >targetpistol along on this trip. I am an accurate shot with this pistol and >would be able to take small game with it if the necessity arises. This >would not pose any unnecessary burden considering the nature of this trip. >What are the regulations concerning this ? For years, I was a member of a >pistol club and had a carrying permit for years and years. Much obliged if >you could clarify this question. > Sincerely, > > Karl Schrader [schrader@magma.ca] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:27:49 -0600 From: Mike & Lisa Federchuk Subject: Cooey History > >Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 07:06:14 -0600 >From: dhammond@cadvision.com (Dave Hammond) >Subject: Cooey rifle history? > >I also realised that with all the longevity and >commonality of the Cooey rifle I have never heard of, or seen, a definitive >history of the Cooey rifle and the company. Is anyone out there aware of >such a publication or source for info on the history of the Cooey rifle company? > >Regards, >D.Hammond Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca I have a small book titled, "Cooey Firearms Made In Canada 1919-1979" by John A. Belton. Its part of the Historical Arms Series, No. 28. I can't remember where I got my copy from. It may have come from the Museum Restoration Service in Bloomfield Ont, or I may havve picked it up at a gun show. Service Publications used to have it on their web site, but I don't have a current URL. Its by no means "definitive", but it is a good read, with excellent b/w photos to accompany the text. Good luck in your search, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:29:00 -0600 From: Libbie3540@aol.com Subject: Replica 1873 Colt and Cape Outfitters 45/70 Sharps kit. I hope someone can help me and point me in the right direction. A friends grandfather died recently and one of the things he had was a replica 1873 colt revolver. What is the statis of this? Can he keep it? Also my dad bought a Cape Outfitters 45/70 sharps kit several years ago in the States and we need to take it in to get "heat Treated". Does anybody know who can do that in the Greater Vancouver Area? Thanks, Libbie ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:32:36 -0600 From: Joe MacDonald Subject: Sudbury Star Article Just snipped this from the Sudbury Star online site EDITORIAL OUR OPINION The national gun registry is too costly and, in most of the country, unenforced Loophole should hang registry The discovery of a loophole in the federal government's gun registry program should provide the final argument that the registry is an ill-conceived and unworkable initiative. Earlier this week, officials with the the Canadian Firearms Centre confirmed that people could avoid the gun registry by renting or leasing the guns rather than purchasing them. Critics of the registry say this latest development is further evidence the national gun registry is a dismal failure. The federal initiative, through the registering of all firearms, is an attempt to stem the flow of these weapons into the hands of criminals. But in reality, the registry targets law-abiding hunters and gun owners rather than criminals, as federal justice officials contend. The weapons of choice for violent criminals, automatic weapons and hand guns, are either banned outright or are restricted by the federal government. These weapons won't find their way into the rolls of the national gun registry. Criminals just aren't likely to let the government know what kind of heat they're packing. Instead, the federal government has opted to turn its attention to rifles and shotguns used by hunters. It's a strategy which, in the long run, may save a duck or a moose, but offers dubious benefits in the fight against violent crime. So it is no wonder that Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and the Yukon and the Northwest Territories refuse to enforce the registry requirements. Last month, the Canadian Police Association pulled its support for the registry, saying that it was too costly and was draining funds from other areas of police budgets. At a time when police departments, including Sudbury's, are under-staffed and facing a workload which doubled during the past 36 years, the diversion of funds for a costly federal initiative creates unnecessary problems -- especially since the need for cash is expected to grow. The Justice Department has reported that implementing the registry has cost $300 million thus far. By the end of the year, the total is expected to reach $500 million. When the act was unveiled, the cost of the the registry was pegged at $85 million. The cost promises to grow even higher as law-abiding gun owners buck the registration process. According to documents from the Justice Department, it could take the centre's 800 employees as long as 50 years to register each of the estimated seven million rifles and shotguns in Canada at the current pace of registration. Rather than continue to support what is clearly a flawed and unworkable program, the federal government should follow a strategy which would reduce crime in a more efficient manner. During recent years, the police association has suggested harsh penalties for possessing a gun (whether owned, leased, rented or stolen) during the commission of a crime. This and other steps which would toughen existing laws would provide a deterrent and would keep violent criminals off the nation's streets and not take five decades to accomplish its goal. Joe MacDonald ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:33:48 -0600 From: "Neil A. Ball" Subject: Canadian Firearms Safety Course While recently browsing the 1999 Hunting Guide and Regulations for the province of Manitoba (available online at http://www.gov.mb.ca/natres/wildlife/huntingg/index.html), I found the section on Hunter Qualifications rather interesting: "Hunter Qualifications Persons nineteen years of age or older who have not previously held a hunting licence and all persons under the age of nineteen must graduate from the Manitoba Hunter and Firearm Safety Training Course or similar Hunter Education Course from another province or state. THE CANADIAN FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE DOES NOT MEET THE ABOVE REQUIREMENT." (emphasis added) Is this an indication of the merit the Manitoba gov't. feels the CFSC warrants? As I recall from taking the course some time ago there was a Field Safety component included, but apparently not up to the required standards for at least one provincial government. Cheers, N.Ball ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 07:05:08 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: [none] whoops - Larry the url is incorrect -:(((((((((( Larry Going wrote: > For the week commencing July 25, 1999, the Recreational Firearms Community > of Saskatchewan Web Site quizlet asked: > "Has the availability of a firearm in your hands ever prevented a crime?" > (of 15 respondents) > 73% Yes > 20% No > 7% Not Sure > > A new poll asks the question: > "Do you believe that the Liberal Government is distorting the true costs of > the gun registry?" > It should be: RFC Web Site: http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/going/rfc/ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #97 *********************************