From - Mon Nov 15 11:05:51 1999 Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by skatter.USask.Ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16698; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:23:56 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17752; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:31 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:31 -0600 Message-Id: <199911131413.IAA17752@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f 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 #201 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 Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, November 13 1999 Volume 03 : Number 201 In this issue: Levi poll GunsCanada insertion charge Chris's possession application - questions to refuse Positive Thinking Rights and obligations of child under the Minor's Permit Re: THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED Re: traveling with firearms Travelling with a Hand Gun. Canadian law FAC/PAL Re: Travelling with firearms Guns for Self Defence in NZ Out of control gun control spending Excellent MP contacting web page - Or so it appears Calgary Sun Editorial Ujjal Dosanjh and the impartiality of law Help wanted. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:41 -0600 From: "The Gayders" Subject: Levi poll This is questionable to me & I don't have time to investigate it, so I'm passing it on. Looks very suspicious! http://www.levismusic.com/fuse99/pax_petition.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:49 -0600 From: "Ryan Harriman" Subject: GunsCanada insertion charge I looked all over the GunsCanada webpage and could not find a list of any fees except the optional ones such as bold, listed on front page, and listed on category page. I figured there wasn't going to be a charge for listing my items so I put one lot online and what did I find....there is a $60 insertion fee...nothing saying are you sure or this will cost $60. Then I looked around the pages and what did I find...no email link to get ahold of someone. I searched and search and finally found an email address on the help page in a bunch of text...not even a link. Has anyone else listed with them? Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:58 -0600 From: Brian Drader Subject: Chris's possession application - questions to refuse My advice is not to get a possession licence, but rather a possession & acquisition licence. Even then, wait 'til the very last day you can legally apply. Then see how you feel. :) The only reason I've applied is that the police tell me that they won't return my firearms until I obtain an FPAL. So I applied for an FPAL, but in my application I refused to list my conjugal partners and live-in partners. For good measure, I also refused to answer the "failure at work or school" question as per the Hudson case. In all cases, I simply wrote "REFUSED" in big letters over the question/page of concern. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of my conjugal partners are a personal and private matter - firearm bureacrats don't need to know these things and inded they should not know in a society in which privacy is respected. I'll let the list know whether my application is approved or denied. Another interesting tidbit here is that I'm an executor of an estate involving fir! earms, so I don't need an approval in order to legally take possession of the estate firearms. Cheers, Brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:51 -0600 From: "Ron Hofman" Subject: Positive Thinking Further to my reply to Richard and his "Power of Positive Thinking" message, and that we are the good guys (which we are, but the government has trouble believing that)... If you think that we are living under the full effect of C-68 (rather, the Firearms Act), GIVE YOUR HEAD A SHAKE! I've been told that the CFR is being 'nice' to us NOW. JUST WAIT!!! We are in TRANSITION. We are not living under the full effect of the FA. JUST WAIT!!! If you think having to show some picture ID to buy ammo under the guise of showing 'proof of age' us bad, JUST WAIT!!! If you think belonging to a club/range and shooting once a month is 'good enough' for the authorities, JUST WAIT!!! In just over a year, you won't be able to buy ammo if you don't have a LICENCE! (Jan. 1, 2001 to be exact.) You likely won't be able to buy ammo if you don't have a registered firearm in the calibre of ammo you are attempting to buy. DON'T YOU GET IT?? If you don't have a REGISTERED firearm (e.g. a .22 calibre rifle), THEY WON'T LET YOU BUY (.22 CALIBRE) AMMO!!! You will have no REASON to buy ammo in a calibre of firearm for which you have NO REGISTRATION. Because if it's not registered, you aren't supposed to have it!! SIR in Winnipeg will not sell you ammo if you don't provide a picture ID, under the guise of proof of age. I'm 50 years old. I don't need picture ID to prove that I'm over 18!! So (paranoia setting in here folks), the logical thinking person I am, I'm left wondering WHY do I have to show my ID??? And the only reason I can think of is to get me used to the HABIT! Start asking NOW. We're being 'broken-in' folks, in stages. We are in TRANSITION. Am I an 'alarmist'? I don't think so. A realist, yes. In this case, realism is alarming! If you are a 'positive thinker,' GET YOUR OWN COPY OF THE FIREARMS ACT AND READ THE #$%&* THING! If you are a 'positive thinker,' you are being lulled into a state of lethargy, because you think EVERYTHING IS OK! We're the GOOD GUYS, after all, and they're not really after US. "ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" OH YEAH! RIGHT! Wake up and smell the pyrodex! Ron NFA Field Officer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:45 -0600 From: Tom MacMillan Subject: Rights and obligations of child under the Minor's Permit Assuming the child in question has passed the Firearms Safety and Safe Hunter Courses and has a legally registered firearm in their pocession in the Province of Nova Scotia; a)What species may that person hunt? b)How far away from "immediate adult supervision" may that person be? c)What class(es) of firearm are they permitted to carry? d)Under the provisions of "Other harvestable wildlife", what species may they hunt? e)In referance to (d); may such an otherwise qualified individual apply to carry a center-fire rifle? I am looking forward to your speedy reply to my inquiries. Thank you. I would appreciate the comments of the National Firearms Association to the above questions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:24:01 -0600 From: Dennis Chattaway Subject: Re: THE LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED Finally! I've been saying for a long time now that it's not the type of government you have in terms of socialism, fascism, communism, representative monarchy, republicanism, etc. but the degree of control that the government has over its citizens. The more control, the less desirable. Dennis Chattaway ...once the individual and his rights become subservient to the state's collectively imposed goals, society takes the first step down the slippery slope that leads towards the secret police, the Gestapo, the Gulag, and the concentration camp. - James P. Hogan (1990) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 07:23:54 -0600 From: hylands@ibm.net (Jon Hylands) Subject: Re: traveling with firearms On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:02:33 -0600, you wrote: > airlines usually require that all firearms be in a hard case, separate = > from ammo. you must declare firearm and bag must be tagged (great way = > to alert thieves) that firearm is unloaded. weight restriction of 5 = > pounds of ammo. if international travel be prepared to be hassled. = > customs does not know the rules. I attended a defensive handgun course at Thunder Ranch in Texas this past summer, and this is how it worked for me: - - I made numerous calls to US customs, Canada customs, and the airline to make sure I knew all the rules. - - I got an ATT from my house to the Calgary airport for the week - - The gun (Glock 21) was in a locked hard-case, with a trigger lock, and unloaded - - The gun case was in my hard-case suitcase, also locked - - I didn't bring any ammo with me, since it is cheaper to buy down there - - The orange tag they gave me, which stipulates the gun is unloaded, was put inside my suitcase, so there was no visible indication of a gun. In any case, I bought $2000 worth of insurance. - - I had a letter from Thunder Ranch saying I was attending a firearms course (otherwise US customs figures you're trying to import the gun) - - Of course I had the registration card for the handgun, and my PAL When I went through US customs, I didn't have to open my suitcase at all. There was no problem. When I came back, Canada customs took about 15 minutes. I had to open the case, and they ran the gun through the XRAY machine. Interestingly, and I was watching carefully what they were doing, they didn't seem to check the serial number of the gun against the paperwork... They did check my magazines, to make sure they were all 10-round. Anyway, it turned out to be a fairly painless experience. Later, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:12:55 -0600 From: "Mike Hargreaves" Subject: Travelling with a Hand Gun. I travel a lot into the USA via Air, with Hand Guns, Job related, You tell the Ticket agent you have a Trigger Locked and unloaded Pistol in you Suitcase, that is going in the hold, the Ticket stating "Firearm Unloaded" goes inside the CASE!! this is to show any official who opens the case, seen on Xray, when you have reached your destination, etc, etc, that you have declared the weapon, as required by FAA rules, {not on the outside, saying STEAL ME, STEAL ME.} My last trip, in Oct 1999, they did not even want to see the Hand Gun. Ticket in case, case locked, gone into hold, no muss, no fuss. Coming back into Canada, the little Card, for Temp: Export is worth it's weight in gold! and your FAC, they have always been very co-operative to me. Put something on your luggage to make it easy to see on the Carousel. I one time came back from Glock in Georgia, with three Glock Pistols, " I have three pistols" said I "go over to see him" said she, the young chap said" what do we have", I showed him my Glock 17, "that one is mine" I said, "OK" said he, and moved that one aside, "This .40 Calibre is going to Metro Police for test and evaluation" said I, OK and moved that one to one side,"I bought this .45 at Armour'ers cost", he took his GST, and off I went!! I was not asked for any ID of any nature!! but I am an Old Guy, and look honest, he was a good judge of character though, Metro got their .40, I registered the .45 and my 9mm went back in the vault!! Make sure you have the reason you are transporting in writing, Shoot, Course, etc etc. Mike H. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:00 -0600 From: Scott Tickner Subject: Canadian law Dear List, I'm a American and want to know what I have to do if I buy a long gun (Rifle or Shotgun) or one is given to me by a Canadian citizen in Canada, to bring it back to the States. Your replies are greatly appreciated. Please email me your answers. The Tick Moderator's Note: Get a form 6 and 6a from the ATF. You must be licenced in the States for the type of long gun that yoou wish to import. Contact me for further information. DJP ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:12:52 -0600 From: ANDY J Subject: FAC/PAL I am hoping that I can get some advise about my predicament. Last year, in September of 1998 I submitted an application to renew my FAC. Late in may 1999 I received a PAL, possession, acquisition licence. I then sent in my application to re-register all of my restricted firearms. Today November 12th I received all of my re-registration cards except for those that are now prohibited. I have owned the same prohibited handgun since 1991. With all that I have read about the governments mistakes in both the press and this web post I got concerned and looked at the back of my PAL.(yes I know I should have looked in may) My PAL is only good for restricted and non-restricted only! Can anyone please direct me as to my course of action. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:02 -0600 From: "Glenn Springer" Subject: Re: Travelling with firearms > Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:02:33 -0600 > From: "Walter Hornby" > Subject: traveling with firearms > > airlines usually require that all firearms be in a hard case, separate = > from ammo. you must declare firearm and bag must be tagged (great way = > to alert thieves) that firearm is unloaded. weight restriction of 5 = > pounds of ammo Small corrections it's 5 kg of ammo, not 5 lbs. If you read IATA regs carefully, you'll see they say "10 lbs or 5kg, whichever is more". In the words of the immortal Homer Simpson... They want to put that big orange sticker "Unloaded Firearm Inside" (if you read it backwards it says "Steal Me") on the OUTSIDE of the case. The purpose is simply to prove they have checked that it's unloaded. That works equally well if it's INSIDE the case, so insist they do that. A good solution is to buy a big duffel bag that you can put the hard case into. They can do whatever they like on the hard case if it's hidden from view. Throw the unwashed long underwear and socks from your last hunting trip in the bag -- they won't want to open it and rummage around.... - -------------------------- Glenn Springer - -------------------------- FAC Firearms Academy Canada: CFO Master Instructor #ON-0095 email glenn@guns.to website http://www.guns.to ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:06 -0600 From: Jim McLenaghan Subject: Guns for Self Defence in NZ =====> Invasions prompt inquiries for guns Country: New Zealand In New Zealand, where the use of guns for self defense is actually illegal, a wave of home invasions has prompted interest in firearms and calls for changes in the law. (11/11/99) URL: http://www.press.co.nz/1999/45/991110n14.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:10 -0600 From: Jhogue Subject: Out of control gun control spending to : fpletters@nationalpost.com Reference: PUBLICATION: National Post DATE: 1999.11.10 PAGE: A4 BYLINE: Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief Gun registry spending soars to $100M this year: System's bill $195M so far - ---------------------------------------------- Congratulations for exposing the festering sore of the out-of-control spending on gun control. However, there is one error that needs to be corrected : "When the gun law was passed four years ago, the government said it would cost $85-million, spread over five years, plus an annual operating cost of $50-million to $60-million." Actually, there never was any mention of the annual operating costs. The department of Justice issued a "Question and answers" booklet (JUS-676) in February 1995. The answer to question Q11 ("some persons claim it will cost between 500 millions and 1,5 billion to set up the registry - is this true ?)" only mentions the 85 millions figure. The annual budget was kept secret until the law was passed. And now the government's mouthpiece on gun control is dismissing the 100 % increase of the annual budget, from 50 to 100 millions, with the claim that it will average out over a 10-year period. Sure. First, it was 85 millions. Last year, it was 135 millions plus the annual 50 millions budget. Now it is 195 millions plus 100 millions for the annual budget. But in the future the budget will be reduced to make up for the first-year 100 million disaster. Honest. As if it were to make things right, the bureaucrat tells us that gun owners will be the ones who will have to foot the bill. I suggest this is the chief reason for this sea of red ink: the gun control bureaucracy never felt any sense of responsibility or accountability, this is merely someone else's money. Finally, I cannot let unchallenged the impression left that "so far" 450,000 gun owners have registered over 1.4 million handguns. In reality, the gun control bureaucrats simply threw in the registration records accumulated under previous systems since 1934. The actual number of new registrations during the first operating year of the new system is not even one tenth of that figure. Remember that the gun control bureaucrats promised they would register 7 million firearms within 3 years. Honest. It is high time that the Auditor general review the whole mess and make the gun control bureaucrats to account for the whole sorry mess. J. Hogue Montreal ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:14 -0600 From: "John Perocchio" Subject: Excellent MP contacting web page - Or so it appears http://www.canlaw.com/pol/indexmps.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:21 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Calgary Sun Editorial > Registry rings it up > Former federal justice minister Alan Rock was firing a shot in the dark when > he unveiled his gun control plan and insisted it would cut violent crime. > The Liberal MP -- now health minister -- also said the plan would cost > "only" $85 million, spread over five years, to set up. > Critics contended it wouldn't stop violent crime and costs would soar out of > sight. > Rock, as usual, was wrong -- his critics right. > First, no one knows of a single violent crime the gun registration laws have > prevented. > Perhaps that's because criminals, unlike hunters and sportsmen, don't > register their guns. > Indeed, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of > Police Chiefs say the law is creating a black market in guns. > So the bottom line is rather than reduce crime, the law is exacerbating it. > Then there's the costs to the beleaguered taxpayer. > So far, that $85-million start-up cost has soared to $195 million. And, > rather than costing $50 million to $60 million a year to administer, the > cost this year alone is $100 million. > That's even though only 450,000 of some three million gunowners have so far > registered their firearms. Final deadline for registration is Jan. 1, 2003, > so start-up costs are going to go higher -- far higher. > All this money may turn out to have been utterly wasted -- even more so than > we already think -- because next spring, the Supreme Court of Canada will > hear an Alberta-led challenge on the law's constitutionality by six > provinces. > Should the Supreme Court decide the law is out of order, down the drain it > goes -- together with our money and our frustration. > That six provinces -- and the Yukon and Northwest Territories -- think the > law lacks common sense and is illegal should surely make any rational person > think. > But not Ottawa's Liberals. > Once again, they have led us down the garden path. > And as usual, it's been a multi-million dollar trip that's going nowhere ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:25 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Ujjal Dosanjh and the impartiality of law Many BC taxpaying gun owners wonder about the fair-mindedness, realism and understanding of our famous Attorney-General, Ujjal [ak47] Dosanjh after his department ruthlessly and mysteriously went on a gunclub shutdown rampage lately. The following brief excerpt from a news article shows us that Mr. Dosanjh does indeed have a flexible and understanding side: On June 16, 1998, one of British Columbia's highest-ranking Sikh leaders was pulled over by police on suspicion of drunk driving near a Surrey elementary school. Balwant Singh Gill, president of the Guru Nanak Temple, was subsequently charged with two counts of impaired driving... ...Fortunately for Gill, he has friends in high places -- including in the attorney-general's office. Yesterday, Ujjal Dosanjh confirmed that he recommended one of his best friends -- Vancouver lawyer Ravi Hira -- to lead Gill's legal defence. Gill is no ordinary drunk-driving defendant. He's a key political supporter of the A-G in his bid for the NDP leadership and premier's office. Dosanjh revealed that he was contacted by Gill's cousin shortly after the temple president's dump truck was pulled over by the cops. "He wanted to know if I knew any good lawyers, and I gave him several names," Dosanjh revealed. One of the names was Hira, who happens to be another of the A-G's important political organizers and financial backers. Gill immediately retained his services. Quite a cosy little group, aren't they? ...Dosanjh named Hira a Queen's Counsel shortly before the recommendation. Earlier, he appointed Hira's wife as a family-court judge. And the fact that Gill has a double drunk-driving charge hanging over his head didn't prevent Dosanjh from naming him to the B.C. Human Rights Advisory Council in June. But the real question is this: What the hell is our supposedly squeaky-clean attorney-general doing setting up his political pals with sharp lawyers in drunk-driving cases? ...The case has been put over to Jan. 14, when Hira is expected to argue for dismissal for undue delay. In the meantime, Gill has been re-elected temple president. Remind me to call Ujjal if I ever get in a legal jam, will you?... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:30 -0600 From: Paul Chicoine <701506@ican.net> Subject: Help wanted. In the November 11 Montreal Gazette is a report of a confidential RCMP document claiming the need for an infusion of cash for the gun registry. As many of us know there is a cap on submissions to letters to the editor that will see print. I had a letter printed last week "Not a hunter but a criminal" and this effectively puts me out of the running for this tender morsel . I would like to present the short article so that as many of you as possible can take a run at it. ( ) comments in brackets are mine. ****************** Page A7 Federal firearms registry needs more money: RCMP memo Substantial extra funding must be added to a $720 million (where did this new official number come from) federal program aimed at registering more than 3 million firearm owners warns a confidential RCMP document. (notice the new lower revised number of gun owners is now defacto), The document, obtained after an Access to information request, raises more questions about the efficiency and reliability of the mandatory registry, attacked by opposition parties, police and gun lobbyist for red tape and escalating costs. (this is the first hint ever to appear in the Gazette that some police forces are unhappy with C-68, this may also hold true for the French press) Firearms officers expect the numbers of owners applying for licenses will be "much lower" than forecast, " less than 10 per cent". ********************** Many readers of the digest are aware that the terrible actions of Mark Lepin are a major factor for the government's push for this level of gun control. This tragedy has held an especially strong hold on the psyche of Montrealers and this condition is reflected in the near lack of criticism of C-68 to appear in Quebec's defacto English language newspaper: The Montreal Gazette. It has never been admitted nor explained to the public that the current legislation could not prevent another similar tragedy. Citizens could be expected to ask what value they are receiving for the money; if only they knew how much of their money was being wasted. The papers are always filled with crime horror stories and the shortfall in police services brought about by budget cuts. Where the money is going or why its not coming is never explained. The connection of gun registration to gun smuggling is left unexamined and unpublished. I suspect it has been the experience of all of us that common sense makes plain the silliness of the governments' plan yet this common sense is not finding its way to enough newspapers. The general public is woefully ignorant of the far reaching powers of C-68. The impact to non members of the RFC in the form of search and seizure guidelines and implications for property rights which by extension affect all citizens are effectively hidden away like some dirty secret. Also, judging from many posts in the digest and a surprising number of "through the grapevine" inquiries I've personally received from those not on the net, it is evident the CFC has done a real lousy job of informing the target groups, hunters, shooters and collectors. Ladies and Gentleman, sharpen your pencils. email: letters@thegazette.southam.ca fax: 514-987-2639 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #201 **********************************