Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:33:08 -0600 Message-Id: <199911171333.HAA11988@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 #205 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 Wednesday, November 17 1999 Volume 03 : Number 205 In this issue: Can Firearms Digest submission Re: Short Barrel amnesty Re: Stupid SBHG qn re: CFC Bul Re: Coalition for Gun Control Website REFUSAL TO RETURN SEIZED FIREARMS CFC BULLETIN No. 38 Cowardly gun confiscation coalition types COMMERCIAL RANGE/GUN CLUB Re: family heirloom bringing assertiveness to the bureaucracy The power re: "customs silence" and other nonsense.... Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #197 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:18 -0600 From: m_adams@ns.sympatico.ca (Michael Adams) Subject: Can Firearms Digest submission Walter Hornby stated in V3 #204 >re Allan Harpers on dealing with CFC. I noticed that very quickly it >went from he HAD to sign the form to it was suggested that he sign the >form. this is on of the problems with the CFC. the staff is no >adequately trained but are represented as being experts. >>hmm, I wondered if he had signed it and later found out he didn't have >>to if he could sue CFC for something??? Could a person not note next to his/her signature that a document was = signed under duress? Would that have any affect on subsequent dealings = where the document was called into question? This of course presumes = you were dealing with a "hardened" bureaucrat who would not take "no" = for an answer and was prepared to deny registration in the absence of = signed declarations, etc. Just a thought *************************************************************************= *********************** * Mike Adams * President / Search Director Colchester Ground Search & Rescue Assoc. * Professional Emergency Services Communicator * NASAR Certified Search Manager * Level II Firefighter * Fire and Safety Educator * ICQ 22910497 or http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/m_adams ************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:07 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: Short Barrel amnesty >After reading comment from the list, is it true that there is an extension >of the amnesty on short-barrel guns, to wit.. they have extended the time >for barrel replacement, destruction or de-activation of short-barrel guns? Yes, to 31 Dec 2000. This is still in progress, but is so certain that it has been published in the Canada Gazette. They are still attempting to persuade people to surrender their property by NOT publicising the change, which looks much like criminal fraud. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:27 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: Stupid SBHG qn > OK, this might seem stupid but here it >goes. If a pistol with a barrel length of less >then 105mm is prohibited then what happens to a >pistol with no barrel...answer...if larger than >32 cal then nothing right? Removing the barrel (and cylinder, if any) converts the handgun from "prohibited firearm" class to "restricted firearm" class. Re-registration is NOT required. Notifying Ottawa or anyone else is NOT required. >Here's my >question...can I have a pocket pistol with no >barrel? You've all seen them, they look like >revolvers with out the barrel. I can scan a >picture and send it out if you want. I'm just >doing an essay on early ammunition developements >and came across one and it sparked that >question. After all the cylinder isn't part of >the barrel. Also what if I had a revolver with >a long cylinder and say a 38 short and wimpy >bullet? Now is this not intersting or is there >just to much carbon monoxide in my house? You are apparently talking about "pepperbox" revolvers. The government's thoughts on this problem are unknown, but a judge would probably measure the "barrel" in the same way the barrel of a semi-auto pistol is measured. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:22 -0600 From: "Ryan Harriman" Subject: re: CFC Bul Do you mean a PAL? I don't now what a PAC is. If you mean PAL then it took me about 6 weeks to get mine. I was amazed. Ryan >As of 1440 14 Nov 99 it is finally acknowledged that "one week >processing simple new PAC now takes an estimated six months. >What a suprise !! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:12 -0600 From: lundgark@telusplanet.net Subject: Re: Coalition for Gun Control Website At 08:25 AM 16/11/1999 -0600, you wrote: >> The Coalition for Gun Control (CfCG) has their website here: >> http://www.guncontrol.ca/ > >Yes, full of misinformation. But everybody should visit this site - regularly. > >From the CfCG website... "Dr. Martin Killias, Criminology Professor at the University of Lausanne has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay. " This comment is made because "proof" gun legislation is effective is usually very quickly shown to be in error. Karen & Jerrold Lundgard Peace River, Alberta mailto:lundgark@telusplanet.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:07 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: REFUSAL TO RETURN SEIZED FIREARMS >> When a police force defies court rulings, fascism has come fully out of the >> closet. The recent refusals by police in Kamloops to abide by court orders to >> return property, as well as another case on Vancouver Island where police >> have refused to obey a Supreme Court Order to return firearms, does indeed >> clearly establish "the line". How many more cases like this are out there? I >Perhaps one of the lawyers who follow this list can explain how the police are >getting away with this. I don't recall judges as being particularly tolerant of >those who decided that they could simply ignore an order from their court. The refusals are based on a bad interpretation of the law. The police are claiming that their seizure voids the CC s. 98 "deemed" licence held by the owner, which is incorrect. If anyone has this problem, the NFA can send the Parliamentary Research Branch's paper on the subject, "Return of Firearms to Owners From Police Custody." The owner should submit a copy of that paper and a demand under CC s. 337 for the return of the firearm "forthwith." That seems to be working in a number of cases. >I'm missing something here, I guess, but why wouldn't counsel for these guys >have pursued these orders further once police refused to comply with what the >order directed? Seems to me that being arrested and tossed in jail for contempt >would be the next logical step - the court does it fairly often to media types >who refuse to comply with an order to turn over some sort of evidence or other. Lawyers usually do not do anything that they are not paid to do. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:30:56 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: CFC BULLETIN No. 38 >Canadian Firearms@CFC >11/14/99 05:12 PM >Bulletin No. 38 >In a Snapshot >- Your FAC is replaced if you are issued a new licence NFA COMMENT: FA s. 120(3)(b) voids all FACs that you hold when a licence is issued. >- Every firearm owner needs a still valid FAC or a new licence by >the end of next year >- New RCMP Report >Your FAC and New Licences >If you currently hold a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate >(FAC) you don't need to get a new firearms licence until your FAC >expires. Your FAC allows you to both possess and acquire firearms. NFA: It does not, however, tell the seller what classes of firearms you are allowed to acquire. >If you intend, however, to get a possession-only licence when your >FAC expires, you might want to apply for this licence before >December 1, 1999 when the fee increases from $10 to $45. NFA: If you do that, then you cannot acquire any more firearms -- except by borrowing them, possibly for a very long time. The law sets no time limit for the TERM of a loan, but you can ONLY borrow a REGISTERED firearm, and must borrow the registration certificate with it. Then YOU become the "holder" of that registration certificate -- in someone else's name -- because that is a specific legal exception to FA s. 62 which says that a registration certificate is "not transferable." >When your new licence is issued, however, your FAC will be >cancelled. You can either hold a valid FAC or a licence, not both. > If you apply for a possession-only licence, therefore, it will >mean that you will have a five-year licence to possess, but not >acquire, firearms. A possession and acquisition licence, on the >other hand, like your FAC, allows you to both possess and acquire >firearms. NFA: Therefore, why PAY them to invalidate your valid FAC which BECAME a licence on 01 Dec 98? >You should apply for your licence at least 6 months before your >FAC is due to expire to ensure that you have your licence by the >day your FAC expires. For more information on filling out an >error-free licence application, contact the CFC and ask for our f >act sheet "The Ten Most Common Errors". NFA: SIX MONTHS?! As a demonstration of just how incompetent they are, that demand for a six month lead time would be hard to beat. As the NFA keeps telling you, C-68 Titanic is sinking -- and this is proof that it JUST DOES NOT WORK. >All firearm owners who do not hold a valid FAC, must have a new >firearms licence by January 1, 2001. Apply well in advance. >Which Firearms Licence to Get? >You have the choice of one of the two following licences. >Possession-Only Licence >- Allows you to continue to possess firearms you owned on December >1, 1998, not acquire more. NFA: Except by borrowing -- a gigantic loophole in their "system." >- Valid for five years. >- Allows you to borrow firearms in the same class (non-restricted, >restricted, prohibited) as the firearm(s) your currently own. >- Only available to Canadian residents. >- Cannot apply for this licence after January 1, 2001. >- You don't need the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. >Again, the cost for a Possession-Only Licence is going up from $10 >to $45 on December 1, 1999. >Possession and Acquisition Licence >- Allows you to possess and acquire firearms. >- Valid for five years. >- Is available now and after January 1, 2001. >- You need to have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course test >to apply; >- Cost: $60 for non-restricted firearms, $80 for any combination >of non-restricted and restricted or prohibited firearms. >You can't register your firearms without first holding a licence >or valid FAC. You must register all your firearms by January 1, >2003. You can mail your licence application and registration >application together. Your licence application will be processed >first. NFA: Hogwash. You were automaticcally granted an invisible "deemed" registration certificate for every unrestricted firearm you owned on 01 Dec 98. Therefore, every firearm you own legally is already registered. >Application forms for licences and to register your firearms are >available at your post office, by calling 1 800 731-4000 or by >printing them off the CFC Web site at www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca . >The RCMP Annual Report >The 1998 RCMP Annual Report is now available. You can view and >download a copy off the Canadian Firearms Registry Web site at >www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/cfr.htm . NFA: Much of the useful information found in earlier editions is no longer published in this Annual Report, making it considerably less valuable for researchers. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:17 -0600 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Cowardly gun confiscation coalition types [the opinions expressed herein are mine and no one else's - despite what any word-twisting, anti-freedom type might try to claim] A co-worker of mine posts to the digest rather infrequently and most often keeps to the technical side of things (as opposed to myself - being somewhat more expansive in my opinions). The thing is, not long after he posted an article suggesting that a member of a certain well-known anti-gun coalition was probably responsible for the anonymous (possibly fictitious) threats to a certain well-known, yarn-spinning bureaucrat, my co-worker received an informal verbal reprimand from his senior manager for using our private service provider to convey this point. Apparently, rather than contact my co-worker directly to sort this out, these people chose to take the matter to our CEO in the hopes of getting his employment prospects jeopardized and/or shutting down opinion from this end. Now, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that this provider is no more responsible for its users opinions than Bell Canada is for its Sympatico users' opinions or AT$T is for theirs, so this was obviously an attempt on the part of these anti-freedom types to suppress opinion through a backhanded harrassment of our employers. This is despicable and cowardly but it should surprise no one. The encouraging part is that if misinformation and dishonest, cowardly attacks is the extent of their campaign, we're laughing. How can you lose when you're up against cowards ? And on the up-side, this has only encouraged my friend to get a private account - where he'll be somewhat more prone to say what he REALLY thinks. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:13 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: COMMERCIAL RANGE/GUN CLUB >The CFO of Ontario has told the owners of a Range they can only open, IF >THEY HAVE A GUN CLUB!!! this is a Building with a 50 yard Rifle Range, and a >20 yard Pistol Range, all totally refurbished!! They have Commercial >Customers right now ready to shoot there!!! only a Gun Club can have a >Range!!, I had this told to me on Friday the 12 th, of November? is this >True Dave? Anybody? Mike H. Yes, every commercial range in Canada has to set up a "club" to justify the range. It has benefits, though -- the "club" affiliates with the NFA ($3 per member) and buys NFA $5 million Liability Insurance ($4.75 per member) covering each member for all range target shooting, hunting, range archery and fishing anywhere in Canada or the continental US. The insurance also covers the club executive, all club activities (such as an annual dance or a shoot), and the owner of the property (who becomes a co-insured at no cost). It's a nice selling point to bring people into the range. Individuals who come into the range for a day of shooting or a competition (up to 14 days) can be insured for that day or competition for $1. Simon says, "It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It's GOVERNMENT POLICY." David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:31 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: family heirloom >A good friend has an original 1851 "Philadelphia First Model" handgun in >.36 calibre, 6 shots, 102 mm barrel. It had NEVER been registered. He did >try recently to register it but was told by letter that he must dispose of >it in the usual manner (ie, deactivating it, changing the barrel length, >or turn it in for disposal, etc.) They are refusing to register it now. Why register it? It is defined, in law, as an "antique firearm" that does not need to be registered, and is not a "firearm" for any part of the Firearms Act control system. To understand its status, read the CC s. 84(1) "antique firearm" definition, and then CC s. 84(3). It is a "prohibited firearm" -- but it is EXEMPT from any requirement to register it, under CC s. 84(3)(a). The amnesty covering "prohibited firearm" .25, .32 and under 105mm-barrel handguns is being extended until 31 Dec 98. Incidentally, while enjoying the next year of amnesty, the owner can legally take it out in the field and shoot gophers with it. It does not HAVE to make sense. It is GOVERNMENT POLICY. RED WARNING: If you intend to use an "antique firearm" handgun for field use, learn EVERYTHING about how the law covers and uncovers it FIRST. This is a COMPLICATED area. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:25 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: bringing assertiveness to the bureaucracy On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > re Allan Harpers on dealing with CFC. I noticed that very quickly it > went from he HAD to sign the form to it was suggested that he sign the > form. this is on of the problems with the CFC. the staff is no > adequately trained but are represented as being experts. > In addition to the casual incompetence that the Feds bring to the table, they are also used to getting their own way without question. Notice that, Wendy-like, they quickly modify their story when confronted by any kind of resistance. This of course, is a new concept for bureaucrats in this country. They traditionally have just waited for the taxpayer to gulp, readjust his attitude then proceed as before. I think it is a good idea to be informed, courteous and demanding of rights when dealing with these people. Assertive is the word...remember they are just children of the mommy state. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:20 -0600 From: rbaker Subject: The power I have been a collector,hand-loader, and shooter of almost everything since 1946, and I have always been astonished at our political system in that the power lies withing the PM and his cabinet. (count the numbers) Of all the representatives we have only a few have the power to do anything. This is not Democracy. The back-benchers for the most have to sit there and watch as the few make policy. This Is why so often injustice is prevelant in our system. I thought that the system was for the majority, not the few. I watch and see that we cannot afford another Prime Minister from Qubec. ( Iam of Quebec extraction ) on my fathers side and have not axe to grind with the QC. But I see what I see. Until we change this we haven't a chance to get justice in this wonderful land. I recall when the only registartion was for Hand guns, and I wondered why...It did not stop the killing by a few, and the registration for all fire-arms will not change that fact. More people are killed every day by cars, and othet weapons than there is by fire-arms. I think that we should be suing to have the system changed, rather than fight the nieve people in power. If down the road the laws are proven bad, and you confront the politicans who invoked the legislation, the response would be "Well I'm only human"...I wonder. Frustrated and discusseted. Rae Baker Key West and Burlington,Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:32:30 -0600 From: "John E. Stevens" Subject: re: "customs silence" and other nonsense.... At 08:25 AM 11/16/1999 -0600, Peter Kearns wrote: > A subscriber wrote HIS interpretation of the rights of [snip] >FOR THE SUBSCRIBER CLAIMING EXPERTISE IN CUSTOMS LAW: Memorandum >D-19-13-2 which you categorically state is a CUSTOMS document, >was actually a part of the National Firearms Manual put out by >the RCMP. Memorandum D19-13-2 is a series of OPINIONS, (NOT >REGULATIONS) and cannot constitute LEGAL STANDARDS, as parliament >NEVER saw fit to give them the backing of law. When you quote >regulations, please be sure they are actually backed by force of >law! (Refer to National Firearms Manual, and you will see all of >the Memoranda.) I'm not the person who wrote the original. But I kinda recollect, in my aging memory, that the D memoranda have been around for a whole lot longer than the national firarms manual. I kinda think they may have been customs memoranda that were quoted in the nfm. Gawd why do we have to attack ourselves all the time. We say so many good things then in one swift line we make wendy's day. Yah. now I get bitten. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 07:31:50 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #197 >Re Libby's Unlicenced Firearm (Alex, BC). My understanding is that you can >import an unrestricted firearm to Canada from anywhere, go to Customs, >declare it, show your licence, pay the duty, and GST, of course, and take it >home. Libby would have until 2003 to register it. Right now it does not have >to be registered at all. Doesn't matter if she brings it in or gets it >mailed in. RED WARNING: This is dead wrong. You may NOT possess any firearm without both a licence covering that CLASS of firearm and a registration certificate covering that PARTICULAR firearm-- TODAY. CC s. 98 granted you both an invisible "deemed" licence and an invisible "deemed" registration certificate covering every firearm legally in your possession on 01 Dec 98, valid until 01 Jan 2001 (licence) or 01 Jan 2003 (registration certificate). That is why people can legally have "unregistered" firearms and be "unlicenced" -- they can because they AREN'T unregistered or unlicenced. They only SEEM to be. Those invisible "deemed" licences apparently do NOT cover you for any firearm acquired AFTER 01 Dec 98. CC s. 91(1) and 92(1) criminalize you if you are in that position. Simon says, "It doesn't HAVE to make sense. It's GOVERNMENT POLICY." David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #205 **********************************