Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:51:59 -0600 Message-Id: <199911240051.SAA15289@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 #210 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 Tuesday, November 23 1999 Volume 03 : Number 210 In this issue: RCMP Membership Lists ATI results; Corporate e-mail facilities Re: prejudice Toronto Star Re: Kustoms Act Re: More CFC propaganda Fw: NEWS - Australia Firearms Safety Trng Report Personal Info request to annoy the feds Re: Police Ignoring Orders and Lawyers Spousal Abuse Ads Re: prejudice FW: On The Line CBC Looses ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:13 -0600 From: "NEAL GROFF" Subject: RCMP Membership Lists As of Dec 1 the following regulation will be in effect under the SHOOTING CLUBS AND SHOOTING RANGES REGULATIONS 14. (1) The operator of an approved shooting club shall keep records, = with respect to the following users of restricted firearms or prohibited = firearms, that include a.. with respect to a member or officer of the club (i) his or her name, address and phone number, (ii) his or her membership card number, and (iii) the number of his or her licence to possess firearms or, if one = does not exist, his or her date of birth; and (b) with respect to a guest of a member or officer of the club (i) the information required in subparagraph (a)(i), and=20 (ii) the number of his or her licence to possess firearms, if one = exists. It is my opinion that the Gun Club officer, that invites as a guest, any = group of persons, that are users of restricted firearms, MUST obtain and = record the name,address, phone number and FAC or PAL licence number of = each of those guests. This regulation applies to ALL guests and that includes RCMP officers, = Conservation Officers, Sheriffs and Military users ! Public Officers that arrange to rent the use of a gun clubs range, are = using the range as guests of that club. The club MUST keep records of = ALL users of restricted firearms. The Provincial Chief Firearms Officer may (and certainly will) tell = local Gun Clubs that he does not require a list of RCMP guests that use = the clubs range. Federal not Provincial, regulations DO require those = records. Clubs that do not keep those records are contravening the = Federal Regulations. As of Dec 1, Public Officers will have a choice.. Give gun clubs your = members names, address, phone numbers and FAC (if one exists) or use = thier own Range. No one is above the Law. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:32 -0600 From: Jhogue Subject: ATI results; Corporate e-mail facilities 1. ATI Results - -------------- I did send an access to information request. First off, the official form does not require you to state your birthdate. The RCMP sent me a reply asking for the birthdate. Then I got a set DOS screen prints for each registration certificate with my name on it. Period. I did specifically request the contents of the FIP file but there was no response on that. I did specifically mention file PPU035 but it does not seem to be the FIP. Or maybe posting unflattering comments to the cfd about Alibi Al's boondoggle does not rate an entry in the FIP. 2. Corporate e-mail facilities - ------------------------------ E-mail facilities are a corporate tool provided for job-related activities, not a perk to allow employees free access to the Internet for their personnal activities. Most corporation have policies controlling (ahem, banning) political activities carried out on corporate facilities. They paid for those and they own them. As soon as the company I worked for published it no-personnal-use policy, I immediately suscribed to a service provider which I pay for every month. Professionnals employed by large corporations should be able to afford it. It will sound harsh, but those who use corporate facilities to post on the cfd are asking for trouble and are easy targets for revenge-minded gun control ayatollahs. I am surprised they did not make a systematic attack earlier. Wear a "kick me" sign. Why do you think the head klown of the kukier klone kompany got her own private compuserve e-mail address when she had free Internet access at Ryerson ? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:21 -0600 From: John Titgemeyer Subject: Re: prejudice - ---I have to admit to being in that boat. I had always been interested in the hunting and shooting sports but had always put it off. I had come from a family that certainly would not have encouraged it, but they have always looked at me as the eccentric one. When I heard about the impending legislation, I decided it was about time to do something before I lost yet another right, and according to the American in me, that's what it is. In fact, all you have to do is look south of the border. Anytime a new restriction is proposed, a flury of buying activity and new members join firearms community. While much of it occurs because of grandfather clauses and such, there is also the protest side of it too. Thanks to this legislation, I enjoyed a wonderful grouse dinner with my wife a couple of weeks ago. JT An American Libertarian in Canada ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:36 -0600 From: MJ Subject: Toronto Star Here's my response to the gun control discussion in the Toronto Star at: http://www3.thestar.ca/cgi-bin/news.cgi?n1-13@^82235@.ee70001#post Our shooting club members are each covered by $5 Million liability insurance for any firearm related incident at a cost of $7.50 per member per year. Compare this with your vehicle insurance or health care insurance costs and you can clearly see that insurance companies don't see guns as especially dangerous. This is further supported by the fact that owning firearms does not increase the cost of homeowner or tenant insurance on your dwelling. In Canada approximately 70 people per year die from bullet wounds. Eighty five percent of those are self inflicted. About half of the other 10 incidents involve people with criminal records, engaged in criminal activity. This leaves approximately 5 average Canadians killed by gunshot per year. The $750 Million spent so far to set up and operate Canada's latest gun registration bureaucracy, would do little if anything to save those five Canadians. The average Canadian is way more likely to die from "medical misadventures" than from gunshot. Canada has spent our tax dollars on gun registration schemes since 1935; none of these bureaucratic exercises have done anything to reduce criminal use of firearms. Ninety five percent of the firearms used in crime are smuggled into the country by organized criminal activity. Yet you don't see the government spending Millions to stop smuggling. The tax dollars spent to register dad's duck gun or grandpa's gopher gun could be much better spent to stop the smuggling of firearms or better yet on medical research for things like cancer and heart disease which kill a lot more Canadians than guns. Mike in the Yukon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:58 -0600 From: "John E. Stevens" Subject: Re: Kustoms Act At 08:00 AM 11/20/1999 -0600, Linda wrote: >Peter: > >You (and others) may or may not know that Revenue Canada is now called >"Canada Customs and Revenue Agency". I *wonder* if this move was >specifically designed to get around some of those current rules and >regulations they have about "whom they can and cannot release information >to"??? > >Linda It's major benefit is to move it a step away from parliamentary accountability, impact on existing union/contracts, and eliminate competitive staffing practices. A bonus might be that it just may be harder for for Peter to sue the Minister;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:10 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: More CFC propaganda John Stamp wrote: > News item, title... Thousands Use Spousal Abuse Hotline To Stop Gun Purchases > (or words to that effect) > > Blurb starts off with a CFC spokesman someone Cormier (poison dwarf no.2?) > yapping about "thousands" of gun purchases or gun licence applications > being investigated because of phone calls by concerned spouses or partners > to the Spousal Abuse hotline. Peter Kearns wrote: That's a little strange, because some of us dealers regularly use the button for spousal abuse to jump to a real person and have them jump the registration queue for us! (The ones I talk to tell me they don't have anything to do, and welcome us wicked persons jumping queues!) As John said, "more propaganda" with "anything for a taxpayer dollar Wendy" going along for the ride, ( and job security.) regards, Peter Kearns Simon says: Seems like the "poison dwarf" and his pixies are using any strategy they can..... Does that demonstrate D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:16 -0600 From: ":-)" Subject: Fw: NEWS - Australia Firearms Safety Trng Report Although from Australia, this is well worth a look also. There is also a PDF version you can download and browse at your leisure. (LJ) > The report is available at > http://law.gov.au/publications/firesafety/safety1.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:26 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Personal Info request to annoy the feds OK this is a bit better. I have sent out about 3 dozen copies of the ATI Personal Info Request Packages. One poster told me there were a fair number of people who were concerned about their privacy. I am not a fed (ask Peter Kearns who can vouch for me although he may just add in a few comments at the same time. :) )and I am not keeping a list of any of the people to whom I send the package. I am a long time listie as well as a long time NFA member and I am actively working to undermine C68 in other ways which I will not go into on this list. So lets go people! Get those massages to me and I will get the ATI package out so we can flood the feds with busy work. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:40 -0600 From: Tom MacMillan Subject: Re: Police Ignoring Orders and Lawyers To the Digest in general. I must agree with Mr. Lowe that we should Not "tar & feather" all lawyers as being obsceanly greedy and worse. However... Many career politicians are trained lawyers and they, as a group, often seem to act as if they know what's best for the masses. Facts and/or the opinions of those being dictated to never enter their calculations. I very much resent this attitude. I also believ there is a jealousy factor in many people's minds concerning the percieved income of lawyers. Add the above to the way criminals like Carla Homoka seem to manipulate the law to their own ends seemingly at will, and I don't wonder that many of us dislike lawyers on general principal. And yes, if a member of my family were charged, I would exspect the lawyer defending them to do their very best "Rumple of the Baily" routine and use any and all means short of murder to defend them. Now, I promise to try not to bash lawyers any more as ingrained reflex, let us bash the Lying Liberals instead. After all, civil dis-obediance in the face of very Bad Law (C-68) may require the services of a good lawyer... ===== Tom & Pat MacMillan Model_43_Winchester@yahoo.com The above comments are my opinions and do not reflect the views of any organization. Please visit the National Firearm Association web pages at: http://www.nfa.ca/ Box 1, #9 Whidden Road Brookfield, NS, B0N 1C0 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:53 -0600 From: "The Gayders" Subject: Spousal Abuse Ads To: Superintendent Dana Ostrom Chief Provincial Firearms Officer Province of Ontario Dear Superintendent Ostrom: I am writing to you regarding a matter of great concern to our organization. A current television ad campaign by the Crime Stoppers organization involves the airing of material which we find deeply offensive to the law-abiding firearm owners of Ontario and Canada. The depiction of a gun wielding man blasting a target (a B-27 police target, no less) and subsequent commentary equating this action to spousal abuse is an insult to the integrity of honest, peaceful and law-abiding gun owners everywhere. This campaign is fear-mongering at its worst and we are deeply dismayed that the CPFO's office is not only supporting it but was, apparently, instrumental in the inclusion of the offensive material in the ads in question. We are alarmed that the agencies involved seem willing to demonize by association some 7 million legitimate Canadian gun owners in a manner they would never for a moment consider doing to a racial or religious group. If the same type of ad was run with an african, oriental or native Canadian as the central character the response of the public would be one of unrestrained outrage, and justifiably so. Why, then, are peaceful firearm owners not accorded the same level of respect and integrity? In addition, we are concerned by the fact that when an inquiry was made through your office regarding the actual frequency of the use of firearms in spousal abuse cases, a statistic was referred to which stated that of 18 000 annual investigations of incidents of this nature, 3 000 involved firearms. This statistic has left us quite baffled. Annually in Canada there are, on average, about 15 cases of spousal homicide with a firearm. If 3 000 domestic abuse cases in Ontario alone involved firearms, one should be reasonably correct in assuming that by extrapolating this figure to the population of the remainder of the country (about twice that of Ontario), some 9 000 cases annually of domestic assault involving firearms would be the result. Thus, about 1 case in 600 would result in a homicide. As tragic as that may be, it is an extremely low number given the potential lethality of firearms and fares poorly numerically against other methods of spousal homicide (knife, blunt object trauma, beatings, etc.) Also, since approximately 25% to 33% of Canadian homes (federal government statistics) have firearms present, and 3 000 of 18 000 incidents (17%) supposedly involved firearms, this would mean that between 50% and 66% of all households with firearms would see those firearms involved in domestic abuse situations. The likelihood of such high percentages being accurate is miniscule. I wish, therefore, to request from you the source from which this data was obtained. I sincerely hope that it is not the result of creatively manipulated statistics such as those used recently by the RCMP in the Alberta Supreme Court challenge to Bill C-68. In that case, all firearms owned by an individual who committed an offence were counted in the criminal firearm totals whether they were actually involved in the commission of the crime or not. Such statistical foibles are purely and simply dishonest and beneath the dignity of law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, until this matter is resolved The Sporting Clubs of Niagara is withdrawing both its current funding and organizational support for Crime Stoppers. We are also advising our 3 400 members and all other pro-firearm organizations with which we correspond to do the same. Any organization which unjustifiably maligns some of its strongest supporters is not worthy of their patronage no matter how righteous the cause may be. Thank you for your time. We look forward to the receipt of the requested material and your response to our inquiry at your earliest possible convenience. Yours truly, Gerry Gamble President The Sporting Clubs of Niagara c.c. Hon. David Tsubouchi, Solicitor General Crime Stoppers Niagara ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:29:55 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Re: prejudice I am a PAL restricted/non-restricted instructor. I guess, off hand, that about 1/4 of the people who take my courses are ones who would not have if there were no Firearms Act and Bill C-68. I find this very interesting. Most of that 1/4 are women. Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:51:53 -0600 From: "Paul Meyer" Subject: FW: On The Line The following was received in response to my complaint about the "On the Line" program earlier this year. Readers of the Canadian Firearms Digest may be interested to learn that Clayton Ruby is considered a "moderate" anti-gunner by the CBC. To the extent that Mr. Ruby ( I think) still believes that the military and police should have firearms, I agree that he does not want to "get rid of all guns everywhere." However, it seems that the perception at CBC is that the two poles of the debate are: 1) Only the police and military and Indians may have firearms; all civilian firearms will be confiscated immediately without compensation. 2) The Practical Firearms Control System as proposed by the NFA. To the extent that these represent the "poles" then Mr. Ruby and/or Bill C-68 can be seen as somewhere in the middle. On the other hand, most gun owners, and I think most Canadians, think the "poles" are: 1) Any non-criminal can buy, sell and possess any weapon without restriction or license 2) Only the police and military may have firearms. Both of these poles represent extremes that virtually no one would accept. In that case, the middle ground could be the new C-68 registration system, the PFCS, or even the old FAC system. Each of them is located somewhere on the spectrum between the poles and the arguments should focus on the costs and how well they deter crime. To that extent, the PFCS is the best alternative. > -----Original Message----- > From: CBC Newsworld [mailto:newsworld@toronto.cbc.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 09:04 > To: Pmeyer@HASimons.com > Cc: ombudsman@toronto.cbc.ca > Subject: On The Line > > > November 23, 1999 > > > Dear Mr. Meyer: > > First let me apologize for the late response to your letter > of Friday, May > 07. I think because the audience confused a similar edition of "This > Morning" with "On the Line" it took a while for your letter > to come to me. > > That said however I want to assure you that Mr. Tomlinson's > appearance on > "This Morning" and his debate there with Michael Enright had > nothing to do > with the booking or phone call presentation on "On the Line". > I did not > hear that edition of "This Morning", but can assure you that vigorous > debate was the bread and butter of "On the Line's" editorial process. > > That said I have taken the opportunity to re-screen the On the Line > programme and to de-brief the show producer about his > selection of callers. > > The gun control debate is one we have conducted on On the > Line numerous > times, and one that we have approached from many angles. Mr. > Tomlinson, as > National President of the NFA has appeared as an in-studio > guest twice, and > has also gone on air as a phone-call in at least one of those > programmes > that I recall. > > This time we thought we would take our debate away from the > "lobby" group > debate between the NFA and the Coalition for Gun Control and > represent the > sides of the debate in a more moderate fashion. To that end > we invited > Clay Ruby to be a guest....his view on guns is rather more > moderate and > nuanced than the "get rid of all guns everywhere" point of > view. The gun > supporter we chose was John Robson, who is on the Editorial > Board of the > Ottawa Citizen and whose defence of guns statistically and > philosophically > was extremely vigorous. I think that edition of the programme was > completely balanced. > > I have spoken to the studio producer of On the Line that > evening and he has > said that he recalls being short one phone-answerer. On the > Line received > hundreds and hundreds of calls per evening and being down a > crew member had > serious impact on just the technology of the programme. He > insists that he > would never have cut off or hung up on Mr. Tomlinson on purpose. That > said, he might well have chosen not to put Mr. Tomlinson on air that > evening. On the Line was an access programme, a show that allowed > "regular" viewers a chance to speak. Often the decision was > made to air a > viewer over an expert or indeed even an elected official. We > tried to give > everyone a turn. > > I want to assure you that had the programme continued and had > it done the > gun debate again, Mr. Tomlinson might well have been a guest > of On the Line > again. > > Just for the record CBC Newsworld differs from the main CBC > Network in that > its revenue is solely derived from subscription and > advertising revenue. > Taxpayer funds are not used to provide the Newsworld service, > by condition > of license. > > Should you be dissatisfied with the explanations I have given you, you > should submit the matter for review by the Office of the > Ombudsman, which > is an independent unit reporting directly to the President > and the Board of > Directors of the CBC. If you wish to follow this course of > action, please > write to CBC's Ombudsman, David Bazay, at P.O. Box 500, Station "A", > Toronto, Ontario, M5W 1E6, informing him of the remaining points of > disagreement. > > Thank you for your letter, and again I apologize for the delay in this > response. > > Sincerely, > > > Tony Burman > Head, CBC Newsworld > P.O. Box 500, Station A > Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 18:51:44 -0600 From: Jim Dowdell Subject: CBC Looses [to the moderator- I have requested Alberta Report for permision to send this article to CFD and this response came: From: ar Subject: Re: Permission to Copy Article Dear Mr. Dowdell: You have our permission. Sincerely, Barrett Pashak The Report] The article below, scanned from this week's "The Report", is the result of CFD. When this debate was aired in March it stirred a hornet's nest of buzzing on the CFD. Everyone emailed or wrote the CBC in protest. And we won! (As Vriend would say- "Na, Na, Na" :>)) It sort of shows that CLOG just doesn't get it. There is a constituency that rejects the social engineering of the Elites and we will fight back when we are pushed past a certain point. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Report November 22, 1999 Enright's listeners shoot back The CBC host's disdain toward gun owners results in an investigation by MIKE MASTROMATTEO The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is taxpayer supported, which means its output is more often examined than watched. For many critics, the most pressing need at Mothercorp is to unload Michael Enright, host of CBC Radio's show This Morning since 1997. They say his condescending on-air tone and his ad hominem attacks on guests disqualify him from his present position. The last straw for some listeners came during an April 1999 debate on gun control that pitted David Tomlinson, president of the National Firearms Association, and Shafer Parker, a senior editor of Alberta Report magazine, against noted defence attorney and gun control advocate Clayton Ruby of Toronto. The debate was a response to the shooting of high school students in Littleton, Colorado, and Taber, Alta. Mr. Enright actively supported Mr. Ruby's position, unorthodox behaviour for a host, but something his opponents were warned would happen. "Enright announced at the outset that he was hostile to firearms owners," says Mr. Tomlinson. "He bought the anti-firearms positions entirely, apparently on the basis of no research." But it was not Mr. Enright's candor that disturbed listeners. Rather, the host's constant belittling of his opponent's views led to 40 complaints filed with CBC Ombudsman David Bazay, enough to provoke an investigation. Listeners felt that host Enright's declared bias had destroyed any possibility of fairness in the discussion. One wrote, "Having heard that broadcast, I know that the moderator's bias did not disappear once it was declared, but persisted to the detriment of the debate." Even before coming to This Morning, Mr. Enright's career was characterized by a penchant for offending Canadians. Months before he took over This Morning, Mr. Enright told the Globe and Mail that the Roman Catholic Church was the greatest "criminal organization" outside the Mafia. His comments provoked an outcry and editorialists called for CBC to find a replacement host. Mr. Enright eventually apologized, at least for causing offence though not for defaming the Catholic Church. But Thomas Langan, president of the Tnrnnto-based Catholic Civil Rights League, says the fallout from his "criminal" comments has never been addressed satisfactorily, "Such hatred should have automatically disqualified Mr. Enright," Mr. Langan says. "If Enright were a virulent anti-Semite, he never would have been hired." Mr. Enright's virulent attack on gun owners turned out to violate CBC policy. "On this occasion This Morning's host clearly did what CBC policy states program hosts should not do," Mr. Bazay wrote in a report released November 8. "He openly declared a personal bias on a major issue of public debate." Mr. Bazay went on to state that "public broadcasters... should exercise their mandate to inform Canadians by making sure that the public air waves resonate with the full and free exchange of opinion the opinions of the people the CBC is here to serve and not the personal views of the corporation's own programmers." Mr. Enright said in an interview last week he does not feel chastised by the ombudsman's conclusions, but he does not agree with them either. As a talk show host, he feels he should have more latitude to state and argue his own personal opinions. Still, the ombudsman's work may be having an effect. No one at CBC would speak to this magazine about Mr. Enright's future. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #210 **********************************