Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:15:57 -0600 Message-Id: <199912061415.IAA04949@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 #225 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 Monday, December 6 1999 Volume 03 : Number 225 In this issue: .365" bullets RE: Department of Justice Performance Report Re: rebarreling .32 cal handguns" Coming on the media Re: "poison dwarf's" words come back to haunt him......... Confiscation, Live and well in California, USA Re: rebarreling .32 cal handguns TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO FIREARMS ACT A Thought for the day RE: C-68 Range Regulations Re: BB Guns = Raffle Prizes "Toy gun brings out police in full-force" Re: Credit Cards Thanks for you e-mail, but Re: Kendal---Bromley "Sculpture" Toronto police launch firearms amnesty..... He resents the administrative bureaucracy Why gun control is not the right answer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:48 -0600 From: "jan bell" Subject: .365" bullets Ryan Harriman asked about these on 26 Nov./99, describing them as round-nosed, full-metal-jacketed, probably of pistol size. The diameter is very close to that of bullets for the German 9.3x62mm and other 9.3mm cartridges (.366" is the exact Imperial equivalent). Do you have any heavy expanding bullets in this calibre? A friend of mine has several rifles in such calibres and is always on the lookout for bullets. (The little ones you describe would be useful in squib loads for grouse and rabbits, of course.) Thanks, Murray jmbell@istar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:55 -0600 From: "Fred Davis" Subject: RE: Department of Justice Performance Report Thanks to Garrys assistant. The report actually starts on page 18 which is frame 27 of the pdf file. A good read for anyone who believes in the tooth fairy. Bunch of BS in a feeble attempt to justify the millions wasted on C68. Fred ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:31 -0600 From: Rudy Hintz Subject: Re: rebarreling .32 cal handguns" A friend of mine made a new barrel for his 25 cal Colt Vest Pocket pistol. He used a 22 cal barrel blank. The chamber was cut for the new cartridge he adapted. He necked down the 25 cal case to hold a 22 Hornet bullet. The latest Firearms Ref Table lists his gun as restricted, chambered for 22-25 wildcat. No longer classed as a prohibited handgun. The new barrel length I think is 108mm. The barrel sticks out the front of the slide by just over 2 inches. Works ok. I am planning a barrel conversion for my Colt 25 cal also. It still makes for a small gun with a "legal" length barrel. If in future ammunition is restricted to the calibers you own, and the wildcat cartridge is made from a prohibited caliber you are not grandfathered for, could you still purchase the ammo? A future question. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:16 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: Coming on the media NFA Administrator Ray Laycock will be on the CTV News on Sunday Evening 05 December 1999 at 11:00 PM (Local Time). Linda Thom will be on CBC Newsworld at 1:30 PM (EST) on Monday 06 December 1999. Jim.... "dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry." Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:22 -0600 From: "Peter Kearns" Subject: Re: "poison dwarf's" words come back to haunt him......... > "The Canadian Firearms Centre says about 700,000 gun owners have stopped > using their shotguns and rifles, said Jean Valin, the centre's public > affairs director. " Peter Kearns wrote: Oh really? I wonder if the "poison dwarf" got his information from one of those fake government surveys???? > ``We think those people will sell or get rid of them and therefore not > become owners in the system,'' Valin said. Peter Kearns wrote: sadly the pd is right. The only problem for him and his boss is that guns are being disposed of on the black market and so they are now completely untraceable. Well waddya expect for a billion dollars? > However, he conceded the challenge of coping with the remaining unlicensed > owners is enormous, given the slow pace of the first year. ``But it's > certainly doable, provided we get people sending us applications regularly > as opposed to all waiting until next December.'' Peter Kearns wrote: Demonstrated on their performance so far, those who do register, AN ESTIMATED SIX PERCENT OF ALL FIREARMS OWNERS, the Registry will sink under the weight of those applications, (all dated 31st dec........) They sold a gullible Canadian public the Act based on four "pillars.' 1. "The police will be safer because they will know if firearms are present at a location when responding to an emergency call." (Anne McLellan.) Well ummmmmm, in maybe at the most 6% of the time they will know. Would you risk your life on those odds? 2. "this Act will reduce armed crime and the illegal transfer of firearms." (Anne McLellan.) Well ummmm... Why is the pd saying that people who don't want to register will "sell or get rid of them?" He lready acknowledged that the "black market" is expanding, so the registry is having the opposite effect. 3. "This Act will make women safer, and reduce family violence." (Anne McLellan.) Oh really!! Perhaps the feds can invent some new "statistics" to "prove" that this is happening. THIS NEW ACT HAS NOT SAVED ONE WOMAN FROM BEING BEATEN OR KILLED, AND DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT FAMILY VIOLENCE. As usual it is liberals making a "symbolic gesture" and wasting our money to do it. 4. "Criminals will be prosecuted in the courts and punished." (Anne McLellan.) A really simple question.......... Minister please provide ONE documented and provable example of the Act prosecuting and punishing a criminal TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT ALLOWED in court. Lady you are lying! THE FIREARMS ACT IS SELF DESTRUCTING AND IS ONLY HELD TOGETHER WITH STRING AND THE SPITTLE AND FOAM COMING FROM THE SIDE OF ANNIE'S MOUTH ! Peter Kearns Simon says: Must be time to manufacture another Ottawa poll telling us EVERYBODY JUST LOVES THE FIREARMS ACT.............. Care to fake another pd or Annie? > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:00 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: Confiscation, Live and well in California, USA http://www.sksbuyback.org/ This is the web site for the California SKS Confiscation program... Jim Hinter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:41 -0600 From: dcmiller@mail.island.net (doug & karen miller) Subject: Re: rebarreling .32 cal handguns Al Harper wrote >cartridge, but more than one cartridge frequently fits the gun and with no >barrel, the only calibre designation would be from the ammo. I think that you partially miss the point I was trying to make; the chamber designation (caliber designation) is based on the length of the factory loaded round. If the cylinder is too short to permit this factory loaded cartridge to rotate into firing position, it ceases to be chambered for that caliber. At this point the headstamp is no longer a problem since it is no longer being used in a factory configuration. The barrel does not have to be removed if it is over 115 mm because in the case of .32 cal. the bore and groove diameters are actually for a .30 cal gun. Conceivably the cylinder could be considered the barrel were you to remove the barrel and should fire from the cylinder only. ***What you do have to be carefull about is that the gun cannot still be chambered with a shorter commercial .32 caliber bullet in which case it would become the shorter (prohibited) caliber. In the case of semi-autos, if they were rebarreled or the chamber bushed to prevent chambering a factory shell, they cease to be that caliber. In this case however since most headspace on the length of the shell, the trick would be to chamber for a shorter version of the shell and use handloads. My suggestions at least as to loading are easy for any handloader to accomplish and in terms of the revolver modification are easy for anyone with a metal lathe to accomplish. >Does anyone have the statement that Doug mentioned? I'd like to see the >original statement from whoever said it in the CFC. The statement was made to me personally by one of the two CFC lawyers, I have forgotten which about 1 year ago. I believe that I still have it on file in writing but would have to do a bit of digging to find it. Cheers Doug ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:09:39 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO FIREARMS ACT Highlights of the Omnibus Bill http://canada.justice.gc.ca/news/communiques/1999/doc_24312.html TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO FIREARMS ACT The proposed amendments to address the concerns of firearms dealers are supported by the Minister's User Groups on Firearms: * 'grandfather' firearms dealer inventories, held as of February 14, 1995, that were recently classified as prohibited; and * clarify the licensing requirements for employees working in firearms businesses who handle restricted and non-restricted guns. The first proposed amendment, and coming changes to the licensing regulations that will support it, would allow the dealer to retain these firearms and sell them to any individual 'grandfathered' to own them. A 'grandfathered' individual is anyone who, on February 14, 1995, lawfully owned such firearms. An amnesty for individuals in possession of these prohibited firearms was recently extended to January 1, 2001. The recently prohibited firearms include .25 and .32 calibre handguns as well as handguns with a barrel shorter than 105 mm. As the law stands now, firearms dealers with such handguns in their inventories must sell or give them to a business licensed to possess them (including museums), deactivate them, replace the barrels with longer ones, export them, or turn them over to police by January 1, 2001. They may not sell them to individuals. The second proposed amendment will continue to provide for the screening out of potential employees who may pose a risk to public safety and will ensure that all employees have appropriate firearms training. The proposed amendment will specify that employees of businesses that deal in non-restricted firearms (e.g., rifles and shotguns), require safety training for that type of gun, while employees of businesses that handle restricted or prohibited firearms (e.g., handguns) require safety training specific to restricted firearms. Department of Justice Canada December 1, 1999 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:33:18 -0600 From: Bruce Merkley Subject: A Thought for the day Hello Folks, Today in the sporting goods store where I work, I was talking to a customer who asked if I knew how to spot a Canadian Gun owner. When I said no, he informed me that all you have to do is look for the people oiling their lawns. Hmmm...what was the name of that grass that can withstand petrochemicals? Bruce ======================================================== The Web may be the single greatest check on government excess since the Colt revolver. Which explains, of course, why the government is still frantically trying to find some way to regulate and censor it. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:33:16 -0600 From: Ian Parkinson Subject: RE: C-68 Range Regulations In Major laycocks article in the latest Gunrunner, he mentioned that the range operation rules in C 68 supposed to come into effect this month had been delayed until 2003. I can find nothing else about this. can anyone help?? Ian Parkinson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:33:27 -0600 From: "Carlo Robazza" Subject: Re: BB Guns = Raffle Prizes > Hockey season is again going full-bore. Parents and businesses are usually > asked if they can contribute prizes for fund-raising at hockey tournaments. > My donation of choice is a BB gun. They cost about $35. We have to > promote our culture and heritage - this is a small way to do it. Just make sure you include some NFA literature like safety pamphlets, membership applications, patches program info, etc. It can't hurt and they'll feel better knowing there is safety info in the package. Carlo. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:33:22 -0600 From: "Robert Pogson" Subject: "Toy gun brings out police in full-force" "Ron Hofman" wrote: ... - - ----------------------------- Your comments can be sent directly to the Mr. Jack Ewatski, Chief of Police, Winnipeg Police Service. jewatski@city.winnipeg.mb.ca - ------- Don't forget letters@freepress.mb.ca . I hope the folks terrorized by police get a good lawyer and get the Law Enforcement Review Agency on the case. This is another case of police inventing reasons to use their emergency response units. DAT has written on this before. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:18 -0600 From: cougr41@telusplanet.net Subject: Re: Credit Cards In fact, I have made several "refuse to pay" calls to VISA. What happens is you call VISA on the toll free line and tell them you do not remember making this purchase, or perhaps there was a mix up in card numbers (it still happens in non-electronic environments), or perhaps you were double charged. VISA then goes to the merchant and requests a copy of the receipt that the merchant "is supposed to keep". If the merchant cannot produce this copy, you do not have to pay. It is interesting to note, this takes time and money - lots of both - fortunately, the only expense to the consumer is a free phone call. You could still end up paying the bill, BUT - the merchant has to look up the receipt first! As for my requests to VISA in the past, I have always received the photocopy of the merchant slip and a light has gone on - "Oh, yeah, I did buy that!" (I am getting old) So, ask VISA to have the folks in the east look up those transactions, it's simply another way to ensure accuracy in the process - even if it does cost them money - after all, some firearms owners ARE being double charged! The feds do not seem to be in a hurry to correct these errors. I wonder what it would be like if we owed them some money? We must demand fairness and accuracy from the feds. They would demand nothing less from us. Bruce Beswick Fairview, Alberta ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:18 -0600 From: "John Perocchio" Subject: Thanks for you e-mail, but Scott Parsons Vice President, Ottawa Market Manager General Manager, CHEZ-FM Dear Mr. Parsons, My thanks to you for transmitting my complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council & Crime Stoppers. Both these groups are already well aware of our numerous complaints. At this point it would appear that most of these groups are either in denial , "beat around the bush" mode , or "lets write these guys pointless letters till they go away" mode. There's not much else I can say about the offensive spousal abuse ad that hasn't already been covered in previous correspondence. You will note however that it's continued airing will doubtless irritate the countless listeners from the Recreational Firearms Community that traditionally allowed your station into their home. It remains a mystery to me how professional advertisers could produce such a discriminatory product and in the process loose the primary focus on the evils of spousal abuse. It further bothers me that Crime Stoppers would accept this flawed ad on the basis of mis-information from the firearms control groups. Hopefully your station and it's advertisers will not loose listeners from the insensitivity of those who produced this misbegotten ad. The Recreational Firearms Community is no longer patient with this type of negative advertising; hopefully this fact will not be lost on you if more should ever come your way in the future. Sincerely, John Perocchio ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:26 -0600 From: "Peter Kearns" Subject: Re: Kendal---Bromley "Sculpture" Regarding the anti firearms piece of crap masquerading as a a work of art........ The people responsible were given more than $250,000 as a grant by the feds, and about as much from various provincial funds. (Ontario and B.C. according to my informant.) The Canadian military supplied loads of perfectly serviceable C1's and various other firearms and the rest came from police and confiscated firearms seized by kustoms. As an expert in deactivated firearms I asked to be allowed to view the work in progress. The feds also gave them a very secure workshop and warehouse right next to the Edmonton Municipal airport, (free.) The answer was (sort of) OK....... I keep calling the number they gave me and the machine takes the messages, but NO return calls. The firearms. (I saw pictures) aren't properly deactivated. On some of them a slice was taken from one side of the receiver, and they were "deemed" deactivated by a retired provincial firearms officer. The exhibit goes on display in Edmonchuk in January.... Guess who will be in line to have a really good look? If I see guns not properly deactivated according to the "guidelines" I will lay an information and demand the exhibit be seized and the artists criminally prosecuted for possession of prohibited firearms, unsafe storage, storage in violation etc.. etc.. THAT MAY BE A LITTLE EMBARRASSING FOR OTTAWA, BUT THE REGULATIONS MUST BE OBEYED BY EVERYONE, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO SPENT $500, 000 OF OUR TAX DOLLARS........ Peter Kearns Simon says: I hope we aren't going to upset people.... again....... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:26 -0600 From: "Peter Kearns" Subject: Toronto police launch firearms amnesty..... According to the Toronto Sun, police in that city have implimented a three month amnesty for illegal firearms. Strangely enough after the first week they haven't had any calls...... Aren't these the same people who sent officers door to door recently in their ghetto areas politely asking for any illegal drugs or firearms? It appears to me that the senior officers in Toronto's police force are either really naieve or really stupid. You may choose....... regards, Peter Kearns Simon says: I wonder who authorized the police to offer immunity from prosecution for firearms turned in under the amnesty? I always figured that the Justice Department would have to authorize that... (Right, pd?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:34:07 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: He resents the administrative bureaucracy House of Commons Debates Friday, December 3, 1999 UNEDITED COPY (Time posted: 13:14) Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, a South Shore constituent who volunteers for senior's literacy recently wrote to me concerning a police record check. He understands this process is meant to filter out unsuitable applicants, but he resents the administrative bureaucracy. After hand delivering his request to the local RCMP for a police record check, he realized he did not have his birth certificate. However, he did have a current Firearms Acquisition Certificate which has a scan photo and a birth date on it, but this card is not accepted by the RCMP to do a police check. Yet in order to obtain his FAC, he is required to submit his birth certificate so that a police and background check could be carried out. As a prerequisite to its issuance, logic would dictate in the circumstances described that the Firearms Acquisition Certificate is a verification of one's birth. Surely even the government could figure that out. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 08:15:28 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Why gun control is not the right answer PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 1999.12.04 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PNAME : Argument&Observation PAGE: A19 BYLINE: Claire Joly, with contributions by Karen Selick SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Photo Illustration by Robert Cross, the Ottawa Citizen Why gun control is not the right answer: Gun control laws won't disarm criminals, prevent rape or stop mass killings like the Montreal massacre. They will, however, leave crime victims less able to defend themselves. Besides the enormous pain that this tragedy left in the lives of those who lived through it, the main legacy of the Polytechnique massacre has been the strengthening of firearm controls. Ten years ago, on Dec. 6 in Montreal, horror stalked those inside Ecole Polytechnique. For at least 15 long minutes, they could count only on luck to save them from a madman armed with a semi-automatic rifle. When the police finally entered the building, Marc Lepine had committed suicide nine minutes earlier. He had killed 14 young women and wounded 13 other people. Paradoxically, just a few years years later, gun control legislation of 1991 and 1995 dramatically restricted ordinary Canadians' right of self-defence by effectively prohibiting the use of a firearm for protection of life. (Pepper spray for use against human aggressors has already been a ``prohibited weapon'' in Canada for more than 20 years.) One wonders whether calling on the state to tighten gun control was a wise response to the Polytechnique tragedy. Indeed, after a 10-year crusade, even Heidi Rathjen of the Coalition for Gun Control recently told a journalist that ``no studies have been done to link gun legislation to declining firearms-related deaths, but you can draw your own conclusions.'' The irrationality of gun control is admirably illustrated by former British police supervisor Colin Greenwood in his 1972 book, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales. Increasingly strict laws were adopted in Britain, without any serious research into their effectiveness. Often, this was simply a politically expedient response to some headline-grabbing incident, and failed to address the actual problem. Meanwhile, gun control was leading inexorably to the prohibition of firearm ownership by civilians, whether closet prohibitionists would admit it or not. Twenty-five years after his book was published, the retired Mr. Greenwood saw a new generation of British policemen seize his previously legal handgun collection from his own house, under the gun control law of 1997. Gun controllers aren't bothered by this confiscation of property. They claim firearm ``accessibility'' is the root of all evil. Yet, a number of studies, such as the comparative work of David Kopel and World Health Organization statistics, show that gun-control measures and the level of gun ownership are not determining factors in national homicide or suicide rates. Switzerland, Norway and Vermont are examples of peaceful societies in which low firearm homicide rates coexist with very unrestrictive firearm policies and high levels of gun ownership. Or just think of Canada 30 years ago. The vast majority of criminological and epidemiological studies suggest that gun control is not an effective means of preventing violent crime. On the contrary, gun control prevents self-defence by honest citizens more than it deters criminals or mass murderers. Indeed, the laws supported by gun prohibitionists hurt those citizens most likely to be victims of violent crime -- women and the elderly, for example - -- by leaving them still more defenceless against a possible attacker. Gun prohibitionists never admit that armed self-defence can really work. Yet, according to American data, victims of violent crime run less risk of being killed or wounded if they defend themselves with a gun than if they remain passive, resist with their bare hands, with a knife or a makeshift weapon. In fewer than one per cent of the cases was the attacker able to seize the victim's gun and use it against him or her. Police officers are armed precisely because guns are an effective means of protecting life and preventing violence. However, police can't always be there when a violent crime is in progress -- in fact, criminals plan it that way. Nor would it be desirable to grant police a monopoly over armed self-defence. Ordinary men and women are quite competent to exercise their right of self-defence in an emergency, provided they are not forbidden by law from doing so. And, fortunately, in 98 per cent of the cases in which a firearm was used against an attacker, the mere sight of the weapon had the desired deterrent effect and put an end to the confrontation. We do not claim that guns are a universal remedy. We don't argue for a society in which everyone would carry a revolver on his hip. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you have to buy a gun, or keep one in your house, or use it if you are attacked. We do believe, however, that using a firearm in self-defence is a morally justified measure of last recourse when the police cannot intervene quickly enough. Unlike the prohibitionists, who masquerade behind mythical statistics for which they seldom provide precise references, we do not seek to impose our values on everyone else. Let every person be free to make his or her own choices and assume the consequences. We, the authors, having considered the issue at length, would prefer to take the responsibility of protecting ourselves with the means we consider most suitable, if only the laws permitted us to do so. This idea is not bizarre, and is highly consistent with the western, and the Canadian, tradition. It is doubtful that the recent gun control laws will disarm real criminals. Nor will they prevent rape, stabbings, or even mass killings like the OC Transpo shooting rampage last April. What is certain is that gun controls will result in victims being less able to defend themselves against their aggressors. Last June 10, a man entered a women's ``shelter'' in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and coldly killed his estranged spouse. The social worker ``on duty'' remained a helpless witness to the drama: She did not have a weapon ready to protect her charges in such emergency situations. Current law prohibits it. As for the killer -- well, frankly, he didn't give a damn about the law. Claire Joly is a contributor to the Webzine Le Quebecois libre. Economics student Marie Latourelle, business administration student Maryse Martin and lawyer Karen Selick contributed to this article. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #225 **********************************