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 #232 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 Friday, December 10 1999 Volume 03 : Number 232 In this issue: DeRegistering Antiques 14,000 deaths in ten years CFC Actions in Sask. CFC civilian employees claiming to be RCMP Idiots idiot Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #229 NEED SOME HELP HERE.....PLEASE FAC Re: FIP Garbage System! RE: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS Don't bother to protect yourself CFC and the RCMP Re: DeRegistering Antiques C-17 first reading disarming, then killing YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK IN 3 LANGUAGES CPAC Show ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:46:05 -0600 From: Barry Snow Subject: DeRegistering Antiques Subject: 14,000 deaths in ten years That particular number is in fact true. The 1,400 people shot to death is a reality in Canada BUT one has to consider that this number includes about 1000 suicides. We know that the suicide rate is completely independant of firearms ownership so the 1400 number is real but a bit misleading as a complete ban on all forms of firearm would not prevent those 1000 deaths. So consider that the feds are going to spend over a billion tax dollars to save 4000 lives in the next ten years. Gun owners must be very important to the federal govmint as they are willing to spend so much money to save us from ourselves. On the other hand they will only spend 40 million to try to save 30,000 breast cancer victims in the next decade. So the people who die from firearms are deemed to be something like 100,000 times more valuble to government than people who die from breast cancer. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:45:47 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: CFC Actions in Sask. Dan Lupichuk said: > At a recent gunshow in Sask. Area Firearms Officer Stephen Hayduk > and verifier Bill Williams returned to the hall after it was closed to > the public and all dealers and displayers had left and attempted to > gain entry identifying themselves as RCMP. They were not believed by > security personel and were not allowed in. and... > CFC employee based out of Yorkton caused a gunshow in a small > town to be cancelled when he gave false information to the organizers > who he told he was from the RCMP. > Another incident had CFC employee from Estevan calling to a dealer > and claiming to be an RCMP. Depending on what they were trying to gain by representing themselves to be members, this sounds remarkably like the criminal offence of personation, if my sleepy mind remembers correctly. If nothing else, it sounds like the type of situations where a formal criminal complaint should be laid before police - complete with supporting statements from the involved security personnel and anybody else who witnessed this. With copies to the provincial attorney general... and close scrutiny of the followup... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:46:00 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: CFC civilian employees claiming to be RCMP Isn't it a federal offence to impersonate a police officer? If anyone claims to be RCMP, ask to see a badge. If they cannot show you one get their name and as much info as possible and seek to have them arrested on a federal offence. How is it the CFC can justify "enforcing" the law by breaking another law? Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:45:52 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Idiots idiot On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: Bar crowd called idiots for tackling robber > > Regular customers at Stan's Place on Ruth Street are under fire from police > for disarming a robber carrying a sawed-off shotgun at closing time on > Sunday. > "They're not heroes, they're idiots," said Staff Sgt. Glenn Thomson... I don't think we need yet another politically ambitious meat puppet regurgitating the standard lieberal pacifist twaddle as logic to live by. To characterize citizens taking responsibility for public order as "idiots" is disgusting. As a representitive of an overfunded, often useless and unaccountable justice industry that endlessly recycles criminals like this back into our midst, he should be hanging his head in shame, not pontificating. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:45:53 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #229 On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: How FIP was supposed to work > > Operational Changes Under the Firearms Act > Firearms Interest Police (FIP) > An important role for police under the Firearms Act is to record incidents > in their local police incident reporting systems... The best source for tips on how to do FIP is available in Cuba, from Ottawa's fast friend Fidel Castro. I have often read about his comprehensive, wide-ranging and brutally efficient FIP-like snitch system. Despots always feel the need for such information, although it has no place in a democracy...is this why Little Lloyd Axworthy is such a close friend of Fidel?? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 07:46:02 -0600 From: "John & Val Frederick" Subject: NEED SOME HELP HERE.....PLEASE I NEED A BIT OF INFO AND THOUGHT THE DIGEST COULD SPREAD SOME LIGHT ON THE MATTER.I HAVE 24 HANDGUNS REGISTERED UNDER THE OLD GREEN CARD SYSTEM AND ONE(9MM-SEMIAUTO) THAT I FILLED OUT AN APPLICATION TO REGISTER FOR JUST BEFORE THE LAWS CHANGED AND HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A GREEN CARD FOR,BUT THE LOCAL RCMP GAVE ME A TRANSPORT PERMIT WHEN I BOUGHT IT TO TAKE IT HOME AND SAID THE GREEN CARD WOULD SHOW UP IN THE MAIL.....IT NEVER DID!!!DID IT GET LOST IN THE COMPUTER CHANGEOVER!! THE THING IS THAT WE ARE MOVING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH AND I NEED TO TRANSPORT MY GUNS TO MY NEW HOME(LEGALLY)AND MY LOCAL RCMP SAYS THEY CAN NO LONGER GIVE ME A PERMIT FOR THAT(PERMIT TO CONVEY & CHANGE OF ADDRESS). I HAVE NOT BOUGHT OR TRANSFERED ANY GUNS UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS.MY FAC IS STILL VALID.BUT I HAVE NEVER RECIEVED AND MAIL REGARDING MY GUNS....DID THEY POSSIBLY LOSE THEM IN THE SYSTEM? WHAT STEPS DO I TAKE TO MAKE THIS MOVE AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE??ANY HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED JOHN FREDERICK FASTSTANG@ATTCANADA.NET ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:08 -0600 From: "ross" Subject: FAC My Fac expires in Mid 2000. Do I have to take the competency test. I have previously only had to show my hunting permit to be exempt under the FAC. Anything new under the new unjust law that is C-68 JR ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:12 -0600 From: Dave Harmer Subject: Re: FIP Garbage System! Hi All: Dave Harmer here from Victoria, the fip system is garbage i hate to say it because it is based on innuendo and allegations, not convictions or charges or fact for that matter; take it from someone who is dealing with this on a personal level. If it worked fairly then every single police officer out there who has had an allegation of violence or excessive force would not be able to own a gun. I can only imagine that there have been many such allegations. But those are probably not!! in the FIP file unless you are an ordinary citizen like myself, who just happens to be a working joe with no criminal record at all. For your information, your neighbor could put a complaint against you and you might never know until you apply for an fac or who knows what else, maybe a job with the government eh!!!! So they pull up this file from your neighbor from five years ago when your neighbor says that you threatened to punch him out; whether you did or not, because you were never charged or even spoken with by the police or your neighbor!!. But they have the file, wait and see how you feel trying to explain this when the CFO tells you that you have violent tendencies. Trust me, this is garbage and I am going through this right now, and I would not wish it on anybody, not even my worst enemy. Watch the digest for further info on this from me. As of March 2000, I will have been to court for the fourth time for my reference hearing on this so that I can again legally posses my firearms again for recreation and sport. Its a bloody nightmare, and oh well what's a couple more days off work without pay. The police officer and crown get paid and so does everyone else except me, I guess someone figures, just make it so much of a pain in the butt that people will just let go and forget, so what the hay!! When I am all said and done in court, there will be one long digest with all of the facts and figures and a large amount of slamming of the system that failed miserably; regardless of the outcome! I hope every one reads this and understands just what this means to your rights!!! Dave Harmer out. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:17 -0600 From: "Ron Hofman" Subject: RE: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS Jim, My letter from K.A. Duncan, CFO (Winnipeg) dated December 1, 1999, doesn't say that the ATTs were 'revoked'. He said, and I quote, "Your present ATT will no longer be valid after November 30, 1999. Enclosed is a replacement ATT for you." Now I have never had an ATT revoked. My question is, Can the CFO arbitrarily declare previously issued ATT(s) invalid simply because they want to change the conditions? When I phoned the CFO's office, I was told that "they wanted to make the ATTs uniform across Canada." I was also told that there were no firearms listed on the replacement ATT, but I can take any firearm registered to me to the range listed. It looks to me as if they are circumventing the TAN# / Registration # fiasco. Now they aren't putting ANY numbers at all in the box that is specifically headed, "Registration Certificate Number(s) of firearm(s) to be transported" This letter also states that only grandfathered individuals can transport their prohibited firearms. However, one of my firearms (prohibited) is listed on an ATT even though I am not grandfathered according to the CFR. Under what conditions can a person have their ATT 'revoked,' and what EXACTLY is the process? Ron NFA Field Officer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:22 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: Don't bother to protect yourself >PUBLICATION: The Saskatoon StarPhoenix >DATE: 1999.12.08 >SECTION: Local >PAGE: A7 >HEADLINE: Bar crowd called idiots for tackling robber > >Regular customers at Stan's Place on Ruth Street are under fire from police for disarming a robber carrying a sawed->off shotgun at closing time on Sunday. >"They're not heroes, they're idiots," said Staff Sgt. Glenn Thomson. "What they did was extremely dangerous. They >didn't know the gun was not loaded. It's especially stupid because he (the robber) walked in when it was open." This attitude from any police service is extremely distressing, especially when viewed in light of the recent 10 yr "anniversary" of the L'Ecole Polytechnique murders. If someone had tackled the murderer who committed those crimes, many of those 14 women might be alive today. Instead, people in that school waited for the police to protect them from a deranged madman as he roamed around shooting people. The only problem with those people waiting was that the police the people expected to protect them were waiting outside until the murderer decided to stop shooting. Those police did not enter the building for several minutes after he had killed himself. I suppose Staff Sgt. Thomas would have preferred if the patrons of Stan's Place had sat there meekly while the criminal scum who attempted to hold up the bar terrorized people with an illegally modified firearm, made off with the nights receipts, and possibly killed some of the patrons. Staff Sgt. Thomas and his fellow police officers were obviously not there to help out when these brave people took responsibility for the protection that the Saskatoon Police could not provide. Therefore, his moral authority to comment on their actions is extremely limited. Instead of telling these people they are wrong or mentally challenged for protecting themselves and the property of the bar owner, he should be hailing them as heroes. Jason Hayes B.Sc., Tech Graduate Studies Student, U of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) Personal : jthayes@home.com, hayes_jt@yahoo.com http://www.members.home.net/jthayes - - Environmental / Forestry Consulting - - PC Upgrades and Repairs - - Independent Shaklee Distributor Business : hayesholdings@home.com http://www.members.home.net/hayesholdings **************************************************************************** **** "The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless." -- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:27 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: CFC and the RCMP Dan Lupichuk Sask. Pres. NFA wrote; "NFA is getting contacts daily about the conduct of CFC employees, their continuing identifying themselves as RCMP..." Is this not illegal? I know section 130 of the CCC describes the offense of personating a peace officer. However, it does not refer specifically to personating an RCMP Personating peace officer 130. Every one who (a) falsely represents himself to be a peace officer or a public officer, or (b) not being a peace officer or public officer, uses a badge or article of uniform or equipment in a manner that is likely to cause persons to believe that he is a peace officer or a public officer, as the case may be, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., c. C-34, s. 119. CFC officials will probably be considered public officers (c.f. section 2 CCC - Definitions) but by purposefully acting outside of their legal capacity (i.e. claiming to be a peace officer when they are not - c.f. section 2 CCC) could be construed as committing Breach of Trust. Breach of trust by public officer 122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person. I am doing this very quickly here so hopefully other minds can to add to this or correct me (Calvin, Richard, DAT...???) Jason Hayes B.Sc., Tech Graduate Studies Student, U of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design (Environmental Science) Personal : jthayes@home.com, hayes_jt@yahoo.com http://www.members.home.net/jthayes - - Environmental / Forestry Consulting - - PC Upgrades and Repairs - - Independent Shaklee Distributor Business : hayesholdings@home.com http://www.members.home.net/hayesholdings ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:39 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: Re: DeRegistering Antiques >A friend of mine has 2 handguns, an 1851 Remington .32 rimfire 4 >barrell pepperbox and an 1849 Colt Pocket Revolver, .31 cal Cap & >Ball. They are both currently registered but I think they may qualify >as antiques. Yes, they are both antiques unless the Colt is a reproduction of the original made after 1898 -- and even then it MAY be an "antique firearm." The NFA is bringing the definition of "antique firearm" before a judge for clarification. >Can anyone confirm they are antiques and provide information as to >wether or not they can be deregistered? If so, how does one go about >that? He liked the idea of going gopher shooting that Dave T. suggested >without needing an ATT. It is not necessary to deregister anything. If they are "antique firearms," one can throw away the registration certificate and handle them in accordance with CC s. 84(3) -- no licences, registration certificates, ATTs, or any other paperwork required. As a matter of courtesy, the NFA recommends that one send a note to CFR, Box 8885, OTTAWA ON, K1B 3M8, telling them that the firearm is an "antique firearm" and that they should delete the redundant registration certificate from their files. The law cares NOTHING about a registration certificate, it cares only what the firearm IS. There is no law requiring deregistration. 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: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:43 -0600 From: Richard McFarlane Subject: C-17 first reading Below are extracts copied directly off the CFC website. GEE! I wonder what's up! BILL C-17 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act (technical amendments) The enactment amends the Firearms Act by expanding the class of prohibited handguns that are grandfathered and modifying the employee licensing requirements. Clause 16: Subsection 9(3.1) is new. Subsection 9(3) reads as follows: (3) A business other than a carrier is eligible to hold a licence only if every employee of the business who, in the course of duties of employment, handles or would handle firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices or prohibited ammunition is the holder of a licence authorizing the holder to acquire restricted firearms. Clause 17: Subsections 12(6.1) and (6.2) are new. Subsection 12(6) reads as follows: (6) A particular individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the particular individual to possess handguns that have a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length or that are designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge and for which on February 14, 1995 a registration certificate under the former Act had been issued to or applied for by that or another individual if the particular individual a) on February 14, 1995 i) held a registration certificate under the former Act for one or more of those handguns, or ii) had applied for a registration certificate that was subsequently issued under the former Act for one or more of those handguns; (b) on the commencement day held a registration certificate under the former Act for one or more of those handguns; and (c) beginning on the commencement day was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more of those handguns. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:47 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: disarming, then killing On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > Canada, others come to grips on small arms... > > Canada and 17 other countries came to an understanding on the ``tough > question'' of how to deal with small arms and light weapons... > Norway's State Secretary Janne Haaland Matlary estimated in the last decade > alone, three million people worldwide, mostly unarmed civilians, have been > killed by small arms... Most of these unarmed civilians were both unarmed by and killed by the same group behind this initiative...their own government. Arms, small or otherwise do not kill. Governments kill. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:52 -0600 From: "gary.baker" Subject: YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK IN 3 LANGUAGES Everyone should get all "3" Canadian Firearms@CFC 12/09/99 11:22 AM Dear Recipient: The Canadian Firearms Centre is responsible for delivering information relating to the Firearms Act to the Canadian public. INcanadian.firearms@justice.gc.ca . Canadian Firearms Centre NOTICE The Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) has produced a poster, approximately 48 cm x 70cm (19" x 28") in size, highlighting some of the key requirements for individuals under the Firearms Act If you would like a poster, please fill out the attached form and send it to the attention of the Communications Group, Department of Justice (CFC) by any of the following means: - - By fax to 1 800 411-0622, - - By surface mail 284 Wellington St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H8. - - By e-mail to canadian.firearms@justice.gc.ca _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I would like a poster Yes _____ No _____ Name: ________________________________________________________ Mailing Address: (Street Name & Number) _________________________________________ (City) ________________________________________________________ (Province) ______________________________ (Postal Code) __________ Phone: ______________ Fax: _______________ E-mail: __________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You can view this poster on our Web site at http://cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/owners&users/poster/Default.html . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:05:56 -0600 From: "Quigley, Jim" Subject: CPAC Show The other night I saw a debate on the firearms act on the CPAC network. The guests were Brian Ford and a Reform M.P. The callers were all against the legislation and the best argument that Ford could muster was that police need to know if there are guns in the house when they go to a domestic dispute. This is a pathetic response to justify the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars for a flawed system. My question is , what do police do differently if they know there is a firearm in the house? Do they get to shoot the homeowner and call it justifiable homicide?? I suspect it is so they can spend their time running around seeing if they can lay "unsafe storage " charges. That sure beats dealing with the actual dispute. Am I off base here in these assumptions?? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #232 **********************************