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 #233 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, December 11 1999 Volume 03 : Number 233 In this issue: Purchase of Ammunition after Jan 1 2001 Thank you. Young offender loophole McLellan quote from CFD V3 #277 Advice for Canadian Firearm Owners Handgun Purchase US Export ban interesting news article Gayder's "south-of-the-border views"? Re: Firearms Act - First Annual Report fwd: Sig markets "smart" handgun Re: CPAC Show Re: ATT and the monster it could become Emergencies Act Re: Purchase of Ammunition after Jan 1 2001 No Income while attending a Reference Hearing Moving restricted firearms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:06:00 -0600 From: "Allan Scott" Subject: Purchase of Ammunition after Jan 1 2001 I've been a regular reader of this list for some time, but have never contributed. I wish to correct what I believe to be some false information which has been repeated over and over again in the digest (if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll hear about it!). My reading of the Firearms Act is that after January 1, 2001 a person will need "a licence authorizing him or her to possess firearms" to purchase ammunition (section 25(a), Firearms Act). You DO NOT NEED a registration certificate for any firearm, nor will you be restricted to purchasing ammunition only for those calibres of firearms you own. Just a Possession and Acquisition Licence or a Possession Only Licence or a Minor Possession Licence. That's all folks. By all means keep up the attack on government boondoggles like C-68, but let's get it right! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:06:03 -0600 From: rbaker Subject: Thank you. To all those fellow Canadians, that answered my request regarding FAC and licenses I wish to offer my thanks and appreciation. My heart aches in reading the letters and comments, and the mis-guided legislation from Politicians who do not know what they are doing. I do think that we should make an effort at election time to only vote for those who have some natural intelligence. The problem is that the conservatives believe that Joe Clark is a leader, Once a bumbler, always a bumbler. As much a si don't like Mr. Prestin I would vote Reform. Rae Baker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:18:49 -0600 From: Brian Drader Subject: Young offender loophole Winnipeg has been hit with a large number of arsons in recent weeks. Many of these acts have been committed by very young repeat criminals who cannot be arrested or prosecuted under Canada's Young Offenders Act. One pair was caught and cautioned three times in two nights after starting at least three fires. The kids just sat there and watched as the police pulled up, because they knew that were too young to be arrested. So what happens when a very young kid decides to perform a school shooting? Simple - the Firearms Act doesn't apply because of their age. 50% of the school age population could commit a firearm-related crime and then just hang around and wait for the cops to arrive without suffering any criminal effects. Does "reprimand and release" seem appropriate for that type of crime? I sent the following letter to the Editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. It should be published shortly. School shootings are senseless and depraved acts of violence. They weaken our society and rob children of their innocence. Canada's new Firearms Act was sold to us as being able to create a "culture of safety" that might protect us from this horror - - but it has not. The hundreds of millions of dollars which have been wasted on the Firearms Act may as well have been poured down the toilet. I'm not only speaking of the paltry 181 firearms sales which were blocked during the Canadian Firearms Registry's first year of operation, or the roughly $300 million dollars which have been expended to date - though those are surely important considerations. No, I'm speaking of the very biggest loophole of the new Firearms Act. It's not a legal trick, it's not an exemption, and you won't hear it discussed much - but it's nothing less than a licence to kill, issued by our government. How else can you explain, in the wake of continuing school killings across the world, why our federal government continues to persist with its Young Offender's Act? The Firearms Act can throw a firearm owner in jail for not registering her dad's shotgun, but it can't do anything to protect us from the younger criminals. Schools are generally made up of 6 to 18 year old students - half of whom cannot be arrested or prosecuted for perpetrating a school shooting simply because OUR LAWS DO NOT ALLOW IT. What kind of dangerous injustice is this, that paperwork errors can land one person in jail while another can kill with impunity because of their age? If Anne McLellan really wanted to reduce gun violence, she'd scrap the ridiculous registry and make it illegal for misguided youngsters to literally get away with murder. Regards, Brian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:18:55 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: McLellan quote from CFD V3 #277 ``But it is a story to write about the fact that there have been some glitches in start-up and that it's cost a little more than Allan originally projected or that sometimes people don't get their registrations as quickly as they thought they would. That's the story,'' she said with a growl. One need look no further to know why Canadian governments have saddled the Canadian population with so much debt. Our "benevolent masters" in Ottawa see cost overruns of 100% - 600% as "a little more than...originally projected". Also, waiting for 8 months (to > 1yr) for a registration card we were told would take 15 -20 minutes to complete is brushed off as "not getting (them) as quickly as (we) thought (we) would". If any one of us ever made Ms. McLellan or her government stormtroopers wait even a tenth as long for a registration application, you can bet that would be "a story"; Valin would be pasted all over media sources whining about the "gun lobby" and their refusal to cooperate with his utopian dreams of a good society. Furthermore, if we made them wait as noted above, the media would be writing "stories" about us when our doors were knocked off their frames by the ERT team on another one of their "excellent training exercises" and we were dragged out of our homes in handcuffs. I believe Simon has successfully tweaked Ms. McLellan. Oh...does anyone else think that "growl" comes from all the sour grapes she's been eating lately? 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 08:19:00 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: Advice for Canadian Firearm Owners It has come to the NFA's attention that possibly not all firearm owners have a copy of Canada's Constitution; The Canadian Constitution 1981. It may also be an idea to get a copy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You may get these from your Member of Parliament. Jim Hinter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:19:03 -0600 From: Dennis Chattaway Subject: Handgun Purchase Recently I purchased a S&W 686. I was under the impression that I would be issued a TAN and could then obtain a 1-use only ATT to bring it home. Once I joined a handgun club I could then apply for a long-term ATT. I have spoken with a number of individuals from the police, handgun clubs and the CFC and they confirmed this. I just spoke with the Chief Firearms Office for Ontario and was informed that I must be a member of a handgun club. Until then, they will not process the TAN. Can anyone let me know if this is correct and what I must do to be able to get my firearm? Thanks Dennis Chattaway ...once the individual and his rights become subservient to the state's collectively imposed goals, society takes the first step down the slippery slope that leads towards the secret police, the Gestapo, the Gulag, and the concentration camp. - James P. Hogan (1990) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:26:05 -0600 From: Roderick McBeath Subject: US Export ban Just wondering if anybody could tell me about importing components from the US to Canada. Are we back in the good books yet and able to bring stuff over? thanks rod "the musket made the infantryman and the infantryman made the democrat" - - General J.F.C. Fuller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:26:06 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: interesting news article Check out: http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/sears.html For an interesting discussion about the accuracy of polling. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:29:12 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Gayder's "south-of-the-border views"? PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) DATE: 1999.12.10 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Voices PAGE: A13 BYLINE: Katy Porter SOURCE: Times Colonist DATELINE: VICTORIA Make fakes obvious John Gayder's Dec. 4 letter ``Toy regulations'' mocks the idea that the realistic-looking fake guns could pose a danger. I didn't see how he could argue that they were not a danger and the fact he was from Ontario sparked my interest, so a quick check on the Internet made his motives clear. It seems Gayder is a member of the Responsible Firearms Owners of Ontario, the Sporting Clubs of Niagara and a Niagara Parks and Recreation Constable. I suspect Gayder responds to any gun-control articles he reads or hears about, with his south-of-the-border gun views. As an activist he is probably not willing to consider that if someone is pointing a fake gun, most people, even police, must assume the gun is real and will react accordingly. It seems to me the only reason for the manufacture of realistic-looking fake guns is to use them in place of real guns. Do kids really need their toy guns to look that real? I wouldn't give a kid a toy gun to begin with, but for those who don't have a problem with it, what is wrong with making an obvious fake? I'm sure kids playing cops and robbers wouldn't care if their toys were obvious fakes or realistic fakes. But anyone finding themselves threatened by a fake gun would greatly appreciate some identifying feature so they could tell the difference at a glance, especially police who fear one day shooting a kid waving a fake gun (as has happened many times in the States). Katy Porter, Victoria. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:01 -0600 From: John Fowler Subject: Re: Firearms Act - First Annual Report >** Reply to note from "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:03:49 -0600 >> >> http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/general_public/news_releases/anniversary.html > >A most interesting document. To begin with, the purpose of the legislation is >stated; > >> "The goal of this program is to create a cult of safety regarding >> firearms in Canada and the program is doing just that. Canadians expect >> every step be taken to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not >> have them. That is what this program does," said Minister McLellan. "Our >> investment is starting to pay off," she added. > >She goes on to explain how well this is working; > >> Since last December, 9% (3 162) of all gun sales have resulted in cases >> where the new background checks required further investigation. Of these, >> approximately 7% (216 cases) resulted in refusals by public safety >> authorities to prevent the sale. > > >Read that last sentence again. When you have stopped laughing, consider that >these 216 cases are presumably the ones which justify the program. > >Now let's do the math; but first, we need to make some assumptions. First, >we shall make a wild leap of faith and assume that all of the 216 refusals >were legitimate, and none were reversed on appeal. After all, if they >weren't legitimate, these people aren't going to tell us. > >Then there's the matter of cost. Once again, let's accept (for purposes of >this exercise only), the oft-quoted figure of $133,000,000.00 as the cost of >operating the program. That, for those who don't have a calculator handy, >works out to a unit cost of $615,740.74 "to keep guns out of the hands of >people who should not have them." > >One can only hope tht when they've worked the kinks out of the system, >they'll be able to get the cost belw the half-million mark. > >In the meantime, that brings us to a proposal for a way in which the program >could be operated on a cost-recovery basis which would be truly fair. Anyone >proposing to purchase a firearm could simply be required to post a bond in >the amount of $615,740.74, wgich would be returned in full in the event that >they could not find a reason to prevent the sale. Or maybe if a public >safety authority refused to prevent the sale - I haven't worked that detail >out yet. > >The minister finishes up with; > >> "Firearms owners will not be unnecessarily burdened by the new legislation. >> The operation of stronger public safety measures in no way threatens >> law-abiding firearms users." > >I'm sure that las sentence is quite true. Of course, she didn't go on to >mention that under the Act, someone who transposes a couple of digits when >copying a serial number onto a registration form is no longer a "law-abiding >firearms user." I guess the public isn't really interested in that sort of >detail, so she didn't bore them with it. > >Gerald Griffith > >If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? > --Will Rogers > >cc: John Fowler > Brent Ainsworth > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:55:57 -0600 From: "Rod Regier" Subject: fwd: Sig markets "smart" handgun http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/tnw/today/ps/ps02th_1.htm FRIDAY, December 10, 1999 Taking Aim For more than a year, Colt, the nation's oldest gun maker, has been touting its so-called "smart gun" as the handgun of the future. But it seems the struggling company has been beaten to the draw. Sigarms, Inc., a Swiss-owned gun maker in New Hampshire, is now taking orders for the first-ever "personalized" gun, which will only fire when the owner punches a PIN number into a keypad under the barrel. The new model, available in stores next month, is supposed to prevent misuse by a child or thief, since neither could use the gun without the code. Available as a .357 or .40 caliber pistol, the personalized gun will cost approximately $900, or about $150 more than a regular model. One feature will enable the owner to set the gun to go inactive if it isn't fired within an hour of being turned on. "We think there is a market for it, but we don't know what the size is yet," says George Schneider, Sigarms' CEO. The personalized gun may have some impact on the rancorous negotiations over gun litigation, which the Clinton Administration, threatening its own lawsuit, is set to join in a few weeks. Lawyers for the 28 cities and counties suing the industry have demanded that gun makers be required to develop personalized guns, according to sources close to the negotiations, but the industry insists the technology isn't ready yet. The arrival of the Sigarms gun may dampen that argument, but it still doesn't go as far as Colt's "smart gun," which was expected to hit the stores next year. That project now appears stalled, as the company desperately tries to right itself. Steven Sliwa, Colt's former CEO, left the company last summer to pursue funding for "iColt," a high-tech start-up that was supposed to perfect the smart gun. That gun would have only worked when the owner was wearing a wristband that sent a radio signal to the weapon. But without investors willing to bank on Colt's future, the spinoff company never got off the ground, and Sliwa says he left the project. Meanwhile, there were tears at Colt's West Hartford plant last week as more than 50 members of its senior staff were "furloughed;" about 300 workers have been laid off at the nation's oldest gun maker, and production has dramatically decreased. "They were scared to death of the lawsuits, and whatever they did backfired," says one furloughed manager. Score one for the lawyers. - Matt Bai - -- Rod Regier mailto:rsr@hfx.andara.com (902) 453-4733 Halifax, N.S., Canada Lat: 44.6415, Long: -63.6174 Opinions expressed are mine alone. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:13 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: Re: CPAC Show Its a red herring of an excuse. REAL police officer ALWAYS assume weapons are involved when called to a domestic dispute. If they don't they should get into another line of work. - -- Keith P. de Solla kdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:18 -0600 From: "T. Bryant" Subject: Re: ATT and the monster it could become As I read the submissions concerning the moves by various Provincial Firearms personnel to limit the ATT's of law abiding gun owners a horrible thought comes to me. The idea of an Authorization to Transport Permit could be applied to ANY registered gun. Remember how crazy it sounded when radical anti gunners were suggesting that our firearms should be locked in central armories and that we would have to check them in and out? Well lets take the ATT one step further. Its eight years from now and a miracle has occurred. Somehow all the guns got registered. But now the Provincial Firearms Officer has established guidelines that force gun owners to apply for ATT's whenever they take ANY firearm from their residence. Going hunting - no problem just phone in and get an ATT to take your registered hunting rifle from your place of residence to your hunting area. You must have the ATT number with you at all times and woe to any who stay out longer than the ATT specifies or who hunt in another area. Planning on target shooting? Expect to tell them where you will be going - for how long and exactly which guns you will be taking. It will be suggested; it might be tried. It will fail but who cares because it will be another great way to torment gun owners to the point that they stop owning guns. Be afraid - be very afraid! Lets stop this madness before it gets going. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:11 -0600 From: ":-)" Subject: Emergencies Act The following is the internet address for the Emergencies Act: http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/FTP/EN/Laws/Chap/E/E-4.5.txt ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:22 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (Michelle Traver) Subject: Re: Purchase of Ammunition after Jan 1 2001 >I've been a regular reader of this list for some time, but have never >contributed. I wish to correct what I believe to be some false >information which has been repeated over and over again in the digest >(if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll hear about it!). My reading of the >Firearms Act is that after January 1, 2001 a person will need "a licence >authorizing him or her to possess firearms" to purchase ammunition >(section 25(a), Firearms Act). You DO NOT NEED a registration >certificate for any firearm, nor will you be restricted to purchasing >ammunition only for those calibres of firearms you own. Just a >Possession and Acquisition Licence or a Possession Only Licence or a >Minor Possession Licence. That's all folks. By all means keep up the >attack on government boondoggles like C-68, but let's get it right! You are correct, it isn't until after January 1, 2003 that one MAY BE barred from purchasing ammunition of a caliber or gauge that they do not have registered within their computer system. This is the date, according to the government, that all firearms in Canada are manditory to be registered. Starting January 1, 2001 you will need a firearms licence (either a possession only licence, FAC or PAL) to possess your firearms or purchase ammunition, powders & primers. Privacy is a sacred thing, Michelle Traver (owner) SSAC NCBCS Pres. & Spokesperson HACS member, PPLC Assoc. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/9460/index.html or at: www.home.istar.ca/mac_sog/ 604-253-3311 fax 604-255-2202 1708 E. 1st Ave. Vancouver, BC V5N 1B1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:05 -0600 From: Kelly Weiss Subject: No Income while attending a Reference Hearing Dave: I read your comment in the following email about your having to miss work and as a consequence, losing pay, etc. Depending on the outcome of your reference hearing, could you not make a monetary "STATEMENT OF CLAIM" in a "SMALL CLAIMS COURT" setting (i.e., documenting your costs/losses)? I believe you are limited to claims totalling not more than $10,000.00. Also, you do not need a lawyer: You may represent yourself. Just a thought. Cheers, ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:56:26 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Moving restricted firearms I went through, or I should say my sister went through a similar situation a few years back. I was serving in the armed forces over in Europe when my family decided to move. I had ensured that my sister had a valid FAC so that I could leave the guns in her care legally. She went to the cop shop to get the permit to move the guns. The cops refused saying they could only give such a permit to the registered owner of the firearms. The fact that said owner was living 8000 miles away didn't seem to wash. Finally my sister had to go down to the cop shop the day before they moved and let them know they could either issue her the permit or she would leave the guns in the house for the new home owners. Only then did she get the permit. I would suggest you use the same argument. Either they give you the DAMN permit or you leave the guns for the next occupants who are probably NOT licenced to have them. DO NOT ALLOW THE POLICE TO TAKE YOUR GUNS INTO CUSTODY TO LOOK AFTER THEM FOR YOU!!!!! Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #233 **********************************