Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:20:17 -0600 Message-Id: <199912211520.JAA30364@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 #239 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, December 21 1999 Volume 03 : Number 239 In this issue: A response from Carolyn Parrish MP received Re: Teaching. CFC - Can you please clarify the law? Philip N. Gross, Digest #238 SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR SHOOTING CLUBS & RANGES No. 2 Pt.II Humane Society - Cowards & Killing Ground Customs Fun RE: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:44 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: A response from Carolyn Parrish MP received A few weeks ago, I posted a letter mailed to Ms. Carolyn Parrish MP Mississauga Centre). In this letter I expressed concern over the decision of the Liberal Caucus to not support an increase in funding for women's breast cancer research. I received a response from Ms. Parrish today. Her letter was quite positive on the next steps needed for the Liberal Party to support this motion. It seems that the opportunity for the grass roots of the Liberal party to raise this issue at the next Liberal Party of Canada is still available. This story is still developing. More details to follow. Jim Hinter NFA Calgary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:34 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: Re: Teaching. rbaker wrote: > > Please do not misunderstand my thoughts, I can not help wondering that > if we Band violent games, violent films , TV, and violent descriptions > in the media and anywhere, would we not prevent teaching people of any > age that violence , injury, and deathe are the thing to do. > I all the cases I see that these acts become the norm, and the thing to > do. As I grew up there was not the slightest idea that you should kill, > or hurt anyone. There is a problem with violent acts (terrorism, mass shootings, bombings) being 'glorified' in media which often encourages others to perform similarly cowardly acts. However, the human race has been its own worst enemy since the beginning of the species - long before there was TV, video games, or any inanimate objects to blame. - -keith ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:38 -0600 From: "Paul Meyer" Subject: CFC - Can you please clarify the law? I know it's always difficult to speculate on hypothetical cases, but could someone tell me if this is the law(s) that could apply in the following case? 1) At age 14, a young male named Bill G. breaks into my home, breaks into my locked safe and steals a legally registered Remington 700 hunting rifle along with a full box of .30-06 ammunition. 2) Bill then proceeds to his local high school, shoots several classmates, teachers and police officers, killing 20 people. He is arrested at the scene by eyewitness police officers when he runs out of ammunition. 2a) The crime occurs on the day before Xmas. People are shocked across the country and demand that the utmost be done to penalize those responsible. 3) Bill is charged and convicted of first degree murder under the Young Offenders Act 4) I am charged with unsafe storage of a firearm under the Firearms Act. Although my gun and ammunition were in a locked safe, it is argued that "a child could get into it" (i.e. a 14 -year old boy). In addition, the ammunition, although in a padlocked steel tool kit, was stored in the same safe as the rifle and was therefore not "stored separately." I am convicted. 5) Bill, being 15, is sentenced to the maximum penalty available, namely 3 years in secure custody. 6) I, at age 40, am sentenced to 5 years in a Federal Penitentiary. All of the guns registered in my name are confiscated and destroyed by the RCMP. 7) Bill fights the other boys in his facility, spits on guards, refuses counseling and makes no effort at rehabilitation. As a result he serves his full term of 3 years. 8) I behave, don't cause trouble and am granted full parole having served 2/3 of my sentence. It is now four years after the murders. Bill and I are out of jail and living back at our old homes. Bill is 18 and I am 44. 9) Bill takes the Federal firearms safety course and passes. He applies for a Possession and Acquisition license so that he can purchase firearms. Since he was convicted as a Young Offender, he does not have a criminal record and he is granted the PAL. Bill is now legally able to possess and acquire firearms. He goes to his local Canadian Tire store and legally purchases a Remington 700 rifle and a box of .30-06 ammunition. 10) I am forbidden from owning firearms for life. My wife remains loyal and welcomes me home. She is therefore unable to hunt, shoot or even possess firearms as long as she lives at the same address as me. All of the guns registered in her name are confiscated and destroyed. Can someone please tell me how this makes the streets safer? Paul Meyer, P.Eng ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:20 -0600 From: "Nick & Michelle" Subject: Philip N. Gross, Digest #238 This argument of cars being an economic necessity and guns being of little to no value is one of the favourite mantras of Wendy Cukier and others of the gun control circle. This is a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. Please understand that your "significant economic benefit" does not come for free; your lovely, shiny new automobile sitting in your driveway spews thousands of cubic metres of exhaust fumes into the atmosphere every year, and with the number of automobiles increasing exponentially since the early part of the century, this problem has become a major worldwide epidemic. As a result, most major cities throughout the world are experiencing alarmingly bad pollution indexes to the point where serious health problems are a concern. Did you ever see the city of Toronto on a hot day? Not too many people can anymore, and we are one of the cleaner cities. (The most polluted is Zang Shou, China; it's pollution level is so bad that just breathing the air is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day) In addition, your "significant economic benefit" also produces a myriad of other waste, such as oil, steering and brake fluids, antifreeze and rubber. (Ever wonder where all the rubber from your worn out tires ends up?) To top it all off, your "significant economic benefit" is belching so much crap every year that not only can it make you sick, but it is changing the very climate of our planet due to the greenhouse effect. Have you ever heard of a .44 Magnum doing that? (Not even with real heavy loads.) This is not to mention the millions of hectares of prime animal habitat that was torn up and paved so that you can take your "significant economic benefit" out for a spin. Come on, get real. If you are going to compare these two items, get it right or don't bother at all; no "significant economic benefit" is worth the price that we and our children will be forced to pay for our mismanagement of God's earth. And certainly, no gun has ever even come close to having such a detrimental effect on the human race as cars have and continue to be. In the meantime, put your money where your mouth is and ride a bike to work. Nick L. "What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your tongue." (Jewish Proverb) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:16 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR SHOOTING CLUBS & RANGES No. 2 Pt.II >Technical Guidelines for All Shooting Ranges >Range design and construction guidelines for all shooting ranges >for your province/territory are available from your CFO. To get a >copy, contact your CFO. NFA: The Act does NOT authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations dealing with the DESIGN of shooting ranges. Those "guidlelines" are just some bureaucrat's PERSONAL OPINION, and they do NOT have force of law. If they impose unreasonable expenses on your shooting range, TAKE THEM TO COURT. >Application Forms >- To apply for approval for your shooting club, fill out an >Application for Approval of a Shooting Club (JUS 741) and mail it >in to your CFO. NFA: IF your CFO has been "authorized in writing" to issue approvals, that is possible -- but the FA s. 29(1) prohibition against operating a shooting club WITHOUT the "approval of the provincial minister" is NOT YET IN FORCE. >- To apply for approval for your shooting range, fill out an >Application for Approval of a Shooting Range (JUS 841) and mail it >in to your CFO. NFA: IF your CFO has been "authorized in writing" to issue approvals, that is possible -- but the FA s. 29(1) prohibition against operating a shooting range WITHOUT the "approval of the provincial minister" is NOT YET IN FORCE. >- Both forms are available from your CFO. >Approval Requirements for Restricted/Prohibited Firearm Shooting >Clubs >There is no fee to get approval for your shooting club. When you >apply to your CFO for approval, you must provide: >- your name, address and phone number (plus fax and e-mail address >if available); >- the name, address and phone number of each member and officer of >the club, as well as their firearms licence number or date of >birth; >- evidence that the shooting club is a non-profit organization; >- evidence that the shooting club has permission to use at least >one approved shooting range; >- the name and address of each approved shooting range that the >shooting club uses for target practice or target shooting >competitions; >- evidence of at least $2 million of commercial general liability >insurance. NFA: The actual requirements are found on pages 118 to 120 of the March 1998 Regulations. Go by those rather than this mickeymouse shortened set, which is incomplete. >Approval Requirements for All Shooting Ranges >There is no fee to get approval to open or operate any shooting >range. When you apply to your CFO for approval, you must provide: >- your name, address and phone number (plus fax number and e-mail >address if available); >- the name, address, phone number and firearms licence number or >date of birth of each owner or operator, and of each employee who >will be handling firearms; >- the location of the range, including the road directions to it; >- the hours of operation of the range; >- a survey report or similar document showing the geographical >location and layout of the range, the area around the range, and >the land use of the surrounding area; >- the proposed safety rules; >- evidence of at least $2 million of commercial general liability >insurance; >- evidence that applicable zoning laws are being followed; >- evidence that operating licences required by federal, provincial >or municipal laws have been obtained and are being followed; >- evidence that environmental protection laws (that apply) are >being followed; >- evidence that the safety standards (that apply - see below) are >being followed. >Safety Standards and Other Obligations for All Shooting Ranges >If you operate a shooting range, you must make sure that: >- the design and operation of the range are such that projectiles >discharged from firearms will not leave the range (if they are >discharged in accordance with safety rules); NFA: Note that you are required to make sure "the discharge of firearms on the shooting range does not endanger the SAFETY of persons AT the shooting range OR in the portion of the surrounding area [described in the survey document] by...ensuring that (a) the design and operation of the shooting range (i) is such that projectiles discharged from firearms will not leave the shooting range IF THEY ARE DISCHARGED THERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFETY RULES." Do NOT trust handouts like this -- go DIRECTLY to the March 1998 Regulations [in this case, regulations 5 and 3(2)(a)] The regulations are LAW -- and the handouts are some bureaucrat's personal opinion as to what the law requires. It is very dangerous to base your actions on a bureaucrat's personal opinions -- so DO NOT DO IT. >- the design and operation of the range generally protect the >safety of those on the range, in particular, that the design of >the range is suitable for the shooting activities and firearms >allowed on the range; >- there is a system to warn individuals that they are entering a >shooting range and to alert them if the range is in use; >- the safety rules are suitable for the shooting activities and >firearms allowed on the range; >- the safety rules are posted in a noticeable place; and >- a range officer is assigned to supervise the firing line, if >more than one person is shooting. >More Information >For more information, or to order a copy of the Firearms Act, its >regulations and other CFC publications, contact us at: NFA: IF YOUR CLUB DOES NOT HAVE BOTH THE FIREARMS ACT AND THE MARCH 1998 REGULATIONS, IT IS BEING FOOLISH. TAKE THEM UP ON THIS OFFER!! >1 800 731-4000 (Toll Free) >Web site: www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca >e-mail: canadian.firearms@justice.gc.ca NFA: NOTE THIS WELL: >This bulletin is intended to provide general information only. >For legal references, please refer to the Firearms Act and its >regulations. Provincial, territorial, and municipal laws, >regulations and policies may also apply. 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: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:01 -0600 From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: Humane Society - Cowards & Killing Ground Re: the Humane Societies recent news line concerning hunting. In the last paragraph, Al Hickey or Michael O'Sullivan welcome comment on their recent story about hunting in Canada. Therefore, briefly, The Humane Society correctly noted that, many recreational hunters do not support the practice of hunting within enclosures. Emotional language and ad hominem attacks ignored, I cannot personally support this type of hunting either and will not take part in it. With regard to Mr. O'Sullivan and Mr. Hickey's unreasoned attempts to slander all other hunters as a group of "recreational wildlife killers" and as having "a bolt loose in their head." Introductory education in logic and critical thinking will show that when unwilling to release an irrational viewpoint and when wholly incapable of defending that viewpoint with reasoned arguments, an irrational person will often degrade themselves and their arguments by employing logical fallacies as a means of reinforcing that viewpoint. Ad hominem arguments are chief among the list of fallacies employed. If one can make the person look bad, then the things they do must also be bad, right? Wrong. Mr. Hickey and Mr. O'Sullivan would do well to educate themselves on the biology of many of the wildlife species in Canada and the efforts being made to ensure their continued survival before openly slandering all hunters as they have. If it were not for the efforts and licensing fees of hunters throughout Canada, our wildlife would be sorely pressed for habitat of all sorts (forage, concealment and thermal cover, breeding grounds, etc). Certainly many hunters do use "telescopic sights fitted onto a high-powered rifle(s)" with "bullet(s that) travel...over 1,200 feet per second" to hunt." However, they also use their Visa and Mastercard, with financial information traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second (or 186,000 miles/second for the old-school) to contribute to habitat enhancement projects that protect critical habitat and increase our knowledge of the needs of our wildlife. For example, fees on hunting licenses in Alberta go toward the continued support of the Alberta Conservation Association, which in turn supports the Challenge Grants In Biodiversity program. Many graduate and postgraduate studies aimed at understanding and conserving wildlife in Alberta are funded through this program. Some of these studies include; "Spatial Relationships and predator-prey dynamics of Wolves, Moose, and Caribou in NE AB" - Adam James, U of A PhD program, "Defenses of White-tailed deer against coyotes with Implications for the Habitats and Groups in Which They Live" - Susan Lingle, U of Cambridge PhD program, "Swinging the Scales of Fortune from Swift Forces to Swifter Foxes" - Axel Moehrenschlager, U of Oxford PhD program, and "Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) Response to Disturbance in Boreal Alberta - Brian Eaton U of A PhD program. These projects, and many more like them, would not be funded if it were not for the contributions of hunters in Alberta. Mr. Hickey and Mr. O'Sullivan may find the notion of hunting distasteful. However, one must realize that for humanity to survive, some organisms will die. We can recognize this fact and attempt to lessen the impacts of human activity, or we can self-righteously abuse and belittle a definable portion of the population for their realization of this fact and ignore the positive conservation work they are funding. In the hopes that Mr. Hickey and/or Mr. O'Sullivan might be willing to investigate further before they pen another letter, the web page for the Alberta Conservation Association is http://www.gov.ab.ca/env/fw/aca.html. This is just a starting point. Check out some other information sources like; Trout Unlimited Canada - http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/trout/env.html, The Alberta Fish and Game Association - http://www.afga.org/, Ducks Unlimited - http://www.ducks.org/ ... 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 **************************************************************************** **** You don't have to go through life snarling, but it's knowing you're willing to fight that keeps the other dogs out of your dish. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:30 -0600 From: "Tom Zinck" Subject: Customs Fun I had an interesting time at Canada Customs during my recent trip to and from the US. First of all when I entered the States (at a small rural crossing) the van ahead of me stopped at US Customs, waited 2-3 minutes and when an officer did not appear, simply drove on !!!! A few minutes later an officer came out, asked me where I was going, etc, and then wished me a good trip. I told him about the van running customs, and he simply shrugged his shoulders and went back inside. So much for a controlled border. Upon entering back into Canada (at a small-town crossing) the officer was quite nice and kind until he typed my licence plate in, then his expression changed and he sent me inside for a "random" search. The nice lady inside asked me to open my trunk and I said the magic words "am I being detained or arrested?". She was very surprised to hear this and said "no, not yet". I said that if that is the case, I am leaving, and I did. She did not object. I bet I was the first person to challenge them at this crossing. I wished her a Merry Christmas and continued on my drive. I am looking forward to getting the results of my ATI request that is being sent to customs. I wonder if the Customs Computer listed me as a "Dangerous gun nut" or a "Reform trouble maker". LOL. Oh yes, Merry Christmas to the Customs Officers reading this digest.... - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO, NRA, GOA http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck ICQ#:4027168 Frustrate a Liberal : Lease a gun today ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:25 -0600 From: "Ron Hofman" Subject: RE: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS Peter, Thanks for the information. I've been sitting on this wondering what to do. DAT even called me last night, and we had a bit of a chat. Contemplating.... It's late, and I just thought I should drop you a line. Been so busy, but that's no excuse :) TTYL Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca]On Behalf Of Peter Kearns > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 1999 9:57 AM > Subject: Re: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Hofman > To: > Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:05 AM > 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." > > > Peter Kearns wrote: > > Your CFO acted unlawfully and did so in the full knowledge that > he was illegally revoking your permits. He didn't process them > as required in FA sect 74, which requires that ANY revocation or > refusal be accompanied by a copy of the appeal process. (You may > file for a reference hearing before a provincial court judge > within 30 days of receiving the notice.) > > It doesn't cost you anything to file an "Appeal against illegal > revocation of permit by the CFO (Alberta, Manitoba or wherever.) > > Request the Court rule a new one MUST be issued reflecting the > EXACT conditions granted under the illegally revoked permit." > There will be a long delay while you wait for a hearing, and you > may represent yourself. The feds must use lawyers, and must (if > you demand it,) produce the CFO, and I suggest the RCMP > administrator who supervises the CFO's and (apparently) sets > policy. > > I recommend that you also request the Court rule that the CFO > has violated CRIMINAL CODE Sect 126 (1) (2) DISOBEYING A > STATUTE., and also Sect 337, PUBLIC SERVANT REFUSING TO DELIVER > PROPERTY. Filing those two items within the reference hearing > opens your CFO (and the RCMP superintendent) to the prospects of > up to 14 years in jail! THAT SHOULD GET THEIR ATTENTION! > > By requiring a reference hearing you will have caused the feds to > shell out around 5k for lawyers, plus the time for the CFO to > attend, and expenses and time for the RCMP superintent to attend. > All in all their illegal revocation will cost around $7,000,000 > for each one they sent which is appealed. If you are malicious, > then you needn't bother going to the hearing and let them > win....but at what cost? > Peter Kearns, > > Simon says: THE ONE GREAT THING THAT CAME FROM BILL C-68, WAS > THAT IT CAUSED NORMAL CANADIAN TAXPAYERS TO BECOME UPSET AND > ACTUALLY READ THE LAWS AND GET INVOLVED. WE NOW FIND THAT WE CAN > READ FA AND CC LAW AND USE THEM TO OUR BENEFIT! > > *****Federal monitors please note, counsellng average Canadians > to stand up for their rights is "anarchy" by your > definition......... > > ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #239 **********************************