Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:10:35 -0600 Message-Id: <199912222310.RAA19276@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 #242 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 Wednesday, December 22 1999 Volume 03 : Number 242 In this issue: Special Thank-yous big brother watches your surfing Safer streets FIP entries Re: Guns vs Cars Humane Society RE: SKS mag problem or not?? Re: Cowards and killing grounds Humane Society vs Human Society ATT Renewals Re: Humane Society - Cowards & Killing Ground CANADIAN SKELETONS Re: SKS mag problem or not?? nice sumation of gun control debate C-409: FIREARMS LAW SUNSET ACT lists down from Dec 24 to 27, inclusive Re: Mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:42 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: Special Thank-yous The National Firearms Association would like to recognise and thank all of the Members (and non-members) who have made contributions to the NFA legal defense funds. 1999 will set another record in terms of fund-raising for NFA efforts. Our supporters, donating their "after-tax" dollars are allowing the NFA to continue building. One special donor of many, many, is Alan Kerr of Milarm in Edmonton, Alberta. Alan makes a generous monthly donation to the NFA. It is with the efforts of Canadians, like Alan, that the NFA knows that we can and will win the effort to defend our rights to own, use and responsibly enjoy our personal property -- our firearms. The NFA would like to thank each and every person who is helping our efforts! As we near the Christmas season, we would also like to wish each and everyone (even Jean Valin) a safe, happy and joyous holiday season. Jim Hinter National Firearms Association ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:15 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: big brother watches your surfing Check out: http://www.anonymizer.com/3.0/index.shtml A link on the site will show you how much information you give away while surfing the web. - -- Keith P. de Solla kdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:27 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Safer streets It makes the streets safer for those who operate "outside the box" These are a designated special group [formerly called criminals, now called clients] that the government has taken a special interest in and has bestowed special priviledges upon. As all Canadians know, there are a number of such special rights groups designated by regulation in our society today. The old concept of equality before the law has been found wanting in Ottawa and this is the new order, for the new millenium. What about special rights and priviledges for those "inside the box?" [also known as taxpayers] Don't hold your breath... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:18 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: FIP entries Is anybody familiar with FIP entries? I have a couple of interesting ones on mine. They are as follows: Query Remarks: F13 No. 1 Score: 37 (Note the max possible score is 37 - PC) **Firearms Interest Person** OPT: 4 Interestingly enough the incident this FIP entry relates to happened about 3 years ago. I thought the FIP was a relatively new thing? Have the feds been keeping tabs on us for years without anyone's knowledge? I also note that the FIP entry has an expiry date which is 5 years after the incident. Most interestingly the following sentence occurs on my FIP entry: **THIS PERSON MAY BE OF INTEREST TO FIREARMS OFFICERS** I was under the impression that the FIP was of more use to ordinary police officers. Why have I been singled out as being of interest to Firearms Officers? Even more interesting is that I have purchased and registered a handgun since the incident. So obviously no-one felt that the FIP entry was important enough to deny such a transaction. This will be important if in the future I am ever denied a firearms purchase on the basis of my FIP file. I will be sure to have my day in court and require that the person who makes such a politically correct decision explain why I was not a public hazard for my first gun purchase but I have become one for my subsequent purchase. That should be fun. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:32 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Re: Guns vs Cars I am totally on your side of the general argument but I'm sorry, you are wrong on the ability of cars vs guns when it comes to killing humans. A few weeks ago there was a three part history of the machine gun on the History Channel. Hiram Maxim's little invention resulted in the loss of MILLIONS of lives in a short 4 year conflict. Move forward 20 years and the machine gun snuffed out another 12 million or so lives in another short lived (6 year) war. In one day of fighting during the Zulu wars a pair of Gatling guns were largly responsible for reducing a 60,000 strong force of Zulus to tatters. Think about that, 60,000 corpses in a single day. The US didn't lose that many soldiers in a decade in Vietnam. Car accidents claim about 50,000 lives a year in the US. Short of the atomic bomb, nothing man has invented is as good at killing humans as the machine gun. Unless we manage to end wars, the car will never reap the mortality rate of the machine gun. I am as pro-gun as you can get, I just had to comment in the spirit of getting the facts straight. Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:35 -0600 From: "Ron Jones" Subject: Humane Society It never ceases to amaze me that when deer are starving and have to be fed, or a moose falls through a lake and has to be rescued: a call will go out for assistance. The hunters gladly appear. I've yet to see any Humane Society member appear to lend assistance. One would think that if they were that concerned about animal welfare that they would be the first to volunteer. I guess they have other impotant matters. Ron Jones ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:24 -0600 From: Alan Harper Subject: RE: SKS mag problem or not?? I have a 30 shot SKS mag that is blocked. I was not the one that put the rivet in but it will hold 6 rounds. But with 6 rounds in the mag I can't get the mag in to the gun. Because it is too tight against the bottom of the bolt. Is this clip illegal??? Philip Here's the law from SOR98-462, which came into effect in Dec 1998 with C-68: Former Cartridge Magazine Control Regulations 3. (1) Any cartridge magazine (a) that is capable of containing more than five cartridges of the type for which the magazine was originally designed and that is designed or manufactured for use in (i) a semi-automatic handgun that is not commonly available in Canada, (ii) a semi-automatic firearm other than a semi-automatic handgun, (4) A cartridge magazine described in subsection (1) that has been altered or re-manufactured so that it is not capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be, of the type for which it was originally designed is not a prohibited device as prescribed by that subsection if the modification to the magazine cannot be easily removed and the magazine cannot be easily further altered so that it is so capable of containing more than five or ten cartridges, as the case may be. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), altering or re-manufacturing a = cartridge magazine includes (a) the indentation of its casing by forging, casting, swaging or impressing; (b) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a steel or aluminum casing, the insertion and attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin, flange or similar device, made of steel or aluminum, as the case may be, or of a similar material, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method; or (c) in the case of a cartridge magazine with a casing made of a materia other than steel or aluminum, the attachment of a plug, sleeve, rod, pin flange or similar device, made of steel or of a material similar to that of the magazine casing, to the inner surface of its casing by welding, brazing or any other similar method or by applying a permanent adhesive substance, such as a cement or an epoxy or other glue. It appears that you are in possession of a prohibited device and are subject to 10 years in gaol. The law applies whether or not it feeds the chamber. In fact, it applies even if you don't have a gun for it. So, right now, pick up the magazine and pull off the floor plate and maybe another part or two. You will then not be violating any law. Only a fully assembled over-size magazine is a prohibited device. Next, block it so that it does not hold more than 5, when assembled. If you can't do that yourself, leave it unassembled until your handyman friend can adjust it. Bye. Al. SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:21 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: Re: Cowards and killing grounds Albert Chambers wrote: And my understanding is there is at least one species saved by one of these Texas ranches. - -keith (also in Texas) - -- Keith P. de Solla kdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:38 -0600 From: Marc Sauve Subject: Humane Society vs Human Society Whoa there! Don't paint them all with the same brush. Check with your local SPCA and ask them about their position on hunting. You may be surprised. Here in Ontario, I recall several years ago PETA members hijacked the Toronto chapter of the SPCA by simply signigning up more members and electing their own executive. The Ontario chapter severed all relations with them although the Toronto group got to keep the name "Toronto Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals". This could be another case of the same or a loose cannon spouting off without the Society's approval. Check your facts before acting. Marc Sauve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:41 -0600 From: Kelly Weiss Subject: ATT Renewals Richard: In answer to your "digest query" regarding ATT renewals, re-printed below is an excerpt of a digest submission I made earlier this month. I hope it is of some assistance. - - - - - - - - - Original text Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 09:00:39 -0600 From: Kelly Weiss Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT: RENEWALS I would appreciate any comments or input other readers of this digest may have relative to the following: I previously had a "PERMIT TO CARRY" - Form C-302 (PTC). When I tried to renew my "PERMIT TO CARRY" [in 1998], I was told there was no need too as it had already been extended automatically for a further one year period. I am now in the position where my one-year extension is almost over. After having reviewed previous digest reports, I believe my old "PERMIT TO CARRY" was actually converted to an "AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT" (ATT). I also believe that the terms and conditions that appeared on my old "PERMIT TO CARRY" (PTC) were transferred to my "AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT" (ATT) and consequently, were the terms and conditions that applied to my ATT. So that I might obtain my ATT renewal in advance of my existing ATT expiry date, I submitted an "APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT RESTRICTED FIREARMS AND PROHIBITED FIREARMS, INCLUDING PROHIBITED HANDGUNS" (Form JUS 679) on 18 November 1999. Based on what I read in various digest reports, I wrote the following narrative in the area where the form asks for "FIREARM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO." etc: PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL; IT IS NOT AN "AB INITIO" APPLICATION FOR AN AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT. ALSO PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A DEMAND, MADE UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, FOR A RENEWAL OF THE 1998-1999 PERMIT TO CARRY/AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT (PHOTOCOPY ENCLOSED) WITH THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT WERE ON THE 1998 AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSPORT. I did not write any particulars regarding any firearm. I requested a three (3) year ATT. Your comments/opinions/thoughts would be appreciated. - ------------------------------ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:44 -0600 From: Brad Thorarinson Subject: Re: Humane Society - Cowards & Killing Ground >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. I don't particularly find pen hunting something I would support, but that doesn't mean I'm opposed, either. I know someone who has pen hunted wild boar, and found it exhilarating. Why is this wrong? Besides, anybody who buys meat in a store is pen hunting by proxy - they pay someone else to kill their penned domestic animals for them. Consider the following scenarios: 1: I raise cattle. I sell them to a packing plant, which kills them and cuts them up. The meat is distributed to stores, where people buy it and cook and eat it. 2: I raise cattle. When I have a market for two sides of beef, I shoot a steer and have it butchered, cut & wrapped. I sell it directly to consumers, who cook and eat it. 3: I raise cattle. A customer buys one live, kills it and butchers it himself. 4: I raise wild boar, or wildebeest, or red deer or giraffe. A customer pays me so he can shoot it under controlled conditions. He does what he want with the meat, hide, horns, etc. There is _no_ essential difference in these scenarios. The differences are just details. If you are opposed to one, you must logically be opposed to all four. If someone is in favor of one but opposed to others, there is a logical gap somewhere, or else dishonesty. I've done #1, 2, and 3, so I can't be opposed to #4 without being illogical or dishonest. As far as hunting and the environment... Sherwin Scott (sp?) of Arizona paid some $475,000 for a single Alberta Bighorn Sheep tag at a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation auction a couple years ago. The money raised goes to habitat preservation. How many AR/environmentalists have done anything similar? (He didn't fill the tag, BTW. He had scouted out what seemed like a top-ten record book ram prior to the season, but didn't see it when hunting. He figured either a car or poachers killed it.) >Jason Hayes B.Sc., Tech >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. > Excellent point. GRRRR!!! Brad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:50 -0600 From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: CANADIAN SKELETONS From: "David A. Bush" Subject: Re: SKS mag problem or not?? >I have a 30 shot SKS mag that is blocked. I was not the one that put >the rivet in but it will hold 6 rounds. But with 6 rounds in the mag I >can't get the mag in to the gun. Because it is too tight against the >bottom of the bolt. Is this clip illegal??? The answer is "maybe," and that's final. Certainly it violates the LETTER of the law -- but a good judge would throw out such a charge. However, not all judges are GOOD judges. At the very least, keeping it in that condition is likely to have you defending yourself in court -- at high expense -- and you MAY lose. This is an area where a CFC Bulletin could be useful -- but the chances of a CFC Bulletin tackling any area where clarification would actually be useful is so near zero that this will probably never be addressed in any CFC Bulletin. 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: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:54 -0600 From: "Ken Kellar" Subject: nice sumation of gun control debate I Ran across this in a news group and though it quite nicley sums up the gun control debate. As the Alan Ladd character said in the film: "Shane" , "A gun is a tool, Marion, no better or no worse than any other tool... A gun is as good or bad as the man using it. Remember that." "You're not gonna ever get them off the streets. You're not gonna get them away from the gangs. You're not gonna do that. So, why are you gonna take them away from me?" ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 06:31:59 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: C-409: FIREARMS LAW SUNSET ACT COMMONS DEBATES Thursday, December 16, 1999 Page 3042 CRIMINAL CODE Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-409, an act to provide for the expiry of gun control legislation that is not proven effective within five years of coming into force. He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing this bill for the third time since I have become a member of parliament. I would like to thank the member for Lakeland for seconding my firearms law sunset act. I would also like to thank Canadians from coast to coast, right across Canada, who have supported this bill. For the last 20 years government has established an unimpressive track record of passing costly, ineffective gun control laws. When its ineffective laws do not reduce the criminal use of firearms, it passes more ineffective gun control laws. * (1055) The firearms law sunset act which I am introducing today guarantees that scarce tax dollars will only be spent on gun control measures that actually work. My sunset law would require the automatic repeal of any gun control measure after five years from the date of implementation, unless it can pass the public safety test administered by the Auditor General of Canada which proves the measure is cost effective in achieving its stated objective. I believe all laws that we pass in the House must be cost effective at achieving this goal. Sunset provisions are the only way of guaranteeing this. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-409/C-409_1 /C-409_cover-E.html DEBATS DES COMMUNES 16 decembre 1999 CODE CRIMINEL M. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.) demande a presenter le projet de loi C-409, Loi portant cessation d'effet cinq ans apres leur entree en vigueur des dispositions legislatives sur les armes a feu dont l'efficacite n'est pas prouvee. - -Monsieur le President, aujourd'hui, je presente a nouveau ce projet de loi pour la troisieme fois depuis que je siege au Parlement. Je voudrais remercier mon collegue de Lakeland d'avoir appuye mon projet de loi de temporisation relativement aux dispositions legislatives sur les armes a feu. Je voudrais remercier les Canadiens de tout le pays qui ont souscrit a ce projet de loi. Depuis les 20 dernieres annees, le gouvernement a un bilan qui laisse a desirer pour ce qui est d'adopter des lois couteuses et inefficaces sur le controle des armes a feu. Lorsque les lois inefficaces du gouvernement ne reduisent pas l'utilisation d'armes a feu a des fins criminelles, il adopte des lois plus inefficaces encore sur le controle des armes a feu. La loi de temporisation relativement aux dispositions legislatives sur les armes a feu que je presente aujourd'hui garantit que les rares deniers publics a notre disposition ne seront affectes qu'a des mesures de controle qui fonctionnent vraiment. * (1055) Ma loi de temporisation exigerait une annulation automatique de toute mesure de controle des armes a feu apres cinq ans a partir de sa date de mise en oeuvre, a moins qu'elle puisse passer le test de la securite publique administre par le verificateur general au Canada et prouvant que cette mesure est rentable pour ce qui est de permettre de realiser son objectif declare. Je crois que toutes les lois que nous adoptons a la Chambre doivent permettre de realiser cet objectif de facon rentable. Les dispositions de temporisation sont la seule facon de garantir cela. (Les motions sont adoptees, le projet de loi est lu pour la premiere fois et imprime.) http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-409/C-409_1 /C-409_cover-F.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 10:05:35 -0600 From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" Subject: lists down from Dec 24 to 27, inclusive We'll be shutting down the moderated lists for the holidays again this year. This will give us all a short break. We'll stop accepting submissions on the 24th (Friday) at noon (CST). That's 1 PM eastern, 2 PM atlantic, 11 AM mountain and 10 AM pacific time. We'll start things back up at some time on the 28th. The cdn-firearms-chat list will not be affected. It is not moderated. Only the cdn-firearms/digest and -alert lists will be down. - -- "One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 17:10:31 -0600 From: Chris taylor Subject: Re: Mail > Is it possible that mail i've sent to NFA has been interupted or just > over looked? > I was looking for advice on fighting a license refusal case and asked > the NFA for input but have never heard back. Thanks and Merry Christmas > to all! ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #242 **********************************