Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:20:58 -0600 Message-Id: <200002011320.HAA30446@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 #265 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, February 1 2000 Volume 03 : Number 265 In this issue: Cap Gun Re: [chat] Aboriginal Exemptions 'Possession Only' Licence Suicide Gene Found Fw: Ruger's REAL Policies on Gun Sales Opposition ATI media project. Re: Wayne Cooper's NOTICE re CPFO Latest NFA meeting Ottawa Arms & Antiques Show Fw: Exporting guns to the U.S. Sorry Wendy, we don't by it... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:08 -0600 From: Roderick McBeath Subject: Cap Gun > Hello all > > I'm looking for one of the loud, old fashioned "ring" cap (6 or 8 shot?) > guns. I intend to use it for training my pup during his "dinner" hour. > I want him to be used to shots, and even approve of them (pavlovian?). > I'm using Richard A. Wolters training techniques. > > I've tried some of the big toy stores in Edmonton, to no avail > (they don't approve of cap guns, but water guns are OK). If anybody > knows where I could get one in the city, I'd appreciate it. My last > resort is a starters pistol, and I hope not to go that route... I don't > live in the city, hence my not trying too many places. > thanks > > rod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:05 -0600 From: "Len McL" Subject: Re: [chat] Aboriginal Exemptions - -----Original Message----- From: Michelle Traver Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 5:52 PM Subject: [chat] Aboriginal Exemptions >The following is one analysis of the aboriginal exemptions. There is a >method of segregation inherant within the stated exemptions. The >segregation can apply to aboriginals, on one hand, or to the rest of >Candian Society on the other. It is definately a "devide and conquer" >method if we allow it to be. >>end Michelle, don't you think that anything in C-68 that applies to the native gun ownership has been since rendered obsolete by court rulings on treaty rights. Basically, if they have the unlimited right to hunt game, then no current law can take the means to do so away from them. Someone posted that natives could be allies in the battle against C-68, but I think that is now just wishful thinking as the natives should now be exempt from all gun laws. Do any others see it this way? As for "divide and conquer" - that is a Liberal specialty, they're experts at it. Regards, Len ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:56:56 -0600 From: "Chris" Subject: 'Possession Only' Licence Question; Would it be contrary to the Firearms Act or Criminal Code for me to apply for a 'possession only' licence if, "technically", I don't possess any firearms? Basically, do I have to own firearms to apply for a 'possesion only' licence? Please don't ask me why I would do this. There is method to my madness. Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:28 -0600 From: Kelly and Lindsay Garner Subject: Suicide Gene Found Something interesting I read on the DTN Satellite News about researchers finding the Suicide Gene at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. Now that means in the future people can be denied firearms based on their genetics, thus saving society and themselves from any harm in the further. After this is an accepted process maybe there will be forced serializations to get rid of the bad gene for the betterment of society. Sounds like ugenics will be coming back into style humm........... K.Garner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:56:52 -0600 From: "Loboguns" Subject: Fw: Ruger's REAL Policies on Gun Sales Just to keep y'all up-to-date. This is a clearly defined policy from Ruger to Davidson's. Once again this shows the media devils at work. Wait until we know there's no body home to answer questions, during the big Shot Show week, then print something we know will cause all kind of hell. This is much like the burglar or rapist who stalks his victim and strikes when the victim is most vulnerable! It's time we gun owners turned the tables! Lobo - -----Original Message----- From: postmaster@davidsonsinc.com To: loboguns@enter.net Date: Sunday, January 30, 2000 4:28 AM >Dear Davidson's Dealer, > >As part of our 'Keeping you informed' service, we wanted to let you >know that Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. has clarified their policy on >Gun Show sales. Their press release, distributed Thursday, January 27th >follows. > >Background of Ruger Sales Policy - How Ruger Guns are sold >Sturm, Ruger does not sell its products directly to dealers or >individuals; we only sell to a select group of independent wholesale >firearms distributors. They, in turn, sell our products to independent >licensed retail dealers, for resale to legally qualified individual >purchasers. > >We have always formulated our sales policies to support stocking retail >gun dealers, thousands of whom sell our products nationwide. Since >1985, our 'Distributor Terms and Conditions' provide that distributors >of Ruger firearms purchase them from us with the condition that they >resell Ruger products only to legitimate licensed retail dealers with a >storefront business, a resale tax number, and who comply with all >federal, state and local laws. > >We feel that a true gun shop or sporting goods store is the best place >for Ruger firearms to be promoted and sold, their operating features >explained, and their safety features demonstrated. All this is very >important, and our 15-year old policy has obviously been successful. > >Why did we do this in 1985? >At that time, there was an increasing number of FFL holders who were >not gun dealers. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with that, since >all of them had to obey the thousands of firearms laws, and many law- >abiding citizens had FFL's. But from a commercial and safety >standpoint, we thought it best that Ruger Distributors not sell Ruger >guns to individuals just because they had an FFL. It's not that >individual FFL holders don't have to obey the law - obviously, they do! >We simply believe that the sales and promotion aspects, as well as the >vitally important safety training aspect, of gun sales are best done by >professional gun dealers who have a stake in running a business and >staying in business. > >Was our policy directed at gun shows? >No! it was directed at certain distributors and storefront dealers who >advertised and occasionally sold Ruger firearms to individual FFL >holders via mail order through certain trade publications. They >said, 'we do have a storefront, but we want to sell more Ruger firearms >through these firearms publications.' > >Such sales really were not in the spirit of what we intended. >Obviously, a mail order sale to a licensee can't fully implement our >policy of proper promotion, explanation, and safety instruction for our >guns that can be done in a face-to-face, hands-on, storefront sale. > >Therefore, in December of last year we clarified our 15-year old policy >by adding one single word - we now say that we want retailers who >purchase Ruger guns from distributors to sell Rugers 'exclusively' from >their retail stores, hoping to clarify this ambiguity. Gun show sales >were not even considered when we formulated this policy last year. > >So what has changed? Why the controversy? >Please don't be mislead by what ignorant or willfully biased anti-gun >media may say. Gun shows were not mentioned in our sales policy. > >In Denver, the gun show issue is very active, due to the Columbine >tragedy. The governor and many other politicians are urging gun show >restrictions due to media and political pressures. A Denver newspaper >reporter investigating gun shows learned that a newly-appointed Ruger >distributor read our terms and conditions and mistakenly interpreted >them as prohibiting gun show sales. This distributor issued its own >dealer flyer, which stated, 'Ruger does not want its products displayed >or sold at gun shows'. The reporter called us over the weekend while >everyone was headed to Las Vegas for the SHOT show. With nobody >available to clarify what we actually meant by our policy, he wrote the >erroneous story about a 'new Ruger policy regarding gun shows,' causing >this non-issue to receive widespread publicity. > >So, what is Ruger's policy on gun shows? >First of all, a licensed FFL dealership (which is the only entity that >can purchase a new Ruger firearm from a Ruger distributor) has to obey >exactly the same laws whether the sale is made at a gun show or his >retail storefront gun store. Gun shows are not law-free zones. All the >many federal, state, and local laws must be complied with by the >dealer, including the NICS instant point-of-sale background check, for >all firearm sales, even if the dealer's sale takes place at a gun show. > >Therefore, our policy is that a legitimate storefront retail licensed >FFL dealer may exhibit Ruger guns at gun shows. If the dealer makes a >sale at a gun show, of course he must comply with all the laws, just as >if he was selling from his store. We would prefer that he actually >consummate the sale at his gun store (which is the law in some states), >because we think it's a better place for the sales to occur than in the >hurried, public atmosphere of a gun show, where boxes, instruction >manuals, locks, lock boxes, etc. are more likely to be misplaced or >forgotten, and where proper demonstrations and instructions are less >likely to be complete. However, we have no objection to Ruger firearms >being sold by a duly licensed stocking retail firearms dealers at a gun >show to properly licensed or otherwise law-abiding citizens who have >passed the required FBI background check, and who comply with all other >local requirements for such a firearms purchase. > >The main reason for our long-standing policy is to support the true >retail gun dealers and help him promote and explain our products to >customers in the best and safest possible way, for the protection of >everyone. > >Gun shows are not the evil entities portrayed in the media >You can't find a barrel band for an 1861 Springfield musket at your >local gun store. For that matter, you probably can't even find the old >Springfield at your gun store. However, at collector gun shows you can >find hundreds of fellow collectors, guns, parts, accessories, etc. They >are one of few places where specialized gun sales take place between >collectors sharing a mutual interest in particular types of firearms. > >Shows also offer in one location a much wider opportunity to view, >compare, and evaluate a greater variety of firearms than is possible in >a single gun store. Many people in rural areas travel great distances >to attend gun shows, due to the lack of retail gun stores in their >area. While in point of fact few Rugers are sold new at gun shows, >shows occupy a special and legitimate niche in the lawful enjoyment of >firearms. It was never or intention to imply otherwise and we welcome >the opportunity to charily our position. > >Thank You. > >STURM, RUGER & COMPANY,INC. >'Arms Makers For Responsible Citizens' > >As the Ruger specialist, Davidson's is supportive of Ruger's position >and policies. We expect all of our dealers to comply fully with these >policies. > > >Sincerely, > > >Bryan Tucker >CEO/President >www.davidsonsinc.com - Dealers only >www.galleryofguns.com - Consumer's site-We're sending customers to you! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:13 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Opposition Now that I have left my vagabond 20's long behind and successfully entered my get a house, get a wife, get a life phase I have more time to get involved in my gun club. I have met a lot of gun people in the last little while and these salt of the earth citizens, these hard working, tax paying, law abiding people are pxxxxx! They are pxxxxx that their government is attacking them for a sport which many have been involved in for 30 or 40 or more years. These are people who have faithfully contributed to society, who have never committed a crime in their lives, who ask nothing more than to be left alone to pursue their sport are being treated like criminals by their government and forced to abide by countless idiotic and uncomprehensible laws and rules which even the authorities can't understand. These people have frankly had enough and they are gearing up to fight their government because the government is simply wrong. Of the club meetings which I have attended I would estimate that at least 10% of the members will actively fight the present laws. I have a list of at least a hundred clubs in Alberta and if only 10% of the members of each club get involved in the fight this will result in several thousand RFC activists in Alberta alone. Multiply this number by the number of Provinces and Territories and we have tens of thousands of Canadians willing to spend their hard earned money to fight the government. I don't see this level of financial support in the Coalition for Gun Control ranks. Can the federal government afford to attack and persecute its most solid citizens? If hundreds of thousands of hard working tax payers end up in jail as a result of gun control where will the taxes come from to maintain the monstrously expensive gun control laws? The level of resistance I am seeing is amazing. I even heard an 80 year old woman say that she would never register her gun. If the Lieberals can't sway a law abiding old woman with their social engineering then who will support it? Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:01 -0600 From: "Paul Chicoine" <701506@ican.net> Subject: ATI media project. I recall one contributor to this digest describe the use of Access to Information Act in order to obtain a long overdue license ! Following discussions with Andre Bellemare of Le Soleil , the major daily newspaper in Quebec city, and with his consent I am posting this invitation : If the contributor mentioned above or if any other readers of this digest have used or are considering using the ATI to inquire about the delay in obtaining their PAL or POL or any registration certificates, the Quebec City media is interested. Andrea Bellemare Outdoors Editor for Le Soleil is interested in following the progress of such an application with the goal of informing his readers and all interested parties about the process and to encourage long suffering citizens to follow suit. Mr. Bellemare will be away from his desk until March 9 and therefore can not accept any personal phone calls until that date. I quote his email: "(up until March 9), I prefer to receive information in writing (by fax or e-mail) ; I won't be available to answer phone calls until then! Those who will decide to inform me about their personal experience with the ATI process should give me as much information as they can (with their name, address, phone and fax numbers, e-mail address...) so I can get in touch with them if I need to obtain more details about their experience." Please contact in English or French: Andrea Bellemare Outdoors Editor LE SOLEIL daily newspaper (Quebec City) AABellemare@lesoleil.com Fax : (418) 628-8217 ************************************************************** On a personal note. During the process of obtaining my PAL (8 months) I felt compelled to file a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman of Quebec. I received my PAL three weeks later. After giving Mr. Bellemare permission to publish my experiences including contacts the result was a flood of complaints . It is possible for the government to ignore the Ombudsman but they cannot ignore the ATI. Further, It has been some time since my complaint or any other complaint for that matter to the Auditor General of Canada regarding costs overruns of Bill C-68 The Firearms Act, and his response have appeared in this digest. Considering the current flap of the Hon. Jane Stewart and in particular the amount of money involved it seems time to readdress the AG and press for an explanation of the moneys consumed by C-68 The Firearms Act. I urge all subscribers of this digest to either contact the AG and demand an audit or to readdress the AG regarding the delay. Posting by Paul Chicoine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 07:57:31 -0600 From: Don Clarke Subject: Re: Wayne Cooper's NOTICE re CPFO Wayne Cooper posted a notice from the IPSC Ontario website about the Ontario governments intention to withdraw from administering C-68. The Ontario Handgun Association was asking people to contact MPPs and ask them to oppose the move, because it would create hardship and aggravation to the firearm owners in Ontario. In my opinion, we should be asking the MPPs to make sure the Ontario government dumps the whole mess back into FEDERAL hands. Hopefully, it will cause lots of aggravation to firearms owners in Ontario. Hopefully, this will aggravate them enough to get politically active! Or to at least change their vote away from the Li(e)berals, eh! I've done my part. I e-mailed Harris a note asking that he dumps the mess into the Feds lap. Don Clarke ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:20:43 -0600 From: "Robert F. Marshall" Subject: Latest NFA meeting Ottawa Hi, I would just like to take a moment to thank Dave Tomlinson, and the other speakers in attendance, as well as the organizer, for taking the time to speak to the Ottawa area attendees. I found the meeting to be very information and entertaining. It is nice to know I am involved with a group of well rounded, balanced and focused individuals, who may not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed, but take the time to inform and listen. I only hope the media in attendance came away with a positive experience as well. Thanks again. Rob Marshall Orleans, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:20:36 -0600 From: Debbie.&.Neil.Hemming[SMTP:aabco@uniserve.com] Subject: Arms & Antiques Show Cranbrook Arms & Antiques Sporting Goods Show. April 8th & 9th 2000 Hosted by Cranbrook District Rod & Gun Club Kinsmen Arena Cranbrook, BC Over 100 tables. Tables $25.00 More info call 250-489-2888 or email aabco@cintek.com or aabco@uniserve.com Thank you for submitting, Debbie begin 600 ATT00000.htm M/"%$3T-465!%($A434P@4%5"3$E#("(M+R]7,T,O+T141"!(5$U,(#0N,"!4 M7!E/@T*/$U%5$$@8V]N=&5N=#TB35-(5$U,(#4N,# N,C8Q M-"XS-3 P(B!N86UE/4=%3D52051/4CX-"CQ35%E,13X\+U-464Q%/@T*/"]( M14%$/@T*/$)/1%D@8F=#;VQOF4],CY#F4],CY+:6YS;65N($%R96YA($-R86YBF4],CY/=F5R(#$P,"!T M86)L97,N/"]&3TY4/CPO1$E6/@T*/$1)5CX\1D].5"!S:7IE/3(^5&%B;&5S M("0R-2XP,#PO1D].5#X\+T1)5CX-"CQ$258^/$9/3E0@ Subject: Fw: Exporting guns to the U.S. Need some advice for a friend of mine that needs to "unload" some guns. (Yes, pun intended) This individual was a regular pistol shooter for several years, but with = the current crop of legislation has gotten out of it. Also, because he = was going through a messy divorce, opted to store his guns at the local = police station until he could decide what he wanted to do with them. He = has a S&W 686, a Ruger Mark I and an evil SBH (a Beretta or Walther .25 = ACP). Currently has no valid FAC and is not a member of any gun club, and = judging from the sound of it these guns have not been re-registered = under the new system. A relative of this individual living in the U.S. (state of Michigan) has = expressed an interest in buying these items. Can anyone out there tell me what is legally required to do this? I = heard something about needing an FFL dealer in the U.S. Any help would be muchly appreciated! Nick L. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 07:20:36 -0600 From: "John Perocchio" Subject: Sorry Wendy, we don't by it... Re: Ottawa Citizen, Jan.30, 2000 "Armed citizens increase rate of lethal crime" by Wendy Cukier, = President, Coalition for Gun Control Dear Editor: Ms. Cukier's selective statistics are, as always, a self-serving marvel. Most thinking Canadians, provincial governments, federal parties, police = associations and informed journalists no longer accept "Gun Control" = statistics at face value: pro or con. Instead these groups, Ms. Cukier = and her Liberal handlers excluded, have done serious research and = understand what the firearms issue is all about. Bill C-68 (Gun Control) = is nothing more than another massive Liberal make work project; a doomed = farce costing taxpayers millions while endangering their lives. Money = diverted to this failed Liberal pet project could have been better = spent hiring police and implementing forensic technologies including the = DNA data bank. Cukier-like misinformation is a constant source of embarrassment for = anti-gunners. Most recently Cukier-supporter Ottawa-Carleton Police = Chief Brian Ford chose to defend Canadian Firearms Registry costs as = being only $120 million; a figure less than half of what had already = been revealed in federal access to information documents. Happily, = unlike our gullible Police Chief, most people check their figures = first...and listen to Ms. Cukier's last...if at all. John Perocchio Kanata ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #265 **********************************