Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:52 -0600 Message-Id: <200002051437.IAA21661@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 #268 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, February 5 2000 Volume 03 : Number 268 In this issue: Vermont Legislators Turn the Tables on Anti-Gunners Re: Remington 870 with 14" barrel Re: Dead Hero @ Starbucks Vancouver Response to Ottawa Citizen> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Official Paranoia Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #267 response to Wendy To sign or not to sign, that is the question Making a Difference ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:30 -0600 From: "Scott Carpenter" Subject: Vermont Legislators Turn the Tables on Anti-Gunners > http://199.60.237.235/current/curnews.html#story1 Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:29 -0600 From: "Robin Leech" Subject: Re: Remington 870 with 14" barrel No, have heard nothing. But, as a factory 14" bbl, there should never have been a charge in the first place. If the BC types who made the charge were up tight about 14", I wonder what they would do with my 12" factory-barrelled shotgun? Robin Leech ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:26 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Dead Hero @ Starbucks Vancouver The hypocrites would crucify him, calling him a terrorist. In Toronto, a couple of years ago, the Police Commissioner pulled out his 9mm Glock and shot a man during an attempted robbery on the Commissioners bakery. Norm Gardiner shot the guy in the legs. He tried to shoot him in one leg and the guy twisted his body just as Norm shot. The bullet went through both legs, not hitting a bone. The guy ran out to his accomplice in the getaway car and got away. He was charged later when he showed up at the hospital. This, of course, was front page news. All Norm's political enemies were out for his blood, but they were the only ones. All the people in the Toronto area cheered for Norm, except his political enemies. I have met Norm several times, as most shooters in the area have. Norm attends gun club dinners. He is a frequent guest speaker. He also attends gun shows. The police dragged their feet during the investigation. I knew they were just waiting for the media storm to blow over so they could quietly drop the case, and that is exactly what happened. The police don't have a better friend on the board. Norm is still on the Police Commission. But, getting back to the average guy, the police would drag him over the coals, the press would crucify him and it would cost him a fortune to defend himself in court. This has happened several times in various places across this country. Is it fair that Norm should get off the charge? Sure it is. Is it fair that an average citizen should lose his life savings defending himself in court because of the hysterical rantings of bleeding heart do-gooders? Hell, no. It's like Ed Machel says, there are 2 sets of law books in this country, one for the rich (and connected) and one for the poor. I'm not taking a shot at Norm. Norm is a good guy. I'm saying that the average guy does not get treated fairly when thrust into a position where he defends himself. The do-gooders will cluck with sympathy over your remains at the funeral but will recoil in fright if you do what's right and defend yourself from violence. What's right to the do-gooders is to get maimed and murdered, and then "rehabilitate" the murderer. The do-gooders want everyone to sink to their level of cowardice. The do-gooders want to lead the sheep and display their cowardice as a virtue. (sound of Al putting away the soapbox) Bye. Al. A Conservative: A liberal who just got mugged. A Liberal: A Conservative who just got arrested. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:28:24 -0600 From: "Jules Sobrian" Subject: Response to Ottawa Citizen> February 4, 2000 Letters to the Editor, Ottawa Citizen, FAX (613)596-8458 1101 Baxter Rd., Ottawa, K2C 3M4 Email: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca Dear Mr. Sarjeant: I would like to contest the title of the letter to the editor, "Armed Citizens increase rate of lethal crime," in the January 30 issue. The University of Chicago study done by professors Lott and Mustard clearly proved the contrary, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Lott's sources are broad and inclusive, and his evidence the most extensive yet assembled, taking full account of the FBI's massive yearly crime figures for all 3,054 U.S. counties over eighteen years, the largest national surveys on gun ownership, as well as state police documents on illegal gun use. His unexpected findings reveal that many of the most commonly held assumptions about gun control and its crime-fighting efficacy are simply wrong. Waiting periods, gun buybacks, and background checks yield virtually no benefits in crime reduction. Instead, Lott argues, allowing law-abiding citizens to carry legal, concealed handguns currently represents the most cost-effective methods available for reducing violent crime. Here are two of many testimonials to the authenticity of this work: "John Lott destroys the politically correct argument that arming law abiding citizens will have a harmful effect on their safety. There is no doubt that criminals prefer to prey upon the unprepared. This book will arm those who read it with the important facts they need in order to decide where they stand on the gun control issue."-Dale Gulbrantson, executive director, Illinois Police Association, Inc. "This book will - or should - cause those who almost reflexively support the limitation of guns in the name of reducing crime to rethink their positions."-Steve Shavell, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School After reading John Lott's report, Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the author of the bogus study which claimed to find that the presence of a gun increased the chances of its owner being killed by 43 times, was asked that if his wife were in danger, what would he prefer her to have? His answer was, "A .38." Many advocates of gun control point to Great Britain as an example of a gun free paradise where violence and crime are rare. Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic tightened their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. British subjects surrendered their guns and their rights. Did crime drop as a result? In The London Times on January 16th, 2000 the headline reads, "Killings Rise As 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain". According to a police spokesman, weapons from Eastern Europe, some still new in their boxes, are turning up during investigations. Criminals now have unprecedented access to high quality guns at affordable prices. The Manchester Guardian, on January 14th, laments the fact that their city is being called "Gunchester". The unarmed British police were quoted as saying that guns had become "almost a fashion accessory" among young criminals on the street since some gangs are armed with fully automatic weapons. The Sunday Express sent a team of reporters out to investigate the problem and their story of June 20, 1999 said, "In recent months there have been a frightening number of shootings in Britain's major cities, despite new laws banning gun ownership after the Dunblane tragedy. Our investigation established that guns are available through means open to any criminally-minded individual." Fear of guns is a mental illness, no different from the fear of flying or fear of heights or fear of open spaces. No arguments will ever cure such people of their phobia. Like the Flat Earth Society, regardless of the evidence, they will persist in their adherence to false beliefs. It is up to us to see past the smoke and mirrors and not follow false prophets. Yours very truly, Jules Sobrian, MD. Pres. Responsible Firearm Owners of Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:29 -0600 From: CILA / ICAL Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CILA / ICAL Defending Canada's Heritage ---------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - ---------------------------------------------- February 4, 2000 Canadian Firearms Centre Efficiency Rises 2000%! Congratulations to the Canadian Firearms Centre (CFC) for their marked increase in efficiency. As previously reported by CILA, the CFC had spent $19,026 to process each new firearm contained in the registry. This number was based upon the amount of taxpayer dollars spent to date divided by the number of firearms registered to date. We are delighted to announce an enormous improvement in the CFC’s efficiency. Effective January 14th. 2000 that amount has dropped to a mere $1252.96 per firearm. This number was arrived at by taking their admitted expenditure of $319 million of taxpayer dollars and dividing it by the number of registrations applied for (254,596). By using the RCMP’s previous estimates of 21 million firearms in Canada, the eventual registry cost will be.... $26,312,160,000.00 ($26.3 BILLION) No one could be reached for comment at the boondoggled Prime Minister’s office but an Ottawa insider pointed out, “This number is almost identical to the $85 million projected by former Justice Minister Alan Rock.” That means that EVERY CANADIAN (man, woman and child) WILL HAVE SPENT $877.07 in net tax dollars to pay for the failed gun registry. As a further testimony to the efficiency of the CFC, at the present rate of registration, all the guns in Canada will be registered by 2083, a mere 84 years. This is much, much better than the 400 years previously reported. The Firearms Registry could easily be brought in on time however, by the simple measure of increasing the current number of CFC employees from 1,000 hard working, gun registering bureaucrats to 21,000 hard working, gun registering bureaucrats. They could even have their own city. It could even be a make work initiative. Of course, this would entail increasing the number of trained, highly paid, professional police officers now employed registering the guns of duck hunters from a mere 391 to 8,211. Of course,with the RCMP’s projected compliance rate of 10%, maybe they're almost finished. The Canadian Institute for Legislative Action anxiously awaits the next announcement of this important program in high tech crime fighting. For more information contact: Canadian Institute for Legislative Action / Institut Canadien pour l'Action Législative National Office: P.O.Box 44030, 600 Grandview St. S. Oshawa, ON. L1H 8P4 Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail: teebee@sprint.ca Ottawa Office: 27 Cedar Grove Crt. Nepean, ON. K2G 0M4 Ph: (613) 828-8805 Fax: (613) 828-6967 e-mail: aldorans@magma.ca Home: http://www.cila.org A proud member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities / Forum du Monde sur le Futur d'Activités des Sports des Armes à Feu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:35 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Official Paranoia > > It seems the PC line taken by our government is leading to official > paranoia breaking out all over the place. I wonder if the costs of > employing minions to open any and all mail coming into the country > concerned with firearms is being factored into the costs of C68? > > I ordered a couple of reloading dies and assorted sundry, none of which > could be attached to a firearm in any way. I noticed on the Customs > form that the box had been opened at the border. The contents were > listed as "Firearms Tool Set". For decades loadng gear has been duty > free and thus not subject to much in the way of government scrutiny. Is > the federal government so paranoid of firearms that they are going to > open every single package that so much as has the word "firearm" on it? > > They charged me a $5 handling fee but I would imagine that it actually > cost a lot more than that to employ a full time customs officer to open, > visualy inspect, repack and then fill out all the associated paperwork. > Is this another example of Annies infamous and desperately hopeful "full > cost recovery"? > > Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:35 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #267 On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: Subject: Dead Hero @ Starbucks Vancouver A few days ago, a Starbucks Coffee manager paid the ultimate price to..., > I can't help but believe that the authorities reversal of long standing > denigration of any citizen defending themselves or others is due to fact > that the murdered Starbucks employee is a member of a special group that > the government has singled out for special treatment. I hope I am wrong, > and that the "authorities" have simply seen the error of their ways in > promoting pacifistic acceptance of whatever criminals choose to do. It > wasn't too many months ago that police talking heads were publicly > humiliating a citizen who had resisted criminal violence. We have > all heard numerous examples of this PC attitude. Hats off to a genuine > hero and let us hope that his sacrifice has caused a permanent change away from unilateral pacifism. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:28 -0600 From: Gary Ramsey Subject: response to Wendy In her letter "Armed citizens increase rate of lethal crime" Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 30, 2000, Wendy Cukier states that arming for self-protection will not make citizens safer. Neither will draconian gun controls or confiscation, the next step after registration. In the five year period following a gun ban in England, violent crime rose 30 percent, robbery rose 80 percent and robbery with a firearm rose 117 percent. History has taught us that banning anything only increases the black market trade. The London Times published an article on January 16 with the headline "Killings Rise as 3 Million Illegal Guns Flood Britain". Manchester is now referred to as "Gunchester". Ready for the good news? Our current gun control legislation is modelled after the British system. Get ready for Phase 2 - confiscation. She also says that individual responsibility and accountability is a small price to pay for owning and using a dangerous weapon. Responsible firearm owners have always believed in these principles; we just feel that wasting $1 billion on a registry that will never work is not the proper way to achieve those goals. As for the term "dangerous weapon", a firearm is no more dangerous than a knife, baseball bat or an automobile. If firearms are a danger to society, why is it that hunters and target shooters can purchase $5 million in liability insurance, which covers all hunting and shooting activities, for $4.75. Statistically, shooting sports are among the safest of recreational activities. Since Ms. Cukier has a penchant for statistics, she might be interested inthe following: According to Statistics Canada, Causes of Death, 1997, there were 45 fatal gun accidents and 192 homicides by firearms for a total of 237. Government watchdogs fear the cost of our new gun control legislation has reached $1 billion, but the exact figure will never be known because the Minister of Justice refuses to release 172 pages of documents relating to the true costs. In comparison, 59,775 lives were claimed by cancer in 1997. For the 1998-1999 year the federal government spent a paltry $16 million on cancer research. Go figure. Perhaps Ms. Cukier should take this up as her newest crusade. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:34 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: To sign or not to sign, that is the question > From: Rick Lowe > Subject: Sign The Form Or Demand A Reference Hearing? > > Well, the saga of whether or not the local Firearms Officer will register my > Basque handgun purchased from Del Selin Gunsmithing is approaching a close. > We have gotten to the point where I have backed him into a corner and he has > decided he has to register the handgun after all. But NOW the story is that > he could not register the handgun to me because I have not signed and > submitted a "Notice To Prospective Handgun Purchasers" which he says I have > to complete before he can register the firearm. My wife got the same story when she registered her basque but I don't remember signing anything when I registered my SBH the year before. Anyways, what DAT councelled was to sign the form but to delete any paragrpahs or sentences that say you agree to them taking the thing away from you. The form that Kelly signed just mentioned that she had been warned of the guns status or something like that. There was no promise to confiscate. Well, I say he is blowing smoke out his xxx. The only question is if I > > simply decide I have had enough fun for now and sign the thing, or say "I > > don't think so - register the handgun or schedule a reference hearing before > > a provincial court judge to decide the issue." > > At this point, unless you are still having fun torturing the firearms guy, a bird(or a gun) in hand is better than one in gun jail. If your case is not settled by the time they come to do the confiscations you will be SOL and it may be tough to get your date in court which is what the whole "operation biteback" thing is about. I can't wait to explain to the judge that it is costing the feds umpteen thousands of dollars to confiscate a $10 handgun. I'll even bring the sales receipt to court for my own amusement. :) Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 08:37:30 -0600 From: Peter Cronhelm Subject: Making a Difference OK lets take a look at the CFC's own numbers and see what they really mean. Making a Difference: The Firearms Act January 14, 2000 * Across Canada, 1 174 firearms licences have been refused or revoked for public safety reasons since the new law came into effect December 1,1998. This is over nine times more revocations from potentially dangerous individuals than the total for the past five years. We know that all these licences could have been revoked under the old system. The Americans have no problem blocking sales and they don't have the licences and registration Canada does. How many people have been charged or prosecuted for breaking the new laws in this area? * Thanks to continuous background checks, 626 new applications have been refused for public safety reasons and we have revoked 548 licences to individuals who were no longer eligible. No mention of how many were overturned on appeal or how many were beaurocratic screwups or simply political interference. * Since December 1, 1998, approximately 8 per cent (3 354) of all gun sales have resulted in cases where the new background checks required further investigation. Of these, approximately 7 per cent (250 cases) of the sales were refused. 250 blocked sales out of 6440 (92% x 3354) = 3.8% The government is blowing a billion dollars to block 3.8% of total sales. Keep in mind that the last year has been dismal for gun sales (ask any gunstore owner). Of course the CFC cannot block a single one of the black market sales or private sales where people have just ignored the law. * The new spousal notification line has received over 2 300 calls. This has proven to be an excellent tool for an applicant's spouse (or others) to share concerns about public safety. Some of the RFC members have admitted using the Spousal Notification option to get through when all the other CFC lines were jammed up with callers. I wonder if these calls were included in the total? Wanna bet the CFC doesn't distinguish between this sort of call and one where an actual spousal problem occurs. Then of course we won't even mention the confirmed cases of ex-spouses using the line to harass their ex's with false accusations. * Police now have an online registry of owners and their firearms. A registry that is running 50-80% error rates which costs a billion dollars. Summary of key statistics As of Jan. 14, 2000: Firearm owners in the system 529 777 Firearms registered 1 524 367 This number includes the 1.3million junk registrations from the old FRAS system which were not supposed to be put into the new system. Since Dec. 1, 1998: Licence applications received 212 864 New photo ID licence issued 106 014 In the first year they have been able to operate at 50%. And this year most people have avoided using the new system. How are they going to cope when the system gets flooded in the last few months before the deadlines? Licences refused for public safety reasons 626 Licences revoked for public safety reasons 548 1174 licences revoked or refused out of 106014 issued means we are wasting a billion dollars to stop 1.1% of licences. Or 98.9% or us are being treated like criminals. In one year they have received only 212,000 applications out of the government admitted 3 million firearms owners. So far they have been able to do 442 per day. From now on they will have to do 5808 or 13 times as many per day to make their own deadline. And if we take more realistic firearms owner numbers they CFC will be in even worse shape. Firearm registration applications received 254 596 Registration certificates numbers issued 319 369 How did the CFC manage to issue more registtrations than it received? Are they doing them twice or are they making them up? At this rate (1330 per day) it will take 21years to register the government admitted 7 million firearms in Canada. The 21 million guns actually in Canada will take 63 years to register. Seeing as the CFC/ CFR has already eaten up more than half a million they are going to have to increase the budget a tad to make their own deadlines. How do you feel about 5 or 10 billion by the time they get everything registered and everyone licenced? Peter Cronhelm ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #268 **********************************