Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:20:26 -0600 Message-Id: <200002141420.IAA12432@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 #272 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 Monday, February 14 2000 Volume 03 : Number 272 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #270 Re: [alert] McLellan admits gun registry facing bottleneck Letters strategy From: February 11, We Remember need law regasrding transoport firearms thru canada Re: C.F.C. Desperate? CTV coverage of the Toronto Shooting Toronto Sun Letter of the Day 13 February CILA Updates: Ottawa Citizen, FED UP III Rally Re:Canadian Firearms Centre's own Shovelgate The Right to Hunt & Fish prohibition order firearms Guns drawn for court battle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:57:27 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #270 On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: Coalition Subversion of the FED UP II Rally > > The Montreal Massacre: Heidi Rathjen > > Three: Despite these precautions, we knew we still needed to prevent our > opponents from having the last word. But since a counter-demonstration was > out of the question... Because there is no public support for Wendy and Heidi's "make it into the senate" project. Even the lieberals would find it difficult to hire enough bodies to show up at a "protest" Compare this to the large turnout of responsible, taxpaying Canadians who travelled from across Canada at THEIR OWN EXPENSE to peacefully assemble and protest. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:57:23 -0600 From: David Brewerton Subject: Re: [alert] McLellan admits gun registry facing bottleneck Even if the 2.5 million did submit their registrations this year, the CFC couldn't handle the volume since they can't keep up with the low volume now. On top of that, what about the 3-4 million owners they won't admit exist, 3 million is really only half the owners and they'd still claim to be a phenomenal success. After that, shootings by criminals would still happen (see Toronto, England, Australia, etc., etc.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:57:33 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: Letters strategy On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Subject: Letters to Editor Strategy > > Most, if not all, of the RFCs' letters, are responses to these "lie > convoys." Relatively few of us have the research resources, time, and > writing skills to do a good job of countering these liars. It is time to go > offensive, and submit letters that are original, brief and effective. > Another strategy is to confine your response to only one of the distortions mentioned. That will allow a greater focus in view of the limited word count allowed by media. A passing reference to the fact that you are focussing on just one of many untruths serves to keep the bigger picture in view. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:57:45 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: From: February 11, We Remember History factoid of the day...we all know how the British are "world leaders" in disarmament and appeasement. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself as you can see from the clipping from the "we remember" series that deals with WW2. The British, after leading the west into unilateral disarmament in the 1930s in spite of the brutal dictatorships flourishing at the time [and including a roundup of citizens firearms] were desperate for any weapons with which to defend themselves. They were totally dependent on the "evil" USA and it's "gun culture" to give and sell them arms. In response to many ads that the British Government ran in NRA and other magazines, thousands of guns were DONATED by individual citizens [these were all rounded up in 1945 and dumped into the North Sea] In addition, the US government both gave and sold significant numbers of guns to the desperate, unarmed British. To see just how desperate they were, the following was clipped from PM Churchills history of the war: Subject: February 11, We Remember ... Prime Minister to Minister of Shipping: Is it true that the steamship 'New Toronto', which arrived at Liverpool, was ordered to proceed north-about to London, and is it true that this order was only cancelled as a result of the protest of the captain, who pointed out the enormous value of his cargo, which contained, inter alia, 19,677 sub-machine guns and 2,456,000 cartridges? The arrival of these ships with large consignments of invaluable munitions ought to receive your personal attention in every case... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 07:57:47 -0600 From: "fred martin" Subject: need law regasrding transoport firearms thru canada will be travelling from usa, thruCanada, to Alaska, with rifles and shotguns. NO HANDGUNS. Need to knowif permit/license needed to do so. thanks. Fred. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:14:10 -0600 From: Kyle and Barbara Berry Subject: Re: C.F.C. Desperate? Herb writes: >(snip) . . . seems like aiding and abetting the enemy and I for one won't >support any >body or any store that provides assistance to this mess.So I think I'll >start asking about it when I go into any sporting goods store and if >they carry any forms or postures, I'm out of there. While I agree 100% with his sentiments, I'm less enthusiastic about his strategy. Many sporting goods stores would do this as a customer service rather than to "aid the enemy". I think we went through a similar discussion a while back. The CFC's real difficulty isn't going to be with the distribution, but the processing. I would rather people were given proper instructions on how to fill them in, such as told where it is very correct to use the word "unknown". They are more likely to receive this info from an NFA educated clerk or owner. I also don't feel a sporting goods store will be a stingy with these expensive forms as the post office. A fellow could pick up as many as he needs, or thinks he might need, without having to go through the expense of having them photocopied. KB ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:14:10 -0600 From: "William R. Sherman" Subject: CTV coverage of the Toronto Shooting Letters to the CTV complaining of unbalanced coverage raises the question, Where was the OHA, OFAH, CILA, NFA etc. Ms Kookier got her interview because she was on the phone within minutes with the CTV, representing the "Coalition". Did the OHA, OFAH, CILA, NFA, etc take a proactive approach, and call in to the CTV to arrange for an interview?? If not why not. Sitting back pouting and crying foul isn't the way to beat this issue or challenge Ms Kookier. Get there first, let Ms Kookier be on the defensive. You know darn well that if its a firearm related issue, she will be there. Why? 'cause she knows if she gets there first she'll get heard, and once again the RFC will be on the defensive, pouting and crying foul etc. She looks good and we look like selfish little crybabies. So how about it Cila, OHA, OFAH, NFA etc. Proactive, not reactive. Use the phone, get interviews (radio, TV, newspapers etc.) Lets be seen as well as heard. Image is everything if we are to get public support. Just some thoughts Bill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:14:14 -0600 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Toronto Sun Letter of the Day 13 February >From the 13 February Toronto Sun letters section http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/editorial.html: LETTER OF THE DAY LARRY FORD of Kitchener and his anti-gun fraternity continually use expressions like "gun culture" and "most violent country in the West," when referring to the United States (Letters, Jan. 30). While travelling there, I could see little difference between Canada and the U.S. What I do see by and large, is a friendly, generous people, rushing around madly, make a living and having fun. Daily newspapers and TV there carry no more stories of violent crime than their counterparts in Toronto. You never see a gun unless you are out hunting or are at a shooting range. I quoted statistics from south of the border (Letters, Jan. 2) precisely to attempt to refute the spreading of anti-U.S. bigotry and the false notion that disarming the law-abiding Canadian public would create a utopia free of violence, when in fact the opposite is the rule. The London Times published a story on Jan. 16 that sums up the situation rather well. The headline reads, "Killings rise as 3 million illegal guns flood Britain." Armed crime rose 10% in 1998 and the numbers for 1999 may be even more dramatic. A 1998 study titled, "Crime and justice in the United States and in England and Wales," which is available from the U.S. bureau of justice statistics, concludes that English crime rates in the period from 1981-96 were actually higher than in the United States. Meanwhile, the British have been denied the right to armed self-defence. The rate of armed robbery and home invasions is higher in Britain than the U.S. The British experiment with gun prohibition has resulted in the same outcome as other forms of prohibition. Up to 1968, we hunted with handguns in Canada and carried them in an unobtrusive fashion. Nobody was killed or even wounded by handguns in that exercise. Since police officers and security guards are no different from the rest of our society and they carry handguns, one would expect a rash of impulse killings by these Canadians. I haven't seen any evidence to support this. The "wild west" was really a creation of a few city-bound writers who caught the attention of Hollywood. Too bad the truth doesn't sell newspapers. Jules Sobrian President Responsible Firearm Owners of Ontario (If you think it's safer to live in the U.S. rather than the U.K. or Canada, either you're naive, or you think we are. Let us repeatour position: we oppose the feds' gun registry; we favour stiffer penalties for possession of illegal firearms, especially those used in the commission of a crime; and we are against those who want the "right" to carry a concealed handgun) Letters to the editor can be sent to: editor@sunpub.com. Mark L Horstead If it saves just one person from voting lieberal or federal progressive conservative, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:13:58 -0600 From: Al Dorans Subject: CILA Updates: Ottawa Citizen, FED UP III Rally > CILA / ICAL > Defending Canada's Heritage > --------------------------------------------- > > Dear Firearms Owner, > > Re. Ottawa Citizen: I would like to extend my appreciation to the dozens of > firearms owners who responded to Wendy Cukier's letter "Armed citizens > increase rate of lethal crime" (Citizen, Jan.30). Thanks for sending me a > copy so that we know at least how many letters had been sent. > > I am pleased to report that over the past week many of your submissions > have been published. On February 5th, the Citizen printed my response to > Ms. Cukier: "Gun laws are killing 60,000 Canadians every year". Since then > the CILA offices have been flooded with calls of thanks from people > completely new to the firearms issue. > > Hopefully, RFC members are also responding to her revised similar letter in > the Victoria Times-Colonist ("More firepower won't improve > safety")(enclosed). , > The CILA response was sent a few > days ago. > > Re. FED UP III Rally: A few months ago I surveyed members of the RFC > concerning their support for a FED UP III Rally and received over 300 > expressions of strong support from grass roots organizations, small groups > and individuals. This was 3 times as many and 3 times as fast as for FED > UP II. After conferring with the leaders of large firearms organizations, > it was decided that since timing was crucial, we should suspend judgement > until after the United Alternative and Reform conventions, possible > leadership reviews and a determination of when a federal election might be > held. Hence, the tentative FED UP III Rally date of September 23rd., 2000 > has yet to be determined and is on hold until further notification. There > will be a FED UP III Rally. > > PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) > DATE: 2000.02.03 > EDITION: FINAL > SECTION: Voices > PAGE: A15 > BYLINE: Wendy Cukier, > SOURCE: Times Colonist > > More firepower won't improve safety > > I am writing in response to John Robson's column in which supports arming > for self-protection (``Ottawa gunning for trouble,'' Dec. 29). > Every year in the U.S. 40,000 Americans die from gunshot wounds -- almost as > many as were killed during the Vietnam War. If arming for self-protection > worked, Americans would be the safest people in the world. Clearly, they are > not. > Proponents of arming for self-protection ignore the important distinction > between overall violence and lethal violence. While the crime rates in the > U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia and the U.K. are roughly comparable, the > sheer volume of guns available make lethal violence a much more common > occurrence in the U.S. A simple comparison of Canadian and U.S. experience > with gun control shows that Canada's strict controls on handguns (which have > been registered since 1934) have clearly helped us avoid the handgun > violence epidemic rampant in the U.S. > Moreover, research shows that guns increase the chance of lethal outcomes > and the risk of multiple victims. A number of studies have also showed a > link between access to guns and firearm death rates -- in some studies, the > correlation between these two variables has been as high as 92 per cent. > Firearm robberies and firearm deaths have dropped consistently with > progressive controls on firearms over the last decade. > The law clearly represents a compromise between public safety and legitimate > firearm use. > > Wendy Cukier, > President, Coalition for Gun Control, > Professor of Justice Studies, > Ryerson Polytechnic University > > Professor Al Dorans > Director of Operations, Ottawa Office > > Canadian Institute for Legislative Action / Institut Canadien pour l'Action > Legislative > > 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'Activites des Sports des Armes a Feu > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:14:02 -0600 From: Kyle and Barbara Berry Subject: Re:Canadian Firearms Centre's own Shovelgate As part of a good summary, Barry mentions: >The Great Outdoorsman (Expressvu 433, www.greatoutdoorsman.com) >opens with "This program is brought to you by the Canadian >Firearms Centre - Firearms Safety is everyone's concern". snip . . . > Worse still is the fact that the Great Outdoorsman almost never airs >anything that would be of interest to firearms enthusiasts. Sponsering the "Red Green" show would have been much more appropriate. At least then they would have reached people interested in jokes. Kyle Berry Dawson Creek, BC Canada ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:13:58 -0600 From: Bill Ryan Subject: The Right to Hunt & Fish > The following resolution will be submitted to the British Columbia Wildlife Federation Convention 2000 by the Nanaimo Fish & Game Club: > > The Right to Hunt & Fish > > BRIEF > > 1. Every year sees assaults being made by extremist and special interest groups on the lawful harvesting of the fish and wildlife resources of the Province. For the most part these groups do not and have not made any meaningful contribution to the conservation of these resources. > > 2. Sport fishermen and hunters, spearheaded by the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, have consistently made an important contribution, both directly and in cooperation with the provincial government. No guarantee exists that in future they will be able to participate in the activities that constitute the reason for such an organization. > > 3. While the resources primarily belong to the people of British Columbia, in the final analysis they are part of the heritage of all Canadians, and as such should be available to all Canadians. > > 4. Enactment of "Right to Fish and Hunt" legislation is the only guarantee that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the activities we have pretty well taken for granted. > > 5. In view of the present difficulties being experienced by the operators of shooting ranges, it is hoped that the BCWF will vigorously lobby for the enactment of this legislation. > > RESOLUTION > > WHEREAS hunting and fishing, both for sustenance and sport are, by custom and tradition a valuable part of Canadian culture, > > and > > WHEREAS supplying the needs of the sport hunting and fishing community has created an industry that makes a significant contribution to the Canadian economy, > > and > > WHEREAS the sport hunting and fishing community has been in the forefront of conservation and restoration activity in Canada, > > and > > WHEREAS the sport hunting and fishing community has earned the right to be protected from arbitrary intrusion into its activities, > > THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED > > That The British Columbia Wildlife Federation requests the Government of the Province of British Columbia to enact legislation at its earliest opportunity, guaranteeing all Canadians, with appropriate licencing, > > The Right to Hunt and Fish for Sport, in Perpetuity, for all Species, over all Lands and in all Waters under provincial jurisdiction, subject only to such Regulations as may be required in the interests of Conservation of the Fish and Wildlife Resource. > > Passed by the Nanaimo and District Fish and Game Protective Association on 12 October l999 for submission to the British Columbia Wildlife Federation 2000 Convention. > > **************************** > > > -- > billryan@island.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:20:15 -0600 From: "John Evers" Subject: prohibition order firearms Ok guys need your help on this one. A friend of a friend ( no names) has recently been charged with Assault. He refused the police offer of a $500 fine and is going to court to fight the charges. In the meantime the Police have confiscated all of his firearms including a restricted rifle. The Police are attempting to proceed with a prohibition order and destruction order on all of these firearms even before he has had his day in court!! Naturally he thinks that once he beats his court case this firearms will be part of some anti-firearms piece of government funded art on display in a mall somewhere. The police refused my friends attempt to get a hold of the non-restricted/registered firearms and said they were going to be destroyed. Surely there is some method to prevent this!! As my friend does not have a restricted firearms permit I would like to take a whack at rescuing these firearms. So....... 1. Can firearms held by police ( they are not evidence in any case) be sold by someone pending a court case/prohibition order? 2 If the answer of the above is YES..... Exactly how would I/we go about this arduous task. I live in another town and have a spotless record and have no fear of the police " getting back at me", should I ruffle some feathers. Please include references to various and sundry laws that I might site in conversation with the firearms personnel at the station. Naturally I will take copious notes during any conversations with them. Please respond directly to me on the above unless the moderator feels it would be of use to the general audience. Regards John Evers jevers@axiom.on.ca Moderator's Note: I think this would be good information for all of us to have, so send your responces to the Digest as well. DJP ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:20:04 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Guns drawn for court battle PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator DATE: 2000.02.12 SECTION: Observer PAGE: D03 SOURCE: The Canadian Press BYLINE: Nahlah Ayed PHOTO: Photo: Adrian Wyld, The Canadian Press ILLUSTRATION: Doug Whiteside's image is reflected as he watches a video of a rifle being cut into pieces at a gun show in Calgary. Guns drawn for court battle; Firearms laws come under siege with Alberta lobbyists leading the charge Douglas Whiteside fondly remembers the first duck-hunting trips he took with his father when he was barely five. By the time he started using guns himself at seven years of age, those trips were routine: Whiteside, his father, and his grandfather regularly went shooting together for as long as the elders lived. Whiteside, now in his 70s, still enjoys the same kind of companionship with others who share his passion for recreational gun use. Now he uses his guns mostly for target shooting. But these days, behind the joy he gets out of his hobby, is a heavy concern about Canada's gun laws. The law, passed in Parliament in 1995, requires that every gun owner get a licence by Jan. 1, 2001, and register every firearm they own by Jan. 1, 2003. That law is now besieged by a constitutional challenge to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada beginning on Feb. 21. The Alberta government, supported by several intervenors, is leading the charge. Behind them, all the way, is Whiteside. "Everybody is concerned as to what the outcome of this thing is," he said from Calgary. "If the Supreme Court rules against this constitutional challenge, I can tell you right now there are firearm owners who are going to continue to fight this. It's not going to go away, regardless of what the government says." That's exactly what Wendy Cukier fears. The head of the Coalition for Gun Control says most Canadians would disagree with Whiteside. Poll after poll has shown people are overwhelmingly in favour of the national registry and licence scheme. Yet those supporters aren't nearly as keen to protect the system as gun owners are to scrap it. "They use everything at their disposal, from the courts, through political pressure, to campaign contributions, through advising gun owners not to comply or to muck up the system," said Cukier, who started her group in the wake of the 1989 shooting of 14 women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique. "We have no doubt that the gun lobby will persist in fighting the law. They have incredible resources and they have incredible will." With the 10th anniversary of the tragic Montreal shooting still fresh in her mind, Cukier, like Whiteside, is worried about the Supreme Court challenge. "If the law were overturned, it would be catastrophic. It would not only bring into question the new elements of the law, the registration of long guns, but also the fundamental principles of licensing gun owners. "It would just be a disaster." It's an emotional issue on both sides of the fence. Whiteside's objections to the Firearms Act -- passed in the name of protecting Canadians -- are shared by other critics: The new program is costly and wasteful. It doesn't protect Canadians from criminals. It penalizes law-abiding citizens. It's never going to work. Supporters of the law, on the other hand, say the program's hit a few bumps, but that's normal. It does protect Canadians. It's a necessary nuisance to gun owners. It will work. The high court will hear those very arguments -- and more. Some 25 groups will get their say when the court hears the case. The heart of the challenge is whether the federal government trampled on provincial turf when it decided to take on the mammoth job of accounting for every gun and owner in a country of more than 30 million. The Alberta government will argue Ottawa was out of bounds. Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Northwest Territories and the gun lobby will agree. "This encroachment is major, significant and fundamental," Alberta government lawyers say in court documents. "The subject of provincial authority is not merely affected. Rather, Parliament has assumed absolute control over firearm ownership and possession. The federal criminal law power is broad. However, it must have limits." That argument won some attention from the Alberta Court of Appeal, which heard the case in 1998. The court said the provinces are right: Ottawa did overstep its jurisdiction. But in a 3-2 decision, the court said it was a justifiable intrusion in the interest of public safety. Alberta will argue the decision was an error that "if uncorrected, would allow the federal government to completely erode provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights." But since the Appeal Court justified Ottawa's meddling in the name of public safety, Alberta and other groups have set out to poke some holes in the belief that the system protects the public. Lawyers quote a variety of studies in submissions to the Supreme Court that claim no link between a firearms registry and a reduction of criminal use of weapons. In its own documents, Ottawa disagrees, arguing the system has a broader purpose than merely reducing criminal offences. "The act is both proactive and reactive, dealing not only with situations in which firearm-related harm actually occurs, but also those in which, in the view of Parliament, it is seen as representing an unacceptably high risk. "Parliament was seeking to prevent suicide, accidents and other forms of harm, as well as criminal offences, by reducing the likelihood that a firearm would become part of the circumstances in which these events are likely to occur." Ottawa is supported by a variety of groups, including Cukier's coalition, the cities of Toronto, Montreal, and Winnipeg, chiefs of police, and health and victims' organizations. The federal government also vigorously defends its ability to make laws in the area. The opening words of the Constitution Act "give Parliament exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces." Some observers say the court's word on the jurisdictional issue may bring a modern interpretation to the often muddy federal-provincial relationship. Others say it's merely a side issue. And so is the Supreme Court challenge. The real fight has been brewing on the ground, they say -- in newspapers, gun stores, coffee shops and at political conventions. At a Calgary sportsman show, Jim Hinter of the National Firearms Association is sitting at booth No. 67. A representative from the Canadian Firearms Centre, the agency running the national registry, has set up shop nearby. "The biggest thing we hope happens is people treat them politely," Hinter said from his booth. Gun owners are angry, he explains. Many are upset enough that they're refusing to get licences they're supposed to have by the end of the year. "I think almost every firearm owner (is doing that), we hear it all the time," he said. "This is just normal, everyday Canadians saying: 'Enough is enough and I'm not going to do it.' " Many gun owners are worried the registry could eventually lead to the confiscation of their guns. Like other critics, including the Reform party, Hinter takes issue with the efficiency -- and effectiveness -- of the registry and licensing system. One-time implementation costs were supposed to be $85 million -- they've grown to $120 million because of parliamentary changes -- and critics say the cost may rise to as much as $200 million. "They've angered so many gun owners they've only had 200,000 people apply for one of their new licences," said Hinter, who estimates there are as many as seven million owners in Canada. "What are they going to do, put everybody in jail?" Jean Valin of the firearms centre says it won't come to that. The centre says there are only three million gun owners and about seven million guns -- not the 20 million Hinter suggests. The latest data indicate more than 530,000 people have responded and are in some stage of the licensing program, said Valin. "This is a little bit like your snow tires. You kind of wait until the snow is on the ground, you panic and get your snow tires on," he explained. "It's an inconvenience. You're filling out forms and sending money to the government. There's not much to motivate you to do it early." Program costs will be covered by user fees. The gun lobby, he added, is a small but vocal minority. Canadians are law-abiding by nature and will comply. The registry, he argued, has already shown its usefulness. As of Thursday, 1.543 million guns were either registered or in the process and information about all of them is available to police. More than 670 licences have been revoked and almost 650 have been refused. "What's that famous quote: Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated?" asks Valin. Saskatchewan Reform MP Garry Breitkreuz isn't so sure. Ever since the program was launched in 1998, he's been busy submitting and publicizing dozens of Access to Information requests revealing cracks in the system. His latest release is based on 1994 justice minister documents outlining advantages and disadvantages of a Coalition for Gun Control proposal for licensing and registry. Breitkreuz's release concludes "Liberals ignored March '94 advice from officials on gun registration scheme." The Reform party has been a vocal opponent of the program, and argues it actually threatens safety because it takes police resources off the streets. Breitkreuz has acted as a one-man, public relations machine to get that message out. "Laying a piece of paper beside your gun doesn't control crime. In fact, it will do the opposite because it ties the police up behind their desks dealing with the good guys. "So how is the registry working? It's not." Not everyone's position is so black and white. The Canadian Police Association raised some eyebrows last year when word spread it might pass a resolution revoking its previous position supporting the gun-registry arm of the program. Vocal opposition to the registry, from the Reform party and others, has raised enough questions that the association is seeking an independent observer. "We will be submitting a request to the auditor general to evaluate the effectiveness of what's been done to date," said spokesman David Griffin. There will be plenty of time for the association to find out. As Whiteside predicts, the Supreme Court round in this long fight is unlikely to be the last. Many who want the system scrapped are unsure of their prospects at the high court. Some say they don't trust the appointed, unelected Supreme Court justices, others aren't sure a constitutional challenge is the best approach. An Alberta group, which is intervening in the Supreme Court case, will soon be considering whether to launch another challenge to the law on the basis that it limits individual freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. Ted Morton, president of the Coalition of Responsible Firearm Owners and Sportsmen, said in an interview he'd like his members to consider pushing ahead with the lawsuit. Morton has said he's prepared to tie the matter up in court for another three years with the help of other groups and perhaps some provincial governments. Cukier wonders when they'll give it a rest. She says the provinces are playing into the hands of a small minority of opponents who disregard the overwhelming public will to keep gun control. "How far are the provincial governments prepared to go to appease the gun lobby? Are they going to continue to throw taxpayers' money into the pot in fighting these various challenges and claims?" "Sometimes it's pretty discouraging." ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #272 **********************************