Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:22:38 -0600 Message-Id: <200002272122.PAA20106@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 #282 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 Sunday, February 27 2000 Volume 03 : Number 282 In this issue: Protection? Ha! Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #280 London Free Press editorial 2000 02 20 Re: automatic conversion of FAC to PAL The Supreme Court Challenge Re: Research Paper dangerous Licensing, only, opponents demand Cornwall Standard Freeholder - Letter to the Lditor Supreme Court Spending of Tax Dollars Fw: Letter to the Editor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:07 -0600 From: "chris gilmore" Subject: Protection? Ha! It is very disturbing to read where two women were killed after making several calls to the police over eight hours for protection. So now there are suspensions, investigations and various other events to find out how this could have happened. Too late for the women. Too bad they didn't have what they believed they had, police protection. Allan Rock, who brought in more gun control legislation, once stated that Canadian citizens did not have the right to use guns to protect their lives. Too bad. So who will protect me? The overworked police force who are in need of a lot more members? Where I live it takes a phone call after hours to Kamloops who in turn calls the members here to respond. This can be time consuming especially if you have someone prowling around in your house. If I were a crook I would be glad in the knowledge that most likely the place I want to break into won't be protected by the owner because of all the guns must be locked up and the owner is not supposed to protect himself. The police? Well they might get there in time but not likely till after I got what I want and have left. IF caught maybe probation or a very short stint in jail. If you sense I am a little angry you are right! I am in favour of the program that the National Firearms Assoc. has long proposed to correct the misuse of these tools. A graduated program of teaching people the safe and correct use of firearms. This would be a hands on course that would put people who know about firearms and the resposibilities that go with the use and ownership of them in position of teaching those who want to learn. I also believe that the use of firearms in a crime should carry a penalty that cannot be bargained away in court. What about my protection? Well let's put it this way, I won't die waiting. Thank you, Chris Gilmore Logan Lake, BC ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:03 -0600 From: "Clive Edwards" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #280 ``We know when the system fails because we end up with dead bodies,'' said Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control. ``It's much harder to measure when the system is working.'' The obvious observation, after the Winnipeg murders where 911 calls were ignored, is "Yup, you're right, Wendy. Dead right." The less obvious observation is that firearms in the home and at work (i.e., police, security service, and "other") deter tens if not hundreds of thousands of cases of violence potentially resulting in death each year in Canada. Looked at this way, each case where a home or business was"invaded" and the occupant(s) killed or injured, each case of rape, is a case not only where 911 didn't work, but it is a case where a firearm in minimally trained hands would likely have saved lives. Clive Edwards NFA, NRA, JPFO, HACS of BC Chilliwack Fish & Game Protective Association ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:00 -0600 From: Lee Jasper Subject: London Free Press editorial 2000 02 20 This item follows the recent Toronto high school shooting and public comments about restricting access to handguns to police and the military by Ontario Premier Mike Harris. War on handguns Strict controls have existed on the legal purchase and use of handguns in Canada for more then 30 years but they have done little to eliminate handguns as the weapon of choice among criminals. Restrictions may have slowed the rate of proliferation of handguns but they have not stemmed the flow. Worse, there are worrying signs the illegal possession of handguns is becoming more a part of the Canadian fabric. Police report handguns are more frequently found at crime scenes. More troubling, they seem increasingly to be carried or used by Canadian youth. The growing influence of American culture coincides with the growth of handguns. Thousands flood in from the U.S., seemingly undaunted by naive border billboards that bear dire warnings about carrying guns in Canada. The issue came crashing home a week ago when three teens were wounded in the parking lot of a Toronto high school. A wounded 17-year old was charged with attempted murder. A parent's nightmare. This is an issue where Canadians must draw a line in the sand between private rights and public safety. And in this case, the few benign uses for handguns, such as collecting or target shooting, don't outweigh the malevolent use. Unfortunately, handgun control has been one-sided, with government clamping down on law-abiding users and leaving crooks to their own devices. These were easy public relations responses to salve frayed nerves. Instead, a true, two-pronged approach is needed, gradually restricting legal uses but also attacking the illegal trade. The goal is to slowly remove handguns from the possession of all but the police, military and other select groups. But the first move must be to focus on criminals and the flow of handguns into Canada. A war on guns is needed. No quarter given. Penalties for smuggling and illegal possession must be jacked up and convictions must come with minimum sentences. Big ones. And we can't allow gun charges to be bargained away. The message at the border, too, must be severe. No guns - not ever. That means more customs officers, more frequent checks, a clearer message to American neighbours. Young people must get the message. Young Offender protections should not apply to gun charges. We want fewer guns. And we can work toward it gradually. But first, target the crooks for a change. Comments can be sent to ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:05 -0600 From: "Brad Thorarinson" Subject: Re: automatic conversion of FAC to PAL I have a current FAC which doesn't expire until February 2003. I also happen to own ( along with several other registered handguns) a newly prohibited 25acp Browning pistol.., You have a PAL - and your FAC is it, or at least proof of the existence of the 'deemed' PAL. You don't have to apply for a PAL to purchase firearms, quote your FAC number including the two-letter province designator when asked for your PAL number. You will have to apply for a PAL or PL before your FAC expiration date. The prohibited handgun issue is totally separate. I'm in much the same boat, I'm the non-grandfathered owner of non-grandfathered guns. In my case, bill C-17(?) will grandfather the guns but not me. I'm currently taking awaiting a reference hearing because the CFO of Manitoba has refused to issue me an ATT for these guns - they are registered, and 'grandfathered' in a number of ways, but not by s. 12(6). (long story, not yet finished, movie rights available ;-) My advice: The amnesty is still in effect, no hurry to do anything drastic yet. Brad ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:10 -0600 From: CILA / ICAL Subject: The Supreme Court Challenge CILA / ICAL Defending Canada's Heritage ---------------------------------------------- February 23, 2000 To the firearms community; re: The Supreme Court Challenge On the 21st and 22nd of February, 2000, CILA's Director of Operations, Al Dorans and I attended the Supreme Court of Canada challenge to Bill C-68, the Firearms Act. In our opinion and based upon our observations, we had anything but a "fair" hearing. The nine Justices were rude, interruptive and harassing...but only to our side. The anti gun groups were ably to state their cases with relatively few interruptions despite the fact that their presentations dealt almost exclusively with effectiveness and rationale of the legislation and very little to do with its criminality or jurisdiction. Alberta's lawyer made the point that there were three distinct categories of firearm; Prohibited, restricted and non-restricted and yet non-restricted guns were still restricted because of the licensing provisions. He also made the point that the only criminality was in support of the regulations. Throughout his whole presentation he was constantly interrupted by the Justices. Eight of the nine justices asked him questions regarding the effectiveness or intent of the law then admonished him for straying from the topic of federal / provincial responsibilities. Here is a few choice quotes from the "impartial" Justices: * Registration will "impart a heightened sense of responsibility in regards to safe storage concerns". * "We know that people who shouldn't have guns will have less opportunity to get them”. * There is "no distinction between registration and licensing". * “long guns are no different than handguns and handguns are gone”. * This law should apply to everybody because firearms owners are a target group and the bad ones “needed to be weeded out”. * Firearms are “designed to kill and maim” * "The legislation will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals by cutting off their supply" Lets add a few from the antis: * “if this legislation is not about public safety, then exactly what is it for?” - The Alberta Women’s Shelters * “the fee requirement was ancillary and could be waved”. - The Alberta Women’s Shelters * “the legislation was not about regional equality but rather, gender equality”. (They said that the ownership of guns is predominantly male and that the victims are female and the firearms is used as a means of control.) -The Alberta Women’s Shelters * there is no distinction between “ordinary guns” and "prohibited guns" because all guns are inherently dangerous. - CAVEAT * "criminals will not register" - CAVEAT * "registration will assist in preventing suicide" - CAVEAT We got some good ones in too! * "The only intent (of registration) was to trace private property" - Ontario * "for a crime to exist, there has to be criminality." - Nova Scotia * "crimes are not merely forbidden, they are morally wrong" - Nova Scotia * "unregistered firearms are not within the “true nature” of crime" - Nova Scotia * "an individual must pay a fee to extract oneself from criminality" - Nova Scotia * "how far can Parliament go enacting proactive legislation with no definitive link to criminality" - SFC We all knew that animals abounded in Ottawa. There are "pigs at the trough", there are "trained seals" and now it appears there are "kangaroos" too! Tony Bernardo Executive Director 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 leFutur d'Activités des Sports des Armes à Feu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:07 -0600 From: "Albert Chambers" Subject: Re: Research Paper Are rifles and shotguns the "weapons of choice" in Canadian violent crime? No. In Canada, like the rest of the world, the weapons of choice are: 1. Hands and fists; 2. Feet, shoes, and boots; 3. Knives; 4. Blunt objects of all sorts; 5. Automobiles; and 6. Cordage and chains. Guns only make the top 10 by default, as there are less than ten categories of weapons that are used in most reports. This is further evidence that gun "control" is mis-guided. - -Knowledge is power - be powerful - -Al in Texas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:35:02 -0600 From: "T. Bryant" Subject: dangerous Well we are into the first court case. I don't think the antis have quite got the picture yet. This court challenge is based on one very restricted portion of the gun laws and it leaves an enormous number of possible challenges open for contest. One item that I have not seen addressed to my satisfaction is the issue of "inherently dangerous". The Feds are using as part of their argument that firearms are "inherently dangerous" and therefore the Feds have the right to legislate them. I think before any of the present court case can even be heard there has to be a clear understanding of inherently dangerous. What is the criterion for the term? To me inherently dangerous means that the item in question is dangerous by virtue of its very existence. Nuclear waste is inherently dangerous - so is toxic waste. A firearm is not dangerous in and by itself. A gun sitting on the table threatens no one except those suffering from a phobic fear of firearms. If firearms were inherently dangerous then millions of owners would be at risk of certain death or injury just by being around them. The fact that millions of people own and use these items without injury and death proves that definition as false and moves the firearm from the inherently dangerous class. That something might be used in an unsafe manner does not make it inherently unsafe. Once again the millions of safe users argues directly against the Feds definition because the items they are using are not being used in an unsafe manner. Using the potential for misuse as an excuse for legislation would mean that the Feds should be drafting legislation that addresses any items that might be potentially misused. By their definition knives, cars, and a multitude of other items should now be regulated. If firearms are not inherently dangerous then the legislation is founded on a false premise and therefore invalid. A gun owner is in front of a Federal Regulator. The regulator has determined that the gun owner owns several rifles that are no longer politically correct. The Fed says, "Sir, as far as I am concerned I should be charging you with possession of inherently dangerous firearms because you could use those tools to rob banks or murder people." The gun owner replies "Well if thats the way you feel you may as well charge me with rape because I own those tools too!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:05:27 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Licensing, only, opponents demand PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2000.02.24 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Alberta PAGE: B4 BYLINE: Don Thomas, Journal Staff Writer SOURCE: The Edmonton Journal DATELINE: Edmonton Licensing, only, opponents demand: But they oppose registration of firearms Opponents of federal gun-control laws say if Alberta adopts its own system, they would accept licensing of individuals but not the registration of firearms. Justice Minister Dave Hancock has said Alberta will devise its own system if the Supreme Court of Canada accepts its argument that the federal gun laws infringe on provincial jurisdiction and should be thrown out. In his comments Tuesday he didn't say how an Alberta system would differ from the federal one. While many opponents of the new federal laws have been stalling on getting user licences -- the deadline is Dec. 31 -- they object most strongly to a requirement to register all guns by Jan. 1, 2003. Various Alberta justice ministers, including Hancock, have been told that gun registration is not acceptable, said George Duffy of the Responsible Firearms Owners' Association. ``We would accept an acquisition type permit like we had already. A guy would get checked out by the cops to see if he had a criminal record and he would be issued a card which he'd have to produce in order to buy.'' ``But we told them that was the only thing we would accept. We don't want any kind of registering because it makes me have a licence to own my own property, and that's wrong.'' Some system will have to be ready in case the ruling goes against the federal government, said Alberta Fish and Game Association president Dave Powell. ``I happen to agree with Mr. Hancock that you can't have every crazy in the country running in and buying a handgun,'' he said. ``I agree that people should be qualified to own them and that a little training in firearms should happen. I think we should go back to the system where we licensed the people and not the guns. ``I wouldn't be prepared to register firearms because that's useless. Firearms don't kill people, it's the people that use them that kill people. That's where you concentrate your effort.'' Arlene Chapman, spokesperson for the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, said it's unlikely the Supreme Court will rule against the federal government. Her group was one of several intervening in favour of the federal government at the Supreme Court this week. But if the legislation is struck down, Alberta should bring in a system similar to the federal one involving licensing of individuals and registration of all firearms, she said. Edmonton's Dave Tomlinson, president of the National Firearms Association, also doubts the Supreme Court will throw out the federal legislation. But he, too, said Alberta should still devise a system of its own because the backlogged federal registry may collapse. The NFA model puts all the emphasis on training and qualification of users, eliminating any need to register their firearms, he said. There would be four classes of licences. Applicants would have to prove they can use a particular weapon safely, that they know the rules for its use and that they're likely to obey those rules. ``If you get satisfactory answers to those three questions, you don't have to worry very much about the equipment itself,'' Tomlinson said. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:05:28 -0600 From: "Douglas Pearson" Subject: Cornwall Standard Freeholder - Letter to the Lditor Here is my letter to the editor, printed verbatim today in Cornwall's daily newspaper, the Standard Freeholder. - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANOTHER BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE Much has been said recently about federal fiscal management, the most recent scandal being the Human Resources' mismanagement of $1 billion. Let's not forget another make-work project the government would like to keep a lid on, that being C-68, the Firearms Act and gun registry. The federal government has already confessed to spending $320 million on the registry, even though Allan Rock promised it would only cost $85 million over five years, and would be scrapped if it ever reached $150 million. Oh well, just another small government cost overrun. Inside information sources in Ottawa fear the costs have already reached $1 billion and we are just starting the second year of operation. The exact dollar figure will be hard to come by because the Minister of Justice refuses to release 172 pages of documents relating to the true cost of the registry. She still refuses to release the gun registry budget for this fiscal year. And don't forget the $30 million for a separate Quebec registry. The federal government plans to give the RCMP an extra $420 million over five years, or $84 million/year, to fight organized crime and international drug trafficking. The government will spend $50-$60 million/year to register hunting and target firearms, a futile effort which will do nothing to stem the tide of black market guns entering this country, estimated at 1,000/day. Deputy Prime Minister Herb Gray stated in the House that the 64 year old handgun registry has done nothing to reduce crime or save lives, despite a cost of $630 million. As for the economic impact, the Firearms Act is destroying a $6 billion /year shooting sports industry representing 33,000 jobs. There is a 115 page report on the economic impact of the registry, but cabinet secrecy keeps this hidden from the public as well. Isn't it time for a regular audit of the Department of Justice as well? This horror story has the potential to make the Human Resources' mismanagement of $1 billion look like pocket change. Douglas Pearson, Cornwall ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:05:27 -0600 From: "Bert van Ingen" Subject: Supreme Court I watched the proceedings very carefully so far. The responses of the judges scare me. Just like 100 year old Alcohol Prohibition, prostitution laws and other social problems they are going to favour whatever employs lawyers and public servants. Namely assure us that guns are dangerous and should be controlled by a government process that can do nothing but "prohibit" and "confiscate". Create a whole new "underground". Oh well, at least more and more of us are learning which way to vote. Bert van Ingen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:05:32 -0600 From: "dan baron" Subject: Spending of Tax Dollars Dear Sir How can the government of Canada keep secrets from the citizens regarding the spending of tax dollars. You are refusing to release 172 pages of documents to the public regarding spending on C-68 the Firearms Act. Also, you voted for the bill because you said voting against it would be counterproductive, ie you would forever remain a backbencher. Well, you are no longer a backbencher, what will you do to REPRESENT your constituents. We know, you had a poll. But we are not stupid. Hundreds gathered outside a full hall in Dryden to protest C68. I never seen any such gatherings to support it. Please send reply to Dan Baron RR#2, Site 230, Box 20 Dryden,Ont P8N 2Y5 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:22:06 -0600 From: "Winram" Subject: Fw: Letter to the Editor > I sent the attached letter to the Winnipeg Free Press editors last week in the wake of a tragic double murder committed despite five 911 calls to police. Given the Free Press position on Bill C-68 its no surprise to me that they did not publish it. However I do think it makes a valid point about useless wastage of scarce police resources and that we need to point this out to the public. From: Winram To: Winnipeg Free Press Subject: Letter to the Editor When police fail to respond to a call, whether it is a 911 call or a non-emergency call, the usual reason given by officialdom is that police resources were stretched to the limit and that all calls had to be screened and prioritized . I can vouch for this for I have been "prioritzed" and left to defend myself and family from street muggers. (Police response time was about 36 hours! Mayor Murray and company can't figure out why people move out of the City!) One wonders whether the fact that at any given time several police officers are engaged in investigating the background and registering the shotguns of Winnipegs' middle-aged duck hunters has a bearing on what police resources are available to respond to impending tragedys. Chief Ewatzki, Mayor Glen Murray and Counsellor Garth Steek among others might just want to reconsider wasting police resources on an expensive and useless firearms registryIs anyone listening to the fact that The National Firearms Association has developed an alternative draft bill that is cheaper, effective and acceptable to almost the entire community including firearms owners? Yours, Lex Winram ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #282 **********************************