From: Thu 19:18 Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #555To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, December 7 2000 Volume 03 : Number 555 In this issue: complint to CBC ombudsman Part 1 Re: Airguns: Will they be here much longer Re: The Legalities of the PAL Re: PM expected to replace McLellan as justice minister Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #554 Scholars, lawyers urge more resources for police Re: Airguns: Will They Be Here Much Longer Hear; Hear... New Address For My Web Page GUNS, DRUGS AND ALCOHOL Power Vs Rights two license applications ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:06:01 -0500 From: "Paul Chicoine" <701506@ican.net> Subject: complint to CBC ombudsman Part 1 I realize this is a long posting, I hope you will bear out the length and see the logic of my argument. My submitted date is not accidental. December 6, 2000 Mr. David Bazay. Ombudsman, CBC Re: Absolutely Canadian Dear Sir. This complaint pertains to a news item broadcast October 16, 2000. The news item is regarding Mr. John Whidden's decision to ignore the upcoming legislated deadline to submit to provisions of C-68, The Firearms Act and the reporting of this story. I am in receipt of the required response from Mr. Dan Leger (Bureau Chief/Executive Producer TV News, Current Affairs and Newsworld). Mr. Leger has failed to adequately address my concerns. I therefore submit this formal complaint to your office for redress. In the course of this brief, I will use quotes taken from Mr. Leger's correspondence. To insure Mr. Leger's comments are not taken out of context, I attach his complete text at the end of this document. Your office is in receipt of copies of my letters of complaint to Newsworld. The overriding principle upon which I predicate my argument is that the program, broadcast item and CBC staff in question come within the purview of News and Current Affairs as opposed to entertainment programming. Given this distinction, I submit a more rigorous broadcast standard, a journalistic standard applies. Although not a journalist, I believe the benchmark for journalism at the CBC is to inform the public in a timely manner with correct information in an unbiased fashion. This standard has not been met. 1. on the issue of criminal intent, Mr. Leger writes: "As to your point about counselling Mr. Whidden to commit an offence, I reject this entirely. Yes, Rob Gordon and his camera operator did ask Mr. Whidden to handle his weapon so it could be photographed. We did ask him to fire the weapon, which he did. But our people at no time counselled him to do anything illegal. " CC C.39 87. (1) clearly states it is an offence to point a firearm at another person weather the firearm is loaded or not. Additional provisions in the legislation overturn 87. (1), if there is a lawful excuse to do so. i.e.. point a firearm . I am willing to concede this point under the assumption that the recording of a news item is a lawful excuse. I will also illustrated Mr. Gordon's grasp of the legislation was so impoverished he was most likely precluded from having formed intent. 2. on the issue of video images and editing, Mr. Leger writes: 'The weapon was pointed for illustrative purposes only and there was never any suggestion of a threat." The sequence of images illustrate a firearm being loaded and shouldered. Mr. Whidden then turns to the point the gun directly at the viewer, via the camera lens, the muzzle forming a large area of the televised image. The next sequence shows a side view of Mr. Whidden pulling the trigger and the resulting recoil. 2a. On the point of "suggestion of a threat". Mr. Leger is not qualified to make this determination. Mr. Leger would need to question a shooting victim or an abused woman and/or an individual with a deep fear of firearms to bear out this aspect of his argument. I suggest, to that audience, the image of a pointed firearm is definitely perceived as a threat. 2b. On the point of "illustrative purposes". What is the illustrative purpose of this sequence of images from the aspect of news and information programming? There is none, the sole purpose of this sequence, where a firearm is pointed at the viewer, is to elicit a dramatic effect. The viewer is shown how to load a shotgun and point it in someone's (the viewer's ) face. I assume it was not Mr. Gordon's intention to portray Mr. Whidden as dangerous. However, given the debate concerns firearms and the Criminal code this sequence portrays Mr. Whidden, the self-professed, potential criminal with a weapon pointed at the viewer. If the image of the firearm pointed at the viewer were to have been omitted from the final cut the message would have been that intended by Mr. Whidden as declared in his monologue: a lawful person, who poses no threat to the public. An unjust law has compelled him to protest and as a result, become a criminal. There is a powerful distinction between Mr. Whidden's intention and the power of the disputed televised images. One could have wished that at least some type of disclaimer was included with this sequence of images. "Don't try this at home" or any measure to illustrate that the pointing of a firearm at another individual , except in the defence of life and limb, is an unsafe, unlawful and ill advised action. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 20:23:53 -0800 From: "gunsil" Subject: Re: Airguns: Will they be here much longer You have every right to be POed. What they are doing in the technical specifications in the regulations is NOT done to any standard or rational purpose or for public safety. The air gun issue makes this starkly clear. This type of regulatory fiddling is done to tweek the regulationd to give the maximum amount of harrasment to those who wish to own and use anything resembling a firearm. The purpose is disarmament not safety. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Adrian Pardy Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:00 AM Subject: Airguns: Will they be here much longer > I am an Olympic Air Pistol shooter, and frankly, i am getting a little > pissed off with all this stuff the government is doing. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:54:03 -0700 From: "Gordon" Subject: Re: The Legalities of the PAL Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where the Minister of justice - responsible for her employees breaking the laww, could actually be charged like the common criminal she is ! Gordon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:49:44 -0700 From: "Gordon" Subject: Re: PM expected to replace McLellan as justice minister Nothing at all - except the fact that it is already passed! While the government is afraid of Quebec and the Bloc it has no fears of the underpopulated West! It would simply use Orders-in -council and pass whatever it wants without ever giving Western Canadian representatives a chance to even comment! Again. You and all of us must get it through our heads the Liberals hate the west and do not want to hear a peep from us! Amen! We are just a bunch of dumb bastards that believe in democracy! The Liberals and their followers are just a bunch of smart asses that have conned a way to make "democracy " a totatalitarion Government! Like it or lump it - under this system we are screwed! At least until we find a way to get their full attention ! Gordon - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod LaHaise" Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:51 AM Subject: Re: PM expected to replace McLellan as justice minister > At 08:49 PM 05/12/2000 -0600,Garry Breitkreuz wrote: > >Subject: PM expected to replace McLellan as justice minister > > > > >The Bloc Quebecois prevented passage of the bill with threats of forcing > >around-the-clock voting on 3,000 amendments. > > Can someone explain this process? it looks like it has potential, what > would prevent the CA and/or PC's from using the same tactics to overturn C-68? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:40:47 -0800 From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #554 Hi; We were told this evening that we have to apply to reregister restricted guns by Dec 31, 2000. I can not find this in the regulations or the Act! What is the real answer for this? Cheers Bill (;-) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:38:04 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Scholars, lawyers urge more resources for police PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2000.12.07 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A3 BYLINE: James Baxter SOURCE: Citizen Special `We have adequate laws; we need evidence': Scholars, lawyers urge more resources for police Politicians should stop making political hay over anti-gang legislation and devote more resources to policing, legal scholars and prosecutors said yesterday. ``We have perfectly adequate laws. ... What we need is evidence,'' said Prof. Donald Stuart of the Queen's University law school, noting that the Criminal Code has statutes against the staples of organized crime, namely murder, drug trafficking, extortion and money laundering. He said the proposal by the Mike Harris government to use Ontario civil law to seize ill-gotten assets probably won't be constitutional. Mr. Harris announced the proposed new measures Tuesday, saying the Chretien Liberals were consistently ``soft on crime and reluctant to be aggressive.'' The proposed law, which would be known as the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act, tries to circumvent federal criminal proceedings, which many view as slow and inefficient. It would do so through civil lawsuits aimed essentially at suing criminals out of their proceeds of crime. Mr. Harris said he thinks the new law will be effective because civil court has a significantly lower burden of proof. ``It's shocking that we are even considering this,'' said Mr. Stuart, who said he has yet to see the text of the Ontario bill. He said he does not believe a province will be able to create a civil statute that is constitutional and effective that doesn't undermine criminal prosecutions. Federal officials and Crown prosecutors said not only would the law likely be either ineffective or unconstitutional, it could hinder criminal investigations and indictments. They consistently expressed fear that assets seized under the civil actions could then be perceived as ``fruit of the poisonous tree'' and all evidence that stemmed from the search and seizure could be thrown out by criminal court judges. For years, Canadian police and prosecutors have clamoured for new criminal statutes that mirror the U.S. RICO Act, which was developed in the 1960s to battle Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. It allows police to seize proceeds of crime and prosecutors to seek significantly longer sentences for people convicted of being part of a criminal conspiracy. It was the measure that was effectively used by then-U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani to smash New York's Italian mob. The Bloc Quebecois and other groups have put political pressure on the federal government to bring in tougher anti-gang measures similar to the RICO laws. But RICO's critics say these laws can be too invasive of individual rights and freedoms for the benefit they provide. Montreal crime reporter Michel Auger said yesterday that he supports calls for stronger legislation in Canada that resembles RICO, noting that many of Canada's most notorious mobsters will travel almost anywhere in the world, except in the U.S. He said the threat of losing everything -- money, liberty and freedom -- through RICO is the one thing that terrifies them most. Mr. Stuart said Canada's attempts at RICO legislation focusing on criminal conspiracies have been disastrous. The most notable failure, he said, was the Liberals' failed anti-gang legislation that made it illegal to be a ``member'' of an organization involved in criminal activity. The law was scoffed at by its main targets, Quebec's biker gangs, and failed miserably when it met its first test in Manitoba. ``We already have RICO laws that are worse than those of California (among the strongest in the U.S.),'' said Mr. Stuart. ``That is not the problem. What we need is for the laws we have to be properly enforced.'' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 01:20:04 -0700 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Airguns: Will They Be Here Much Longer Adrian Pardy said: > I am an Olympic Air Pistol shooter, and frankly, i am getting a little > pissed off with all this stuff the government is doing. Right now, So... you mean you weren't pissed off when those of us who shoot firearms were attacked by C-68? Didn't matter until it came home to roost for you personally? Now you're beginning to see the price of shrugging your shoulders because you don't figure it's going to affect you. A lesson none firearms owning Canadians will also realize sooner or later as this style of government spreads to other areas. > Why is there no section in Bill C-68 for air guns. So... would the situation be okay as long as there was special treatment for air gun shooters that allowed them to carry on before? > I dont know if this is fesable, but personally, i think shooters across > canada should unite, a fight bill C-68, Ummmm... many of us have, a long time ago. Where have you been while we have been fighting the battle? > im not saying remove it, just fix the flaws that are in it. I take it that you mean it is generally okay except for where it affects air gun users? If you feel a little stung by this post, you should be. Unfortunately, shooters like you are part of the problem - you don't do anything about this sort of legislation until the day comes that it intrudes on your fun and games. Then you want to know why somebody isn't doing something about the legislation. Now how about you take that anger and turn it into something constructive to benefit ALL firearms owners rather than just worry about your own particular interest group. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:28:55 -0500 From: "E. John Wilson" Subject: Hear; Hear... The following e/mail from Mr Hobbs certainly hits the nail on the head, how can we as a group be considered "honourable" if we stoop to dis-honourable rhetoric? There have been times when I have left off reading the C. F. Digest just because of the rabid vitriolic text. Mr Hobbs is entirely correct in his statements that we denigrate our own stand against C-68 when we stoop to infantile name calling. Perhaps the best way to defeat the concept of bill C-68 would for each and every one of us to attempt registering knives, base-ball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, legs of lamb etc. as potentially deadly weapons just as the Government requires us to register the tools of our sporting pursuits as deadly weapons... E. John Wilson > Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:29:02 -0700 > From: "Robert M. Hobbs" > Subject: Decorum > > I respectfully suggest we clean up the Gun Digest vocabulary. You know > what I mean, Kanada Kustoms, Liebrals, Idle Annie, etc. The fact is we > lost the election and we reelected the Justice Minister. The fire is > burning well, and I doubt if continuing to throw gasoline on it is > helping. > > Please do not get me wrong. In attaining their majority the Liberals did > lie. But the fact is they won, and now have the power. We are in deep > doo doo. > > I am not a lawyer, and this is only my personal opinion. However, I feel > that we should not place too much hope in the protection of the courts, > which have become political extensions of the party in power. > > The two remaining defenses we might have are truth and public opinion. > The truth is more readily accepted if presented without abrasive > rhetoric. And through a lot of work and a reasoned approach we do have a > lot of public support already. I can and have converted feminine non > gun owners to our cause by open discussion, examination of their views, > and careful presentation of the facts. I don't start, though, by calling > such people names. > > We'll get further if we clean up our act. > > Robert Hobbs > Devon, Alberta > > ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:07:43 -0800 From: "Pete Aspinall" Subject: New Address For My Web Page Just a note to let everyone know my new web page address, The old address was http://www3.telus.net/gunsmith This will still work until the end of the month. My old email was gunsmith@telus.net My New email is pa-gunsmith@home.com My New Web Page Address is http://members.home.net/pa-gunsmith There are still a few glitches to work out with the server, but for the = most part it is online. Thanks to all of you who have visited the page and for the nice = comments. Glad to have been able to help out with your firearm problems. Sincerely, Pete Aspinall (Gunsmith) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 09:10:53 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: GUNS, DRUGS AND ALCOHOL - -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Michael S. Brown [mailto:mb@e-z.net] Sent: December 7, 2000 12:07 AM To: mb@e-z.net Subject: My latest column GUNS, DRUGS AND ALCOHOL What do guns, drugs, and alcohol have in common? They are all highly portable, highly prized by many people, and can be abused. Each has been the object of societal sanctions. A grand, but foolish experiment with alcohol prohibition was tried from 1920 to 1933. The dreadful results are well documented. Drug prohibition has lasted much longer and provides an excellent example of how a prohibition program works in modern times. In the name of protecting the public, the war on drugs has led to greater government power in many areas. The once unbreakable line between the police and military has crumbled. Our prisons overflow with people convicted of drug related crimes, but drugs are more available than ever. New terms like "body cavity search", "no-knock entry", "racial profiling", and "stop and frisk" have entered our vocabulary. SWAT teams that were originally formed to rescue hostages now execute deadly nocturnal raids on houses designated by informants of doubtful reliability or on houses of people who annoy local authorities. Guilty and innocent alike are being killed in increasing numbers. Laws allowing enforcement agencies to keep confiscated drug wealth often determine the targets of anti-drug raids. Police corruption is a constant problem. Criminal gangs have flourished under drug prohibition, much as they did in the 1920's. Smugglers and gangsters literally owe their livelihood to the war on drugs. It is becoming painfully obvious that the cure is worse than the disease. Yet some people appear to have learned nothing from alcohol prohibition or drug prohibition and insist that we experience the joys of gun prohibition. There are indications that the same counterproductive tactics will be used. Some of the worst abuses of government force in recent years were precipitated by technical and victimless gun law violations. The media has played an important role by dramatizing the ill effects of drug abuse, while completely ignoring the way that crime and violence are worsened by drug prohibition. Perhaps some strange taboo prevents an honest look at the big picture. Media treatment of the gun issue is very much the same. Stories involving inappropriate use of firearms are front page news, but there is a virtual blackout on positive stories about armed self defense or the way that stricter gun laws lead to higher levels of crime and violence. Opponents of both the war on drugs and the war on guns have adopted the same term --unintended consequences-- to describe the way in which stronger laws paradoxically cause more crime and violence. Their web sites are almost mirror images of each other, except that they complain about the corruption, lack of accountability and violent depredations of different government agencies. These groups are isolated at either end of the political spectrum, but their common interest is obvious. Those who oppose the disastrous war on drugs and those who oppose the growing war on guns are starting to reach out to each other. They are setting aside ideological differences and exploring their common interest. If these two groups can show the way, there are other groups who might join a crusade for fewer laws and less government interference in our daily lives. Perhaps some enterprising politician will sense this natural alliance and use it to further his or her career. Republican politicians have paid lip service to the concept of a smaller, less intrusive government, but are unwilling to make the ideological shift necessary to exploit it. There is no way to predict how much success this potential political alliance could have, since it will be opposed by many politicians who jealously protect government power. Even so it has the potential to redraw the political map for decades to come. Dr. Michael S. Brown is a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws; on the web at: www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl He may be reached at: mb@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:29:21 -0400 From: "hats" Subject: Power Vs Rights I can remember when I was a kid my mother was always telling me don't do this don't do that, she would say when you are 16 you do whatever you want. So I come to a conclusion don't get me wrong I love my mother and father and respect them very much but what's wrong with this picture, Now I'm in my 30's and the goverment is trying to be my new mother. I don't think so Tim. I don't beleive in their system. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:53:44 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: two license applications Speaking of the licensing deadline, I wonder what would happen if one sent in two firearms license applications mailed a week or so apart in order to get two cards. One card could be used as backup in case the first is lost or stolen. The names would be slightly different but the addresss the same. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #555 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:IParkinson@ccinet.ab.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n198 end (198 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($45 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.