From: Wed 18:57 Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #589To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, January 10 2001 Volume 03 : Number 589 In this issue: register that there potato cannon Hotmail and other anonymous addresses Fw: donating firearms to Museums [Fwd: BOUNCE cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: Approval required: Non-member submission from ["Steve Peck" ]] chretin decrees "tough love" for westerners Idle Annie: loved by rural westerners Gun law doesn't apply to us, Mohawks insist Editor's Comment (So we agree - concealed carry is a bad idea. Letter: What a crock! I agree with Ray Laycock letters to Mp Andersen Dumb Laws in Canada Firearms and Weapons re:home home on the range Cross Country Checkup, January 21 at 4:00 pm NFA Membership representation: Meeting with Government ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:16:40 -0600 From: Kelly Garner Subject: register that there potato cannon The below sections can take in a wide wariety of items such as: prop guns (that is how brandon lee died on the set of the crow, he was horseing around), flare guns, hilty guns, air nailers (one guy I know nail his hand to a 2 by 4), tranquilizer guns, even that potato cannon (it might be possible to beef up the discharge to pass that critical feet per secound crap that they are doing with the air rifles). Maybe we should stock up on those model rockets that are sold in the hobby stores as they can be very serious projectiles in the hands of an idiot,(banning them would probably seem politically correct, like the pointy lawn darts we use to have, even though they were never intended to be used for a game of catch, duh). Well on the plus side we are not the only ones with stupid and foolish laws, south of the boarder try and buy a full flush toilet. At least the gun smugglers have a back haul to the States.......... K.Garner Eastend Sk. FA 138. (1) The definition "weapon" in section 2 of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following: "weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm; (2) Section 2 of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: "firearm" means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm; - - ----- It doesn't matter how YOU define it. This is carved in stone. Barry ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jan 2001 18:17:18 -0800 From: Samuel Massambula Subject: Hotmail and other anonymous addresses I find it a little disquieting that all the contentious postings appearing in the DIGEST come from anonymous e_mail servers. Could it be that the federal moles are sending in these messages to try and cause problems among list members? If you care to check, you will see that some of the "HOTMAIL" addresses appear to be from the same originator. You can prove this for yourself if you check the electronic codes when you display the complete header. They can hide their identities, but they can't disguise the originating server or routing code numbers. In Europe they rid themselves of moles by poisoning them with carbon monoxide pumped into their holes. Samuel Massambula Legal Research Assistant. (Who has his address as a result of his employment) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:25:57 -0500 From: "Bert van Ingen" Subject: Fw: donating firearms to Museums Three years ago I offered a brand-new unfired and still greased, and = with the Armorer's tag hanging from the trigger guard, 1942 Long Branch = No 4 Mk 1 ( one of 5000 headed for New Zealand, and stamped NZ ) to the = Canadian War Museum. Perhaps not worth a significant sack of money it = was nevertheless a NIB Canadian heritage piece ( all matching numbers = including the magazine and spike bayonet ) that someone ( in fact the = older gentleman that sold it to me in 1973 ) had smuggled out of the = factory. ( I have had the opportunity to tour the War Museum vault and = they don't have any No 4 Mk 1s in this condition ). They graciously = offered to take it as a donation! I suggested that was not my intent at = all, I said I had taken good care of it for 25 years and would sooner = bury it in the backyard than give it to them. Long and short of it I was = told they would appraise its value and I would be issued a tax receipt = that was worth approximately 17% of the article's appraised value. Even = if I had been offered $500 for the rifle the tax value would have been = around $70. I thanked them very much and promptly gave it to a colleague = that was headed for the US. He turned it around in minutes for $300 US! = I am sure had I waited the gun could have generated more but I was so = pissed off at the offer I got from Canada that I ( hope I ) got it into = the hands of someone that actually appreciates pristine firearms. Bert = van Ingen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:58:59 -0700 From: Ian Parkinson Subject: [Fwd: BOUNCE cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: Approval required: Non-member submission from ["Steve Peck" ]] redneck@grey-bruce.net> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:07:56 -0500 From: "Mark Fredrick Hunt" Subject: [none] There are allot of firearm owners in Ontario who voted for the Alliance, many ridings were split between the Alliance and the Conservatives where = the combined vote would have easily have beaten the Liberal candidate. Blame = Joe Clark and the Conservatives not the Gun Owners of Ontario. In my ridding = the Conservatives know they had no chance and voted Liberal. United we stand, we don't need that crap about the sheep in the east. = Fred - ------------------------------ Fred, I am just a regular guy from Ontario...Toronto to be specific...I = really appologise for my ignorance but I do not understand what you are = trying to say???? We as all other gun owners are fighting tooth and nail to hang on to = our privelage ... no heritage... to bare arms as our fore fathers did = and as we hope to in our minority communities as gun owners, and pass on = this history and Heritage and right to our children. We certainly have a = big responsability to teach our children well !! I surely do not have = to go into the need for education for our up and coming shooters ...Sons = and Daughters of us all. We who teach our children well no matter what subject : And respect = `Thier Opinion" no matter what possition will gain respect for our = beliefs but still have to trust and believe in our god given children. = They are learning to protect themselves and others as they grow. Can we as a group disallow a right and privelage for self protection = in this day and age when the criminals know we are defenseless???? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:56:15 -0800 From: "jim davies" Subject: chretin decrees "tough love" for westerners > Criticizing the gun control bill for its administrative failures, Anderson > said the 1995 bill has taught the government to ``enlist'' rural Canadians > when making laws that affect them... Ya, I was touring Gainers Meats the other day. They were "enlisting" the cows support of the hamburger quota... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:58:40 -0800 From: "jim davies" Subject: Idle Annie: loved by rural westerners >We've learned some lessons and minister > McLellan has done a lot to make it work in rural Canada.'' > I guess thats where here mysterious last minute come-from-behind batch of votes came from... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:29:08 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Gun law doesn't apply to us, Mohawks insist PUBLICATION: Montreal Gazette DATE: 2001.01.10 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A6 BYLINE: CATHERINE SOLYOM SOURCE: The Gazette Gun law doesn't apply to us, Mohawks insist The deadline to apply for a gun license has gone for most Canadians, but the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake says the federal Firearms Act does not apply to residents of their South Shore community. In a short but clear statement to the press, the council said ``Mohawks of Kahnawake have always maintained (their) jurisdiction regarding the use and possession of firearms within the territory.'' It then referred to a council resolution passed in 1998: ``The new firearms law would have no force and effect within Mohawk Territory.'' Council spokesman Timmy Norton was tight-lipped about what kind of firearms currently exist in Kahnawake - at different times alleged to be the centre of smuggling rings for automatic weapons and handguns - and how they are controlled. Nor could he say why the council has taken such a strong position against the federal legislation, which made Jan. 1 the deadline for licensing across the country. ``We made our position clear but the government chose not to listen to us,'' he said. Bottom Line During the consultation phase of the new law, the council made recommendations to the parliamentary standing committee for training, registration and enforcement, based on pre-existing gun-control laws in Kahnawake. A major recommendation was that the council deal directly with the federal government with regard to firearms issues, said Alwyn Morris on the council's Intergovernmental Relations Team. ``That was obviously not taken into consideration,'' he said. Instead, the Canadian Firearms Centre delegated responsibilities over administration and enforcement of the Firearms Act in the province to the Surete du Quebec. The bottom line for Mohawks remains a question of jurisdiction. ``There is already a way firearms are controlled within the community with the Mohawk council and the people of Kahnawake,'' Morris said. ``They are in the best position to do so as opposed to trying to impose federal law within our community.'' Since 1989, Mohawk law stipulates that no one under 16 can use firearms or carry loaded firearms through - or on the way to - the community, Morris said. Also, no one can fire guns in residential areas, he added. As for licensing and other provisions of the federal law, however, it is up to the Mohawk nation - the three communities of Kahnawake, Kanesatake and Akwesasne - to pass new laws. `Special Situations' That was news to Canadian Firearms Centre spokesman Chantal Breton. She said licensing and registration provisions apply to all Canadians, although ``adaptation regulations'' for aboriginals were adopted to ``accommodate their special situations.'' Unlike other Canadians, aboriginals do not have to own a firearm to apply for a license; they do not necessarily have to pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course test; and they can appeal a license refusal that was based on criminal record or history of violent behaviour. Those differences notwithstanding, firearms law applies equally to all Canadians, including Mohawks, Breton said. At the discretion of the local police force - in this case the SQ - Mohawks not complying with federal legislation can be charged with a new Criminal Code offence, with fines of up to $2,000, or six months in jail, for a first offender. The SQ would not comment on the Mohawks' position, saying only they have met with aboriginal leaders on the issue. Mohawks said they are having discussions with the provincial and federal governments. Breton, meanwhile, repeated the CFC's mantra with regard to disgruntled Indian communities across the country: ``We're working closely with aboriginal communities and local police to ensure the smooth implementation of the firearms act.'' ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:36:50 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editor's Comment (So we agree - concealed carry is a bad idea. PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2001.01.10 SECTION: Editorial/opinion PAGE: 15 COLUMN: Letter of the day THANK YOU for printing my letter as "Letter of the Day" on Jan. 4. Based upon your comment - "Sorry, cowboy, your way isn't the answer. Neither is making duck hunters register their shotguns. The answer lies in severe penalties for possession of an illegal handgun and for any gun's use during the commission of a crime" - it is obvious that I need to clarify things. I am neither a cowboy, nor was I advocating licenced concealed carry in Canada. I do not believe that that would be politically or publicly acceptable. I merely showed what has proven to work elsewhere and asked, hypothetically, if and why it would be bad if private citizens trained to the same standard as the police were permitted to carry. If those standards are good enough for some people, i.e. the police, should they not be good enough for others? If not, why not? Are private citizens lesser beings than the police? Rather than persecuting duck hunters (and I presume that you include other lawful firearms owners), you advocate severe penalties for criminal misuse. I agree with you on that - to an extent. It is my belief, however, that the focus should be on the crime itself, rather than on one particular implement that may or may not be used in its commission. Murder with a firearm is neither more nor less heinous than one with a knife or bare hands. Murder in general is treated far too lightly in this country, as is most real crime. High standards for licencing of firearms owners is a must, and one that the vast majority of owners support. Punishment of crime is also a must. The current firearms law is wasteful and benefits nobody but criminals and lawyers. Mark L. Horstead Newmarket Editor's Comment (So we agree - concealed carry is a bad idea. By the way, we have nothing against cowboys) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:44:48 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Letter: What a crock! I agree with Ray Laycock PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2001.01.10 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Letters PAGE: A11 BYLINE: Shirley Bernard Young natives don't need guns What a crock! I agree with Ray Laycock of the National Firearms Association that the special treatment aboriginals get under Canada's new gun laws is unjust and promotes anger and divisiveness (``Gun law attacked over special rights for natives''). I am a card-carrying Metis. Hunting is not a ``need'' for aboriginals as Peigan chief Peter Strikes with a Gun claims, but a convenient bonus! Why would children under 12 ``need'' to hunt for subsistence? Where are the adults? Natives have access to health, education, housing and social benefits that are not available to the rest of Canadians. Why then, do they ``need'' hunting and firearms privileges unavailable to other citizens of Canada? How arrogant is this chief to imply that aboriginals exclusively possess an innate ability to teach safe handling of firearms to their children! Is it sane to conclude that all natives under 12, rural or urban, have adequate firearms training? Firearms courses can benefit all humans by teaching cautions one may not be aware of, and highlighting bad habits that can be inadvertently passed on. Real ``traditional practices of their aboriginal communities'' would include bows and arrows, not guns. Shirley Bernard, Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:09:04 -0500 From: "ross" Subject: letters to Mp Andersen I for one would like to send a letter to MP Andersen thanking him for his honesty and praise him for it., Any one got his e-mail addy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:30:57 -0500 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Dumb Laws in Canada http://www.dumblaws.com/countries/canada.html Alberta - City Laws * If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:07:24 -0400 From: John Stamp Subject: Firearms and Weapons The fight we are all in is to see that the weapon of the day (at this point in time, that's a firearm), is available to all citizens of good standing who want them. The most basic principal involved in this struggle, one that is the very bedrock of the argument for the goodness of this effort, is that firearms are life-savers in the hands of good citizens.For this to be, the firearm must be considered as a weapon first and foremost. The problem that some gun owners don't want to think of their guns as weapons is less a problem of semantics than of the relentless brainwashing that people are subject too. Using weapons to violently oppose or end threats to life or liberty is about as good as doing good gets. Killing is good if you're killing evil. Killers are good if they're killing evil. Firearms used in such activity are being used in the most noble, blessed, sacred and benevolent way possible. We are constantly innudated with the message that violence and killing are bad, a message that lumps aggressive, unwarranted, unjustified, murderous violence and killing (i.e. evil) in with defensive, warranted, justified, life-saving violence and killing (i.e.good).Many people of good will have swallowed this garbage. Take "Thou shalt commit no murder" and live by it. Take "Thou shalt not kill" and flush it down the toilet. This is not preaching to the choir, as the post below shows there are many in the choir who haven't got this fundamental principle figured out. If your firearm is not a weapon, then you have no unassailable reason to own it. Rest assured our enemies are as aware of this as they are of gravity. They want you to think of your guns as sporting goods, because then that is all you have to justify ownership while they still have the potential of murder and mayhem to pit against you, and you're in a position you can't possibly win in the long term. >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:45:01 -0800 (PST) >From: Ron Watson >Subject: Firearms And Weapons > >A gun is a weapon in the hands of a police officer, >member of the armed forces or a criminal.......a gun >is a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. > >------------------------------ John Stamp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:19:36 -0700 From: Barry Snow Subject: re:home home on the range Thank you for the recent article from Elizabeth Bromstien, Montreal Gazette, Jan. 9, 2001. A fine example of some of the very rare reporting with regard to peaceable and lawful firearms use. There was one segment that really caught my attention though and that was the secret location. When a group of people have to keep their meeting place secret in order to not attract persons who do not agree with them, there is something wrong. When the group is afraid because of their chosen sport or form of relaxation is opposed by anti anything zealots, then something is wrong, upside down and backwards. If it were not endemic of almost any controversy these days, it would almost make me laugh. A bunch of well armed citizens are afraid of being harassed by a few anti firearms activists. Who is the danger to the peace and well being in this country? Are the antis living in fear of the firearms owners? No, the firearms owners are living in fear of the antis. Your reporter even states that they it is understandable for them to be living in fear. Why is it that law abiding citizens need to be afraid to carry on their peaceful endeavors, whether it is eating meat, wearing fur or owning firearms? I find a sad kind of irony in the knowledge that the people who could do the most to enable the "taking back the night" are the most vilified. The people who could do the most to enable peace are the most in fear of violence themselves, and from the self styled "peace engineers". Yours truly, Barry Snow Milk River, Ab. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:49:38 -0500 From: "Karl Schrader" Subject: Cross Country Checkup, January 21 at 4:00 pm I hope everybody has an e-mail prepared and ready to go for Cross Country Checkup on Sunday, January 21 at 4:00 pm on CBC Radio 1. - ----------------------------------------------------- The e-mail address again: checkup@toronto.cbc.ca Maybe it's a better idea to send one in beforehand otherwise the e-mail might not get through on the day of the program. The phones will be very busy and the chance of getting through is pretty slimm. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:52:32 -0700 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: NFA Membership representation: Meeting with Government The National Firearms Association actually polled our Membership after attending the June 2000 meeting. There was a massive majority of our Members who endorsed out stand. All the federal government wants, in our opinion is our expertise in fixing their faulty program. They are offering nothing to the recreational firearm community in Canada from these meetings. I believe that there is no logic in "walking away from the bargaining table" -- if there is something there to bargain on. At this point, we have broken promises or non-action from Ms. Flumian -- nothing offered to us of value! That is why we are already pursuing better methods to get our message out. Jim Hinter National President - ----- Original Message ----- From: "ross" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:23 AM > The National Firearms Association, > representing more than 100,000 owners, > has refused since last June to engage > in talks with the government. > > > The above begs questions like.... does > the NFA really believe that by not > speaking with the government that it is > truly representing its members? > > One does not have to agree with ones > opponent to sit down and listen. > > I have alswys believed that you can be > the hammer or the nail... but either > way. you have to know what the building > plan is. That means perhaps meeting > with the Flumiens of the world and > hearing what she has to say. it does > not > mean you have to comply, or roll over, . > > But by not attemnding any meeting, it is > this writers opinion that the > members are niot well served > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.225 / Virus Database: 107 - > Release Date: 22/12/2000 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #589 ********************************** 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.