From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca on behalf of Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Friday, 06 April, 2001 09:03 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #714 Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, April 6 2001 Volume 03 : Number 714 In this issue: Re: Column: A ROLE UNWORTHY OF A GREAT ACTOR [none] Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #711 signs Then and now ! CFC Disinformation bulletin #10 for prosecutors BC Wildlife Federation T-shirts McLellan's Organized Crime Bill More Stereotyping Letter: Lawyer must have done a good job Civil rights advocates up in arms over anti-crime legislation Top court shows new restraint ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:47:45 -0600 From: Subject: Re: Column: A ROLE UNWORTHY OF A GREAT ACTOR On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 wrote: > PUBLICATION: The London Free Press > DATE: 2001.04.05 > SECTION: Editorial/opinion > PAGE: A13 > SOURCE: London Freelance Writer > BYLINE: Bill Brady > ILLUSTRATION: Photo by File Photo National Rifle Association president > Charlton Heston played Moses in the movie The Ten Commandments. > > A ROLE UNWORTHY OF A GREAT ACTOR > Here's a story from Fargo, N.D. and even though it seems impossible, it's > true. I checked. Seems Carey McWilliams, a 27-year-old North Dakota > University graduate student, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and > isn't afraid to use it. He's taken all the required steps, paid the fee, > undergone a background check and passed written and shooting exams. The guy > in charge of such things says that Carey is very competent with a handgun, > "I don't see a problem . . . people who are challenged that way compensate > nicely. They can be as reliable with the weapon as anybody." What did he > mean, "challenged?" Oh, did I mention that McWilliams is blind? That's > right, a concealed weapon permit for a blind man. Sounds like the author is a bigot. > After graduation he plans > to work for . . . The National Rife Association. He and Charlie can discuss > the Old Testament, maybe focus on Exodus, the verse about "thou shall not > kill." Actually, the Commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," which is a very big difference that seems to be lost on many - reminds me of the 2nd Amendment in that regard - and the Bible actually supports execution as punishment. - -- Roger Walker Voice/Fax 1-780-440-2685 "HIS Pain; YOUR Gain" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:43:57 -0600 From: "Ross" Subject: [none] "I don't think by any measure the police did anything to stop open dialogue." Actually the Ppolice did much to stiffle open dialogue. They kept the protester out of sight, out of mind, and out of hearing. In effect making their protrest useless. With the Quebec Summit comming up, over 6000 troops...i mean Police will be there to prevent the crowds from being seemn, heard, and have any form of open dialogue. Our government is afraid. not of the protesters, but of it's citizens in general. What other reason could there be to have more Police in one spot than Canada has troops to send of Un peacekeeping missions. They are there to allegedly protect the Politicians. From peaceful demonstraion, fvrom the righst of the citizens of this country to be heard. It was only a matter of time before the Police became the governments new bully boys, and we let it happen. shame on us. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:46:16 -0600 From: Robert LaCasse Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #711 I was up on a Jay walking ticket with a crowd at 4:00 am, oddly nobody who had crossed the whiteline were charged, I had not crossed yet.... What came of it in the end: 1] 6 years Maximum Security Pen Time 2] 7 years compulsory/mandatory methadone/dolophine treatments with daily urine sampling monitoring.... This time I'm accused of sending a comment to a 5th party, which became known to the incompetent individual....outcome so far: 1] Prohibition Order from firearms and Contact from a "nutbar" 2] All Guns/Permits/etc. were confiscated, pending Forfeiture! History repeats itself....maybe I'm a walking Crucifix/Scapegoat/Fall Guy or Somewthing? I don't know what this one will become: http://home.istar.ca/~vampire/assault.html Bob On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:31:30 -0600, you wrote: |>------------------------------ |> |>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:24:25 -0600 |>From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" |>Subject: Letter: Registration won't help fight crime |> |>PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) |>DATE: 2001.04.05 |>EDITION: FINAL |>SECTION: Local |>PAGE: A11 |>BYLINE: Hugh Arscott |>SOURCE: The StarPhoenix |>DATELINE: SASKATOON |> |>- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- |>- ---- |> |>Registration won't help fight crime |> |>- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---- |>- ---- |> |>Americans had to fight for their independence; Canadians chose to negotiate |>theirs. As a result, Americans insist on the constitutional right to bear |>arms (probably bare arms, too, but not to arm bears. Anyway...). |> |>Americans learned the hard way that an unarmed people has great difficulty |>over-throwing an unwanted, armed government. Thomas Jefferson expressed the |>opinion that Americans had the right -- and perhaps might be forced -- to |>revolt again against unjust governments. |> |>Canada's advocates of strong central government have always preferred a |>defenceless, unarmed people. Indeed, this opinion has been strengthened as |>American pacifists sought sanctuary in Canada during the War of |>Independence, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and, more recently, |>the Vietnam War. |> |>The Canadian government, under the guise of fighting crime, is attempting to |>weaken the people by enforcing registration of weapons, thus consolidating |>military power solely in its hands. |> |>Only fools believe governments are always right. When governments are wrong, |>the people surely have the right to oppose, first with reason, but always |>with the knowledge that the last resort is armed revolt. |> |>Let me return to my days as a criminal when I paid my debt to society with |>time in jail. Of course, I was innocent. All criminals always claim to be. |> |>It was all over a trifling unpaid parking ticket. I wouldn't pay it. It |>wasn't my parking ticket. Sure, it was my car. But my son had been driving |>it, not I. My son was the guilty party but I went to jail because the car |>was registered in my name. |> |>Will registering help solve crimes? Of course. Solving murders will |>be made easy. Once the police find to whom the gun is registered, they will |>know who committed the crime. No problem, they'll solve murders right, left |>and centre. |> |>So clean. So simple. So bloody stupid. |> |>Hugh Arscott |> |>Saskatoon |> |>------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:26:43 -0600 From: Gary Ramsey Subject: signs Magnetic signs on cars area good idea. How about signs on the side of city buses. Not only would they be visible but they would travel all over town for more exposure. Keep the ideas coming. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:26:30 -0600 From: "Karl Schrader" Subject: Then and now ! When our forefathers needed firearms in order to stay alive, nobody questioned the ownership of these survival tools. Today, everybody can buy all the beef they can afford in the supermarket and hoping that it is not contaminated with foot&mouth or mad cow, the necessity of firearms is removed. If the Chinese are ever getting around to invade our huge spaces in order to accomodate their huge numbers and are switching from piecemeal infiltration to full scale attack, we will have only wooden imitation guns available, just as the British in WW2. We will have to depend on our friends, the Americans to bail us out and defend the country. Just as the British did. When everybody today needs to get around in this huge country and therefore needs a car, nobody is questioning this at present. When the world runs out of oil, hopefully, an electric car will be available and any old clunker of a gasoline driven car will be prohibited. When the world is finally denuded of it's trees, chainsaws now considered a necessity, will be outlawed. Makes sense so far ? So, firearms, old cars and chainsaws are only good for museums! What I am driving at is this: As long as there is a necessity for anything, the majority (including the liberals) will tolerate it, when the necessity disappears, so does the "privilege" of owning anything of this sort. What do we need a Heritage Minister for when the heritage gets trampled into the dust?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:26:49 -0600 From: Jhogue Subject: CFC Disinformation bulletin #10 for prosecutors > Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:15:56 -0600 > From: "Glenn Springer" > Subject: Re: Disinformation? > > > > > Unless it is printed awfully small on the FAC, I have not seen any > > reference as to the classes of firearms I may own. > > It's on the back.of the blue/purple ones (late FACs -- 99 onward and > PAL/POLs). It's not on the old green one. THe FAC was good for > Restricted/non-Restricted or grandfathered classes. Yep, mine's green all right ! Issued in oct. 98, valid until oct. 2003. (From all accounts, saved myself a lot of grief getting two FAC's under the old system before the new one kicked in). The "old-style" FAC's which are valid near the end of 2003 have NO mention of the classes of firearms the woner can have. So the bureaucrats have come up with TWO kinds of FAC's... Why make it simple when you can make it complicated. I thunk the green FAC's were the last chance to get a licence before the December 1998 drop dead deadline of the new system - why would the bureaucrats come up with a "late" version of the FAC instead of keeping the original colours for the last few months ? And speaking of the other kind of FAC (black and purple - like a battered eye) - whatever happened to grandfathered prohibited calls ? As I said, poor quality of information out of well-paid CFC bureaucrats. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:26:36 -0600 From: Larry Luzny Subject: BC Wildlife Federation T-shirts The BC Wildlife Federation is selling joke t-shirts to raise money. It's a great joke front and it has their name, BCWF PAA on it. If your interested, drop me a line and I'll send you a copy of the image. Each t-shirt sells for $20 each. If you are interested in getting these t-shirts, drop me a line. I've ordered two. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:26:23 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: McLellan's Organized Crime Bill DEPT. OF JUSTICE NEWS RELEASE http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_26096.html FEDERAL ACTION AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_26098.html HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ORGANIZED CRIME BILL http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/2001/doc_26100.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:41:51 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: More Stereotyping Randy Nelson said: > A Fed is a Fed is a Fed. The fewer of Chretien's Commies that parade around > with guns strapped on the better. Park Warden, Queen's Cowboy or Kustoms > Klown, they all belly-up to the same putrid trough. Make no mistake boys and > girls, any of the above mentioned officers of the state would mow you down > on a mere whisper from their master. Aside from the fact I find the above personally offensive, it appears some of us are becoming the very type of people who drafted our current firearms legislation. I have had my share of problems with malicious/moronic police and their view of how the Firearms Act should be administered. However, I have never mistaken that to mean that every RCMP officer out there is a Dennis Johnson, a self appointed God who believes he has the right to second guess judges, Crown Counsels, and other Members who dealt with an issue previously. I play hockey with more than a few police and have no problem with saying I number some of them among friends who I trust. I can say similar things regarding present and former Wardens in our mountain parks, some Fed Fisheries officers, and some Customs Officers. The suggestion that they would "mow us down" at the mere whisper from the Cretin is not only offensive but patently ridiculous and does nothing to convince the undecided that we as a group are reasonable thoughtful people. The second point is that this sort of stereotyping is exactly the sort of thing that we attack Cukier and her "useful idiots" for doing. You can't have it both ways: if the sleazy, disreputable acts of a policeman in a Firearms Officer's position mean they are all budding death squad members, then I guess the actions of Marc Lepine mean all firearms owners are imminent mass murderers and the worries of the public at large are well justified. Personally, I don't much like the results of stereotyping and I think it does us far more harm than any potential good. A little common sense and deliberate thought can go a long way... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:02:14 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Letter: Lawyer must have done a good job PUBLICATION: The Kingston Whig-Standard DATE: 2001.04.06 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Editorial PAGE: 7 BYLINE: Carol Wilson SOURCE: The Kingston Whig-Standard DATELINE: KINGSTON - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Lawyer must have done a good job - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- I read an item in The Whig-Standard's ``In the courts'' section that ticked me off. A 22-year-old man was convicted of the following charges: assault, illegal possession of a controlled substance, four counts of failing to comply with bail conditions, two counts of failure to comply with a probation order, causing a public disturbance, illegally transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person, and assaulting a police officer. This man was aggressive, assaulting both a member of the public and police. He thumbed his nose at bail conditions and probation six times. He possessed illegal substances. And he was handling . And this man got four months for these transgressions. It seems to me that we have to decide which people are menaces to our society. In this case, we have a young man who possesses and might be using drugs, is not complying with community supervision, and is handling . How badly do we want this guy on the loose? And is our answer to provide what, in actuality, will be 10 weeks' incarceration? Did I, as a taxpayer, contribute to this offender's lawyer's fee for what must have been an artful defence job? Carol Wilson Kingston ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:02:08 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Civil rights advocates up in arms over anti-crime legislation PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2001.04.06 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A1 / Front BYLINE: Chris Cobb SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Bill would let lawmen be lawless: Civil rights advocates up in arms over anti-crime legislation that puts police `above the law'; Critics charge proposed legislation puts `innocent' at risk - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Civil libertarians are warning that new federal ``anti-gang'' legislation will allow police to conduct ``dirty tricks'' campaigns and violate the fundamental rights of Canadians. Within hours of the bill being introduced yesterday, critics were alleging it opens the door to the kinds of barn-burning episodes in Quebec that got the RCMP into so much trouble nearly 30 years ago. Indeed, even federal officials acknowledged in a private briefing with reporters yesterday that ``under some circumstances'' the ``dirty tricks'' of the 1970s could be legal under the new legislation. Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Alan Borovoy said the legislation will effectively legalize unlimited police law-breaking. ``It does not behoove a parliamentary democracy to create such open-ended law-breaking powers,'' he said. ``It is so broad, it could even empower officers to assault innocent people. There are no limits on it and no justification for it.'' The notorious 1972 barn-burning incident in Quebec was part of a long list of illegal activities in the RCMP's undercover war against the separatist FLQ in the 1970s. The dirty tricks campaign led to a royal commission in 1977 and a scathing report that resulted in a dismantling of the Mounties' security service and the creation of the civilian Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), which now reports to Parliament. Mr. Borovoy said his organization will fight the introduction of special police powers which, he said, conflict with basic protections guaranteed to Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. ``It's conceivable to use that in some situations,'' he said, ``that the police should get a little more leeway, but that's not the same thing as creating an open-ended power. The police may want it but that is not the same as demonstrating they need it.'' Queen's University criminal law specialist Don Stuart agreed. ``Civil liberties are a fundamental principle of the Charter,'' he said. ``Authorizing the police to break the law in advance will be in conflict with the Charter. Police should not be considered to be above the law.'' Police say they need the extra powers to protect undercover officers who may need to commit crimes to win the trust of gangs they infiltrate. Justice Department officials say the powers will be strictly controlled and will be permitted only after being authorized by the solicitor general or his provincial counterparts. Mr. Stuart, who was an expert witness at a Senate hearing examining changes to the anti-gang law, said the law should be scrapped, not extended. The new law, he said, is nothing more than a ``political football.'' ``Politicians don't want to be seen as soft on organized crime,'' he said. ``And clearly the problem of biker warfare is very serious and I would not pretend otherwise. But we have adequate laws. What the police need now are more resources to gather evidence.'' Under the proposals, all special law-breaking powers granted to police must be made public in some form within a year, although in some circumstances publication could be delayed. The federal government says the new legislation is designed to make it easier for prosecutors to get convictions against gang members. At a news conference attended by several police chiefs yesterday, Justice Minister Anne McLellan and Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay announced the package of ``new tools'' that will include $200 million in extra cash for police and prosecutors over five years -- in addition to $600 million the RCMP received in last year's budget. The legislation will: - - Introduce three new criminal code offences. - - Redefine the legal definition of a criminal organization from five to three members. - - Allow police to break the law with permission from a designated agent of the solicitor general or provincial politician responsible for police. - - Slap a maximum 14-year sentence on those convicted of intimidating prosecutors, judges or their families. - - Make it an offence for a person to be knowingly associated with a criminal organization without necessarily committing a crime. This could include gang accountants or bodyguards. - - Simplify rules of evidence to allow prosecutors to charge gang members and get convictions. - - Make it an offence to wear ``uniforms'' of gangs, such as special colours or rings. - - Make sentences for those convicted of more than one offence under the new law concurrent rather than consecutive -- with no possibility of parole until half the sentence is served. - - Expand current seizure law allowing for confiscation of property considered to be the proceeds of crime. The new legislation, which has to pass through the House of Commons and Senate before becoming law, is the result of pressure on the federal government to crack down on organized crime -- especially on the growing menace of Quebec biker gangs. The pressure intensified last fall following the near-fatal shooting of Montreal crime reporter Michel Auger. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:02:00 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Top court shows new restraint PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2001.04.06 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: News PAGE: A1 / Front BYLINE: Janice Tibbetts SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Top court shows new restraint: Justices stopped making law in 2000, analyst suggests - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- The Supreme Court of Canada is bold no more, concludes a study that found the bench defied its critics last year by showing ``restraint and caution'' in striking down laws. ``There was little evidence of the sort of activism that has prompted critics in previous years to complain that the court was encroaching on the prerogatives of the legislature,'' says the report by veteran Supreme Court analyst Patrick Monahan. The Osgoode Hall law professor, who found that the judges did not strike down a single law last year, will present his findings today at York University's annual conference in Toronto on the court. The report is the first study of trends on the court under Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who is considered more conservative than her predecessor, Antonio Lamer. ``Looking at the cases as a whole, the sense that you get is one of caution, particularly the sense that the court is conscious of not overstepping its boundaries,'' Mr. Monahan said. The study singles out the court's ruling in the case of the Little Sisters bookshop in Vancouver in December. Although the judges came down hard on officials at Canada Customs, they refused to strike down the country's anti-obscenity legislation by stripping customs officials of their censorship role. ``I think that reflects the court's attempts to take a careful line and a line that is not going to be made vulnerable to this criticism that's been made frequently in the last couple of years to the effect that the courts are limiting what the legislatures or Parliament can do,'' Mr. Monahan said. ``One does see in these cases the desire to tread that very careful line.'' Another example of the court's deference to Parliament was the high-profile challenge to -control legislation, in which the court ruled 9-0 that Parliament could pass its firearms law. Mr. Monahan said a pattern of the court deferring to elected politicians by upholding their laws has appeared to continue so far this year, beginning with the court endorsing Canada's child pornography legislation. His study also found: - - The court has made no headway on a plan to reduce the number of intervenors appearing in its cases, a practice that threatens the right of the accused to a fair trial when he or she is relegated to the sidelines amid participation by well-funded interest groups. - - The provinces with the most money are more likely than the poorer Atlantic provinces to intervene at the court. - - Justices Louise Arbour and Louis Lebel, the court's newest members, are emerging as champions of those who bring Charter of Rights claims before the judges. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #714 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@home.com 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.