From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca on behalf of Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Thursday, 07 February, 2002 11:08 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #524 Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, February 7 2002 Volume 04 : Number 524 In this issue: OPP monitoring of telecommunications Subject: Brownshirts Re: Hitlers oath, "K" professionalism.... Re: Firearms Registry Article [none] In N.S. too? Upgrading POL Case involves dispute over word 'storage' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 22:01:24 -0600 From: "Howard Magda" Subject: OPP monitoring of telecommunications Last month a posting was made concerning changing of range operators in Ontario and the taping of conversations with Range Inspectors. My name wasn't mentioned but I was referred to as the former range operator and that I had taped conversations with the CFO and inspectors. I had a call at work from my wife that OPP Det. Sergeant Wally Baumann wished to speak to me. I contacted Det. Sergeant Baumann. He informed me that the OPP monitors all telecommunications for keywords like police. He used the ruse that there were allegations on the Internet that I had taped a conversation between one of his Range Inspectors and myself and he was just making me aware of that. He wanted to know if I was aware of the information on the Internet. I let him know I was aware that there was something on the Internet. His tone changed. He asked me if I knew that taping telecommunications was illegal. I informed him I knew it was not illegal to tape my own conversations and that I had spoken with police and a lawyer before doing so. Further on in our conversation I told him I was calling his bluff and to charge me if taping telecommunications was illegal. Ultimately he claimed he never said it was. Fortunately I had my tape recorder at work that day on an unrelated matter. I got this conversation on tape. For our OPP monitors, you can inform Det. Sergeant Baumann that, if he doesn 't know already, a complaint has been made by me concerning his conduct. You can also inform him which Newspapers I have sent letters to concerning your monitoring and my conversation with the above named officer. Howard Magda Moderator: Good work Howard. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:03:55 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Subject: Brownshirts Mike Ackermann said: > There is a SLIPPERY SLOPE. We of all groups in Canada should know full > well how today's benign-seeming and well intentioned law will lead to > tomorrow's oppression. No Mike, it's a precipice. And the sooner we realize that we aren't going to win the fight against the Firearms Act without some support from the general public, the more likely we are to be on the winning side at the end. Hell, not even all firearms owners are opposed to the Firearms Act. If you don't think we need these average Canadians, just look at the total number of members of the NFA for example. You're going to carry the country with those kind of numbers? I don't thnk so. The average Canadian doesn't have a hate on for police - especially after 9-11 - even though they don't like getting traffic tickets. When they read rants about police "brownshirts", "stormtroopers", and that kind of rot, they tend to identify firearms owners as a lunatic fringe that the government should indeed be keeping a careful eye on. Why do you think politicians employ so many spin doctors and speech writers? The answer is obvious - they know how important communications and the style of the message is. They know that you can win support, or at least cautious acceptance, if you use the right words. Cukier knows that and uses it. Chretien knows that and uses it. The media knows that and uses it. How long is it going to take us to figure out what politicians and Cukier already know and use to their advantage against us? > THAT is what I mean when I say the C.O.P.s make me think of > collaborators and Brownshirts. Do you really think they are that much > different from the early citizens' groups in Germany in 1934? Yeah, I do think they are that much different. n fact, what they remind me of is the origins of policing when all men of a town had to take their turn as being the watchman overnight, keeping an eye on the common area for the town's stock and the gates and walls of the city. The word "constable" comes from "officer of the stable" if I remember correctly back about 25 years. Division of labour, etc and so forth: now we don't take turns doctoring each other and guarding each other during the dark of night - most of have specialized jobs in society. But it only makes sense to me that people outraged by exploding property crime rates to do what they can to provide a deterrent presence and help police catch those who are victimizing them. They are in fact returning to the roots of policing where citizens banded together for the common good to protect themselves from criminals. I see absolutely nothing in that which makes me think of Nazi Germany, or of the people doing this as "collaborators and Brownshirts". > So, Rick, cool your jets. Don't get yer knickers in a twist. Don't read > more into what I write than is wriiten there. Well Mike, my knickers aren't in a twist. However, if you think I'm going to let comments that I strongly believe alienate the general public pass without objection, I'm afraid that isn't going to happen. I think there's too much at stake for us to keep shooting ourselves in the foot with comments like this. As for reading more into what you wrote than exists... there's more than our anonymous Hotmail friend on this list who heartily agree with your concepts of "collaborators and Brownshirts". Even if YOU didn't mean it that way, there are firearms owners out there publicly advocating those sentiments. I think we're most effective when we stay away from that kind of crap. I think we're effective when people like you point out the relative numbers of deaths from breast cancer, liver disease, etc compared to firearms deaths - and compare how much the government spends on each. Most Canadians of all political parties don't really have a problem with the police and they are put off by having them called jackbooted stormtroopers or whatever. They can't relate to that, because it doesn't figure in with the police they know in their community. HOWEVER... you name me one adult who hasn't lost a relative or friend to cancer. They don't understand having the cop who lives on the same block being called a Nazi, but they sure as hell understand when peanuts are spent to stop the death toll of their friends and tens of thousands others from cancer while hundreds of millions are spent in hopes it will prevent a few of the relative handful of deaths due to firearms. You win them over by giving them something they understand and immediatelyaffects them - not with rants about collaborators and Brownshirts. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:41:44 -0600 From: "Aubrey Morris" Subject: Re: Hitlers oath, "K" professionalism.... Andy, I have to agree with you completely. This may not be the Sunday Telegraph, but maybe we should take the advantage of using this forum to practice those communications skills that will win voters over to our side. After all is said and done, that's what will win in the end. We simply have to have more political clout than the "Anti's". That means numbers of the pragmatic minded people on our side. I have met many non gun owners who think this scheme of "McCarthyism against duck hunters" is nonsense. (And that's the way we have to talk about it to the public). Wendy is very skilled at communications, and also very devious. (It's more like propaganda) On a radio talk show on CKNW Vancouver just over a week ago, she clobbered two of our representatives several times. Near the end of the program, she cleverly got them talking about "Semi-Automatic" vs. "Automatic" and slipped in a very cleverly disguised lie while they were tripping all over themselves defending this or that gun. As soon as WE start talking technical, WE've LOST the audience. One lie she slipped in, unchallenged, was that most guns recovered from criminals were formerly legally owned. We must do better than this. We can't while racked with emotion. An audience tends to respect someone who presents his case in a calm, confident manner utilizing subject matter they understand Sorry if I'm preaching, but we've got to get it together if we are going to win this round. Those who expect this to go away by itself are kidding themselves. Aubrey From: "A Engel" Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 11:31 AM Subject: Hitlers oath, "K" professionalism.... > I've been reading these Digests for over a year. I also read some of the > anti-gun sites to keep up to date. Yesterday I read a digest in it was > pointed out that Cukier is a professional in communications and the sooner > 'we' match that professionalism, the better 'we' will get our message > accross. I agree with that completely. > > And then Mills comment on the oath of allegiance sworn to Hitler, i.e. > "What does this have to do with Lieberals (sic) breaking their promises is > beyond me." I agree with that comment also. > > As a native-born German, I have long found the constant 'K' business > (Kanada, Kustoms, etc.) and the rest of the German language insinuations - -snip- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:41:44 -0600 From: "Marc Thibault" Subject: Re: Firearms Registry Article > From: rc_ontarget@canada.com > SNIP < > Canadian programmers and Database designers are not capable of designing > and implementing such a system, that the Gov't had to hire a U.S and a > British firm to do the job!). It also instilled a lot of confidence (for > me) in the system when I read "The biggest challenge is managing the As usual, you have to be very careful interpreting anything you read in Canadian publications. EDS acquired SHL around the time work was starting on the firearms registry, so it's now one company. Both EDS and SHL had and have a significant presence in Canada. The registry project was staffed with EDS and SHL employees and a lot of independents, all drawn from the Ottawa area. The results, however, are a strong indicator that we do have a skills problem in Canada. Either that, or EDS has a seriously flawed recruiting approach. \_____<><><>====/ _/-' No Victims Here ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:53:35 -0600 From: MJ Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Case_involves_dispute_over_word_=91storage=92?= Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Case involves dispute over word ‘storage’ by Sarah Elizabeth Brown Whitehorse Star 7 Feb 2002 A disagreement over the definition of the word “storage” is taking a Yukon prospector to the Supreme Court of Canada. Allan Carlos was acquitted after a November 2000 trial of one count of careless storage of a firearm and two counts of storing a firearm contrary to regulations. The Crown appealed the decision last May but Carlos’ acquittal was upheld in a 2-1 decision last July. The arguments of dissenting Yukon Court of Appeal Justice Catherine Ryan make up the basis of the Crown’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to have Carlos found guilty and sentenced for all three charges. Carlos’ court battle started after the RCMP searched his home in February 2000. They found three loaded handguns without trigger locks, two locked in a downstairs safe and a third behind a stereo upstairs, wrapped in a rag inside a plastic bag. At trial, Carlos said he’d been cleaning the guns and had panicked when police arrived on his doorstep with a search warrant, so he quickly put the weapons away out of sight. Much of the debate at Carlos’ trial and subsequent Crown appeal to the territory’s appeal court revolved around exactly when a gun is considered to be in storage. The trial judge decided Carlos’ actions didn’t amount to storage because he hadn’t intended to store them. “I accept that Mr. Carlos had no intention to store the two firearms in the safe, loaded, as they were found but had planned to unload all of the guns and replace them into the safe had not the RCMP arrived unexpectedly,” the trial judge said. In the majority appeal decision, the judge said Carlos’ intentions made the difference in short time cases such as his and he had to be acquitted because he only put aside his guns the way he did because the police were at the door. However, dissenting appeal court judge Ryan said there is no middle ground — Carlos was either using the firearms or had stored them. In a factum filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown argues the current law “leaves no gaps, temporal or otherwise, which make any form of careless or unsafe dealing — such as the temporary hiding of loaded, ready to use firearms — lawful.” The Crown argues the two court of appeal judges who argued to uphold Carlos’ acquittal narrowed the meaning of the safe storage law, away from the liberal, plain meaning Parliament had intended. “It creates gaps in the protective coverage of the law — a middle ground that is neither “use” nor “storage,” where carelessness and other unsafe dealing in firearms is permitted — that results in public safety.” Gun control laws historically had a public safety focus with strict controls on use and storage, reads the Crown’s arguments. The factum refers to an earlier Supreme Court case where the court found that careless storage involves an objective standard of fault — a “marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.” Proof of what the accused subjectively meant to do is not required, argues the Crown. “The redrafting of the provisions simply produces the absurd result that was achieved in this case where the respondent was acquitted of negligence and strict liability offences on the basis that he really did not mean to be negligent or to contravene the regulations,” said the Crown’s factum. “Most significantly, the amendment of the provisions not only does not further Parliament’s purpose of protecting the public against the inherent dangers of firearms; it actually prevents the achievement of that goal.” However, Carlos said he thinks the federal government didn’t get the definition of storage under the firearms legislation quite right the first time and now he’s being taken to court in an effort to rewrite it. “I think what they’re trying to do in essence on my back, which is the frustrating thing to me, is trying to correct their legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada,” said Carlos. Carlos doesn’t think he’ll lose, but he said he wouldn’t be surprised if the national Supreme Court judges redefines what storage means. “I’m frustrated and quite angry about the whole procedure, but there’s no option here,” said Carlos. “I’ve been acquitted twice and now I’m going to the Supreme Court of Canada, spending a lot of my own money. I’ve got three children that are of university age, for the court to decide what the term storage means. I find that totally unfair.” “Even if I were to win it, there’s no compensation. I regard it as a form of persecution.” He said he’s had to think about selling his home and leaving the territory. “It would leave us kind of skinny,” said Carlos about the legal costs. Jane Gaffin, a long-time friend of Carlos, said today she thinks it’s a case that’s going to affect every gun owner in the country. For that reason, she’s applied to various firearms associations around the country for help in what she says will be a precendent-setting case to determine exactly what “storage” means in a legal sense. She’s hoping the various groups she’s applied to — including the National Firearms Association, the Canadian Sport Shooters Association, the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition and an Alberta fish, game and gun club — decide as a group if and how much each will contribute to Carlos’ legal costs. “This going to the Supreme Court is a very expensive proposition,” said Gaffin. Back in September 2000, more than $12,000 was raised to help pay for the lower court costs, and the case resurrected the territory’s Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition, a then-dormant gun lobby organization. The Star was unable to contact Carlos’ lawyer, RichardFritze, by press deadlines. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 23:53:35 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: [none] "jim davies" said: > Of course, the willful refusal to lock up the > pukes is the core problem. As We're second only to the US in the numbers of people we incarcerate as far as the "developed" world goes - you figure we should go for Number One? > long as we have a catch 'n release justice system we will also have > an out of control criminal problem. Warehousing, not rehab for multiple > offenders! Unfortunately, part of the problem is that we presently have that warehousing you espouse, not a correctional system nor even a penal system. And ditto for the US. Just maybe they're multiple offenders because there are no real rehab efforts in our crowded prisons. We have a severe shortage of police officers per capita, each carrying such a large load of files that it is almost guaranteed that each file will only get the most cursory investigation (unless it's serious enough to hit the media, of course). Crown Counsels drop many charges and plea bargain others because there aren't enough of them to allow each to carry a reasonable case load. Prisons have so few case workers that most offenders get little or no treatment, much less education - approximately 40% of prisoners are illiterate. When they are released, they find probation/parole officers carrying so many files that they MIGHT have a fifteen minute chat with each offender once a week, by telephone... so much for supervision. Why is this? Well, no provincial or federal government wants to tell the taxpayers they are going to quadruple their taxation for criminal justice spending in order to get some effective numbers of people in place - people are worried about crime but not THAT worried. And of course, there is always some bright light on the horizon who promises to get "tough on crime" by locking more people up. But NOT raise taxes of course... The recidivism rate in civilian prisons is horrendous and in comparison the recidivsm rate in military prisons is less than 10%, last time I saw any figures. That isn't because military prisons are like the movie "The Hill" - it's because military prisons usually have ample staff, usually follow the latest effective correctional strategies, and ensure that prisoners get the complete regime of punishment, treatment, and education while in their care. You can read a small snapshot about it in the February 1992 issue of Corrections Today, if you so wish. And everything military prisons are, civilian prisons are not. It isn't about being a crybaby spokesman for the John Howard/Elizabeth Fry Societies - it's about applying some logic and common sense to the system. Until we come up with the money to put in place a system with predictable apprehension, certain punishment, certain treatment, effective education, and victim restitution, we are going to remain stuck in this loop of escalating crime. Warehousing offenders in overcrowded prisons is only going to exacerbatethe problem. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:09:44 -0600 From: Lee Jasper Subject: In N.S. too? It was said on the CFD: >NOVA SCOTIA MLA CALLS GUN REGISTRY "PREPOSTEROUS" >In late October, my application was returned, informing me that >POLs are no longer available under the Act, that the >only licence available now is a possession and acquisition >licence (PAL), and I must reapply and include proof that I have >passed the Canadian Safety Course test ($50). Some folks are making a killing off this, eh? Reminds me of American marine towing companies - who boaters not deemed to be in imminent danger and therefore not deserving of a U.S Coast Guard response are referred to - you'd better have a valid credit card when they call you on the radiotelephone. . >This overbloated and cumbersome boondoggle is an embarrassment >to our proud country. >Brooke Taylor, MLA, >Middle Musquodoboit I sent the MLA info to access my paper on alternate certification, the varying standards of PALs and POLs in Canada, the Sabiston v. Alberta CFO (FAC Reference) and S.C.C. Mount Sinai Hospital v. Quebec (government promises). If N.S. freedomists Mike Ackermann and Jim Hill were to lend the chap a hand. Is this another provincial PC gov't? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:09:44 -0600 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Upgrading POL It was said on the CFD: In upgrading from a POL - - >Before applying for a PAL, you must pass the Candian Firearms >Safety Course (CFSC) unless: >a) you have already passed that specific course (since 1993) >b) before 1995, you passed a firearm safety course that was >designated as equivalent to the CFSC by the Attorney General of >Manitoba or Quebec.(None of the other provincial hunter safety >courses have been designated as equivalent) or *** What the heck have the other friendly, supportive provincial governments NOT been doing for us. **** >c) since 1993 a provincial Chief Firearms Officer has certified >that your knowledge of firearms laws and safe-handling practices >meets the required standards . . . This is the FREE alternative certification process that is available from CFOs across Canada. See FA s. 7(4)(a). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:07:15 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Case involves dispute over word 'storage' PUBLICATION: The Whitehorse Star DATE: 2002.02.06 SECTION: Yukon PAGE: 2 BYLINE: Brown, Sarah Elizabeth ILLUSTRATION: Allan Carlos - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Case involves dispute over word 'storage' - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- A disagreement over the definition of the word "storage" is taking a Yukon prospector to the Supreme Court of Canada. Allan Carlos was acquitted after a November 2000 trial of one count of careless storage of a firearm and two counts of storing a firearm contrary to regulations. The Crown appealed the decision last May but Carlos' acquittal was upheld in a 2-1 decision last July. The arguments of dissenting Yukon Court of Appeal Justice Catherine Ryan make up the basis of the Crown's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada to have Carlos found guilty and sentenced for all three charges. Carlos' court battle started after the RCMP searched his home in February 2000. They found three loaded handguns without trigger locks, two locked in a downstairs safe and a third behind a stereo upstairs, wrapped in a rag inside a plastic bag. At trial, Carlos said he'd been cleaning the guns and had panicked when police arrived on his doorstep with a search warrant, so he quickly put the weapons away out of sight. Much of the debate at Carlos' trial and subsequent Crown appeal to the territory's appeal court revolved around exactly when a gun is considered to be in storage. The trial judge decided Carlos' actions didn't amount to storage because he hadn't intended to store them. "I accept that Mr. Carlos had no intention to store the two in the safe, loaded, as they were found but had planned to unload all of the guns and replace them into the safe had not the RCMP arrived unexpectedly," the trial judge said. In the majority appeal decision, the judge said Carlos' intentions made the difference in short time cases such as his and he had to be acquitted because he only put aside his guns the way he did because the police were at the door. However, dissenting appeal court judge Ryan said there is no middle ground - Carlos was either using the or had stored them. In a factum filed with the Supreme Court of Canada, the Crown argues the current law "leaves no gaps, temporal or otherwise, which make any form of careless or unsafe dealing - such as the temporary hiding of loaded, ready to use - lawful." The Crown argues the two court of appeal judges who argued to uphold Carlos' acquittal narrowed the meaning of the safe storage law, away from the liberal, plain meaning Parliament had intended. "It creates gaps in the protective coverage of the law - a middle ground that is neither "use" nor "storage," where carelessness and other unsafe dealing in is permitted - that results in public safety." Gun control laws historically had a public safety focus with strict controls on use and storage, reads the Crown's arguments. The factum refers to an earlier Supreme Court case where the court found that careless storage involves an objective standard of fault - a "marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances." Proof of what the accused subjectively meant to do is not required, argues the Crown. "The redrafting of the provisions simply produces the absurd result that was achieved in this case where the respondent was acquitted of negligence and strict liability offences on the basis that he really did not mean to be negligent or to contravene the regulations," said the Crown's factum. "Most significantly, the amendment of the provisions not only does not further Parliament's purpose of protecting the public against the inherent dangers of ; it actually prevents the achievement of that goal." However, Carlos said he thinks the federal government didn't get the definition of storage under the legislation quite right the first time and now he's being taken to court in an effort to rewrite it. "I think what they're trying to do in essence on my back, which is the frustrating thing to me, is trying to correct their legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada," said Carlos. Carlos doesn't think he'll lose, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if the national Supreme Court judges redefines what storage means. "I'm frustrated and quite angry about the whole procedure, but there's no option here," said Carlos. "I've been acquitted twice and now I'm going to the Supreme Court of Canada, spending a lot of my own money. I've got three children that are of university age, for the court to decide what the term storage means. I find that totally unfair." "Even if I were to win it, there's no compensation. I regard it as a form of persecution." He said he's had to think about selling his home and leaving the territory. "It would leave us kind of skinny," said Carlos about the legal costs. Jane Gaffin, a long-time friend of Carlos, said today she thinks it's a case that's going to affect every gun owner in the country. For that reason, she's applied to various associations around the country for help in what she says will be a precendent-setting case to determine exactly what "storage" means in a legal sense. She's hoping the various groups she's applied to - including the National Association, the Canadian Sport Shooters Association, the Responsible Owners Coalition and an Alberta fish, game and gun club - decide as a group if and how much each will contribute to Carlos' legal costs. "This going to the Supreme Court is a very expensive proposition," said Gaffin. Back in September 2000, more than $12,000 was raised to help pay for the lower court costs, and the case resurrected the territory's Responsible Owners Coalition, a then-dormant gun lobby organization. The Star was unable to contact Carlos' lawyer, Richard Fritze, by pressdeadlines. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #524 ********************************** 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@shaw.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 v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 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/ 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.