From: Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Friday, 08 March, 2002 09:20 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #598 Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, March 8 2002 Volume 04 : Number 598 In this issue: NFA: Not Financially Accountable NFA Audit; VP-F Supplemental Report Re: Kustoms and guns "If it saves only one life" -- with a twist FBI shoot Eagle Scout Prosecutor Drop Charges Re: Our geese could be cooked This piece of mine was in yesterday's Guysborough Journal Re: The price of non-compliance re: #594 Paul Craig Roberts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:33:15 -0600 From: "e.m. acount" Subject: NFA: Not Financially Accountable Quoting the NFA bylaws appears to be in style. I'm fashionable. Let's try this one on and see if it fits: Section 23.1 of the NFA Bylaws states: "Officers and Directors, as such, shall not receive any stated remuneration for their services, nor shall they directly or indirectly receive any profit from their position as such." I now quote from the recently released audit of the NFA: "The NFA owns a 2000 Jeep Sport Utility Vehicle which is being driven by the National President. While there is nothing improper about providing a vehicle for a member of the National Executive to drive, there is the consideration of the benefit he is receiving by virtue of the office he holds, and the income tax consequences of it." Is this correct? Did the NFA purchase and provide a $30,000 vehicle for the National President? How can this be reconciled with a bylaw that prevents the National President, as an officer, from receiving any direct or indirect profit from his position? If the above is true, who is going to repay the NFA for this expenditure of the members' money? _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:32:26 -0600 From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: NFA Audit; VP-F Supplemental Report Members of the NFA who are interested in receiving a copy of the recently completed audit of the NFA plus additional information are invited to contact me for an e-copy. Satisfactory proof of valid membership will be required. Richard A. Fritze NFA VP-F (780) 449-3808 - Phone (780) 464-6707 - Fax www.fritze.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:19:38 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Kustoms and guns > From: "Mike Hargreaves" wrote; > Subject: Customs > > Returning from the USA. Terminal two. Toronto International. Carrying > shotgun case!! Asked to go over there! pointing customs chap! unpleasant > person! off to a nice young Customs Officer, who asked to look at my 870 > Remington, I took it out of the case, safe direction, opened action, > verified unloaded, passed it over, this Officer worked the action, > pointed it all over the place (never once in an unsafe direction) asked > me if I minded if he dry fired it! "not at all" said I. He commented on > the lots of straps around the case, liked my one shot extension! and > sent me on my merry way! his Supervisor glaring from a side office > seemed not too pleased! No one was interested in paper or plastic > anything! no questions of where been, or why, that was in 2001. Mike. > > ------------------------------ Peter Kearns wrote: Mike, if that was your own gun, you didn't have to declare it because you weren't importing it. You didn't have yo show it to, or allow the customs officer to handle it, and you were not required to either show or display any licence or paperwork. Before the silly buggers gained control of the NFA, we at NFA Legal won a ministerial appeal against a large fine assesed against a gun owner by customs in New Brunswick. The man had an S & W .357 Magnum and a Ruger rifle in 300 Winchester Magnum in his van. In replying to the kustoms question, "Do you have any firearms?" he told the customs guy he had firearms with him that were his. He told the klown that he took them from his home, to the USA and brought them back again. This gentleman had read my various scribblings and refused to either show the guns or the paperwork to the customs inspector. The klown became apoplectic and brought in several other inspectors. They told the victim they would search his vehicle. He told them they would not, as their stated reason for the search was to check his firearms. The head klown went to the office to call for guidance, and our man asked my favourite question........ "Am I arrested or am I detained?" The reply was "Neither........yet." His reply was to wave a cheery goodbye as he drove away. Several days later he was delivered a notice from kustoms demanding he pay a seven hundred dollar fine, "for running the border." He was visited by his local police who had been asked to file criminal charges by kustoms. The police refused, saying the supposed offences had occured before the victim legally entered Canada! (They added that they were not dumb enough to become involved in a potential lawsuit!) Under the direction of David Tomlinson I filed his appeal to the Minister. We demanded the fine be revoked, reasonable expenses be paid to the victim, and punishment be meted out to the klowm. In his decision upholding the appeal, the Minister admitted that kustoms may only inspect items being imported into the country. (Clearly the victim was returning home with his own goods.) The Minister also agreed that kustoms may not demand to see registrations and licences for firearms etc. The appeal admitted (tacitly,) that kustoms cannot enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act. Peter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:21:03 -0600 From: "Murray Bell" Subject: "If it saves only one life" -- with a twist "On the night of Feb. 4, in South Bend, Ind., Tony D. Murray was holding a box cutter to the neck of Sue Gay when her eleven-year-old grandson -- who had been taught to shoot by his father -- ran upstairs and grabbed a gun. Murry tried to use Mrs. Gay's body as a shield, but the boy ran downstairs and coolly shot Murry in the chest. (The criminal later died in the emergency room.) You could call the incident a fluke -- and in one sense, it was: Even a skilled adult would have had trouble bringing off that shot. Then again, as John R. Lott Jr. has noted, there are some _2 million_ defensive gun uses in the United States every year. Gun-control advocates are fond of saying that if a particular regulation were -- hypothetically -- to save just one child's life, that alone would justify it. Yet the actions of Sue Gay's grandson _actually_ saved one life, and may have saved two. Maybe the problem here is that the gun controllers are obsessed with saving hypothetical lives. We prefer saving real ones." -- National Review, 11 March 2002 (underscore marks enclose italics in the original) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:28:34 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: FBI shoot Eagle Scout FBI fired as victim unbuckled, lawyer says Agents ordered man from car at gunpoint By Gail Gibson and Laura Barnhardt Baltimore Sun Staff Originally published March 5, 2002, 10:03 AM EST Joseph Charles Schultz, the Anne Arundel County man shot Friday after being mistaken for a bank robbery suspect, was reaching to unfasten his seat belt to comply with an FBI agent's order when the agent opened fire, an attorney for Schultz's family said yesterday. "They told him to get out of the car, and he was trying to comply with that," attorney Joseph C. Asensio said. A single bullet from an M-14 assault rifle struck Schultz, 20, in the face, shattering his right cheek and jaw. His condition was downgraded to critical but stable this morning at Maryland Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore, where relatives and his girlfriend, Krissy Harkum, 16, were at his bedside yesterday. FBI officials, meanwhile, said police had arrested the man federal agents were searching for when agents mistakenly stopped Schultz. Michael J. Blottenberger Jr., 32, of the 1600 block of Locust St. in Baltimore, was charged with bank robbery and made an initial appearance yesterday before a federal magistrate. Schultz and Harkum, both of Pasadena, were returning home in her red Pontiac Grand Am after a shopping trip about 6 p.m. Friday when FBI agents in plain clothes and an unmarked car pulled the couple over on Fort Smallwood Road in Pasadena. The agents were looking for Blottenberger, who was wanted in connection with the Feb. 20 robbery of an Allfirst Bank branch and who was believed to be driving in a red sedan Friday. Asensio, a Glen Burnie attorney, said yesterday that two agents carrying assault-style rifles approached the car that Harkum was driving and ordered her and Schultz to put their hands in the air. After the couple complied, Asensio said, the agents ordered them to get out of the car. Schultz was shot when he reached over to unbuckle his seat belt, said Asensio, who met with Schultz, Harkum and their families at the shock trauma center Sunday. FBI officials have acknowledged that Schultz had no connection to the crime or to the suspect. Special Agent Barry A. Maddox, a spokesman for the FBI's Baltimore field office, said yesterday that he could not comment on Asensio's version of events. Citing bureau policy, Maddox said he could not provide any details of the shooting investigation or names of the agents involved in the incident. "It's an ongoing investigation, so we're very limited about what we can say about it," he said. For the first time, however, the FBI indicated that the agent who fired the weapon Friday has been temporarily reassigned. "The agent involved in the shooting has been assigned to duties that will likely not involve armed confrontation," Maddox said. A team of FBI investigators was dispatched from bureau headquarters in Washington over the weekend to investigate the shooting. The FBI's findings will be reviewed by the Justice Department's civil rights division, which could bring charges in the case. Anne Arundel County police are conducting their own investigation; its results will be forwarded to county prosecutors. Two Anne Arundel County detectives were helping the FBI search for Blottenberger on Friday, but were not at the scene of the shooting, said Officer Charles Ravenell, a county police spokesman. An arrest warrant charged Blottenberger with robbing the Allfirst Bank branch in the 8400 block of Fort Smallwood Road in Pasadena on Feb. 20. A criminal complaint filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore charged that Blottenberger took $26,324 in the armed robbery. Witnesses told police at the time that the robber left in a green pickup truck, and officers later recovered such a vehicle behind a nearby video store. Witnesses described the robber as a white male, 5 feet 7 inches to 6 feet tall and weighing 160 to 200 pounds, according to police reports. During an initial appearance yesterday before U.S. Magistrate Judge James K. Bredar, Blottenberger had short-cropped, light brown hair and wore wire-rimmed eyeglasses. He had a large tattoo on the back of his neck. Blottenberger, who has previous addresses in Essex and Glen Burnie, has a lengthy arrest record for charges including burglary, theft, drug possession and assault, state court records show. In court yesterday, Blottenberger acknowledged the bank robbery charge against him but did not enter a plea. Bredar ordered him held without bail after Blottenberger did not request a detention hearing. Blottenberger was arrested late Sunday after a chase that lasted nearly three hours and involved at least a dozen officers, canine and helicopter units, Anne Arundel County police said yesterday. Police first spotted him about 8 p.m. Sunday, driving a gold-colored Ford Escort at a Pasadena gas station. Officers in marked police cars tried to pull over Blottenberger, but he wouldn't stop, Ravenell said. Blottenberger abandoned the Escort at Oakwood Road and Fifth Avenue in Glen Burnie and was eventually captured in a fenced area of Evergreen Gene's Glen Burnie Garden Center in the 400 block of Crain Highway. County police immediately turned Blottenberger over to the FBI. Schultz, who is expected to recover, remained at the shock trauma center today. He was attached to a ventilator, making it impossible for him to speak, and his face was covered by bandages. Asensio said that Schultz is conscious and able to communicate. "He can nod his head. I spoke to him a little bit, and he can understand," Asensio said. Schultz, an Eagle Scout, graduated from Northeast High School in Pasadena in 2000. Asensio said that Schultz was laid off in December from his most recent job, working with fiber optics at a local medical company. As a result of Friday's shooting, Schultz had a shattered right cheekbone and jaw, as well as damage to his nasal passages, the attorney said. The bullet had lodged in his left cheek, and it was unclear whether or when doctors would try to remove it. "There's certainly going to be some extensive reconstructive surgery that's needed," Asensio said. Agents pulled Harkum from the car and threw her to the ground after the shooting, but she was not injured in the incident, Asensio said. At the hospital, Harkum and Schultz's relatives declined to comment yesterday. Asensio said: "Right now with regard to the family, they're just interested in finding the best medical treatment at the time and will go from there." This article was updated by SunSpot staff with information from the Associated Press. Sun staff writer Jackie Powder also contributed to this article. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:31:59 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Prosecutor Drop Charges Prosecutor drops assault charges vs. boy, 8 But neighboring parent wants Juvenile Court response to toy gun incident. Tuesday, March 5, 2002 By LIZ COBBS NEWS STAFF REPORTER Saying it made a mistake, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office will drop felonious assault charges against an 8-year-old Whitmore Lake boy accused of pointing a toy gun at three children in his neighborhood. But the mother of one of the children frightened by the Dec. 6, 2001, incident in the Northfield Estates mobile home park still wants the matter pursued in Juvenile Court. Prosecutor Brian Mackie said Monday that an assistant prosecuting attorney who authorized the petition in January to charge Tommy Davis with three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon mistakenly thought a cap gun was a real gun. To be classified as an assault with a dangerous weapon, a real gun must be involved, Mackie said. "We were wrong and we need to correct this as soon as we can," Mackie said. Tommy Davis, who was 7 at the time of the incident, is scheduled to appear Wednesday in Juvenile Court with his mother, Lisa Davis. Mackie said the charges will be dismissed at the hearing. The boy was charged after he took a plastic cap gun and pointed it at three children, two 7-year-olds and a 6-year-old, according to a Northfield Township Police report. Tommy Davis, the report said, never told the children he was going to shoot them but did tell one of them, "Don't fight me anymore." When an adult resident driving by witnessed the incident and went to stop it, Tommy ran away. Robin Arthur, the mother of one of the 7-year-olds, said Monday that her son no longer lives with her because he does not feel safe living near Tommy Davis, with whom her son has had several fights. "I find it very appalling that they are not going to seek charges," said Arthur, who lives directly behind the Davis family. "Now, he thinks he's going to get by with it. What's to say he won't get a real gun now?" Lisa Davis denied that her son felt he was getting away with anything. "My son's scared to go to court because he feels like he's going to be taken away from here," said Davis, who questioned why her son was charged in the first place. "I hope no mother ever has to go through this." Arthur said her son has been having trouble with Tommy Davis for several years. Although she called the police about several incidents, nothing happened because Tommy was under 7. The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that a child under 7 is not able to form an intent to commit a crime, but a 7-year-old child can form the intent and therefore can be charged. Mackie said he looked into the Juvenile Court case after reading a story in Saturday's News but believed it would have been dismissed at some point when it was recognized that a cap gun was involved. Although the charges will be dismissed, Mackie said the boy's behavior was still bad. "I hope things don't get worse with the kids in that community," Mackie said. "It's important for people not to fight with each other." Liz Cobbs can be reached at lcobbs@annarbornews.com or at (734) 994-6810. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:10:28 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Our geese could be cooked "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" wrote: > Our geese could be cooked > Some animal-rights groups fear the worst if resident geese lose the full > protection of the Migratory Bird Treaty, which sets limits on hunters. > "There'll be a completely unjustified and needless slaughter on a scale > that's unethical. Basically, a bloodbath," said Greg Figelson, director of > the New York-based Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese. > Figelson's group promotes the use of such nonlethal methods as harassment > with dogs, lasers or firecrackers or replanting landscaped lawns with > taller, denser bushes that geese do not like. > Federal officials say the mid-Atlantic states are swarming with residentgeese, > which migrate only short distances, if at all. If Figelson and his ilk want to "protect" and "clean up" our environment, I've got a suggestion for them: grab a rake and a shovel, and clean up all the goose crap these ravening hordes leave behind. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:13:39 -0600 From: Michael Ackermann Subject: This piece of mine was in yesterday's Guysborough Journal Recently I've been accused of gleaning my pro-rights research material from 'white supremacist' web sites. This is typical of what is known in debating circles as an 'ad hominem' argument. Unable to assail the truth and logic of the pro-rights position, the anti-rights activists then try to attack the character of their opponents. To this I have three things to say: First, in Canada we have shifted our political spectrum so far to the Left that even the most moderate Right Wing view is now labelled as 'extremist'. If you doubt this, ask your self when was the last time you saw an editorial cartoon or opinion piece decrying Left Wing extremists. We are so far to the left that even total left wing fanaticism is now accepted as reasonable and any attempt to restore balance is viewed as right wing extremism. To quote author Vin Suprynowicz in his book, "Send In The Waco Killers" (p314), The Responsible Firearms Community is commonly portrayed according to the the "...anti freedom pro-big-government stereotype of the gun owner as a chinless slope-browed moron in camouflage fatigues, either incinerating a tiny fawn with a rocket-propelled grenade or blowing smoke from his muzzle and proudly proclaiming his gun rights as he wades knee-deep through newly slaughtered school children". Why is it that gun owners are the last group in Canada that can be rendered "sub-human" with impunity? To me this treatment amounts to no less than a hate crime against a visible minority. Second, what I and other pro-rights advocates are really opposed to is Statism. We favour neither the Right nor the Left of the political spectrum. When the State attempts to micro-manage every aspect of our daily lives by passing thousands of useless, intrusive, costly, and unenforceable laws which only affect the law-abiding and seriously threaten our basic inviolate human rights, all the while ignoring the true dangers to society and extorting ever higher percentages of our family earnings to pay for it, then we say, "Enough is enough! This has to stop". It doesn't matter what the political leaning of the Statist is. Subjugation of basic human rights is equally bad, regardless of what party is doing it. Finally, I invite any who accuse me of getting my facts from white supremacist groups to examine my sources for themselves. The American Civil Liberties Union, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, The 10th Calvary Gun Club, The Second Amendment Sisters, Doctors For Sensible Gun Laws, Proceedings of the US Congressional Hearings Committee, Reports of the US Department of Justice, The CAnada SAfety Council, and Statistics Canada, are just a few of the web sites I use. In addition in my writings I've made reference to hundreds of well documented and peer-reviewed primary research and review articles by well respected authors from the fields of Criminology, Law, Medicine, Psychology, and Sociology. I also frequently take material from numerous anti-gun sites such as The Coalition For Gun Control, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Million Mom Foundation, just to name a few. I am more than willing to allow anyone to view these sources at any time. In fact, links are readily available on the SMSA web site at http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/Links.htm . If the anti-rights crowd think that these sites represent 'white supremacist' material, then I would suggest that maybe they don't know as much about the gun control debate as they would like you to believe. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) President, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 3, RR 1, 4132 Sonora Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca SMSA URL: www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/SMSA_Web_Page.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:16:07 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: The price of non-compliance John Poulin wrote: > First off, can you afford to break the law or apply > non-compliance.[same thing] John makes many good and serious points about non-compliance. These are things that each of us must consider, and decide whether or not we can "afford" it. I don't think that nayone who advocated non-compliance also advocates doing nothing else. Certainly, we must continue to attack this crappy legislation from every angle; non-compliance is just one of these. However, we have seen what happens when we try to "work within the law": all *our* concerns are ignored, while the aparatchiks only want to know how best to implement the act as fast, with as much comliance, as possible. They have *zero* interest in hearing what we want. One of the weak links of this thing is money: they are rapidly running out. We can bleed them to death by forcing them to comply with their own laws. Another weak link is public opinion: when they start arresting people for paper crimes, and those charged start fighting back in the courts, wasting time and more money, more people will start to pay attention. We should also be working towards defeating the Lieberals at the polls, so we can elect a party that will do the right thing and repeal this piece of crap. Certainly, we must all seriously consider how much we can "afford" to lose; but we also must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror every day. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:19:35 -0600 From: Maurice Curtis Subject: re: #594 Paul Craig Roberts The letter submitted by Joe Gingrich is an excellent piece of work. Paul Craig Roberts hit the nail on the head-- and gave us a derogatory reference for gun Control advocates which should work as well for us as their insulting insinuations have against us. In particular one line stands out. "Gun-controllers represent the criminal lobby". Needless to say, when you note the supporters of the Coalition for Gun Control, two criminal agencies, the Elizabeth Fry and the John Howard Society, are listed. We, as gun owners have been constantly hounded and referred to in derogatory fashion as the "Gun Lobby". After ready the article, it seems to me that we have an excellent comeback for "gun lobby" comments. I believe from hereon, we should refer to the Coalition for Gun Control and all others of the same stripe as "The Criminal Lobby." Used repeatedly, Joe Citizen may suddenly realize those criminal representatives are looking out for their own best interest. How 'bout it folks?? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #598 ********************************** 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.