From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #676 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, April 10 2002 Volume 04 : Number 676 In this issue: Re: Process to get a gun simple for armed guard hopefuls Re: inspection, 10 or more guns re: collector/10 firearms present British Columbia Wildlife Federation Emergency Resolution. Text of BCWF Emergency Resolution 1/02 Guards' gunfire under review ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:33:53 -0600 From: Viper Axxemann Subject: Re: Process to get a gun simple for armed guard hopefuls "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" wrote: > Union leaders who represent armoured car guards around the country have > called on the federal government in the past to increase the amount of > training armed guards require. More training never hurt anyone, but how about giving these guys some real sidearms? I mean, I've never been shot at with anything bigger than a BB gun or a paintball gun, but why not issue Armored guards a sidearm with some real stopping power? There's scads of info on defensive handguns, good calibres, loads, etc. why not put it to good use? Equip them with a .40 S&W, or a .45 ACP? And for crying out loud, teach them to shoot accurately under stress! Keep 'em in the A Zone Pete "For He who sheds His blood with me this day shall be my Brother." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:53:43 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: inspection, 10 or more guns hogan myster wrote: > > Once again, half truths and Urban Myths rear their ugly heads on the digest. I wouldn't call them half truths, just not a very well put together picture of the whole truth. > As far as the requirements for an inspection go in regards to a private > residence: > 104.(1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except > (a) on resonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is > being carried on in the dwelling house;and > (b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant > > Other relevant sections include: > 102(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)-deals with businesses(in a way, homeowners, but only if > an inspector thinks on reasonable grounds there is a business being > conducted) > 103-duty to assist inspector > 104(2)(a)(b)(c)-Authority to issue a warrant (This part concerns me the > most, very vague resons to issue a warrant...leave the door to wide open for > my comfort) > 104(3)(a)(b)-Areas that may be inspected > 105-Demand to produce firearm I think you are putting the cart before the horse, here. Section 102 is the most important, since it delineates what conditions can trigger an "inspection". These are: you operate a firearms business; you own a prohibited firearm; you own more than 10 firearms; or you own a "collection". Section 104 only comes into play if any of these conditions apply to a dwelling house, which most certainly will. The "inspector" doesn't need "reasonable grounds", unless he is on a fishing expedition, because he has certain knowledge of your qualification for "inspection" because of the various records he has access to: he will *know* that you run a business, since you must have filled out a "firearms business licence" form; he will *know* that you have a "collection" since you filled out a "Application for Collector Status" form; he will *know* you have more than 10 fireams, from all the registration forms you have filled out; he will *know* that you have a prohibited firearm from the registration form you filled out. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:06:33 -0600 From: Barry Snow Subject: re: collector/10 firearms present > Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 21:27:20 -0600 > From: "hogan myster" > Subject: Re: inspection, 10 or more guns > > Once again, half truths and Urban Myths rear their ugly heads on the digest. > It is true that under the old legislation there was a reference to owning 10 > firearms (Remember only Restricted and Prohibited had to previously be > registered, no such restrictions on ownership of non-restricted). The new FA has references to 10 or more firearms as well. > The requirements for a Gun Collector, under the Firearms Act and Regulations > are different. > > Note Sections: > 30,30(a),30(b),30(c) which specifically deals with the critera that must be > met to be considered a collector. NO mention of any specific number of > firearms that must be/not be owned. A person could have one REstricted or > Prohibited, or have hundreds. > > As far as the requirements for an inspection go in regards to a private > residence: > 104.(1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except > (a) on resonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is > being carried on in the dwelling house;and > (b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant The read 104 (2) (a) (b) (c) to find that this is in essence a warrentless search because of the ease with which the warrant will be issued. > > Other relevant sections include: > 102(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)-deals with businesses(in a way, homeowners, but only if > an inspector thinks on reasonable grounds there is a business being > conducted) Deals with businesses in a specific way, and also places where there is a gun collection or record of; a place there may be prohibited firearms OR if there are more than 10 firearms. Bear in mind that sec 117FA and 119FA give the minister power to change the description of a collector to anyone who owns more than one firearm. The minister has the power to create new offenses without bringing before parliament. The MoJ simply has to declare that the change is either too urgent or inconsequential. > 103-duty to assist inspector Loss of your right to remain silent. > 104(2)(a)(b)(c)-Authority to issue a warrant (This part concerns me the > most, very vague resons to issue a warrant...leave the door to wide open for > my comfort) Very specific. Will be issued on the inspector's word alone. > 104(3)(a)(b)-Areas that may be inspected > 105-Demand to produce firearm > If you don't have a copy of the Act, feel free to e-mail me offline for the > exact wording, or call the 1-800 line and order your own copy. Not all that > you hear is always true...so remember, if something you hear bothers you, > research it...find out yourself...when in doubt, ask someone you trust. Then > ask where they got thier information. > > Hogan > Then look it up yourself, please. The act is also online at the Canadian Firearms Center. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:10:26 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: British Columbia Wildlife Federation Emergency Resolution. Look out... they're at it again... Almost exactly two years ago, the British Columbia Wildlife Federation made a pitch to the BC Chief Firearms Officer, in which they proposed to take over administration and delivery of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course from the CFO's office. They did so in spite of their clear and certain knowledge that doing so would actually AID the Canadian Firearms Center in their mission to register all firearms owners and firearms! They admitted that in two different places in their proposal, to wit: Page 2: "The transfer of the CFSC/CRFSC programs to the BCWF can achieve the following benefits: Reallocate CFO staff to deal with licensing, REGISTRATION and other duties under the Firearms Act." BC firearms owners should remember that the "other duties" mentioned include things like having our local Firearms Officer do "inspections" (ie searches) of the homes of those who own firearms. Page 3: "It appears that the implementation of the Firearms Act and the REGISTRATION of gun owners and FIREARMS have priority at this time. By transferring the administration of the CFSC/CRFSC to the BCWF would free up additional staff for the CFO to deal with these pressing issues." That seems like a pretty clear admission of what the results would be of the BCWF assuming control of the CFSC. Not only was the idea defeated at the convention that year, but following letters in local newspapers dealing with the issue, BCWF President Ivar Larson and Executive Director Doug Walker appeared at our Fish and Game Club meeting to assure us all was well and this hadn't REALLY happened... sort of. At that same meeting, we were able to video President Ivar Larson swearing that the Fed wouldn't have anything to do with administering the CFSC as long as he was president. It appears that the BCWF will be electing a new president at the annual convention April 18 - 20 in Fernie BC. For at the convention, in Emergency Resolution 1/02, the BCWF Board of Directors will ask the membership to give them a mandate to enter into a contract with the Canadian Firearms Centre to coordinate and deliver the Canadian Firearms Safety Course in BC. Excluding all the preceeding "whereas" clauses - and in fairness I will post a complete copy of the draft resolution after this post - the resolution reads as follows: ______________________________ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the B.C. Wildlife Federation Board of Directors be given a mandate by the members to develop a business plan with the intent to enter into conditional contractual agreement with the Canadian Firearms Centre that would involve coordinating and delivering the Canadian Firearms Safety Course in British Columbia. _____________________________ The rationalizations given in the resolution are numerous. They point out that this is just firearms training, and that is the one section of the Firearms Act that the Fed supports. They point out that other hunter education agencies in other provinces do it, so it must be good for us to do it to. They point out that the federal government is privatizing delivery of the course and an outside contractor could adversely affect the interest of BCWF members. And they claim they have been delivering the CORE Program and been recognized for quality and cost effectiveness of the services. Here's the other side of the coin. First, the Fed inherited a CORE program from the provincial government that was already high quality , primarily due to the dedication and knowledge of the instructors that came with the program. And, while the Fed's delivery of the CORE program may have been cost effective for the province after offloading the costs to the Fed, it has NOT been cost effective to CORE students who saw the BCWF add a surcharge to the course cost. At a time when hunter numbers are dropping and less kids are becoming hunters, the BCWF made it more expensive to get a hunting license. I don't call that "cost effective" to those who required the course or encouraging to new hunters. Second, the claim that "better we do it than some outsider" reminds me of the explanation I got from the NDP as to why they chose to support and administer the Firearms Act rather than just do as Alberta did and refuse to have anything to do with it. Third, just because some other provincial organization chooses to enter an incestious relationship with the Canadian Firearms Center and the shooter's best friend, David Austin, doesn't mean British Columbia has to. There are other considerations not mentioned in the resolution: 1. The resolution only refers to the CFSC, with no mention of the CRFSC. Are the supposed benefits of BCWF administration not going to be made available to those members who require that course to obtain and possess restricted firearms? Is that course and Federation members who require it going to be left to the private contractors/government that we are supposed to fear having control of the CFSC? 2. In my opinion, the CFSC was and remains poorly put together. The graphics and illustrations in the manual wouldn't do credit to a teenage graphic artist, the manual has been plagued with errors, the course is full of government propaganda, students are not permitted to do live firing on a range... The list of shortcomings is a lengthy one, and the end product delivered to students clearly shows its' origins in a private company whose owners know little about firearms or their use, but everything about government porkbarrelling. In view of the above, and considering how many members we have who are university professors, primary and secondary school teachers, education administrators, educators from the military, police or private enterprise... I find it incredible that the BCWF seems to think it is beyond our means and expertise to put together our OWN firearms safety course. A course which parallels the federal courses, prepares for the same exam, but doesn't include government propaganda and which educates students as to the abuses in the Firearms Act and how to protect themselves from malicious Firearms Officers. A course designed by and for BCWF members - beyond government control, meddling, and input. Is the BCWF as an organization really so inept that we cannot implement our own independant firearms training course that would prepare students to pass a test that many people pass simply by studying the manual and without any training whatsoever? "REAL" CFSC examiners would have to do the exams, of course... but I have to wonder what private enterprise company would make a profit when the majority of their income came from administering the exam only. The obvious question is: why would we do our own course or fear administering the Canadian Firearms Centre's course. Here are my concerns: 3. BC CFSC instructors are having their instructor status revoked by the CFC when they criticize the Firearms Act and/or misbehavior by CFC personnel - even when they do so only outside of the classroom. Remember Dennis Sorenson on Vancouver Island a few weeks ago? When the Fed is administering the course, will they be revoking the instructor status of Federation members who criticize the Firearms Act? Will the Fed be telling those instructors to button their lips and cease their advocacy against the Firearms Act? And will they stand up for their members instructing the course when their status is revoked, even if it jeopardizes the Fed's administration contract with the Canadian Firearms Centre? 4. Where is the guarantee that the Fed will not tone down their advocacy against the Firearms Act when they get used to the new revenue coming in and then get a call from the government saying if they don't back off on some firearms issue or other, their contract to provide the service will be revoked? Will the leadership of the Fed have the strength to walk away from this source of income over a "small" firearms issue if given an ultimatum by the David Austin and the other trustworthy folks at the CFC? 5. Can the leadership of the BCWF guarantee that once they have obtained the contract to administer the CFSC and are no longer at arms length with the CFC, the contract will never be used as a lever to influence the Federation on firearms issues? In conclusion, I believe this is the plan first uncovered in 2000 with a new paint job and a new slant. It will create jobs within the BCWF for more paid bureaucrates to administer the program. There will be perhaps a bit of empire building within the BCWF. But mostly, I believe, it is still about making money from administering a mandatory program to new hunters and gun owners. Delivering the best firearms training possible to new shooters and opposition to the Firearms Act are a distant second. And beyond any doubt, just like with the CORE course, the price of the course to students will quickly increase in order for the BCWF to turn a profit. If you wish to express your approval or disapproval of this plan for the BCWF to enter into a partnership with David Austin and the Canadians Firearm Center, the BCWF web page says the following people are the Board of Directors who passed this resolution: Alison Beal abeal@junction.net Ross Everatt everatt@img.net Gary Mauser gary_mauser@sfu.ca Sandra Nahornoff friend@northernbc.com Greg Pallister dpallist@solarwinds.com Herb Stumpf stumpfherb@hotmail.com George Wilson gmwilson@kootenaycable.com Make sure your fish and game club knows your opinion... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:11:31 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Text of BCWF Emergency Resolution 1/02 CANADIAN FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE WHEREAS, The Provincial Government announced in January 2002 that it had decided to withdraw from administering the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) Program; and, WHEREAS, The Federal Government has decided to privitize the firearms program including the delivery of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course; and, WHEREAS, The eventual contractor of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course will have a large degree of influence over the service provided to our members; and, WHEREAS, The membership at the 1998 Annual General Meeting in Fort St. John authorized the B.C. Wildlife Federation Board of Directors to investigate delivering the Canadian Firearms Safety Course; and, WHEREAS, The membership at the 2000 Annual General Meeting in Prince George required that no action be taken to assist the federal government in the delivery of firearm safety training; and, WHEREAS, Firearm training is the only section of Bill C-68 that the B.C. Wildlife Federation members endorse; and, WHEREAS, A number of hunter education agencies in other provinces, some linked with the Provincial Wildlife Federations, eg: Saskatoon and Ontario, have entered into contractual agreements with the federal government for the delivery of firearm safety training; and, WHEREAS, Time is limited and the federal government is soliciting proposals from any interested parties; and, WHEREAS, The B.C.W.F. has delivered the Core Program and has been consistently recognized for the quality and cost effectiveness of its services; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the B.C. Wildlife Federation Board of Directors be given a mandate by the members to develop a business plan with the intent to enter into conditional contractual agreement with the Canadian Firearms Centre that would involve coordinating and delivering the Canadian Firearms Safety Course in British Columbia. SUBMITTED BY: Board of Directors of the B.C. Wildlife Federation Passed at B.C.W.F. Board of Directors Meeting January 20,2002 SUPPORTING BRIEF The Federal Government is intent on privatizing as much of Bill C-68 as they can. The PSET program has already been privitized in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, Novia Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nunavut. The BCWF Board of Directors feels that there is potential that an outside contractor could adversely affect the interest of our members. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:12:27 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Guards' gunfire under review PUBLICATION WINNIPEG FREE PRESS DATE : WED APR.10,2002 PAGE : A1 CLASS : City EDITION : - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Guards' gunfire under review Province, police probe armoured-car heists - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Bruce Owen With Winnipeg unnerved by bullet-blazing shootouts in public places, police and the provincial Justice Department have ordered wide-ranging reviews of gunplay involving armoured-car guards. The investigations could recommend mandatory training be beefed up for private security firms across Canada. The concern by the highest levels of Manitoba law enforcement comes after a wild shootout Sunday, in which a shotgun-blasting bandit and a security guard exchanged about 10 shots near shoppers in a Safeway parking lot. It was Winnipeg's eighth attempted armoured-car heist in three years. Winnipeg Police Service Insp. Jack Tinsley said yesterday his review will look at the licensing and training of armoured-car guards, from marksmanship to when they can fire their weapons. "Retaliation fire is the concern," Tinsley said. "How do these incidents escalate to gunfire and how is it returned?" Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh said yesterday he has also asked his department to review Sunday's incident to see if security-company procedures can be made safer. And Securicor, whose guards launched an all-out attack on the bandit Sunday, will review both the incident and the guards' general training and procedures. "We're coming to the conclusion in Winnipeg, obviously, we're on to the same person, some sort of serial bandit robber," Securicor spokesman Ross Parry said, adding every incident involving their vehicles is reviewed. "We have to heighten our focus, our anticipation, our preparation. He's a very persistent criminal, with very extreme levels of risk. It's virtually unprecedented. "As we look at the Winnipeg situation, we look at a number of factors. Now we look at what we do differently because we're facing an unusual situation." Parry said the reaction of the Securicor guards during the latest robbery -- they chased the getaway vehicle and managed to ram it -- was also unusual. "As a company we're very proud of our drivers," he said, adding that the police review of how Securicor handled the robbery is "welcomed." However, local armoured-car guards say no amount of training would outweigh putting a third guard on high-risk cash pickups. "When you have three people you're watching in every direction," a Brink's guard with 12 years experience said. "It's the best deterrent. The problem is the security companies don't want to pay for it. They only care about the bottom line." Of the eight attempted armoured-car robberies since 1998, only one was carried out against a three-man crew, he said. Tinsley said the review was first ordered by Winnipeg Police Chief Jack Ewatski last February following an armoured-car holdup outside a Safeway store in Southdale. In that robbery, a man armed with a shotgun and an armoured-car guard traded gunfire, with the bandit making off with a bag of cash and escaping in a stolen van. Stray bullets blasted two holes in the rear window of a passing car. Tinsley said his review is now even more urgent given Sunday's robbery outside the front entrance of a Safeway in The Maples. In the robbery, the bandit's method of operation was almost the same, except that there were more shots fired and increased danger to bystanders. It's believed the Securicor guard fired all six shots from his revolver at the bandit and the ducked for cover to reload. The bandit fired five shots from what's believed to be a sawed-off, pump-action shotgun. "This is extremely serious," he said. "And a man in a wheelchair was caught in the centre." Yesterday, police said they had no solid leads to help them identify the bandit. Mackintosh said he has asked Justice Department officials to review the actions taken by the two security guards. He also said he'll take the matter up with Ottawa if their analysis finds that procedures can be improved. "Yes, the feds have jurisdiction, but this is about the public safety of Manitobans," he said. Tinsley said police must qualify twice a year at the force's gun range to be able to carry a sidearm. If they fail, they must go for re-training, but that rarely happens. He added the average pass mark by officers in re-qualifying is 93 per cent - -- they get 45 shots at a stationary target and 43 to 44 of those shots must score. "The private security firms are nowhere near that," he said. As well, police are also trained to only fire their weapons when they're confident there is no other option. "Even if you're under heavy fire, you can't return fire unless it's safe. You seek cover." He also said the first thing guards should do when approached by a bandit, even one firing a gun, is to drop the money and run. They should not immediately unholster their pistols to shoot back. "It's just money," Tinsley said. He said his completed report will be forwarded to the federal Canadian Centre, with the view that Ottawa will look at and perhaps legislate tougher training requirements for armoured-car guards. The Brink's guard, who did not want to be identified, said guards have to take a week-long course on gun safety taught by a certified instructor hired by the company. Guards also have to re-qualify twice a year. Federal laws only require armoured-car guards have proper documentation to possess and carry a sidearm. They also must take a minimum two-day training course as part of the approval process. Guards say they're taught to only fire their weapons when they believe their life is at immediate risk, or if there is a direct threat to a co-employee's life or the well-being of a member of the public. "You are responsible for every round you fire," he said, adding guards are also instructed to fire six rounds a close range in under nine seconds -- empty their handguns quickly at a hostile moving target. They're also taught to never give up their gun, in case it's used against them. "You've got to make a decision like this in a heartbeat. You've also got to be willing to take a bullet if a little old lady is standing in front of you." The guards also say police wouldn't be so quick to criticize if they were placed in the same position, a masked gunman firing at them wildly. "A guy is shooting at you," another guard said. "The fact is it's an individual decision to draw and fire. If there is no cover for you, you don't have much of a choice." bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V4 #676 ********************************** 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.