From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #97 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, September 29 2002 Volume 05 : Number 097 In this issue: Question for CFC lurkers Re: When Antiques are no longer Antiques. Re: Question for CFC lurkers RUN FOR THE CURE - next Sunday Nazi Gun Control efforts...... Professor Dorans Proposal, comment to various suggestions, [none] Re: T-4 'S and the CCRA California's Governor Signs Series of Anti-Gun Measures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:49:06 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Ockers Subject: Question for CFC lurkers Howdy, I know the CFC is in a bit of disarray right now due to the "restructuring." However, I was wondering if anyone on this list could advise me what to do about a phone call I got about 6 months ago from a guy (I don't think he had a last name) at the CFC. This fellow called me up and stated that my registration for my restricted firearm had been improperly issued, and that it was therefore invalid. He didn't offer any proof or other information, of course, other than to say that some sort of required background check had not been properly completed prior to the issuance of the registration certificate. He also said that they would be proceeding with the background checks and whatever else they'd failed to do, and then they would re-issue the registration certificate (or issue a new one, or something). Unfortunately I don't have the call on tape, or any other records regarding this call. I haven't initated any contact with the CFC since that time, nor have they contacted me. As far as I'm concerned, I still have a valid PAL (with restricted endorse- ment) and I also still have a valid registration for the firearm. Should I just leave matters alone? Should I try to investigate things further? Like most law-abiding firearms owners, I prefer to maintain a low profile since the whole point of the Firearms Act was to harrass law-abiding citizens. (That was the point, right? Since I'm sure the criminals aren't all lined up to register or surrender their firearms.) I would rather not risk harrassment by the CFC or the Government of Canada if it was something that wasn't important. Just wondering, thanks... - -- Jim Ockers (ockers@ockers.net) Contact info: please see http://www.ockers.net/ Fight Spam! Join CAUCE (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email) at http://www.cauce.org/ . ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:03:22 -0600 (CST) From: wrpa Subject: Re: When Antiques are no longer Antiques. >> .... Firearms manufactured on or before 1898 do not have to be registered >>by law as they are considered "Antiques". By definition of the firearms act. Vulcun1isback@aol.com wrote: > >..BUT....The only exception to this rule is "once you actually decide to load >live ammo in this Antique gun and fire it ...." does it by law, now become >classified as " an actual firearm" or "restricted weapon" (if a handgun) >..and therefore now needs to be "Registered" by law. > >(In other words...as long as you are using your gun as a paper weight...it's >okay and classified as a "Non-Firearm" . Where do you get the "once you actually decide to load live ammo in this Antique gun and fire it" does it by law, now become classified as "an actual firearm" Discharging the antique firearm does not change the legal status. The only change in status from antique (non-firearm) to a firearm is if it were unlawful to have discharged ANY firearm in the circumstance. It will still be class as an antique if you go duck hunting with your antique shotgun. It will not be classed as an antique (non-firearm) if you pointed your shotgun at someone. If it were illegal with a real gun the antique becomes a firearm. If you can provide any legal text for your "rule" please do so. Vulcun1isback@aol.com wrote: >>- -Reproductions are not "True Antiques" and therefore fall under the >>normal guidelines of firearm registration. More BS. If the reproduction is a flintlock, wheel-lock or matchlock long gun it is deemed an antique. Read the following Criminal Code Regulation. 1. The firearms listed in the schedule are antique firearms for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition "antique firearm" in subsection 84(1) of the Criminal Code. Black Powder Reproductions Section 1 1. A reproduction of a flintlock, wheel-lock or matchlock firearm, other than a handgun, manufactured after 1897. Please check your facts before you post please. Rudy Winnipeg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:04:31 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Question for CFC lurkers Jim Ockers wrote: > I know the CFC is in a bit of disarray right now due to the "restructuring." > However, I was wondering if anyone on this list could advise me what to do > about a phone call I got about 6 months ago from a guy (I don't think he had > a last name) at the CFC. This fellow called me up and stated that my > registration for my restricted firearm had been improperly issued, and that > it was therefore invalid. > > He didn't offer any proof or other information, of course, other than to > say that some sort of required background check had not been properly > completed prior to the issuance of the registration certificate. He also > said that they would be proceeding with the background checks and whatever > else they'd failed to do, and then they would re-issue the registration > certificate (or issue a new one, or something). > > Unfortunately I don't have the call on tape, or any other records regarding > this call. > > I haven't initated any contact with the CFC since that time, nor have they > contacted me. > > As far as I'm concerned, I still have a valid PAL (with restricted endorse- > ment) and I also still have a valid registration for the firearm. > > Should I just leave matters alone? Should I try to investigate things > further? Like most law-abiding firearms owners, I prefer to maintain a low > profile since the whole point of the Firearms Act was to harrass law-abiding > citizens. (That was the point, right? Since I'm sure the criminals aren't > all lined up to register or surrender their firearms.) I would rather not > risk harrassment by the CFC or the Government of Canada if it was something > that wasn't important. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. In my best guess opinion, if they *issued* you a registration certificate, which you have in your hot little hand, they then must follow the revocation procedure in order to revoke it. Which requires a letter under FA s. 72 from the Registrar stating that your registration has been revoked, and why, and providing you with copies of FA s. 74 - 81 which outline your appeal procedure. 72. (1) Where a chief firearms officer decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a licence or authorization to transport or the Registrar decides to refuse to issue or to revoke a registration certificate, authorization to export or authorization to import, the chief firearms officer or Registrar shall give notice of the decision in the prescribed form to the applicant for or holder of the licence, registration certificate or authorization. (2) A notice given under subsection (1) must include reasons for the decision disclosing the nature of the information relied on for the decision and must be accompanied by a copy of sections 74 to 81. [...] (5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code and section 112 of this Act do not apply to the applicant or holder. (6) If the applicant for or holder of the licence or registration certificate refers the refusal to issue it or revocation of it to a provincial court judge under section 74, the reasonable period of time does not begin until after the reference is finally disposed of. No letter, no revocation. Some nameless wog from the CFC can't just call you up and say "sorry, your registration is no good". That's not "due process". If they screwed up in issuing you a registration certificate, that is *their* fault, not yours, and you should not be arbitrarily deprived of your certificate without the procdures under the law being followed. That is "bureaurcratic licentiousness". If they *do* issue you a new registration certificate, keep the old one in a safe place. You never know. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:14:22 -0600 (CST) From: Ed Tait Subject: RUN FOR THE CURE - next Sunday You just never know when the opportunity to discuss the subject of the Gun Registry will present itself..... Following please find my Sister-in-Law's confirmation of my wife and my involvement in the upcoming Run for the Cure for Cancer.... I have removed all the addressees, to protect their identities....Suffice it to say, my family knows where I stand, but copying all, on my response was an opportunity to get the message out to a particularily Liberal thinking group in comparative terms which were particularily topical..... Ed Tait Victoria Good morning everyone, Just a quick update on the plans for next Sunday. Great response from all of you!! The only ones that can't make it are Les & Judy Fox since Les has hurt his back.But everyone else is in!! I have registered all of us women as participants. And left it for the men to join us and make a donation if they wish. Next step is that I'll pick up our "kits"....T-shirt, race number etc.....on Thursday or Friday of this week. Most women wear the T-shirt on the walk, on top of or under whatever they're wearing that day to keep warm. So we need to plan to meet ahead of time....say 0900....to get everyone fixed up. Ron & I will scout out the parking situation & meeting point and let you know during the week. We also still have to decide on a place to have lunch afterwards. So more info to come. Just wanted you to know that it's all systems go. Now I know you can't do the actual walk with us, Cherie.....but I registered you anyway so you wouldn't feel left out with no T-shirt. And you're going to join us for the lunch part on your way back from Victoria. Hopefully Dick can do the walk part on your behalf since all the other guys are doing it....we won't make him wear the T-shirt. And then we'll see you afterwards. Now let's just keep our fingers crossed for a dry day. By the way, I think we're all up for a 5 km walk instead of just the 1km walk, right? That would barely get us warmed up. But we can make that decision when we start out depending on the weather. In the meantime, stay tuned for more details. Cheers, Barb Barb I am with you 100%..... You will find me, when you get there, at the 5km. finish line, "Sitting for the Cure" If you think it valuable, given the clearly, good work this event will serve to support, I am perfectly willing to continue to sit until a cure is found....although I would like to go home and sit.... I look forward to your further contact and advice in this regard. Love Ed ps: As you well know, I am a proponent of independent action as opposed to government involvement and funding of all things. However, I thought you might want to be made aware that the Government is funding the Federal Gun Registry with twenty-four times the funding it provides to Breast Cancer research..... Additionally and hoping not to bury you in the truth, but in the last eight years the Federal Government has admitted to having expended over One BILLION tax dollars, on their Gun Registry. In that time unfortunately, 560,000 Canadian's have died from Cancer and a full, three hundred Canadians have died in Firearms accidents, at a cost of $ 3,333,333.33 per life. I recognize every life is precious and we should do almost anything to save even one life. Too bad however that there isn't the money left over from the Gun Registry, to save even one of those 560,000 Canadian Cancer victims...! Oh well, on with the walking....... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:20:53 -0600 (CST) From: Ed Tait Subject: Nazi Gun Control efforts...... Scott My thanks for your response with regard, as you say, the Hitler, unquote. You were clearly miles ahead of me, in having researched the accuracy of the quotation. As I said, I wanted more for it to be an accurate quote, given the fact it was so perfectly suited to our purposes than I wanted to be factually correct.....Intellectual laziness rears its ugly head yet again...! I do not see myself as a 'doom sayer' and regardless this subject is in fact history, it is my opinion that it is often counterproductive to discuss, particularly at this juncture, a reasonable fear of ones own government, regardless I do greatly, fear its power. No politicians in any government have ever passed a law that they didn't intend the governmental power yielded by the bureaucracy, to apply. There is in my judgment, no amount of compliance that will satisfy the intentions of the Canadian Government. We will, unless we are successful in raising greatly the understanding of the Canadian people to the history and the risk, be disarmed. My apologies for sounding fatalistic and beaten. It is in this context however, that I fear Professor Dorans Proposal, if not taken-up immediately and with a fervour, by the RFC will prove to have been the last great opportunity for the Canadian citizenry to have rested control back from its government. I am not speaking here of only the right to keep our firearms, but our own private property, given the myriad of new precedent this series of Legislation engenders. On the issue of the Nazi gun control laws..... The absolute best research vehicle if you are interested in this matter, is the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership website, which can be accessed at: www.jpfo.org I have also attached above, a link to the page where specifics can be found on the subject. In light of my earlier comment as to the potential of counter-productive consequences, were one to have the effrontery to discuss a fear of government and the very real possibility of the coercive and destructive application of its power. I recommend this site to you, I repeatedly find a review of this site as a breathe of fresh air....They are so, characteristically uninhibited in their position. Enjoy your research and please, either comment on the Professor's Proposal or give him publicly your support through a posting to the Digest at your very earliest opportunity. I do not think I put too fine a point on it by suggesting that the long term retention of our mutual and collective rights depend on your doing so..... Respectfully Ed Tait Victoria ps: Remember Eugene McCarthy's (the Presidential candidate...) comment to the power of the bureaucracy and the retention of Liberty..... "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy it its inherent inefficiency. An efficient bureauracracy would be the greatest threat to Individual Liberty" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:22:24 -0600 (CST) From: Ed Tait Subject: Professor Dorans Proposal, comment to various suggestions, I write to comment on several suggestions made to Professor Doran's Proposal, (which I wholeheartedly support) which have been posted, since his Proposal was unveiled. On the issue of representation on the Steering Committee: It occurs to me that while individual Provincial and Territorial representation is doubtless a worth while aim, is such a large group likely to be less able to work quickly, effectively and efficiently in the short run, than the six member group the Professor had suggested...? The question of zonal representation might be handled, at least in the start-up phase, by having the Country divided into six zones.... On the issue of the Professor being the RFC Director: In my judgement the Professor filling this role, assuming he will accept, (he has never to my knowledge, indicated whether he would or would not...) is, again at a minimum during the start-up phase, critically important. I recognize and in fact it is my earlier stated position, that whomever leads the Organization must not only be knowledgeable in the matters at hand, be entirely media savvy, but also, and very importantly, in my opinion, attractive to the Media. I have never met Professor Dorans, if he has two heads and suffers from the balance of the maladies most people with two heads do, it is unlikely he will be our best choice....Knowing him from his writings however, it occurs to me he is the right person, at the right time, if he will serve. On the issue of Charter and Supreme Court Challenges: I doubt very much this group will develop such strident and inflexible positions as to restrict its ability to take-up any case which would be of value to the RFC in the widest interpretation of value. It occurs, specifically with regard High Court Challenges, that their cost may be so onerous, (regardless their obvious worth to the cause) that to become involved could lead us into a long and very dark corridor with no escape. Once engaged, one cannot exit without inferring the mantle of, 'Winner' on the opposing party. In this case the opposing party would be one level of Government or other, likely the Federal level, which will come fully prepared to begin and to continue until we are all 'in the home'....It/they will also come replete with a never ending source of funding, (which we as compliant taxpayers, will be providing) It has long been said that one should not frontally attack those who buy ink by the barrel, i.e. the Media. It seems therefore, at least to me, our entering this arena might offer the/our Adversary, its best option to minimize our options, tie us up in endless protracted legal wrangling and drain our resources... However, given an outpouring of funding from the millions of Canadian Firearms Owners, all things would be possible and at the same time. The NRA has four million members and look what they are able to do with the resources provided it by their members...! One could only dream..... Regardless, I very much enjoy the interchange of ideas, I hope to see more and/or everyone that subscribes, either commenting or at a minimum, endorsing the Professor's Proposal and pledging a financial commitment. That way we can get on with the creation of a Steering Committee, regardless its composition and get immediately into the fray. Our Adversary has long believed they have us on the ropes, we must soon, as the Professor appropriately opines, either get on with it, in a business-like way, or alternately, surrender quietly..... Respectfully Ed Tait Victoria ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:24:21 -0600 (CST) From: "Mike Hargreaves" Subject: [none] Facts about Disinformation. Yes right Al, I must radiate something!! even though I have been a professional Firearms Instructor for 22 years, even though I have never been charged, let alone convicted of a criminal offence, in my life! even though I am a Board Member of the largest Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor Association in the World, IALEFI, 7500 members at this time, even though I have trained Law enforcement all over North America, taught the Revolver to Glock 17 9mm, the first course of it's kind in North America, in 1987 at the request of Gaston Glock, to the Firearms Instructors of the Tactical unit of the Q.P.P. and leaving them an itemized print out of my course, so they could teach the same program, and they did, as a consultant to Glock USA clinched the Glock deal with Toronto's finest, 5000 or so Glock Model 22, .40 cal. And more, an expert witness in the supreme Court, despite all that, I hear today that the latest rumor from York Region Police Firearms Unit! " I was taken down at gun point!! by our ETF!!" I must have missed that? maybe it was whilst my best friend John Fullerton was being shot to death in a gun store!! a store in which he was surrounded with firearms, and forbidden by the Police to carry one for his own defense, he who could draw and fire two shots from under a jacket in just less than a second. Or maybe while I was in California, competing in the Annual Memorial match, and coming in third!! The last time I was on the ground with a Police Officer in Metro, I was helping one of the 41 Div Officers in arresting a violent motorist, on Kennedy at the 401, at 66 years of age!! (our side one, motorist nil!!) the best man at my wedding was a Deputy Chief of Metro, and Ex Chief of York. The head of the Police Board in Metro has been a good friend for 16 years!! We belong to the same Gun Club, one that I am the Safety Officer of, and normally top shot in the team, all this crap I have heard for near 20 years. But it is never to my face! always a rumor, behind my back. My message to all, get a life, and as my Father said, "If you can't say anything nice, keep yer trap shut" A Law enforcement firearms Instructors job is about one thing, do the best you can to get your Officers home at the end of every shift, public or private sector!! and I train 500+ students a year! and two of my students in the private sector are the only two I know of, in Ontario, who put bullets into their attackers, won the fights, and still work for the same companies!! When the Deputy Chief of York was the boss at the ETF, I had many a cup of tea with him, even arranged a meeting with some foreign nationals, and Barney and Terry, we all sat at lunch, at the Association Building on Consumer Rd, when I asked Moti what he thought of the statement just made! he looked puzzled, and said he was only getting every 4th word, an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scot were to hard for him to take. Am I blowing my own horn, I am, so next time some 4 day a week, no shift work, no nights, firearms Instructor wants to tell any of "My Friends" crap about me, turn to them and have the guts to say, "Shut your trap" "That's my Buddy" and I never say a bad word about any other Instructors, never. My Dad told me not too. Mike Hargreaves. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:25:14 -0600 (CST) From: Vulcun1isback@aol.com Subject: Re: T-4 'S and the CCRA > Further to the NFA "forced" audit posting, come to > think of it, I never did receive a T4 for my earnings > while employed with the NFA! Several phone calls were > made to the Calgary office (when it was in existence) > requesting this form, but to this day I have yet to > receive one. At one point my father asked for this > form, and he wasn't met with any success either. Donna- you are probably well aware that The CCRA STRICTLY REQUIRES that an employer is required to provide you with a T4 for any taxable income earned. - - To protect yourself- I would contact the CCRA and inform them you have been unsucessful in your attempts to get a T4 from your employer. (Just so they are aware- that you've been trying) ... They will give the NFA notice to provide the T4 within a set time frame or face the consequences.) - -- The CCRA are very strict when it comes to tax documents. !! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:26:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Pook" Subject: California's Governor Signs Series of Anti-Gun Measures California's Governor Signs Series of Anti-Gun Measures By JOHN M. BRODER LOS ANGELES, Sept. 25 — Gov. Gray Davis signed a series of gun measures today, including a bill to repeal the special immunity from liability suits granted to the firearms industry nearly 20 years ago. California, which was one of the first states to give weapons makers protection from lawsuits, now becomes the first state to lift that immunity. In the last five years, more than two dozen states have granted the gun industry immunity from suits filed by cities and counties seeking damages to cover the costs of combating gun violence. Gun-control advocates who pushed the California bills hailed today's action as a significant victory over the well-financed gun lobby. "This is a legal earthquake for irresponsible gun manufacturers," said Luis Tolley of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "They will no longer be able to hide from the courts and escape legal accountability when they engage in dangerous and irresponsible conduct that hurts and kills people." California is clearly bucking a trend in which 29 states have acted to throttle a spate of government lawsuits against gun makers. A bill before Congress to grant the industry blanket immunity from such suits has 228 sponsors in the House and 41 in the Senate, industry officials say. Governor Davis urged Congress to reject those bills as bad policy and an unwarranted shield for irresponsible gun makers and sellers. "These federal bills are intended to pre-empt laws like the ones I'm signing today and to take us right back to square one," Mr. Davis said. "They ensure that the gun manufacturers remain accountable to no one." A lawyer for gun manufacturers said the California legislation would result in a torrent of litigation intended to harass and bankrupt the industry. "The California Legislature has opened a Pandora's box, and courts in California will now be flooded with suits designed to hold manufacturers of legal, highly regulated nondefective products responsible for criminal shootings," said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, the trade group for the gun industry. Twelve California cities and counties have joined in a lawsuit against the gun industry seeking to recover the costs of investigating gun crimes and treating the victims of gun violence. Trial is scheduled for April. Mr. Davis signed several other gun-related bills today. One gives city attorneys access to federal gun-sales records. Another authorizes the Department of Justice to test handgun models each year to determine whether they meet state safety standards. A third prohibits the sale of safety locks that are not approved in the state and a fourth requires arms makers to obtain certification from the Department of Justice that the recipient is an authorized dealer. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #97 ********************************* 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.