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 #338 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, December 1 2002 Volume 05 : Number 338 In this issue: formatting - test 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 05:37:43 -0600 (CST) From: Moderator@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: formatting - test 2 RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada Protecting Canadian Freedoms ............................... . . Dear Firearms Owner, November 26, 2002 . . On October 28, Dan Lupichuk, President, Saskatchewan NFA, felt compelled on behalf of Jim Hinter, to answer my letter regarding the NFA President's Message appearing on the Digest #195, October 27, 2002.=20 . Up to this point, I have chosen to remain silent and outside the NFA turmoil, hoping and preferring to see matters resolved internally. This has not happened. However, when false NFA accusations are directed toward myself and RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada, those fallacious claims must be addressed. . Mr. Lupichuk reasoned that since JH was not subscribed to the Digest, the chances of JH answering were slim. Not really. JH monitors the Digest closely and writes regularly to it. Should he miss something, it would be drawn to his attention by his associates, as in this case. For what valid reasons would JH unsubscribe from the prime communication vehicle of the NFA? Why would JH also unsubscribe from RFC Ottawa?=20 . I hoped that Mr. Lupichuk would have felt compelled enough to answer my initial question, "Has the term of office of the NFA President expired?" DL failed to answer that. He evaded it altogether. Instead, he deflected attention away from this obvious question to which NFA gun owners with inquiring minds want to know. . RFC Ottawa DL's diversion to me was: "A better question would be how did you get your present 'Director, RFC Ottawa" position and when has it expired? And what or who comprises the RFC Ottawa?" =20 . In the spirit of open, clear and straightforward communication, that information was communicated previously on the Digest and in FED UP II Rally Bulletins. Moreover, DL could have found those answers quickly, by contacting me personally and directly. He did not. =20 . Nevertheless, in answer to DL's specific questions, when C-68 was first released in 1994, I called a social gathering of 8 like-minded gun owners who shared a similar passion to fight C-68 and to protect their firearms rights. Over time, that number grew to 70, then 100, and so on. The meetings were always held at my home and became increasingly frequent. Eventually, we evolved into the RFC Ottawa. There were no dues and no constitution, simply because there was no need. How is that for cost effectiveness? Just a wonderful informal, proactive, cooperative, democratic and cooperative team of freedom fighters that helped to organize 28 rallies in Eastern Ontario over 7 years. All of these firearms owners became part of a more massive RFC Ottawa organization, network and infrastructure in Eastern Ontario. As a matter of fact, hundreds are asking to join the RFC from across the country. Since I initiated and organized the group, members accepted me as the designated leader. There were no expiry dates for anyone. This critical core of volunteers also led, organized and coordinated the FED UP II Firearms Rally, much to the benefit of all Canadian gun owners. . =20 When I called the key leaders of the OHA, CILA, NFA and the OFAH in April, 1998, I found that no one in the RFC was doing anything about a FED UP II Rally. Therefore, I proposed that I was willing to lead and organize such a rally, if I could depend on their united, strong and collective support. This I received and we were off. Simple as that. Thankfully, all major groups said, "Tell us what you need and we will get it for you." Fantastic cooperation. When FED UP II concluded, the organizers decided on their own, unanimously, to remain intact as an informal, freedom fighting organization and await their next challenge in the nation's capital, quite possibly FED UP III.=20 . CILA I am puzzled by Mr. Lupichuk's next question: "Previously you were signing as a CILA representative, what happened?" This too, was not a hidden secret. It was communicated openly, clearly and repeatedly on the Digest. How did DL miss this? =20 . Several months after FED UP II was over, I joined the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, part-time, as Director of Operations, Ottawa Office. Three years later, CILA merged with the CSSA and, subsequently, for financial reasons the Ottawa CILA Office was closed.=20 . NFA In reference to the previous 4 paragraphs, DL's message then becomes incomprehensible and scrambled. For reasons unknown, the tone of his message deteriorates to statements that are downright derogatory, sarcastic, emphatic and accusative. "But if you were indeed an NFA member in good standing you would know the answer to that or be able to get it now wouldn't you Mr. Dorans? Not being a member you do not know and have, AGAIN formed an opinion without access to the Actual Facts of anything that the NFA is or is not doing. Or are you bitter because NFA would not fund an Ottawa office?" . I was a strong member of the NFA for about 8 consecutive years and served as an NFA field officer. Recently, when the NFA began to implode and refused to cooperate with other firearms groups in fighting C-68/FA, failed to deliver on court orders, and neglected to observe proper financial accounting procedures, and neglected to pay its taxes, I chose not to renew my NFA membership, as my way of holding NFA leaders accountable. Last week, I received my NFA membership renewal request. Until we receive from NFA leaders, suitable answers to a host of reasonable questions and perplexing problems, I choose to wait. Hopefully, the obstacles can be eliminated. My personal belief is that there are simply too many honest, decent, talented and hard working folks in the NFA, particularly the provincial leaders, to see it decline. . Frankly, I am not at all bitter that the NFA would not fund an Ottawa Office. The main reason is that the NFA was never asked to do this. It appears that someone is badly misleading NFA members. Accordingly, I am justifiably concerned about the spin-doctoring, miscommunication and distorted communication within the NFA. To justify his rejection of the Ottawa RFC Office proposal, JH described to NFA members that $300,000 for an Ottawa Office would be half of the NFA's $600,000 annual budget. =20 . Whatever gave Jim Hinter the erroneous idea that the total cost of an Ottawa Office would be borne exclusively by the NFA? As explained to JH numerous times orally, and in writing, the cost was to be shared cooperatively by donations from 5-7 million gun owners and 2,000 firearms organizations. Why does he fail repeatedly to comprehend this? As a national firearms organizations, the NFA was simply invited to play its cooperative and proportional part. Given many invitations, the NFA has steadfastly refused to cooperate with the rest of the RFC in the collective fight to scrap C-68/FA.=20 . Since JH posted the President's message on the NFA web site, it was obviously being sent to a selected internal group of gun owners, ignoring those on the Digest and circumventing those who had been arbitrarily banned from the NFA. In essence, it was being sent to NFAers, a captive audience. Personally, I have never visited the NFA web site. =20 . DL's next sentence is really puzzling, "Why would you try to give the impression you somehow have access to 'internal information'?" =20 . Whoever gave that impression? JH's message was posted openly on the Canadian Firearms Digest for all Canadian firearms owners to see. That is where I saw it. The remainder is erroneous and wild speculation by Dan Lupichuk. . Edmonton/Ottawa Offices . DL wrote: "Edmonton office is much more cost effective than previous operations. Ottawa office costs cannot be justified and appears to be well beyond affordability when compared to return on investment. NFA's decision to not fund an Ottawa office at this time is strictly good business decision---how does that appear warped to you?" . The reasons that JH gave for establishing an NFA office in Edmonton were virtually identical to the reasons he gave for rejecting an Ottawa Office. That is warped logic. How can DL determine that the Edmonton office is more cost effective, if it just started up with additional costs yet to be determined? At one time, the NFA contemplated sending JH to Ottawa. Certainly, relocating Jim Hinter from Calgary would be more expensive. However, having a professional team of leaders already living in Ottawa and working from their homes is, and should be, quite affordable. As for return on investment, that can be determined by measuring the achievement of stated goals. According to a reliable posting on the Digest, NFA goals were stated but were not being achieved. So how is this a good return on investment? =20 . Cost Effectiveness vs. Organizational Effectiveness . I wrote, "JH focuses on cost effectiveness. A better target would be organizational effectiveness." Dan Lupichuk defended JH, "Cost effectiveness is not part of your equation." =20 . Oh, yes it is. Cost effectiveness has always been an important constant in our deliberations. However, it is not the most important organizational objective. =20 . To save money during FED UP II, for example, I provided room and board for John Lott and Gary Mauser. They stayed at my home for several days. To reduce costs, I personally chauffeured them to and from the airport and the rally, without recompense. To be cost effective, FED UP II Vice-Chairman Kingsley Beattie also opened his home to Paul Rogan and a crew from the Yukon who paid $2,000 each to fly across Canada to be a significant part at FED UP II on September 22, 1998. Now that was a real story missed by our biased media. Regarding the Ottawa RFC Office proposal, I reported an option to forego a physical office space and thus save close to $100,000 off the NFA estimate. Why did DL and JH neglect to mention this to NFA members in their letters? Why were these facts withheld in subsequent NFA communications? =20 . More unsupportable and wild accusations are made by Dan Lupichuk: "$300,000 per year plus WITHOUT helping ONE firearms owner sounds a bit rich to Create Jobs and in your words "achieving important organizational objectives". =20 . What concrete evidence does DL have that an Ottawa RFC Office, would not help one firearms owner? Let him produce that proof. RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada have an enviable reputation for achieving important organizational objectives. For instance, FED UP II organizers predicted attracting the same numbers as in FED UP I (22,000) but delivered 30,000 demonstrators instead. Furthermore, FED UP II was brought in under budget. Now that's real cost effectiveness! =20 . What is the Main Problem? . Jim Hinter wrote that the real problem remains the criminal use of firearms. I replied, "A better objective would be to fight for the repeal and replacement of C-68/FA. That was the purpose behind FED UP I and FED UP II. With gun registration day 2 months away, scrapping C-68/FA is still the best objective." Dan Lupichuk agreed with JH and then added, " ... and you think the criminal use is not a problem? . DL wrote, "In two months your proposed Ottawa office is going to accomplish something that all the firearms groups and opposition MP's etc. etc could not since 94. I think not."=20 . Whoa! Hold on. No one ever said or implied that the Ottawa RFC Office would overturn C-68/FA before January 1, 2003. That is Mr. Lupichuk's illogical conclusion. In "Why the RFC Needs a National Office in Ottawa", the prime objective is: To provide national, professional leadership in the RFC fight to repeal and replace Bill C-68/FA with reasonable firearms legislation that reduces crime, saves lives and is cost effective. That fight needs to begin as soon as possible and will extend well beyond gun registration day until the legislation is scrapped. I recall that after Bills C-51, C-17 and C-68/FA many firearms owners believed that additional gun regulations would cease. Wrong. That is why scrapping C-68/FA is crucial. =20 . Then DL writes, "Do you know who and where the enemy of firearms owners is Mr. Dorans? It is the Firearms Act, those that forced it into being and those that are now trying to enforce it---about-face please you are firing the wrong direction.?" . Wait a minute. Did Dan Lupichuk just contradict himself on the main problem (criminals vs. C-68/FA)? Yes he did. Did DL fail to read and understand the Ottawa Office proposal? =20 . DL asked, "Did it ever occur to you to try to work together rather than attacking organizations that are actually accomplishing something?"=20 Well yes, as a matter of fact, it did occur to me. That is why I designed more than a dozen CILA programs and invited gun owners to work together in implementing them for the benefit of the entire RFC. Whereas I openly complimented the NFA on the Digest for individual legal successes, never did we receive any acknowledgement, support, encouragement or cooperation from main NFA leaders in promoting and implementing these CILA programs. Why not?=20 . That is why we worked cooperatively together with the 1500 gun organizations in the RFC to implement the FED UP II Rally. We cooperated closely with the OFAH, NFA, OHA/CSSA and CILA and other groups to implement 28 Firearms Rallies over 7 years in Eastern Ontario. That is cooperation. That is accomplishing something. Why does Mr. Lupichuk choose to ignore the obvious? . =20 FED UP I/FED UP II Rallies Dan Lupichuk raised the issue: "Speaking of the Fed Up I and Fed Up II--there was to be a financial accounting done to the groups that donated towards those. I belong to at least three of those groups. None have ever received a financial statement of any kind. Private messages have also went unanswered and ignored, maybe a public one will get answered. When Are The Groups That Donated To These Fed Up Rallys Going To Get The Promised Financial Statement?" . Let us set the record straight. I played no part, whatsoever, in the organization of the FED UP I Rally. Gerry Ouellette from Oshawa was the chairman, supported by John Perocchio in Ottawa. For NFA leaders to allege, or imply, that I led the FED UP I Rally is a lie. To find answers for FED UP I funds, contact Gerry Ouellette. This alone solves 50% of the perceived problem. =20 . Regarding FED UP II, my reply is contained herein in a subsequent section entitled: Here are the Some Real Facts, FED UP II Reserve Fund. Previously, I shared the intimate details of the Reserve Fund with Jim Hinter. He agreed to inform NFA members who expressed any interest or concerns. Since Mr. Lupichuk claims that messages went unanswered or ignored, it appears that JH failed to carry out his responsibility. . Free Votes in the House . I wrote that in due course, free votes in the House would be recaptured. DL responded flippantly: "And I am most interested on the time frame that 'in due course' refers to in your message and exactly how YOU are going to accomplish this other than electing other than a Liberal government? In a couple months?" . Surprisingly, not even that long. Within days after DL wrote his letter, disgruntled Liberal backbenchers united, defied Chretien and voted with opposition parties against the government to appoint Committee Chairmen by secret ballot. That shattered the faulty and illusory NFA premise that there is no point in trying to influence politicians in Ottawa. Bombardier has an Ottawa office. The Coalition for Gun Control has offices in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. Walter Robinson and the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation have an Ottawa office. So do hundreds of other Canadian lobby groups. Is it any wonder why we are losing? This victory was a democratic setting precedent. It was an embarrassing defeat for totalitarian control concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office. =20 . Could this be repeated with the scrapping of C-68/FA? Possibly. However, if that were to occur, the RFC would need to demonstrate stiff resolve and agree to unite in a collective program that would generate enormous political, public and media pressure. It would also be punctuated with a blizzard of complaints and a barrage of legal actions. Perhaps the proper vehicle might be a cooperative RFC program entitled, "Campaign of National Outrage Against the Firearms Act." Gun owners need to take back their freedoms. . Let us be crystal clear. This act of moving from deference to political defiance in Parliament had been festering in the House for many years. It was the consequence of many interactive forces, including efforts by the RFC. (Rather than using DL's emphasis on YOU, I prefer the term "we" to refer to the RFC.) During 28 firearms rallies over 7 years, we blistered Liberal MPs in the media and at political rallies. We exposed the faults of this legislation. =20 . On September 27, 2002, I proposed, "Why the RFC Needs a National Office in Ottawa." In that document, I wrote, "Regarding affiliation with political parties, it would be wise of the RFC to support all those parties and individuals who actively and genuinely oppose C-68/FA. The RFC would not oppose political parties, per se, but those MPs who endorsed the FA legislation. For example, if 100 Liberal backbenchers joined in opposition, this could be a potent force for repealing and replacing C-68/FA." One month later, the germ of that idea became a precedent setting political reality. =20 . "When Individuals Are Free and Fully Informed, They Can Find Their Own Best Ways" . Dan Lupichuk commented, "I really do not understand what you are trying to say with this statement?" . This was written primarily with reference to the article, "Gun Owner Options Before Gun Registration Day." Once gun owners are fully informed of the threats contained in C-68/FA, the consequent penalties, and the range of major options before them, they can make their own best decisions regarding registration, assuming that they are free people to do so. . With reference to Dan Lupichuk's letter to the Digest dated October 28, he is still free in Canada to express his opinions. However, when he fails to inform himself fully, before jumping to illogical, rash, sarcastic and emotional accusations, he wanders into the swamp of irresponsibility.=20 . DL writes, "At the same time NFA continues to grow and expand even while withstanding attacks from both within and outside of the organization." When Bill Jones and John Perocchio started the NFA, there were 15,000 members. A few years ago, the editor of Canadian Sportsman magazine (George Groenberg, I believe) stated there were 10,000 actual NFA members. DAT issued a quick reprimand claiming roughly 100,000. That is quite a discrepancy. JH has touted increases ever since, citing percentage increases for new members but no mention of those failing to renew their NFA memberships. One Digest writer cited about 8,300 NFA members. Several others have estimated about 6,000. NFAers want to know what is the real truth on the actual number of NFA full dues paying members? . Given the quantity and quality of "attacks" on the NFA, is it possible that some, many or all are completely valid? NFAers have been asking these questions for years without satisfaction and have been ignored. Even court orders have been ignored. Both deserve honest, straightforward answers without delay. . Mr. Lupichuk asks a rhetorical question that is impossible to answer. "How many firearms owners have you actually REALLY HELPED?" How many grains of sand are there on the beach? All he needs to do is read some back issues of the Digest or I can send him hundreds of emails. At FED UP II, 30,000 demonstrators, 43,000 petitioners, 30,000 proxy voters, and 1500 small businesses certainly signaled their real appreciation for what RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada were doing. . Here Are Some Real Facts . 1. Billboard Campaign About 2 years ago, Jim Hinter telephoned me to ask if I would serve on the NFA Billboard Committee. Realizing the importance of cooperation within the RFC, I agreed spontaneously, as usual. Thereafter, I heard absolutely nothing. Money was collected.=20 It was all talk. This wasted precious time and energy and led us nowhere. . 2. FED UP III Rally Around January, 2001, Jim Hinter came to meet with the CFC in Ottawa. Following my earlier suggestion for a tentative FED UP III Rally, JH pitched the idea of an RFC Firearms Heritage Week in Ottawa on September 22, 2002, just before gun registration day on Jan. 1, 2003. This would include local shooting competitions, a re-enactment battle on Parliament Hill, a FED UP III Rally and coordinated Annual General Meetings for Canada's major firearms organizations. A FED UP III Rally would allow firearms leaders to meet and discuss strategies on C-68/FA. Ostensibly, this effort would be implemented by the RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada organization in Ottawa. Wanting to support a reasonable initiative, I agreed to cooperate. What happened? Nothing. Again all talk. No action. In fact, JH returned to Calgary, received his new marching orders, reversed his position 180 degrees on FED UP III, for whatever reason, influenced by whomever, and thereafter worked to defeat the FED UP III idea that he had been promoting. More wasted time and energy. All smoke and mirrors. Who is running the NFA? . 3. Canadian Firearms Action Campaign (CFAC) The following is a brief overview of CFAC. (Note the date.) . Dear Firearms Leader, April 24, 2001 . The enclosed Canadian Firearms Action Campaign has been designed on the basis of quantitative and qualitative feedback from gun owners throughout Canada. CFAC is a lawful and peaceful program of national resistance and dissent to Bill C-68, until at least January 1, 2003. If the program seems lengthy, it is because key firearms leaders need to have a common and complete picture of the problem. =20 . It needs to be clearly understood that this Campaign is a cooperative venture of Canada's recreational firearms community. It is not the exclusive domain of any single firearms organization, or any individual. . Following the January 1, 2001 deadline for licensing, gun owners waited to see what was going to happen next. Theirs was the characteristic RFC reactive response that has placed us in the endangered and defensive position we are in today.=20 . Instead, Canada's key firearms leaders need to adopt a proactive approach and go on the offensive in solid and determined opposition to an unjust Bill C-68 that was imposed on honest citizens. We need to turn up the volume and send more frequent and increasingly stronger signals to politicians, bureaucrats and the media that we despise the Firearms Act, do not support it, and call for its immediate repeal and replacement. . Accordingly, a sensible place to begin is for Canada's 2 largest national firearms organizations, CILA and the NFA, to agree in principle to the enclosed Campaign, or a modified version of it, and commit sufficient resources to implement it. Other organizations would be invited to join and follow suit. =20 . The Campaign allows for concentration on specific programs. It also mobilizes Canada's recreational firearms community to participate actively in national opposition, through meaningful local programs, at practically no cost. If more gun owners joined organizations and virtually all gun clubs had specific programs to scrap C-68, the collective impact would be enormous. =20 . If and when support is obtained, decision-making structures would then be devised through cooperation and group consensus. . This Campaign reflects the best interests of the RFC and awaits your consideration and approval. =20 . The clock is ticking. January 1, 2003 is only 1 year and 9 months away. . Professor Al Dorans Director of Operations,=20 CILA Ottawa Office . . In another related document, this statement was added for clarity and to emphasize that financial costs would be shared by the RFC. "Then streams of firearms organizations will join the program (CFAC), as they did in FED UP II, with the NFA and CILA leading the way." . It took CILA 5 weeks to contact its many directors who agreed to support the CFAC program. It has taken the NFA 20 months and still it has not agreed to work cooperatively through CFAC, in fighting to repeal and replace C-68/FA. Reasons for refusal included NFA having to bear the entire cost (false), the cost itself (overstated) and the foolishness of lobbying in Ottawa (myth). So guess why are we losing? =20 . Some NFA members have speculated that Dave Tomlinson torpedoed the CFAC program and also the FED UP III Rally, because an Ottawa Office was 2500 miles away from his grasping reach. Another common NFA assessment was, "If it's not an NFA idea, it's not a good idea."=20 . 4. FED UP II Reserve Fund The FED UP II Rally was run under budget with a modest reserve, thanks to the able procurement skills and sharp pencil of Treasurer George Penfold. Despite organizers requesting funds early, contributions did not arrive in sufficient quantity until 3 weeks before the rally. This made it stressful and difficult to implement suitable media advertising. As soon as organizers were reasonably sure the bills could be paid, we signaled the RFC that additional funds were no longer necessary. That in itself, was a statement of financial responsibility, accountability and respect for gun owners' limited dollars. Despite 47 bulletins reminding the RFC to contribute early, we finally received a substantial pledge from a prominent organization, one week before the rally. That pledge never arrived. Subsequently, the major organization tried to renege on its promise which it had sent to us orally and in writing. After persistent badgering and being forced to send all 47 reminder bulletins to that organization as evidence, the promised pledge finally arrived: more than 1 year after the rally! Understandably, that was just one major reason why we could not issue a specific and conclusive financial statement immediately following the rally. JH knew this. =20 . A second major reason was that FED UP II organizers were absolutely burned out from trying to compress too much work in too short a time frame. During that period, Karl Schrader, Communications Chairman, FED UP II, developed heart problems and was forced to resign. Organizers shared Karl's load on top of their own substantial responsibilities. =20 . A third major factor involved a series of very extraordinary personal circumstances. These involved the deaths of both my parents within 5 weeks of each other, just 4 weeks before I volunteered to lead FED UP II. In retrospect, perhaps I should not have volunteered, but no one in the RFC was doing anything about an Ottawa Rally. Besides, I thought that a fresh focus might ease the double grieving process. Related exceptional circumstances also included a home break-in where vandals ransacked all of our family files: my university research files, teaching files, income tax files and legal records that were stored in cardboard boxes on the basement floor. Since we had only 4 =BD months to organize FED UP II, I paid for many items out of my own pocket but made certain to store the receipts in various boxes stored in the basement. Subsequently, there were 2 separate basement floods, about 2 years apart, where pipes burst and soaked these records in knee deep water. This included FED UP II receipts that were hastily stored in assorted boxes until they dried, could be sorted, filed and submitted. FED UP II organizers were all pure RFC volunteers. We had no secretarial assistance, no filing clerks and no computer help, at all. =20 . For whatever reason, JH was singularly obsessed with knowing what was left in the FED UP II reserve fund. Perhaps he was being prompted and prodded. No one actually knew of the amount because the receipts that I paid out of my own pocket to make the rally happen, had yet to be filed and paid. Nevertheless, JH persisted until I described to him "in strictest confidence" the previous details of my personal situation, and much more, which he acknowledged and accepted. He agreed to communicate the essence of the situation to any NFA members who were concerned. Our conversation lasted more than 1 hour. Later, JH stated that some NFAers had raised the modest surplus issue. I found it curious and shared with him that none of the other 1500 firearms organizations had raised this issue at all, only the NFA. Interestingly, the common factor in each was Jim Hinter who appeared to be initiating the prodding. Confiding in JH turned out to be a major mistake. . Within a week, after promising to handle the matter personally and internally, JH was on the phone trying to pry the information out of Karl Schrader, one of the key FED UP II Organizers and a trustee of the reserve fund. As JH was fully aware, Karl who was 75, was recuperating from heart trouble. Regardless, JH called him. Karl was very emotionally upset that JH initiated this underhanded stunt. Hence, I called JH to protest his reprehensible actions and the abuse of Karl.=20 JH was taken aback. A day or two later, Jim Hinter claimed that Karl had initiated the call to him. JH claimed that Karl was the one who had raised the issue of the small reserve fund. When I shared this with Karl, his reaction in his strong German accent was emotional and swift, "Vot! This is crazy! I never called Jim Hinter. Why would I call him? It is too expensive to call Calgary. I never raised the issue. Jim did. This is crazy!"=20 . Karl Schrader is as honest and decent a person as the day is long. No calls to Calgary went from Karl's Schrader's home. JH had been caught red-handed in a series of lies. Thereafter, I could not trust JH. Astonishingly, about a week later, JH called me and asked again, "But why have you not done it?" Either JH was short on comprehension or was being prodded again by someone. Which was it? =20 . Members of the RFC should be aware that the small reserve is sitting in a protected bank account for safe-keeping. For the purposes of paying the bills for the rally, any 2 of 4 key organizers had signing authority.=20 To safeguard that modest fund further, I initiated a procedure wherein all 4 key organizers would be the trustees of that account and all 4 would be kept fully informed. Any surplus was supposed to be used as a start up fund for FED UP III which was anticipated soon and/or to sustain activities that would benefit the RFC. . Accordingly, the reserve fund was reduced by $1,000 which we donated to the NFA in support of the Constitutional Challenge to C-68/FA that was fought on behalf of all gun owners. Approval for this contribution was obtained openly from firearms owners through an informal survey on the Digest. That was a responsible course of action. =20 . You will recall the CILA Sign Campaign that was originated in response to Chretien's surprise election on November 27, 2000. A package of 25 multi-colored 3' X 3' coroplast, reusable signs featured C-68/FA slogans on one side and "Lest We Forget" political blunders on the other. An educational booklet was designed and accompanied each package that sold for the dead cost of $138.17. The reserve allowed RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada to purchase the signs and when they were sold, the funds were returned to the FED UP II reserve. Dozens of these sign packages circulated throughout Canada. Most recently, Dale Blue, President RFOA, had them on display at Lethbridge when wheat farmers were jailed for selling their own private property. A recent photograph featured these signs in the Ottawa Citizen. As a matter of fact, 2 sign packages are still available for interested RFC leaders. =20 . The reserve was diminished further when we recognized the persistent persecution of Yukon prospector, Allen Carlos. In a precedent setting test case, Mr. Carlos stood up courageously to the legal onslaughts of a vindictive federal government and an unjust judiciary. After thorough investigations, much discussion and significant deliberations, the 4 FED UP II trustees agreed unanimously to send Mr. Carlos $1,500 for his legal defense fund, for standing up on behalf of all gun owners. Once again, FED UP II trustees acted responsibly. . Given the preceding circumstances, a financial statement of FED UP II should be finalized, hopefully, in several months, or just after NFA leaders divulge their financial obligations to their members. For these reasons, members of the RFC can continue to place their full trust in the integrity of RFC Ottawa/FED UP Canada. . 5. Underhanded Agenda . This is an excerpt from a letter written by Jim Hinter circa August 16, 2002, to one or more NFA members, regarding a posting on the Digest entitled, "An Old Letter to the Editor-Revived." It illustrates the derogatory tone and undermining agenda of JH. After promising to cease and desist from writing such letters, JH is at it again. =20 . Jim Hinter stated, "Professor Dorans has raised this issue (RFC Ottawa Office) repeatedly. When he was (as he has been) for many years working for CILA/CSSA, what we discovered in our regular trips to Ottawa were comments from MPs to the effect that "that Doran's guy isn't with you? I hope. . Professor Doran's was the Ottawa office of a National organization. Have you ever asked him how his meetings with Liberal Members of Parliament went? Or if he ever had any?" . Jim Hinter National President ........................................................................ . . JH's statement was perceived by some as a backhanded swipe at discrediting my work and slurring my reputation. If Liberals MPs know who I am and fear my presence, for the simple reason that I hold them accountable at public firearms information rallies and in the media for their wretched support of the Firearms Act, then that reputation would be considered a badge of honor for the RFC. For JH, that was an unintended consequence. =20 . JH assumes that the only relevant meetings are with Liberal MPs. The tone of his statements about my meetings with MPs appears derogatory.=20 He assumes erroneously that the sole or prime function of a Director of Operations is lobbying. . There is probably no doubt that Liberals dreaded seeing me and the RFC coming. We created major grief for Liberal MPs, especially Hec Clouthier (defeated), Ian Murray (defeated), Joe Jordan (within 63 votes), Bob Kilger and David Pratt. My one-on-one lobbying meeting with Liberal MP Joe Jordan communicated clearly to him the anger and resolve of the RFC to repeal and replace C-68/FA. After all, politicians do value their political lives. It could be argued that the internal wrangling within the Liberal caucus was due, in part, to the intense opposition by the RFC to the FA. . As for how my meetings with the Liberals MPs went, they were great. At firearms rallies, we made them wince and squirm by holding them accountable to the electorate, both when they were present and when they were conveniently unable to honor their sworn promises to represent their constituents. Last minute letters of regret from Liberal MPs were read aloud by local chairmen and received choruses of boos from audiences.=20 In the case of Liberal MP Joe Jordan, his excuse for failing to attend the Brockville Firearms Rally was that he was afraid that angry gun owners might charge the stage. His claim was completely unfounded and paranoid. The RFC saw to it that these events were well reported in the local media, especially in community newspapers. I have no doubt that my name percolated through the Liberal ranks and was on the lips of Liberal MPs. My Liberal MP, Marlene Catterall, was absolutely bombarded with copies of my frequent letters to the editor. . At the federal level, I had many fine direct opportunities in the field to lobby politicians from the Canadian Alliance, including rally speakers Garry Breitkreuz, Jack Ramsey, Myron Thompson, Jim Gouk, Monte Solberg, Kevin Sorenson, Rod Forseth, Preston Manning, etc. In fact, I chauffeured Garry and Jack to more than a dozen firearms rallies within a 2 hour driving radius of Ottawa. During those uninterrupted periods, we enjoyed terrific one-on-one conversations that I shall always treasure. . When the RFC gains sufficient power to elect and defeat politicians, then our Firearms rights will be protected. Politicians who steal our freedoms must pay the ultimate price, through dismissal at the polls. . Analysis =20 . The Digest letter by Dan Lupichuk was prompted by false information circulating within the leadership of the NFA. The first of these is that I organized the FED UP I Rally. That is a lie. Second, I was therefore responsible for a financial statement to FED UP I contributors. That is also a lie. . Evidence of this comes from a direct statement by Dave Tomlinson. "I personally sent you an NFA cheque for $1000, which was the first serious money you received for the Fed Up I rally. To this day, no financial statement detailing how the money was spent has ever been received. We did the same thing for the Fed Up II rally, with the same results. When do you plan to distribute the financial statements?" . DAT's claim that he sent me an NFA cheque for FED UP I is another lie.=20 I challenge him to produce that cheque with my signature on it along with the co-signed authorization for the cheque per NFA bylaws. . Meanwhile, the NFA general membership is still awaiting from NFA leaders, the full forensic accounting ordered by the Court for all NFA monies, "Billboard, Dealers' Challenge, Nugent concert donations, money spent on the NFA Jeep, Shop NFA, computers, software, and all unaccounted items."=20 . Now the connections become transparent about how both DL and DAT arrived at the identical beliefs that I organized the FED UP I Rally and issued no financial statement. Someone was pulling strings. During FED UP II, we issued bulletins indicating the tentative budget with associated costs. The answer to the FED UP II financial statement was explained previously in this document. . The crux of the matter lies in DAT's statement, "Until you do, why would anyone trust you with more money?" Look who's calling the kettle black? Shouldn't NFA leaders address their prime responsibilities first, before casting stones and circulating wild accusations to deflect attention away from their highly questionable conduct? As the NFA is engulfed in legal and internal turmoil, this is a contrived strategy by NFA leaders to divert attention away from their responsibilities and accountability.=20 It is an attempt to discredit individuals and the successes of FED UP II organizers, especially the 4 trustees of the reserve fund who have demonstrated impeccable integrity. JH agreed to inform NFAers on the FED UP II reserve fund matter. Either JH did not honor his agreement or it was ignored. Which was it?=20 . NFA Attitudes . This is a letter from Dave Tomlinson to me in response to the RFC Firearms Survey. So far, we have received 115 responses from gun owners. Virtually, 100% have answered YES to all 6 questions posed. Here are DAT's exceptional comments: . * So far, you have not even been able to even get the major associations to talk to you -- nor are you willing to talk with them. You are a transmitter, not a transceiver. * Yes, unless a program to provide valuable information to police and conservation officers is actively pursued. The NFA has such a program, but I do not know of any other organization that has such a program, or the capability of operating such a program.=20 * The NFA is actively pursuing real programs based on a work-to-rule base, but no one else seems to have enough knowledge of the law to do that. * You keep babbling about "leadership" but offer NO viable plans or useful agenda. =20 * The NFA has been doing that since 1984. I note that your membership in the NFA has lapsed; have you abandoned this idea? * You are trying to re-invent the wheel, and you lack the needed knowledge. * The NFA has been doing that for all firearms control law since 1984. Wake up and smell the coffee. * That sounds good, but, as usual, is so vague that no one can tell what you are proposing. I sincerely doubt that anyone in your non-existent "organization" could lead a cat out of a wet paper bag. * WHAT programs? This is hopelessly vague. * In case you have not noticed, the "widely diversified RFC" agrees about virtually nothing. There is no way that your non-organization could "coordinate" it. * To serve the RFC as a national voice with politicians and the media; To say WHAT? You do not speak for me, or for anyone I know. I would not trust you to say anything to any political figure while posing as a "national voice" because you know too little about what works. * To work toward a day when the RFC and the federal government can establish a climate of mutual trust to balance public safety with the freedoms to own and use firearms responsibly in Canada. "Wow. In order to do that, you need to form an alliance with the Liberal Party - on THEIR terms. Thank you, but NO thank you." * Al, you are boring. You have been trying to get the firearms community to pay you a fat salary to sit in an office near your home for years. I have heard it all before, and it is still a non-starter. . David A Tomlinson NFA Legal ....................................................................... . Commentary . * If DAT is so quick to accept extravagant credit for things the NFA has, or has not done, then he should accept major responsibility for the dire situation that the RFC faces with C-68/FA on gun registration day.=20 * RFC members do agree on at least one thing: that C-68/FA is offensive legislation that violates their rights and freedoms. It must be scrapped. * Why does a non-elected individual such as DAT have my confidential NFA membership information? That is none of his business. * DAT has a particular problem with the word "leadership" which he equates with dictatorship. * How does DAT assume that other major associations have not talked to me? * I have never said that I was interested in the Ottawa Office job. I simply proposed that an RFC Ottawa Office needed to be established.=20 * DAT's assumption that any decision to work cooperatively with the federal government must be on their terms alone, is bogus. The RFC would be pleased to work with the feds, once there was a common joint agreement in writing that C-68/FA would be repealed and replaced.=20 * DAT's previous attitudes could be described variously as hostile, arrogant, uncooperative, derogatory, controlling, condescending, narrow, pessimistic, insulting, negative, degrading, untrustworthy, all-knowing, domineering, demeaning and abusive. These attitudes are cancerous and have spread to others in the NFA. They are inconsistent with the attitudes of effective leaders. =20 * DAT explained to me that other national firearms organizations are in competition for the limited dollars, finite memberships and donations from gun owners of the RFC. That explains why CILA and Tony Bernardo also came under similar attacks by DAT when and after CILA was formed. =20 * DAT to NFA Leader: "Our members don't need to look at the financial statements because they aren't bright enough to understand them".=20 . Therefore, why should I, or anyone else, want to join the NFA, or renew their memberships, when members are held in such low regard and with such utter disdain? . As NFA leaders see memberships dropping, gun owners failing to renew their memberships, and donation pledges heading elsewhere, this is a contrived and desperate attempt to deflect attention away from their culpability and to discredit others. . What we are witnessing here is a not-so-advanced puppet show. Who are the puppets and who is the puppeteer pulling the strings? =20 . In a short-sighted search for his historical legacy, Joe Clark believes that it is more important to preserve the PC Party of Sir John A. MacDonald than it is to cooperate with the Canadian Alliance in defeating the Liberals. In the process, he has chosen to sacrifice the lives of 30 million Canadians to untrustworthy Liberals. . Similarly, NFA leaders are jealously protecting their turf and sacrificing the entire RFC in the process, rather than cooperating to scrap C-68/FA. The NFA fiddles while the RFC burns. . Herein, I have addressed clearly and directly the questions posed in Dan Lupichuk's letter. . Now it is the NFA's turn to answer clearly and directly, its members' long standing concerns, without delay. =20 . Professor Al Dorans Director, RFC Ottawa Chairman, FED UP II=20 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #338 ********************************** 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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 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.