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 #714 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 Monday, February 3 2003 Volume 05 : Number 714 In this issue: Your status is growing... Re: Storage requirements for Powder used in reloading... ARTICLE: Man shot dead in year's first murder EDITORIAL: Privacy concerns EDITORIAL: Groupaction affair continues to fester COLUMN: Wrongheaded reform Possession of a weapon - Self-defence court decision. NCPA: ELECTRICITY COSTS COULD RISE 85 PERCENT THE NFA ELECTION CAMPAIGN More on the Gadsen Flag ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:48:01 -0600 (CST) From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Your status is growing... Dear Ed; Your status is growing, you're the only person I know who's speech is so feared by the government that he is prohibited from speaking at a public assembly. "Announcing Dr. Ed Hudson, BANNED IN ONTARIO, HEAR HIM WHILE IT IS STILL LEGAL!!" Since freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are Fundamental Freedoms under the Charter, the government seems willing to tread onto some pretty thin ice. Have you been interviewed by any journalists or are you prohibited from giving interviews too? The U.S. media would find this very interesting, CNN, Larry King Live, HARDBALL. Pat Buchanan originator of the "Soviet Canuckistan" appellation seems so prescient. It may be time to contact Alan Borovoy at the Cdn. Civil Liberties Association. I think the B.C. version has a president who criticised the Fireams Act recently. The only Saskatchewan figures, the prospect of speaking in public so scared the regime Ottawa have been: John Diefenbaker(another avid duck hunter), Tommy Douglas and of course Louis Riel. (Louis Riel who lead the fight for provincial rights in the west, the first one being the right to have a province! He was the author of the Bill of Rights of the provisional government of Manitoba Dec.1 1869. One right being "The right to approve or reject, through the Territory's representaives any Dominion legislation which directly affected the Territory. ) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:48:30 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Storage requirements for Powder used in reloading... Chris Youngson wrote: > > --- "E. John Wilson" wrote: > > > > I have been searching the WWW for info re: storage > > of reloading powder > > regulations here in Canada, so far not much luck, > > anyone know what type > > of powder magazine would be suitable for home use > > and quantity of powder > > that can be owned at one time? Thanks John... > > This all falls under Natural Resaources Canada. Please > see: > http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/explosif/pub/publi_e.html > > For Bulletin #8, which pertains to this subject in > detail, please see: > http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/explosif/pdf/8.pdf > > Happy reloading > > Chris Just a small nit to pick: Natural Resources Canada may publish these bulletins, but they are simply extracts of the Explosives Act, and contain some information that appears to be the "opinion" of the NRC, and are not actually part of the law. Much like the CFC tries to pass on bogus info as "gospel". Check the legislation - that is what matters. It appears that you can obtain a copy of the Explosives Act (and perhaps the regulations) from NRC. You can call the Government Toll Free at 1-866-599-4999 And ask for the NRC or the Explosives Regulatory Division. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:56:56 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: ARTICLE: Man shot dead in year's first murder http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=D3180EBA-0DFC-49ED-A8F7-2D16692C176B Man shot dead in year's first murder The Montreal Gazette Monday, February 03, 2003 A man in his 30s was shot to death near the Lionel Groulx métro station yesterday. It was the first murder in Montreal this year. The man was shot several times near the corner of Atwater Ave. and Workman St. around 5 p.m., said Constable Yannick Ouimet of the Montreal police. Witnesses reported seeing someone running away after the shooting. Investigators did not have any suspects but were still interviewing witnesses last night, Ouimet said. There were four murders in Montreal by this time last year. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:11:50 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: EDITORIAL: Privacy concerns http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id={266B03F4-973B-4F14-8A8A-C89EC7C1141B} Privacy concerns The Montreal Gazette Editorial Monday, February 03, 2003 Finding the perfect balance between freedom and security is one of those almost divine conjuring tricks that the citizens of a democratic state expect of the very ordinary men and women they elect to represent them. But it's an elusive enterprise - so elusive, in fact, that no parliament is likely to get it entirely right, which is why we need people like George Radwanski to speak forcefully for freedom when so many voices of fear and caution are demanding security. This is just such a time - and Canada's privacy commissioner has been ringing the alarm bells very loudly, indeed. The latest tocsin - contained in his annual report to Parliament this week - warns that the fundamental right of human privacy is under attack in Canada as never before. ''The government,'' he said, ''is quite simply using Sept. 11 as an excuse for new collections and uses of personal information ... that cannot be justified by the requirements of anti-terrorism and that, indeed, have no place in a free and democratic society.'' Some federal ministers were quick to dismiss the report as exaggerated, and perhaps Radwanski's tone was a little strident. But many of his fears are well founded. Given the nature of the Sept. 11 attacks, for example, tracking Canadians' air-travel habits might be considered a justifiable intr usion. But why does the government need to keep those records for six years? And why won't it guarantee that it will use the details they include - which run all the way from destination to dietary preference - only for anti-terrorist activity? Then there's Immigration Minister Denis Coderre's call for a parliamentary debate on adopting a national identification card - an idea that should alarm us all. Also worrying is a proposal that the government monitor the Internet and e-mails. Radwanski sensibly argues these communications media should enjoy the same privacy protection as phone calls and letters. The government's concerns are understandable and legitimate. It is one of the primary goals of any state to protect its citizens from enemies both within and without. And many would argue that the destruction of the World Trade Centre demonstrated that a state's agents might need some new tools to keep us safe, at least in the short term. But in a free country, security is not an end but a means; it exists only so that ordinary citizens can go about their daily affairs freely, without fear or hindrance. And that means it must be achieved with a minimum of intrusion. It is well to remember that the technological capabilities of modern governments to root around in the private corners of our lives are stupefying. Credit cards, cell phones, the Internet and debit cards all produce mountains of personal data that governments can mine if we let them. And those capabilities keep growing. Just this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal threw out the drug conviction of a man arrested after a police plane with special gear detected the heat of lamps he was using to grow marijuana in his home. ''The nature of (such) intrusiveness is subtle,'' the judge wrote, ''but almost Orwellian in its theoretical capacity.'' Given those capabilities, the government should have to explain and justify each new anti-terrorist measure it introduces and be prepared to defend it in vigourous debate. Any measures we do adopt after such debate should be designed so as to be limited, to deal only with the threat at hand. They should not be used by law-enforcement agencies to go trolling randomly for information on unrelated matters. Finally, each such new power should have a sunset clause - it should expire in a year or two unless renewed by Parliament. We must not let government use our fear as a licence to violate our privacy. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:12:20 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: EDITORIAL: Groupaction affair continues to fester http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id={CC350013-47E1-48BF-BD20-5391245EC689} Groupaction affair continues to fester The Montreal Gazette Editorial Monday, February 03, 2003 The perversion of democracy and common sense known as the Groupaction affair continues to fester. Now a parliamentary committee has decided to name no names and point no fingers, complaining pompously about a "breakdown in ethics" but slyly leaving pretty much all the blame at the civil-service level only. It's not good enough. $40 million a year of taxpayers' money was pumped into federal "sponsorship" of various public events - festivals and the like - almost all in Quebec. The idea, to woo Quebecers away from separatism by sponsoring rodeos and car races, was goofy enough in the first place to outrage any sensible person. But then it turned out that quite a lot of the money went through two firms with close ties to the Liberal Party, firms that donated $190,000 to the Liberals in recent years. What's more, nobody was really keeping track of this flood of money. Just this week, Southam News reported that government files on the sponsorship dossier "consistently lacked sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that sponsorship amounts were ultimately used for appropriate purposes." So where did the money go? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are on the case, in the words of the old joke. They've been investigating for months now, and no doubt they'll investigate for months more. Meanwhile, Alfonso Gagliano, who was the cabinet minister in charge, continues to enjoy his reward on the diplomatic circuit in Copenhagen. None of this has stuck to the prime minister. Groupaction blandly denies any wrongdoing. And the Liberals on the all-party committee allegedly looking into this matter have again used their majority to delay release of their report, although some of it leaked out this week. It took a long time before somebody inside this ethically deficient little operation blew the whistle and alerted the media. No doubt civil servants who might have felt queasy about any of this were also aware that Canada has no "whistle-blower" law to protect civil servants who report wrong-doing. Even worse than the foolish policy and the leakage of public money, in our view, is the serene stonewalling with which the government has covered up the whole affair. For the committee to cite ethics failures in the civil service is shameful. The ethical tone of an organization is set from the top, and in this case, the lame sponsorship concept and the apparent partisan abuses both would have come from important Liberals, not from civil servants. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:13:05 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: COLUMN: Wrongheaded reform http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id={DC707813-1B8C-4846-B645-0E9746D87521} Wrongheaded reform Seeking to make Parliament more democratic by imitating the American system shows up the intellectual laziness of Canada's right wing JOSEPH HEATH Freelance Monday, February 03, 2003 There are few points on which the intellectual laziness of the right wing in Canada shows up more clearly than in the current debate over parliamentary reform. So far, it has not come up with one single suggestion that rises above the level of monkey-see monkey-do imitation of the United States. Fixed election dates, term limits, free votes, an elected Senate - these are not practical proposals for political reform. What they reveal is a shameful misunderstanding of the core principles of British parliamentary democracy (combined with a slavish if-it's-American-it-must-be-good mentality). These people need to get their heads out of the Wall Street Journal and start reading some Edmund Burke. The United States has the oldest, most venerable democratic constitution in the world. Yet despite the supposed genius of their founding fathers, in the two centuries that have elapsed since the American revolution, not one single country on Earth has chosen to adopt the American model. On the other hand, the parliamentary system, which Canada inherited from Britain, has been widely and successfully imitated across the world. Even here in Quebec, where the French republican model has obvious cultural and political appeal, there is a begrudging admission that parliamentary democracy has served us extremely well. The reason that nations have all avoided implementing anything like the American model of representative democracy is that the American system generates an incredibly weak legislature. Thanks to the famous system of ''checks and balances,'' combined with the absence of party discipline, politicians have amazingly little power in the United States. The system compensates for this by having a strong executive branch (the president), and an extraordinarily powerful judiciary (the Supreme Court). What some on the right are proposing is that we introduce American-style handicaps that would cripple the legislative branch, without introducing any compensating changes in either the courts or the civil service. The result would be a preposterous, unworkable hybrid. The agenda of the Canadian Alliance is especially incoherent, since it calls for a weakening of the legislature, while also opposing ''judicial activism'' and the growing power of the courts. This is the political equivalent of closing your eyes and wishing for the state to disappear. Strong courts are the price that Americans pay for weak government. Considerable attention has been lavished upon the proposal for an elected Senate. This is inevitably accompanied by the suggestion that the Senate should have greater ''regional balance'' like the American one. But rural regions are already grossly over-represented in the Canadian Parliament. Why make it worse? Thanks to its ''effective, equal, elected'' Senate, the United States currently subsidizes tobacco farming. Think about that for a moment. What about fixed terms? Maybe we should have elections every four years, instead of giving the government the power to call an election when it pleases. Another bad idea. As someone who has lived in the United States for many years, I can assure you that the one thing Americans hate most about their political system is the fixed terms. (It is also one of the few points on which I have heard Americans openly express envy of the British parliamentary system.) When the date of the election is known, it means that campaigns start years in advance. In many cases, the new campaign starts the very instant the old one ends. By the time the actual election rolls around, everyone is so sick of listening to politicians that they can't even bring themselves to vote. So what's behind all these terrible proposals? The answer is simple. Some people don't like the outcome that the Canadian democratic system has been producing lately (namely, Liberal governments). As a result, in characteristically undemocratic fashion, they are attacking the underlying institutions that have produced this result. There was a time when conservatives used to show some respect for the collective wisdom that is embodied in our social and political traditions. To question the integrity of the British parliamentary tradition, a system that has served our nation well for generations, because of a few Liberal victories represents an extraordinary triumph of callow expediency over true conservative principle. No wonder these people lose elections. Joseph Heath holds the Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Political Economy at the Université de Montréal. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:36:16 -0600 (CST) From: freefall7@shaw.ca Subject: Possession of a weapon - Self-defence court decision. Just came across this info about a court decision in Alberta in October 2002. It is definitely worth adding to any collection of good cases to be argued in favour of self-defence. Below is an article done by the National Union of Public and General Employees, and the URL for the actual decision (which is well worth a good read). Linda ========== Knife decision by Alberta judge alarms prison guards Inmates may use knives to defend themselves in certain circumstances Edmonton - An Alberta judge has ruled that federal inmates may, in certain circumstances, possess weapons to protect themselves from other inmates. The ruling has alarmed prison guards and justice officials who are now looking for some way to get it overturned, or find some other way around it. Provincial Court Judge Shelagh Creagh found that Shane Arthur Wilson, an inmate serving an eight-year sentence, did not violate the law when he used a blade fashioned from a plastic serving tray to fight off other inmates, who attacked him in an exercise yard. "I find the accused not guilty of this offence because the Crown has not proven that the purpose of the possession of the weapon was dangerous to the public peace," Creagh wrote. Testimony showed that Wilson had been threatened by inmates who were members of a gang after he had beaten another inmate in a fight. Guards advised Wilson that a "Red Alert" had been issued for his safety, and he was placed in segregation for protection, except for one hour a day to exercise. Self-defence Wilson said he was surprised when he was subsequently released into the same exercise yard as those who had threatened him. He admitted to possessing and using a homemade knife to defend himself when he was attacked soon afterward by several members of the gang. His lawyer argued that using such a weapon only in self-defence was legitimate and did not violate the law because it was not dangerous to public peace. "There is no issue that the blade is a weapon," Creagh ruled. "However, the mere possession of the blade is, in and of itself, not a criminal offence; it is the purpose for which the accused possesses the weapon that makes the possession an offence.... I see this case as a far different fact situation. An acquittal is not a judicial acceptance of weapons in the prisons," she wrote. "While the mere possession of the knife is contrary to the rules of the Institution, unless the Crown can show that the purpose of the possession meets the Code requirements, possession of a weapon is not prohibited by section 88.1 (of the Criminal Code). "Looking at all of the facts of this case, I conclude that the Crown has not proven that the purpose of the possession of the weapon was one that is contrary to the public peace." (NUPGE:5 November 2002) http://www.nupge.ca/news_2002/news_no02/n05no02a.htm More information: • Full text of Judge Shelagh Creagh's ruling Excerpt: [60] As the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted in R. v. Sulland (1982) 2 C.C.C. (3d) 68, "the Code does not prohibit possession of instruments for self defence and section 85 should not be converted into such a prohibition." (at page 72) [82] While the mere possession of the knife is contrary to the rules of the Institution, unless the Crown can show that the purpose of the possession meets the Code requirements, possession of a weapon is not prohibited by section 88( 1). http://199.213.44.18:8080/ISYSquery/IRL6E15.tmp/1/doc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:36:47 -0600 (CST) From: freefall7@shaw.ca Subject: NCPA: ELECTRICITY COSTS COULD RISE 85 PERCENT National Center for Policy Analysis DAILY POLICY DIGEST - Monday, February 3, 2003 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- o ELECTRICITY COSTS COULD RISE 85 PERCENT in parts of Canada if the Kyoto treaty is ratified....FRASER INSTITUTE - ----------------------------------------------------------------- HIGH COSTS OF KYOTO The federal government of Canada believes compliance with the Kyoto Protocol may help that country achieve draconian reductions in energy use at a low cost -- or even at a profit. But as more pragmatic research from the private sector and academia indicates, ratification will provide little benefit and likely lead to real and wrenching negative economic impacts on Canadians, says researcher Kenneth Green. First, consider the science behind the proclaimed benefits. o Canada ratified the treaty by citing such groups as the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; but other scientists in both Canada and the United States have shown that the threat of global warming is overstated and warming may be beneficial. o The science of greenhouse gas reductions suggests implementing the Kyoto Protocol is largely a waste of effort because on a global basis, Canada only emits about two percent of the gases accused of causing global warming. Second, consider the cost. o Canadian research economists estimate implementation of the treaty could reduce Canada's gross domestic product 3 percent, cost the average Canadian family four percent of its annual disposable income and cause energy prices to rise substantially. Some economists predict ratification of the treaty will cause electricity costs to rise up to 85 percent in some Canadian provinces. Natural gas prices could rise 40 to 90 percent; and the after-tax price of gasoline, 50 percent. Source: Kenneth Green, "Kyoto Krazy," Fraser Forum, January 2003, Fraser Institute. For text http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Kyoto%20Krazy-Green.pdf# For more on Environment (Regulatory Reform) http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:37:58 -0600 (CST) From: "BOB LICKACZ" Subject: THE NFA ELECTION CAMPAIGN >From Murray Bell: > Regards, > Murray > (Just outside Edmonton, which has a deplorable number of Liberals and > statist hoplophobes, too.) >From Bruce Mills: Subject: More on the Gadsen Flag Maybe we could incorporate a Kanadyn one using the marmot.....its almost extinct......... http://www.usflag.org/gadsden.html Ian ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #714 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@sprint.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.