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 #793 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 Wednesday, February 19 2003 Volume 05 : Number 793 In this issue: Securing dominion over the provinces Re: Re rights versus privileges digest # 788 re: concensus How to manufacture a pseudo criminal; Bill C-68, Re: jamaican re: concensus say Re: Consensus Re: Consensus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:46:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: Securing dominion over the provinces Where have we seen this before? RAF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Securing dominion over the provinces Thomas J. Courchene National Post Wednesday, February 19, 2003 OTTAWA - Budget day cannot have been very enjoyable for the provincial treasurers. To their presumed chagrin, they now realize just how easily they let Ottawa off the fiscal hook in their recent health-care negotiations. Indeed, so much so that Ottawa was then able in the 2003 budget to magnify their chagrin by utilizing some of the resulting fiscal excess to create new programs in yet other key areas of what, arguably, is exclusive provincial jurisdiction -- housing, day care, education (the Canadian Learning Institute), urban infrastructure and the like. In short, Ottawa is levering off its favourable fiscal balance vis-à-vis the provinces to make key inroads in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. There is nothing very Machiavellian about this -- it follows rather naturally from the reality the we are moving from a resource-based economy and society to a knowledge/information-based economy and society. Under the former, resource-based megaprojects and resources generally were the stuff of nation-building. However, nation-building in the information era -- and what clearly sells electorally -- has to do with enhancing citizens' welfare and equalizing the opportunities for all Canadians to become winners in the process. Hence, health care, education, income distribution, and early childhood development are among the areas now atop the policy agenda. The task for Ottawa, then, became one of how it could deftly manoeuvre itself so as to have citizens plead with it to enter these policy fields. The answer was straightforward -- simply outmanoeuvre the provinces fiscally. snip Full story at: http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id={C0B5712B-2200-4834-92E 9-C31D80950CFB} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:34:02 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Re rights versus privileges digest # 788 axitec@shaw.ca wrote: > Yet there are some of us who are aware, we do see what this government is > trying to accomplish, and we will continue to resist, and educate, until we > are victorious, or we are imprisoned, or we are dead. By the time we are > dead, we will hopefully have passed the torch on to others. "How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done." - Mahatma Gandhi The torch has been passed to us, and we must pass the torch to others when the time comes. "Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields." Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:35:14 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: re: concensus Jordie said: snip > However, I think that we can all agree that the majority of > Canadians would never approve of such a system. As gun owners and > users, I think we need to ask ourselves what we're prepared to > accept. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted > basically since their invention; handguns have had moderate to > heavy restrictions on their ownership from the 1930s to the > present. > > This seems to be more or less OK with most of us. > Not any more. It is time to end the cycle of abuse by the government against law abiding citizens. > I'm not sure if that's the right place to draw the line, but I don't think it's productive to say that we can't draw it anywhere. I know that > we're currently on a slippery slope, and next they'll be coming for our > SKS's and Colt pistols, and then the "military calibres" of hunting > rifles, and then who knows what they'll think of. Military calibres? You mean like 30-06, 308.? Try the derivatives, like 270 and 243. > But the slope in the > other direction is equally slippery. Can we give up the right to have > live grenades and bazookas in exchange for being left alone to enjoy our Now you're showing the media bias of "this sounds bad" so throw it into the article. Bazooka? Just a tin tube. How about rocket launcher, thats always a winner when the press release is made. National Salvage used to have a great pile of them in the middle of their yard and they had a variety of missing parts. It would have been easy to assemble a few complete with sights. It would still just be a cardboard tube with the same lethal ability as the center in your saran wrap. > shooting sports? What about C-4 and anthrax bacillus? Are micro-nukes > required for home defence? I know that there's a line there somewhere, > and I think _that_ is an important thing for firearms users to have a > consensus on. > I don't remember what section of the firearms act controls C-4, anthrax bacillus, and micro-nukes. Actually, I have never heard of micro-nukes, are you talking about depleted plutonium bullets or something from a sci-fi mag. Cell phone nukes? > Sorry if that got a bit long, > > Jordie Fulton > don't sweat the small stuff, Barry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:43:45 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: How to manufacture a pseudo criminal; Bill C-68, NOTE: TRANSLATION FROM FRENCH TO ENGLISH PUBLICATION: Le Devoir DATE: 2003-02-14 SECTION: Week-end PAGE: B7 BYLINE: Francoeur, Louis-Gilles How to manufacture a pseudo criminal; Bill C-68, which requires a firearms licence and the registration of hunting firearms, has its first victim. He is 24 years old and he has always hunted. He loves the woods and nature. But Bill C-68 (firearms legislation), which was passed by the federal government in 1995 after the massacre at the Polytechnique, may well turn him into a criminal. Not a real criminal, of course, because there is nothing of the criminal about him. But he will have to deal with all the stigma involved, including a criminal record, which for example will make it impossible for him to enter the United States. In the meantime, he cannot even hunt because he is deemed guilty in advance, in spite of his presumed innocence under our system of law. He could be the first Quebec victim of Bill C-68, which requires everyone to have a licence for firearms and for all hunting firearms to be registered. Jean-François Laflamme, of Plessisville, was going moose hunting to the north of La Mauricie with a friend from Saint-Tite. That was on 24 October 2002; the hunting season was drawing to a close. Jean-François ate his dinner, and left late in the evening with his father's equipment. At Saint-Wenceslas, near Nicolet, he parked his truck and trailer in the church parking lot because he felt tired and did not want to be a danger to himself or others on the highway. He was only there for a couple of minutes when two police officers from the Sûreté du Québec (Quebec Police Force) asked him what he was doing there and asked for his identification, in spite of perfectly ordinary explanations that any solid citizen might give. For no reason other than the fact that he looked like a hunter, the two cops took an interest in his hunting equipment, as if there were something shady about it. He was asked to show them his gun, and when the younger of the two policemen was surprised about the calibre of the riffle and the telescope, according to the young Laflamme he seemed to think it was something strange or abnormal. The two policemen then demanded to see his FAC, which is to say his firearms acquisition certificate or his weapons possession licence. The young Laflamme gave his FAC to the older of the two policemen who gave it back to him after saying that everything was okay. The other more zealous policeman, who continued to examine the firearm, demanded to see the FAC as well, in case it had expired ... According to Jean-François Laflamme, the young police officer commented that it would be very easy, now that the firearm had been removed from the other baggage, to move it from one vehicle to another... When he examined the FAC more closely once again, he determined that it had expired. The two policemen then began to check whether the car, the trailer and the ATB, all owned by his father, were stolen property. They eventually seized the hunting riffle and the young man was left on his own in the middle of the night. So much for hunting. But his nightmare was only beginning. A few weeks later, Jean-François Laflamme received in the mail a notice that he was being charged under section 91(1)(3) of the Criminal Code because he did not have a valid possession licence. He had to go and have his fingerprints taken. He pleaded not guilty at Trois-Rivières last fall and his trial is to begin soon. In the meantime, he, his friend and his father have been registering their hunting firearms. His father and his friend, who mailed their applications at the same time as he did, received their documents some time later. Jean-François Laflamme, who wanted to know why he had not heard from the Canadian Firearms Centre, was told that his file would be held up until the charge pending against him was heard in court, because what was involved was a criminal charge. This placed him on the same footing as a bank robber who uses a submachine gun, a hired killer or a violent rapist, all because of a technicality, and an offence for which the real guilty parties are the Canadian Firearms Centre and the provincial registries because they are bogged down in registrations and unable to inform citizens when their licences expire. From the technical standpoint, the young Laflamme can no longer hunt because he would be wandering around with an expired certificate: it amounts, in other words, to the suspension of his hunting licence for a serious offence against the hunting regulations! This story is sinister in several respects because it is indicative of the arbitrariness to which honest hunters may be subjected under this federal act, the enforcement of which appears to be becoming more ridiculous and more iniquitous every day. In the age of computers and budget surpluses, it is inexcusable for the federal government not to have informed the holder of an FAC that it has expired. If Quebec can reach any taxpayer to tell them that their driver's licence needs to be renewed, and if Ottawa can do the same thing with respect to tax returns, than it is ridiculous for the police departments of both levels of government to still be unable to inform citizens when they need to renew their certificates. The mindset is typical of a federal public service that is disconnected from everyday life: expecting that simply being aware of the Act will lead citizens to check the expiry dates every day on all the credit cards, insurance certificates, medical records, etc. that are stuffed in their wallets. Wouldn't be nice if we could have a notification system like this for people to keep their files up-to-date! The Jean-François Laflamme case shows that all those who have been condemning the arbitrariness of this Act were right. Laying criminal charges against a citizen who does not have a criminal record, and who is resting a the side of the road because he is concerned about safety, and who is engaging in a legal activity with a legal weapon, and who applied for and obtained an FAC after complying with all of the criteria of a federal act, and who has done nothing worse than forget to renew a licence, amounts to nothing less than harassment. This sort of thing takes away whatever remaining credibility there may have been in an act that would do well to keep the few remaining feathers it has left to cover up its failing credibility. But there is more. In October, the young Mr. Laflamme was charged with not having a registration certificate for his hunting gun. And yet, he was legally entitled to obtain it up until 31 December! All hunters should take note of the criminal bear trap that is being set for them. Every time a hunting firearm is used, you had better have the right registration certificate with you. If you change weapons or if you lend one to a friend, you had better pass the certificate to him as well or he might become a criminal. From now on, if you are going to hunt, you need to have your provincial hunting licence with you, as well as the various hunting licences for each type of game, not to mention your gun licence and the one or more certificates required for each firearm. From now on, it will take more than a backpack to go hunting - your will need a portable filing cabinet! It has become obvious that the system is a factory for making criminals, pseudo-criminals to be sure, because in 99.9999% of cases, it will amount to honest citizens who have made a mistake by forgetting their registration certificate or failing to have the right one with them. It is a serious mistake, not to mention an abuse of power, to have included this kind of administrative offence in the Criminal Code rather than making it a technical offence, like failing to renew a driver's licence. The case involving Laflamme is of interest to all hunters in Quebec. The precedents that will be established will clarify one thing: did Bill C-68 really engender an arbitrary monster that threatens fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence (the young man cannot hunt without the licence that is being denied him until his trial) and that opens the door to innumerable forms of harassment and arbitrariness by the police? Charges like this ought to be dropped if an attorney general can be found somewhere who is more interested in judgment and equity than legality. - - Reading list: Environnement et santé, fondements et pratiques, by Michel Gérin, Pierre Gosselin, Sylvaine Cordier, Claude Viau, Philippe Quénel and Éric Dewailly, éditions édisem, 1023 pages. This book, which is going to become the Bible of researchers, students and journalists for years to come on matters of environmental health, takes stock of scientific knowledge about the effects of various physical, chemical and microbiological agents on health. The book, which is multidisciplinary in approach, an imperative in this field, is also interesting because it bridges the gap between the North America and European scientific solitudes. It is an essential reference work, particularly because of its lengthy bibliographies, which quickly steer readers towards further reading on the various topics covered. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:47:49 -0600 (CST) From: B Farion Subject: Re: jamaican > A 28-year-old Calgary man gunned down at an after-hours party on the weekend > was scheduled to catch a flight to his Jamaican homeland Sunday to visit > family. > So tell someone who cares! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:58:55 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: re: concensus say > Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:20:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Michael Adams" > Subject: Consensus say... (with apologies > to Confucious) > > > >> Bruce wrote: > >>> >>> The Federal Lieberals have withdrawn their motion to ram through C-10. >> > >> >So, now what? > > > Well, I guess that was part of the question - just what *is* the "right > thing" with respect to this legislation? It has some good things, like > extending the "grandfathering" for 12(6) handguns from 1995 to 1998, but You have mistaken which is good and which is bad. The 12(6) amendment will give THEM the easy way out. As it stands, the true agenda will likely be revealed when they actually start to confiscate these. When the demands for compensation start to roll in it will make the rest of the mess look like a picnic. > it has some "bad" things like the provisions for muzzle energy for > firearms. > Once again, this amendment can do nothing but amplify the idiocy. Once it is passed into law and all paint ball guns become actual firearms and many more models of pellet guns are revealed to be what they actually are the press can have a hay day. There are many pellet guns sold in Canada that actually are firearms and in the opinion of the RCMP are firearms that are still being sold as non firearms. All those that fire at 340 or more with lead will exceed 500 fps with lazerhawks. BTW, why are these stores allowed to sell pellets and BBs without seeing a licence as ALL of these fit firearms as powerful as 1200 fps? > Do we have a consensus about what the right thing actually is? > > Yours in Liberty, > Bruce > Hamilton > Ontario > > Well, *I* for one... (if there are any Liberal "trolls", spies or > lurkers out there)... would be happy to see the following.... > > 1. Registry = GONE. The exercise of tracking EVERY individual firearm > when you already KNOW who should have or leagally possess them is not > really a cost-effective exercise (as we have seen). agreed > > 2. Firearms licences = REMAIN (Along with regular background checks on > renewal) - I don't think ANYONE can reasonably argue that as long as you > can show every 5 years that you are still a responsible and law-abiding > member of society it shouldn't matter WHAT you have. These, as a public safety measure, should be the same price that the sex offenders have to pay for their registrations, FREE. You should not be able to avoid criminal prosecution by the application of a prescribed bribe. The licensing should otherwise be removed from the Criminal Code and made as useless as a boat license. > > 3. ACTUALLY ENFORCE the existing penalties for convictions where > firearms are used. Sentences to be served CONSECUTIVELY to any other > one imposed. REMOVE the discretion of the Crown to withdraw or bargain > away the added offences with respect to the possession or use of a > firearm in the commission of an offence. As a sidebar - if you are in > Canada ILLEGALLY or on a visa and use a firearm in the commission of an > offence, you are OUT of the country on the next plane/boat/train > IMMEDIATELY after conviction. No appeal, no Immigration hearing. OUT. > PERIOD. GONE. No return. EVER. That sounds good, but I might add IF they return, then go straight to jail. Unfortunately, the mandatory sentences are not likely to start as one judge has already ruled this minimum 5 year to be unconstitutional as it did not allow him to use his discretionary powers. > > 4. FIX the 12(6) thing already. I am waiting to take delivery of a S&W > Model 10 once the date is adjusted and my grandfathering is confirmed! > It's PAID FOR even... Jeez... The only real fix for this is to remove all the newly created prohibiteds back to restricted, or repeal the act. > > 5. Lets RIP APART the Firearms Act with a view to ensuring that the > Charter Rights are respected, the law-abiding recreational firearms > communtity is respected, and the safety of all Canadians is ensured by > making sure that the Act is CLEAR, CONCISE and COMPLETE. > While you're at it, maybe you can get parliament to quit using OIC's. New laws at the whim of the President of the country. And not to limit the generality of the foregoing, specifically to create new offenses under the Criminal Code. > For my money (and let's be clear here - it IS my money - and YOURS) the > only way #5 will work is with REAL and HONEST consultation between the > people in office and the owners/users of firearms. No more BS from the > "experts" who gave us C-68 and the subsequent tinkering. I don't know > the "who's" or the "how's" of setting up the process, but I DO know what > will NOT work... We just spent $1 BILLION DOLLARS on it.... > > Anyone else? Thoughts? Professor Dorens? > > Mike > The world is perfect when I fall asleep, Barry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:07:47 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Consensus While I appreciate and welcome all discussion on our "perfect world" scenarios regarding "gun control", my comment on "consensus" was intended to refer to a consensus about C-10A/B specifically. Barry has already outlined some of the good/bad things; what should we be saying to our MPs about this legislation, and why? Should we do anything about it at all? It seems to me to be a foregone conclusion that it will eventually be passed - should we view this as more of an opportunity to keep the whole Firearms Act in the spotlight, as opposed to attacking/supporting the provisions of C-10A/B specifically? Your thoughts? Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:33:02 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Consensus Having corrected my original miscommunication, I will now attempt to respond to the general question raised Jordie Fulton wrote: > > Do we have a consensus about what the right thing actually is? > > I'm not sure that we do. I am sure that we don't, on the overall question of "what is far enough?". > I'm well aware of the "divide and conquer" tactics practices by the > anti-gun lobby. If I were pressed I'd probably agree with Dr. Ackermann > that it should be legal to possess whatever weapons you like, with > socially unacceptable use of such items, ah, discouraged. You and I are in agreement here. > However, I think that we can all agree that the majority of Canadians > would never approve of such a system. Agreed. That would entail "freedom", which would require that each and every individual take responsibility for their own actions. Most people aren't ready for that. Some people will never be. > As gun owners and users, I think > we need to ask ourselves what we're prepared to accept. Fully automatic > weapons have been heavily restricted basically since their invention; > handguns have had moderate to heavy restrictions on their ownership from > the 1930s to the present. > > This seems to be more or less OK with most of us. While I agree with you to a certain extent, the libertarian in me is screaming "no appeasment!". Either you are free to exercise your rights, of which possessing arms is one, or you are not. If you are not, then you are not, by definition, "free". > I'm not sure if that's the right place to draw the line, but I don't > think it's productive to say that we can't draw it anywhere. I know that > we're currently on a slippery slope, and next they'll be coming for our > SKS's and Colt pistols, and then the "military calibres" of hunting > rifles, and then who knows what they'll think of. But the slope in the > other direction is equally slippery. Can we give up the right to have > live grenades and bazookas in exchange for being left alone to enjoy our > shooting sports? What about C-4 and anthrax bacillus? Are micro-nukes > required for home defence? I know that there's a line there somewhere, > and I think _that_ is an important thing for firearms users to have a > consensus on. This argument is that of apples and oranges - WMD are not "guns". Here is a little thought experiment that I keep asking gun grabbers to try out, and so far no one has been able to refute it: Take a pound of weapons grade plutonium, a gram of smallpox virus, and a loaded handgun. Put them all on your coffee table. Sit and wait. Which one is most likely to kill you first? Which is most likely to kill the most people? Politicians, police, judges and gun grabbers the world over keep trying to tell us that "guns are inherently dangerous". They are not. Guns require a human agent in order to be "dangerous", and even then, not all gun uses are "dangerous" - else why would they arm cops with them? We need to focus on reality: it is what people *do* with certain objects that is important. That is why most "real" laws are based on punishing for what people do *after* the fact, not before. That is called "prior restraint" and is not good jurisprudence. In my perfect world, it shouldn't matter if you owned a fully automatic Tommy gun, a grenade, or an RPG 7, fully capable. It is what you *do* with them that matters. Criminals will still use whatever object they can get their hands on to commit crimes; restricting their availability to law abiding citizens doesn't change this fact. Punish criminals, not law abiding citizens. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #793 ********************************** 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.