From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #238 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, July 6 2003 Volume 06 : Number 238 In this issue: Re: Some small help with laws Gun Repair/Gunsmith My letter to the Montreal Gazette No gun club memebership required Tories gunnin' for Grit hides Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #235 Re: Some small help with laws Speaking with a forked tongue Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #237 RE: private range, restricted registration approval Gunfire in LaSalle; two men arrested Re: Using common sense & safe practices ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:39:54 -0600 (CST) From: R C Subject: Re: Some small help with laws Alan Harper wrote: > Hi Ray, > Apply for a restricted license. You will have no problem, because > you are already declared, by the government, to be a safe person to > possess a firearm. That is what they said when they issued you the > unrestricted license. The new gun laws take the position that you > are, or are not, a safe person to own a firearm. They already say > you are safe by virtue of your firearms license. When you have the > restricted provision added to your license, you may legally possess > any restricted firearm, when you borrow, inherit, purchase, lease, > whatever. I never doubted that I could get a restricted licence (although the $80 application fee, on top of of the safety course -- would I need to take the safety course???? -- really burns my ass!!). What I doubted was getting one, just to find out that I couldn't buy a restricted gun without maintaining a membership at a club or range. > The ATT is to transport the restricted gun to an approved range. If > you are a member of a gun club, or a member of a collectors club, you > will get the ATT through the club. If you are not a member, you may > request a short term ATT, from the CFO, to take the gun to a > recognized range. There is some controversy about the length of that > ATT. The CFO will try to tell you it is only good for a single day, > or whatever this week's policy is, but there is a clause in the > Firearms Act which states that the ATT has a minimum duration. I > forget what that is offhand. OK. Maybe I have got something confused. What is the deal with some ranges/clubs sending in ATT or maintaining the records. I've heard of this, and I've seen it mentioned on this discussion list, usually at the beginning of the year?? Ray C ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:40:31 -0600 (CST) From: R C Subject: Gun Repair/Gunsmith Greetings again. How do you all like the Ontario weather so far? I'm very interested in Gun Repair/Gunsmithing. Crazily obsessed with it, so my wife says. Is there any gunsmiths or fellas that make a dollar doing gun repairs and/or modifications on this discussion list? If so, could I exchange messages with you regarding your trade? Ray C ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 09:40:58 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Montreal Gazette Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Vigilante policing no way to fight crime Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 11:35:17 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: Editor - Montreal Gazette Just a brief notice to your editors and journalists, grocery store associations, the police, and your readers: defence of self and property is not "vigilantism". Defence of self and property is the sovereign right of every individual. Your Editorial makes the astounding claim that "society cannot countenance, much less encourage, citizens taking on the duties of the police". Nothing can be further from the truth! Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Policing makes it clear that the people are the police, and the police are the people. Police "officers" are simply people hired to conduct policing activities on a full time basis. If, as you claim, the people are divested of policing authority, that means that we are solely dependent upon the "official" police for protection. As you yourself state, "Police forces need to get more involved in protecting small businesses". Unfortunately, even if they were capable of doing so, the police are under no obligation to provide protection to any given individual at any given time. There is legal precedence that supports this. What this means is that we are, for all intents and purposes, on our own. Let us not forget who the real victims are here. These courageous heroes should be held up as examples of what should rightly happen if you are found breaking into someone's residence or place of business. These are the real crimes - and those criminals got exactly what they deserved. They should get more. Let's not hear any more nonsense about "vigilantism". These bogus charges should be dropped, immediately. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:06:16 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: No gun club memebership required Since there seems to be some interest in this, I thought I would send it to the CFD instead of privately. The law that regulates this is found in the "permitted purposes" for owning a restricted firearm or grandfathered prohibited 12(6) handgun found in FA s 28: 28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) (pre-February 14, 1995 handguns) or the importation by an individual of a restricted firearm under paragraph 40(1)(c) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied (a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun (i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or (ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or (b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is (i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or (ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30. We are interested in FA 28(b)(i) for this discussion. This subsection provides for the ownership of said firearms for: Target practice or target shooting competitions Under conditions specified in an ATT OR Under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29 There are several "auspices" of a shooting club or range that do not entail you to be a "Member": you can shoot as the guest of a member; there are "pay as you play" clubs where membership is not required; there are "open invitation" shooting competitions - just as a few examples. "Membership" in a club is not mandatory for the ownership of restricted or 12(6) prohibited handguns. Any Firearms Officer who tries to tell you differently is overstepping the bounds of his authority, and should be called on it. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:12:28 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Tories gunnin' for Grit hides http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/07/06/127919.html >From Toronto Sun Sun, July 6, 2003 Tories gunnin' for Grit hides By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU OTTAWA -- Overwhelming demand from Canadians itching to blow the Liberal Party logo to bits is turning a modest fundraiser into a multi-day shootout, says organizer Craig Chandler. The former Tory leadership contender says he's rescheduled the Steak and Shoot fundraiser from a weeknight to Saturday, Aug. 23 at a Calgary shooting range to accommodate the great demand. Demand for the $100 tickets is still expected to exceed the 200 spots available on a Saturday. "We would not be surprised if we have to do two days," Chandler said yesterday. UZI AMMO Ticket-holders get 9 mm or equivalent ammo to use in guns provided by Calgary's Shooting Edge, where the Liberal Party logo will be used as targets. For anything more powerful, like Uzi ammunition, Chandler said ticket-holders will have to fork out extra. "We're just getting together and having a bit of fun," Chandler said. "What we're trying to do in our campaign is do things differently." Chandler defended the use of the Liberal logo, pointing out that he's just trying to redirect the Tories and Canadian Alliance efforts against the Grits instead of each other. "The real target is the Liberals," he said. "The Tories are happy, the Shooting Edge is happy, my campaign is happy." Chandler said he's received Tory Leader Peter MacKay's blessing for the fundraiser. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:12:59 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #235 Hugh Evers wrote: > Yes Indeed, And why are (aids carriers) not registered?? > Hugh Evers.. Because being sick is not against the law? Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:26:22 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Some small help with laws R C wrote: > > Alan Harper wrote: > > The ATT is to transport the restricted gun to an approved range. If > > you are a member of a gun club, or a member of a collectors club, you > > will get the ATT through the club. If you are not a member, you may > > request a short term ATT, from the CFO, to take the gun to a > > recognized range. There is some controversy about the length of that > > ATT. The CFO will try to tell you it is only good for a single day, > > or whatever this week's policy is, but there is a clause in the > > Firearms Act which states that the ATT has a minimum duration. I > > forget what that is offhand. > > OK. Maybe I have got something confused. What is the deal with some > ranges/clubs sending in ATT or maintaining the records. I've heard of > this, and I've seen it mentioned on this discussion list, usually at the > beginning of the year?? > > Ray C I have seen this asserted again and again and despite having asked several times, I still haven't been able find out exactly what provision of the Firearms Act or the Regulations allows for gun club executives to be involved with the ATT submission process, or to act as a conduit for the disbursement of permits. This despite knowing that some people here are/have been shooting club executives. It seems to be some kind of gigantic secret. If ANYONE, ANYWHERE, has any specific knowledge of the role of shooting club executives in the ATT process, please provide the law and/or regulation that allows this. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:43:51 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Speaking with a forked tongue Some provinces/territories said they wouldn't prosecute FA 'paper charges' a year ago; other jurisdictions joined the fray just a few weeks ago. The press recently reported: > The Ontario government is joining Nova Scotia and three Western > provinces in refusing to prosecute people who have not registered > rifles or shotguns by July 1 as required by the federal government's > controversial firearms registry law. > Provincial governments have a duty to enforce and prosecute the > federal firearms law even if they oppose it for political reasons, > said Wayne Easter, the federal Solicitor-General, after the Liberal > Cabinet meeting in Ottawa yesterday. > Mr. Easter said Ottawa will rely on the RCMP to enforce the firearms > registry now that five provinces have declared they will not prosecute > gun owners who fail to register their firearms by the June 30 deadline. We now have only PE and QC admitting that they will pursue FA charges. But what does this really mean? One activist contributed: > I wish to thank you [Attorney General] for your very principled stand in protecting the > responsible citizens of British Columbia from the evil intent of the Firearms Act. Your decision > not to use provincial resources to prosecute is one vital part of seeing this unjust law repealed. [If one could really get to the nub of the issue, , , if one knew what specific instructions have been directed to the various police authorities and Crown Prosecutors in BC [and elsewhere] to NOT pursue 'paper charges' under the FA. My information is that it has not happened in Ontario]. This scribe also recently contributed . . . "an area Crown Attorney advises that no direction has been provided in respect of changes in the prosecution of firearms charges in Ontario. After hearing a judges charge, including instructions on points of law, the meaning, interpretation and application of the law, etc. I can't believe many judges would be influenced by the ravings of some of our provincial attorney or solicitor generals/justice ministers about the FA's long gun registry." Another activist offered: > My info that comes from the Asst Crown in my reference hearing is that charges will be > refered to as "Federal" and a rent a crown prosecutor to act and his fees will be paid from > Federal funds. This is the way serious drug possession and trafficking are presently handled in > Ontario. This Crown had been advised that this was to be the case in April. Prov politicians > use this "fence sitting" to try and get votes/support from RFC knowing full well that > Prosecution will proceed but another lawyer will wear the hat of prosecutor for that case. [Note. It's really interesting to see these 'federal prosecutors' switch horses from one case to another and sometimes within a few minutes go from being a prosecutor to a defense attorney. These 'occasional' prosecutor positions are highly desired local political plums necessitating appropriate affiliations]. Noted gun rights lawyer Richard Fritze reported: > The federal Crown will conduct the prosecution of Oscar Lacombe on the Criminal Code > charges resulting from Mr Lacombe's protest at the Alberta Legislature on January 1st, 2003. > They will do so at the behest of the Province of Alberta which formally is responsible for > Criminal Code prosecutions in the province, per the provisions of the BNA Act and of the > Criminal Code. The federal Crown wrote me stating: "We are in fact handling this matter at > the request of and agent for the Attorney General of Alberta. There is no difficulty stating that > for the record." > This means that the Alberta Government's stated position regarding licensing/registration > prosecutions has either changed, or it was simply not true when made. Of course the law has not changed and the provinces have virtually unlimited legal resources at their disposal to develop their legal positions on these matters. It seems quite apparent that the provinces/territories simply played politics with the FA issues and knowingly fudged the legal niceties while doing nothing to resolve the criminalization of their citizens. The RFC has been duped again. Let's all extend an Attaboy to Londoner Kenneth Hurrell as his Charter case regarding C.C. Part III - firearms and other weapons s. 117.04(1) search and seizure resulting from an unsworn affidavit proceeds to the S.C.C. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 10:50:00 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #237 R C wrote: > these same brand cartridges at a range. The .22 LR barely made it to the > 100 yard target. The .22 shorts never make it beyond 75-80 yards. I'm You seem to be on the right track regarding safety - and cautious enough to ask questions to make sure. But don't undersell the .22 rimfire. Both the long rifle and short versions of this round will go considerably further than the distances you mention above - even when fired at the horizontal. Ricochets from rounds fired at a downward angle, of course, redefine the ballistic situation even though you're now dealing with a deformed, probably unstable round at reduced velocity. If you try rimfire silhouette out, you will quickly learn that the .22 rimfire has more than enough energy to take down the borrego at 109 yards. And if you try mini-Palma out (the poor man's Bisley and Connaught) with something like a good Anschutz or Walther, you'll find that your .22 rimfire will group quite well indeed at 200 yards. That's assuming you really know how to read the wind and crank the knobs, of course... As for a target setup, building an open ended box of straw/hay bales and then filling in the open end with sand or screen dirt/manure, whatever should give you a safe and dependable backstop for nothing more than a few hours of sweat equity. I am in the middle of an unpleasant concrete/landscape renovation project at my home and all the washed sand the box a 1 ton truck can carry cost me $20 at the local cement business. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:39:54 -0600 (CST) From: Rod Regier Subject: RE: private range, restricted registration approval As I understand the way the range regulations are enforced, If you are operating a range where non-owners may shoot their own firearms brought from elsewhere, then it has to be approved By the CFO's office for the province/territory. That adds a major level of complexity you may wish to avoid. If only firearms owned by the landowner and his/her immediate family Are used, The situation is simpler. \\ Give some thought to liability insurance specific to shooting. Each person shooting should have their Own liability insurance coverage. You having liability insurance will not cover acts committed by your guests except 3rd party liability issues (assuming the policy covers same). NFA and a very limited number of other sources in Canada sell such coverage. \\ Most CFO's prefer (by convention, not by rule of law) only to Approve restricted firearm registrations to persons who are members Of gun clubs or declared collectors. They might entertain variances if there is no gun club near your Residence (say over an hour's travel, just to pick a number out of the air). If you go the collector route, you're going to be hard-pressed to get a long-term ATT, Since CFO's don't envision collectors shooting much. There is no provision by the bureaucracy For dual-usage registration (collector *and* target shooter), which makes it more difficult for applicants. To quote DAT, "It doesn't have to make sense, it's government policy.." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:40:18 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Gunfire in LaSalle; two men arrested http://www.canada.com/montreal/news/story.asp?id=F1DA68C9-1540-4CC5-886E-C2E93330CE08 Gunfire in LaSalle; two men arrested The Gazette Montreal police arrested two men yesterday after residents heard shots fired in front of a La Salle apartment block around 11 a.m. yesterday. There were no injuries. Two men in their 20s were taken into custody. A number of shell casings were found in front of the apartment building on Jean Brillon St., but police have not found a weapon. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 11:41:12 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Subject: Re: Using common sense & safe practices Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: Fred Hoenisch wrote: > Birds - shot should be used (you can see where it's going to drop). So then, no more bird hunting where there are windbreaks, hedgerows, hills, lakes with bays and inlets defined by low areas of ground, trees etc? And no wade-and-shoot, jumpshooting ducks as you wade around through the reeds in a marsh - one of my favorite duck hunting pastimes with my dog paddling along beside me. You can't see above the reeds. After all, in those situations a flushed upland bird or flying migratory bird will never be in a position where you can see where the shot will fall. That kind of limits us to flat prairie and large bodies of water to our front, doesn't it? Not the kind of place you find grouse, pheasants, chukar, etc. Again, common sense and a reasonable appreciation for the conditions should rule the day. > Big game - I always try to position myself where I have a natural backdrop > such as a hillside or where I'm shooting downwards into a valley. You must either do all of your hunting from a stand or be an extremely skillful hunter. I confess I have never been able to schedule my meetings with moose, elk, bighorn sheep, etc while hunting in a geographical arrangement of my choosing. The damn things seem to have a mind of their own, and there is no guarantee they will show up in the first place, much less move into the position I have chosen for them to move to before being shot. I also confess I don't lose too much sleep about being unable to schedule the position of the event, or hillsides and valleys. I saw enough tracer bullets happily ricochet over steep hillsides and sideways across hillsides or down gulleys and valleys - not to mention come backwards - to think it made a terrible lot of difference anyways. Now if I depended on having a hillside or a valley handy when I shot, that knowledge that bullets will ricochet over those hills and down those valleys might cause me to lose some sleep. But it doesn't, because I use the criteria of common sense and reasonable appreciation for the situation at hand. Works for me. Of all the "shooting accidents" in the field I have seen the details of, not one was anything else than a flagrant violation of the most basic safety rules (and in many cases violations of law). Not one fell into the category of "not quite careful enough". I don't recall any breakdown of accidental shootings, but I'd say at least half involve loaded firearms and people getting into/out of motor vehicles and boats. A good percentage of the others involve somebody shooting at "something they saw moving in the bush" - usually their hunting partner. It is a rare accidental shooting - I can't recall a single instance offhand - where the report of the accident involves a person out in the field being struck by a bullet coming from some shooter out of sight. I have no doubt it happens - but I also know that more people are killed by errant golf balls on golf courses than by errant bullets from shooters out of their line of sight. > Another writer wrote personally with an "I beg to differ" email citing the > prarries and gopher hunting. In this case, I suggest that you should be > shooting downwards anyway. If the prairies were uniformly flat, this theory might work. But in reality, the first time you walk across the prairies you quickly realize that for the most part there are little dips and rises - which you often don't even recognize as being there until you walk up to them. Prairie whitetails and antelope make a living out of capitalizing on such cover. Do we tell people they should never hunt gophers, or antelope, or whitetails - or upland game birds - on the prairies unless they are in one of the few areas that is table flat? Seems a bit unreasonable and unrealistic to me. > The situation to avoid is where you have your target > silhouetted nicely with the sky and you can't see what's behind. Would I > take the shot in this situation? No, I probably wouldn't (I guess that's Would you take the shot if the target was twenty feet or so below the skyline, where you could clearly see the comforting hillside rising above the target? If you would, why are you not equally as worried about the bullet then doing what you were worried about in the first place - richocheting after going through the target and travelling over the hillside to God knows where? Hillsides are an improvement over flat ground - but they don't guarantee you dick as far as stopping bullets goes. I will repeat again that those repeating the old wives tale about the particular dangers of shooting at water should be forced to witness a nightime live fire demonstration using trace to appreciate that bullets will just as happily ricochet off ground as water - and off hillsides as well as flat ground. Yet again, the answer to the question of how you deal with the safety issue is reasonableness and common sense. > faced with an email from someone I don't know and a location I'm not > familiar with - I stand behind my original response. > > It's clear you've got the ballistics background over me but it hasn't > changed my opinion. If you wish to limit yourself by self imposing a danger template that far exceeds what a firearm is phsically capable of achieving even under the most carefully arranged and optimal conditions, you of course have every right to do so. Just as you have every right to wear full body armour while playing golf just to make sure you are 100% safe. However, I also stand by my original post that others are also free to go to those lengths if they wish, but such measures are completely unnecessary and little more than a feels good solution in search of a problem. A lot of us in BC are fighting to keep our ranges under the new regime of range certification which seems more based on Rambo movies than anything else. The last thing I need is the press or the range idiots saying that it is common knowledge in the firearms community that all rounds should be considered dangerous in excess of 5 km. Ranges are already being bankrupted or closed entirely for the most ridiculous of safety concerns (you could tell how dangerous they were before by the large numbers of woundings and fatalities we had...). More trouble based on fears and misinformation we do not need. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #238 ********************************** 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@cogeco.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.