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 #518 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 Saturday, September 27 2003 Volume 06 : Number 518 In this issue: EASTER GOT HIS FACTS WRONG AGAIN RE: OHAF position Re: OHAF position How to proceed? The Digest, NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH etc. Re: How to proceed? RE: OHAF position Re: here here Re: The Digest, NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH etc. Re: OHAF position Re: Re: OHAF position Rights... C-10 RE: OHAF position ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:56 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: EASTER GOT HIS FACTS WRONG AGAIN BREITKREUZ'S POINT OF ORDER CORRECTING SOLICITOR GENERAL WAYNE EASTER http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/questions/sept-25-2003.htm In response to a question by Garry Breitkreuz, on September 24, 2003, Solicitor General Wayne Easter said: "If he would read the most recent evaluation, and read it appropriately, he would see that the evaluation was done back last spring. We announced an action plan after that." (Hansard Page - 7749) http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/126_2003-09-24/H AN126-E.htm THE TRUTH IS THAT THE JUSTICE MINISTER AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL ANNOUNCED THEIR ACTION PLAN ON FEBRUARY 21, 2003. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT-CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE EVALUATION IS DATED APRIL 2003. NEWS RELEASE - Government Of Canada Announces Gun Control Program Action Plan Ottawa, February 21, 2003 - The Honourable Martin Cauchon, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, accompanied by the Honourable Wayne Easter, Solicitor General of Canada, today announced the Government's action plan for changes to the management of Canada's gun control program. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_releases/feb21-2003/default.asp NEWS RELEASE - September 23, 2003 UNBELIEVABLE! THE GOV'T ITSELF IDENTIFIES 90 PROBLEMS IN THE GUN REGISTRY "The additional cost to fix these problems - plus all the ones they missed - should end the gun registry." Ottawa - The government's most recent evaluation of the gun registry identified ninety problems with the gun registry. "But that's only half the story," says Garry Breitkreuz, Official Opposition Critic for Firearms and Property Rights. "They missed documenting some of the most important problems. For instance, police will never know where the registered guns are stored - let alone the whereabouts of the millions of unregistered ones," reported Breitkreuz. "The Minister didn't have this report when he issued his so-called 'Action Plan' in February or tabled his departmental 'Estimates' in March. Fixing these problems - and the many his bureaucrats missed - will drive the gun registry costs much, much higher than the billion they already wasted," predicted Breitkreuz. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns94.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:11:06 -0600 (CST) From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: RE: OHAF position Bruce wrote: > The general consensus is that the pre-intrusive question, bare bones FAC > of 1973 is an acceptable "fall back" position, as a good starting point. > From there, we can continue to work on eliminating all forms of licensing > and registration, and enshrining the right to property and to keep and > bear arms in the Charter of Rights. A recent discussion with Dale Blue reminded me of an important distinction in the licensing debate. We should all consider reorienting our thinking and semantics, based on Dale's (very good) advice. Regardless of what is deemed acceptable in the offices of the OFAH, we should be pushing for the recognition of our right to own property (including firearms), free from the prior restraint of licensing. We can however, support the reasonable concept of a **prohibition** on ownership for those who have proven themselves unworthy of owning firearms, based on a violent criminal record (i.e. they have forfeited their rights in this regard). Additionally, we can support the prohibition of those who are mentally or emotionally incapable of handling the responsibilities that are an inescapable aspect of the right to own firearms (as an aside this would have to be very carefully watched over as deciding who is emotionally capable of handling these responsibilities would be a fecund field for abuses). Licensing is an affront to rights, as it gives bureaucrats and politicians the power to make a right into a privilege. Privileges, we should always remember, can be given or taken away at the whim of those in positions of power. - ------------------------ Jason Hayes - Principal Hayes Holdings Consulting hh@hayz.ws / www.hayz.ws Blog: www.hayz.ws/weblog/blogger.htm #1936 - 246 Stewart Green SW Calgary, AB, Canada T3H 3C8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:23:11 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: OHAF position Jason Hayes wrote: > > Bruce wrote: > > > The general consensus is that the pre-intrusive question, bare bones FAC > > of 1973 is an acceptable "fall back" position, as a good starting point. > > From there, we can continue to work on eliminating all forms of licensing > > and registration, and enshrining the right to property and to keep and > > bear arms in the Charter of Rights. > > A recent discussion with Dale Blue reminded me of an important > distinction in the licensing debate. We should all consider reorienting > our thinking and semantics, based on Dale's (very good) advice. > > Regardless of what is deemed acceptable in the offices of the OFAH, we > should be pushing for the recognition of our right to own property > (including firearms), free from the prior restraint of licensing. > > We can however, support the reasonable concept of a **prohibition** on > ownership for those who have proven themselves unworthy of owning > firearms, based on a violent criminal record (i.e. they have forfeited > their rights in this regard). Additionally, we can support the > prohibition of those who are mentally or emotionally incapable of > handling the responsibilities that are an inescapable aspect of the > right to own firearms (as an aside this would have to be very carefully > watched over as deciding who is emotionally capable of handling these > responsibilities would be a fecund field for abuses). > > Licensing is an affront to rights, as it gives bureaucrats and > politicians the power to make a right into a privilege. Privileges, we > should always remember, can be given or taken away at the whim of those > in positions of power. I thought that was what I said: "Licensing is Evil", "*continue* to work towards on eliminating all forms of licensing and registration", "enshrining the right to property and to keep and bear arms in the Charter of Rights." The 1978 FAC "solution" is just a "compromise" step along the way, one which the vast majority of people would find "acceptable", while we *continue* to work on convincing them "Licensing is Evil". Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:44:00 -0600 (CST) From: Fred Hoenisch Subject: How to proceed? Bruce wrote: > thought that was what I said: "Licensing is Evil", "*continue* to work > towards on eliminating all forms of licensing and registration", "enshrining > the right to property and to keep and bear arms in the Charter of Rights." So the question is: How do we get this message out to groups like OFAH and individuals who insist that the registry is a greater threat to us than the licensing components of C-68? I know some groups/individuals have contacted OFAH directly, but when you go to the OFAH website - they've updated it boasting that most of the municipalities have endorsed their proposal. They aren't listening. These are our friends, right? Fred in Victoria ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:46:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: The Digest, NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH etc. Some discussion has occurred in a number of related areas in regards to direction over the last several days. In effect an attempt to focus on the issue at hand. The elimination of the Firearms Act The NFA problem should be solved in one of two possible ways. Either raise funds to get the matter back into the courts for a resolution or expend no further efforts on the NFA. Get the matter resolved or move onto something else. The Ottawa office incorporation and board structure issues will be sorted out shortly hopefully. When it is do not harbor the mistaken belief that it will be the solution to all our problems. I have written on the OFAH licensing issue in the past but have not continued to focus on it because the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has voted as a group in the past to call for a halt to the program. The OFAH approach is nothing new and promises to be a dead end as it was in the past. In regards to the licensing issue specifically I personally believe a permanent FAC revoked on judicial authority will sufficiently placate the public and nothing further has been proven to be useful or required. It matters little to me if my jailers are the Liberals, Alliance, OFAH or whoever wants to hold the keys. Stake out whatever ground you wish to individually on the field, if we are overrun you are next and if they take the ground we have staked out your eventual demise is cast in stone. What we need to do first is insure that the provinces that have said they will not prosecute do not. As the criminal code is provincial responsibility and we expect the provinces to keep their word the RCMP will have to charge under 112 of the Firearms Act. It is up to us to insure that the provinces keep their word. We cannot guarantee that they will, so we have to work on something more important. Alberta and the West have said repeatedly that they are being shortchanged in confederation. Political parties have arisen because of it. Separation sentiments also. The real question is are they blowing smoke or are they serious? The federal government is producing laws that Alberta takes exception to. Laws are only as good as their enforcement. If Alberta does not want the Firearms Act and the federal police are intent on enforcing it the solution for Alberta is to remove the federal police force. We all know this will not end federal power in Alberta but it will certainly make it much more difficult for the feds to enforce their will. We have a serious situation in Ontario where the Liberals will prosecute if elected. Some in the past have said they will seek asylum in the US if the going gets to rough. It would be far better if they could find refuge in Canada. My father fought in North Africa and Sicily for my freedom in this country. I will not abandon it because of some socialist thugs. Any hope of separation is futile so expending energy on the removal of the RCMP that enforces the laws you are opposed may meet with more success. We should also all be working on our provinces to attempt to force them to refer the Firearms Act to the Supreme Court challenging it on Charter grounds. Al ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:57:47 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: How to proceed? Fred Hoenisch wrote: > So the question is: How do we get this message out to groups like OFAH and > individuals who insist that the registry is a greater threat to us than the > licensing components of C-68? I know some groups/individuals have contacted > OFAH directly, but when you go to the OFAH website - they've updated it > boasting that most of the municipalities have endorsed their proposal. They > aren't listening. > > These are our friends, right? > > Fred in Victoria The answer should be obvious - join up, and convince them of the error of their ways. You can try it without getting a membership, but they have no obligation to listen to you... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:16:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Jason Hayes" Subject: RE: OHAF position > I thought that was what I said: "Licensing is Evil", "*continue* to work > towards on eliminating all forms of licensing and registration", > "enshrining the right to property and to keep and bear arms in the Charter > of Rights." Agreed. I was only pointing out that the change in semantics could help to change the way we and others see it. If we talk about "eliminating licensing" we will be painted by the anti's as attacking the safety of the country (in much the same manner as the "pro-abortion/pro-choice" and "pro-life/anti-choice" groups paint each other). Moving the discussion to an unquestioned recognition of our fundamental rights and freedoms, and the prohibition of violent criminals from owning firearms will have more appeal with the soccer mom crowd. After all, who could disagree with prohibiting violent criminals from owning firearms? Again, semantics; not disagreeing with you. - ------------------------ Jason Hayes - Principal Hayes Holdings Consulting hh@hayz.ws / www.hayz.ws Blog: www.hayz.ws/weblog/blogger.htm #1936 - 246 Stewart Green SW Calgary, AB, Canada T3H 3C8 - ------------------------ "The greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising up every time we fall." --Confucius - ------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:17:48 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: here here > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:48:01 -0600 (CST) > From: Bruce Mills > Subject: Re: here here > I think Jim is right, to a certain extent - in that the Digest is reflecting > both a lack of leadership on the part of the various "gun rights" organizations, > as well as a general lack of direction overall. > > For example, none of the major firearms organizations have taken a stand, or > offered advice, or initiated any plans with respect to the Ontario Provincial > Election. Since this is the venue where the next Federal Election will be won > or lost, this would have been a perfect opportunity for these organizations to > "get the word out", organize, cultivate political contacts, build riding action > teams, et cetera, as a prelude to the Fed election next year. As far as I can > tell, they have done nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Rien. They all seem pretty > much dormant. The Invironment Voters had a very effective campaign strategy of targeting close ridings. Voters in Ontario need first to find out what ridings they have the potential of swinging and then find out who is active there. The NFA, CSSA, OFAH and COHA are all supposed to be politically active. Find out what they are doing in the election, withdraw your support from those that are doing little or nothing and move it to the group that is. As all groups are operating under funding constraints, some slack has to be cut if the situation warrants. Also, they may be active but not reporting on it here. That's their business. But not telling someone insures they will not be involved. To date I have only heard about Wayne Fields of LUFA. > Then there is the amendments to the Regulations that are currently sitting > before Parliament, awaiting some form of debate in Committee (if they even get > there). Dennis Young has posted recently that the Clerk has yet to receive one > submission regarding these amendments. None of the leading firearms groups has > provided any direction on this matter, either: some interpretation of the > proposed ammendments, what they really mean, what sections to be concerned > about, what to do about them, who to contact. When the Ottawa office was suggested, some organizations spoke of a lack of need for it. Where are they now? My comments above apply equally in this situation. It has frequently been said that many organizations rather than one big one can be effective but if the many are missing how effective are they? Again we may yet see some group active that we do not know about. > We need someone or some organization to step up to the plate and carry the > torch, to provide us with some modicum of leadership and direction, make some > suggestions that the rest of us can put into effect. I know it's a thankless > task, and it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. I have to admire the fact that you still have hope. There are too few of us left that do. Al ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:19:34 -0600 (CST) From: sparkplug Subject: Re: The Digest, NFA, Ottawa Office, OFAH etc. Howdy Al; As has been pointed out previously in the Provinces that supposedly do not prosecute all they do is hire a "rent a Crown lawyer" who then acts as a Federal prosecutor and the charges still go ahead (as in Federal prosecution of drug offenses) So the prosecution still proceeds but the Feds are billed for it by your local lawyer who has donned another Hat for this particular job. The province does have the power (if they choose to useit) to tell the provincial police not to lay the charges (if it has a prov police force). No province has chosen to do this yet. Ontario Police accomp game wardens on "checkpoints" and patrol. They do ask for firearms licences and registrations. It is not simple and it is "politics" not truth or sense Rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:35:05 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: OHAF position Jason Hayes wrote: > Moving the discussion to an unquestioned recognition of our fundamental > rights and freedoms, and the prohibition of violent criminals from > owning firearms will have more appeal with the soccer mom crowd. > Again, semantics; not disagreeing with you. OK, that didn't come through clearly to me. The problem is that a good many gun owners believe that we *don't* have the inherent right to own property, or the inherent right to keep and bear arms. They have been brainwashed into the fallacious philosophy that "if it ain't written down somewhere it don't exist", which leads to the secondary fallacious philosophy that "if it isn't specifically permitted, it must be intrinsically prohibited". Neither of these viewpoints are supported by Canadian jurisprudence, which is founded upon English Common and Statute Law. > After all, who could disagree with prohibiting violent criminals from owning > firearms? Actually, I could. This is similar to the US Federal law that prohibits any convicted "felon" from possessing firearms. This is an extra additional and mandatory punishment, imposed over and above whatever sentence a Judge hands down, and is in effect *for life*. This strips you of a couple of your sovereign rights: it is in contravention of the concept "due process", which covers the concept of "the punishment must fit the crime". Adding on a lifetime prohibition against firearms ownership for "felonies", many of which are non-violent like marijuana possession, is "cruel and unusual", and does not make for flexible allowances to fit the crime. IF you've served your time, you should have all your rights restored to you, until you prove by your actions that you don't deserve them any longer. It's just another tool that the antis use to try and further restrict the right to firearms ownership. There is no telling what other "crimes" this could be expanded to include, from jay walking to parking tickets... If you're a criminal, you should be locked up until you are no longer a danger to society. The law abiding should not have to prove their law abidingness to the State. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:18:25 -0600 (CST) From: Subject: Re: Re: OHAF position > From: Bruce Mills > Date: 2003/09/26 Fri PM 11:35:05 EST > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > Subject: Re: OHAF position > > Jason Hayes wrote: > > After all, who could disagree with prohibiting violent criminals from owning > > firearms? > > Actually, I could. This is similar to the US Federal law that prohibits any > convicted "felon" from possessing firearms. *snip* Adding on a lifetime > prohibition against firearms ownership for "felonies", many of which are > non-violent like marijuana possession, is "cruel and unusual", and does not make > for flexible allowances to fit the crime. He said "violent criminal". I agree with him. Somebody who's demonstrated a tendency to commit violent crime doesn't deserve to be trusted, even if he has served his time, for a very, very long time if ever. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:19:28 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Subject: Rights... Edward Hudson > While I might actually have had the Right to take photographs of the > "shake down" of our duck blind and my car and trailer, I did not feel > inclined to pursue that matter that morning. I already have two > outstanding obstructions charges against me from previous encounters > with the police during our public non-compliance actions. My comrades > have encouraged me not to acquire a third. No argument there, Ed, but that doesn't prevent you from dragging them through the whole complaint process. There is case law out there that refers to the fact that people assume that any command given them by police is lawful and within their powers of police officers. In your case, that was abused. While Supreme Court decisions might not be exactly relevant to incidents like this, they certainly show that the highest legal authority in the land recognizes this situation exists - and can be abused. Police may or may not have had the authority to place you under arrest. They did not have the authority to forbid you from taking pictures. You had the right to choose whether or not to complain about it at that moment. An obstruction charge for taking pictures would be pretty weak to begin with, but that's neither here nor there. I would still start a formal complaint if I were you. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:21:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Byting Mouse" Subject: C-10 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C38494.87B94C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any idea as to when the grandfather clause will take effect for those under this bill? J Robichaud [Moderator's Note: Please turn off HTML/MIME and/or "quoted-printable" encoding before posting messages to the Digest - plain text only. BNM] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:08:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Hayes Holdings" Subject: RE: OHAF position > The problem is that a good many gun owners believe that we *don't* have > the inherent right to own property, or the inherent right to keep and bear > arms. > They have been brainwashed into the fallacious philosophy that "if it > ain't written down somewhere it don't exist", which leads to the secondary > fallacious philosophy that "if it isn't specifically permitted, it must be > intrinsically prohibited". Neither of these viewpoints are supported by > Canadian jurisprudence, which is founded upon English Common and Statute > Law. That is why I think it would be worthwhile to change the semantics of the discussion. By using terms that indicate we understand and possibly agree with that misperception (people listening to us have no idea unless we explain it in detail), we give credence to their misperceptions. If we just approach the discussion from the position that a right to own property is nothing more than common sense, we can start to take back a bit of that ground. When people get confused or don't understand, we can just ask, "don't you think you have a right to own your property?!?!?!?!?" From there, if they're interested, we can explain the difference between moral and legal rights, etc. etc. Nothing is going to change over night in this, but why play the game with their cards (especially when we know they have stacked the deck in their favour)? > > > After all, who could disagree with prohibiting violent criminals from > > owning firearms? > > Actually, I could. This is similar to the US Federal law that prohibits > any convicted "felon" from possessing firearms. This is an extra > additional and mandatory punishment, imposed over and above whatever > sentence a Judge hands down, and is in effect *for life*. This strips you > of a couple of your sovereign rights: it is in contravention of the > concept "due process", which covers the concept of "the punishment must > fit the crime". Adding on a lifetime > prohibition against firearms ownership for "felonies", many of which are > non-violent like marijuana possession, is "cruel and unusual", and does > not make for flexible allowances to fit the crime. I wasn't suggesting a lifetime prohibition. I would totally agree, if you pay your debt to society, do your time then your slate is clean. Of course, that then begs the question of reform. Getting a one day jail sentence for bashing a person's head in with a pool ball wrapped in a sock is hardly "doing your time" or "paying your debt to society". - ------------------------ Jason Hayes - Principal Hayes Holdings Consulting hh@hayz.ws / www.hayz.ws Blog: www.hayz.ws/weblog/blogger.htm #1936 - 246 Stewart Green SW Calgary, AB, Canada T3H 3C8 - ------------------------ "I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day be communists" - --Jane Fonda, 1970 - ------------------------ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #518 ********************************** 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.