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 #526 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 Tuesday, September 30 2003 Volume 06 : Number 526 In this issue: Wrong turn at border... CFDv6n524 Re: My seatbelt choice and risk Man kills wife, son, turns gun on self, say police Up in arms in Kabul: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun Re: Up in arms in Kabul: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun Fw: Sun Tips nail Five Bad Guys.. Fw: Amendments to the FA; CFDv6n442 dated 3 Sep 03 Five Questions Re: gun shy - was Help with answers please Binns Tories coast to historic victory ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:14:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: Wrong turn at border... CFDv6n524 Of course he made a wrong turn at the junction of Hwys 17/11 and 61. Being from southern Ontario he naturally assumed we had a national highway system befitting a civilized nation, and not a ramshackle series of cart tracks that force interprovincial commercial traffic to squeeze past every mom and pop establishment outside of GTA. The REAL Canada ends at North Bay apparently. After that - the barrenlands. I have crewed Coyote Recce Vehicles over better stretches of road in Kandahar Province than some of the strips of TCH in Northwestern Ontario. Don't try to take the train to Thunder Bay either. I guess those 108,000 people don't exist. No bloody wonder there is no spring bear hunt. People don't actually live up there do they? Tom Falls Lancaster Park, AB formerly of Thunder Bay, etc.. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:15:12 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: My seatbelt choice and risk Jim Powlesland wrote: > > Your choice may cause indirect harm to others, especially young > > people in your orbit, by encouraging such recklessness. But you are > > right about cellphones. > > Actually what it does is increase the burden on the health care system. > > In an accident, unbuckled drivers tend to have more severe injuries and > require longer hospital stays and extensive rehabilitation. Which says more about the evils of "socialized medicine" than it does about the freedom to wear a seat belt, or a helmet, or to smoke or drink. Restricting someone's right to choose because injuries which *may* occur *may* "cost the system more" is just another weapon in the socialist's arsenal of enslavement: first, they hook you on the pipe dream of "universal health care", and then use that as justification to intrude on every other aspect of your life. Just like the hook of "public safety"... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:52:32 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Man kills wife, son, turns gun on self, say police http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/29/calgary_reddeer030929 >From CBC Man kills wife, son, turns gun on self, say police Last Updated Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:24:11 RED DEER, ALTA. - Josif Fekete brought his three-year-old son home Sunday night after a visit, shot the boy's mother then turned the gun on his son and then himself, police said. The 45-year-old man had been separated from his wife, Betty, for about a year. They had an ongoing custody dispute over their three-year-old, Alex. Josif Fekete had the boy for a court-ordered visit Sunday, and brought him home about 6:30 p.m. When Betty Fekete came down from her third-floor apartment to pick him up, her husband pulled out a shotgun and killed her, his son and himself, police say. No charges were ever filed against either parent in the custody dispute, but Betty Fekete had stayed at a Red Deer women's shelter a few times over the past year, police say. Written by CBC News Online staff ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:53:10 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Up in arms in Kabul: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun http://www.canada.com/ottawa/story.asp?id=D6D39640-D1DF-4638-9CAB-7E0E8B5FEFEC >From CP via Ottawa Citizen Up in arms in Kabul: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun discharges STEPHEN THORNE Canadian Press Monday, September 29, 2003 KABUL (CP) - Two Canadian privates have been convicted of negligence in the accidental discharge of their weapons, bringing to a head concerns over the readiness of guns carried by troops patrolling the Afghan capital. The commanding officer of the Canadian contingent here, Lt.-Col. Don Denne, conducted summary trials and fined the two 20-year-olds $850 and $1,250 respectively for the incidents, which occurred a week apart late last month. Denne said they were inexcusable errors for infantrymen. No one was injured in either incident but, as far as the army is concerned, that is beside the point. "An infantryman must be an expert with his weapon," Denne, a native of Hantsport, N.S., declared in an interview Monday. "In a light battalion, that is our bread and butter." The issue of weapons readiness is an important one for the Canadian peace-support mission in Afghanistan. There are 1,950 Canadians serving in Kabul and surrounding areas as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. Troops patrolling crowded city streets, back alleys, markets and mountain passes are under general orders to load their weapons - magazines attached - but not to put bullets in the chamber unless confronted with a tangible threat. Chambering bullets involves cocking the weapon, bringing a single bullet into the firing chamber. Firing it requires the safety lever to be off and the trigger to be depressed. Those calls are made by the on-scene commander, usually a master-corporal, a sergeant, a lieutenant or a captain. But his guidance comes from rules set down by Denne and his superiors. Tangible threats are deemed to be hostile action or shots fired, and hostile intent, or hostile weapons cocked or pointed, or a suicide bombing. In both cases involving the privates - one fired off three rounds in an urban street, the other a single round along a rural road - there were no tangible threats, said Denne. In one case, "the platoon commander gave the order to make weapons ready based upon what he considered to be a threat," said Denne. "That was a perceived threat. That is like chasing shadows." Soldiers argue that having to cock their weapons constitutes an unwarranted delay in their response to threats such as car bombers, grenade attacks or mountain ambushes. But Denne and his superiors say that walking around with a bullet in the chamber cancels out a series of measures their soldiers are supposed to take before they ever consider firing a round. "Normally, you are not walking around with a bullet in the chamber because that denies the soldier the opportunity to escalate if he has to," said Canadian Brig.-Gen. Peter Devlin, commander of ISAF's operational element, the 32-nation Kabul Multi-National Brigade. "There are stages, from verbal warnings to physical warnings to the chambering of a round to the firing of a warning shot to the use of deadly force. And all of those steps are vital to resolving a problem." Chambering rounds, Devlin said Monday, "denies the soldier the freedom to respond" as the threat dictates. Besides, said Denne, the first thing a soldier does when he comes under direct fire is to take cover. Chambering a round - or cocking his weapon - takes a fraction of a second, and the soldier still has to determine the source of the threat, he notes. The sound of an entire platoon cocking their weapons is a deterrence in and of itself, he added. In the case of a vehicle-borne attack, soldiers would not have time to fire anyway, he said. "So why run the risk of loosing off a round negligently and hitting somebody and making life difficult for your whole bloody organization for the six-month period you're here? "That's the risk that I've got to bear and I'm not prepared to accept that kind of risk." Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, ISAF's deputy commander and the top Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, said the rules of engagement under which the Canadians operate aren't much different than those of other ISAF members. Leslie said soldiers have the latitude to do everything they have to do; the product, he said, of healthy debate among senior officers. "If you're patrolling in downtown Kabul at the height of a market day and you've got a bullet up the spout, two things happen," he said. "One is your response time is lowered and the second thing is there is no going back because you only have a split second to decide. A high-velocity round can go through two or three people, including children. "Then you've got a whole other set of issues." Leslie acknowledged that Canadians are taking a degree of risk by requiring foot soldiers to patrol with their weapons loaded but not cocked - Coyote and LAV-3 armoured vehicles travel with a bullet in the chamber of their 25mm chain guns - but the commanders suggested the trade-offs are worth it. Denne has evoked what he calls the "smile-and-wave campaign," whereby his troops are encouraged to acknowledge the generally warm reception they have been given by locals. He says it's a key element in winning the hearts and minds of the people they have been sent to protect. "You can't very well, on the one hand, be smiling and waving at folks, trying to win them over while surreptitiously having a round up the spout of your rifle ready to mete out death and destruction," said Denne. "Every time we walk out that gate, all of Canada walks with us. And I don't think Canadians would be particularly impressed if we were going out in any other way than we are right now." Both soldiers convicted for the incidents in Afghanistan - one from November Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, and the other from Para Company - - are on their first overseas tours. Both pleaded guilty to the charge of neglect or conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The soldier who fired off three rounds while exiting his Iltis vehicle in downtown Kabul also received seven days of extra work and drill on top of his fine, a hefty sum for a low-paid private. "He's lucky," said Denne. "He's extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt or killed an innocent civilian." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:55:48 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Up in arms in Kabul: Canadian soldiers convicted in accidental gun > "He's lucky," said Denne. "He's extraordinarily lucky. Exceedingly lucky. He > could have hurt or killed one of our soldiers but, worse, he could have hurt > or killed an innocent civilian." I see even our illustrious "Armed Forces" (such as they are) subscribe to the "cooda cooda cooda" chant of the socialists... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:59:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: Fw: Sun Tips nail Five Bad Guys.. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Falls To: bdavidson@wpgsun.com Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:23 PM Subject: Sun Tips nail Five Bad Guys.. Sun Tips Nail Five Bad Guys.. .You could nail a lot more if you printed their pictures. How about a new section called "Nuke a Puke" that provides photos and a running score sheet until they are caught. Include addresses of known hangouts. Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:01:34 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: Fw: Amendments to the FA; CFDv6n442 dated 3 Sep 03 "The disposal options available for public agencies would be clarified." I guess someone with a good memory thought of the rumoured transfer of surplus DND Brens, Lee Enfields and .303 in cartridges via third parties to the "Muj" in the 'Ghan in the early 1980s. Wouldn't do to have all of our ComSymp Pinkos in their ivory towers discover that the Cdn Govt allegedly armed the dushmen of Afghanistan against the liberation forces of the - at the time - world's premier worker's paradise. Goodness no. The Commies across the pond may be on the rocks, but the ones here are still calling the shots. Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:05:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Five Questions > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:59:31 -0600 (CST) > From: The Jordan's > Subject: Help with answers please > 1. What kind of license? > 2. Who may qualify for ownership? > 3. Safe storage law will stay as is, is that OK? > 4. Any other issue you can add here. > 5. What about registration, what to do with existing data if it is dropped? 1) As we all know the number of unlicensened owners exceeds the number of licensed. Obviously if they have risked not getting a license they believe it is unacceptable. If you consider the opinion of all gun owner groups none that I know of has polled their members to determine there position on licensing so answers to these questions are totally at the whim of their leadership. I am a member of CUFOA, LUFA,COHA the NS Federation of Anglers and Hunters and a former member of the NFA. Although my membership in the NFA has lapsed they have preformed something similar to a stock split. Instead of being removed from their lists I am now two members. The NFA has never asked me my opinion on licensing yet the PFCS clearly supports it. The OFAH has been clear in their support. These groups represent a very small portion of gun owners. Rather than rely on numbers derived from gun group lists simply accept that some of the owners that have licensed did it under duress and do not accept it. Owners that want licensing are clearly in a minority. The majority does not want it and it must be gotten rid of. I will accept an FAC that is permanent and revoked only by a judge.This is not the old FAC it is more than any of the two old ones. I do not need my background checked every 5 years. If I exhibit unacceptable behavior then remove my FAC at that time along with all the firearms in my possession. There is no justification for the five year period outside of taxation. To obtain an FAC a background check of behavior is all that is necessary. Make no mistake, as our numbers decline the ease of controlling us will increase. The government needs to be taught that when attacked we have a severe bite. If we allow them to make further encroachments on us with impunity future governments will risk further even more repressive measures. We have to make them fear us. Demand more than they will give you and take less than what they want should be our motto. We have been collectively embarrassing them since the auditor generals report and we still ask them what they will accept? It time to shake our heads! Tell them we will accept their unconditional surrender!! At present we are in a position to shape current political climate, lets not ask what it is, but what we want it to be. 2) How old is old enough to use a knife? If our children are proficient and responsible in the use of a firearm they are old enough to own it. In past our children were aware what the business end of a firearm could do because their elders taught them. Now that is not necessarily the case. If it is not then safety courses may be deemed acceptable. 3) Safe storage is linked to the above. As the father of a seven year old safe storage is an issue to me. His training with a BB gun is underway but not complete. His friends of various ages and proficiency levels move freely through my house. Safe storage is my responsibility. Others may have no children or others in their home and safe storage may be a loaded rifle on the mantle. The storage laws as written are simply a tool to remove firearms from legitimate owners. A very effective confiscation mechanism. At the minimum they need severe loosening. If we returned to the old ways where we are each responsible for our actions they are totally unnecessary. Safe storage education should be include with any courses and irresponsibility only, should be punished. 4) Confiscation of firearms has been knowingly ongoing for years before C-68. As an example when firearms are associated with marijuana confiscation invariably occurs. The government needs to move away from their war on firearms owners and confiscate only for legitimate reason. Threat of violence is the only legitimate reason not storage or any other of the other confiscation mechanisms they can dream up when they see fit. 5) We all know the information in the registry is trash and we all know where that goes. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 21:07:12 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordan's Subject: Re: gun shy - was Help with answers please Joe (et al...): In response to your email for "gun shy" folks... Q: Who am I? A: I coordinated the Fed-Up II rally here in BC. I have been involved in the issue for many many years. A search of the archives of the Canadian Firearms Digest will turn up literally hundreds of emails by me (Linda Jordan - a.k.a. Kali). Q: What is my "agenda"? A: I have NO agenda other than that of the battle for rights and freedoms - - including those of gun owners/users and future generations - which I believe we all have an obligation to contribute to. I am good at "coordinating" (and trouble-shooting) - and this is what I am doing now. AND - - I normally only involve myself in worthwhile causes. If you want to know more - email me directly. Q: Who am I assisting? Can I reveal who this information goes to and if not why not? A: The quick answer is "no" - I cannot reveal the name of the person this information will go to. BUT - there is more that I 'can' tell those who are hesitant to reply (gun shy folks). As my original post said "I still have no idea where our bottom line is, what do we want, and not want...... I need, want, a sort of list, objectives, a target to shoot for, and not the sky either.....;" and of the very bottom line of "what we would settle for?" I cannot reveal the name of the person because of political reasons, but also because it would jeopardize any information that is gathered. I can tell you this person is an ex-MP (I often refer to this person as my political guru/mentor - I have gained considerable knowledge on politics via this person). I can also tell you that this person is one of the "elites" (as are the entire large family), and moves with ease among all the "big players". As such this person has access to a "back door" (if you want to call it that) which means they are in a position to present the results in a way that they will be heard - - and even more importantly in a way they will be given consideration to. (Front door proposals and objections have not worked - so let's try something different.) As I indicated previously, I know there has been considerable discussion on this topic in this forum and others. I also know other "proposals" have been done by some organizations but I tend to consider them "suspect" since most organizations have self-interest as their bottom line. I do not believe anyone has ever compiled clear responses though, even with all the hype - nor has anyone come up with a solid workable "acceptable" solution. Government must be presented with a "win-win" solution or, as the saying goes, "it ain't gonna happen". As for the actual emails of those replying - they do not go beyond my inbox. The "replies" will be compiled and analyzed and that information will go to the person I am assisting. Results will also go to this forum and others. Further additional questions may be asked if warranted and determined necessary. In addition - all those responding may receive a further email from me with the results and asking for a yay or nay on the 'bottom line' that may be derived from the results. If you have friends who remain "gun shy" - then by all means have them forward their reply to you and you can forward it to me minus any identifying info. I hope to reach a very wide range of people (including non-gunowners) in order to obtain as clear view as possible and to try to derive a "solid workable 'acceptable' solution" that will leave us all as winners. Keep in mind that the Liberals, in enacting the Firearms Act, did not 'need' to negotiate. They DO NOT have these answers that I seek, because they never negotiated or sought a bottom line on what was/is acceptable. Even with all they hype - they STILL don't have the answers to this. In fact - if you had to answer the question face to face with someone "what is it you people will settle for, realistically" could you answer it, after all the debates and discussions? It is the old spin and saw familiar to all Canadians, "what does Quebec want?" Even when we know what "we" (as individuals) want - is it acceptable to others also? Even your hunting buddy or partner may not agree with your views. So, pre-bottom line is that we need a 'collective' response to the questions. Hopefully I can coordinate the many opinions and views, and with help, they can by analyzed and compiled to a list, which I may then send out again to "everyone and anyone who contributed to it" for a vote for or against the final result. THEN and only then will we have some leverage with our proposals and be in a position to negotiate in good faith. And ALL OF US can "collectively" state that "this is what we want". So I ask again for help to reach a target - our bottom line - and something we can all shoot for. Again.... the questions are.... 1. What kind of license? (or 'certificate' of competence or...?) 2. Who may qualify for ownership? 3. Safe storage law will stay as is, is that OK? 4. Any other issue you can add here. 5. What about registration, what to do with existing data if it is dropped? Replies to: freefall7@shaw.ca Linda ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:52:21 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Binns Tories coast to historic victory http://pei.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=peelec_majority20030929 Binns Tories coast to historic victory WebPosted Sep 29 2003 09:12 PM EDT CHARLOTTETOWN- Premier Pat Binns has earned a place in modern political history, winning three straight majority governments, giving up just four of 27 seats to the Liberals under upstart leader Robert Ghiz. Despite the hurricane that knocked out power to tens of thousands of households and forced many voters to cast their ballots by candlelight, 83 per cent of eligible voters turned up at polling stations. That's down just three percentage points from 2000, and on par with previous elections. Tory supporters carried 54-year-old Binns into party headquarters, where he was greeted with warm hugs and by an elderly woman who grabbed him on his way to the podium for a victory dance. "This is indeed a historic night. That's three wins in a row for the PC party of P.E.I.," Binns told a cheering crowd at his district headquarters in Murray River. "This happened because we had great support and a terrific campaign organization right across the province." Liberal Leader Robert Ghiz helped increase his party's share of the vote by 8.6 per cent, and says hard work made it happen. "We knew the Tories were throwing everything at us but the kitchen sink. But you did it," the 29-year-old leader told party supporters, who celebrated in a former bank in downtown Charlottetown. The newly minted leader, who was elected to the top job of the provincial party last April, also had a message for the government: "We're going to be there to hold you accountable for the next four years." Binns says he's not intimidated by a stronger Opposition, and looks forward to hearing from the Liberals. "We look forward to their input and their suggestions and just because they're the Opposition and we're the government doesn't mean we can't work together," he says. "Our sole goal here is to make Prince Edward Island the best place to live and we will work very hard at that." Tories celebrated the victory at party headquarters, relieved they had met their goal so quickly on election night. Party strategist Darren Peters says the easy win is a vote of confidence in the leader. "We've worked hard over the past six and a half years to provide good, solid responsible government to the province of Prince Edward Island and I feel that we've done that." Binns promises to hire more nurses and teachers, saying the province can compete for the best talent the country has to offer. "We'll take a backseat to nobody," he says. The party has not accomplished three straight wins since 1865. The Tories have captured 54 per cent of the popular vote, down 3.6 per cent from their standing in the last election. That loss bled over to the Liberal Party, which increased its vote share by 8.8 per cent over the 2000 general election to 42.8 per cent. The NDP had 3.2 per cent. Tory candidates George MacDonald, Bobby MacMillan and Norman MacPhee lost their districts to rookie Liberals. Progressive Conservative candidate Donna Butler also couldn't beat longtime Liberal Ron MacKinley. The win seals Binns' career as one of the most popular premiers in the country. Binns has promised this will be his last election, so Tory strategists are already looking around the party for the person who can take over the controls. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #526 ********************************** 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.