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 #831 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 Thursday, January 15 2004 Volume 06 : Number 831 In this issue: Letter: Need more police to better protect our seniors Letter: Gun registry a money pit ISSUANCE OF FIREARMS TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Conservative Party. THIS DESPITE SEVEN DECADES IF MANDATORY HANDGUN REGISTRATION Police Chief playing politics re: Smear of Target stores Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #830 Pumping M1 Garand CFC REPLY: "FACT SHEET ON EXPORTING A FIREARM" [none] Re: Inquiring minds want to know The irony of it all ! Licensing Vs FAC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:06:45 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Police Chief playing politics With the realization that we've been had, a majority of Canadians are calling to scrap the wasteful and ineffective gun registry. Not coincidentally, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is scrambling to salvage the very abomination they helped create. CACP president Edgar MacLeod's open letter to the Globe and Mail hashes up the same spin-doctoring that convinced legislators to push through this bad law over 10 years ago. In using selected data from 2002, Chief MacLeod manages to hide some significant facts in order to paint a rosy picture for the floundering registry. While ".. incidents involving firearms, ranging from homicide to domestic violence and suicide, are the lowest in 30 years", we should know that, of the 149 gun killings that year, handguns accounted for two-thirds, up from about one-half during the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990. The gun murder rate has fluctuated quite a bit over the past 30 years. There have been times before long-gun registration that gun murders were about as low as they are now and periods after registration where they have risen. Despite MacLeod's platitudes, 23% more women were killed by their partners in 2001 than were killed the previous year. So who's numbers are we supposed to believe? Consider this; in August of 1997, the CACP issued press statements claiming that long-gun registration was necessary because analysis of RCMP data showed that 52% of firearms "found at crime scenes" or "in more than half of the criminal incidents" were rifles and shotguns. Both Ottawa police Chief Brian Ford and Winnipeg's Chief David Cassels (known supporters of Canada's anti-gun lobby) even went so far as to say the the firearms were "used" in those incidents. Trouble is, the RCMP had refuted this Justice Department spin of their data six months earlier when the Coalition for Gun Control asked them to authenticate the analysis. Rather than the 623 firearms claimed in the biased study, at most 73 firearms could actually be viewed as "involved" in the incidents - - the majority being unrelated gun collections recovered during investigations. Despite RCMP concerns over this gross misrepresentation of facts, CACP representatives continue to promote this view and cited similar findings during a Justice Committee hearing on November 24th, 1997 and at every opportunity leading up to the Alberta Court of Appeal constitutional challenge that September. More recently, Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan (a CACP vice-president) claimed that; "Every day it's a problem for us", that "these guns are commonly used in crimes" and "place police officers and citizens in danger every day". Neither these claims nor the effectiveness of registration are supported by fact. Some of the less politically motivated police leaders are finally speaking out. Just ask Toronto Police Chief Fantino what he thinks of the registry and where he'd rather see the money spent. Other police forces are voicing similar concerns. Even Chief Bevan has gone on record with concerns over lack of front-line police funding. It appears that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is on a different agenda. Barry Glasgow 4041 Torbolton Ridge Rd. Woodlawn, Ontario 613-763-3097 (w) 613-832-2449 (h) ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:39:09 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: re: Smear of Target stores I do not know if the following article is TRUE. Perhaps we should check it out for authenticity before this is passed about. Perhaps it is corporate sabotage by some unknown individual or competing corporation. It seems too vicious to be true. Yours in tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox, Sask., - -------------------------------------- From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca]On Behalf Of C. Dillabough Sent: January 14, 2004 6:48 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Subject: Target stores Subject: target stores > By Dick Forrey of the Vietnam Veterans Association > > Recently we asked the local TARGET store to be a proud sponsor of the > Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during our spring recognition event. We > received the following reply from the local TARGET management: "Veterans > do not meet our area of giving. We only donate to the arts, social action > groups, gay & lesbian causes, and education." So I'm thinking, if the > Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall and veterans in general do not meet their > donation criteria, then something is really wrong at this TARGET store. We > were not asking for thousands of dollars, not even hundreds, just a small > sponsorship for a memorial remembrance. > > As a follow-up, I e-mailed the TARGET U.S. corporate headquarters and > their response was the same. That's their national policy. Then I looked > into the company further. They will not allow the > Marines to collect for "Toys for Tots" at any of their stores. And during > the recent Iraq deployment, they would not allow families of employees who > were called up for active duty to continue their insurance coverage while > they were on military service. > > Then as I dig further, TARGET is a French-owned corporation. Now, I'm > thinking again. If TARGET can not support American Veterans, then why > should I and my family support their stores by spending our hard earned > American dollars and to have their profits sent to France. Without the > American Vets, where would France be today? Feel free to pass this along > to whomever you want. > > Sincerely, > Dick Forrey > Veterans helping Veterans > - ------------------------------ It is a scam! moderator1@hitchen.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:44:23 -0600 (CST) From: John at Marstar Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #830 At 11:05 AM 1/15/04 -0600, you wrote: >Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, January 15 2004 Volume 06 : Number 830 >In this issue: > Letter: We'll never be able to stop illegal guns > Letter: There is no such thing as a M-1 rifle which is "pumped." > Editorial: A cowardly solution to Kanesatake strife > Editorial: The rule of law is for all Canadians > Editorial: From Oka to Kanesatake > Column: Shine a light on native politics > STOLEN JAG HAD GUN IN TRUNK > Editor (Three dozen guns including semi-automatic pistols and two > More police, get tough on drug dealers, forum told > >------------------------------ > >Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:37:57 -0600 (CST) >From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Letter: There is no such thing as a M-1 rifle which is "pumped." > >PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Sun >DATE: 2004.01.15 >EDITION: Final >SECTION: Comment >PAGE: 14 >BYLINE: OTTAWA SUN >COLUMN: Letters to the Editor > >RE "YOUR help puts crooks in focus" (Jan. 11): While this was a good news >piece, it did suffer from a glaring mistake, one that I have seen so often >that I couldn't keep silent on it for one second longer. >"The career criminal, who used a sawed-off M-1 rifle during several >robberies and occasionally pumped the gun before pointing it at a terrified >teller, was nabbed by police in North Bay after a Sun reader recognized his >picture." >There is no such thing as a M-1 rifle which is "pumped." This isn't >nitpicking, this goes right to the heart of the credibility of the story, >the author and the newspaper. Who can believe a story in which whole >sentences are about things which do not exist, or do exist but bear little >resemblance to the way they are described? >My advice would be that the current unwritten rule about "describe the gun >in intimate detail to add drama to the story" should be replaced with "If >you don't know the facts, or the facts are irrelevant to the storyline, >leave them out so the media doesn't keep losing credibility." >Which is more important, drama or truth? >Tyrone Lindley >Fort St. John, B.C. >Editor (The error in question occurred because the crook in question used >several different guns that were accidentally conflated in the article) For what it's worth, both the M-1 carbine and the M-1 Garand were offered in repeater (pump action) in many countries that do not permit semi automatic rifles.... Several years ago we remanufactured large numbers of both firearms for sale in the UK. I understand that some were imported into Canada in the 1990s. Regards John - --=====================_17617085==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 11:05 AM 1/15/04 -0600, you wrote: Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, January 15 2004 Volume 06 : Number 830 In this issue: Letter: We'll never be able to stop illegal guns Letter: There is no such thing as a M-1 rifle which is "pumped." Editorial: A cowardly solution to Kanesatake strife Editorial: The rule of law is for all Canadians Editorial: From Oka to Kanesatake Column: Shine a light on native politics STOLEN JAG HAD GUN IN TRUNK Editor (Three dozen guns including semi-automatic pistols and two More police, get tough on drug dealers, forum told - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 10:37:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Pumping M1 Garand "Pumping his M1 Garand" fits right in with the ignorance of writers and the press in general regarding firearms....... Other such gaffes are references to "service revolvers" when describing issue semi-automatic pistols, "moving the safety catch of revolvers" (author Ian Fleming of James Bond fame), "semi-automatic assault rifle" to describe a Remington or Browning semi-auto sporter, "thousands of rounds of ammo found along with arsenal of weapons" when describing a man's modest collection of target and hunting rifles, reloading equipment and 2 bricks of .22 lr ammo, etc., etc. If the individual in the story was "pumping the action" of whatever gun he was brandishing, he was telling the world that it was unloaded unless he was showering the floor with ejected rounds. Common sense and a modicum of firearms awareness training could have lessened the anxiety generated in the victims by this theatrical "pumping". Might have been more effective to fire a live round into the floor or ceiling to make his point. Guess he didn't want to hurt anyone...... Todd Birch ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:53:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: [none] >Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:43:48 -0600 (CST) >From: John Howat >Subject: "Gun Deaths" > > >Professor Tim Quigley (Facts show new firearms program worthwhile SP, Jan. > >8) quoted a statistic of 131 firearm deaths in 1989 (peak) compared to 32 > >deaths in 2002. > > > > >Death is death so that is a quotation of little value. The question must >be "How many lives were taken unlawfully in 1989 compared with the >numbers taken unlawfully in 2002" and a second question should be "What >proportion of the victims were themselves involved in major crime" >Cheers >John Howat. > >------------------------------ >And how many fatal suicides are a result of government policy! > Last I heard it was in the 10's of times as many as there were homicides etc! Very few of the suicides were with firearms! > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:55:55 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: Inquiring minds want to know On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Linda J. wrote: > We finally have an opportunity to have our concerns addressed and > opinions considered. Let's not lose it. I doubt that Linda. This so-called "review" is just a tactic to get them throught the next election. They want to appeal to both sides. If the Liberals get re-elected (which is highly likely), they will pour another billion into the registry sinkhole without batting an eye. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:58:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Karl Schrader" Subject: The irony of it all ! The Firearms Act is balancing on the edge of a cliff and will eventually go over the edge and down into a deep canyon. Now, the irony mentioned in the subject line is that this precarious situation is caused by money problems and not by "sober second thoughts" of legislators who were forced to pass this piece of garbage-legislation, led to believe it would only cost $ 2 million. Ironic, is it not, that legislation like that might fall because of monetary considerations and not that is is blatantly unjust and ineffective??? Only in Canada, you say?? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:36:17 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Licensing Vs FAC In Canada we have been subjected to three increasingly restrictive firearms control laws in the past several decades, culminating with the Firearms Act. Realistically, we must assume that this is an identifiable trend that will continue in future. Licensing is one of the new components of firearms law included in the Firearms Act. From a variety of sources we have determined that licensing has been responsible for the bulk of the costs associated with the act to date. Even the staunchest advocates of "firearms control", the Coalition for Gun Control, admit as much. Given the disparity between the costs of the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate and the new license it is reasonable to question what benefits are derived from that added cost. The government, in an attempt to justify these cost differences, has attempted to mislead the public into the belief that safety training, safe storage and the necessity of background checks did not exist without the new act, when, in fact, they did. Licensing requires a background check and safety training that includes what constitutes safe storage under the law. These requirements were in effect before the licensing requirement rendering licensing redundant for these three purposes. The FAC is not a license. It is, essentially, evidence that a background check has occurred, insuring an individual has not been deemed a threat to public safety and therefore, cannot be denied the right to purchase a firearm. With the introduction of a license the issue of rights versus privileges arises. If private ownership is accepted as a licensed activity, it will result in moving what was previously a right into the realm of privilege. Before this situation is accepted by gun owners they must ask themselves if it will contribute to the government's increasingly restrictive policy in regards to firearms ownership. The United States have a constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. That right is continually subjected to challenges as to its validity and intent. Rights themselves are subject to limitations. Individuals are also guaranteed the right to life in the United States but that right can be removed when that individual takes another's life. What then is the difference if firearms ownership is a right or a privilege? In the case of rights the burden of proof rests with the state in the denial of those rights. In the case of privileges the burden of proof shifts to the individual. If it is a right to own firearms the state must prove grounds for the denial of that right. If it is a privilege individuals must prove they should not be denied ownership. In the case of South Africa licenses have been denied, not on the basis of a perceived threat to public safety but for a number of unrelated reasons, lack of need being included in the reasons. In Canada, ownership of some firearms can be denied if a need is not demonstrated. These are cases where the burden of proof rests with the individual. The supremacy of rights versus privileges, in the retention of the private ownership of firearms in Canada, is obvious even if that right is difficult to retain and subject to restrictions as it is in the United States. Do Canadians have the right to firearms ownership? The English Bill of Rights provided the right to English citizens. The preamble to the British North America Act extended that right to Canadians. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed the continuation of these rights. Our situation is similar to that of the Americans. American courts continue to debate the meaning and intent of the words written into the constitution in regards to the right to bear arms. In Canada, section one of the Charters of rights and freedoms allows latitude in the interpretation of rights. The fact that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada are appointed opens it up to questions of its impartiality in the interpretation of these rights. That same court has revisited past Supreme Court decisions and has revamped them in light of current social conditions thereby demonstrating the subjectivity of their decisions. There is no reason to believe that present decisions will not be opened up for scrutiny at a future date. We do have a right to own firearms even if current judicial, political and social conditions do not favor it. Separate from these written rights is the fact that Canadians have traditionally owned firearms without benefit of licensing. In fact, they have done so for the duration of the existence of this nation up until the implementation of the Firearms Act. If it did not require a license, was it not, in effect, a right? The fact that many organizations, that exist to protect the ownership of firearms and the hunting activities that occur with them, would surrender the right so readily demonstrates their lack of suitably to defend against further encroachments on gun ownership. A defense on their part, that public opinion dictates the necessity of the acceptance of licensing amounts to nothing more than a surrender of responsibility. Public opinion as the Supreme Court of Canada has demonstrated is fluid. As licensing has not been proven to enhance public safety their job is to appraise the public of the situation and reject with all the resources at their disposal this unnecessary encroachment. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #831 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:moderator@hitchen.org 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.