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 #836 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, January 17 2004 Volume 06 : Number 836 In this issue: Re: Belinda Stronach Human/Civil Rights Harper Prime Minister in Prince Albert [none] Letter: Citizens catching on to gun registry waste Column: JUST ME, MY GUN AND MY MISSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:36:59 -0600 (CST) From: "Yannis Marine" Subject: Re: Belinda Stronach - ----- Original Message ----- From: "paul chicoine" To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 10:20 PM Subject: re: Belinda Stronach > > As are many people, I am a tad suspicious when someone with a lot of money > and connections but little political experience steps up to the leadership > plate of a newly minted political party. > > > This seems a little desperate, an attempt to add some wow to what is shaping > up to be a clone of the liberal leadership. These suggestions about > Stronach's morality however are just over the edge. > > > She is an unknown quantity. Lets see what she has to add to the debate. > Assuming the platform remains acceptable to the stated political cause of > this forum, the requirement is for a candidate who can take votes across the > country. The goal is to win the election. > > > Realize, it wasn't that long ago that Harper was getting flack from this > digest for his original stand on the Firearms Act. Things change. > __________ > Paul Chicoine > Non Assumsit Contract : All Rights Reserved : Without Prejudice > > All I know with my limitations is that she is not a lawyer. That does not mean, she can't lie. I would support her only if she was a gun owner. ...and that's that..... Yanni Take your boaters exam online at www.yannismarine.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:04:42 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Subject: Human/Civil Rights "Al Muir" wrote: > Rick if you go back and read what I wrote you will find that I said their > right was tenuous. I hope not to many missed my point. The difference > between them and us is that they will none the less continue to fight for it > rather than surrender it without a whimper as many of us appear to be > willing to do I see it a little differently. Most Americans, in most parts of the country, enjoy a fairly strong interpretation of the Second Amendment. But try claiming your Second Amendment rights in Washington DC. The issue is simple to me - do Americans really have a right because exercise of that right is PERMITTED someplace like Wyoming but not in Washington DC. Do you really have a right if you have to be in a specific part of the country before the government permits you to exercise that right? I think not. In comparison, look at the First Amendment. Is there a single American state or territory where freedom of religion is NOT allowed? That is what a right is all about. When a right is only extended to some citizens by fiat of the government, it is not a right, it is a priviledge. That right is continually subjected to challenges as to its validity and intent. There it is, you put it on your post yourself No Al, you wrote that. The confusion is understandable; it seems the mail server is crunching posts again. > Yes I am a protestant and yes at this point my 308 Browning BLR is still > allowed by law. It has not been deemed prohibited to this point but if we > continue to roll over without a fight as we have been doing it is only a > matter of time before it is. Which leads me to repeat that we DON'T have a recognized right to bear arms. If only Protestants can bear arms - subject to whatever laws are enacted - then it isn't a right, it is a priviledge reserved for one specific religion, moderated by whatever laws a duly elected Parliament chooses to pass. Like classification of firearms, registration, confiscation of some, etc... You don't have a RIGHT to own that firearm (any more than I do my firearms); you have a priviledge that the government has not yet removed. I believe that it is our God given rights to own firearms or just about any other conceivably imaginable kind of property. Now all we have to do is convince the society we live in that belief is valid. > Then good men and women would fight for the right rather then rolling over > and wining about not having it Yeah, they might fight to establish that or any other right. But the fact they may - or may not - does not mean the right exists. In comparison, a real, guaranteed, unequivicable right Canadians have is the right to vote or the freedom to leave and enter Canada as you see fit. Having said that, human beings do not have rights because a list of aggrieved persons or ambitious politicians wrote a Constitution, a Civil Code, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or whatever. We have rights because we exist as human beings, because God gave all men those rights, or whatever flavour of that concept floats your boat. The problem arises when we live in society with other human beings and have to convince them that the right should be protected in law and the enforcement of that law. Courts and legislatures will enforce even unpopular rights once enough citizens have agreed to codify them, but until that point you are pissing into the wind. We claim our right to keep and bear arms, the NAMBLA guys claim their right to have sex with children, the dopers claim their right to grow and use marijuana. Some of us are undoubtably right, others cannot make any reasonable argument to support what they are claiming as a "right". The common thread between all of us is that none of us have yet been able to convince a significant majority of Canadians that the right we are claiming exists and should be protected in law. I suspect the dopers will have their right recognized long before our right to bear arms is recognized. Insert my last sentence here That's no answer nor a persuasive argument. If Catholics have to fight for the right to run for election and hold public office, then the document that lays out that collection of "rights" is deeply flawed. It can be easily pointed out that if it can hold so gross an error as to discriminate against people by virtue of their religion, then its' claim to the right to bear arms for a select religious group is also in error. You can fight for a right enumerated in that or any other article, document, treatse, etc and hope to gain recognition and protection of that right. But the fact it happened to appear in a document does not mean it exists. > Not I Rick, but others, notably Catholics may assist you in arguing the > point if you wish to take up the task of having the injustice against them > corrected.. I believe if you reread my submission you will see that > governments and the highest courts review their decisions over time. It doesn't even come to that. It is quite simple - if a "right" is only extended to a select few due to their station in life, religion, skin color, or whatever, then it isn't a right, it is a government granted priviledge that is mostly characterized as an example of discrimination against much of the population, not of rights. In short, I reject any document that bases my right to bear arms or run for public office on a requirement that I become Protestant. That is a document of slavery, not a document for free men. The English Bill of Rights served an important purpose in ending the Divine Right of Kings and moving towards recognition of rights. It was a start - but it was deeply flawed and its' "rights" are inconsistent. And while governments frequently reverse themselves in the flipflopping between elections, I have yet to see an example of the Supreme Court reversing itself in Canada. In the US, yes, but not in Canada. Courts discern - which is why many decisions go on for pages and pages, establishing distinctions while applying the doctrine of stare decisis. Your submission implies that the SCC reviews and reverses their decisions over time; I have yet to see any evidence that this happens. > Judges have political leanings. Better they are human beings with political leanings than they assume the political leanings of the supporters who bankrolled their election and re-election campaigns. Elected judges is a case of "justice" too easily bought. Great system if you have enough money to buy office for your own judge, but I doubt few of us here have access to that kind of money. > Rick you will have to go back to the issue when it previously posted on the > digest. I unfortunately do not have the time to assist you in that > particular matter in relation to specifics. If you do take the time I would > appreciate your providing it to myself, as our discussion points out the > possible benefits of expansion of my original post. I have never seen an example of the SCC reversing itself, and I have never seen an example of that appearing on this Digest. So I won't be wasting my time looking for something I don't believe exists. One reason this is a particular point of interest to me is, back in my university days when we were discussing constitutional law is that our profs pointed out that, historically, the SCC did not reverse itself. The problem that immediately impressed upon me is that if the SCC came out with a bad decision, the country was stuck with it until such time as the government made a fundamental change in the related legislation. Not so hard to do when you're dealing with something like a specific section of the Criminal Code - but something else again when you're dealing with a Charter ruling. So, in the US where you see the Supreme Court backing away from the earlier, extreme interpretations arising out of the Miranda and Escobedo rulings to a more reasonable interpretation of a suspect's rights, errors in decisions are being corrected. The way the SCC has historically operated, that wouldn't happen and you're stuck with very bad law. > Covered above No Al. Simply declaring the English Bill of Rights gives us the right to bear arms does not make it so. That's like MacLellan saying "The debate is over". Claiming that right based on a law that tied rights to religious affiliation is grasping at straws at the very best. > Recognition is the exact problem Rick.You somehow have the impression that > rights are something that are written and immutable when in fact they are > ideals that require continuous struggle to maintain. You have simply pointed > out that there are activities that people do not fell strongly enough about > to fight for No. I'm pointing out that you may think we have the right to bear arms, and the NAMBLA guy may think he has the right to sodomize little boys. But while we live in the society of man, until we convince that society to codify and protect those rights, the only place those rights exist is in our minds and those of like minded individuals. I don't imagine too many people here would lose any sleep to see a NAMBLA member in jail for attempting to exercise his rights. Well there also happens to be a large number of Canadians who would have no problem whatsoever with seeing firearms owners in jail for attempting to exercise the right they believe in to bear arms. Drug dealers fight all the time for the right to sell drugs - the act of fighting for the ability to do something doesn't mean it's a right. I have already been over this You have; but simply stating something is so does not make it so. I have yet to see any explanation of how a "right" that only applies to a specific religious group - and conditional upon whatever laws Parliament may pass regarding that "right" is anything other than another set of handcuffs. > Rick we have no permanent rights we only have what we can take from the > collective when we can. What that is today may not necessarily be what it is > tomorrow. Wrong. We have specific permanent rights that cannot be removed even through the operation of a "notwithstanding" clause. They are enumerated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The right to freely enter and leave Canada is just one example. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:08:10 -0600 (CST) From: Gordon@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Hitchen@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Harper January 16, 2004 The Campaign is Launched ! On Monday January 12, Stephen Harper launched his leadership bid for the Conservative Party of Canada. More than 700 Harper supporters gathered at Lansdowne Park in Ottawa to cheer and celebrate the launch of the One Conservative Voice campaign. Stephen Harper announced with a bang that he is seeking to be the Leader of the new and united Conservative force. "The next federal election begins today. Only two years ago I came to our nation's capital as a leadership candidate. Back then we were a caucus divided. Today we are a caucus united. You have told me, loud and clear, that you do not want conservative to fight conservative any longer. You want us to fight the Liberals and not each other. It's time for unity. That is what I have delivered, and that is what I will continue to deliver. Because we have an election coming, I have no time to fight other conservatives. I want to take on the Paul Martin Liberals," said Mr. Harper to a room full of cheering supporters. Stephen Harper enjoys the support of the vast majority of the former Canadian Alliance caucus, at least a third (and counting) of the former Progressive Conservative caucus, and many prominent Conservatives from various regions of Canada. Stephen Harper's leadership campaign will be co-chaired by John Reynolds, former Opposition House Leader, Interim Opposition Leader, and Speaker of the BC Legislature, and by Michael Fortier, long-time PC activist in Québec, and former Progressive Conservative leadership candidate. Mr. Harper has now launched his leadership tour, with visits this week to Fredericton, Halifax, and Brandon. See the One Conservative Voice website for detailed event information. Contact the Campaign! The Harper campaign has officially opened two offices - one in Calgary, and one in Ottawa: National Campaign Headquarters 610 - 130 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4 Telephone: (613) 232-8050 Calgary Fundraising Office Suite 167, #104 - 1240 Kensington Road NW Calgary, Alberta T2N 3P7 Telephone: (403) 266-4451 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:55:58 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Prime Minister in Prince Albert After Action Report Liberty Demonstration in Prince Albert Arriving early to stakeout the Marlboro Hotel where Prime Minister Paul Martin would be greeting members of the Prince Albert Liberal Party faithful, the CUFOA demonstrators were treated to a full dress rehearsal of the arrival of a head of government - sniffer dogs checking parked cars for explosives, streets being quickly and efficiently blocked off, and five freshly washed sedans arriving simultaneously with security agents jumping out to usher in their charge. But after an hour and a half of waiting, the body temperature of the demonstrators was slowing being to approach the ambient temperature of (-) 16 degrees Celsius. Just before the Prime Minister's arrival, the RCMP security very politely ushered the demonstrators across the street "as is customary." Precisely as practiced, the five sedans all stopped at the Hotel entrance en masse. As Mr Martin's entourage quickly exited the vehicles and formed a path to the hotel entrance, Mr Martin indicated that he wished to speak with the demonstrators, and his entire group crossed the street. As Joe Gingrich shook hands with Mr Martin, Joe reminded the Prime Minister that they had previously met in Halifax in July, and added that he was still waiting for the Prime Minister to repeal of the Firearms Act. Mr Martin then asked why Jack Wilson was out on such a cold night. Jack responded that he too, wanted the Firearms Act repealed and his Liberty restored. Turning to Ed Hudson, Mr Martin stated that the "program was under review." Ed responded, "Mr Prime Minister, the program doesn't need a review; it needs to be repealed, now." Mr Martin added that the Firearms Act "does have it's supporters," to which Ed replied, "The Firearms Act violates the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Canadians. The FAC system provided security without violating our Rights and Freedoms." And then, as quickly as it began, the discussion was over. It was a class act on the part of the Prime Minister. One can understand why this man brings a promise of change. Now if only Mr Martin would fulfill that hope. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:59:13 -0600 (CST) From: Hayes Holdings Consulting Subject: [none] On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 23:04, Rick wrote: > I see it a little differently. Most Americans, in most parts of the country, > enjoy a fairly strong interpretation of the Second Amendment. But try claiming > your Second Amendment rights in Washington DC. The issue is simple to me - - do > Americans really have a right because exercise of that right is PERMITTED > someplace like Wyoming but not in Washington DC. Do you really have a right if > you have to be in a specific part of the country before the government permits > you to exercise that right? Interesting aside. Some of the people in DC are asserting their 2nd Amendment Right to own and carry in DC. _______________________________________ From:[concealcarry] Digest Number 2239 Date:16 Jan 2004 22:39:28 -0000 Message: 2 Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:25:47 -0800 From: "Molokai Advertiser-News (aka The MAN) George Peabody" Subject: gun Ordinance unconstitutional in VAHey, CCers: get a copy of this legal Opinion from Richmond, VA cityattorney! USE it 1!! Aloha Richmond VA council members:Please send to me a copy of your city attorney's legal Opinion declaring unconstitutional the gun Ordinance that requires a permit from police be obtained before purchasing a gun. I just read about your enlightened Opinion in an NRA publication called America's First Freedom issue for January 2004 in which it was stated:"No More Permits in Richmond? A Richmond, Va. city ordinance requiring people to obtain a permit from police prior to buying a gun has been deemed unconstitutional by the city attorney. Violation of the ordinance had been a Class I misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months injail and a fine of up to $2,500. The ordinance had been in effect since 1985."Is your Opinion available on a website? Or, maybe you can email to me the text of your Opinion by copy and paste the text of the Opinion from your computer into the body of email message REPLY to me ASAP ? Or, if not,please mail a hard copy to me. Thank your for supporting the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Keep up the good work !! mahalo,George Peabody c/o Molokai Advertiser-News http://www.MolokaiAdvertiserNews.com HC01 Box 770 KKaiMolokai, Hawaii 96748 ph. 808-558-8253 ______________________________________ Also, the NAMBLA issue being discussed cannot rationally fit within the concept of a "right". The subject of the NAMBLA member's desires (a child) is unable to properly consent (i.e. make a rationally informed and responsible decision) to the consequences of the "relationship" being sought. So the NAMBLA member's "right" to molest small children is no right at all (whether society chooses to accept it as a right or not). One cannot rationally claim a right to infringe on the rights of others. Very different situation for the marijuana users, firearms owners, those who wish to speak freely, those who wish to practice a certain religion, those who wish to keep and bear arms, etc. In the abstract, which is where rights are considered before they are applied directly, all of these parties are capable of making moral, informed, and rational decisions and are capable of accepting the consequences of those decisions. - -- Jason Hayes - Principal Hayes Holdings Consulting hh@hayz.ws - www.hayz.ws Blog: www.hayz.ws/blog Suite #1936 - 246 Stewart Green SW Calgary, AB, Canada T3H 3C8 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:00:44 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1