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 #862 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, January 25 2004 Volume 06 : Number 862 In this issue: [none] Re: HUBBY KILLER SPARED MORE JAIL PAL Reference Checks Coke Bottle Candidate Re: re. Mrs. Belinda Stronach #854 HAWN campaign [none] may/ shall Re:Mrs. Belinda Stronach #854 Dolighan Belinda Bandwagon Cartoon Re: Reference Checks overlooked Firearms businesses. Rights and Priviledges re: Belinda Brouhaha ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:09:07 -0600 (CST) From: Hayes Holdings Consulting Subject: [none] On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 10:41, Yannis Marine wrote: > As many as I've asked friends and fellow shooters none > of their references have been asked for information. > And as a fact nor mine neither my wife's My FAC expired recently and my references were not checked in the change over to a PAL. However, if I remember correctly, the FAC was deemed to be a PAL under the Firearms Act, so this was just a renewal. Renewals do not have the same level of scrutiny applied do they? - --=20 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, 24 Jan 2004 12:09:10 -0600 (CST) From: "jim davies" Subject: Re: HUBBY KILLER SPARED MORE JAIL > A woman who admitted to stabbing her husband to death while he was passed > out won't be going to jail but instead will serve her sentence at home. "If > her husband Bob could speak from the grave ... he would not want her > incarcerated," Justice Roydon Kealy said as he delivered his sentence > yesterday. Stages of seriousness in murder, as practiced in LIEberal courts: normal stage; perp walks medium media attention; perp walks, with complications medium high media attention; perp walks, as above, judge reduces use of mushy verbiage at sentencing. high media attention; as above, judge uses phrases that could be arguably construed as pointing finger of blame at perp. really high media attention, gender or multiculti angle [victim]; perp does some time, bloviated to high number by usual LIEberal judicial BS speak, judge cries. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:09:12 -0600 (CST) From: Phil Cottrell Subject: PAL Reference Checks My wife's PAL (restricted) has been approved and is in the post and no reference calls at all. Phil - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ On Jan 23, 2004, at 7:43 AM, M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) wrote: > Anyone else have similar experience? Not a single one of my references were called. I love how Wendy and co. seem to know how the CFC's money has been spent and on what parts of the program. Even the Auditor General couldn't tell you that I bet. - - -- darron froese ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:15:02 -0600 (CST) From: Phil Cottrell Subject: Coke Bottle Candidate "You don't gotta have smarts, or a degree in Poly-Sci, just charisma (whatever the hell that is), good 'optics' (I think that means you don't look through coke bottle lenses)" On the contrary, I propose "Bubbles" from Trailer Park Boys as a viable candidate in the next election. He opposes arbitrary use of authority (by that ex-cop park supervisor Lahey and his shirtless fat deputy) and supports Ricky and Julian's use of firearms. In fact, a good future episode could feature Lahey trying like mad to get a PAL and being persecuted by cops/CFC folk while Ricky and Julian blast away away with their semi-autos and grow their dope unhindered by regulation. Phil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:38:14 -0600 (CST) From: Hayes Holdings Consulting Subject: Re: re. Mrs. Belinda Stronach #854 On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 10:41, Joe Gingrich wrote: > The only way a practical gun control system will say what "we" want it to= =20 > say is if "we" guide the hands that fabricate the act. Firearms owners mu= st become active=20 > politically for this to happen. This means political contributions, > participating in political campaigns, voting, involvement in policy > making, involvement in leadership selection, understanding how to influen= > those who are elected, knowing where we should spend our energy and=20 > money and where it would be a wasteful. We need progun candidates and/or= > candidates that act progun. Writing a letter to a politician may have > little effect but communicating to a politician as a ... ...snip... >... your political=20 > concerns an active listening politician. Some call this political > leverage. Gun owners need lots of it. Folks on the digest; You should read and then reread this paragraph several times. I am not sure if people realize this, but the people who write policy do not operate in some upper class, illuminati, star chamber situation. The people that make policy and make things happen are (for the most) part average everyday people, who have put in the time and effort to make their veiw of the world into a reality. I was talking with the fellow who was key in getting the child tax credit passed while I was at the Belinda Stronach gathering in Calgary yesterday. He was a Calgary MP and has trod the halls of 'power' himself. He noted that he woke up one morning and decided that he was going to do "x", so he ran as a PC in his riding and won. He went to Ottawa with a goal in his head and he achieved that goal (despite the fact that Chretien has now tried to lay claim to that particular tax break as part of his "legacy"). Now you may not want to run for office yourselves, but you can get the attention of your MP, MLA, city alderman, etc. and make sure that they are aware of your concerns. Then you can keep their attention by letting them know that their constituents are watching and keeping record of their activities. Write letters to the editor, informing people in your town what your alderman/MLA/MP is doing. You want to impact policy? Make your elected officials very aware that they have a politically active and aware group of constituents, who are willing to hold their feet to the fire, should they do something stupid. Gather people with you, knock on doors if you need to and then get that group into the official's office. If you have five or ten (or more of you) in one riding that they know are willing to flyer neighborhoods, knock on doors, etc. then they will pay attention. Even better, as Joe noted above, find a candidate you agree with and get in there and help them get elected. Do that enough times, work hard enough, and guess what ... you'll be part of the "machine" the mysterious dark horse that sets policy and makes things happen. Just FYI, your elected representative will pay attention to the issues that are made issues by their constituents. Get enough of you together who will work to see them elected if they do what their constituents want, or turfed if they don't, and they will go to bat for you. Of course, if you would rather whinge and moan about how unfair everything is over coffee at work and then head home and drop everything to see who is ahead in the latest episode of Canadian Idol, you get what you deserve. Keep it up, the system is set up against you and there's nothing you can do. You're just a pawn in the great chess game of life. Those of us who will make a change will keep working, and you let us know who is crowned this "Idol" or that "Idol". - --=20 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 - --=-LKayBI9AFCr2pw6YWH4a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBAErg/V0F6eX5kDgcRAqmZAKC50xfEfVqw9pe/curjA8znXgChWgCgrysr ct0vycxu76D2nqKQqRO8ytg= =ZD3T - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --=-LKayBI9AFCr2pw6YWH4a-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:34:59 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: HAWN campaign The is the campaign for the Federal seat, Edmonton-Central, now held by Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. I had the pleasure of an informal meeting with Mr. Laurie HAWN and his campaign Manager Mr. Vitor MARCIANO at the campaign office yesterday morning. Vitor and his wife are licensed firearms owners and Mr. HAWN's license application is pending. When elected you can certainly count on HAWN to fight for and support drastic changes to the firearms Act. I was privileged to see some of the plans they intend to carry out and hear of all the work already accomplished. The work already done is huge but dwarfed by the work still to be accomplished. A huge volunteer force will be needed of course and I URGE everyone in the whole greater Edmonton area who can possibly give some time to do so as soon as possible. The need for workers will only rise as the election nears and will become critical once the election is called. This could be as early as the first week in April. We can hardly expect Martin and the Liberals to give us any time to prepare - they are already looking over their shoulders in fear. We in the firearms community have to learn that there are many issues that will be the meat of the campaign besides the firearms Act. We cannot expect to win this riding fighting the Firearms Act alone simply because the numbers of firearms owners in the riding is low. Even the number of Firearms Dealers in the riding has shrunk during the current Liberal persecution of firearms owners. I think the only three left are Lock and Load, P& D and MilArms. So we have to realize Laurie HAWN and his team will need to fight the election on all its issues and support that concept totally. One subject of our discussions centered on the Cdn Firearms Digest and Anne McLellan's supporters constant watching and reading it looking for something to use to fight back. Little things too like our habit of using less than correct terminology , misspelling deliberately and ranting when we are upset. I have stated unconditionally many times I will not permit censorship of this digest and Laurie HAWN and his campaign manager , Vitor Marciano both know and support this attitude. That , Ladies and Gentlemen leaves it in your lap. Please , during the next few months, be very careful with your choices of words, spelling of names and degrading comments. The Liberals are not below taking these things out of context to make us look like a very ignorant group indeed. So please, at least until Ms McLellan is defeated, use only proper english and proper names etc. As mentioned emphatically above I will not censor your comments, however if a posting seems to contain offensive stuff I will be returning it to the sender with a request to make it less offensive. And I am open to and will appreciate any comments on how to improve our image in this forum. Finally I will convey Mr. Hawn's thanks for the donations already received. We have to realize that Ms McLellan has practically unlimited funds, your tax money, to carry on this fight. Laurie HAWN does not and depends on donations from those who would see the Liberals and particularly Ms McLellan defeated and the new Conservative Party elected. Please. ladies and gentlemen, the price of a box of ammunition donated every payday will not break you but may well mean the difference between success and failure to Laurie HAWN and his team. The necessary addresses and contact information is below. Thank you all for your cooperation in this . Gordon Hitchen moderator1@hitchen.org Campaign to Elect Laurie HAWN Box 53122 Glenora P.O. Edmonton, AB T5N 4A8 Office: 10210 142 St. Edmonton Alberta. Phone 780-442-1800 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:41:55 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: [none] From the Emerson decision, Texas. > English History > > A review of English history explains the founders' intent in drafting > the Second Amendment ...snip... > to their conditions and as allowed by law." Id. at 581. > > b. > > The Colonial Right To Bear Arms This section was quoted as common law that preceded the 2nd Amendment but without the constraints. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:41:56 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: may/ shall Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, second college edition: may ....snip 6. Law , shall; must --SYN. see CAN ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:20:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re:Mrs. Belinda Stronach #854 > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:41:46 -0600 (CST) > From: Joe Gingrich > Subject: re. Mrs. Belinda Stronach #854 ...snip... > The only way a practical gun control system will say what "we" want it to > say is if "we" guide the > > hands that fabricate the act. involvement in > policy > making, I just arrived home from the local inaugural meeting of the Conservative party. In his speech at that meeting Peter MacKay brandished a copy of the new party's policies. After his presentation I spoke to Mr. MacKay about that policy document. He said that is was a temporary blending of the two previous parties policies that required more work in certain areas before its public release. I was given no time frame in my request for a copy at its completion. At that meeting I also spoke to the local Alliance candidate in the last election, Harvey Henderson. Mr. Henderson is not yet aware how the policy positions will be arrived at. If by using ground up input, as the Alliance has in the past, by past PC methods or an entirely new mechanism. It would appear from all this that we are unlikely to be able to have much input into the new party's policy in regards to licensing before the expected election. It is equally unlikely that the contenders for leadership will make a pronouncement on specifics, but will likely opt for a blanket uniform statement of opposition to the registry. I hope that this will not be the case. Time will tell. Al ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:22:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Dolighan Belinda Bandwagon Cartoon http://www.dolighan.com/image-view.php?image=jan2004c.jpg Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 21:22:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Hill" Subject: Re: Reference Checks Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:03:31 -0600 (CST) From: Darron Froese Subject: Re: Reference Checks On Jan 23, 2004, at 7:43 AM, M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) wrote: > Anyone else have similar experience? Not a single one of my references were called. See the following which I sent to the Halifax Daily News today: To the editor, It is too bad to see that a fine policeman like Frank Beazley was corrupted by the chief's office so quickly. He went from an excellent street cop to a politician too easily. His support of the boondoggle of a gun registry defies comprehension. It has been said that the critics make too much of the costs and that we mislead the public into thinking these are all registry costs. The chiefs are quick to point out that most of these costs went into the licensing of the owners. They neglect many things when they say this, First, the government was told in the beginning, the registry alone would cost over a billion dollars and that was based on 1995 dollars. Second, the FAC system was already in place and licensing of owners was not necessary. Third, there was no expense to the licensing system, as they did nothing more than rubber-stamp the applications for licenses. No checks other than a CPIC query on the applicant! What was the point of having two people sign your application if they were not going to bother to even confirm they were valid signatures? More to the point; given the stated reasons for the whole boondoggle in the first place, why were there no checks done with the spouse, whose signature was also required, to confirm she had actually signed and had not done so under duress? Each and every person I know who has a license has told me the same thing. Whenever I meet a new person who is a gun owner I always ask and receive the same answer. The only exception to this was a lady who worked for the Canadian Firearms Centre and was working at an information booth the CFC had set up at the Sports and RV Show a couple of years ago. When I posed the question to her, she alleged she had a licence and all the persons on her application had been contacted, also the police had gone up and down both sides of her street interviewing the neighbours. I was too polite to tell her what I thought of her answer but I will ask you how many of you have been interviewed regarding a neighbour who liked to hunt? That is not a culture of safety it is simply a list to be used later. Edgar MacLeod, Chief of Cape Breton Regional Police also misses the point with his anecdote about the query of the person who made threats. There is nothing in the law that gives police the address where the firearms are being stored as they can be stored anywhere as long as it is safe. Then, Edgar is just another politician like the other chiefs and a member of a political lobby group and we do not really expect them to get the point. Jim Hill Fletchers Lake, NS (902) 860-3006 for authentication only ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:42:06 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: overlooked Firearms businesses. Update Firearms dealers- Wild West Shooting Range,Premier Firearms {Still active moved do not have new name or address yet} Beyond that a Good one, However be sure the first note of none compliance the poster gets shot at dawn. Some of the firearms business you suggest are not within that ridings boundaries Sir. I have listed here the ones i missed that are within the Edmonton-Central riding and apologize for omitting them . moderator1@hitchen,org Gordon Hitchen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:10:01 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Subject: Rights and Priviledges Bruce Mills wrote: >> Rick wrote: >> Edward Hudson wrote: >> >> > The English Bill of Rights of 1689 is the first legal document (of= which ...snip... >... and bear arms - whether they wanted to or not! > > "May" means "can", as in if they want to, not if the State wants them to. You might be able to make that fly - if there weren't a requirement to read= =20 the declaration in its' entirity: "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." If it were intended to be their right, not a priviledge, it would have been worded similar to all the remainder of that portion ie: "That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the executions of=20 laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal" would become something like "That constraining the subjects which are protestants from keeping arms is illegal." Or "That election of members of parliament ought to be free" would become something like "That subjects which are protestants ought to have arms for= =20 their defense". In short, it was no accident that the newly restored Parliamentarians - all= of whom were men of prestige and priviledge, many lawyers and lords, all well= =20 above the common herd - used the word "may" when speaking of having arms, rather= =20 than wording that established an absolute right. "suitable to their conditions"= =20 was wording that had been used previously to restrict the arms that the Joe Six Tankard of the day was permitted to own, and certainly laws had already=20 existed which regulated the keeping of arms. Against that you must also consider that law is interpreted both through legislation like the Interpretation Act as well as principles like the rule= of common useage (it's been years here, so I'm going on memory). The Interpretation Act is quite clear on what the word "may" means, and common useage of the word may is also permissive in nature. The argument is used that the Bill of Rights actually reaffirmed "true= ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom". Those= =20 who claim that will be hard pressed to explain the section stating "... by=20 disabling papists from sitting in either house of parliament." Or, for that matter,= the provisions prohibiting Catholics from becoming the king or queen. = Certainly, prior to the English Bill of Rights, there had been one or two Catholic=20 monarchs and parliamentarians. Barring them from ever again holding office or the monarchy was hardly a reaffirmation of a true ancient and indubitable= right... Moving on, Blackstone also did not see the permission to have arms as a= right, and he was closer to the actual passage of the English Bill of Rights than= any other commentator: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject . . .= is that of having arms for their defence suitable to their condition and= degree, and such as are allowed by law=85. It is indeed, a PUBLIC ALLOWANCE UNDER= DUE RESTRICTIONS, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,=20 when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the=20 violence of oppression." Finally, the English Bill of Rights is just that - a bill, a piece of legislation. It is a general rule that parliaments cannot bind the future parliaments which will be their successors. Given all of the above - not to mention the discriminatory mood of the EBR against Catholics which was certainly not a reaffirmation of an age old=20 state of affairs - I believe that thinking the EBR codifies the right to keep arms amounts to dreaming in technicolor. And the wake up call is going to be a= =20 court decision pointing that out. I think there is a "faint hope" found in legislation however. The Magna=20 Carta, in Article 13 I believe, gives the right to all people to enjoy their= "ancient liberties and free customs". It concluded with the statement that "...men= in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and= concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs,= of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever." As it was certainly an established liberty and custom to go armed as one=20 saw fit then, you could make the claim to the right to arms through the Magna Carta= =20 and then to modern times through the BNA Act and Constitution Act. Speaking of the Constitution Act, there is also the Charter: "7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and= the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." If you have a right to life and security of the person, then it begs the question "what means are you provided with to fulfill that right"? The= police never have been able to secure that right for you, and the courts have=20 observed their duty is a general one to society, not a specific one to the= individual. So how do you secure that right? Hand to hand? If so, how does that apply= to the handicapped, the female, the elderly? It would seem self evident that if you have that right, then you must have= the means to fulfill that right. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:20:05 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: re: Belinda Brouhaha "In the US, they don't do all that bad with politicians ........all male, mind you. - - -Ronald Reagan (The Gipper) - - -Clint 'Make My Day' Eastwood (Mayor of Mount Carmel) - - -Sonny (the other half of Cher) - - -Arnold (I'll be Bach) Schwarzenegger (how in hell did they get that on a ballot?)" They are/were all minor leaguers or spent a time in the minors before heading to the majors. Belinda may do just fine as a PM right out of the gate, but most folks need some introductory experience in politics, some more some less. If she gets the leadership nod she goes to the majors with no time spent in the minors, simple as that. Joe Gingrich White Fox. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #862 ********************************** 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.