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 #873 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 Wednesday, January 28 2004 Volume 06 : Number 873 In this issue: Re: Alberta Justice Minister: BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED Re: Alberta Justice Minister: BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED Exit of "Toronto Star" publisher------ Literary branding iron [none] Letter to the Editor of the Calgary Sun 28 January 2004 What, then, are rights? Give us a Break wndy Viruses and removing them.. re: mandatory sentance I am crying a river Wendy Ontario wants tougher storage rules Too Flaky to Trust ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:20:38 -0600 (CST) From: "Linda J." Subject: Re: Alberta Justice Minister: BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED Alberta Justice Minister says the charge against Lacombe is being pursued by Justice Canada. My question is, is it being pursued in "Federal Court"? In other countries, federal charges are pursued in Federal Courts, and if it is truly Justice Canada pursuing the matter, should it not be done via the Federal Court at Federal expense? Or is it being done in a Provincial Court with the Province covering all the expenses (other than perhaps that of the prosecutor)? I think the Alberta Justice Minister has it wrong and is most definitely trying to fool Albertans and pull a fast one. Linda ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:44:35 -0600 (CST) From: "Michael or Cathy Martinoff" Subject: Re: Alberta Justice Minister: BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED Dennis: As I understand the situation, under the MacKay - Harper pact, the Conservative Party of Canada supports Progressive Conservative provincial parties. For that reason, members of the Reform Party of B.C. cannot be members of the Conservative Party of Canada, as members of the Reform Party of B.C. cannot support any organization that supports another provincial political party in B.C. The people of B.C. abandoned the Progressive Conservative Party of B.C. more than fifty years ago. A "conservative" is a person who opposes change, quite the opposite of a reformer. The hard-line communists in the Soviet Union were properly described as conservatives, as they opposed change. There are many more reformers than conservatives in B.C. The strongest conservatives - opponents of change - seem to be mostly in the NDP; they seem to oppose any reform of Big Government Bureaucracy. Anyway, Progressive Conservative Justice Minister and A-G of Alberta Hancock is now officially supported by the Conservative Party of Canada, and I wonder what the Conservative Party of Canada has to say about his behaviour. It seems to me that in his article below he does not address Byfield's criticism: the provincial A-G has exclusive jurisdiction to bring prosecutions under the Criminal Code. In the Lacombe case the provincial A-G apparently expressly authorized a person ordinarily employed as a federal prosecuter to act as a provincial prosecutor on behalf of the A-G of Alberta to prosecute Lacombe (who has done nothing to harm or even endanger anyone) under the Criminal Code. The federal prosecutor could have directly prosecuted Lacombe under the federal Firearms Act for possession of an unregistered firearm but did not, apparently to avoid a Charter challenge. If the provincial A-G had not expressly authorized the federal prosecutor to act as a provincial prosecutor on behalf of the provincial A-G, the federal prosecutor could not have prosecuted Lacombe under the Criminal Code and could have prosecuted him only under the federal Firearms Act. In that event, the provincial A-G should have intervened on behalf of Lacombe to defend his Charter rights. Hancock apparently says that refusing to authorize a federal prosecutor to act as a provincial prosecutor would constitute political interference in the administration of justice. Quite to the contrary, it seems to me that the extraordinary authorization (by Hancock or his bureaucrats) of a federal prosecutor to act as a provincial prosecutor indeed constitutes political interference in the administration of justice. The reason that we have in Canada the peculiar arrangement by which Ottawa enacts the criminal law but the provinces enforce it is precisely to enable a province to refuse to enforce a federal criminal statute that the people of the province find oppressive. I would prefer that Ottawa not have jurisdiction to enact the criminal law at all, as in Australia and theoretically in the USA, but for the foreseeable future we must make the best of our present situation. Unless I have misunderstood something, it seems to me that Link Byfield is right and further that the Conservative Party of Canada should publicly dissociate itself from the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and its apparently duplicitous A-G. Otherwise the Conservative Party of Canada will be brought into disrepute by its Alberta associates. Michael P.S. The next appearance in my Charter challenge to the registration scheme is on February 3, but that will be only to set a date for hearing of argument or to see if Ottawa tries to further delay the hearing. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca> To: "Firearms Digest Moderator (E-mail)" <moderator1@hitchen.org> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: Alberta Justice Minister: BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun DATE: 2004.01.26 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 15 BYLINE: DAVE HANCOCK COLUMN: Guest Column - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BYFIELD SHOULD BE ASHAMED COLUMNIST IS SUGGESTING RULE OF LAW BE SUBVERTED - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm compelled to respond to the false allegations being spread by Link Byfield in his recent columns and to denounce his absurd suggestion that the government and the Attorney General should politically interfere in the prosecution of Criminal Code offences. Following his protest on Jan. 1, 2003, Oscar Lacombe was charged by the police under the Criminal Code on the advice of Justice Canada. Alberta Justice was not a party to that decision. Alberta Justice determined the matter was clearly an attempt to protest the federal firearms regime. That's why it was decided it would be more appropriate for Justice Canada to handle this case, rather than put the Alberta government in a position of defending legislation it fundamentally opposes. This was consistent with the province's policy on firearms prosecutions. Byfield suggests that parallel charges are available under the Firearms Act. This is false. The Firearms Act, as drafted by the federal government, contains neither a licencing offence, nor an offence for possessing a weapon at a public meeting. For that reason, Justice Canada elected to charge Lacombe under the Criminal Code. If it were possible for charges to be laid under the Firearms Act, the provincial prosecution service would have insisted on this, if the federal government was determined to lay charges in this case. Byfield and others have suggested that, because Criminal Code prosecutions are within provincial jurisdiction, we should have denied the federal prosecutor the authority to proceed or that we should intervene to stop the prosecution of Lacombe. Byfield should be ashamed of himself for asking the Alberta government and specifically me, as Attorney General, to subvert the rule of law and politically interfere in a case. Under most circumstances, he would be the first on his soapbox if there was a hint of political interference in the justice system. Yet he is prepared to promote this type of behaviour when it satisfies his political agenda. For obvious reasons, it is inappropriate for decisions involving criminal prosecutions to be made at a political level. The courts have strongly rejected instances when laws are applied to some and not others, or ignored altogether because those in office choose to ignore them. Such actions would also be contrary to our constitutional obligation to uphold Canadian law. Alberta challenged the gun registry legislation in the Supreme Court of Canada -- to the fullest extent possible. Unfortunately, the court ruled against us. Alberta continues to oppose the registry not only as a huge waste of money, but as an unnecessary system that does not contribute to safe communities. I've appointed an MLA committee to audit everything we have done to date and recommend any new legitimate actions we might take. This is still a very important issue for our government, but we cannot subvert the law for political purposes. To be clear, Alberta Justice will not prosecute gun owners whose only offence is a failure to comply with the federal gun registry. Our prosecutors will continue to handle licencing offences as we've always done, as well as those offences that adversely affect community safety, such as the use of a firearm in the commission of another offence. As always, decisions on all cases are made by Alberta's prosecution service, independent of political influence. For his own political reasons, Byfield is attacking the Alberta government. This criticism is misdirected. Only the federal government can abolish the registry and change legislation to prevent Canadians from being charged with possessing an unregistered firearm. This is where Byfield and all Albertans should focus their attention. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:54:37 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Exit of "Toronto Star" publisher------ StarPhoenix Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 TORONTO (CP)----The coming departure of the Toronto Star's longtime publisher could signal cost cuts and perhaps the eventual sale of Canada's largest-circulation newspaper, observers said Monday. John Honderich, who will step down as the Star's publisher May 5, said Sunday he was leaving with "regret," noting a "corporate desire for change"---words which hinted to media-watchers that big changes are ahead for the paper. "Something must have brought this to a head.....I have a hunch it had to do with the editorial direction or staffing of the paper," said John Miller, a former deputy managing editor of the Star and now a journalism professor a Ryerson University in Toronto. Honderich and Torstar president and CEO Robert Pritchard have reportedly disagreed on cost-cutting initiatives aimed at improving the paper's bottom line, and over the newspaper's left-leaning editorial stance since Prichard's arrival three years ago. Neither Honderich nor Prichard have said anything since brief statements Sunday on the former's departure, leading to a welter of speculation and rumours on what lies ahead for the paper. Miller said Honderich appears to have been "absorbing slings and arrows for a period of time" and that something in the works was pushing their dispute "over the edge." "He's saying that he's leaving with regret, which means that he was either forced out, or found (an upcoming corporate decision) so much of a confrontation with Mr. Prichard that he didn't want to stick around for it," Miller said, speculating there is a "very good" possibility that job cuts are being considered. Star officials turned down requests for interviews Monday. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:54:38 -0600 (CST) From: "John Stamp" Subject: Literary branding iron This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C3E50F.DE4A7E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In CFD V6#864 one finds quote His wishy-washiness exemplifies poet T.S. Elliot's "hollow men . . .=20 stuffed men leaning together. . ." -- a man who, after 15 years in=20 politics, has yet to put his stamp on one original idea.=20 unquote Let's all use this gem to say, impart, suggest, offer, promulgate, to = one and all in all communications..."Paul Martin, stuffed and hollow at = the same time". As lucid, poignant and obvious a turn of phrase as ever = was uttered. Hopefully CATCHY as well........let the word spread = throughout the land.... John Stamp LETS REMEMBER SUBMISSIONS IN PLAIN TEXT ONLY PLEASE ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:54:40 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: [none] > > > >--Boundary_(ID_KZiIgI35cFljOzXnuws+lA) >Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=3Davg-ok-72372224;= charset=3Diso-8859-1; > format=3Dflowed >Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT > >Once wasn't bad enough, but they followed it and shot it several more >times. Police use of firearms is getting way out of hand here in BC. That >makes at least three dogs, and all for no good reason. >Linda > >Owner irate after another dog shot by police >Elaine O'Connor >The Province >Tuesday, January 27, 2004 > >One day after Vancouver police shot a family dog dead at an East Vancouver >home last week, another dog shot by police also died needlessly, its >Kamloops owners said yesterday. > >"I'm willing to do whatever I can to have justice for my dog because she >died for no reason at all," said owner Cyrena Worden, whose dog was shot by >police Thursday. > >Worden said police were chasing an acquaintance who ran into her home to >hide after committing a fraud nearby, which she said she knew nothing= about. > >When RCMP officers knocked on the door, her father-in-law answered, trying >to keep their two dogs -- a five-year-old pit bull terrier named Chyna and >her puppy, Solo -- from the police dog at the door, but he lost control and >Chyna lunged at the dog. > >As they scuffled, an officer shot at the dog, sending it running to the >neighbours. > >"I have a beware-of-dog sign on my window," Worden said. "They were doing >their job, but it's not my dog's fault. They didn't give us time to get her >out of the way." > >Neighbour Laura Schmidt offered to take the bleeding animal to the vet, but >police refused, Worden said. Instead, she said, they followed the dog to >the backyard and shot it several times. > >Kamloops Cpl. Mike Stewart said police are reviewing the incident "but I >wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on it." > >Last Wednesday, a Vancouver police officer visiting a Windsor Street home >was startled by a barking German shepherd cross chained in the yard. The >officer shot the dog once in the neck to subdue it, unable to see it was >chained and couldn't reach him. The dog died later and the officer was put >on paid leave. > >eoconnor@png.canwest.com > >=A9 Copyright 2004 The Province >http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=3D1B4C52DF-C925-4106-BE0C-16CE= D894B5EE > >--Boundary_(ID_KZiIgI35cFljOzXnuws+lA)-- REMEMBER LINDA PLAIN TEXT ONLY PLEASE=20 Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:29:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Letter to the Editor of the Calgary Sun 28 January 2004 "Hancock clearly stated Alberta is opposed to the gun registry" was your reply to Pat Beauchamp's letter of 28 January regarding Oscar Lacombe's situation. There is a big difference between mere words, or "clear statements", and actions. Mr Hancock's looking a bit weaselish to me and many others that I know because of this difference. Mark L Horstead 148 Thoms Crescent Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 1E1 905-715-5838 (Hancock clearly stated Alberta is opposed to the gun registry.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:29:43 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: What, then, are rights? "Linda J." wrote: > A Man's (and Woman's) Home Is a Castle / Wendy McElroy > Excerpt: > > But a power is not a right. If it were, then everything you have the power ...snip... > Otherwise stated: Every peaceful human being has a moral jurisdiction over > his or her own body and property that no one else can justly violate. Very interesting observations, especially from such an avowed feminist. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:37:54 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: Give us a Break wndy "People say 'Oh smuggled guns, therefore gun control doesn't work,'" said Cukier, a professor of justice studies at Ryerson University. "I would turn that around and say they're smuggled guns because gun control does work, and if the United States only had decent gun control, we shouldn't have such a problem," Cukier said." It is always some one else's fault why we don;'t have effective gun control..its the hunters and shooters who cost the government more money to implement the firearms act, its always an excuse why the present system is not working and how to place the blame on someone else. This is Wendy's game. Pas the buck, look innocent, show concern and deny deny deny. Guess what Wendy....the taxpayers have caught on to you and the coalition of banning everything. They caught on to the lies and deceit that is passed off as research, evidence etc, they caught on to the manipulative ways your group works, and they have had enough. we have grown up Wendy, and your childish claptrap just doesn't wash anymore. Blame America for our gun problem Wendy, after all, they cant stop you now can they. Try instead to Blame your Liberal Government who created the same humungous black market that we told them would materialize if they went ahead with C-68...but noooooo would they listen, would you listen...nooooo. The sound of your own wheels spinning makes you feel sooooooo important. Go tell it to a priest, because everyone else knows a good lie when they hear it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:39:43 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Subject: Viruses and removing them.. re-FOLKS - DO NOT OPEN ZIPPED FILES (or .pif, .exe, or .scr) THAT COME WITH YOUR E-MAIL!!! Network associate offers a free little program called STINGER from McAfee that will scan your computer for (currently) 55 viruses, and remove them The program is small, and was developed for network admins to quickly cure what ails them.. If your running ME, or XP, click the box that turns off your system backup before running this, or the next time you boot all your viruses will be back.. All the instruction on on the download page, but it's pretty simple.. The address for the free program is http://vil.nai.com/vil/stinger/ Bill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:39:43 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Snow Subject: re: mandatory sentance Mark said: >Five years for carrying a gun - BB or otherwise - during the commission of a >crime. Ten years for firing it. Twenty for injuring or killing somebody. ...snip... >a new $300 million computer system every couple of years either. > >Mark L Horstead >148 Thoms Crescent This actually points out one more flaw in the Great Canadian Experiment, the Firearms Act. Apparently, this type of sentancing is one more usless feature as no judge will use it. Section 85 (3) not only allows for a minimum sentance but it is to be consecutive to other sentances. One year minimum for first offence and three year minimum for subsequent (14 yr max). What difference is there between a one year and a five year minimum if it is never imposed because our judges either feel that it is cruel and unusual or they simply do not want to be deprived of their discretionery powers. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:46:28 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: I am crying a river Wendy Cukier added that while smuggled handguns from the U.S. "are a big and important problem," rifles and shotguns stolen from legal gun owners here in Canada are also vexing police. For instance, earlier this month, Toronto police Sergeant Allan Jenkins was "not shot by someone on the street with an illegal weapon." "He was shot by someone who shouldn't have had a gun and was in legal possession of it," she said." Wake up lil wendy wake up...the cop got shot by a gun that was legally owned...does this surprise you? It does not surprise me and 7 million other canadians who have been saying all along that the system does not work. When the Police do not perform proper and full checks what do you expect to happen. Billions of dollars spent to fund C-68 and their sycophantic bootlicking shills, only to prve the system does not work. The CFC gave the shooter the permits for the gun, presumably they did their job effectiveley...yeah right!!! Clearly this is another example of how badly skarewed the CFC system is when they issue permits to criminals so they can go out and shoot cops. I guess now the Police have first hand evidence that the system does not work either...no matter how many times a day they access it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:46:30 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: Ontario wants tougher storage rules Liberals in Ontario and Toronto police thingies were last week saying they wanted tougher storage rules to keep firearms from being stolen. read on as the snipped text tells what thieves are using to get at our property. The thieves used power tools and blowtorches to break into the safe where the weapons were kept. The perpetrators got away with more than $50,000 worth of firepower, including 15 Glock 9mm pistols, 10 Smith and Wesson .38-calibre revolvers, two fully automatic machine guns and several other semi-automatic rifles and revolvers. Seems to me if the thieves are using blow torches and powerr tool to get into and steal firearms from safes, then what more could the liberals want. This is classic liberalist elite kneejerk we don't have any answer for the txpayer type of solutions that the weak kneed libs are famous for. If the thieves are willing to go to those lengths to steal a few guns, how are we supposed to stop them, and what level of protection can we put in place to prevent such theft. Perhaps more police to p[atrol on foot in residential areas, or perhaps targetting the criminals who commit these crimes....oh damn just forget about it, its too dman much effort. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:46:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: Too Flaky to Trust Too flaky to trust The Economist December 6th 2003 Body-recognition technology is not the silver bullet many governments imagine it to be The ability to recognize people automatically by analyzing bodily characteristics such as fingerprints, faces and eyeballs- collectively known as biometrics- has long been a goal of technologists and governments alike. Plans for large-scale projects to incorporate biometrics scans into passports, identity cards and visas are now under way in several countries. From January 5th, America will begin scanning foreigners from particular countries as they arrive at its airports. Both America and Europe plan to start issuing biometric passports as soon as next year. Biometric identity cards are being adopted in Hong Kong and Oman, and Britain plans to follow suit. Politicians seem to be transfixed by the technology. Typical was the recent declaration by David Blunkett, Britain's home secretary, that biometrics "will make identity theft and multiple identity impossible- not nearly impossible, impossible." This claim is absurd. Current biometric technology is not the answer to the world's security fears. Biometric technology has been around for quite a while, but has not been widely adopted, for good reason: while it can improve security in some situations, its costs more frequently far outweigh its benefits. Even the most advanced systems falsely reject a small proportion of legitimate users, and falsely accept illegitimate ones. At best, the introduction of biometric identity documents will produce a marginal increase in security, at enormous cost. But at worst, biometrics could, in fact, reduce security, in several ways. Even a system that is 99.9% accurate will wrongly finger one traveler in 10,000 as a failed match; such individuals will then be taken aside for "secondary screening". Given the volume of air traffic, the incidence of false alarms will vastly outnumber the rare occasions when someone tries to subvert the system. The false alarms will either have to be ignored, rendering the system useless, or a time-consuming and expensive secondary-screening system will be needed. Anyone who wants to cross a border illegally, meanwhile, will avoid airports altogether, and instead take advantage of far more porous land and sea borders. Biometrics could also undermine security by diverting funds from other, more sensible security measures, and by providing a false sense of security. Many technologists and security experts have pointed out these drawbacks, but governments seem determined to press ahead even so. Biometrics seem to be attractive to politicians because the technology, long familiar from science-fiction and spy films, gives the impression that something dramatic is being done to improve security. Who would want to risk a repeat of the terrorist attacks of September 11th? The irony, of course, is that biometrics would have done little or nothing to prevent them. Most of the hijackers traveled under their own names, rather than on false documents. For years, lobby groups have campaigned against biometrics on the grounds that they will undermine privacy and lead to the setting up of Big-Brotherish monitoring systems by governments. In fact, there is not much danger of this happening with today's flaky biometric technology. If and when it improves, such privacy issues will need to be addressed. But at the moment the greater danger is that governments are investing too much faith and too much money, with too little public debate, in an immature technology that is unlikely to improve the security of their citizens, and could very well reduce it. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Richard A. Fritze Barrister & Solicitor Tel. (403) 749 4867 www.fritze.com GUNFIGHTER Toll-free 1 877 79 4GUNS Fighting for the Rights, Tradition, Heritage and Culture of Legitimate Canadian Gun Owners DEFENSE TO FIREARMS ACT, WILDLIFE ACT & CRIMINAL CODE CHARGES ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #873 ********************************** 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.