From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #651 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, December 22 2004 Volume 07 : Number 651 In this issue: Steckle's card Ur wants long gun registration removed from national registry FW: Amazon.com and gun control Re: Steckle's card This just about sums it up wrt San Fran Ban Re: Talk's cheap RCMP Taser-assault charge dropped Re: Give the politicos a day in a work camp Re: Clerk with a Gun - Band on the Run My letter to the Edmonton Sun Re: Bullet narrowly missed; no charges expected (no "mental CFDv7n650 Knocking back a cold one. CFD style. We Win One for Our Side! - DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:16:07 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Steckle's card >Paul asked: > >Subject: Paul Steckle's card > >Does anyone on the list have a copy of Mr. Steckle's card ? If so could they make a scan available, I would like very much to have a copy. Have my personal, insult the masses, card from Paul and his family (also on behalf of his Ottawa and constituency staff). Don't have a scanner tho. That kind of think is a tad sophisticated for us AOBs. I know folks who have these gizmos tho. I could probably connect for a long time listee. Can Bruce patch that kind of thing into the CFD? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:18:10 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Ur wants long gun registration removed from national registry http://www.strathroyagedispatch.com/story.php?id=133732 Ur wants long gun registration removed from national registry Long gun registration won't reduce crime, violence, MP says Wednesday December 22, 2004 Strathroy Age Dispatch - Local MP Rose-Marie Ur is sticking to her guns in her continued opposition to the national firearms registry. On Dec. 9, Mrs. Ur introduced a notice of motion in the House of Commons calling on the federal government to eliminate the requirement for the registration of long guns in the national firearms registry. "Putting a sticker on a hunter's gun will never help to eliminate crime or violence," she said in explanation of her motion."It makes no sense to believe that it will. I am simply calling upon the government to acknowledge this fact." Mrs. Ur's motion, if passed, will call on the Department of Justice and the Solicitor General to immediately cease all actions designed to register long guns, which include shotguns and rifles. It also calls upon the government to use the money that would have been spent on the registry to help combat some causes of crime and work to reduce domestic violence and poverty. Money used for the gun registry would also be better spent to increase law enforcement personnel and resources, she said. "It would pay for a heck of a lot more police officers and customs officials." The gun registry was originally supposed to cost less than $2 million but Auditor General Sheila Fraser has estimated that the cost will exceed $1 billion during 2005. Some estimates put the figure at nearly twice that amount. Mrs. Ur has been a longtime vocal opponent of the firearms registry, voting against her own government on Bill C-68, which introduced the Firearms Act in 1995. She has also refused to vote for additional funding for the program. "Hopefully sometime, somewhere, somebody will listen," she said. Mrs. Ur said she expected her motion to be voted on soon after the house resumes sitting at the end of January. She said she will use that time to lobby support from other MPs. "Trust me," she said. "I'm going to push this one." Opposition to the registry is growing, she said, noting while it was once mainly rural MPs who were against it, many urban MPs are getting fed up with the constantly escalating cost. "I don't think I'd have any problem getting support on this one," she said. Mrs. Ur said she has no problems with many aspects of gun control, especially those that will help reduce crime in large cities. Restricted and prohibited weapons tend to be the weapon of choice in violent crime, she added, not the rifles and shotguns of farmers and hunters. She said she also supports requirements for safe storage of guns. "That's just common sense." Mrs. Ur said she informed Prime Minister Paul Martin of her intent to introduce her motion by way of a note passed to him at the end of a recent dinner at 24 Sussex Drive prior to the introduction of the motion. She said she isn't too worried about party discipline on the issue because the Prime Minister is keeping his election promise of allowing a greater voice to party back-benchers. She said she hasn't received any reaction from Mr. Martin at all yet. "I haven't heard back from him." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:45:42 -0600 (CST) From: "Tracey Kleim" Subject: FW: Amazon.com and gun control >For your information this letter was sent today to Amazon.com >---------------------------------------- >Jeff Bezos, >President, >Amazon.com, Inc. >1200 12th Ave. South >Suite, 1200, >Seattle, Washington >98144. > >Dear Mr. Bezos: > > The Canadian Outdoor Heritage Alliance represents, through our >corporate members and individual members, about 250,000 hunters, anglers, >and trappers across Canada. > It has come to our attention that Amazon.com is promoting the >Million >Mom March, a group known for its support of strict gun control laws and >regulations. Apparently Amazon.com will give five percent of every sale to >the organization when visitors access Amazonšs website through the Million >Mom March site. > Unfortunately stricter gun laws effect lawful gun owners and >hunters >more than criminals. The experience here in Canada, that loudly proclaims >some of the toughest gun laws in the world and a national gun registry >program, is that lawful and law abiding gun owners and hunters register >their firearms and obey the law, while criminals, not surprisingly, seem >not >to. What use is it to register Uncle George's duck gun, when some punk with >an unregistered gun can blow you away in any urban core? Enforcing existing >gun laws and penalties for illegal gun use are the only ways to stop the >illegal use of firearms. Punishing legal gun owners for the actions of >illegal gun owners is unfair and unproductive. > Your support of the Million Mom March takes support away from >hundreds of thousands of legal, law abiding hunters and gun owners across >the United States and Canada. > We have no option but to ask our members not to use Amazon.com. > >Yours truly, >Bob McQuay >Chairman >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >JIM > > >James W. (Jim) Lawrence >Lawrence Marketing & Communications >Canadian Outdoor Heritage Alliance >1650 Old Wooler Road >Wooler, Ontario, K0K 3M0 >Phone 613-397-1157 FAX 613-397-1158 >Cell 613-848-3790 >lawrence@lawrencemarketing.ca > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:47:00 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Steckle's card - ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Jasper To: Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 5:16 PM Subject: Steckle's card > Can Bruce patch that kind of thing into the CFD? Sorry, the CFD cannot handle binary type files, such as pictures and the like. If someone can scan it in, I can host it on my website and provide a link to it. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:56:28 -0600 (CST) From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: This just about sums it up wrt San Fran Ban "You have to keep guns away from kids," said Alioto-Pier, the mother of young children. "We're not taking away people's constitutional rights." - - Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, one of five supervisors who signed off on placing the proposed (San Francisco hand gun ban) law on the next ballot. "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, written incidentally by fathers of small children. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but plan for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:04:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Talk's cheap - ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Jasper To: Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:02 PM Subject: Talk's cheap > And as I previously reported on the response of delegates at a CPC > Policy Conference - NO ONE is prepared to PAY the cost of U.S. style, > three strikes and out, lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key justice. > They're even bailing out in the U.S. How much of this is because of their War on (Some) Drugs? They pop some kid for weed possession three times, that's it. That's just filling up their jails needlessly. That's what is costing them so much. That's stupid. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:12:47 -0600 (CST) From: The Jordan's Subject: RCMP Taser-assault charge dropped Off topic a bit (justice issue). This case is setting an extremely "dangerous" precedent in the courts. (Not precedent for the Charter Challenge, but precedent for the reasons behind the delay in combination.) It was up to the Solicitor General and the RCMP to make a timely decision, which they did NOT do, so the guy "walks". Does this mean that Pickton, whose case is taking so long to get to trial because of the "mountain of evidence", could likewise "walk"? A guy sitting on his ass at home and being paid to do so should not be suffering much, whereas Pickton could possibly argue that he is. Bad decision and bad timing for such a decision. (Couldn't the officer could have availed himself of public defence in the interim?) Linda ==== RCMP Taser-assault charge dropped WebPosted Dec 21 2004 07:54 AM PST VANCOUVER - A B.C. provincial court judge has stayed a Taser-assault charge against a Coquitlam Mountie because of delays caused by a dispute over his defence costs. Judge Frances Howard ruled the RCMP and the federal Solicitor General took too long to decide if Cpl. Russell Hannibal was eligible for $75,000 for his legal defence. Hannibal was charged with assault twice - after two separate incidents more than three years ago. One of the charges was earlier dropped. But Hannibal still faced a second charge charge after he Tasered a man who was already being restrained by his partner outside the Foggy Dew Pub in Coquitlam back in 2001. Hannibal had asked for $75,000 to pay for his defence. RCMP policy states that the force is required to provided an officer with "timely advice on legal entitlement." Judge Howard ruled that "the interest of the defendant and society in a prompt trial outweighs the interest of society in bringing the defendant to trial." She also said that Hannibal's psychological health has been impaired by the 33-month delay in this case. The officer has been suspended with pay by the RCMP since the charges were laid. RCMP continue internal probe Coquitlam RCMP spokesperson Cpl. Jane Baptista says an internal investigation into the officer's actions will continue, despite the judge's decision. She says the RCMP investigators typically wait for a court judgement to be decided before concluding their probe. But she says the fact that charges have been stayed does not affect the internal investigation. "There are some parts that will overlap, but my understanding is there are fairly separate parts of it, because we also work under the Criminal Code of Canada, but we have certain codes of conduct." LINK: Full text of judge's decision http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2004/03/p04_0471.htm http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_rcm-taser20041221 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:13:11 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Give the politicos a day in a work camp - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Jasper" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 5:15 PM Subject: Give the politicos a day in a work camp > Rick correctly said: >> > Exactly what my fellow CPC delegates rebelled against. These buggers > committed crimes against society - and the now the bloody Liberals want > to tax us more to feed 'em and wipe their noses. Not a chance!! Don't > think these folk are interested in a discussion on 'learner centered' > instruction and 'positive reinforcement' models. > > $100,000.00 per year per inmate to domicile young offenders and give > > them psychiatric assessment.according to todays news .One such murderer > > is from the Hamilton < Ontario area.............there are presently 5 > > getting the kidglove treatment . ed/ontario > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:27:16 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Clerk with a Gun - Band on the Run - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trigger Mortis" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 4:34 PM Subject: Clerk with a Gun - Band on the Run > Oh!!!!! I get it now!!!! > > Her husband yelled at her, so she took our a rifle and shot at some total > strangers. That clarifies it all for me. That @#$%^&(*))(**%$#@ > husband is to blame. > > Alan Harper > alan__harper@cogeco.ca > SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM > arent we all ? we`re males so that is fairly obviuos to anone with half a > brain ? ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:27:55 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to the Edmonton Sun Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 7:23 PM Subject: Re: POLICE INVESTIGATE 'GUNS FOR DOPE' TRADE There are several flaws with many of the premises and assumptions made in this article. The first is that gun sales between individuals is somehow "bad" - it isn't. This is simply the foundation of "free enterprise". The second is that if someone, even a dealer, sells a gun to a criminal, that the seller has committed a crime of some sort - they didn't. It is the *criminal* who obtains a gun for criminal purposes who has committed the crime. The most egrigiously flawed premise is that somehow "gun control laws" actually work! It has been shown that US States that pass "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws experience a drop in confrontational crime of about 24%. Vermont, where they have next to no State firearms ownership laws, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. Cities like NYC, LA, DC, and Chicago, where they have the strictest forms of gun control, have the highest numbers of murders. No amount of registering or tracing guns is going to prevent criminals from obtaining them. No amount of gun control is going to prevent gun crimes from happening. Our billion dollar Firearms Registry has made that abundantly clear. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:28:20 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Bullet narrowly missed; no charges expected (no "mental intent") Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca - ----- Original Message ----- From: ; "Garry - Assistant 1" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: Bullet narrowly missed; no charges expected (no "mental intent") > PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal > DATE: 2004.12.21 > EDITION: Final > SECTION: News > PAGE: A7 > SOURCE: Vancouver Province; CanWest News Service > DATELINE: VERNON, B.C. > > Evans said investigators told him she received news 30 minutes before > the shooting that one of her close friends was involved in a bad car > accident. > > wish we could ALL shoot somebody when we have a bad day and get away with > it dont you ? ed/ontario > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:12:47 -0600 (CST) From: tcbfalls@canada.com Subject: CFDv7n650 Lee Jasper wrote; "The federal Liberal minority is now reduced by a second (plus Parrish) member." My comment: Hey, if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. On another note, check out this Iraq slide show at; http://www.clermontyellow.accountsupport.com/flash/UntilThen.swf Turn on your sound, then thank your lucky stars you get to spend Chrismas on this side of the planet. Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:04:26 -0600 (CST) From: tcbfalls@canada.com Subject: Knocking back a cold one. CFD style. Rob wrote:"To make a very long story short, I remember when an RCMP tried to plant the body of a young girl called Jane on me in 1970. The RCMP was from Edmonton and drove around Vancouver looking for me, with her "2 week dead " body in his trunk. He eventually dumped the 16 year old girl's body past the Border in Seattle off the Highway, since he couldn't find me with his serial killer plans and his unregistered guns to kill me, my exwife, and others, as disclosed in the Courts." To which I ask; Was this in the winter, Rob? If it was, and the Horse Policeman didn't know about Vancouver winters, you could see the problem. A good winter here in Edmonton, a Mountie could drive around with a stiff in his trunk for, oh, three or four months, maybe. But, a Vancouver venue might not agree with a Trunk-O-Jane, and after a few weeks cruisin' the lower mainland, she won't be smellin' no sweet sixteen. No siree Bob. Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 13:18:53 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: We Win One for Our Side! - DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200412/NAT200412 21a.html DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer December 21, 2004 (CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right of individual Americans to own and carry firearms. Gun rights advocates call the statement a "good first step" but cautioned that it is not the end of the gun control debate. The "Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General" released on the Internet last week is entitled "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right." The 103 page report, with 437 footnotes, concluded that, "... the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units." That conclusion is based, according to the authors, "... on the Amendment's text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment's historical antecedents." The Aug. 24 memorandum stated that it did not consider the "substance" of the individual right to own and carry firearms or the legitimacy of government attempts to limit the right. The document also declared that the authors were not calling into question the constitutionality of any particular limitations on owning, carrying or using firearms. Joe Waldron, executive of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Cybercast News Service that the memorandum is "a good start, a good first step. "What this does," Waldron explained, "is it puts the federal government -- the U.S. Justice Department -- which is the nation's chief law enforcement agency, on record as recognizing that the Second Amendment, without question, is intended to apply to individuals and not to collective organizations such as the National Guard or any kind of lesser militia." The memo does not protect individuals from being prosecuted under existing gun laws, Waldron acknowledged, but he said it does require a fundamental change in how the government approaches those cases. "It changes the courts' view of the issue and it applies a stricter standard of scrutiny as to whether or not a given law does infringe on an individual's constitutional rights," Waldron said. "They have to look at it from a civil rights perspective now instead of just [whether] the individual violated a given law." The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did not return calls seeking comment on the Justice Department's determination, but the organization has spoken out against the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment frequently in the past, including in an amicus brief filed in federal court in 1999. "The fact that militia members are no longer required to supply their own arms when reporting for service has depleted the Second Amendment of most of its vitality," the Brady Center stated. "And, in fact, the Second Amendment remains relevant today because the rights it protects are held by the National Guard." Dennis Henigan, director of the Brady Center's Legal Action Project, also spoke against the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment at James Madison University in 2002. "Both the language and history of the Second Amendment show that its subject matter was not individual rights," Henigan said, "but rather the distribution of military power in society between the states and the federal government." The Brady Center's argument was rejected by the Justice Department. "A 'right of the people' is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase 'keep arms' at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a 'right of the people,'" the Justice Department report stated. "Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals," the document continued. Waldron expects the opinion to be introduced in support of the "individual rights" of gun owners in several cases currently working their way through the federal courts. His hope is that one of those cases will reach the Supreme Court. "Is this the end, is this the Omega? Absolutely not," Waldron said. "The Omega will come when the Supreme Court begins to overturn selected gun control laws based on the fact that they do infringe upon the individual right protected in the Constitution." E-mail a news tip to Jeff Johnson. Send a Letter to the Editor about this article. - - 30 - Next is the Conclusion of the long document at this link: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require. Please let us know if we may provide further assistance. Steven G. Bradbury Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. Kevin Marshall Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General - - 30 - Jim Pook Jim's Fishing Charters Box 326, Tahsis, BC V0P 1X0 (250) 934-7665 jim@tahsisbc.com Toll Free: 1 (888) 617-FISH (3474) www.jimsfishing.com www.tahsisbc.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #651 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.