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 #964 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, April 10 2005 Volume 07 : Number 964 In this issue: businesses say that they want more police presence need to get more officers on the street, said Klein. Re: Column: Who really owns your property? Scandal battering Liberals, poll shows Who really owns your property? Slain Mountie's mom slams system SCC Reversing Itself Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope Re: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope Re: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:29:40 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: businesses say that they want more police presence PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald DATE: 2005.04.08 EDITION: Final SECTION: City & Region PAGE: B13 BYLINE: Natasha Botha SOURCE: Calgary Herald ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Ted Jacob, Calgary Herald / Two more police officerson bikes, such as Sgt. Scott Boyd, left, and Const. Jason Walliser, will soon be patrolling through Forest Lawn. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Forest Lawn group pays for bike patrol - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Forest Lawn businesses and residents are applauding the expansion of the police bike patrol to the crime-plagued southeast neighbourhood. "It's a positive step," community activist Helma Dahlman said Thursday. She said it should cut down on panhandling, shoplifting and open drug dealing on Forest Lawn streets. "It will not solve all of our ongoing problems, but it will probably prevent some from starting up," said Dahlman. On Thursday, the Calgary Police Service announced it is expanding to a full-time bike patrol in District 4 after receiving $5,000 from the International Avenue Business Revitalization Zone. The money will be used to add two new mountain bikes to the unit, creating four permanent patrol members in the area from June to October. The summer months will see an extra two members added. Insp. Paul Manuel, of the District 4 police office, said downtown is the only other area of the city that has a full-time bike patrol unit. "We do have specific crime and community issues here that require getting out of (patrol) cars and walking," said Manuel. The revitalization agency, which is funded by businesses along 17th Avenue S.E., donated $5,000 last year and hopes to continue doing so in the future. "So far, all of the businesses say that they want more police presence and that they want their customers to be safe," said Carlos Santos, the organization's vice-president. Santos said the revitalization zone has provided bike patrol members with cellphones so businesses can call them directly when needed. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 10:29:54 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: need to get more officers on the street, said Klein. PUBLICATION: Red Deer Advocate DATE: 2005.04.07 SECTION: Alberta PAGE: A3 SOURCE: CP DATELINE: Edmonton - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Cash for roads, policing coming - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Next week's provincial budget will have more money than ever before for constructing and repairing roads, bridges and buildings, Premier Ralph Klein said Wednesday. He told rural municipal councillors that the budget will have another unprecedented investment. Alberta has a $6.5-billion, three-year infrastructure spending plan. Combined with grants to municipalities, the province claims to have a $10-billion commitment to roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. Finance Minister Shirley McClellan, however, warned the audience of civic leaders that too much government spending on construction projects is beginning to skew the market - the cash flow and competition from private sector mega-projects is driving up costs. We are losing (cash for) one project in every three because of the costs, McClellan said. Klein also told the councillors that their communities' costs for policing will likely drop in the budget document, while more police officers will be hired. Solicitor General Harvey Cenaiko has brought forward a proposal with regard to policing costs in smaller municipalities and the need to get more officers on the street, said Klein. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:22:19 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Column: Who really owns your property? - ----- Original Message ----- From: ; "Garry - Assistant 1" To: Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 12:26 PM Subject: Column: Who really owns your property? > PUBLICATION: The Chronicle-Herald > DATE: 2005.04.09 > SECTION: Business > PAGE: F7 > BYLINE: Garth Turner Personal Finance > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > ---- > > Who really owns your property? > > Restoring property rights will not allow people to pollute, to ignore rent > control laws, to bear firearms, to challenge pay equity, or to override > our > existing concepts of matrimonial property as defined by family law. Those > critics on the political left who make these irresponsible and frightening > accusations have no evidence to support their arguments. They are calling > on > conjecture and what-if scenarios that have not been substantiated by legal > precedent in any of the countries, such as the United States, which has > constitutional protection for property rights. > No way !!!! As I posted a few weeks ago , in the US there is an entity called "eminent domain" and private companies and government have already taken "private property" from homeowners fpor their own personal use,and are planning to take more. I still have the article taken from a Fla. newspaper in case anyone is interested. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:09:10 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Scandal battering Liberals, poll shows http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050409/GOME RYPOLL09/Front/Idx Scandal battering Liberals, poll shows Tories pull within four percentage points nationally, and in Ontario battleground By CAMPBELL CLARK Saturday, April 9, 2005 Updated at 12:31 AM EST Stephen Harper's federal Conservatives were within striking distance of the Liberal government in a new opinion poll conducted as rumours and early reports of explosive new sponsorship-scandal testimony first came into public view. The Ipsos-Reid poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, found 34 per cent of respondents across Canada would vote for Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals, compared to 30 per cent for the Tories. That's a dramatic shrink in the Liberal lead, from an 11-percentage point gap in February to only four points this week. The Liberals fell further behind the Bloc Québécois in Quebec, and the Conservatives almost wiped out the governing party's big lead in Ontario, the key swing region where shifts in support can cause changes in government. The Ipsos-Reid poll interviews began Tuesday, as rumours of explosive testimony under publication ban at the Gomery Commission were reported in the media and on the internet. A quarter of the interviews were conducted Thursday night, after the ban was lifted and the details of advertising executive Jean Brault's damning testimony hit television airwaves. "The problem might be that this is the top of the hill," said Ipsos-Reid President Darrell Bricker. "What this shows is the first significant movement in voter opinion since the end of the last election campaign." "It does seem to be happening on the basis of what was coming out of Gomery. There was no other factor that would suggest it." Yesterday, Prime Minister Paul Martin's advisers increased efforts to stop a spring election, asking the opposition not to trigger one until after Justice John Gomery delivers his report on the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Martin's communications director, Scott Reid, said Mr. Harper had previously insisted there should be no election until then. "Our challenge to Mr. Harper is: Will he commit to Canadians that he will do nothing to pre-empt the work of Justice Gomery, that he will allow the commission to complete its work and table its recommendations," Mr. Reid said. "We believe that Canadians deserve answers." The Conservatives gleefully ignored that plea, however, and warned that if the public wants a chance to punish the Liberals, they will get it. "The Liberals can try to spin this any way they want, but this issue is out of their hands and, frankly, it's out of the Opposition's hands. It's in the hands of the Canadian people and they will decide when they want to deal with this government," said Mr. Harper's communications director, Geoff Norquay. In Ontario, the gap between the two main parties shrank from 15 percentage points in February to only 4 points this week. The Liberals led the Conservatives 38-34 in the province, with the NDP at 17 per cent. Such results in an election would probably mean substantial gains of seats for the Conservatives in Ontario, where last year the Liberals won 45 per cent of the vote and 75 seats, the Conservatives took 31 per cent of the vote and 24 seats, and the NDP took 18 per cent and seven seats. In Quebec, where the sponsorship scandal has already been particularly damaging to the Liberals, Mr. Martin's government fell five percentage points to 29 per cent - support that went to the Bloc Québécois (41 per cent) and the fifth-placed party in the province, the Greens, now at 7 per cent. The Conservatives, meanwhile, remain mired at 8-per-cent support. Most political analysts have long believed that the Liberals could not fall below a floor of about 15 seats in Quebec, because anglophones and hardcore federalists in West Montreal and a few Outaouais ridings would never elect Bloc MPs. But for now, the only viable federal party is so weak that some senior Quebec Liberals were talking about a "doomsday scenario" for national unity even before Mr. Brault's testimony. That scenario had the Conservatives winning a weak minority with few or no seats in Quebec, and the Bloc winning more than 60. Popular Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe, would take over from Parti Québécois Leader Bernard Landry and crush Premier Jean Charest in a provincial election. Then Mr. Duceppe would launch another Quebec sovereignty referendum, facing a weak minority government in Ottawa with no Quebec presence, while federalists are still stung by the allegations of abuses in their national-unity campaign and shy about mounting an aggressive ad campaign. Spreading that scenario could be self-serving for the Liberals, however. They tend to gain from a polarization between separatists and federalists. One Bloc strategist insisted that fear is unlikely to take hold because it is not imminent: voters know that Mr. Charest's majority government will probably stay in power for at least two years. Outside Quebec, the Conservatives seemed to enjoy almost all of the gains from the Liberals' fall. Support from the New Democrats was at 15 per cent, down two percentage points from February. Ipsos-Reid surveyed 1,000 Canadians for the poll, the results of which are considered statistically accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:13:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Karl Schrader" Subject: Who really owns your property? Garry Breitkreuz has introduced again a motion to protect private property from any action of the state. If this gets voted down again, we all should ask any liberal or other M.P. who voted against this, to explain why he voted against this fundamental issue. And I mean, all of us to write to everyone of them and insist on an answer. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 13:21:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Slain Mountie's mom slams system http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2005/04/09/989294-sun.html Slain Mountie's mom slams system MAX MAUDIE, EDMONTON SUN The mother of one of the four Mounties slain near Mayerthorpe is upset at the justice system for "not implementing the laws we already have." And a former Calgary police officer-turned MP says some bad guys just need to be "stepped on." In a letter to media, Grace Johnston said it's unacceptable that it's taken such a tragedy to draw the public's attention "forever more to the value of, and dangers faced by, law enforcement/peace officers daily, nationwide, due to shortages of members and resources." Johnston's son, Const. Leo Johnston, 32, was slain by James Roszko when Roszko ambushed and killed constables Peter Schiemann, 25, Brock Myrol, 29, and Anthony Gordon, 28, on his farm near Mayerthorpe, 130 km northwest of Edmonton. Those dangers faced by law enforcement are "mostly because of the failure and inadequacies of the justice system in not implementing the laws we already have," Grace Johnston wrote. Alberta Justice has launched a review of Roszko's criminal file, trying to determine how he managed to avoid convictions on the bulk of his violent offences. "We completely understand and empathize with Mrs. Johnston," said Justice spokesman Mark Cooper. Cooper wasn't sure on a timeline for the review, but said it could take "a couple of months. " Recommendations will not necessarily flow from the review, he said. Former Calgary cop MP Art Hanger thinks Grace Johnston's letter was "very accurate." Hanger said there will always be those in society who refuse to respect authority. "And those are the characters you step on - you take out of circulation." RCMP spokesman Cpl. Wayne Oakes said it's understandable if families of the slain men - after such "a tremendous loss" - wonder if something more could have been done. And, sure, RCMP could use more resources. "Show me a business that wouldn't be happy with more resources, and I'll show you a business that isn't hoping to do better," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:54:36 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: SCC Reversing Itself The Supreme Court does render decisions that are different than its prior decisions on the same topic. The passage of time and/or a change in "sea state" are the usual reasons therefor. Both decisons do remain on the books, however. As a lawyer, you argue the one that suits your client's case the best. For example, an SCC decision from 100 years ago regarding, say, publishing or transportation, to pick a couple of areas that have had advances in technology that were unimaginable back then, might not be of much value today as a statement of law, even though the court has never formally overturned it. Subsequent SCC decisions where the modern reality of those areas of human endeavor are implicit or explicit in the factual background of the matter would obviously be of greater precedential value. GUNFIGHTER: "RIDING SHOTGUN FOR YOU" Richard A. Fritze, B.A. [Econ.], L.L.B. Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Toll-free 1 877 79 4GUNS [4867] Fighting for the Rights, Tradition, Heritage and Culture of Legitimate Canadian Gun Owners DEFENSE TO FIREARMS ACT, WILDLIFE ACT & CRIMINAL CODE CHARGES Practice of Law, incl. FIREARMS Rights WATER Rights OFFSHORE Corporations/Trusts ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:19:05 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope Insider Report from NewsMax.com Apr. 9, 2005 Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope Most outsiders probably don't know that when they're in Cuba, they're being tape-recorded and watched, on direct orders of communist dictator Fidel Castro. So says Humberto Fontova, author of the new best-selling book "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant." Fontova says Castro and his spies have secretly taped -- using both audio and video equipment -- some of Hollywood's most notable stars. Fontova names names, including Woody Harrelson, Kevin Costner, Jack Nicholson, Steven Spielberg, Chevy Chase, Leo DiCaprio, Francis Ford Coppola, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Robert Redford and many others -- all werespied on when they visited Cuba. Fontova has a good source for the claims. "My job was to bug their hotel rooms," high-ranking former Cuban intel officer Delfin Fernandez, who defected to the U.S., told the author. "With both cameras and listening devices. Most people have no idea they are beingwatched while they are in Cuba." When these guests arrive, their hotel rooms have already been set up with eavesdropping and videotaping gear. Sometimes, says the intel officer, the guests would be followed wherever the went, 24 hours a day. In doing so, some of the stars' most intimate, private and potentially embarrassing moments (read: bedroom antics) were captured on film and tape -- all for the private viewing pleasure of Castro and his most-trusted inner circle. Fernandez said that Castro was a "connoisseur" of such covert tapings, noting that he especially liked "the really famous." Apr. 9, 2005 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:45:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope > Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope > Fontova names names, including Woody Harrelson, Kevin Costner, Jack > Nicholson, Steven Spielberg, Chevy Chase, Leo DiCaprio, Francis Ford > Coppola, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Robert Redford and many others -- all > were spied on when they visited Cuba. I thought it was illegal for American citizens to travel to Cuba... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 17:10:33 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Mills" To: Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 6:45 PM Subject: Re: Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope >> Castro Spied on Jack Nicholson, Spielberg and the Pope > >> Fontova names names, including Woody Harrelson, Kevin Costner, Jack >> Nicholson, Steven Spielberg, Chevy Chase, Leo DiCaprio, Francis Ford >> Coppola, Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell, Robert Redford and many others -- all >> were spied on when they visited Cuba. > > I thought it was illegal for American citizens to travel to Cuba... It is, but they hop acros the border to Mexico and fly from there! Really ,a no-brainer. I have heard through the grapevine this is how they do it. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:36:23 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Court "Bruce Mills" wrote: > The problem with this is, again, context. This was stated in the body of > the decision, as "foundational" and as such, in my opinion, is more "obiter > dicta" than "stare decisis". The SCC could only decide on what was in front > of it: whether Hasselwander's gun was "capable" of being a fully automatic > firearm. The above statement was more the personal opinion of the Judges > (obiter dicta), not the official decision of the Court (stare decisis). It > was a split decision, too, so some of the Judges did not hold this opinion. While I should be paying more attention when quoting law as you mentioned yesterday, you should be more careful if you're going to throw legal terminology around. "Stare decisis" is not the official decision of the court as you stated. Stare decisis means to stand by a decision - in other words precedent. It is the principle that obligates lower courts to follow the rulings of higher courts such as the SCC and not disturb issues considered settled. With that settled, the problem is not context, it is reality. Not to mention the fact that if the issue of a right to bear arms is found by the SCC to be "foundational" to a decision, I think it has a bit more substance than being merely the passing comments of a judge. There are NUMEROUS instances of case law in existance that imply, suggest, whatever you like that the court does not agree with your view as to whether the right to arms exist. That includes very persuasive jurisdictions like New Zealand. On the other side of the issue, I am not aware of a single higher court decision that contains an implication, suggestion, or whatever that Canadians have the right to bear arms. Not one. So on the one hand, we have lots of dicta (which arguably may actually be dictum)from senior courts in Canada and elsewhere in the Commonwealth saying that no right to bear arms exists. On the other side, we have nothing whatsoever where a court offered an opinion that a right to bear arms exists. I don't know about others, but for myself I can see where that is inevitably leading to when a black and white decision is finally delivered. Incidentally, lots of obiter dicta ends up later being used as the basis for decisions at a later date. One of the earlier mentioned Bora Laskin's skills was writing vigorous dissenting opinions when he first came to the court and was often in the minority. That obiter dicta, amazingly enough, often ended up being referred to in later SCC trials as part of the reasons for decision. Which is why I said a week or so ago that Demetrick could take a lesson or two from Laskin if he wanted to write decisions in a way that would stand the test of time. > I have not been able to find *one* court case that was based on the "right > to keep and bear arms" as the question before the court. In contrast, I'm guessing you have also been unable to find *one* higher court decision in Canada's history that said Canadians have a right to bear arms. However, we now have Pogson where the right to keep arms was an issue before the courts. It wasn't THE only question before the court, but it was ONE of the questions. I quote (correctly) Slatter, when he laid out one of the issues before him by saying: "The learned Provincial Court Judge concluded that the ownership of firearms in Canada is a right, and not a privilege..." He then examined Demetrick's decision and subsequently ruled that: "There is no constitutional or common law right to possess firearms, and there is no justification for interpreting the Firearms Act based on any presumption that it infringes on such rights. Further, the ownership of firearms is now subject to a licencing regime, and the ownership of firearms is now a privilege and not a right. I therefore respectfully disagree with the philosophical approach taken by the learned trial judge to the interpretation of the statute." I consider that a ruling from an appealate court having to do with how Canadian law views the argument that a right to bear arms exists. I have no doubt that many will argue that the court wasn't senior enough or the decision clear enough. Not only will I disagree with them on that point, but I also believe there is no question in my mind where this inevitably is going to lead to when and if the issue is ever before the SCC as a single issue trial. That shouldn't surprise anybody; our case law is not exactly overflowing with opinions from higher court justices that a right to bear arms probably exists. In fact the opposite is quite true. > I have not been able to find any Act of Parliament which has expressly > extinguished our right to keep and bear arms. That rides on a lot of presumptions. 1. A presumption that governments and courts in this country agree with the view that a right to bear arms existed in the first place and thus needed to be extinguished. I don't think they do - and no minority is ever going to force them to think that way. 2. A presumption that a right has to be expressly extinguished in the manner that you are thinking of, rather than being extinguished in many other ways. > If there were, don't you think the Antis would have been waving it around, > and shouting about it from the rooftops? Which requires the presumption that Cukier et al believe that a right to bear arms existed in the first place, and thus needed to be addressed. And the presumption that Cukier et al also believed that a direct, focused Act of Parliament was required to remove a right they have never agreed existed in the first place. I can't see that group agreeing with either of those presumptions. On the other hand, Cukier and others have been saying for years that no such right ever existed and pointed at Hasselwander and a number of other decisions as evidence. We are all very free to disagree, of course. But I suspect most people looking at the history of this are going to come to the conclusion that pursuing the "right to bear arms" crusade is going to end up as bleached bones laying on the battlefield. People have absolutely every right to pursue and attempt that line of argument - I just hold the opinion that doing so may make people think they are fighting the good fight, feel better, etc... but other than that won't make any difference. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #964 ********************************** 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.