From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #126 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 Monday, June 13 2005 Volume 08 : Number 126 In this issue: Re: self defence My letter to several CanWest newspapers Firearm RE: Firearm Re: Sobering Police Video: What Are You Going to Do? Perilous budget votes ahead for Liberals Small-scale weapons trigger large-scale death: New York Times: How to Get Rid of a Gun ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:57:23 -0600 (CST) From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: self defence Hi; Well, I had to defend my crew and myself once, as well as defend myself twice with a rifle! Sure gets the adrenalin up! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:39:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: My letter to several CanWest newspapers Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Mills To: Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Tory MP attempts to halt spending on gun registry: I feel I must take exception to one of the comments made by Tim Naumetz in his article "Tory MP attempts to halt spending on gun registry". Near the bottom of the story, where he outlines some of the problems experinced by the Firearms Registry, he states that there was a "virtual guerrilla war against the program by gun owners". Well, why should we just roll over and submit to having our rights and our property stolen from us? The vast majority of the focus on the Federal Liberal Government's failed firearms fiasco has been the outrageous cost to taxpayers, but what should create the most outrage is the infringement upon the rights of all citizens by this onerous and draconian law. The Firearms Act infringes upon over a dozen of our rights, some of them multiple times. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, the right to privacy (several times), the right to freedom of association, the right to equal treatment under the law, the right to mobility, the right to own property, the right to due process, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be presumed innocent. All of this was done in the name of Anne McLellan's so-called "culture of safety". Well, it hasn't done one damn bit of good in deterring real criminals from misusing firearms for criminal purposes. All it has done is harassed law-abiding gun owners, who were not, are not, and never will be "the problem". It is far past time that this flawed and costly legislation was scrapped, and the focus trained on those who *are* "the problem" - real criminals who commit real crimes! The debate is not over! Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:38:13 -0600 (CST) From: Dennis@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Young@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Firearm I was at the gas station this morning getting some gas. There was a lady next to me getting some gas in her tank. She wasn't paying attention to what she was doing. She put too much in and it gushed out all over her arm. Both of us got done at the same time and she pulled out in front of me. To my amazement, she lit up a cigarette. I watched in horror as her arm caught on fire! I was honking my horn trying to get her to pull over but she wouldn't. She stuck her arm out the window and was waving it wildly trying to put it out. Luckily, a policeman raced up with his lights and siren blaring telling her to pull over. She pulled over and he helped her put her arm out. Then he arrested her for illegal use of a fire arm. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:04:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Pook" Subject: RE: Firearm Dennis: They have a name for such people: "Liberal voters". ;-) 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:19:40 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Sobering Police Video: What Are You Going to Do? > The officer later expanded his grounds for stopping the > woman to include having a broken windshield and her not > wearing a seat belt. Irrelevant. You don't need numerous grounds for legitimately making a traffic stop. Either the speeding or the light being out were more than sufficient. You need exactly one. It's like the civilian right to arrest that gets mentioned here from time to time. You don't need to have a whole bunch of legitimate grounds before you can make that arrest. You need exactly one. > Note: the woman committed no violent act and had not > endangered anyone up to the time of the stop. Shocking! Although wrong. She was a prohibited driver who was stopped for speeding, I consider that endangering others. Presumably, her license wasn't suspended for winning the state safe driver's award. > The officer did not know whom the woman was calling, but > the officer did not allow the woman to complete her > telephone conversation. Shocking! However, irrelevant. You get arrested when you get caught driving while prohibited - its' just what happens. In Canada or the US - or everywhere I've been in Europe for that matter. Considering the number of people killed in this province in the last couple of years by assholes driving while prohibited for impaired driving, street racing, etc, it seems a very appropriate way to deal with offenders who think they're entitled to endanger your life and that of your kids by continuing to drive while their license has been prohibited. Driving on a suspended license, she wasn't even smart enough to drive within the speed limit while doing so. Let's also note that the law does not provide you with the right or priviledge to initiate or finish cell phone calls while you are being arrested. You have the right to contact a lawyer as soon as practicable - - but in the middle of an arrest on the side of a highway is not practicable. Particularly when you are a prohibited driver who has just been stopped for speeding, still in care and control of a car behind the wheel. > The woman did not want to exit the vehicle until she > finished with the telephone call. The officer did not wait > any time at all before ordering the woman out, and when she > delayed and protested, he threatened several times and then > deployed the Taser device against her once or twice. Boo hoo. The law is not there for the convenience of criminals. It is not intended to be enforced in a manner that is on a criminal's time schedule. Police are under no legal obligation to arrest people in a leisurely manner determined by the arrestee's schedule. And an officer who allows a prohibited driver, who is still in care and control of a vehicle, the opportunity to sit there and think about taking off and initiating a chase is negligent. Lots of police chases start with a driver who has been pulled over by police jackrabbiting. So, instead of tasering her, should he have: a) continued struggling to pull her out while she thought about taking off? Continued a pushing and shoving match to effect the arrest where either of them could have ended up in traffic? b) pulled out his baton and whacked her smartly over the head, rendering her unconscious? c) pulled his gun and told her if she didn't exit the vehicle he would shoot? > Getting Tasered means having two metal darts shot into your > body, and then having 50,000 volts zapped into you via the > wires connected to the darts. Having your kid killed by a prohibited driver running from police who gave them the opportunity to decide to jackrabbit kind of hurts too... > Note well: the woman was arrested because of a paperwork > violation, not because she had committed any crime that > endangered or harmed anyone. Wrong. She was arrested because she was driving after the courts had decided she was sufficiently dangerous she should be prohibited from driving. Even then, she couldn't resist speeding while driving. A prohibited driver speeding is endangering others. This is not a "paper violation" - unless you consider a paper violation to be any one where the law happens to be written on paper. This is not somebody who neglected to get the necessary regulatory forms stamped and approved. > The woman was Tasered because > she did not immediately obey the officer's commands, and > because she resisted the officer's taking the phone out of > her hands and his trying to extract her from the car. Wrong. She was tasered because she was a prohibited driver who had been pulled over for committing yet another traffic offense, and one who was still in care and control of a vehicle with the opportunity to jackrabbit at any moment if she so decided. She was tasered because while she had that opportunity, she refused to comply with lawful demands to immediately exit the vehicle, and then began resisting arrest while still in care and control of the vehicle. > Was this arrest proper? Did the officer use the > appropriate amount of force? Yes and yes. In BC anyways, we are a little tired of dangerous drivers killing people while jackrabbiting from police. We are just a little confused at times. We criticize the police when the allow a chase to start with a dangerous driver, then we often criticize them when they do chase. And of course, we criticize them when they don't chase. In this case, the officer eliminated the opportunity for a chase to initiate. > For gun owners, the message is clear. This video shows one > real way that "gun control" laws will be enforced against > you. As registration and licensing and other so-called > reasonable "gun control" laws are enacted, your risk of > breaking those laws increases. A paperwork violation will > be enforced; the enforcers will use batons, Tasers, pepper > spray, or sidearms to take you down and bring you in. Boy, that is one hell of a stretch. If I am supposed to be outraged because police would arrest a criminal committing another firearm offence while their past actions had lead to them being prohibited from being in possession and control of a firearm, I'm afraid it's not working. Because that is the parallel of what happened here. > You can't quote the Second Amendment while you're jerking > and writhing at the business end of a Taser. Most people wouldn't be able to remember and quote any of the amendments if a cop had just showed up at their door to tell them a family member had been killed by a criminal who jackrabbited from police who already had them pulled over. They might, however, be able to ask how it was the driver was allowed the opportunity to jackrabbit in the first place. There's one more option. You can second guess police when they don't stop a criminal from committing an offence. Or alternately, second guess police when they did act to stop a criminal from committing an offense. It's a great system - you can criticize them no matter what they do! - -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:26:10 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Perilous budget votes ahead for Liberals PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL DATE: 2005.06.13 PAGE: A4 (ILLUS) BYLINE: BRIAN LAGHI SECTION: National News EDITION: Metro DATELINE: WORDS: 591 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Perilous budget votes ahead for Liberals - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Liberals' political point man warned the Conservatives yesterday to tread carefully on a series of budget votes tomorrow lest they combine with the Bloc Quebecois to send Canadians to the polls. "I really think they should think long and hard," Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri told CTV's current affairs program Question Period . "If they want to cause an election, they certainly have the ability to do that with the numbers that they have." Although Tory ardour for an election has cooled since the May 19 vote that saw the Liberals win a razor-thin victory, some MPs have mused about the possibility of an accidental defeat of the Liberals. The situation became tighter last week when MP Pat O'Brien left the Liberal Party, creating a setting in which four individuals on the independent side of the House hold the government's fate in their hands. Mr. O'Brien has threatened to vote against the government on budget matters if such a vote could, in effect, kill the proposal to legalize same-sex marriage. Another backbench Liberal, Tom Wappel, has remained silent on the matter. The Conservatives' deputy House leader, Jason Kenney, said the party will do all it can to field the maximum number of MPs in the House. "It's very important in a minority Parliament to have as many people as we possibly can in the House and that's exactly what we're planning to do." Tomorrow evening, beginning at 10 p.m., MPs will face several votes, including at least four confidence votes. MPs will be casting their annual votes for the Commons to approve the $187-billion in operational funds required by the federal government. The public service would be unable to function without parliamentary approval of the money, which is known as supply or the main estimates. The opposition can challenge certain aspects of the spending and the Conservatives have so far given notice that they will force votes on the Privy Council Office's $125-million budget, as well as two separate votes granting money for the federal gun registry. It is expected that Mr. Valeri will declare those votes to be matters of confidence in the government. There could also be votes tomorrow evening on one or both of the government's two budget bills, C-43 and C-48. Currently, the Liberals and New Democrats have 151 seats on their side of the House of Commons, while the Tories and Bloc have 152. That means the Liberals need at least three of the four independents to survive. The independents include: Carolyn Parrish, who regularly votes with the Liberals; David Kilgour who voted against them May 19; Chuck Cadman, who voted with the Liberals, but isn't expect to be in Ottawa tomorrow; and Mr. O'Brien. The Speaker, Peter Milliken, votes only in the case of a tie. However, at least two Tories, David Chatters and Darrel Stinson, have cancer and their attendance is uncertain. A third Tory -- Gurmant Grewal - -- is on leave and not sitting in the House. The Liberals would likely survive if the three were unavailable for the vote, provided all remaining Liberal-NDP members show up and support the government. Most political observers believe that the Tories do not want to push a vote because the polls put them behind the Liberals by between eight and 14 percentage points. Bloc Quebecois House Leader Richard Marceau said his party plans to be out in full force tomorrow to vote against the government. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:28:46 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Small-scale weapons trigger large-scale death: PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2005.06.13 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A6 BYLINE: Don Butler SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen ILLUSTRATION: Colour Photo: David Guttenfelder, The Associated Press / ALiberian youth carries an assault rifle during violence in Monrovia in the mid-1990s. Support is growing for a ban on the international sales of small arms and light weapons, says Pasi Patokallio, Finland's ambassador to Canada. NOTE: Small Weapons a Global Scourge - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Small-scale weapons trigger large-scale death: They kill up to half a million people worldwide each year, writes Don Butler. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, has described them as weapons of mass destruction. But unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, they are killing real people, up to 500,000 every year. They are small arms and light weapons. There were an estimated 639 million of them in 2003, one for every 10 people on Earth. Small arms are powerful, cheap and ubiquitous, says Finland's ambassador to Canada, Pasi Patokallio, who will chair a United Nations conference next month to assess efforts to curb these everyday weapons of mass destruction. Small arms include revolvers, pistols, rifles, assault rifles, submachine-guns and light machine-guns. Light weapons are such things as grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, light mortars and portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems. "We are not talking about toys for boys or pistols under pillows," Mr. Patokallio says. "We are talking about lethal instruments of war." Ninety per cent of those killed by small arms and light weapons are civilians, most of them young males. About half die in military conflicts, the rest in other gun-related violence, principally crime. Small arms can be just as devastating after conflicts end, says Mr. Patokallio. A decade after El Salvador's civil war ended, more than a 10th of the country's gross domestic product is lost due to gun-related violence, double the amount spent on health and education. Many of these weapons are in private hands. In Africa, for example, an estimated 100 million small arms are beyond the control of national authorities. According to the 2004 Small Arms Survey, up to eight million small arms were dispersed among Iraqi civilians after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. It was, says Mr. Patokallio, "the single most significant small arms stockpile transfer the world has ever known." Last year, 1,249 companies in more than 90 countries were involved in small arms and light weapons production. The authorized trade is valued at $4 billion U.S. a year. Nobody knows the value of the illegal trade, but it is substantial. The U.S. is the largest small arms exporter, with sales valued at $741 million U.S. in 2001, followed by Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Russian Federation, Brazil and China. (Canadian small arms exports are worth about $10 million a year, not including those that go to the U.S.) The largest known small arms importers are the United States, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Japan, South Korea and, surprisingly, Canada, which imports weapons valued at about $100 million a year, mostly for sports or hunting. Before the mid-1990s, small arms barely registered as an issue. But with the end of the Cold War and the proliferation of small-scale conflicts, the issue began to creep onto the UN agenda. In 2001, a UN conference produced a program of action to "prevent, combat and eradicate" the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. The conference Mr. Patokallio will chair will assess its progress. "In practice," he says, "the focus is on preventing and combatting illicit trade. Eradication is probably an illusory goal." About 100 nations submitted progress reports to the first update conference in 2003. But nearly as many ignored it altogether. And a recent NGO assessment concluded many countries have not implemented even the most basic measures in the program of action. Though public awareness has grown, the issue often gets crowded off the agenda by more pressing concerns, Mr. Patokallio says. He is cautiously optimistic about UN negotiations now under way will help states better identify and trace illicit small arms and light weapons. There is also growing support for a legally binding regime to regulate arms brokering, though negotiations have been deferred until at least 2006. Only 25 nations now explicitly regulate brokering. Canada is not among them, though the matter is broadly addressed through a variety of laws governing the export of goods, including firearms. In March, a coalition of NGOs led by Project Ploughshares urged the government to "demonstrate leadership" by passing explicit laws to register and license arms brokers. The NGO coalition also wants Canada to push for a global ban on civilian possession of military assault weapons, step up efforts to reduce demand for small arms and light weapons, and work to alleviate their impact. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 08:31:39 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: New York Times: How to Get Rid of a Gun PUBLICATION: The New York Times SECTION: Magazine EDITION: Late Edition - Final DATE: 2005.06.12 PAGE: 74 COLUMN: LIVES BYLINE: Mike Kessler - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How to Get Rid of a Gun - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is how a stash of weapons came into my hands. A few years ago, my friend Elizabeth's brother died unexpectedly in Los Angeles. She and I were both living in L.A. at the time, and I wanted to help her cope. While going through her brother's belongings, we discovered, in an upper corner of his closet, a locked metal box. The key was nowhere to be found, but Elizabeth knew what the box held -- a small collection of handguns that her brother kept for protection. Elizabeth's brother was gone now, and she wanted the handguns gone, too - -- put out of commission. The collection wasn't her idea of a keepsake. I wasn't really interested in them, either. True, I'd been to the indoor shooting range over the years -- with my own brother and with friends -- and each time I enjoyed it. It made me shaky with excitement, and scared, like looking over the edge of a tall bridge. But this wasn't on my mind at the time. I promised Elizabeth that I'd get rid of them. "It'll be easy," I said. "The police love to get guns off the street." I went straight to the Hollywood branch of the L.A.P. D. Leaving the weapons in the trunk of my Volkswagen, I went in and explained the situation. "We can't take the box if it's still locked," the officer in the lobby explained. "Who knows what could be in it?" "So you'll let me leave with a trunk full of guns that I'm not licensed to carry?" I asked. She said yes, as long as the box was locked, and expressed little further interest. My next stop was a locksmith's in Los Feliz. Straight-faced and silent, the man behind the counter pulled out a crowbar and pried the box open. There were five handguns: a Glock 9 millimeter, a Smith & Wesson revolver, a .38, a .25 and a very tiny pistol, the make and caliber of which I can't remember. The locksmith perked up at the sight of the peashooter. "It's so cute," he said. I laughed, but the open box made me feel vulnerable. So I took the guns and paid a visit to my good friend Mike, who was once a hunting guide in Michigan and still has some old rifles. He asked if the handguns were loaded. "I don't know," I said. The answer, I was shocked to find out, was yes. Mike gave me a quick lesson in bullet removal. Since the L.A.P.D. hadn't been that helpful, I decided to drive to Glendale, which has its own police force. This time, I hauled the guns in a cardboard box. As I entered the police station, the cop there put a hand on his side arm and told me to drop the box. I did. After I explained my situation, he ran a background check on the firearms: clean. He checked my record: squeaky clean. Then he lightened up -- and tried to talk me into selling him the Glock and the Smith & Wesson, which he told me were worth a bundle. "But they're not even registered in my name," I said, "and the owner is dead." This was no problem, he assured me, because California gun laws were such that if my friend gave me his guns, registered in his name, before 1991 (wink wink), it would be perfectly legal for me to have them. And to sell them. We exchanged cards, and I left with my cardboard box of handguns. A week or two later, he called to see if I had reconsidered his proposition. I told him no. And his eagerness to have the guns made me hesitant to simply turn them over. I wasn't sure what to do, so I stored the weapons in my garage. After a while, I got to thinking about the thrill of firing a gun. Every time I'd been to a shooting range, I was fascinated by the power I wielded. I also thought about the protection a handgun would provide. Maybe I should just keep them, I thought, or at least the Glock. This is L.A., after all. But then I wondered, Could I actually kill someone? Maybe, but it would take a real movie-climax moment to finish off another human -- a decision with consequences that could haunt me forever. A lot of upstanding citizens -- including some of my loved ones - -- are willing to face those consequences. I'm not, I decided. But I couldn't have adopted the weapons in good faith, anyway. I'd made a promise to Elizabeth. So one slow spring day I went to the garage, took out the handguns -- and smashed them with a 15-pound ax. I shattered the butt of the .38. I disfigured the barrel of the .25. I chased the Glock and the Smith & Wesson around the garage as they bounced from each blow. My hands began to burn from the repeated swinging. My lower back ached. But I eventually rendered the guns useless. I put the guns in an industrial-strength trash bag. But then I imagined some kids rummaging around a suburban landfill and finding them, which made me picture the violent opening scene of a made-for-TV movie. So I added garden dirt and poured in some old paint. Then I added more, and I shook the sack and rolled it around. I picked up the bag and threw it in the trash. Then I called Elizabeth and reported that the job was done. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #126 ********************************** 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.