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 #146 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, June 19 2005 Volume 08 : Number 146 In this issue: Re: seized guns-last update Re: On Edmonton Serial Killer... RE: On Edmonton Serial Killer... PETA Workers Arrested for Alleged Cruelty News headine Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration They got 'im in their sights Re: storage [EDITORIAL] Time to retire watchdog Re: Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration Letter Submitted Re: JPFO's film "Sobering Police Video: What Are You Going to ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:36:54 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Re: seized guns-last update - ----- Original Message ----- From: ross To: Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: seized guns-last update >> "Have him or his lawyer submit a request to the Privacy officer for the RCMP >> (they run the database) to find out exactly what his FIP record says. He >> can then petition to have it changed or removed, if there isn't any good >> reason for it to be in there." > Not enough! they will tell you it will take months to process , as they > did a colleague of mine. After drafting a DEMAND UNDER 337 OF THE > CRIMINAL CODE, they called him back said it would be done within the week. I'd like to hear more about how your colleague used CCC s 337 to get them to process his paperwork faster. This could prove extremely useful. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:02:26 -0600 (CST) From: "jim davies" Subject: Re: On Edmonton Serial Killer... > "Someone out there holds the key information for the successful resolution > of these homicides. The offender is someone's neighbour, friend, brother or > son," the RCMP said. but not a women, I see... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:12:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Pook" Subject: RE: On Edmonton Serial Killer... Well, there's a brilliant statement! Of course it's not a women - it is a serial killer who preys on female prostitutes and street people. Female serial killers generally target men. How many men did Ted Bundy kill? A.=0 How many women did Eillen Woronos (the Florida women in the movie Monster) (sp?) kill? A.=0 Jim Pook Vancouver Island-North Box 326, Tahsis, BC V0P 1X0 (250) 934-7665 jim@tahsisbc.com www.tahsisbc.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:50:16 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: PETA Workers Arrested for Alleged Cruelty http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050617/APA/506170 657&cachetime=5 PETA Workers Arrested for Alleged Cruelty The Associated Press Two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were charged with animal cruelty for allegedly picking up dogs and cats from shelters and dumping their dead bodies in the garbage. Police said they found 18 dead animals in the bin and 13 more in a van registered to the activist group, all from shelters in the state's northeastern corner. Investigators arrested the two workers after staking out a garbage bin where animals had previously been dumped, police said Thursday. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said the workers were picking up animals to be brought to PETA headquarters for euthanization. Veterinarians and animal control officers said the PETA workers had promised to find homes for the animals rather than euthanize them, according to police. Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped. PETA spokeswoman Colleen O'Brien said the organization euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than gassing animals in groups, as some counties do. The group scheduled a news conference Friday in Norfolk, Va., where the group is based. Police charged Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, Va., and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, Va., each with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals. They were released on bond. No home telephone number was listed for either Hinkle or Cook, and a message left for Cook at PETA headquarters was not returned. A PETA spokesman said he did not know how to reach Hinkle. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:50:38 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: News headine Whoop dee doo. . . It's a 'new day' . . . Martin offers .... a 'stirring vision' for Canada. No 'image makeover' required for the PM on the rubber chicken circuit. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:52:18 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration Scheme Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=178 Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration Scheme On April 26, 2005, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Sen. Joe Dunn and Senate President pro tem Don Perata held a press conference announcing the introduction of SB 357, a bill to mandate that all handgun ammunition carry a unique serial number engraved on the casing of each cartridge and on the bottom of every bullet. During this conference, Lockyer made a number of claims in support of the bill that are not supported by the facts. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, Inc. responded to those claims, and provided important insight into the real impact of this ill-conceived legislation. * Lockyer, Dunn and Perata claimed SB357 would cost manufacturers only one-half of a cent to laser engrave a serial number on the base of a bullet and side of a cartridge. According to SAAMI, the actual cost to serialize ammunition--with a number engraved on the bottom of each bullet and on the side of each casing--would be staggering, requiring the creation of entirely new factories and purchase of new production equipment. This alone would cost tens of millions of dollars. Additionally, the time required to laser engrave each round, even if only a fraction of a second for each of the millions of rounds produced, would seriously slow down production. SAAMI estimates it would take three weeks to produce what is now completed in one DAY. This sort of slowdown would cripple the industry. It would also require that ammunition, which is now made in production lots of millions, be made in lots of 20, 50 or 100 rounds, eliminating the benefits of mass production that enable ammunition manufacturers to operate successfully. SAAMI analysis projects that a round that now costs pennies would cost several dollars each! A far cry from the half-cent claim made by Lockyer and his allies. * Lockyer, Dunn and Perata said that serializing each bullet is the same as printing lot numbers on the packaging of other products. These two procedures are not comparable. Ammunition manufactures already place lot numbers on ammunition packaging, just as makers of other products do. They do not, however, place serial numbers on each item in the package. Imagine the cost to consumers if every aspirin, antacid or prescription drug capsule had to carry a serial number. The costs would make health care excessively expensive for even well off Americans. * Lockyer, Dunn and Perata claimed the industry has test-fired serialized bullets to ensure the technology works. No major firearms manufacturer, or SAAMI--the nation`s leading authority, which sets standards followed by every ammunition maker--participated in any testing of serialized ammunition. SAAMI has serious questions regarding the practicality of reading the number from a laser engraving on a bullet after it has been subjected to the pressures and deformation involved in firing a handgun. In any case, General Lockyer was misleading in suggesting the industry has participated in testing this process. * Lockyer, Dunn and Perata asserted that the bill would not impact rifle ammunition. This claim shows the lack of general knowledge the proponents of this bill have about firearms. SB 357 specifies "handgun ammunition" without providing a definition, and that opens the ban up to any round that can be fired from a handgun. This would include all .22 caliber rimfire rounds, the most common target shooting round, and many traditional rifle rounds that can and are shot from handguns that are designed for hunting. Additionally, there are many rifles that are designed to use common "handgun" ammunition, including .38, 9mm, .44 and .45. * Lockyer, Dunn and Perata said SB 357 would not adversely impact law enforcement. Even with a law enforcement exemption, the cost of ammunition will increase dramatically. This will have an adverse impact on police department budgets and on the costs to all city and county bottom lines. Additionally, it is the civilian sales of ammunition that fund research and development of ammunition for law enforcement and the military. Not only would the enormous costs of implementing a bullet registration scheme divert critical funding from proven crime fighting initiatives, the proposal could hardly be an effective crime-fighting tool. Consider that, among other things, criminals could: * Use reloading equipment to produce unmarked ammunition. * Disassemble rounds of marked ammunition, remove the markings, then reassemble. * Collect spent shell casings at target ranges and use them to throw police off the trail. * Steal marked ammunition from registered owners. * Use handguns that don`t eject cartridge cases and leave evidence at crime scenes. * Buy unmarked ammunition out of state or on the black market. Additionally, this bill would have a negative impact on our military forces by making all ammunition more expensive and less available due to significantly slower production. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in the U.S. House of Representatives, has expressed his concerns about SB 357 in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The proposal would drive up the price of ammunition, he said, and would lead to "a reduction in cartridges available for target practice, which would leave our armed forces and law enforcement personnel vulnerable on the battlefield and on America`s streets." Chairman Hunter urged the Governor "to strongly oppose ammunition serialization on the grounds that it would harm our national and homeland security." The most likely short-term impact of this legislation would be that ammunition makers would simply abandon the California market, rather than incur the exorbitant costs associated with bullet and cartridge serialization. The net effect would be to rob all Californians of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms--no doubt exactly the result anti-gun politicians have in mind. Finally, it must be noted that the sponsors of this legislation were given the opportunity to learn first hand about the industry their legislation threatens to destroy. SAAMI invited members of the California legislature as well as Attorney General Lockyer on a tour of an ammunition plant. Not surprisingly, Lockyer and the other bill sponsors failed to take advantage of the opportunity to learn first-hand how ammunition is made, and why this bill is a bad idea. For more information go to SAAMI and http://www.saami.org/news/CA_ammoSer040505.htm Posted: 5/6/2005 There are more than 20,000 gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels. Read More ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:53:06 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: They got 'im in their sights Vladyslav reported: > Anyway, Rudolf is pissed off by all this and will move out of Toronto > next year. As amplified by Bruce: > This is because his name has been flagged in the "Firearms Interest > Police" database. This will cause the good Doctor no end of > problems, no matter where he lives in Canada. So moving from Tronna will do no good. The CFO's tentacles extend into every nook and cranny of Ontari-ari-ario. Could you explain how his 'Vulnerable Sector Screening' clearance was not also lifted if he has become listed in the FIP files. (Obviously one does not have to 'technically' be charged and criminalized to become of 'interest' to the CFO). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 08:55:33 -0600 (CST) From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: storage Paul wrote: "In my case, I have a print out of the regulations regarding the category of firearms I own prominently displayed with the items in question. In the event of an inspection its very clear my storage and/or display procedures meet or exceed the letter of the law." ABSOLUTELY! See below my signature block for what I post in my locker. - -- 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". http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/SOR-98-209/112948.html#rid-112975 STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/SOR-98-209/112948.html#rid-112975 STORAGE OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/SOR-98-209/112948.html#rid-112975 STORAGE OF PROHIBITED FIREARMS ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:21:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: [EDITORIAL] Time to retire watchdog http://www.ottawasun.com/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Editorial/home.html Time to retire watchdog Take a deep breath. What you're about to read may seem shocking. The federal New Democratic Party is right. Bang on. We absolutely agree with its position. This may well be a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to say so, but then we're not used to the NDP making such perfect sense. The lefties are questioning the competence of Parliament's so-called independent ethics commissioner Bernard Shapiro, saying he has let down Canadians in a couple of recent investigations and ought to be replaced. We're inclined to agree that, when it comes to checking up on members of the government, Shapiro has seemed reluctant to make waves. We had high hopes when the new ethics watchdog was appointed early last year to replace Liberal lapdog Howard Wilson. Particularly impressive was the stipulation that Shapiro would report to the House of Commons, instead of to the prime minister, as did his predecessor. Now we're beginning to wonder if he understands that he works for all MPs, and if those on the government side of the House are really allowing him to be independent. Most recently our suspicions were aroused when Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff, Tim Murphy, suggested in taped conversations with Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal that he could convince Shapiro to tailor a report he was preparing to take the heat off Grewal in an immigration matter. When Opposition members howled about the Liberals wielding inappropriate influence, the commissioner said he couldn't investigate Murphy since he's not a member of Parliament. Maybe not, but his boss certainly is, and the most powerful one in the country at that. We're also concerned over Shapiro's reluctance to get involved in the whole sorry matter of attempts to get Grewal and his wife, who is also a Tory MP, to cross the floor of the Commons in the days leading up to a crucial confidence vote. Then there's the continuing saga of Judy Sgro. The former immigration minister was forced to resign from cabinet early this year after allegations of conflict of interest in a case involving a Brampton pizza shop owner and also faced flak over a federal program established to speed up work visas for strippers. Shapiro has yet to submit his final report on the conflict allegations. Conservative Deputy Leader Peter MacKay says Shapiro, who earns between $216,000 and $257,000 annually, seems to be demonstrating daily that he's just as anemic as his predecessor. Veteran New Democrat Ed Broadbent says he will formally call for Shapiro's resignation in the Commons next week. Unless the ethics watchdog can convince us that he has the interests of all Canadians at heart, Shapiro should do just that. AND ANOTHER THING... We can hardly wait to see what Auditor General Sheila Fraser has to say this time around about the federal gun registry. It has been about 21/2 years since Fraser informed us that the program, originally forecast to cost $2 million, was instead gobbling up a mind-boggling $1 billion. Sadly, despite the massive spending, we can't see where the registry has helped take weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. We're betting that her latest audit, to be completed next February, will show that little has changed. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:24:53 -0600 (CST) From: Vladyslav Strashko Subject: Re: Lockyer, Dunn and Perata Misrepresent Their Bullet Registration - --- Joe Gingrich wrote: > Even with a law enforcement exemption, the cost of ... Just because of this, this law should be scrapped. The idea was to help police to track "bad guys", so if bad guy kills a cop, uses his gun to commit the crime, he wouldn't be traceable? So, it's not the intention of law... Well, the criminals will start going to go after police for guns, not for legal gun owners and collectors. Lot's of fun for cops then... If the law gives the exempt status to police and government it means that reason why it's introduced is not a real reason, but decoy for general public. As for Canada, here is an example. Bill 68 - you need PAL. Police officer doesn't. The reasons for PAL introduction were "background check" and "safety education". I don't think "background check" is an issue for police officers, so they don't care about safety??? Or maybe it's too difficult to have new recruit to take one day course? Perhaps the government just wanted to reduce number of legal owners creating a new bureaucratic procedure? www.nfa.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 14:29:27 -0600 (CST) From: AOB Subject: Letter Submitted Sunday, June 19, 2005 Editor for consideration. Re letter of the day 18/06/05 Mr James Deacon Canadian Firearms Program. We are astounded by the temerity of Mr. J Deacon a senior Civil Servant to publicly defend this most poisonous piece of legislation ever perpetrated in the name of "Crime Control" on the citizens of Canada. This Program has to date been a black sinkhole of waste over one Billion taxpayer dollars & is now approaching two Billion and has yet to prevent one death by firearms. Would not this amount of money have been better spent addressing the root causes that affect our society (Family Violence, Young Offenders, Alcohol Abuse Etc:) and more efficient enforcement of existing laws? Sincerely, Mr Mrs Allan W Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:31:40 -0600 (CST) From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: JPFO's film "Sobering Police Video: What Are You Going to Joe Gingrich wrote: > I fail to see the relevance of you posting a list of examples of > summary offenses when in actuality they were hybrid offenses and then > later stating that you knew they were hybrid offenses, not summary > offenses. What's your point? Well I'm not sure what you and the JPFO have for a point either, Joe. The idea that anything proceeded with by way of summary conviction/misdemeanor is a mere "paper offence" strikes me as ridiculous. Particularly when nobody can define what a "paper offence" is to begin with. That most of these are hybrid offenses is irrelevant to me. Assault charges are almost without exception proceeded with by way of summary conviction - hybrid offense or not - yet these are "paper crimes"? I think not. More to the point, I don't understand the presumption that if we just concern ourselves with strictly summary conviction offences, we're talking about harmless activities where we should pity the poor offender. Let's have it your way and pretend that hybrid offences, even when invariably proceeded with by summary conviction, are bad examples. Let's just talk about strictly summary conviction offences. Here's one example: what is commonly known referred to as "joyriding" is not a hyrid offence - it's summary conviction only. If some kids steal your vehicle tonight, do a little joyriding in it, bend it up a tiny bit, are you going to consider yourself the victim of a "paper crime"? I suspect not; I think you're going to consider yourself victimized by criminals. How about somebody who does a dine and dash on a restaurant or a ride and run on a cab driver, or writes a bad cheque for food or transportation? Those are strictly summary conviction offences - are the victims of criminals committing these offences merely the victims of "paper crimes"? Again, I think not. Intimidation? Summary conviction only. Harmless "paper crime"; I think not. In short, I think the summary conviction/misdemeanor argument and claiming some are also hybrid offences and so don't count is pretty much a strawman. Typifying summary conviction only offences as relatively harmless is the twin to the first strawman. I also think a peace officer removing a driver who is prohibited from driving from their care and control of a vehicle and resisting arrest by use of a taser being equated with firearms legislation is ridiculous. We should be putting our best case forward - not our worst. If we need a poster child for our issues, why not talk about people like Brian Ward or James Buck? Made in Canada; crystal clear instances of abuse. > I do not know the laws of each individual state. You evidently do. > In some states driving while prohibited may actually be a > misdemeanor. I don't have any law books. You don't even know that what this person was guilty of was in fact merely a misdemeanor? Yet people like this offender should be the poster child for opposition to the Firearms Act as a victim of a "paper crime"? This is why I don't see the point of that at all. > However, just for this time let's say "paper crimes" refers to > summary offenses in Kanukistani law and not things like the "Great > Bumwad Fiasco" by the Liberals in Ottawa. You mean, like joyriding, theft of food and services, and intimidation as mentioned above? Okay, strict summary conviction offences it is. I still don't see summary conviction only offences as relatively harmless offences as you apparently do. > "Paper crimes" (those with summary convictions) could be enforced by > police using batons, pepper spray, tasers or firearms. Yes they could. So you would object if police had to resort to batons, pepper spray, tasers or whatever to apprehend criminals joyriding in your vehicle, intimidating your wife, or whatever? Strictly summary conviction, remember... Well, maybe you have a problem with that, but I sure as hell wouldn't object if that's what it took to apprehend the criminals committing those summary conviction only offenses. > I think JPFO is trying to help firearms owners understand how a > "paper crime" and evidently non-violent conduct by a perpetrator can > escalate into a rather physically painful arrest by the police. See above. You might object to police using "painful arrest" if the criminal forces the issue when being arrested for theft of services, joyriding, or intimidating someone, but I don't have a problem with that at all. I also don't have a problem with police using force to remove a prohibited driver from care and control of a vehicle when they're resisting arrest and able to speed off and kill anybody in their path at any moment while still in care and control. And, incidentally, resisting arrest. Finally, I don't think JPFO are trying to "help" at all. Just like the gun grabbers, they're fearmongering, pure and simple. > The lady perpetrator was unarmed yet she was tasered. The female criminal was not unarmed. She was a criminal already prohibited from driving due to her previous driving offences. She was armed by way of being in care and control of a motor vehicle weighing thousands of pounds and capable of killing any number of people should she have decided to jackrabbit. She was also, incidentally, resisting arrest. How many people here would have been writing to support this cop if the video had shown him pussyfooting around with the criminal behind the wheel until they jackrabbited and subsequently killed a bunch of kids in a sidewalk? I wager exactly NONE - including yourself. If for no other reason than you fail to comprehend that an impaired/prohibited driver in care and control of a motor vehicle, able to drive off at any instant, is effectively armed with a dangerous weapon and the ability to use it at any moment. We would, however, have gotten all kinds of posts about the "incompetent Keystoners". > The question remains to be answered what kind of force could be > applied to a non-violent firearms owner if stopped by a police > officer for a "paper crime" while driving? Well to begin with I believe that suggesting summary conviction crimes are only "paper crimes" is a non starter, as evidenced by some of the summary conviction only offences mentioned above. My presumption is that if a firearms owner is stopped for a (as yet still undefined) "paper crime", nothing physically will happen to them unless they refuse to comply with instructions, subsequently resist arrest, or refuse to give up care and control of a firearm/car. If any of that happens, then I presume an escalating use of force will be used by police to effect their purpose and to remove them from care and control. > Also I do not agree that the female perpetrator in this film is being > used as a "poster lady" by JPFO as you suggest. Okay, we'll just have to disagree on that. I see it as a transparent attempt by JPFO to incite resentment against police and fearmonger using the obvious lack of appreciation most people have for the situation. It sure as hell doesn't equate to me with opposition to the Firearms Act. - -- "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 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #146 ********************************** 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.