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 #483 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 Tuesday, October 11 2005 Volume 08 : Number 483 In this issue: Column: Katrina Educates World On Need for Owning Guns Letter: We're all just serfs POA Opposes Proposition H: San Francisco's Gun Ban Initiative Contract specifies that consultant leave no paper trail in federal Bureaucrats disciplined before sponsorship report released, says ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:28:01 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Column: Katrina Educates World On Need for Owning Guns Katrina Educates World On Need for Owning Guns http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=393&AMVIEWUSER=24a9dba0e5a2e 61c9c2d68b0f001c9d9 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:28:18 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Letter: We're all just serfs PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2005.10.10 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PNAME: Letters PAGE: A11 BYLINE: Glenn Woiceshyn SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen WORD COUNT: 108 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ We're all just serfs - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The real reason the tax-and-spend Liberals prefer rebate cheques to tax cuts should be obvious. Tax cuts imply that the money extorted by the government rightfully belongs to those who have earned it -- a foreign concept in Canada. Handing out rebate cheques implies that the money belongs to the government, and gives the impression of a kind master doling out gifts to a sea of serfs. Until Canadians reject the role of the serf and assert their property rights by means of a tax revolt, the government will continue to squander their hard-earned money. Glenn Woiceshyn, Calgary ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:30:31 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Subject: POA Opposes Proposition H: San Francisco's Gun Ban Initiative http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/october_05_article4.htm?id=24653 POA Opposes Proposition H: San Francisco's Gun Ban Initiative October 2005 By Michael Nevin, Jr. Southern Station The San Francisco Gun Ban Initiative (Proposition H) will appear on the next election ballot in November. Several supervisors have touted the ban as a step in curbing violence and increasing public safety. The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA), representing men and women dedicated to a life of service to public safety, must evaluate any legislative effort affecting its membership. After careful review and analysis, the POA does not support the proposed ballot initiative that would nullify the personal choice of city residents to lawfully possess a handgun for selfdefense purposes. The Handgun Ban The proposed ordinance would prohibit San Francisco residents from possessing any handgun, and they would have 90 days to relinquish their property. The sale, manufacture, and distribution of ?rearms would be prohibited. Visitors to the city would not be subject to the ban if they are in compliance with applicable laws. Police officers and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying out the functions of his or her government employment." And it should be noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law enforcement agencies is stated in the proposal. The role members of the police department, represented by the POA, will play in any door-to-door gun confiscation scheme is cause for concern. Nearly 22,000 handguns have been purchased by residents since 1996, according to the state attorney general's of?ce.[1] But there is no way to determine how many total guns exist because local governments are forbidden under state law from requiring firearms to be registered or licensed. It is unclear what database the city would utilize to track San Franciscans who have lawfully purchased handguns. National Statistics and Studies Do Not Favor the Handgun Ban Argument * According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted from 1993 through 2001, violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence was down 59%, and ?rearm violence decreased by 63%.[2] * A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control released in 2003 found no proof to support the claim that gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence. The task force found ?rearms-related injuries declined since 1993 despite approximately 4.5 million new firearms sold each year.[3] * In December of 2004, the National Academy of Sciences released the ?ndings of a study: "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review." "Current research and data on firearms and violent crime are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various measures to prevent and control gun violence," according to the panel.[4] * Guns are used defensively, according to some estimates, more than 2 million times annually - four times more than the estimated use of a gun in commission of a crime.[5] Case Study-Washington D.C. Washington D.C. provides a glimpse into gun prohibition after it banned handguns in 1976. How successful has our nation's capital been in reducing violence? D.C. has consistently been dubbed "Murder Capital U.S.A.," dating back to the early 1990s. The Department of Justice found that guns accounted for 80 percent of Washington D.C.'s homicides between 1985 and 1994.[6] With a murder rate nearly 8 times the national rate, it is clear that something is not working. [7] Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 44.2 per 100,000 population in 2003, while San Francisco had a homicide rate of 8.9 per 100,000 in 2003. D.C. had more than double the overall violent crime rate when compared to San Francisco in 2003.[8] FBI Uniform Crime Report- San Francisco * In 1995 San Francisco had a population of 738,371. There were 99 homicides and 10,903 violent crimes. * In 2003 San Francisco had a population of 772,065. There were 69 homicides and 5,725 violent crimes. * From 1995 through 2003, the homicide rate decreased by 33.3% and the violent crime rate decreased by 49.8% in San Francisco. * Although San Francisco had an unusual number of homicides, 88, in 2004, the city has averaged 71 homicides each year over the past decade. 63 of the homicides in 2004 involved a firearm.[9] Societal Problem Not a Gun Problem We need to look no further than across the bay in Oakland to find anecdotal evidence highlighting the need for citizens to have lifesaving options when facing violent encounters. Patrick McCullough has spent a decade reporting drug dealers to police. He is the face of the law-abiding citizen who lives with urban terror. When McCullough shot and wounded someone he believed was posing a threat to him, the Alameda County D.A.'s office found that McCullough acted in self-defense.[10] McCullough may not live in a gated community or be able to afford armed bodyguards, but he has an inalienable right to defend himself and his family. Jeff Weise, 16, killed his grandfather, who happened to be a retired police of?cer, before stealing his guns and going on a killing spree on the Red Lake Indian reservation in Minnesota. "Everything that kid did that day, practically from the moment he walked out of his bedroom, was a felony," said Joe Olson, a Hamline University law professor and president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. Olson concluded, "I don't think any gun-control laws would have made a difference."[11] To believe that the proposed handgun ban would have an impact on handgun violence, one would have to assume that criminals would actually abide by the new law. After all, criminals are undoubtedly responsible for the high crime rates and firearm violence. Considering the very definition of a criminal, it would be hard to imagine that such enlightenment would occur. In fact, both reason and empirical research suggest that most criminals are attracted to places where they meet less resistance. Guns and Violence-A Law Enforcement Approach The proposed handgun ban initiative states: "The presence of handguns poses a significant threat to the safety of San Franciscans." In reality, the presence of criminals in possession of any ?rearm poses a significant threat to the safety of all Americans. Guns are nothing more than a tool that if in the wrong hands will hurt innocent people. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack on American soil, proved that box cutters and deadly intentions could be as dangerous as almost any weapon in a military arsenal. Proactive law enforcement targeting crime-infested neighborhoods has been the most effective method in curbing the violence. The S.F.P.D., in conjunction with federal authorities, has established a gun task force known as "Triggerlock II." A police department bulletin explains: "'Triggerlock II' is committed to disarming violent criminals and reducing gun violence by identifying the most dangerous offenders and referring them for prosecution under state and federal firearm violations."[12] When homicides in San Francisco surged in the first half of 2004, the Gang Task Force and other specialized units of the police department stepped up and cut the homicide rate by 40 percent in the second half of the year. According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: "The most important factor in the decline, police say, is authorities' attempt to take those they consider the most violent, incorrigible criminals off the streets with the help of the federal 'Triggerlock' law, which provides for prison terms of 10 years or more for felons who are caught with a gun."[13] A targeted response to violent crime coupled with tough state legislation such as "Three Strikes" ensures that predators are not in a position to wreak havoc on society. The District Attorney has made it clear that she will aggressively prosecute anyone using firearms in the commission of a crime and/or found to be in unlawful possession of a firearm. Cities across the nation that employ a "zero tolerance" approach to violent crime are reaping the bene?ts. New York City, which leads the way in policing tactics such as CompStat, saw its peak of 2,245 murders in 1990 drop to 571 in 2004. Chicago, the nation's murder capital in 2003 with 598 homicides and a city that banned handguns in 1982, watched as homicides in 2004 fell to 447. Police in the Windy City credited the Targeted Response Unit that saturates areas known for gang violence.[14] While the handgun ban initiative does a good job in circumventing the Second Amendment, it does little to address the deeper cultural issues of crime and violence. Random or targeted acts of violence personally affect the law enforcement community. Those dedicated to public service understand that we need to support any reasonable effort to stem the tide of violent encounters threatening citizens and law enforcement alike. However, good intentions don't necessarily make good law. Disarming law-abiding citizens is not the answer. Guns and Civil Liberties The Pink Pistols, the largest national Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community, has a San Francisco chapter and is outraged by the proposed handgun ban. "The idea is to make the people better, so they don't commit the crimes, or if you can't do that, at least stop them when they do. A gun is the law-abiding citizen's best tool to stop the criminal in his tracks," states Gwen Patton, International Media Spokesperson for the Pink Pistols.[15] San Francisco has a storied reputation as a stronghold of personal liberty. The Bill of Rights explicitly refers to rights of individuals, not rights of government. And most San Franciscans are not in favor of allowing government to be in the business of abrogating civil liberties. No Constitutional Right to Police Protection In DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that the state has no constitutional obligation to protect citizens from private violence.[16] California Government Code section 845 states, in part: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service." Since even the fastest calls for service (9-1-1) are measured in minutes rather than seconds, how does a law enforcement agency explain to victims of violent crime that the agency sup-ported efforts denying them reasonable means of self-defense? That's a tall order. Conclusion Police of?cers and members of the military would also be exempt while "carrying out the functions of his or her government employment." But does this mean that San Francisco police of?cers or F.B.I. agents living in San Francisco would be forced to leave their weapons at the office upon the completion of their shift? The danger associated with that scenario is unfathomable. And it should be noted that no exemption for retired members of our association or other law enforcement is stated in the proposal. Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in 1764: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms.disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. .Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater con?dence than an armed man."[17] Doesn't this ring true today? When we disarm honest, law-abiding citizens, we contribute to empowering criminals and endangering society-at-large. The San Francisco Police Of?cers Association supports the right of our members (active and retired), neighbors, and law-abiding citizens in this city to choose reasonable means of self-defense while in their homes or businesses. We oppose Proposition H, the S.F. Gun Ban Initiative. [1] Curtis, Kim, "San Francisco, frustrated by rising homicides, tries handgun ban," Associated Press, 1/19/05 [2] "Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001," National Crime Victimization Survey, U.S. Department of Justice [ 3 ] Wa shing ton Times, E d itor ia l, 10/7/03 [4] "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academy of Sciences, 12/16/04 [5] Lott, John, "Lottery Numbers: Why don't media cover the good-news stories," Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/1/03 (Note: estimates are as high as 2.5 million times annually for defensive uses based on research by Gary Kleck, Criminologist) [6] Ryan, Joan, "Guns are a bad idea, but so is ban," San Francisco Chronicle, 12/23/04 [7] Crime in the States, 2003, Federal Bureau of Investigation [8] Ibid [9] Curtis [10] Lee, Henry, "DA's of?ce clears man who shot teen neighbor," San Francisco Chronicle, 3/17/05 [11] Diaz, Kevin, "Red Lake shootings ignite scant debate," Sacramento Bee, 4/4/05 [12] S.F.P.D. Department Bulletin 05- 017, 2/7/05 [13] Van Derbeken, Jaxon, "Heading off homicide," San Francisco Chronicle, 12/23/04 [14] Bone, James, "US murder rate sinks as zero tolerance puts gangs on run," Times Online, 1/3/05 [15] "Pink Pistols Angered, but Not Surprised, by SF Gun Ban Plans," Pink Pistols Press Release, 1/3/05 [16] SCOTUS: DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) [17] Polsby, Daniel and Dennis Breenen, "Taking at Gun Control," Heartland Policy Study, 10/30/95 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:30:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Contract specifies that consultant leave no paper trail in federal offices Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20051010/ca_pr_on_na/paperl ess_report_1 Contract specifies that consultant leave no paper trail in federal offices DEAN BEEBY Mon Oct 10, 1:49 PM ET OTTAWA (CP) - Federal officials are under fire for a $132,000 contract signed with an outside consultant that specifies the firm must leave no paper trail in government offices. The deal Indian and Northern Affairs Canada signed with Ottawa-based Totem Hill Inc. explicitly states that "presentations shall be oral with supporting material provided to aid comprehension but not retained by the department." The February 2005 contract ensures there are no documents in office filing cabinets that auditors can later verify and citizens can consult through requests under the Access to Information Act. "Verbal reports are just completely unacceptable," said Tory MP John Williams, a persistent Opposition critic when it comes to government procurement. "It breaks all the rules of contracting." The Liberal government has already been excoriated for previous consulting contracts that carefully specified that no paperwork be generated. In her scathing February 2004 report on sponsorship activities, Auditor General Sheila Fraser uncovered five contracts the Finance Department had signed with Earnscliffe Strategy Group to provide secret "verbal" briefings and no written work. The reports, from 1999 to 2002, included research into bank mergers and into Canada's response to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, Paul Martin was finance minister and Earnscliffe was a favoured consulting firm staffed by Martin loyalists. In an earlier 2002 investigation into the sponsorship scandal, Fraser also uncovered "verbal advice" arrangements with Groupaction, a Montreal-based communication agency that was paid $1.6 million. And no one has ever found any copies of a Groupaction report for which the government paid $550,000. Williams says the Indian and Northern Affairs contract shows that the vaunted cleanup of federal procurement is a sham. "They have made all kinds of protestations since the sponsorship scandal broke loose that they were doing rigorous internal reviews to ensure the rules were being followed absolutely and completely," he said. "And here we are - a year after it all breaks loose - and they are not applying the rules." A spokeswoman for the Treasury Board, which sets government-wide policy for procurement, declined to say whether the "oral" report adheres to the regulations. But Michelle Laliberte said Indian and Northern Affairs needs to be able to demonstrate to auditors that the work paid for was in fact delivered. "They . . . have to have a clear audit trail," she said. "There has to be some sort of documentation available so that if somebody wants to go in and audit them, on that particular contract, that there's documentation." A spokeswoman for Indian and Northern Affairs said the Totem Hill contract, which is continuing, does comply with all Treasury Board rules. Dominique Lemieux added that apart from the oral report, other aspects of the contract have generated paper that is held in the department. The contract with Totem Hill says the department's audit branch is experiencing "various forms of organizational conflict." The firm was to interview staff, analyze the problems and provide an "oral report" to help maintain the anonymity of employees. Lemieux declined to provide any details of the conflict in the audit branch. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:30:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Bruce Mills" Subject: Bureaucrats disciplined before sponsorship report released, says minister Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20051010/ca_pr_on_na/sponso rship_discipline_1 Bureaucrats disciplined before sponsorship report released, says minister BRUCE CHEADLE Mon Oct 10, 3:14 PM ET OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberal government has not waited for the sponsorship report of Justice John Gomery to begin disciplining civil servants, says Public Works Minister Scott Brison. And the man in charge of the ministry at the heart of the $250-million ad scandal says more shoes will drop after Gomery releases an initial fact-finding report in three weeks that Brison believes will "name names and assign responsibility." "People have been and will be held accountable," Brison repeated twice in a row in an interview with The Canadian Press. "I can tell you there has been disciplinary action taken and that in fact that deputy ministers - not a deputy minister - have taken action on a wide range of fronts." An official later confirmed four employees at Public Works have been disciplined in connection with the sponsorship program, but cited privacy issues in refusing to say who, when or the form of punishment. Evidence at the Gomery inquiry last year indicated a department panel had recommended a five-day suspension for one mid-level bureaucrat and verbal reprimands for two others who handled sponsorship files. The panel also recommended unspecified action against Pierre Tremblay, who was once chief of staff to former minister Alfonso Gagliano and later served as a senior bureaucrat. Tremblay has since died. Brison has been the point man in Liberal efforts to defuse the sponsorship scandal in the House of Commons, repeatedly telling Opposition MPs to let the inquiry complete its work before leaping to conclusions. The president of the union representing civil service professionals said she found talk of discipline both premature and puzzling. No sponsorship-related discipline has come to the attention of either of the major government unions. "I was under the impression that nothing would occur before Gomery," said Michele Demers of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. "I'm quite shocked actually that statements like that would be made publicly by a minister prior to Gomery filing his report. "I'm certainly hoping this is not a political ploy to try and find culprits at any cost before we have any valid report and information on the entire saga." Conservative MP John Williams, the head of the Commons public accounts committee, says the revelations of civil service discipline show Brison has been misleading the House for months. "They're going to hang this whole thing on bureaucratic failure when we know full well that there was serious, close and intimate involvement - and likely management - by . . . ministers and others," said Williams. Scapegoating civil servants for a deeply political program designed to promote the federal government in Quebec has been a minefield throughout the sponsorship scandal. Former prime minister Jean Chretien shrugged off the growing revelations of millions gone astray in 2002, calling it the work of a few thieves who took advantage of a good program. "Perhaps there were a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process," said Chretien. "But how many millions of dollars have we saved because we have re-established the stability of Canada by keeping it a united country?" Following Sheila Fraser's damning audit in February 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin referred to a small group of about 14 people in Public Works - "let's call them the mechanics in all this" - who allegedly engineered phoney contracts and helped middlemen skim off lucrative commissions over five years. "The reason we went to the inquiry is there is a range of other people, a small group again, who were giving out the orders," Martin said at the time. "Those people, we don't know who they are. And the only way we're going to find out that is through the inquiry." Martin subsequently claimed there had to have been political direction, then backpedalled yet again. One former bureaucrat at the centre of the program, Chuck Guite, faces criminal prosecution at a trial next spring. His successor in the Public Works position, Pierre Tremblay, has since died. A number of other well connected Liberals lost their government sinecures in the wake of Fraser's report. Former Public Works minister Alfonso Gagliano was fired from his post as ambassador to Denmark. Jean Pelletier, Chretien's former chief of staff, got the axe as president of Via Rail. Michel Vennat was was fired as head of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Via Rail president Marc Lefrancois got sacked and Andre Ouellet quit his job at the top of Canada Post. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #483 ********************************** 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.