From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #426 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 Saturday, May 20 2006 Volume 09 : Number 426 In this issue: Can we prevail? Funding and democratic governance Re: Globe Column: Gun registry dying with a whimper not a bang Re: AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! Re: Letter to Star PHILIP ALPERS FPCs and PALs/POLs Letter to the Editor of the Belleville Intelligencer 20 May Inquests and gun control Re: [COLUMN] Memo to PM: Howard a fan of gun control Re: [COLUMN] Memo to PM: Howard a fan of gun control Re: Antiques and Flintlocks Re: Divided factions take aim at firearms registry Re: AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:22:03 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Can we prevail? Scott Newark is no longer Mr.Day's assistant. It occurred a couple of weeks ago so it appears it is related to the return of Garry B. to his rightful position. Another pleasant piece of news and a ray of hope that sanity will prevail in the CPC if we stay the course. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:25:56 -0600 (CST) From: Al Muir Subject: Funding and democratic governance The language of Mr. Day in Wednesdays press conference, in regards to licensing, is completely unacceptable. As the present time we must continue to deny funds to the CPC until we see the CPC's proposed legislative package. We must write to Mr. Day, Mr. Toews and Mr. Harper to insure their adherence to democratically arrived at, CPC policy. That policy is a certification document only, not licensing. At the same time we must pressure our own MP's to support an acquisition certification document, better still a FPR. In my recent chat with Wendy she said an FAC is not a licensing system. Does she get something that you do not? Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:26:45 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Re: Globe Column: Gun registry dying with a whimper not a bang > PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL > DATE: 2006.05.18 > PAGE: A12 > BYLINE: JOHN BARBER > SECTION: Column > EDITION: Metro > WORD COUNT: 694 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Gun registry dying with a whimper not a bang > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Why are the big men with long guns such low cowards? Is there some > psychic connection linking attachment to such props in all their > symbolic glory - -snip- THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE !!! This Barber character is some sick puppy. He is so twisted up inside with hate you can see it dripping from his writing. Just imagine how pissed off this bozo is. You know if a gun owner took this tone in a letter, any letter, the cops would probably check em out. I can picture a room full of gun grabbers all having a spontaneous spleen cramp. I think its great. Uh oh better get pepto ;-o __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumpsit Contract - All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:29:49 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! Bruce Mills wrote: > From Stockwell Day's press conference: > > "Responsible firearms owners want us to keep licensing provisions to > acquire and possess firearms". I went and checked on Stockwell Day's speech on the CTV website, and this is a word for word rendering of what he said: During his speech: "Some things are being maintained and are staying in place... [...] "The requirement to have a license if you want to acquire or possess a firearm stays in place, along with the required background checks. [...] "These are recommendations from responsible firearms owners themselves." and later, during the questions: "We still want a requirement, and responsible firearms owners still want a requirement, that anyone who wants to acquire or possess a firearm must have a license to do so - and firearms owners themselves are in support of that, to have a license..." Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:32:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Letter to Star > Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:13:51 -0600 (CST) > From: "Robert S. Sciuk" > Subject: Letter to Star (pub) ... > > http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147902615386&call_pageid=971358637177 A most excellent letter Rob, in the most difficult to crack publication and you did not use the L word once. Keep up the good work. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:42:22 -0600 (CST) From: Douglas Bailey Subject: PHILIP ALPERS What what I can glean from his web site, PHILIP ALPERS is Australia's Wendy Cuckier and his stats should be treated in the same manner as we do for Wendy. =============================================== "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." . ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 22:31:20 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: FPCs and PALs/POLs I hope this fills in the blanks. I had posted to the CFD: >>> The requirements for FACs for all owners - later Liberal policy was to >>> introduce the FPC which became PALs and POLs I understand largely due to >>> provincial refusal to honour Rock's grandfathering of 'all' gun owners >>> into FPCs. Bruce asked: > I have seen this assertion before and have never seen any evidence to > support this "FPC" claim. Do you have any proof that Rock was going to > grandfather all gun owners into one all-encompassing FPC? I'll recycle the 'proof' again, below, excerpted from my 2000 alternate certification paper. "One substantial, fundamental statement about the exemption of experienced firearm owners from the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) and Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC) to obtain an FAC or PAL come directly from the Minister. These assurances were provided to delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) Annual General Meeting in Toronto on February 24 to 26, 1995. Justice Minister Rock was a high profile attendee at the AGM and participated in three different specially arranged meetings about the controversial federal firearms legislation. He stated clearly and without reservation that “all experienced (or current or existing) firearm owners would be grandfathered for life from being required to write the CFSC or any other test to renew their Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) or any other license under C-68.” Rock stated most emphatically that experienced firearm owners would lose “no benefits” under the new legislation. He said, “They will all be grandfathered.” Furthermore, at no time did he say that this benefit would only be extended to current (as of December 1, 1998) FAC holders, etc. He clearly included “all” firearm owners. Additionally, Mr. Rock made no reference to a January 1, 1979 ownership date. That appeared quite some time later, when the government apparently realized that FACs had generally been required for firearm purchases across Canada since January 1, 1978. According to the Justice Minister, older, experienced firearm owners would be “grandfathered”. As a result, they would have little reason to resist licencing. He knew many supported mandatory licencing. Many younger firearm owners, starting firearms use post 1979, had already completed the Canadian Firearms Safety course and exam, held FACs, and would have little reason to resist licencing. Rock understood that universal licencing would largely affect inactive firearm owners. He acknowledged it would be senseless, an imposition and a tremendous waste of resources to require the needless testing of Canada’s experienced firearm owners. They were proven to be law abiding, safe hunters and target shooters. He was also very aware of the huge logistics and costs involved and knew such a policy would cause tremendous resistance." References to Alternate Certification, Exemption Testing, etc. from Various Government Documents. [A dozen sources and documents were referenced in my paper. One really needs to read these doc's to understand how clearly the FPC dominated]. Additionally: At some point after early 1995, the FPC was no longer mentioned and all the talk was about PALs and POLs. Frankly, I lost contact with what was transpiring in Ottawa about this until some time after and never saw a paper trail (which does not always exist). I can advise that any such change would have served to slow the implementation of the FA and that was not what the Liberals, especially Chretien, desired. My fed contacts indicated that in the end the FPC would not fly due to lack of co-operation by the 'partners' to licencing. Who are the licencing partners? the CFC and the CFOs. The CFC was federal; the CFOs are provincial and sometimes federal operatives (RCMP) acting on behalf of the province. Which province created the least helpful response to alt cert? Ontario with an 89% failure rate of the CFO's own "Alternative Safety Training" test. (Quebec gun owners were grandfathered into PALs via their hunter ed training). Rock said the provision for alt cert would be included in the FA 7(4)(a) and FA Regs. s. 17 and 18, and it was. It was the interpretation and application of the legislation by the provincial partners who derailed Rock's plan for his 'ho hassle' grandfathering of owners. You may recall that it was during this era that our provincial PC Leader, Mike Harris, stated publicly that he totally supported the safety provisions of the FA (he indicated that this meant owner licencing, safety training, storage and transport regs, etc.) and our CFO's staff grew to almost 200 personnel - while Harris was also saying that no Ontario resources would be used to support the fed gun law. Did the fed Libs admit they had been forced to change course because of certain provinces lack of co-operation. Hardly. Years later, I was diddled around on my second alt cert PAL application by our CFO. My application for a second grandfathered or CFSC exempt PAL was altered and information I had not provided was used in recommending the CFC issue my PAL. My complaint to the fed Justice Min was forwarded on to the province because the issue was 'provincial' jurisdiction and our CFO did not work under the fed Justice Min. The provincial Minister responded by indicating he could not comment on or interfere in 'an active police matter'. Did I pursue it further? I took the CPC's word, at that time, that the whole shebang would be repealed - meaning firearm laws would be returned to pre C-68, 1995 status. 'Repeal' is no longer on the horizon; the problem has not resolved itself and in fact has reared its head as the unlicensed and unregistered have been given yet another 'amnesty' to comply. In my 'historical piece I erroneously indicated POLs were required for acquisition. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 22:47:52 -0600 (CST) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Letter to the Editor of the Belleville Intelligencer 20 May To: letters@intelligencer.ca I am confused by the reasoning in your editorial "Gutting of gun registry a fitting end" of 18 May 2006. On one hand, you state quite accurately that "trends showed that most violent crimes involving guns were committed using handguns, weapons that were often stolen or imported into the country and never registered". A few paragraphs later, however, you claim that "the registry's basic good elements - tracking handguns and restricted firearms - should be saved as a valuable addition in the police arsenal against those who would commit harm upon society using firearms". Given that the majority of crime weapons recovered have never been registered, and certainly not to the criminal, how can this be "valuable"? You acknowledge that it cannot track the very firearms that it most needs to, and then argue for the retention of that uselessness. Please explain your logic. I cannot. The commonly-made claim that "police across the country now consult the firearm registry up to 5,000 times a day and within seconds know whether the subject in question is in possession of a weapon" is one of the biggest lies ever told. Research by MP Garry Breitkreuz and published on his website shows that the firearms database has been linked to other databases commonly used by police. The result is that when a query is made to one of these, a simultaneous query is automatically made to the firearms database. Nobody knows how many of these "consultations" are generated on purpose or even if any are. Nobody knows how many are actually looked at. And nobody knows if any resulting information is of any use or value. There has been no attempt to determine the nature and quality of of these queries or their results. As such, this is a completely meaningless statistic. Useful statistics would be such things as the numbers of murders, maimings, and robberies that are solved through registry information. Its supporters are strangely quiet regarding those, or rather the lack thereof. For a billion bucks we should have something concrete like that, shouldn't we? Something besides the frequency of computers automatically talking to each other? Hmmm? The registry does not and cannot, with any degree of reliability, determine that "the subject in question is in possession of a weapon". It is known to be rife with errors and ommissions. The number of honest citizens who own firearms was intentionally low-balled by the Liberal government, as was the number of firearms in their possession. When compared to earlier and more reliable studies, it can be seen that two to four million people refused or failed to obtain licences and eight to fourteen million firearms were never registered. The registry is therefore half-empty at best. And then, again, there's the criminal element - - the real threat, remember? We both agree that little of their weaponry is recorded in the registry. A registry query may or may not show whether a non-criminal citizen owns a firearm or two, but definitely not the criminal one. Which one does the policeman making the query really need to know about? Think about this: A policeman pulls over someone going a little over the speed limit, and runs his licence. The speeder is shown to be a licensed firearms owner with no criminal record. As there is no reason to hold him, he is issued a ticket and a lecture and allowed to proceed. A few minutes later, another speeder is pulled over. He has several convictions for drugs, assault, and other offences, yet no outstanding warrants. He has no firearms licence as he is under a court-ordered prohibition; he is therefore completely invisible to the registry. The policeman asks him some questions and has a quick glance around the inside of the car through the driver's window. Lacking a search warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime he can go no further. He issues a ticket and the speeder is allowed to continue - to make another drug purchase, and with a smuggled, unregistered .45 calibre pistol taped under his seat for protection from fellow criminals. There have been so many stories in the press over the last few years demonstrating its complete failure, and many involve tragedies. There are no stories that indicate any successes. Why not? There is no benefit to be derived from this monument to Liberal arrogance and stupidity whatsoever, other than, hopefully, never to let it happen again. No registry can ever save "one police officer's life", regardless of how much money is dumped into it, and regardless of how much it is "revised". Mark L Horstead Newmarket, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 00:16:45 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: Inquests and gun control I had commented on coroner's inquests and development of restrictive gun laws: Barry responded: > The May inquest did recommend that the licensing portion of C-68 be > implemented regardless of the outcome of court challenges with regard to > registering. It did not recommend registering as claimed in the news > release regarding 8 separate inquests. > > The Hadley case mostly recommends housing availability to spouses > fleeing abusive relationships but I saw no recommendation re: licensing > and registration. > > The Tony Brookes case googles nothing. I'd suggest a different search engine. Google didn't locate an item for me recently but I found it on Alta Vista(?). > Then you give references to a bunch of Ontario Womens' Justice Network > links where I can still find nothing relevant except one page that says > there were 3 inquests in the last 10 years (May, Hadley, Luft) with > still no recommendation about registering. It was the source referenced by the person who posted the info to the CFD. > Your clear recollections do not back up this news release. Your vague > recollections are no help whatever. Sorry, psychotherapy had not been my main involvement for close to 10 years. My awareness of the related literature is outdated. Try doing a search for DeVillier. Her case led to the establishment of a support network and lobby group If they have no ring of familiarity, then, I don't know where you have been over the past 20 years as the RFC has been strangled by more and more laws and regulation. (I know you have been politically active in RFC matters). It is my clear recollection that the vague and sometimes misdirected recommendations from a number of inquests (you obviously did not locate several referenced by Cukier) have been used by politicians of all political parties as the basis for increasing regulation of law abiding gun owners. In the most recent instance (C-68), if you read the proceedings of the H of C and Senate Justice Committees during their hearings into C-68 you'll note a continuous parade of women's, police, mental health and other groups who extolled the virtues of licencing and registration. I have attended fed and prov policy political meetings and debated the fallacies of both. I can assure you that one of the main arguments extended in support of the long gun registry was to assure police that they would have the means to better confiscate 'all' of a prohibited persons 'registered' long guns. (We all know this would be dependent upon all of such an owner's guns being registered in the first place). It's darned interesting to hear an old foe in these battles, Megan Walker, Director of the London based Battered Women's' Advocacy Clinic (BWAC) recently state on local TV news that the long gun registry has proven to not be an effective tool to reduce gun violence and violence against women. She went on to say it should be shut down and the money spent on treatment and other support programs. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 00:38:45 -0600 (CST) From: Terry Sotos Subject: Re: [COLUMN] Memo to PM: Howard a fan of gun control Not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but here goes. A contributor to the CFD asked about the firearm death rates in Australia in regard to an article by Philip Alpers in the Toronto Star. This is a copy of a letter I sent to the editor of the Star: Dear Sir/Madam. I read with some interest the opinion piece by Philip Alpers a New Zealand "gun researcher" who now glories in the title of "adjunct professor of public health at the University of Sydney, in the State of NSW. Mr Alpers writes about a fall in "gun death" rates but carefully fails to tell the full story about firearms deaths in Australia. After spending in excess of $600,000,000 in 'buybacks' of legally held firearms the overall homicide rate has declined not one iota, the overall suicide rate has fallen only slightly and accidental deaths involving firearms have been falling in a steady progression since 1980. While it is true that gun deaths, per se, have indeed fallen there has been considerable method substitution so that overall rates have remained much the same. For instance, there were 435 suicides with a firearm in 1993 decreasing to 194 in 2003 while suicides by hanging increased from 593 to 996 over the same period. The homicide rate has remained steady at around 1.9 per 100 000 since 1915. These figures are all easily accessible from the Australian Bureau of Statistics website The gun laws instituted by Prime Minister Howard, and so admired by Philip Alpers, have contributed nothing to the safety of Australians. In the meantime, criminals run riot in Australia's two largest cities with illegal, semi-automatic handguns and the police are powerless to stop them. Terry. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 03:10:54 -0600 (CST) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Re: [COLUMN] Memo to PM: Howard a fan of gun control - --- Terry Sotos wrote: > Not sure if I'm going about this the right way, but > here goes. Seems fine to me. > A contributor to the CFD asked about the firearm > death rates in > Australia in regard to an article by Philip Alpers > in the Toronto Star. Hi, there. > This is a copy of a letter I sent to the editor of > the Star: > While it is true that gun deaths, per se, have > indeed fallen there has > been considerable method substitution so that > overall rates have > remained much the same. Bingo, That was exactly what I was looking to convey but I couldn't find the stats oover many years in one document. Do you have the URL? Thanks, Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:15:42 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Antiques and Flintlocks - ----- Original Message ----- From: "B&C Beaudoin" > Don't worry Barry people have been making gunpowder for a long time, I > would have more trouble getting good English flint! But, the backyard > stuff will work in a pinch. > Just dont buy all your components at the one store. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:16:49 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Divided factions take aim at firearms registry - ----- Original Message ----- > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060519/gun_registry_analysis_060519/20060519/ > > Divided factions take aim at firearms registry > Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said he'll exclude long-barreled > weapons such as hunting rifles and shotguns from the revamped registry, > only requiring handguns and semi-automatic weapons. So by this I take it semi-auto shotguns and rifles will have to be registered ? Why? Is he pandering to the antis ? Im getting more and more dubious of Days policies. This makes my brand new Remington 1100-C a registered hunting firerarm.(bought before the registry, only used couple times ) ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 07:17:45 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Mills" > Bruce Mills wrote: > >> From Stockwell Day's press conference: >> >> "Responsible firearms owners want us to keep licensing provisions to >> acquire and possess firearms". > > > I went and checked on Stockwell Day's speech on the CTV website, and > this is a word for word rendering of what he said: > > During his speech: > > "Some things are being maintained and are staying in place... > > [...] > > "The requirement to have a license if you want to acquire or possess a > firearm stays in place, along with the required background checks. > > [...] > > "These are recommendations from responsible firearms owners themselves." > > > and later, during the questions: > > "We still want a requirement, and responsible firearms owners still want > a requirement, that anyone who wants to acquire or possess a firearm > must have a license to do so - and firearms owners themselves are in > support of that, to have a license..." > > Yours in Liberty, > Bruce > Hamilton > Ontario Sounds to me either hes lying as there are only a few on here who support licencing or he knows somebody we dont ? I know the OFHA is for licencing (fools) and I have laready written them a letter telling them where to get off.After being a member for over 35 years I feel I have a right . ed/ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #426 ********************************** 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 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.