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 #434 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, May 22 2006 Volume 09 : Number 434 In this issue: Re: One more thing Re: [Bulk] Ahhhhhhhh those were the days !!!!!!! Re; Firearms legislation Anit gun website steps up misinformation. Where are the reporters Letter read on CBC radio one Letter to abbotsford News (unpub) ... Fwd: Radical elements? Re: New York City mayor suing gun dealers Re: New York City mayor suing gun dealers FACs, FPCs,PALs,POLs Re: FACs, FPCs,PALs,POLs Pre-C68 Criminal Code ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 15:11:27 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: One more thing - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" > What follows is pure speculation on my part and is intended to be a > thought experiment only. I neither counsel nor advise anyone to make > their own powder Thanks Mike. but been there done that as a teenager,50+years ago,made a fuse by soaking heavy string in a paste made of homemade gunpowder and water..... made firecrackers out of small frozen lemon juice tins for the 24th of May / They went off with a nice bang .....this was out in the country where we lived at the time nobody seemed to mind/.. ed/ontario,non assumsit contract ,all rights reserved,without prejudice. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 15:46:20 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: [Bulk] Ahhhhhhhh those were the days !!!!!!! - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert P." To: Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [Bulk] Ahhhhhhhh those were the days !!!!!!! > With me it was into the early 70's in Dartmouth and Halifax. Used to > take the bus to navy base in Halifax for Wednesday night range. Also > used to walk through part of the city on the way to the woods for rabbit > and deer. Of course where I used to go has now been fully urbanised. Yes here too in Burlington Ontario , it as all farmland then but all homes and shops now......and I used to hunt between #5highway on the north and the QE on the south and Brant street on the west to Appleby Line on the east.This was two concessions north and south and four concessions east and west. I had the area mostly to myself then and there were a few houses but I had enough sense to stay away from them ..There were no laws requiring permission then as most of the farmers knew me and were quite happy to see me coming to hunt groundhogs and crows in the summer and fox and jacks in the winter .The permission laws came in after the war when a lot of Italian immigrants violated the sanctity of farmers barns shooting at them or in near proximity.This ruined the hunting for the rest of us ..Italians seemed to be the ones who would not respect the laws or farmers property.This is not being racist but is a fact . In those day I ran black and tan coonhounds after the jacks and fox.. I can still remember those hounds baying on the trail and one in particular had a beautiful baritone voice, a real pleasure just to hear him baying. Those were the days when I could walk from dawn to dusk chasing those dogs and the game ... Now I need a dam* licence they tell me ,to do what I used to do without one ? ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:37:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re; Firearms legislation To: Cc: , "Peter MacKay" , , "Stephen Harper" The Honorable Stockwell Day Minister of Public Safety House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Mr. Day, I would like to begin by thanking yourself and your government for the initial actions you have taken regarding the Firearms Act, more specifically the long gun component. As you are well aware, there remain numerous issues such as 12(6) handguns that remain unresolved. We look forward to your attention to these matters as soon as possible. We are also grateful for your government's creation of a firearms advisory committee, which unlike the previous government's, we are assured, will be responsive to stakeholder concerns. As we know gun owner warnings, about costs and data reliability, which were ignored by the Liberal Party, were proven correct. However not all was good news. While I was in Ottawa, on the occasion of your press conference, outlining your party's intentions regarding the Firearms Act, I received a call from my wife. She was in tears and I can assure you they were not tears of joy. As she is aware of my intention not to submit to PAL style licensing to continue to possess my non restricted rifles and shotgun, she is well aware of the potential repercussions of its continued requirement by the CPC, in future legislation. Thankfully I was able to calm her with recitations of CPC policy and various complementary statements issued by Mr. Harper, Mr. MacKay and others in the party. It is our hope that your statements regarding licensing were flavored by political intent and did not constitute a divergence from policy arrived at with the support of 97% of the attendees of the policy convention in Montreal. I am well versed in the intentions of the drafters of that policy and they continue to inform me that you were apprised of the fact that the removal of licensing from the wording carried much broader implications than semantic differences. In this case the difference has very important legal ramifications. CPC policy clearly calls for a "certification screening document", which involve a criminal background check (screen) for acquisition. We were encouraged by the telephone correspondence with your office that suggested screening certification would be the order of the day. We look forward to future clarifications of your government's position in this area, as soon as possible. We cannot devote our full attention to our attempts to assist your government in gaining support in the House to enact legislation and work to insure its majority position in the next Parliament until this situation is clearly resolved. Respectfully, Al Muir Stellarton, Nova Scotia 902-752-7877 CC: The Right Honorable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister; The Honorable Vic Toews, Minster of Justice; The Honorable Peter MacKay Minister of Foreign Affairs; Gary Breitkreuz, MP ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:38:41 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Anit gun website steps up misinformation. The CFGC can not tell the truth. http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/Home.htm This horrific act was committed with a commonly available sporting rifle. Not a military assault rifle. Gamil Gharbi met all of the requirements to get an F.A.C. and acquire this rifle and the shotgun he later used in this awfull crime. Gamil Gharbi would have and could have met the current requirements to legaly purchase and possess firearms that ARE NOW IN PLACE. Trust the Canadian Coalition For Gun Control to bring out the bodies of fourteen dead women, killed by a woman hating madman to support a firearms registration system that would have done absolutely nothing to save the lives of these women, had it been in place at the time. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 16:52:10 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Where are the reporters Senior bureaucrats hid expendature overruns at the firearms registry from the treasury board and Parliament. Where are the reporters asking Ms McLellan and other ex Liberal cabinet minsters about whether or not the Liberal party was aware of these cost over runs? Where are the reporters and the media who should be asking Ms McLellan about how she lost control of her government department if she was not aware of what her employees were doing? Reporters still write stories about the long deceased Conservative party, Mr. Mulroney, and the Airbus investigation. Why aren't they going after the Liberals and the bureaucrats who broke the laws of Canada in the Canadian Firearms Registry? Who were the companies that accounted for these cost over runs? Were these the same companies that were invovled in the sponsorship program? Where is the media and where are the investigative reporters? Has our media gone to sleep??? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 17:00:28 -0600 (CST) From: "gwsadair" Subject: Letter read on CBC radio one I was amazed I actually got a letter read on CBC Radio one. Here it is. I listened to Mr. Enright's comments on the firearms registry and I find his reasoning for keeping it flawed to say the least. The only people who are on the registry are people who are law abiding and have already jumped through all the hoops to own firearms. How is this going to help police attending a call. It's not, they can not guarantee a firearm is or is not at the location because there is no law that firearms are required to be stored at the registered owners location. Build a house on swamp land and no matter how much money you put in it will still sink. Same with the registry. z_subject: Firearms registry and polls George W. S. Adair No one ever said our freedoms would come cheap. Some we must be prepared to fight for, some we must be prepared to die for. Take freedom for granted once and it could be gone forever. 1776 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 17:28:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Robert S. Sciuk" Subject: Letter to abbotsford News (unpub) ... Gun registry paid for so why dismantle it? (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, The Liberal's much vaunted but ill-conceived firearms registry is the gift that keeps on taking. While you even admit that it is a failure in all respects, why would you even think about continuing to prop it up given that the Auditor General indicates that the data are suspect, the costs were hidden from Parliament and that after all is said and spent, not a single life was saved by this preposterous boondoggle. While you would inexplicably join the apologists who would save the registry, I suspect that Canadians who have considered the matter closely would be of a different opinion. The gun registry should have never happened, and every second that it continues to exist is another opportunity lost. Sincerely Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:28:38 -0600 (CST) From: Len Miller Subject: Fwd: Radical elements? Begin forwarded message: > From: Len Miller > Date: May 21, 2006 3:57:53 PM PDT > To: editor@theprogress.com > Cc: Med , Al Muir =20= > , clive Edwards <45clive@telus.net> > Subject: Radical elements? > > > The Editor > The Chilliwack Progress . .=09 > Sir: >''The motivation = for Stephen Harper=92s Conservative =20 > government to dismantle >the firearms = registry is not based on solid gun-control policy. >Rather, it is a = political decision that is being contemplated =20 > only to appease >some of the more = radical elements of the party.'' > > > With respect Mr. Editor, as a veteran and retired police officer, > I strongly resent being deemed a radical. > > That politics was the main reason for the implementation of 'gun > control' in the first place see John Dixon BC Civil Liberties Assn . . > attached . . > > Rather than publishing an opinion without research, I suggest your > newsroom takes the time to get reasoned opinion from knowledgeable > sources, such as the Fish and Game Association readily available to =20= > you. > > Your last paragraph IS inflammatory , , but, then I suspect you knew =20= > that . . > > Len Miller > 604 321 3561 > = - -----------------------------------------------------------------------=20= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 18:30:52 -0600 (CST) From: vampire@istar.ca (Robert LaCasse) Subject: Re: New York City mayor suing gun dealers >------------------------------ > >Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 20:05:49 -0600 (CST) >From: Bruce Mills >Subject: New York City mayor suing gun dealers > >http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=1654bca7-11e5-4240-86 b8-4ba81154d021 > >New York City mayor suing gun dealers > >Global National >Saturday, May 20, 2006 > >NEW YORK -- In an effort to reduce the number of weapons in his city, >New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has filed a 78-page lawsuit >against gun dealers in five states. These paper assed mothers won't stop at anything to keep their weird little minds from nit picking at pieces of legislations and personal conjectures to make themselves heard and known in the common publics eye. They don't seem to know that there are no more idiots to *bamboozle* to the polls anymore, the masses _(as far as I have seen)_ just know the guv't is as crooked as can be........ >The suit names gun stores in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina >and Virginia. Oh.. go ahead there _Michael Bloomberg_ spread your problem to other states and countries, because that mellows out and fortifies your conviction against guns, even though your house is full of them...will these laws apply to you...I guess not...sounds like another California **Arny** >"More than 30 guns recovered from crimes committed in our city have been >traced to this store," says Bloomberg. "One of them was found loaded in >the possession of a 15-year-old. These states supply more than half of >the illegal guns recovered from crimes in New York City." Did that 15 year old have aids, and did he spend his whole life on the streets, eating out of your garbage can, and getting harrassed by the police who lost their jobs as the Flyer Delivery Shop.... >According to Toronto Mayor David Miller, the same thing is happening in >Canada. > >"Half the guns that are used in Toronto come from the U.S.," said Miller. Miller knows that Canada is not a top manufacturer of guns, even customs Canada, and all the gunshops know that...so what is the point....Ask anybody on the planet, where is Canada, and theyy will reply somewhere in America or beside the U.S.????? Since Canada haedly has any gun shops it's not a difficult thing to say _("Half the guns that are used in Toronto come from the U.S.,")_....no they come from Osama Bin Laden otherwise >:) >As it copes with its own imported gun crisis, Ontario's Attorney General >is watching New York City's lawsuit carefully. Canadian *Monkey See Monkey Do*....let the others go first in the front lines, and if they survive, w'ell do the same, because it has been proven....what ever the case may be... >But Larry Pratt if the Gun Owners of America says governments that push >gun control are the authors of their own misfortune. > >"The guns don't cause a problem in Virginia, in Georgia, wherever it >might be," says Pratt. "It seems that it's only a problem with them when >they get up to New York City, Chicago, wherever, maybe Toronto." That's a bit far fetched, and I can't see the relation in this concept other than a _paper assed_ legal loophole that allows for this conjecture. >And because of that problem New York Democrat Charles Schumer feels that >out of state dealers need to be held accountable. Miller/Schumer/Bloomberg want a cut in the firearms industry like J. R. Bolton, and since they can get rich from their work and *hoop jumping*, Miller/Schumer/Bloomberg wants a piece of the (pie). Miller *May* also need more comnfiscated guns to feed Numrich/Leadlay's prosperity in the gunparts industry..just like the police recycle their confiscated guns to the GunShops to for *More Money* >"There are firearms freeways throughout the country and shutting them >down is the best way to keep safe," says Schumer. Yeah shut down all the legal owners, so only illegal owwners will have guns...like we have heard and realized for 100 years of it.... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:57:36 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Re: New York City mayor suing gun dealers - -snip- > >As it copes with its own imported gun crisis, Ontario's Attorney General > >is watching New York City's lawsuit carefully. > > Canadian *Monkey See Monkey Do*....let the others go first in the > front lines, and if they survive, w'ell do the same, because it has been > proven....what ever the case may be... > And where, friends, have we seen this before? You ever notice the anti-gun tactics are the same as the anti-tobacco tactics? That is because in Canada its more or less the same people working the same routine. Heidi Rathgen who started out with the wendy went on to the anti-tobacco bandwagon. In this case squinty and his attack cop are following Allan Rock's trail over the deep, snow covered mountains leading to the litigation wonderland of tobacco lawsuits. These jokers must be thinking they can sue the American manufactures. Instead they will be proven to be the keystone urban commandoes of the politically correct as they lead their battle sucking by the Ontario treasury. Their plan, a daylight raid in deep snow with two sticks of lit dynamite and one snowshoe each. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumpsit Contract - All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice ___________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:58:05 -0600 (CST) From: Lee Jasper Subject: FACs, FPCs,PALs,POLs In responding to Ed, I had commented: >> I think part of the issue, Ed, is that many owners and org's share my >> view that if we are 'required to possess' a document in order to have >> state permission to "acquire and use firearms legally" whether it is a >> 'certificate' or a 'licence' is a bit of a moot point. There's darn >> little difference between a 1994 FACertificate and 1995 FPALicence. Paul added his thoughts: > As small as the sample was in my poll on gun nutz; wanna a licence or an > FAC, the FAC option comes out 3 to 1. This is what the stockerholders > want. Not the licensing option (the ghost) gun owners told Day. Ed (and others) has/have stated previously that he/they could accept an FAC, , but never a 'licence'. Several thoughts, Paul and Ed: I think you're ignoring the reality of the common everyday usage of the cert/lic terms. I don't think Funk and Wagnall, Webster, etc. really care. You require a licence to operate a motor vehicle virtually everywhere except on your private property. You require a PCOCertificate to operate a powered water craft, even on your own little pond. You are required to be in possession of an insurance liability 'certificate' to operate a motor vehicle on any public road. I require a 'licence' to operate a VHF radio in order to advise the authorities that you are in distress. I require degrees, certificates, including a vulnerable sector screening cert., licences, registrations, etc. to operate my psych practice and to operate a marine vessel to save your butt and to console your wife if I screw up in either venue. I don't get this phobia with 'I don't accept permission' to do something. Don't participate. Take up some other activity. (Watch out, if you want to bird watch, or canoe down a creek, you may need a Park or Trip Pass). One problem with the good ole FAC was that as it homogenized into a possession and acquisition function, the name no longer matched its purpose. The 'name' states - acquisition, not possession. At one time many owners complained, "I don't want an FAC for possession." To which, many of us responded, "I fought that battle, lost and already have one for acquisition and to get a Carry Permit." I understand Rock's FPC (Firearms Possession Certificate) created symbolic issues with some because the 'name' did not clearly include 'acquisition'. (I suspect the Libs had forgotten about the acquisition part of licencing because the FAcquistionC had been in place for a long time, , , and in 1995 they were primarily concerned about the largely inactive possessors of guns who would not frequently appear before their CFOs via gun purchases. These folks certainly weren't active handgun shooters or they would have possessed an FAC enroute to a Form 302, superseded by the ATT. Like I've previously stated, if I must have written permission to do something, I have little concern with the 'name' of the document. If your issue with licence vs. certificate is psychological, I could recommend a therapist. > The gun orgs are rolling over too soon for my taste. If this was a > contract negotiation I would be asking the union where they learned to > horse trade. Then again the RFC's "unions seem to make up their minds > without asking for much input from the unwashed dues payers. I'll repeat a old mantra. Final offer selection. You table your demand; Day/Toews table their offer. Harper is the judge and he decides which 'offer' is most reasonable (meaning he likes most). No bits and pieces of each. One 'offer' gets picked in its entirety. Don't forget, your demand affects all your gun owning bros. and sis. You might be prepared to forsake your guns, based on some 'principle'; just don't deprive me of 'my' guns because of 'your' principle. Any union attempts to protect the rights of all by meeting the wants of the majority. What would be your 'demand'? We'd understand a heck of a lot about the foundation of CFD listee's stances if we knew what 'treasures' they possessed, what they have on their current shopping list, and to what use and how frequently they employ those devices. It's pretty easy to take a awfully unforgiving position if one has little at risk. Glad to see that Garry and Dennis have given us a 'short course' on what was promised, what's delivered and, importantly, what's in the pipe. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 22:41:52 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Re: FACs, FPCs,PALs,POLs > You require a licence to operate a motor vehicle virtually everywhere > except on your private property. You require a PCOCertificate to operate > a powered water craft, even on your own little pond. You are required to > be in possession of an insurance liability 'certificate' to operate a > motor vehicle on any public road. I require a 'licence' to operate a VHF > radio in order to advise the authorities that you are in distress. I > require degrees, certificates, including a vulnerable sector screening > cert., licences, registrations, etc. to operate my psych practice and to > operate a marine vessel to save your butt and to console your wife if I > screw up in either venue. Yea and all these licences are long established except for the PCOC which didn't have an "organized" opposition even when everyone saw this for what is was, a load of BS and a money makeing machine for the few groups who were annointed with permission to grant the little blue card. This is Canadian window dressing at its best. > I don't get this phobia with 'I don't accept permission' to do > something. Don't participate. Take up some other activity. (Watch out, > if you want to bird watch, or canoe down a creek, you may need a Park or > Trip Pass). And exactly who is not participating? My desired outcome has yet to be achieved so does that mean I have to fold up my tent and go home. Or worst yet let anyone but the actual decision maker tell me its done. If that was the case MacLellan would have had it right when she said the debate was over It ain't over til its over and the fat lady will sing when and if the Tories reach the magic number on the next go round. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 05:58:21 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Pre-C68 Criminal Code Just in case anyone else is interested, I have managed to find an online version of the pre-C68 Criminal Code of Canada. There is no date on it, but it does contain all the previous CCC sections prior to the imposition of C-68. You can find it at: http://www.unlimitedinvestigations.com/ccc.htm It is, naturally, very large, and it isn't terribly well formatted, but there it is, for what it's worth. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this document. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #434 ********************************** 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.