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 #543 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 Wednesday, June 21 2006 Volume 09 : Number 543 In this issue: Re: License V Registration Re: Small arms -- the global trade in life and death Re: Domestic murders still high, report says What fear can do. Pay attention WENDY CFD #540 Re: Small arms -- the global trade in life and death C-21 My letter to the National Post (2) The quality of air My letter to the Globe and Mail Re: License V Registration Letter to Globe and Mail (unpub) ... Re: License V Registration ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:09:31 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: License V Registration At 06:53 AM 6/21/2006 -0600, you wrote: >There seems to be some some confusion between "firearms registration" >and "firearms owner licensing" > >Lets look at it. > >1: Governments do not require either licensing or registration to ban >and/or confiscate firearms - all they need do is pass a law, and start >collecting! With the current laws regarding firearms owners licencing in Canada. Sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Criminal Code make possession of a firearm a criminal offence. Several sub clauses in these two sections allow the minister of justice (or Public safety) to issue licenses to possess firearms in Canada. The minister of Justice (or Public safety)sets the rules that allow citizens to get licenses. The minister of Justice (or Public safety)sets the fees for these licenses. The minister of Justice (or Public safety)can revoke EVERY FIREARMS LICENSE IN CANADA without the permission or review by parliament under the rules of the firearms act. The Canadian government does not need to pass legislation through parliament allowing it to ban firearms. The legislation is ALREADY IN PLACE AND WAITING FOR A MINISTER OF JUSTICE OR PUBLIC SAFTEY TO USE IT. >2: Firearms Registration is the tool for easy confication - that is >because registration provides records of who possesses which firearms. >4: A Firearms License is like a Drivers License - it deals with the >use and possession of firearms - not the ownership - and therfore is of >little value in any possible future confiscation. Not in Canada, a firearms license allows a defence against criminal charges under sections 91 and 92 of the criminal code. If firearms licenses are arbitarilly revoked by a vindicitive minister in the ruling government then the fact that an individual is in possession of a firearms license is enough to warrant a search of property they control. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:10:44 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Small arms -- the global trade in life and death At 06:53 AM 6/21/2006 -0600, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >> http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarticle.aspx?type=reutersEdge&storyID= 2006-06-19T121804Z_01_L06465984_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-TRADE.xml >> >> Small arms -- the global trade in life and death >> >> Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:18 AM ET >> By Jeremy Lovell >> > >> Wood said the United States also had "a loose interpretation of what >> they think are ethical transfers of arms". >> >> "They are basically out to get former Eastern bloc -- Warsaw Pact -- >> equipment as cheap as possible to the people they regard as their >> allies," he said. >> >> "Sometimes they are armed opposition groups like the Northern Alliance >> (in Afghanistan) and so on, and they have been using over the last >> decade or more the cheap surpluses in the Balkans -- Albania, Bosnia, >> Serbia -- and they have used other people in the region to move it," he >> said. >> >> The United States says it is committed to stemming the flow of illicit >> arms. Earlier this month, the State Department said the United States >> had demonstrated this commitment through national practices and >> diplomatic engagement around the world. > >Personally I dont believe any government really wants to stop legal; or >illegal guns?Theres too much money involved in arms sales. > >As far as the UN is concerned?. the belligerent countries who belong to >this Mafia type organization should be turfed out . > >Further to the UN? wasn't it Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who asked >for more troops in Africa and was refused by the UN < ? which >subsequently saw literally millions of innocent civilians murdered by >opposing forces of their own country ? , many literally hacked to death >because they had no means of defense? Mr. Dallaire had troups in Rwanda. He waited for the U.N. to give him permission or orders to intervene. None came. Mr. Dallaire did not have the courage to act on his own initative and attempt to stop the genecide with out the permission of the U.N. Read his book. It is a condemnation of the U.N. and the petty self serving bureaucrats who serve there, and a request for forgiveness on his inaction to save lives. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:11:56 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Domestic murders still high, report says At 07:02 AM 6/21/2006 -0600, you wrote: >http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=9f10ec9b-21d1-47ec - -8db2-812cdbceff94&k=8986 > >Domestic murders still high, report says >Initiatives not working >The committee concluded that in 10 of the cases "the homicide appeared >both predictable and preventable" because at least seven or more risk >factors were clearly identifiable in the family history. So money was wasted on a firearms owners licensing scheme and gun registration system while no money was spent on identifying, tracking a dealing with chronic domestic spouse abusers. Seven lives could have been saved. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:43:45 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: What fear can do. Pay attention WENDY When the ugly head of Y2K was rearing itself the years before the turn of the century, there were prophecies of doom, chaos, riots, and anarchy circulating. during this time, Many folks.. probably good and law abiding were against people like me for owning firearms. They said often and loudly,, why would you need a gun. The Police will protect you. well we all know what the police do to protect us.. and that is nothing because they don't have the mandate to do so. The Police look after the police , and solve crimes, they do not prevent crimes... But I digress. With more tales of anarchy , the media stocking the flames of uncertainty about the date change over, we expected planes to fall from the sky, computers to stop working, electricity to stop flowing. I had read a few reports on what was expected to happen, and it was glum. The Police would be dedicated to protecting the cities infrastructure, and the people were on their own. I guess it got to some people, mostly those who I knew, who didn't own guns, and were afraid for themselves, their families and loved ones. Yes fathers and Husbands realized at that moment, that they could not defend themselves, their homes, their families. Some were honest about it, and talked to me to see if I would otherwise lend them a little something they could use to protect themselves with. This it appeared was a common theme amongst my gun owning friends, who also recount how those who were anti gun and friend of theirs asked to borrow a shotgun, a rifle, a handgun, anything so they wouldn't be defenseless. I find it disingenuous that the likes of the coalition for Gun control want to have people maintain that level of fear against guns. Some people lent our their extra rifles and shotguns, some did not. I recall how one person said.. you are anti gun, you have told me guns are bad, now you want to borrow one. Go and get a government license, take the courses than come and see me in a years time when you get your license. This was a universal truth. A years time to get a license. Of course Y2K would be over, and it was. Not much happened except the moments of fear leading up to y2k. Fear that some people never forgot, and at that moment, they had the means to protect their families and themselves, and they felt safe. Some of these same people went and got their licenses right after y2k, and are now shooters. While it is politically correct for various groups to slam gun ownership, these same people are usually the same ones that when fear strikes their hearts, they want someone with a gun , any gun to be near them to save them,. I call this maximum stupidity. Rather than fight against those who choose to own guns, and have fear rule your lives, take the time to truly find out what firearms ownership means. See how those who do own are not the fringe lunatics wife beater gay hating baby killers that various anti civil rights and anti firearms groups paint us . We are just like you, the difference is this. we accept as our duty and our right, the right to self \defense, We accept our responsibility as firearms owners, because we know what a firearm can do if misused by a person. we are law and order types, who are mostly independent and strong willed. We do not suck on the teat of the nanny state, nor do we condone the sort of shenanigans that passed for a government during the last election. We don't like lairs, thieves, cheats, fear mongering, and we don't like to have our rights stepped on by the like of the coalition for gun control whose sole agenda is to remove all the firearms from civilian hands, so that only the police and military have firearms. During Y2K, the police and Military were following their orders, and our protection was low on their list. Those who were afraid, and asked for help, I would guess they mostly;by received that help, and I would suggest they were more than grateful, because at that moment when they had in their possession a firearm, that the collation for gun control wants to have taken away, and the Liberals were making so difficult to own and possess, these people were safe, felt safe, and were grateful to their friends who accepted this onerous responsibility to own and possess firearms. never think in terms of how deadly a firearm can be in the wrong hands, but think in terms of how deadly it can be if you don't have one to protect yourself, your family and home when the time comes that you need it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:00:37 -0600 (CST) From: "B&C Beaudoin" Subject: CFD #540 >>B&C Beaudoin wrote: >> Bruce, >> So, are you saying that the universal licensing scheme is not similar >> to the old FAC system by way of providing criminal code sanctions to >> those who would acquire a firearm without proper state vetting? (notice >> I said acquire...) >No, it isn't because "universal licensing" requires law abiding citizens >to hold a valid license in order to continue to possess their privately >owned property, making it a crime not to do so. >(Notice I said "possess") I understand the differences between the two systems and the difference between acquisition & possession. You are confusing the issue which is the SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS. Both systems provide criminal code sanctions for acquiring a firearm without proper state vetting. It's that simple! >> Of course they kept the records. >You're 100% certain of that are you? Care to prove it? I'm quite certain. But have no proof here and now. (I'll look into it if you think it's important) >>Given your own scenario, if your name wasn't in the FAC file, then _de >>facto_ and probably _de jure_ too (knowing the way they write the laws) >>you were in possession of a firearm acquired without a license - since >>the gun would have been manufactured after the implementation of the FAC >>requirement. >>Duh. Thanks for making my point for me. So you agree that the old FAC system provided criminal sanctions for acquiring a firearm without state vetting. ( I'll bet a universal firearms licence will also provide criminal sanctions for acquiring a firearm without proper state vetting...) (I guess one could say they are SIMILAR in that respect! - Duh!) >>>UNIVERSAL LICENSING CRIMINALIZES OWNERSHIP! >> >> I'm saying that if the CPC's roll back the legislation to pre C-68, >> everyone would still need to be government vetted to acquire a firearm. >> Do you think that many current firearms owners will want to acquire >> firearms after this latest legislation hits the streets? You Bet. >>I never disputed that fact. But going back to pre-C68 status would >>*NOT* criminalize simple gun ownership without a license. Eventually it would. No-one lives forever, and when those unlicensed "possessors" of firearms die their firearms will need to be transferred (Unless they go to the grave with the deceased) to another party. Eventually if the FAC system was left in place everyone who legally acquired a firearm would have had to undergo state vetting. >> You already agreed that in some cases the state has an obligation. >>Guns are not nukes. Guns are not biological weapons. Guns are not >>toxic gases. One of these is not like the others... >>(snip) >>GUNS ARE NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS! True, but viewed as dangerous enough that many Canadians (The "state") agree that some screening is necessary. Like it or not, it appears that many Canadians wrongly view guns as inherently dangerous, (Didn't Clayton Ruby use the argument effectively in the Supreme Court challenge?) - we now live with the resulting legislation. >You don't have to "register" to vote - you can show up at your polling >place with proof of citizenship and residency in that riding, and cast >your ballot. So maybe "register" is the wrong word. You still require "state approval" to vote, as you pointed out above. (No proof of residency / citizenship3D no vote?) Regards, Brad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:13:18 -0600 (CST) From: "mred" Subject: Re: Small arms -- the global trade in life and death - ----- Original Message ----- From: "10x" <10x@telus.net> > Mr. Dallaire had troups in Rwanda. He waited for the U.N. to give him > permission or orders to intervene. None came. > > Mr. Dallaire did not have the courage to act on his own initative and > attempt to stop the genecide with out the permission of the U.N. > Read his book. It is a condemnation of the U.N. and the petty self > serving bureaucrats who serve there, and a request for forgiveness on > his inaction to save lives. I MAY HAVE GOTTEN SOME OF THE FACTS SKEWED BUT BASICALLY THE UN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS, SO WHY HAVE THEM AT ALL /???? I havent read the book yet ,but Beaurocrats are the same all over, here in Canada as well.e.g./ The CFO of ontario making up the law to suit himself that you must belong to a gun club in order to buy a handgun.. There is nothing in law that states this is necessary. The beaurocrats in Miramichi who refuse to renew POL`s because they say you havent had a gun registered in your name > there is NO requirement in law for that either .. They have changed the law arbitrarily to suit them selves..when it is Parliaments prerogative to make and change laws . Harper and Day should get rid of these Liberal appointees . They are a drag on the CPC and the rule of law.and they should be charged with breaking the law. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:14:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: C-21 C-21 is of zero value to myself or the 1-3 million owners that have not obtained a licence. The CPC appears ready to jail, for up to five years, those of us that have not obtained a license. I have absolutely no intention of obtaining a license regardless of who my potential jailers are. The date that C-21 is voted on, in the fall, is an excellent one for a skeet shoot by unlicenced owners . I have absolutely no intention of assisting the CPC in any way until I see legislation that repeals the Firearms Act. The CPC want our money and our votes. With C-21 they have given me no reason to provide either. The day that the property robbing C-21 was tabled was the official funeral of the Reform party Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:20:53 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the National Post (2) Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Good riddance to the gun registry Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:12:36 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: Editor - National Post While the Conservative Party's legislation eliminating the "long gun registry" is a good first step in the right direction, it doesn't go nearly far enough in satisfying the promises made to the Responsible Firearms Community to "Scrap C-68" - as we have been demanding for over a decade. Every argument that can be used in support of scrapping the long gun registry applies just as equally to the handgun registry, too. This discrepancy is just giving credence to the anti-gun lobby's false argument of "bad guns"; there is no such thing as "bad guns", just "bad gun uses". This is the basic flaw in the foundation of all such so-called "gun control" laws - they focus on the *object*, instead of the person who misuses it for criminal purposes. This is just another form of "prohibition", and we all know how well those have worked in the past. I must also take exception to your support of licensing laws. Licensing simply serves to criminalize gun ownership; licensing seeks to unjustly transfer the burden of responsibility from the criminal, who actually misuse firearms to commit actual crimes, onto the backs of law abiding gun owning citizens, who have not, and most likely never will. This is unconscionable in a free society, and an infringement of several rights of the individual. Being licensed doesn't prevent someone from ever committing a crime with a gun, and having a license revoked or refused doesn't prevent someone from subsequently getting a gun through illegal means. Not that real criminals even bother to apply for a license in the first place. A "gun crime" is no more or less heinous because it was committed without the benefit of being licensed. A far better, not to mention cheaper, method is to register *criminals* - - those who have been deemed by the Courts to be too dangerous to be allowed to possess guns. Keep track of where they live and move to, and search their premises to ensure that they are living up to their responsibilities not to possess guns. Law abiding gun owners are fed up with being treated like criminals when they aren't, and most likely never will be. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:33:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: The quality of air > - ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chris Gilmore" > To: "Toronto Globe & Mail" > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:19 AM > Subject: A breath of fresh air/Letter to the Editor > > >> Thank you Stockwell Day and the Conservatives! >> The changes proposed by Day to the Firearms Act are >> a breath of fresh air to"oxygen starved" firearms owners. Chris, you must have a license, because the air I am breathing is filled with the stench of politicans. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:27 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Globe and Mail Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: The long-gun registry is ripe for dismantling Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:33:15 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: Editor - Globe and Mail While I am glad that you finally appear to have come to your senses about the onerous and draconian nature of gun registration, you still seem to harbour a number of the standard, yet fatally flawed, anti-gun beliefs. Every argument that can be used in support of scrapping the long gun registry applies just as equally to the handgun registry, too. This discrepancy is just giving credence to the anti-gun lobby's false argument of "bad guns": there is no such thing as "bad guns", just "bad gun uses". This is the basic flaw in the foundation of all such so-called "gun control" laws - they focus on the *object*, instead of the person who misuses it for criminal purposes. This is just another form of "prohibition", and we all know how well those have worked in the past. I must also take exception to your support of licensing laws. Licensing simply serves to criminalize gun ownership; licensing seeks to unjustly transfer the burden of responsibility from the criminals, who actually misuse firearms to commit actual crimes, onto the backs of law abiding gun owning citizens, who have not, and most likely never will. This is unconscionable in a free society, and an infringement of several rights of the individual. And it certainly doesn't "ensure" that guns are kept out of the hands of "dangerous or irresponsible people", as you claim. Being licensed doesn't prevent someone from ever committing a crime with a gun, and having a license revoked or refused doesn't prevent someone from subsequently getting a gun through illegal means. Not that real criminals even bother to apply for a license in the first place. A "gun crime" is no more or less heinous because it was committed without the benefit of being licensed. A far better, not to mention cheaper, method is to register *criminals* - - those who have been deemed by the Courts to be too dangerous to be allowed to possess guns. Keep track of where they live and move to, and search their premises to ensure that they are living up to their responsibilities not to possess guns. Law abiding gun owners are fed up with being treated like criminals when they aren't, and most likely never will be. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:52:56 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: License V Registration On 2006 Jun 21, at 6:53 AM, John Howat wrote: > (in New Zealand) > > 5: The holder of a Firearms License has lost the Right of Self-protection. I hope we Canadians do not join your club. Fortunately we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Happy Winter Solstice, Kiwi. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:53:23 -0600 (CST) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to Globe and Mail (unpub) ... Specious gun arguments ... (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, Letter writer Frank O'Hara seems quite emotional when he defends the firearm registry, though any defense of the registry must by nature be a visceral one rather than rational. When he quotes that Canadian police make reference the registry 5,000 times daily, perhaps Mr. O'Hara is unaware that each and every routine traffic stop which runs a license plate through the CPIC network hits the registry database whether the traffic offender is a firearm owner or not. As the registry data are suspect, illegal firearms and people who are unlicensed or are otherwise prohibited from owning firearms are by definition and law *NOT* in the registry, the information obtained by such references are at best a placebo, and at worst very misleading. I suppose that that would make the "police use the firearm registry 5,000 times a day" a "specious" argument. Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:59:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Howard R. Hamilton" Subject: Re: License V Registration There seems to be even more confusion over the meaning of licensing versus certification. John Howat wrote: >There seems to be some some confusion between "firearms registration" >and "firearms owner licensing" > >Lets look at it. > >1: Governments do not require either licensing or registration to ban >and/or confiscate firearms - all they need do is pass a law, and start >collecting! True, but the current laws use both registration and licensing to make confiscation easier. >2: Firearms Registration is the tool for easy confication - that is >because registration provides records of who possesses which firearms. Also True >3: Firearms Licensing is the method of identifying those responsible >civilians that society feels can be trusted with firearms, and it is >generally (almost universally) considered to be a necessary safeguard >for modern society. False. Licensing is a method of making it illegal to own firearms, so that the government can confiscate firearms at its whim. A police background check to prove that the individual is not banned from owning firearms is the only necessary safeguard required for ownership of a firearms. >4: A Firearms License is like a Drivers License - it deals with the >use and possession of firearms - not the ownership - and therfore is of >little value in any possible future confiscation. False. Sections 90 and 91 of the criminal code make it an indictable offense to possess or own a firearms without a license. Until this licensing is removed from the criminal code, we are at the mercy of the government. The license is the governments means to confiscation. Licensing is a method used by the government to "legally" confiscate firearms from its citizens. BUZ ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #543 ********************************** 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.