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 #572 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, June 27 2006 Volume 09 : Number 572 In this issue: Calgary Herald Column: Day misfires on registry claim My letter to the Calgary Herald Star Phoenix Column: Gun registry may not be dead yet WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TOUGH ON GANGS AND GUNS? Teen shot several times on east-end street Man shot in attempted carjacking Criminals' relatives tap victims' fund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:40:11 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: Calgary Herald Column: Day misfires on registry claim PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald DATE: 2006.06.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: The Editorial Page PAGE: A10 COLUMN: Danielle Smith BYLINE: Danielle Smith SOURCE: For The Calgary Herald WORD COUNT: 722 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Day misfires on registry claim - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day claimed in a news release last week that, "Canada's new Government fulfills commitment to abolish the long-gun registry." Turns out he was overstating things. If you talk to gun owners, they will tell you the government position is a massive betrayal. Killing the registry while keeping the licensing requirements is not what gun owners had in mind when they demanded the government scrap Bill C-68. Maintaining the licensing component is also not what Conservative Party members had in mind at the party's policy convention last year. Party members passed a new firearms policy that said the government would repeal Canada's costly gun registry legislation and instead implement such measures as "mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms; strict monitoring of high-risk individuals; crackdown on smuggling; safe storage provisions; firearms safety training; a certification screening system for all those wishing to acquire firearms legally; and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets." The idea of requiring a "licence" for law-abiding gun owners was debated by party delegates and voted down in favour of certification. The difference is huge. Licensing and registering firearms is, in theory, similar to licensing and registering cars: you need a valid driver's licence to drive on public streets and you need to register your vehicle separately. There is value in registering cars: police can run the licence plate on a vehicle to check for outstanding warrants, it is an easy way to track a car leaving the scene of a crime and it is a way for citizens to report a hit-and-run incident. There is no comparable value in registering firearms. Nearly all guns used to commit crimes are not legally registered. There is no value in the licensing scheme, either. To understand just how offensive licensing is to gun owners, consider if the same rules for having a gun licence applied to having a driver's licence. Imagine what it would be like if you allowed your driver's licence to lapse, and you automatically became a criminal who could be thrown in jail for up to five years. Imagine if that lapse also allowed the police to raid your home and confiscate all your cars. If you allow your driver's licence to lapse, you can still keep your car on your own property as long as you don't drive it on public streets. It is not a crime to simply own a car without having a valid driver's licence. Not so with firearms. What is particularly perverse about the firearms licensing scheme is it only monitors legal gun owners. In a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Nov. 24, 2004, MP Garry Breitkreuz questioned this logic: Under the licensing requirements, law-abiding gun owners are required to notify the government of a change of address, yet there is no requirement for the 201,097 individuals listed as "prohibited from possessing firearms" on the Canadian Police Information Centre database to notify government of a change of address. If the government were interested in tracking individuals most likely to commit a crime, wouldn't they put reporting requirements on the latter group rather than the former? The firearms commissioner responded that firearms officers "have no authority to collect information from someone who is not a client of the program." The government has it backwards. We should not have a registry of individuals who are allowed to own guns; we should have a registry of those who are too dangerous to own guns. According to Breitkreuz, that should include "all persons prohibited from owning guns by the courts, all persons with an outstanding criminal arrest warrant, all persons with restraining orders against them, all persons with refused or revoked firearms licences and all individuals who have threatened violence." A more effective registry would track known criminals, require them to report change of address, vigorously enforce ownership prohibition, and have severe penalties for those who violate the possession rules. Meanwhile, law-abiding gun owners would return to the kind of certification system we had before -- which required safety training and criminal background checks before a gun is purchased. That's what Conservative Party members thought they were voting for when they passed the party's firearms policy. Does Day's proposal fulfil the government's commitment? Not by a long shot. danielle@apri.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:11:52 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Calgary Herald Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Day misfires on registry claim Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:08:43 -0400 From: Bruce Mills To: Editor - Calgary Herald , danielle@apri.ca Bravo to Danielle Smith for her insightful column on the sleight of hand the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to pull, with their Act to Amend the Firearms Act, C-21. For the past decade, the CPC, in its various incarnations from the Reform Party, to the Alliance, and up until the last federal election, have been promising the Responsible Firearm Owners of Canada that they would "scrap C-68 entirely". This is what we have been demanding of them, and it seemed like they understood. But while eliminating the long-gun registry is a good first step, it doesn't come anywhere close to fulfilling those promises or demands. It doesn't even conform to CPC Policy, in letter or in spirit. MP Garry Breitkreuz, who has long been the champion of property and firearms rights, has put what we want best: "Our firearms policy will effectively return our gun laws to the way they were before 1995 - except for the mandatory minimum sentences that we propose to increase." Gun ownership is a right - it should not be a crime. We cannot allow the CPC to get away with this kind of nonsense. C-68, including its universal licensing provisions, must be scrapped, entirely. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:49:49 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: Star Phoenix Column: Gun registry may not be dead yet PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) DATE: 2006.06.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: Forum PAGE: A6 COLUMN: Lorne Gunter BYLINE: Lorne Gunter SOURCE: Edmonton Journal WORD COUNT: 823 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gun registry may not be dead yet - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Ding Dong! The Witch is dead (...) The Wicked Witch dead!" Huh!? She's not dead? Just napping? With the introduction last week of Bill C-21, the federal Conservatives appear to have set motion the death of the Liberals' long-gun registry. But have they really? It's not yet possible tell, for sure. I hope they have. Yet the devil will be in the regulatory details that follow the passage of C-21 -- if it passes -- sometime this fall or next spring. Until then, the legislation introduced by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day looks like an improvement over the Liberals' universal gun registry, perhaps even a signifi cant improvement. But it could also turn out to be merely a tinkering at the edges, more spin than substance. Kevin Staines, president of the Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition of B.C., believes the bill is "the least any political party could do" to keep its campaign promises, "the minimum required to keep gun owners on side." If that is all it is, it would still be an improvement over the Liberals' law. There remains a good chance, though, Day's bill will fall far short of ending gun registration. Day says his legislation will amend the Firearms Act and Criminal Code so law-abiding Canadian hunters, farmers, gun collectors and target shooters no longer have to register their rifl es and shotguns. Handguns would still have to be registered. And all owners, whether of handguns or long guns, would still be required to take federal fi rearms safety courses, agree to criminal background checks and obtain licences before acquiring guns or even buying ammunition. The only Liberal boondoggle the Conservatives appear to be getting rid of is the demand that the Canadian Firearms Centre be given detailed information on every long gun in the country and where it is. Seemingly gone is the need to register individual guns, the most expensive, useless and error-prone part of the Liberals' gun-control regime. But the Conservatives want to add the requirement that the details of every gun sale be registered. So depending on the regulations they bring in to accomplish that, we might still end up with registration via the backdoor. We won't know, though, for some months after C-21 is passed and the regulations implementing it are released, whether the need to identify and register each and every fi rearm is well and truly gone. If it is, then C-21 will be a huge step back from the Liberals' catastrophic registration policy. But there is some chance that all the Conservatives are doing is substituting a paperless registry for the existing one. I know police brass across the country, and even some frontline offi cers, have convinced themselves that registering individual guns increases police safety, and also possibly public safety. They theorize that if police have access to reliable data on which houses contain guns, how many and what kinds, then when offi cers answer emergencies calls they will be better able to protect themselves against being shot. But any offi cer who goes into a dangerous situation trusting in the registry's data to keep him safe is reckless or foolish, or both. And there is no proof registration cuts down on gun crime, or even on the number of guns available to crooks, by encouraging safe storage by lawful owners. As the government pointed out last week, according to Statistics Canada "of 549 murders recorded in Canada in 2003, only two were committed with long-guns known to be registered." Neither of those were prevented or solved because of the billion-dollar registry. So the Conservatives are not endangering the police or the public by getting rid of the registry. But are they really getting rid of it? As Staines points out, registering the sale of each gun, as the Conservatives propose, could easily amount to the same thing as registering each gun. The only difference for gun owners and buyers would be that they themselves might not have to obtain a federal certifi cate for each fi rearm in their possession. The paperwork would be held instead on Ottawa's computers. Owners would not face jail time for failing to have registration documentation for all their fi rearms -- a nice change from the current setup -- but they would nonetheless still, effectively, have to register any new guns they acquire. "If the new regulations require that each gun being transferred be uniquely identifi ed, and that that identity be fi led with Ottawa before the transfer goes through," Staines explains, "then you still have registration. It's just paperless registration." Let's hope the Conservatives don't attempt such a sleight-of-hand. There are positives signs they will not. For instance, a lot of gun owners were worried that the new legislation would reclassify pump-action shotguns and semi-automatic rifl es -- the bulk of so-called long guns -- as restricted weapons. Both are currently non-restricted. Had they been reclassifi ed, though, they would still have had to be registered, despite Day's new bill. But the Conservatives did not make that change, so there is reason to hope they will not also attempt to turn their new proposal to register all gun sales into a registry-by-default. Still, gun owners aren't -- yet -- breathing easy. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:50:14 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TOUGH ON GANGS AND GUNS? PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2006.06.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 23 ILLUSTRATION: 1. photo by Dave Thomas A peace procession and vigil was held for murder victim Chantel Dunn last April. University student Dunn was shot while picking up her boyfriend from a basketball game in February. 2. photo of CHANTEL DUNN Student 3. photo of JANE CREBA Shopping 4. photo of DAVID MILLER Mom of four BYLINE: LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN WORD COUNT: 507 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INNOCENTS ARE DYING FOURTEEN SHOOTINGS IN TWO WEEKENDS -- WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TOUGH ON GANGS AND GUNS? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This weekend there were eight shootings in Toronto, two of them fatal. Last weekend there were six shootings. No one died, but kids as young as 13 were wounded. So can someone in authority -- anyone -- explain to the rest of us why, exactly, it is you think you've got this whole gangs and guns thing under any better control this summer than you did last summer? Anybody? Premier Dalton McGuinty? Attorney-General Michael Bryant? Community Safety Minister Monte Kwinter? Toronto Mayor David Miller? Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair? Anyone on the Toronto Police Services Board care to speak up? Come to think of it, does anyone even remember who's on the Toronto Police Services Board these days? What about that bright idea you all had, along with former prime minister Paul Martin -- in the middle of the federal election, right after the Boxing Day shootings on Yonge St. -- about placing a "reverse onus" on those accused of gun crimes seeking bail? How's that been working out? Anybody know? How about those special gang courts? Oh, that's right, the first of those isn't even opening until fall, is it? Have Crown attorneys been instructed to refuse plea bargains giving those convicted of gun crimes two-for-one and three-for-one sentencing deals for time served in custody prior to being convicted? How's that going, if at all? Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Vic Toews, if you've got any ideas -- other than introducing tougher laws for gun crime which, while welcome, are months away from becoming law -- we'd sure like to hear them. For example, is anyone at any level of government monitoring the sentences judges are handing down for gun crimes these days, to see if they're reflecting the far greater level of concern you all say the public now has about gun crime? Come to think of it, is anyone following up on any of the above initiatives -- all announced repeatedly with great fanfare -- to see if any of them are up and running or doing what they're supposed to do? Or is it just business as usual in our courts -- meaning, generally, absurdly light sentences for gun crime, which are then turned into a total joke by parole? My guess is a lot of folks in Toronto would sure like to hear from our politicians -- before they book off for their summer vacations -- about all this stuff. What's it going to take to make gangs and guns a priority -- another Boxing Day massacre? I try to think what the political reaction would be if this mayhem was going on every weekend in Forest Hill or Rosedale. But I think we all know. It sure wouldn't be silence, would it? So where are our politicians? Why the low profile? Is it because they believe the public believes that it's mostly young black gangbangers killing each other, so who cares? But it's not just gangbangers killing each other. Innocent people are being wounded and killed in the crossfire. Remember Jane Creba? She wasn't a gangbanger. She was an innocent, happy high school kid, shopping on Yonge St. on Boxing Day with her family -- which isn't supposed to be high-risk activity -- when she was shot to death. Remember Chantel Dunn? She wasn't a gangbanger. She was an innocent university student and aspiring lawyer, shot to death while picking up her boyfriend from a basketball game. Remember Livvette Miller? She wasn't a gangbanger. She was an innocent mother of four, gunned down while at a nightclub celebrating a friend's birthday -- her first night out in months following the death of her husband from cancer. White victims. Black victims. All innocent victims. What do our politicians have to say about what's happening on our streets? Because you know what? I don't think another article in the Star quoting some left-wing "criminologist" one more time about how the crime rate is going down is going to cut it with most folks this summer. I really don't. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:00:10 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Teen shot several times on east-end street http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1151361017968&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News Teen shot several times on east-end street HENRY STANCU STAFF REPORTER Jun. 26, 2006. 11:07 PM A teenager was shot several times on a street in Toronto's east end Monday night. The victim, believed to be about 17, was struck in the back, leg and buttocks when four to five shots rang out at Pape and Gamble Aves. north of Cosburn Ave. at about 10 p.m. Ambulance paramedics arrived to find the bleeding victim conscious, but unable to move and lying in the middle of Pape Ave. in front of a bakery. He was taken to St. Michael's hospital where he is undergoing surgery. Police were looking for two men who ran west on Gamble. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:00:24 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Man shot in attempted carjacking http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1151361017878&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News Man shot in attempted carjacking HENRY STANCU STAFF REPORTER Jun. 26, 2006. 10:50 PM Police were searching the Moss Park area after a man was shot in the leg in a botched carjacking Monday night. The victim, a 41-year-old who police say frequents the area, was shot once in a dispute with a man on Seaton St. near Shuter St. about 8:40 p.m. Monday. Police received a 9-1-1 call from residents in the area a block east of Sherbourne St. who told them the gunman ran north towards an apartment building. A single shell casing was found on the street beside the man's silver Toyota Corolla. The victim was taken to St. Michael's hospital. His injury was not considered life threatening. The suspect was described as a man in his late 30s wearing a white long-sleeved shirt and dark shorts. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 08:02:23 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Criminals' relatives tap victims' fund http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1151361017796&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home Criminals' relatives tap victims' fund Seek payments for emotional trauma Unsolved cases complicate judgments BETSY POWELL STAFF REPORTERS Jun. 27, 2006. 05:56 AM Relatives of dead and injured criminals are increasingly seeking payouts from a government agency intended to help innocent victims of violent crime pay medical bills, cover lost wages and get compensation for emotional trauma suffered. While many such requests are turned down by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, there are a number of recent examples where families of homicide victims with criminal pasts have been awarded thousands of dollars, including: # Seventeen-year-old Neil Armstrong had 14 criminal convictions when he was gunned down in front of a Richmond St. W. nightclub on July 16, 2003. His mother applied to the board in 2004 to pay for funeral costs amounting to more than $6,000. After a hearing, the board ruled that despite his past he was a victim and awarded her $2,500 toward funeral costs. # Last October, Judith Barnaby, 43, of Brampton, filed a claim after her 20-year-old son Damian Barnaby was shot in the back of the head at a Scarborough housing complex on the night of July 17, 2001. The slaying was described in court as payback for a jail fight. The board rejected a compensation claim for wage loss because she "did not prove mental or nervous shock," but her husband, Harry Barnaby, was awarded $9,000 for the funeral. The cases illustrate the fine line the members of the criminal injuries board must walk in determining if family members of individuals with not-so-innocent lifestyles deserve assistance. The maximum lump sum payment that can be awarded under the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act is $25,000. Under Section 17 (1) the board is to "have regard for all relevant circumstances, including any behaviour of the victim that may have directly or indirectly contributed to his or her injury or death." But what's become "very problematic" for the board is that so many of cases involving guns and gangs remain unsolved, said chair Marsha Greenfield. "Very often these investigations are ongoing so police can't give us information as to whether or not the injured or deceased person is a gang member or if the suspects were gang members quite simply for fear of harming their prosecution of the crime," should it ever come about, Greenfield said. "In the absence of hard proof, then the Act is clear: we have to make a determination," said Greenfield. That often means requiring police officers to testify as to what they believe to be the circumstances around a violent act, leaving it up to the board members to decide without the benefit of a court ruling. Greenfield acknowledges there are examples of people receiving compensation who shouldn't. "On one side of the table you have a grieving family, who may or may not have been aware of what their loved one was doing. So it's very difficult," said Greenfield. "But these are public funds that we are using to compensate victims of crime so we have to weigh out what's in the public interest as well," she said. Every year, the board hears about 2,500 cases but recently the amount of money awarded has been increasing. It paid out $21 million in 2004/05, a jump from $17.6 million in 2003/04 and $13.8 million in 2002/2003. Some of the rising number of claims are related to recent gun and gang violence, which is creating new challenges for the 38-year-old quasi-adjudicative provincial government agency, Greenfield said. "The (Compensation for Victims of Crime) Act needs to be brought into the 21st century," said Greenfield, who added the Attorney General is looking at changes. "I personally would like to be able to say to somebody: `No, you're a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, which is in itself a criminal act, and you are by statute barred from receiving compensation.'" Take the case of the Dana Lee Williams — the girlfriend of a dead gang member and who, herself, is facing gang-related charges. In April the board issued an order rejecting her claim saying she was "fully aware of the victim's criminal lifestyle" which was "fraught with violence and danger." Williams was seeking compensation after Norris Allen, 22, the father of her two children, was shot and killed in 2002. At a hearing in March she testified that she has experienced "psychological and emotional trauma" as well as "stress, anxiety, depression and sleep problems." Police allege at the time of her arrest as part of Project Pathfinder in the spring of 2004, Williams was in possession of $14,330, money alleged to be proceeds of crime for the material benefit of the "criminal organization" known as the Galloway Boys, of which Allen was a member. A two-member board panel also didn't think much of three claims made by the parents and an ex-girlfriend of Kevin Ebanks, 27, and his brother Jermaine, 18. At the hearing, former homicide detective Mark Mendelson testified the pair were members of a gang known as the Versace Crew who were shot to death Oct. 27, 2002, outside an Etobicoke nightclub as part of a "classic turf war." The suspect was himself later shot to death. "The police knew of the victim and the alleged offender for crimes of violence, weapons offences and drug trafficking," and they were all suspects in multiple homicides, reads two of the board orders denying a $5,533.21 claim for funeral expenses for Jermaine and $7,164 for Kevin's funeral. The board noted the father was aware of his sons' "criminal activity." Mendelson, now a consultant, questions why some people are seeking thousands of taxpayer dollars for funeral coverage when the city's social services department will cover the costs, albeit for a no-frills service. "For some reason families of dead criminals know exactly how to get the board to listen to them and in many cases get payouts." But Mendelson does make some exceptions. Myrtle Hardware submitted a claim after her son Garfield Sherwood was shot to death in an underground parking lot on Feb. 7, 1999. Her only child lived at home, was a good son, completed high school and planned college, the board found. "To the best of her knowledge the deceased was not involved with guns or drugs" and she didn't know what led to his murder. Mendelson testified before the panel that he believed the victim had stolen a gun from a car the previous night. The owner contacted him and demanded it be returned and "when he turned it over he was shot with it." He was struck 10 times. Hardware suffered "acute situational stress" which turned into "pathological grief and depression." While the board found her son had contributed to his death, in this case it decided "not to reduce compensation because of the extreme violence of the incident, severity of applicants' symptoms and because the police investigation was inconclusive." Hardware was awarded $5,000 for pain and suffering, $1,000 for a psychiatrist and $400 in legal costs. Despite Sherwood's choices, Mendelson said he believes Hardware "deserved" the help. "She was helpful, she was co-operative I don't believe she had any inclination at all what kind of life her son was leading. She was a good mother, a stern mother. I had no problem with her at all. She was as much a victim as anybody." ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V9 #572 ********************************** 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.