From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #337 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, March 21 2007 Volume 10 : Number 337 In this issue: Montague report [ScrapC-68] Setback in Court Re: [ScrapC-68] Setback in Court Liberals, NDP, CPC whats the difference. Re: Who the heck is Steph and Day listening to Re: Realities? [none] Re: Constitutional Charter Challenge Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #336 Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #336 Re: license Annual Firearms Licencing & Registration Costs Re: license RE: License Column: Truck exemption will buttress Harper's gun-toting rural base ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:35:22 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Montague report Eduardo reported: >The the judge read his decision on Gary Mauser and Dave >Tomlinson. The judge will accept some of Dr. Mauser's testimony but >none of Dave Tomlinson's, regarding Mr. Tomlinson as too much of an >advocate for firearms ownership. > Tomlinson's reputation is as a gun advocate or activist and firearms expert. Mauser has other credentials which give him a platform. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:22:04 -0600 From: "Bruce Montague" Subject: [ScrapC-68] Setback in Court Dear Supporters: It's been a long couple of days for us this week. Court was delayed until 2:30pm on Monday because of a bad snow storm. The judge couldn't land in Kenora Sunday night and had to fly in after noon on Monday. The judge came back with a decision about the standing of our expert witnesses. Gary Mauser is considered an expert witness but one of his papers will not be considered for the purposes of our hearing. Dave Tomlinson will not be considered an expert for the purposes of our case because he was considered too much of an "advocate" (as opposed to being objective). This news wasn't particularly unexpected and shouldn't have a large effect on our case. At this point we had to deal with a more serious issue that the crown brought up in the factum. The crown stated "The Crown must be given notice of any constitutional challenge, and where notice is lacking, the challenge may be rejected. The Applicants' factum does not precisely state what is being claimed, . . ." We were able to spend several hours reviewing the factum and assessing this real threat of having our charter challenge dismissed. After much debate our case management team decided it was best to ask for a postponement of 4 months so that we could re-draft our arguments. This also meant that we had to discharge our lawyer from the case. This was a heart wrenching and difficult decision to make, but rest assured we are doing this with the ultimate success of our challenge in mind. I'm sure there may be some questioning the wisdom of this move, but I implore you not to judge our actions too quickly. There are many factors to consider when making a move like this and we spent a couple of sleepless nights debating it before coming to this drastic conclusion. I wish I could tell you more but there is some sensitive information that was part of this decision that cannot be publicized. Please don't lose hope (as I sometimes felt in the past couple of days) and continue to pray for our success as we search for an energetic and sharp lawyer to pick up this case - we're researching and interviewing several lawyers over the next two weeks so we can make a decision by April 4th. Yours in Liberty, Bruce. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. - - Calvin Coolidge, Past President of the United States. _______________________________________________ To be removed from the ScrapC-68 list: mailto:ScrapC-68-request@brucemontague.ca?subject=unsubscribe To subscribe to the ScrapC-68 list: mailto:ScrapC-68-request@brucemontague.ca?subject=subscribe ScrapC-68 mailing list information: http://www.BruceMontague.ca/elist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:34:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladyslav Strashko Subject: Re: [ScrapC-68] Setback in Court When I use Charter argument in court, I have to SERVE a copy each form that relates to Charter argument to 1) Crown prosecutor 2) Court (have to file a copy) 3) Attorney General of Ontario 4) Attorney General of Canada I always have been expected to provide a proof of service in Court. Who is crown's witness? Did you ruin them the same way they went after your witnesses? Bruce Montague wrote: Dear Supporters: It's been a long couple of days for us this week. Court was delayed until 2:30pm on Monday because of a bad snow storm. The judge couldn't land in Kenora Sunday night and had to fly in after noon on Monday. The judge came back with a decision about the standing of our expert witnesses. Gary Mauser is considered an expert witness but one of his papers will not be considered for the purposes of our hearing. Dave Tomlinson will not be considered an expert for the purposes of our case because he was considered too much of an "advocate" (as opposed to being objective). This news wasn't particularly unexpected and shouldn't have a large effect on our case. At this point we had to deal with a more serious issue that the crown brought up in the factum. The crown stated "The Crown must be given notice of any constitutional challenge, and where notice is lacking, the challenge may be rejected. The Applicants' factum does not precisely state what is being claimed, . . ." We were able to spend several hours reviewing the factum and assessing this real threat of having our charter challenge dismissed. After much debate our case management team decided it was best to ask for a postponement of 4 months so that we could re-draft our arguments. This also meant that we had to discharge our lawyer from the case. This was a heart wrenching and difficult decision to make, but rest assured we are doing this with the ultimate success of our challenge in mind. I'm sure there may be some questioning the wisdom of this move, but I implore you not to judge our actions too quickly. There are many factors to consider when making a move like this and we spent a couple of sleepless nights debating it before coming to this drastic conclusion. I wish I could tell you more but there is some sensitive information that was part of this decision that cannot be publicized. Please don't lose hope (as I sometimes felt in the past couple of days) and continue to pray for our success as we search for an energetic and sharp lawyer to pick up this case - we're researching and interviewing several lawyers over the next two weeks so we can make a decision by April 4th. Yours in Liberty, Bruce. Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. - - Calvin Coolidge, Past President of the United States. _______________________________________________ To be removed from the ScrapC-68 list: mailto:ScrapC-68-request@brucemontague.ca?subject=unsubscribe To subscribe to the ScrapC-68 list: mailto:ScrapC-68-request@brucemontague.ca?subject=subscribe ScrapC-68 mailing list information: http://www.BruceMontague.ca/elist I support these organizations: www.nfa.ca www.cdnshootingsports.org www.conservative.ca Support Organized Crime - Vote Liberal - --------------------------------- Vlad, please use the "Plain Text Only" format when posting to the CFD. The CFD uses "Plain Text" formating to protect all suscribers to the CFD including yourself from Malware and viruses. Your cooperation in this would be deeply appreciated. Thanx -CFD Temp Moderator Dave Jordan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:26:09 -0700 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Liberals, NDP, CPC whats the difference. > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:43:17 -0300 > From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" > Subject: Re: > > Al wrote, > >> Nor will I be >> restrained from taking the CPC to task, in the media, during the next >> election. > > I think this is a very good idea, AL. > > By getting media attention drawn to the CPCs lack of action to put more > freedom for the law-abiding into the Firearms Act you will successfully > increase the pressure on them while at the same time making some left > leaning fence sitters start to think of the CPC as a not-so-scary viable > alternative. > > The way I see it, this is a win-win idea. I was worrying about assiting the lying sacks of **** so I will continue to tread carefully as usual. I would not want the CPC to gain any votes from any action I might take. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Vladyslav Strashko Subject: Re: Who the heck is Steph and Day listening to What exactly are they looking for? Someone to go in and state in the interview that they plan on breaking the law? Well, this is an extra tool to deny gun ownership. Nothing else!!! Lee Jasper wrote: From the Globe: >The multiple shootings at Montreal's Dawson College last year have >inspired the government to strengthen the screening of those applying >for firearms permits. Additional resources are aimed at ensuring that >20,000 first-time applicants will be interviewed, along with their >references, in an effort to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. > I'll bet the folk doing this will be the same astute types who gave Canuck gun owners some twelve different standards for PALs across the Nation. Had a paper about this. What cops are qualified to conduct these interviews? I'll bet Ontario gun owners will be reassured that the same astute people who failed 89% of Ontario's alternate certification applicants and made a mockery out of the federal Ch 39. Feds couldn't do a thing about it because licensing is "provincial" responsibility. (One of the reasons I keep asking Steph and company how they can 'repeal' something administered solely under provincial jurisdiction. The feds simply set the guidelines). And now Ontario won't let anyone apply for alt cert to get a current or future infamous CFC 'lifetime PAL' because they'd be deemed to have been in 'illegal' continuous possession of guns for the last 6 years. Oh, the CFSC types will be smiling all the way to the bank. If this gets in you can bet it'll get extended to 'all' gun owners when the Libs trash the CPC 'lifetime' license. "If it saves even 'one' life." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:37:17 -0700 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Realities? > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:48:56 -0500 > From: Lee Jasper > Subject: Realities? > > Al commented: > >>Lee the probem is not in the certificate/license it is in the > acquiring/possessing. As long as POSSESSING is in the equation I am in > not interested. >> >>If I need a card to ACQUIRE I am not interested in a permanent document > because it infers a requirement for POSSESSING. >> > > Your objection to an acquisition certificate is because it would be a > pre-requisite or would be a precursor, to possess? Where did you get an objection to acquisition certificate from what I wrote Lee? I/ we said we would accept an old style FAC. > > > Al added: > >> Lee the CILA is part of the CSSA. >> > > I understood they were a 'parallel' organization. Don't they have > separate mailing addresses and phone numbers? They cost about $100 Lee. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:32:07 -0700 From: "Al Muir" Subject: [none] > > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:43:17 -0300 > From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" > Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #332 Mike wrote: > "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". Just noticed the change of "plan" to "prepared". Fits in realy well with the FAC's acceptance of licensing. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:48:12 -0700 From: Christopher di Armani Subject: Re: Constitutional Charter Challenge At 06:31 PM 3/20/2007, you wrote: >Question for Eduardo: >Any speculation from our legal team on how allowing only "some" of Dr. >Mauser's testimony and "none" of Dave Tomlinson's will impact our chances >of winning? >Is this ruling considered a major setback? I'm not Eduardo, Gary, but I don't see this as a major setback. It was pretty much expected from the outset, I think, and I can't imagine it will have much impact on our chances of winning the case. Tomlinson was speaking to specific issues about the Firearms Act, not constitutional ones. For that matter, neither is Mauser. They speak more to the Oakes Test than anything else. I view Mauser and Tomlinson's testimony more as "bonus material" than core issue stuff. There are many more constitutional grounds to challenge the actual legislation from than just that one avenue. Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com Licensing law-abiding gun owners CANNOT stop criminals (law-breakers by definition) from killing people. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:40:38 -0300 From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #336 Ed wrote: > OK I NEVER HAD A LICENCE FOR OVER 60 YEARS SO WHY DO I NEED ONE NOW ? The simple truth is you don't. You don't NEED a license any more than you NEED to pay your taxes on time, get a drivers license, or any of a myriad other things we, in our enlightened free democracy, are made to do under threat of force by our benevolent rulers. This has always stuck in my craw, how the State will advertise its incursions into our liberties with the statement that we NEED whatever infringement it is pushing. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Secretary, St. Mary's Shooters Association President, Guysborough County Horse and Pony Association Member All For Horses Association, Nova Scotia Equestrian Federation Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca My Bio: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mikeack/mikeack.htm SMSA URL: www.smsa.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:09:07 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #336 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #336 > Ed wrote: > >> OK I NEVER HAD A LICENCE FOR OVER 60 YEARS SO WHY DO I NEED ONE NOW ? > > > The simple truth is you don't. > > You don't NEED a license any more than you NEED to pay your taxes on > time, get a drivers license, or any of a myriad other things we, in our > enlightened free democracy, are made to do under threat of force by our > benevolent rulers. > > This has always stuck in my craw, how the State will advertise its > incursions into our liberties with the statement that we NEED whatever > infringement it is pushing. > > -- > M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) > Well you said it all ,Doc. We "need" what the government tells us we need. Or suffer the consequences. It is illegal to drive a car for example, without a licence ; so the government is then giving us permission to break the law by issuing us permission ( a licence.) Otherwise the fine is horrendous , $5000.00 and up for a first offence here in ontario. So its not about justice or any other high-falutin ideal,its about making money. Just like everything else in this world , the bottom line dictates all actions. ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:13:07 -0400 From: "B&C Beaudoin" Subject: Re: license I have some questions for you! How many of the people that have been refused a permit to acquire by the state vetting process are you willing to guarantee are not a risk to other law abiding citizens and their right to life? You may like to keep in mind that many Canadians view this vetting process as a form of protecting their right to life... *And* Which would you prefer? Stopped in a RIDE program, the officer notices a firearm in the back seat of your SUV. Would you rather reach into your wallet, show him your permit & then drive away, or wait until he has time to call in to the HQ, run a check on the firearm & your credentials hoping that you won't be late for your daughter's graduation? Regards, Brad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, March 21, 2007 6:42 am From: News@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Annual Firearms Licencing & Registration Costs - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca CANADA FIREARMS CENTRE: Resource Breakdown by Sub-Activity for 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 for the Centre Activity http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20052006/CFC-CAFC/CFC-CAFCr5602_e.asp#2 2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:44:02 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: license - ----- Original Message ----- From: "B&C Beaudoin" To: "CFD" Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:13 AM Subject: Re: license >I have some questions for you! How many of the people that have been > refused a permit to acquire by the state vetting process are you willing > to guarantee are not a risk to other law abiding citizens and their right > to life? > > You may like to keep in mind that many Canadians view this vetting > process as a form of protecting their right to life... > Then licence criminals not law-abiding citizens . then they would know immediately who is allowed and who isnt allowed firearms just by checking the registration and drivers licence of any vehicle/person they stop. > *And* > > Which would you prefer? > Stopped in a RIDE program, the officer notices a firearm in the back seat > of your SUV. Would you rather reach into your wallet, show him your permit > & then drive away, or wait until he has time to call in to the HQ, run a > check on the firearm & your credentials hoping that you won't be late for > your daughter's graduation? > > Regards, > Brad Good question: I have been on a ride program with police officers and the call in to check on a person takes about 1-5 minutes total. My daughters graduation wouldnt miss the 5 minutes . Besides there would be NO firearm visible on the back seat; it would be on the floor; covered with a blanket as required by law . so what he doesnt see he cant ask about. Ed/ontario ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:03:02 -0400 From: "B&C Beaudoin" Subject: RE: License Bruce wrote: >Why do you think that honest, law abiding, and free >citizens should be stopped and harassed "on the spot" >by agents of the State, for merely exercising what is >theirs by right? First off Bruce, I don't think honest, law abiding, and free citizens should be stopped and harassed "on the spot". But the reality is that they are all the time. RIDE checks, game enforcement spot checks, even racial profiling result in law abiding citizens being harassed every day. (I've left out "free" because I think these tactics infringe on our freedom) But during one of these harassment activities society foists upon itself (and us!) a firearms possession Certificate, License or whatever you like to call it can be pretty handy if you have firearms in the vehicle. Like a get out of jail free card. No card - go to Jail & explain. >You're awfully eager to hand over my rights on my >behalf... Wrong again Bruce. Because as you have stated time and again, and I quote: "Since your rights are inherent and intrinsic to your very being, it is also apparent that you own your rights, too. They belong to you, and you alone. They are neither cumulative, nor transferable. Nobody else's rights can take precedence over yours (or yours, theirs), and no amount of numbers can make your rights subordinate to the dictates of others." I cannot possibly hand over your rights, Hell, I can't even hand over MY rights if what you say is true... So, quit your whining.... Regards, Brad ------------------------------ Date: Wed, March 21, 2007 8:01 am From: News@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Column: Truck exemption will buttress Harper's gun-toting rural base - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2007.03.21 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 20 BYLINE: SHEILA COPPS WORD COUNT: 556 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- Cheer for Tories' heritage cash - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- Budget entrails have already been dined on and should be fodder for fish wrap by week's end. The opposition will stop complaining and, with no hiccups, the big story will be old news by Monday. Unlike the infamous 1979 budget, this time the Conservatives have no intention of being turfed out by a tax. Some SUV owners will howl but the fuel efficiency rebate is a smart offset. Big oil may feel betrayed but it doesn't hurt Prime Minister Stephen Harper with the hockey moms. The truck exemption will also buttress Harper's gun-toting rural base. The budget positions Harper where he needs to be even if some slighted sectors remain skeptical. Arts professionals are rightfully concerned about Tory support for cultural spending. But heritage buffs are over the moon about the establishment of a National Trust for the preservation of Canada's rich architectural past. The original groundwork for this week's announcement began more than a decade ago, with the arrival of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on an official visit. Prince Charles, a well-known heritage architecture buff, privately decried the bulldozing he witnessed in several downtown cores. He offered to help Canadian Heritage create a trust modelled after the British National Trust. Parks Canada, then part of the Heritage department, went to work on a unique Canadian model, drawing from national strategies already in place in every other G8 country. Canada, an urban model in the '70s, has slipped badly in recent years. While we rested on our laurels, the American renaissance began in places like Boston, Baltimore and Williamsburg. It started with a tax incentive for private companies that set up businesses in heritage buildings. The U.S. government also passed a law to locate its offices in downtown cores with preference given to heritage buildings. This public/private partnership spawned a renewal in many distressed American cities. They forged ahead while Canadian downtowns languished. In Britain, the National Trust provides direct cash from lottery money set aside for that purpose. Unfortunately, the Canadian government signed over most lottery rights to the provinces in 1979. For seven years, provinces were required to invest in sports and culture, but even that condition was abandoned in 1986. With no lottery liquidity, the new Canadian National Trust will need the private sector. It costs at least 20% more to restore a heritage building than to start from scratch so tax credits are key. As the country's largest landlord, the government can jumpstart that renaissance. Finance officials co-authored a study several years ago that showed incentives would be revenue neutral, costing the taxpayers nothing. Creating new businesses and locating government offices in old buildings is even Kyoto-friendly. Going green involves implementing the three r's - -- reduce, reuse and recycle. Municipal landfills are overflowing with demolition garbage while megacities like Toronto bemoan their dumping problems. SNAIL'S PACE Ten budgets inched the process forward at a snail's pace. Pilot programs were announced and federal-provincial dialogue was financed. Since municipal heritage falls under provincial jurisdiction, there was fear and loathing in Ottawa about treading on provincial toes. This week Canada finally joined the rest of the G8 with a Canadian National Trust. Kudos to Prince Charles for his vision. Kudos to the architectural conservancy and heritage movement for persisting. Kudos to provincial governments for getting on board. Kudos to the current government for cribbing a good liberal idea. Tuesday was a great day for heritage in Canada, no matter what your political stripe. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #337 *********************************** 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.