Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, February 13 2008 Volume 11 : Number 209 In this issue: PASSING GAS RE:Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences-gun crimes? Edward Greenspan Vote on gun crimes? US: Supreme Court gun-ban case draws blizzards of briefs [none] Vote on gun crimes? Re: Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences ... Letter: Check out Criminal Code before dispensing advice Helicopters JPFO FILES AMICUS BRIEF FOR HELLER CASE OPP: It's Time to Stand up for Victims, Not Criminals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:53:44 -0700 From: "Bob Lickacz" Subject: PASSING GAS - ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:32:25 -0500 > From: Lee Jasper > Subject: More on role models > > I guess the Deputy Coomish had 'good' role models, eh? > >> RCMP deputy commissioner in contempt of Parliament > > We'll probably never get the story on this with confidentiality > agreements and such. Pity, it only adds to the cynicism of the populace. > > SIGHHHH....... Well I guess that senior pony girls/boys fart just like the rest of us............. Bob Lickacz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:12:04 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE:Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences-gun crimes? I should recommend voting "NO" on this. By voting "yes" we are setting ourselves up for harsher punishment should we decide to take the route of civil disobedience if that become necessary. FIRST we get sections 91 and 92 removed. THEN we can talk about harsher punishment for illegal firearms use. Right now there are too many "firearms crimes", including paper all those paper "crimes". Clive Edwards Director, NFA BC Vice President, Chilliwack Fish & Game Protective Association - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] On Behalf Of David R.G. Jordan Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:21 PM To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? Feedback http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/home.html The Winnipeg Sun Tue, February 12, 2008- 17:18hrs Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? Yes: 94% No: 6% Total Votes for this Question: 1591 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:15:28 -0500 From: Subject: Edward Greenspan "Every report in our country has consistently concluded that when it comes to mandatory minimum sentences, they cannot be justified by saying that they will reduce crime. The streets won't be safer. And if there is no demonstrable deterrent effect, what is the government doing?" every report does tell you that judges are not handing out mandatory minimum sentences, so we really dont know and cant say they dont work. If some punk is away for ten years, thats ten years of crime free time that society can enjoy whilst the perp is doing time. You cant say that taking criminals off the street and putting them away for a long time does not effect crime and violence, and you cannot say that it does not work. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:57:58 -0800 From: Len Miller Subject: Vote on gun crimes? Cc: Robert Marshall , Tom Brodbeck Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:20:30 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: [none] Feedback http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/home.html The Winnipeg Sun Tue, February 12, 2008- 17:18hrs Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? Yes: 94% No: 6% Total Votes for this Question: 1591 - ----------------------------------------------------------- Why is there a need to 'vote' for a law already in the books? Gun penalties already exist. In the Criminal Code . . as we speak . . All the judges have to do is to apply them . . NO vote is needed . . Len Miller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:39:46 -0600 From: Linda J Freefallcrusader Subject: US: Supreme Court gun-ban case draws blizzards of briefs From US news, but interesting... (Linda) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/27487.html Supreme Court gun-ban case draws blizzard of briefs By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers Posted on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 WASHINGTON — Gay gun owners who call themselves Pink Pistols say they'll be safer if the Supreme Court strikes down Washington's strict handgun ban. They aren't alone. Jewish gun owners, women and disabled veterans, among others, also contend that they're vulnerable and need the protection that only firearms can provide. More than 65 groups have filed friend of the court briefs in the gun case, surpassing the attention paid even to such hot-button issues as affirmative action and abortion. The case, scheduled for oral arguments on March 18, challenges a District of Columbia handgun ban that was imposed in 1976. Only retired district police officers can legally possess handguns. District residents must keep rifles unloaded and either disassembled or secured with trigger locks. "Even in their homes, (gay) individuals are at risk of murder, aggravated assault and other forms of hate violence because of their sexual orientation," Pink Pistols declared in its amicus brief. "Thus, for certain (gay) individuals, the possession of firearms in the home is essential for a sense of personal security." Some of the groups have been assembled to crank up the volume for this case. Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, for instance, has rallied Vice President Dick Cheney and 304 other members of Congress in opposition to Washington's gun law. University of North Carolina at Pembroke sociologist Fran Fuller has joined Idaho state legislator Maxine Bell, California Assemblywoman Jean Fuller and 123 other women to stress the necessity of gun ownership. "The district's current prohibition against handguns . . . effectively eliminates a woman's ability to defend her very life and those of her children against violent attack," the female legislators and professors said in their brief. Some long-standing groups also have weighed in, including the Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and, supporting the national capital's strict handgun ban, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Bar Association. The blizzard of briefs that met a Monday night filing deadline underscored the high stakes in District of Columbia v. Heller and illustrates how amicus briefs sometimes influence the court. "If an amicus brief adds something new, certainly it's useful," Alan Gura, one of the attorneys who are challenging the gun ban, said Tuesday. "And sometimes an amicus brief is important for who's speaking." In the case, the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court since 1939, a handful of Washington residents claim that the district's gun law violates the Second Amendment, which says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun rights advocates argue that the Constitution guarantees an individual's right to own firearms. If the Supreme Court agrees, some but not all gun-control laws could be struck down. Supporters of gun control say the Second Amendment's language protects only a collective right to own firearms, as with a state militia. "Until (recently) prosecutors have been able to enforce criminal firearms laws with a settled understanding, reinforced by a long line of cases, of their constitutionality," Jeffrey Tuttle, the district attorney for California's rural Calaveras County, wrote in a legal brief signed by 18 prosecutors. Some briefs make a bigger splash than others do. The Bush administration, in particular, raised hackles on the right with a split-the-difference brief that supports an individual right to own firearms but also a government's authority to regulate them. Other briefs promote more esoteric analyses, as with three linguistics professors who've grammatically parsed the Second Amendment for its real meaning. "The amendment's first and third commas signal a pause for breath and can be omitted without affecting the meaning," they say. McClatchy Newspapers 2008 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:41:47 -0600 From: Linda J Freefallcrusader Subject: [none] Say, maybe we should all be applying for jobs as 'armed air marshals'? If Bush is successful in this bid to put armed air marshals on all transatlantic flights, a lot of jobs could open up.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/usa.theairlineindustry Bush orders clampdown on flights to US EU officials furious as Washington says it wants extra data on all air passengers Ian Traynor in Brussels The Guardian, Monday February 11 2008 This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday February 11 2008 on p1 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 13:53 on February 11 2008 IMAGE: Bush administration is calling for armed air marshals on transatlantic flights. Photograph: Eric Meola/Getty Images The US administration is pressing the 27 governments of the European Union to sign up for a range of new security measures for transatlantic travel, including allowing armed guards on all flights from Europe to America by US airlines. The demand to put armed air marshals on to the flights is part of a travel clampdown by the Bush administration that officials in Brussels described as "blackmail" and "troublesome", and could see west Europeans and Britons required to have US visas if their governments balk at Washington's requirements. According to a US document being circulated for signature in European capitals, EU states would also need to supply personal data on all air passengers overflying but not landing in the US in order to gain or retain visa-free travel to America, senior EU officials said. And within months the US department of homeland security is to impose a new permit system for Europeans flying to the US, compelling all travellers to apply online for permission to enter the country before booking or buying a ticket, a procedure that will take several days. The data from the US's new electronic transport authorisation system is to be combined with extensive personal passenger details already being provided by EU countries to the US for the "profiling" of potential terrorists and assessment of other security risks. Washington is also asking European airlines to provide personal data on non-travellers - for example family members - who are allowed beyond departure barriers to help elderly, young or ill passengers to board aircraft flying to America, a demand the airlines reject as "absurd". Seven demands tabled by Washington are contained in a 10-page "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) that the US authorities are negotiating or planning to negotiate with all EU governments, according to ministers and diplomats from EU member states and senior officials in Brussels. The Americans have launched their security drive with some of the 12 mainly east European EU countries whose citizens still need visas to enter the US. "The Americans are trying to get a beefing up of their visa-waiver programmes. It's all contained in the MOU they want to put to all EU member states," said a diplomat from a west European country. "It's a very delicate problem." As part of a controversial passenger data exchange programme allegedly aimed at combating terrorism, the EU has for the past few months been supplying the American authorities with 19 items of information on every traveller flying from the EU to the US. The new American demands go well beyond what was agreed under that passenger name record (PNR) system and look certain to cause disputes within Europe and between Europe and the US. Brussels is pressing European governments not to sign the bilateral deals with the Americans to avoid weakening the EU bargaining position. But Washington appears close to striking accords on the new travel regime with Greece and the Czech Republic. Both countries have sizeable diaspora communities in America, while their citizens need visas to enter the US. Visa-free travel would be popular in both countries. A senior EU official said the Americans could get "a gung-ho frontrunner" to sign up to the new regime and then use that agreement "as a rod to beat the other member states with". The frontrunner appears to be the Czech Republic. On Wednesday, Richard Barth of the department of homeland security was in Prague to negotiate with the Czech deputy prime minister, Alexandr Vondra, Prague hoped to sign the US memorandum "in the spring", Vondra said. "The EU has done nothing for us on visas," he said. "There was no help, no solidarity in the past. It's in our interest to move ahead. We can't just wait and do nothing. We have to act in the interest of our citizens." While the Czechs are in a hurry to sign up, Brussels is urging delay in order to try to reach a common European position. "There is a process of consultation and coordination under way," said Jonathan Faull, a senior European commission official involved in the negotiations with the Americans. To European ears, the US demands sound draconian. "This would oblige the European countries to allow US air marshals on US flights. It's controversial and difficult," an EU official said. At the moment the use of air marshals is discretionary for European states and airlines. While armed American guards would be entitled to sit on the European flights to the US, the Americans also want the PNR data transfers extended from travellers from Europe to the US to include the details of those whose flights are not to America, but which overfly US territory, say to central America or the Caribbean. Brussels has told Washington that its demands raise legal problems in Europe over data protection, over guarantees on how the information is handled, over which US agencies have access to it or with whom it might be shared, and over issues of redress if the data is misused. The Association of European Airlines, representing 31 airlines, including all the big west European national carriers, has told the US authorities that there is "no international legal foundation" for supplying them with data about passengers on flights overflying US territory. The US Transport Security Administration has also asked the European airlines to supply personal data on "certain non-travelling members of the public requesting access to areas beyond the screening checkpoint". The AEA said this was "absurd" because the airlines neither obtain nor can obtain such information. The request was "fully unjustified". If the Americans persevere in the proposed security crackdown, Brussels is likely to respond with tit-for-tat action, such as calling for visas for some Americans. European governments, however, would probably veto such action, one official said, not least for fear of the "massive disruption given the huge volume of transatlantic traffic". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:18:18 -0800 From: Len Miller Subject: Vote on gun crimes? Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:20:30 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: [none] Feedback http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/home.html The Winnipeg Sun Tue, February 12, 2008- 17:18hrs Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? Yes: 94% No: 6% Total Votes for this Question: 1591 - ----------------------------------------------------------- Why is there a need to 'vote' for a law already in the books? Gun penalties already exist. And, it's in addition to, not instead of, the penalty for the original charge . . In the Criminal Code . . as we speak . . All the judges have to do is to apply them . . NO vote is needed . . But, then THEY know that . it's you who don't . . Len Miller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:31:51 -0600 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences ... Re: Poll:Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? At 05:20 PM 2/12/2008 -0600, you wrote: > >Feedback >http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/home.html > >The Winnipeg Sun >Tue, February 12, 2008- 17:18hrs > >Should Canada have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes? > >Yes: 94% >No: 6% > > >Total Votes for this Question: 1591 > Just remember folks that section 91 and 92 make possession of a firearm without a firearms license, or a registration certificate, a crime. Would you like a mandatory minimum sentence for that? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:05:24 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: Letter: Check out Criminal Code before dispensing advice The Windsor Star - 2008.02.13 - PAGE: A7 Check out Criminal Code before dispensing advice http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=19d2835b-05df-435b-9a5b-e656e2b4346f Re: Worried About Break-Ins? Get Yourself A Gun, Feb. 8, by Marty Gobin. It is obvious that you are not a registered firearm owner, based on your utterly foolish advice. No section of the Criminal Code of Canada has provisions for the use of deadly force in self-defence, let alone self-defence with a firearm. To even point a firearm at another person, unless you are law enforcement, is punishable by federal law. I invite you, sir, to Google Criminal Code of Canada and educate yourself a little more before giving dangerous and illegal advice. Your line of thinking is the type that turns law-abiding, legal firearms owners into criminals. Better advice would be to get a dog to protect you and your property. Richard Lamamie Essex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:05:33 -0700 From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: Helicopters Todd - I'm reading "The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar". I recommend it for essential understanding on how Canada became involved, and what the political goals were as the mission evolved and changed. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Birch" To: Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:46 AM Subject: Helicopters > The as yet undelivered helicopters are intended to replace our long > obsolete > Sea Kings for naval operations. In the interval, the Navy is doing without > them. > > But - since we committed our troops to a land service role in Afghanistan > where the "mobility and flexibility" of helicopters would be invaluable, > it > borders on the criminal that such aircraft were not acquired on a priority > basis. > > The mission is worth our best efforts or why are we there, other than > because Chretien chose to send troops to Afghanistan rather than support > the > Americans in Iraq? > > "Go large or go home". > > TB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:58:12 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: JPFO FILES AMICUS BRIEF FOR HELLER CASE February 11th 2008 JPFO ALERT: JPFO FILES AMICUS BRIEF FOR HELLER CASE Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has filed an _amicus curiae_ brief with the United States Supreme Court in the matter of _The District of Columbia vs. Heller_. http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/jpfo-amicus-brief.pdf As most politically-aware gun owners know, this is the final stage of a case in which the District's draconian gun prohibitions were held to be unconstitutional by a lower court. It is the first time since the 1930s that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Second Amendment case. Backed by cogent legal arguments and powerful historical examples, the JPFO brief conveys the following, in essence: "The [Supreme] Court should affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals because an individual right to keep and bear arms, separate from state regulated militia service, is fundamental to prevent the rise of tyranny and genocide." We at JPFO want to thank Attorney Daniel Schmutter for donating his time to write our brief -- which is already receiving praise as very well written and well reasoned -- and submit it to the court. Please see the must-read article by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America at http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry83.htm as well as David Kopel's assessment at http://www.volokh.com Admittedly, after something like a century of treachery, deceit, and betrayal by lawyers, politicians and judges, we don't hold much hope for anything resembling justice or respect for gun owners' rights from the Supreme Court, as they owe their current positions to three consecutive administrations seemingly intent on destroying the Second Amendment. We would be very, very happy to be wrong about this. In any case, we strongly encourage our readers (A) to use the JPFO brief to educate others on the real meaning of the Second Amendment and (B) as a litmus test for politicians to determine the depth of their knowledge and understanding of the necessity for a heavily-armed citizenry. http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/jpfo-amicus-brief.pdf - The Liberty Crew NOTE - Don't forget our limited time offer on the JPFO homepage (closes today, Feb 11th) , for a free book ($19.95 value) with a purchase of one of our listed Videos. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PS - Visit our alert archive / sign up to receive email alerts - http://www.jpfo.org/alerts.htm (Please - if you receive these and do not want them, use the unsubscribe option below, we do not wish to spam anyone.) PPS - Don't forget our holiday store special: order videos and get one or more free books! Go to - http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_list&c=26 for more information. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:37:56 -0700 From: Dennis & Hazel Young Subject: OPP: It's Time to Stand up for Victims, Not Criminals - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" To: Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:50 AM Subject: OPP ASSOCIATION: It's Time to Stand up for Victims, Not Criminals ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE ASSOCIATION NEWS RELEASE Feb. 13, 2008 It's Time to Stand up for Victims, Not Criminals OPP Association Urges Canadians to Sign Petition (Barrie, Ontario) - It's time the rights of victims and their families outweighed those of criminals. That's the message from the President of the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA), Karl Walsh, who is asking all concerned Canadians to sign an online petition at www.oppa.ca. Walsh and the Board of Directors of the 8,100-member OPP Association are pushing to have amendments made to existing legislation that ignores the rights of victims when determining where a criminal will be incarcerated. The move comes on the heels of a decision by the Federal Court of Canada to move Allan MacDonald, the convicted killer of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Tom Coffin, to a medium security facility closer to his family and support group despite objections by the officer's widow. MacDonald was also reimbursed $4,000 in court costs. "This is an outrage, for all victims and their families, in fact, all Canadians," Karl Walsh says. "Once again the rights of criminals outweigh those of all victims and their families." Allan MacDonald walked into a bar in the town of Penetanguishene, Ontario in May 1997, put a gun to the back of OPP Const. Coffin's head and pulled the trigger. He executed Const. Coffin because the officer had charged him with impaired driving about a year before. "Const. Coffin was killed for doing his job - the job that citizens of this country expect police officers to do," Walsh said. MacDonald was convicted of first degree murder and won't be eligible for parole until 2022. He had initially been jailed at the medium security Fenbrook Institution in Gravenhurst until an assessment indicated he should be housed in a maximum facility. He was subsequently transferred to Joyceville Penitentiary near Kingston. MacDonald, however, appealed this decision and listed a number of arguments, one of which was his assertion that the decision was based solely on the complaints of the victim's widow and on representations made by the Canadian Police Association (at the request of the Ontario Provincial Police Association). He termed these "unilateral decisions" and ones that should not have been made. In granting him a transfer back to Fenbrook, the court decided to place him closer to his family, friends and support group. His transfer also placed him squarely back near the family of the officer he murdered. At present the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is the legislation used to determine what penitentiary an inmate is placed in. "The current legislation has no provision for factoring in the effect the criminal and the crime have on any victim's family," Walsh said. "In this instance, it never considered the effect such a move would have on Prov. Const. Coffin's widow, his children, his parents and siblings who still live in the area, not to mention the community he served and the policing community to which he belonged." "We are adamant that all victims of crime, the loved ones, and friends left behind, must not continue to be victimized by the criminals who stole so much from their lives," Walsh said. Those wishing to sign the petition can do so on line at the Ontario Provincial Police Association website at www.oppa.ca. - -30- Contact: Karl Walsh President, Ontario Provincial Police Association (705) 728-6161 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #209 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:d.jordan@sasktel.net 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.