Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, March 15 2008 Volume 11 : Number 277 In this issue: Ted Kennedy Dumps Fuel into Nantucket Sound RE: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... RE: .410 vs 45 COLT property rights continued Property Rights RE: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... Firearm's and property Gun owner rights Re: Property rights Re: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:29:15 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Ted Kennedy Dumps Fuel into Nantucket Sound Ted Kennedy Dumps Fuel into Nantucket Sound Friday, March 14, 2008 9:14 AM http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Kennedy_polluter/2008/03/14/80443.html?s=al&promo_code=473F-1 Newsmax.com Ted Kennedy has called Nantucket Sound near his Massachusetts estate "a national treasure" - but that didn't stop the senator from having oil dumped from his yacht into its waters. A local photographer spotted an oil slick coming from Kennedy's yacht Mya as Kennedy and his guests left the vessel in a launch following a race that ended in Hyannis, the Cape Cod Today newspaper reported. The lensman was so shocked that he rowed his dinghy out to question the crew member left aboard the yacht. He asked the crewman, "What the hell are you doing?" The crewman said that diesel fuel had gotten into the bilge and he was told to dump it. When the photographer pointed out that the yacht was moored in coastal waters near shellfish beds and people swimming, the crewman replied, "Whatever." Cape Cod Today published a photo showing the oil slick emanating from Mya. As Newsmax reported earlier, Kennedy has opposed a proposal to construct a wind farm in Nantucket Sound to produce cheap, clean energy. Asked why, he said: "That's where I sail." Please visit CapeCodToday.com for more on Ted Kennedy. http://www.capecodtoday.com/modules.phpname=Search&file=index&op=modload&action=search&overview=1&active_pnbizdir=1&active_pnbizdircat=1&active_capevalues=1&active_stories=1&active_sections=1&active_blogcomment=1&active_blog=1&bool=AND&active_classifieds=1&active_classifiedscat=1&q=kennedy ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:44:32 -0400 From: TONY KATZ Subject: RE: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... no 45 cal long colt or webly 455 > From: mred@295.ca > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" >> >> PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun >> DATE: 2008.03.14 >> EDITION: Final >> SECTION: News >> PAGE: 5 >> ILLUSTRATION: 2 photos The Judge holds five .45-calibre Colt slugs or >> 410 shotgun shells, and retails for $500 in the U.S. >> >> BYLINE: DON PEAT, SUN MEDIA >> WORD COUNT: 485 >> >> Gangsters' delight New revolver fires shotgun shells, Colt slugs >> >> A shotgun-shell firing revolver called The Judge could be the next big, >> bad thing in Toronto's gangland arsenal. >> >> The city's homicide unit commander said he's heard of it in police >> briefings about firearms. Manufactured by Taurus, the revolver >> holds five .45-calibre Colt slugs or .410 shotgun shells and retails >> for just over $500 in the U.S. > > Don't they mean a .41 caliber pistol cartridge? It seems to me you can > fire .41 caliber pistol cartridges in a .410 shotgun as the internal > barrel diameter is the same as a .41 caliber pistol barrel. > > anybody else have a say on this ?> ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:05:47 -0400 From: "RD CESSFORD" Subject: RE: .410 vs 45 COLT I have a Thompson Contender pistol manufactured for interchangeable barrels in MANY calibers. One of my barrels chambers 45 LONG COLT OR .410 shotshell NOT .41 or .410. Shot is controlled by a screw-in compensator which straightens shot pattern on .410 shotshell. It's a SINGLE SHOT firearm but actually a short barrel shotgun. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:31:26 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: property rights continued Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:25:01 -0400 From: "Jules Sobrian" Subject: Property rights I looked this all up when I was running RFO of O and to my knowledge, P.E.T. tried to include property rights in the constitution, but it was rejected by ALL of the provincial premiers. In other words, to accomplish this we must first convince the provinces that we should own property. Jules - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is no legal way for British subjects to have lost their property rights. While the "good" Queen Victoria suppressed our property rights using the BNA Act and enslaved Canadians in 1867; we still have those rights. Vic had no power to take our rights. We gained property rights in 1215 under the Magna Carta and these rights have never ceased to exist even though our socialist governments continue to suppress them from us. We must demand the return of our property rights. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:22:33 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Property Rights Further to Jules comments on property rights. I realize it's been a chest beater for the CPC but the fed gov't face major resistance if they tried to introduce it. It's another thing that's dropped off Harper's radar. I should add, while we argue that the U.S. constitution provides for citizens' property rights, in more recent times those individual rights have been overridden by the courts in cases of 'public good.' Also see: > http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/ConstitutionHistory.htm#Constit No. 11 - Constitution Act, 1982:- The effect of the Constitution Act, brought into being by the Queen's signature that rainy day, at Ottawa, back in April, 1982, so we were told, was to give Canada, finally, her own constitution: Canada had come of age. Well, Canada had a constitution since before 1867; and, this 1982 legislation, did, not, change this fact. What the prime minister of the day achieved, Prime Minister Trudeau, was to feed a movement in Quebec, a movement which had disclosed itself in the late 1960s, a movement for complete political independence from the rest of Canada. In the face of this movement, the federal government and all the other provinces went ahead with the Constitution Act of 1982, in spite of the fact that Quebec had refused to sign the agreement which had formed the basis of this 1982 legislation. In any event, the Constitution Act preserved the B.N.A. Act, but did cut away the colonial appendage of the requirement to go back to mother parliament, the British parliament, for future "constitutional" changes; it also put in writing (as if they did not, prior to that point, exist) certain fundamental rights and annexed it as the Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The Charter was a political show, and a bad one at that; it backfired. It was thought at the time that such a listing of "rights" would impress people and bring them together with other parts of the country. It was especially aimed at those in Quebec; but Quebec, as represented by their provincial government leaders of the time, didn't want it (for whatever reason). Stupidly, the Prime Minister and the Premiers of that time, refused to wait for an unanimous agreement (necessary in any real partnership, no matter the rules) and pushed The Charter through, without Quebec's agreement. Quebec, with good reason, has been mad ever since.10 We had rights and a constitution before 1982, and the governments back then gave us nothing we did not already have. In any event, "constitutional rights," as some people call them, cannot be created by a country's constitution. The reason for this and the reason for the irrefragable nature of such rights, is that basic human rights existed way before any one dreamt up the idea of writing up a constitution. For a government -- the idea of the divine right of kings having gone by the boards -- to claim legitimacy, what was needed, was a basic set of principles to which all (not just the majority) would subscribe, assuming fully they knew what was at stake. It's a fiction, really, but one that has and will work, provided the constitutional rules are simple, such that they might be understood by all, the educated and the not so educated. A country's constitution is that which the governing part of society tells the rest of us what we cannot do (restrictive, negative, such as is the nature of criminal law). So, therefore, "rights" can never be given by a country's constitution, all a constitution can only ever do, is to spell out when an individual person (an identifiable person at the time of the offense and not individuals within a group identifiable by some trait) will loose, by the the criminal law process, one or more of his or her innate rights (to life, to liberty and to property).11 > http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp268-e.htm#FORMER PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION INTRODUCTION As part of the constitutional package announced in September 1991, the federal government proposed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to guarantee property rights. This paper provides background information as to why these rights were not earlier included in the Charter. The paper also addresses what is meant by the term "property rights" and the question of how the courts might interpret the term "property" for purposes of the relevant provision if it were included in the Charter. Finally, the paper canvasses possible arguments for and against the proposed entrenchment. FORMER PROPOSALS TO ENTRENCH PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION (1968-1983) The entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution appears to have been the policy of the former Liberal government since 1968. In that year, as Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau proposed the passage of a charter that would give constitutional protection to certain rights, including the "enjoyment of property." In 1969, as Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau again proposed entrenchment of a charter of rights which would have guaranteed the right of an individual to use and enjoy property, with the assurance that there would be no deprivation of property except in accordance with proper legal procedures. After the failure of the Victoria Conference in 1971, constitutional reform was not a major issue again until the late 1970s. In 1978, Bill C-60, the Constitutional Amendment Bill, contained a guarantee of: the right of the individual to the use and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with law. The bill was intended to be a stimulus to constitutional debate and negotiation, and it was hoped that a charter containing the foregoing guarantee of property rights would eventually be ratified by the provinces and included in the Constitution. Some provinces, in particular Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, were quite opposed to such a proposal. They feared that provincial legislation regulating land ownership and use could be nullified by such a constitutional guarantee. The federal government took the position that this guarantee was considerably weaker than other proposals since it only required that a deprivation be "in accordance with law," a formulation which respected provincial jurisdiction over "property and civil rights." The federal government re-drafted the property rights guarantee for the 1980 First Ministers’ Conference. In order to allay provincial fears, the proposed Charter of Rights contained the following section: 9.(1) Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of property, individually or in association with others, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with law and for reasonable compensation. (2) Nothing in this section precludes the enactment of or renders invalid laws controlling or restricting the use of property in the public interest or securing against property the payment of taxes or duties or other levies or penalties. A number of provinces still strenuously opposed this guarantee. While there was opposition to the whole concept of a Charter of Rights among the provinces, the actual content of the proposed Charter was of less concern, with the exception of the property rights guarantee. Accordingly, this guarantee was omitted from the Charter contained in the proposed resolution of October 1980. In the absence of a consensus on this issue, the government was prepared to defer it to the "second round" of constitutional reform, when it could be incorporated pursuant to the amending formula in the new Constitution. During the proceedings of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada in 1981, the Progressive Conservative Party proposed an amendment to s. 7 of the Charter, the guarantee of basic legal rights, which would have added the underlined words: Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Through acting Minister of Justice Robert Kaplan, the government first indicated a willingness to agree to this amendment. Further representations from some provinces, however, particularly Prince Edward Island, and the New Democratic Party’s refusal to agree to a guarantee of property rights unless consideration was given to incorporation of a number of other economic and social rights, appear to have convinced Justice Minister Chrétien to adhere to the original plan, and the Conservative amendment was defeated. After the proclamation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in April 1982, the issue lay dormant for a year, at least at the federal level. In September 1982, the British Columbia Legislature had unanimously passed a resolution seeking an amendment of s. 7 of the Charter similar to that proposed by the federal Conservative Party. Further, at a First Ministers’ Conference called in March 1983 to deal with aboriginal rights, some premiers indicated a willingness to support a property rights amendment. Accordingly, on 21 April 1983, Prime Minister Trudeau stated in the House of Commons that if the opposition parties agreed to limit debate to one day, the government would introduce a resolution entrenching in s. 7 the right to enjoy property. This resolution, with the required support of seven provinces having at least 50% of Canada’s population, could have amended the Charter. The Conservative Party agreed with this proposal. The New Democratic Party, however, wanted more detailed consideration of the matter. It did not oppose a property rights guarantee per se, but wanted the matter referred to a parliamentary committee which could report after hearing from concerned members of the public and representatives of the provinces. Representatives of the NDP were concerned about such matters as: the effect of a guarantee on provincial legislation regulating non-resident ownership of land; the ability of governments to legislate on and control unique types of "property," such as data bank information; legislation providing mortgage relief; legislation preserving farmland and recreational land; legislation regulating businesses, such as legislation setting a minimum wage; and legislation dealing with the division of matrimonial property. ** While negotiations were proceeding to try to accommodate the concerns of the NDP, the Conservative Party introduced, in the form of a non-confidence motion, a resolution containing a proposed amendment to s. 7 of the Charter. This move brought the process to a halt.** The government, not surprisingly, would not vote in favour of a non-confidence motion. (In any event, even if it had done so, the motion’s success would have dissolved Parliament, precluding passage of the resolution in the Senate.) This ensured defeat of the proposed amendment. Further, since the rules of the House forbade the reconsideration in the same session of a question that had been negatived, such an amendment could not be considered again until the next session of Parliament. ** Effectively, the Conservative motion prevented further consideration of a property rights amendment in the first session of the 32nd Parliament. ** The Conservative motion could have been withdrawn with the unanimous consent of the House, but the NDP refused to agree. On 2 May 1983, the motion was defeated. In the second session of the 32nd Parliament, which began in December 1983 and concluded in June 1984, the issue of a property rights amendment did not arise. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:48:49 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... I have had one in my hands and it does indeed offer the option of .45 Colt or .410 (or mix them). A very nice gun, but for .45 Colt the cylinder is too long and .410 isn't something I would bet my life on. I'd recommend the Taurus 617SH2C, a 7 round .357 mag, 2" barrel in titanium, if close defensive work is required. The two extra shots are a bonus. Clive >Don't they mean a .41 caliber pistol cartridge ?It seems to me you can fire >.41 caliber pistol cartridges in a .410 shotgun as the internal barrel >diameter is the same as a .41 caliber pistol barrel. >anybody else have a say on this ? >ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:46:31 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Firearm's and property Joe posted from the CPC Policy: > A Conservative Government will repeal Canada's costly gun registry > legislation Doesn't say the Firearm's Act, Ch. 39 of the Statutes of Can. or C-68. My original interpretation was that the gov't would 'repeal' both equally useless registries. I guess the 1934 registry wasn't costly. > and work with the provinces and territories on cost-effective > gun control programs designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals Meaning, , , all those ingenious schemes certain inventive CFOs are inclined to think up. > Property Rights Policy > i) A Conservative Government will seek the agreement of the provinces to > amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no > person shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law > and full, just, and timely compensation. Harper can 'seek' all he desires, but many provinces have refused to support it. Certainly Ontario would demand a very rich pay-off for even limited support. And past federal Conservative gov't's have trashed the idea. Just try and stop the local municipality from expropriating your farm, shopping mall, golf course and luxury estate for a new Toyota auto plant. > ii) A Conservative Government will enact legislation to ensure that full, > just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of > personal or private property as a result of any federal government > initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation. You CAN be deprived of your property, but can expect to be compensated - at 'current' market value if you're thinking of 12/6 handguns. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:17:53 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Gun owner rights Al commented on Joe's post: > Joe it means that Dennis is again an assistant to a back bench MP that > voted for the CON-servatives anti gun Crime Bill. With all due respect to > the two they are not movers and shakers in the CON-servative party. Using a sport's analogy, I think we'd agree that Harper runs his 'team' with a 'short' bench. His bench is so short that he persists in largely being a one man band. At some point he runs the risk of causing voters to become sick and tired of listening to him - which makes the other wimpy guy look that much better. Let's hope Harper learns before it's too late that his 'front' bench lacks the talent - his three musketeers - Baird, Clements and Flaherty were salvaged from a rejected regime in Ontario, and Harper needs to win big in Ontario. Ontario voters are going to be thinking, "Mike Harris, version II." Doesn't sound like a winning combination to me - especially after Flaherty has been slagging 'good things grow in Ontari-ario.' The movers and shakers appear to be in the PMO's Office, not in caucus. At some point Harper will have to play ball with backbench Members who've demonstrated some smarts. I'm betting on the Breitkruez team. While even Chretien allowed his Caucus to vote their 'conscience' and skip votes, Harper has shown no inclination to be as democratic. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:33:57 -0500 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Property rights At 04:25 PM 3/14/2008 -0400, you wrote: > > > >I looked this all up when I was running RFO of O and to my knowledge, P.E.T. >tried to include property rights in the constitution, but it was rejected by >ALL of the provincial premiers. In other words, to accomplish this we must >first convince the provinces that we should own property. > >Jules Property rights make it extremely difficult to enforce property tax laws. The first homestead act in Alberta was worded in such a way that once a homestead was proven and title was granted, there was no way the land could be sold because of unpaid property taxes. Some homesteaders in the 1930's knew this and never paid a cent of property tax on the land they homesteaded. They did pay the taxes on the land they purchased. The taxes came due on transfer of title - that was the only lever the government had. There were a number of folks who were surprised to discover that the the land homesteaded by Grand Dad came with a hefty tax bill (sometimes more than the value of the land) when they were dealing with the estate. Property rights also make it more difficult for provinces to expropriate land for the "public good", Roads, airports (Pearson - Mirabelle) and mineral leases under private land come to mind. Lending institutions also fear property rights as they increase the expense of forclosure and siezure of lands held under a lending contract. A man's home is his castle until he borrows money and uses it as collateral, or has a gun licesnce with 12(x), or has more than ten guns. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:37:48 -0500 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Gangsters' delight: New revolver fires shotgun shells... At 06:56 PM 3/14/2008 -0300, you wrote: > > >> PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun >> DATE: 2008.03.14 >> EDITION: Final >> SECTION: News >> PAGE: 5 >> ILLUSTRATION: 2 photos The Judge holds five .45-calibre Colt slugs or >.410 shotgun shells, and retails for $500 in the U.S. >> BYLINE: DON PEAT, SUN MEDIA >> WORD COUNT: 485 >> >> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- >> >> Gangsters' delight New revolver fires shotgun shells, Colt slugs >> >> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- >> >> A shotgun-shell firing revolver called The Judge could be the next big, >bad thing in Toronto's gangland arsenal. >> >> Canadian cops say they know about the gun but they haven't seen it on >the streets yet. snip >> In Project Rebel last June, police cracked a gun smuggling ring that >traded drugs for guns including eight Cobray M-11 machine pistols that >were never found in the bust. >> > >In this article the media and the Toronto Police Service get many of >their firearm facts wrong. That would make one question how well they do other investigations... ANd whether or not they get the facts wrong in those as well. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #277 *********************************** 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.