Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, March 18 2008 Volume 11 : Number 283 In this issue: Re: machinist Re: machinist Re: machinist Re: Fwd: More on World Economy - The SHIT is hitting the fan. Tasering violated man's rights Top court to rule for first time on U.S. right to bear arms; New York Times Editorial: The Court Considers Gun Control Pellet guns deemed firearms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:44:38 -0600 From: Bill Farion Subject: Re: machinist Hi, Once new a machinist who built a working 45 Colt by copying a plastic replica. So how much effort would it take to copy a blowback 380??? > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:54:26 -0600 From: Alfred Hovdestad Subject: Re: machinist Do you have a couple of spare hand tools? This story made the Saskatoon Star Phoenix back in 1997 (I still have a copy). http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/22499/the_underground_gun_making_industry.html Normally the sound of gunfire evokes a feeling of dread. However, in the town of Danao, in the island of Cebu (the Philippines), it signals money. Hidden from plain view, backyard workshops churn out gun replicas that range from crude revolvers to sophisticated automatic sub-machine guns. .... Starting with imitating revolvers, locally known as "paltiks", these self taught craftsmen have since duplicated high-powered firearms such as the M-16 and AK-47 to Uzi and Ingram sub-machine guns. Some have even modified the original designs coming up with their own unique versions increasing firing rates and bullet capacities. Alfred Bill Farion wrote: > Hi, > Once new a machinist who built a working 45 Colt by copying a plastic > replica. > So how much effort would it take to copy a blowback 380??? > >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:31:33 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: machinist - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Farion" To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:44 PM Subject: Re: machinist > Hi, > Once new a machinist who built a working 45 Colt by copying a plastic > replica. > So how much effort would it take to copy a blowback 380??? > >>Guns are easy to make if you have the know-how and tools . Even in Afghanistan individual gun makers make excellent copies of Kalishnikovs with primitive metal working tools. ed/on >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:56:03 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Fwd: More on World Economy - The SHIT is hitting the fan. To: "Connie Fogal" I suspect that J.P. Morgan sold Bear-Stearns short the previous Friday when the stock was valued at US $30.00, and then on Monday when the sock dropped to US$2.00 they bought it back, generating themselves a profit of US$28.00 a share and control of Bear-Stearns. ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Connie Fogal" To: ; Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 7:31 PM Subject: [Cap_contacts] Fwd: More on World Economy - The SHIT is hitting thefan. > Cap_contacts list: For removal send email > Cap_contacts-unsubscribe@falstaff.canadianactionparty.ca > > >>X-Wishes: Love. Peace. Joy. >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 >>Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:50:07 -0800 >>To: "You Need To Know": ; >>From: skeldale@telus.net >>Subject: More on World Economy - The SHIT is hitting the fan. >> >> >>US >>losing confidence vote as investors flee >>Asian, Mid East and European investors stood aside at last week's auction >>of 10-year US Treasury notes. "It was a disaster," said Ray Attrill from >>4castweb. "We may be close to the point where the uglier consequences of >>benign neglect towards the currency are revealed." >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 11:00 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >> >>Dollar >>Doomsayers Draw Signs From Bernanke Rate Cuts >>Ben S. Bernanke's interest-rate cuts have touched off a vicious circle of >>doom for the dollar. >> >>The Federal Reserve reduced the rate on direct loans to commercial banks >>by a quarter-point to 3.25 percent before Asian financial markets opened >>today. It will likely lower its target rate for overnight loans between >>banks tomorrow to at least 2.25 percent from 3 percent, according to >>futures traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. Lower borrowing costs work >>against the dollar by making fixed-income securities issued by the >>government less appealing to global investors. >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 10:59 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >> >>Fed rescue of Bear >>Stearns raises specter of Depression-era crash >>Invoking a little-used provision added to the Federal Reserve Act in 1932, >>at the height of the Great Depression, the US central bank agreed to allow >>the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to insure an infusion of credit to >>Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase. Under the terms of the "secured loan >>facility," to extend for up to 28 days, the risk of a default by Bear >>Stearns will be borne by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, not JP >>Morgan Chase. The latter will serve essentially as a conduit for the cash >>provided by the US central bank. >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 10:58 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >> >>U.S. No Longer Number One Economy >>The U.S. economy lost the title of "world's biggest" to the euro zone this >>week as the value of the dollar slumped in currency markets. >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 10:55 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >> >>Stripped >>Bear >>A CENTURY after John Pierpont Morgan bailed out Wall Street, his bank is >>at it again. In a dramatic move on Friday March 14th, the Federal Reserve >>Bank of New York and JPMorgan Chase made emergency funding available to >>Bear Stearns after other market players lost confidence in the beleaguered >>investment bank as a trading partner. As the credit crunch has deepened >>and broadened, the worst fear of many on Wall Street has been the collapse >>or forced rescue of a big bank or broker. That moment is now upon them. >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 10:53 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >> >>Ohio's voting >>machines are now an official crime scene >>At least 15 touch-screen voting machines that produced improbable numbers >>in Ohio's 2006 statewide election are now under double-lock in an official >>crime scene. And the phony "Homeland Security Alert" used by Republicans >>to build up George W. Bush's 2004 vote count in a key southwestern Ohio >>county has come under new scrutiny. >>Posted Mar >>16, 2008 10:52 PM PST >>Category: VOTE >>FRAUD >> >>WRH: If Bush isn't the legally elected President, then we don't have to >>pay for his wars. >> >> >>Major >>Stock Markets in Asia Tumble >>Major Asian stock markets fell sharply in early trading on Monday as >>pessimism continued to spread despite the Fed's dramatic moves over the >>weekend, sending Tokyo's benchmark index to a three-year low. >>Posted Mar 16, >>2008 10:48 PM PST >>Category: ECONOMY >> >>~~~ >>The above article(s) &/or letter(s) are accessible through links posted on >>the WHAT REALLY HAPPENED website today... For a variety of opinions on >>what's really happening around the world, visit this site frequently: >>http://whatreallyhappened.com ...and Reader Letters: >>http://whatreallyhappened.com/letters >> >>Reader letters are archived at >>http://alaskafreepress.com/msgboard/ >>wrh_reader_letters >> >>If you're not OUTRAGED... >>you're not paying ATTENTION !! >> >>The following is a statement by David Rockefeller (founder of the >>Trilateral Commission), in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral >>Commission, in June, 1991: >> >>"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine >>and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings >>and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It >>would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we >>had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. >>But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march >>towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an >>intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national >>auto-determination practiced in past centuries." > > _______________________________________________ > Cap_contacts list: For removal send email > Cap_contacts-unsubscribe@falstaff.canadianactionparty.ca > This message for :mred@295.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:57:19 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Tasering violated man's rights Tasering violated man's rights, judge rules TheStar.com March 18, 2008; Betsy Powell; Courts Bureau > http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347195 A Toronto police emergency task force officer used "unnecessary force" when he fired his Taser at a man "lying face down on the floor, handcuffed ... fully restrained and compliant," an Ontario Superior Court Justice ruled yesterday. Justice David Brown also found the officer fired his Taser at the man's back almost two minutes after another ETF officer had fired his stun gun at the man. Police denied the allegations but Brown said he rejected their evidence and was staying the cocaine trafficking charge against Francis Walcott, 41. The large man seemed surprised and bowed his head yesterday as the judge read excerpts from his 44-page ruling. "We review our policies to see whether they need to be changed and if any action needs to be taken in the wake of this decision we will do that," said police spokesperson Mark Pugash. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair is a proponent of Tasers and wants all his frontline officers to be equipped with them. In Ontario, only tactical units, hostage rescue teams and qualified frontline supervisors may use Tasers. Walcott has been in custody at the Toronto (Don) Jail since his arrest almost a year ago. Brown said in his ruling the infringement of Walcott's Charter rights outweighed the "legitimate societal interest" in prosecuting the drug offence. "Officer (Michael) Fonseca deployed his Taser well after Mr. Walcott had been subdued and handcuffed," the judge concluded. "In addition, since the discharge of a Taser after a person has been restrained and controlled would have no other purpose than to punish the person ... I find that Officer Fonseca's discharge of his Taser on Mr. Walcott constituted cruel and unusual treatment." Defence lawyer Adam Weisberg applied for a stay of proceedings on the ground that the ETF used an excessive amount of force, thereby infringing Walcott's Charter rights. "The judge is sending a clear message that if you're going to use force on an individual it better be done appropriately," Weisberg said after the decision. "He's upholding and protecting the rights of other people that may be subject to the inappropriate use of Tasers or other police weapons." Last March 29, ETF officers along with other Toronto police officers executed a search warrant at a Parliament St. boarding house. When the officers entered a room they found Walcott naked with a woman. While making the arrest, the ETF officers fired their Tasers. There was no dispute that Walcott was Tasered separately by Fonseca and officer Eric Reimer. At issue in proceedings before the trial began was the timing of when the Tasers were deployed. According to police witnesses, including Fonseca and Reimer, the Tasers were fired "almost simultaneously," as Walcott came towards them. While a senior officer also testified that "firing sequence information contained on the Tasers' data chips showed a difference of about 2 1/2 minutes," there was also evidence submitted that the Taser clocks are subject to "drift" that could explain differences in firing times recorded on the two Tasers. The ETF officers all testified that if a suspect was under control, restrained and cuffed, it would be inappropriate to deploy a Taser against him, Brown said, summarizing testimony heard over 10 days in February and early this month. The Crown has 30 days in which to appeal. Walcott, originally from St. Lucia, smiled broadly before he was handcuffed and led out of court. He remains in custody on an "immigration hold." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, March 18, 2008 8:22 am From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" Subject: Top court to rule for first time on U.S. right to bear arms; PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2008.03.18 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A10 DATELINE: WASHINGTON BYLINE: Tim Reid SOURCE: The Times, London WORD COUNT: 524 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Top court to rule for first time on U.S. right to bear arms; Landmark case puts 2nd Amendment to the test - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON - The United States Supreme Court begins hearing a landmark case today that for the first time will decide if Americans have an individual right to own a gun. At issue is the 27-word, 217-year-old Second Amendment -- which includes the phrase "the right of the people ... to bear arms" -- which remarkably has never been definitively interpreted. The politically charged case, which pits gun rights advocates against gun control groups --and even U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney against the Bush administration -- is focused on Washington D.C.'s strict ban on handgun ownership. Funded by a wealthy libertarian lawyer, a 65-year-old Washington security guard, Dick Heller, is challenging the handgun ban, arguing that it stops him from keeping one at home and protecting his family. The 1976 law, one of the strictest in the U.S., was passed by the District of Columbia during a gun crime epidemic. The case has drawn enormous attention because, for the first time, the Supreme Court might decide whether gun ownership is an inviolate constitutional right as powerful as the First Amendment's right to free speech. Such a decision could trigger a flood of lawsuits from the gun lobby, challenging the many restrictions and regulations imposed on gun ownership at a city, state and federal level, such as bans on the sale of new machine-guns and some assault rifles, or the private ownership of armour-piercing bullets. The court's decision, expected in June, will also have an impact on the presidential election. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is a staunch Second Amendment supporter. Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support Washington's handgun ban. Yet the subject is an uncomfortable one for Democrats because a majority of Americans believe in the personal right to own a gun. At issue is the intention of the Second Amendment, which reads: "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." Remarkably, despite the widespread private ownership of guns across the U.S., most courts for the past century have interpreted the Second Amendment as only giving a right to own a gun if the owner is a member of a militia -- the "collective rights" approach. Indeed, until a ruling last year that triggered today's Supreme Court hearing, nine U.S. federal appeals courts that have considered the question since the 1930s embraced the collective rights approach, believing that the Second Amendment granted no individual right to own a gun. In practice, individual states have allowed individual gun ownership -- the gun lobby is particularly powerful in state legislatures -- but have also passed restrictions and safeguards. Until now, the Supreme Court has largely shied away from taking a stand on the issue. Last year, however, the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Washington backed Mr. Heller and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a handgun. It was the first time in U.S. history that a federal court used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun control law. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, March 18, 2008 8:24 am From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" Subject: New York Times Editorial: The Court Considers Gun Control PUBLICATION: The New York Times DATE: 2008.03.18 EDITION: Late Edition - Final SECTION: Editorial PAGE: 22 COLUMN: EDITORIAL WORD COUNT: 464 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court Considers Gun Control - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia's gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation's highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which states: "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." The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right. The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws. The second mistake that the appeals court made -- one that many supporters of gun rights may concede -- was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a "reasonable" law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose "reasonable" gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington's rules. The District of Columbia City Council concluded that prohibiting the easily concealable handguns preferred by criminals, and imposing prudent safety rules on rifles and shotguns, was a good, practical strategy for reducing crime, suicide, domestic violence and accidental shootings. Far from a blanket ban, the law strikes a balance between gun owners and the larger community. The latest campus massacre, at Northern Illinois University, reminded us all of the dangers that come from too-easy access to weapons best suited for murder. For the high court to choose this moment to strike down reasonable gun rules would defy common sense, and needlessly put innocent people at risk. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:32:17 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Pellet guns deemed firearms These pellet guns were deemed firearms > R. v. Sather, 2008 ONCJ 98 (CanLII) > PDF Format > Date: 2008-03-03 > Docket: 4911-998-07-09459-00 • 4911-998-07-09725-00 > URL: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2008/2008oncj98/2008oncj98.html 2. Were the pellet guns firearms? Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides a definition of firearm. "firearm" means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm; [12] P.C. Casey Brouwer was qualified on consent to give expert evidence on the function and properties of firearms and the study of ballistics. He examined all three pellet guns, two of which were operated by way of a CO2 cartridge and the third was spring-action, at the Sharon Gun Club. He tested the Crosman T-4 pellet pistol using a chronograph and was able to determine the accompanying pellets were projected at velocities of 245 to 298 feet per second over eight separate tests. Similar tests were conducted with the Umarex CP Sport pellet pistol resulting in velocities of 280 to 313 feet per second and the Beeman pellet pistol at velocities of 362 to 377 feet per second (over five tests). His conclusions noted in Exhibits 15(a), 15(b) and 15(c) were that all three pellet pistols were firearms as defined by s. 2. [13] For his opinion that these pistols were firearms, P. C. Brouwer relied on findings in an American study wherein BBs were fired at similar velocities resulting in puncturing pig’s eyes. Because pellets such as those found with the pistols are heavier than BBs, and since a pig’s eye is similar in structure to a human eye, P.C. Brouwer’s opinion was that serious bodily harm could result which satisfied the definition of “firearm”. [14] P.C. Brouwer has given his opinion on numerous occasions in court and that opinion was not challenged by any other expert. However, there were other cogent reasons why I concluded that I accept it. [15] Both CO2 pellet pistols contain a warning on the side of the gun which reads, “WARNING: Not a toy. Misuse may cause fatal injury. Before using read owner’s manual, available free from Crosman Corp., E. Bloomfiled (sic), NY. USA 14443.” [16] Therefore, according to the manufacturer, a discharged projectile is capable of causing death if misused. [17] Mr. Sather was also aware of the potential danger in that all three pistols came with safety goggles and he was aware that skin could be penetrated by a pellet since it happened to him. [18] Interestingly, s. 84(3) provides an exception to the classification of firearm for certain items including a barrelled weapon that fires a projectile at 500 feet per second or less, which, of course, includes all these pellet pistols. [19] That exception however, is only applicable for the purposes of certain specified sections. Section 84(3) reads: “For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms: …” [20] Because section 109, 110 and 117.1 are not included as sections where the exception applies, Parliament must have intended that the weaker projectile barrelled weapons, such as the three in this case, were still to be considered firearms for the purposes of those sections providing the definition of firearm was met in all other respects. [21] In R. v. Covin and Covin 8 C.C.C. (3d) 240, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled twenty-five years ago that a CO2 pellet pistol, even one in damaged and incomplete condition, can be a firearm, because it is capable when loaded and fired of causing serious bodily injury. [22] For all of the above reasons, I am persuaded that the Crown has proven the three seized pellet pistols to be firearms. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #283 *********************************** 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.