Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, July 9 2008 Volume 11 : Number 669 In this issue: RKBA [Re: Needs a handy 'ring' [Re: A humble suggestion...] "Vancouver Sun: Are Americans packing protection or a threat...?" Security Guard Suspended After Practicing the Second Amendment Post-HELLER District of Columbia-No Changes Are Obvious - Yet Re: What's wrong with C-24 regarding Yo Steve; Yo Harper; Yo Blair "New West man charged - shots fired over car-sale"- Vancouver Sun Re: What's wrong with C-24 Re: Gramps old gopher gun I could understand [Re:Suspended...] Bell, Telus to charge 15¢ per text, even for spam -TheStar *NFR* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:14:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: RKBA [Re: Needs a handy 'ring' [Re: A humble suggestion...] Lee Jasper wrote: > Good example is RKBA - Right to Keep and Bare Arms. Not to put too fine a point on it, Lee, but that would only give you the right to a golfer's tan ... You meant: the "r"ight to keep and bear arms, no doubt. (this being different than the right to "arm bears"), and yes, wording, and punctuation counts when we are talking about legal rights (small r). 8-) Rob. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, July 8, 2008 4:13 pm From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" Subject: "Vancouver Sun: Are Americans packing protection or a threat...?" Subject: "Vancouver Sun: Are Americans packing protection or a threat to themselves?" PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 2008.07.08 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A6 DATELINE: WASHINGTON BYLINE: Shankar Vedantam SOURCE: Washington Post WORD COUNT: 658 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are Americans packing protection or a threat to themselves?; A gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide, statistics show - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seventeen years ago, a couple of criminologists at the University of Maryland published a paper about the 1976 District of Columbia ban on handguns' a ban that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds it was inimical to the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves. The researchers employed a simple procedure: They tabulated all the suicides in Washington between 1968 and 1987. Colin Loftin and David McDowall found that the gun ban correlated with an abrupt 25-per-cent decline in suicides in the city. Loftin and McDowall, who now work at the University at Albany, part of the State University of New York, also tabulated suicide rates in Maryland and Virginia over the same period, to test whether suicide rates just happened to be declining in the entire region. There was no difference in the suicide rate in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs before and after the D.C. gun ban. The researchers also tabulated the kinds of suicide that declined in Washington: The 25-per-cent decline was entirely driven by a decline in firearm-related suicide. There are many ways to read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but all the versions point to one core idea: Americans have the right to own guns to protect themselves against outside threats, whether the danger comes from a school shooter, a vicious mugger, a robber breaking into a house, a lawless neighbourhood. What the authors of the Second Amendment did not foresee, however, is that when people own a gun, they unwittingly raise their risk of getting hurt and killed -- because the odds that they will one day use their gun to commit suicide are much larger than the odds they will use their gun to defend themselves against intruders, muggers and killers. States with high rates of gun ownership -- Alabama, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico --have suicide rates that are more than double the suicide rate in states with low rates of gun ownership, such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and New York, said Matthew Miller, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. The difference is not because people in gun-owning states are more suicidal than people in states where fewer people own guns, but that suicide attempts in states with lots of guns produce many more completed suicides. "The evidence is overwhelming," said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard. "There are a dozen case-controlled studies, all of which show the gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide for the gun owner, for the spouse, for the gun owner's children." Turning a gun on ourselves, or having a family member turn a gun on someone in the household, doesn't intuitively feel as real a risk as muggers, robbers and murderers. Given the choice between trusting our intuitions and trusting the evidence, most of us go with our gut. Only a tiny fraction of the 400,000 suicide attempts that bring Americans into emergency rooms each year involve guns. But because guns are so lethal, 17,002 of all suicides in 2005 -- 52 per cent -- involved people shooting themselves. Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide is usually an act of impulsive desperation. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not go on to kill themselves later on. Gun owners are no more likely than non-gun-owners to be suicidal. But within the window of a mad impulse, people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means. "If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," Harvard's Miller said. "There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:58:48 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Security Guard Suspended After Practicing the Second Amendment NRA-ILA ALERT: Disney Security Guard Suspended After Practicing the Second Amendment! http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4069 Sunday, July 06, 2008 A Disney security guard was suspended on Friday, July 4, for not allowing his private vehicle to be searched for a firearm. Please click here to read WFTV's report of the story. http://www.wftv.com/news/16792006/detail.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 06:59:23 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Post-HELLER District of Columbia-No Changes Are Obvious - Yet The Shooting Wire for Wednesday, July 9 The Shooting Wire info@theoutdoorwire.com info@shootingwire.com To Subscribe; http://www.shootingwire.com/subscribe_shooting.php FEATURE Post-HELLER District of Columbia-No Changes Are Obvious - Yet I remember the well-worn phrase "dragged kicking and screaming into?" being used in literature to describe someone who was less than eager to do something. That phrase might be used to describe the District of Columbia's moves to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling that their firearm ownership laws were unconstitutional. Today, if you go examine the District's "compliant" standards, you'll see that there are more than a few restrictions still in place. For example, semiautomatic handguns remain banned. The District has decided that if revolvers are permitted, they're not banning an entire class of firearm. It would seem their legal department considers allowing one style while prohibiting another is "compliant". Disregarding their won/lost record on bans and restrictions, they have drawn a line of distinction that might not survive the inevitable legal challenge. But it will probably have to go through the courts before the question is settled (After all, the taxpayers are paying the bill, not the politicians, right?). I'm not basing my opinion on any sort of legal scrutiny, but a simple examination of their qualified weapons list. Semiautomatic rifles or shotguns are not forbidden, although their capacities are also limited to no more than 12 shots. To disqualify a variety of handgun (semiautomatic pistols) that is not subject to any special federal ownership requirement (like fully-automatic weapons) would seem, at least on the surface, unreasonable. Of course, when it comes to handguns in the District, unreasonable might be the operative word from Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier. But all this is still subject to change. The District's flyer on how to register firearms in the District carries this disclaimer: "The information contained in this document is projected to become effective July 17, 2008 and is deemed accurate as of its publication. Its contents are subject to change." Sources tell me that some changes have already been made to the document. You can see it at: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/lib/mpdc/info/pdf/registering_firearm_dc.pdf Looking further into the District's instructions to police officers, it's obvious that the District is being forced to concede to handgun owners, but clearly regards them as lawbreakers. Police officers are told that the District will "establish and amnesty program under which they (residents) can register their handguns without fear of prosecution for having possessed a handgun in violation of District law." It continues with what appears to be a clear position on their feeling toward gun owners: "Of course, the program will not protect anyone who committed a separate crime under District or Federal law with that handgun." Seems that Mayor Fenty and Chief Lanier want residents - and police officers - to know that, at least in their minds, people who possessed a handgun committed a crime. The phrase a "separate crime" presumptively says the possession itself was one crime - although it's no longer enforceable. The District's guidance document continues that, while not yet settled, the District will "likely limit registrants at least initially to one handgun each." That might better read "until we get sued for being unreasonable, we'll limit what you can own - and the quantity" but it's obvious the District will not let this one "go softly into that good night." Is the restriction on semiautomatic firearms reasonable? Not if you look at today's revolvers. We're not talking single-action, low capacity handguns anymore. There are high capacity revolvers readily available. Rapidly reloading a revolver is no significant compromise over a semi-auto. And, the most commonly purchased handgun for personal defense (historically) has been the Smith & Wesson J-Frame and similar "snub-nosed" revolvers. So, you might ask, what's the big deal? The simple word liberals use whenever they don't like something: discrimination. The District has no right (there's that troublesome "right" word again) to say one firearm is "more permissible" than another - especially if both are equally legal to citizens outside the District. The District equips its officers with semiautomatic pistols. That would seem to create an implied distinction between the "right" of a police officer versus the "right" of a citizen. The District obviously feels semiautomatic is best for their officers. Ideally, their weapons are to be used only in the most extreme situations. We've heard the argument that police officers are "outgunned" by criminals. If that's the case, shouldn't a homeowner have the right to be equally well-equipped? Taking away the ability to choose a semi-auto over a revolver may well have created a bias that might not survive a legal challenge. But, it'll be up to the District's taxpayers to foot the bill for any challenges - even if the taxpayers themselves initiate the challenge. The District's informational material says the fingerprinting, photographing, background checks and a written test of the District's gun laws will be required for licensing. That requires a minimum of fourteen days to process - and requires a minimum expenditure of $48 ($13 per weapon plus a $35 fingerprinting fee - plus the pair of passport-style photos required). The costs won't impact everyone in the District equally. For many, it's simply another associated with legally owning a firearm. For those on limited or fixed incomes, it may represent a financial tipping point that makes their old firearm too-expensive to register. If that's the case, many of the people most likely to need a firearm for self-defense will be forced to choose between being unarmed and defenseless or illegally in possession of an unregistered firearm. Not much of a choice, is it? On an unrelated note, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has sent a letter to apparent Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama requesting a clear statement of his position on gun bans. The letter from Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the NSSF asks if he has reversed his support of the Chicago firearms ban before asking two direct questions: "Do you believe the Second Amendment rights of Americans should depend on where they happen to live? If you do, which other individual rights enshrined in the Constitution do you believe are limited by municipal borders? " I'm not holding my breath for an answer. But if one comes, we'll keep you posted. - --Jim Shepherd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:22:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: What's wrong with C-24 - --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Ian Jefferson wrote: > From: Ian Jefferson > Subject: Re: What's wrong with C-24 > To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > Received: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 5:19 PM > Some kind of means test is hard to object to. No, it isn't - it's quite easy. Should you have a "means test" to determine if you are fit to buy a book or a newspaper? Should you have a "means test" to see if you are qualified enough to vote? Why should "we" have to submit to a "means test" to be able to exercise what is ours, by right? > Either a license that says "I'm qualified" OK, who gets to decide how "qualified" I have to be? You? Me? Some spotty-bummed bureaucrat in Ottawa? The problem with *any* such impediments to gun ownership is that once implemented they can then be used to slowly restrict those who "qualify", until there are no qualified gun owners left. > or the reverse, a database of "you can't own guns" people. This is a much better approach, as it would be made up of people who, through "due process" in a court of law, have been shown to be too dangerous to be trusted with firearms. Ideally, these people would be locked up until they are no longer a danger to themselves or others; the finger that is in jail cannot pull a trigger. Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:34:06 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: regarding Yo Steve; Yo Harper; Yo Blair Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:42:57 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Re: Yo Steve; Yo Harper; Yo Blair I had reported: >> How does a social illiterate, borderline cognitive disabled >> with a >> mystical service record get to be President? He makes ole >> Steph look >> like Mensa and Chretien a Rhodes scholar. Bruce commented: > He's a man of the people...not the intelligentsia. Absolutely cogent and pithy. But I submit that he has the lowest approval rating of any U.S. president. He's less popular than a turnip. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yo, Lee, (1)The U.S. Congress seems to be a bit unpopular too. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance Congressional Performance Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever Tuesday, July 08, 2008 The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.------------------------------ (2) A President Gore or a President Kerry probably would most likely have appointed gun grabber justices, like themselves, to the U.S. Supreme Court. I think Heller's chance of success at the Supreme Court would have been severely jeopardized with either Gore or Kerry's appointees sitting on the top bench. Then this is just an observation. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:02:07 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: "New West man charged - shots fired over car-sale"- Vancouver Sun New West man charged after shots fired over car-sale dispute http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=02d60751-a77d-4e8a-a1d6-2d276bbc8ec3 Vancouver Sun Published: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 METRO VANCOUVER - A 47-year-old New Westminster man has been charged with eight offences after an argument over the sale of a $200 car led to shots being fired. New Westminster Police charged Brian James Kinney with seven counts of firearm-related offences and one count of obstructing a peace officer, police said in a press release. On Friday, police said Kinney was allegedly involved in a verbal argument with another New Westminster resident over the purchase and payment of a used $200 car at the seller's home. The seller then went to Kinney's house to deliver the registration papers when Kinney allegedly pointed a handgun at the man and fired the gun three times at him, police said. The victim managed to get away unharmed and called the police. When police responded and were unsuccessful in making contact with Kinney, the Municipal Integrated Emergency Response Team was called. After a three-hour standoff and failed negotiations, a police dog was sent into the house. Kinney's brother emerged after receiving several dog bites. Then Brian Kinney came out and was arrested. A search of the house revealed a revolver, a rifle, ammunition, 2 pellet hand-guns, and a pellet rifle. © Vancouver Sun ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 01:11:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: What's wrong with C-24 > > > Some kind of means test is hard to object to. > > No, it isn't - it's quite easy. Should you have a "means test" to > determine if you are fit to buy a book or a newspaper? Should you have a > "means test" to see if you are qualified enough to vote? We do have these. Voting is by age. Drinking also. Driving by age and qualification. On the other hand none of these entail criminal records. > > Why should "we" have to submit to a "means test" to be able to exercise > what is ours, by right? > > > > Either a license that says "I'm qualified" > > OK, who gets to decide how "qualified" I have to be? You? Me? Some > spotty-bummed bureaucrat in Ottawa? The problem with *any* such > I think this also a problem in the current political climate. I believe that my first serious intimidation came from just such a spotty-bottomed gentleman in Ottawa as matter of fact. Others may be wondering about how exactly we know about the spots. I'll leave that for imaginations. > > > or the reverse, a database of "you can't own guns" people. > > This is a much better approach, as it would be made up of people who, > The difficulty with the reverse license is searching for someone who is not there. Or proving you are not in the database. I'd like to comment that "hard to object to" does not mean disagree. It means that in the current political climate (political reality?) it's just difficult. Changing the political climate regarding firearms to one that's more to our tastes is the challenge we face. IMHO. Anyway the whole strip and body cavity search every time you buy a box of pellets, as proposed by the CFGC, is really going to be irksome. IJ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:26:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Gramps old gopher gun I could understand [Re:Suspended...] - --- On Tue, 7/8/08, Lee Jasper wrote: > Consider the dilemma the cops faced. If this guy goes > haywire, their > asses are in a sling. Why? Should we all be treated like potential criminals, because any one of us may just "snap" at any moment? > Sounds like a chap who takes a pretty relaxed view of the > gun laws and > now has learned the 'hard way' that being > 'compulsively law abiding' is > one's only protection. "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws." - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 07:14:34 -0600 From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Bell, Telus to charge 15¢ per text, even for spam -TheStar *NFR* Bell, Telus to charge 15¢ per text, even for spam http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/456795 Jul 09, 2008 06:03 AM THE CANADIAN PRESS Bell Mobility (TSX: BCE) and Telus Mobility (TSX: T) will start charging wireless customers that do not subscribe to a text message bundle as part of their calling plan 15 cents per incoming text message later this summer. Bell customers will start paying the new charge on Aug. 8, while Telus customers will not see the new charge until Aug. 24. Previously incoming text messages were free. Wireless users who subscribe to a text message bundle as part of their calling plan will not be affected by the change, both companies said Tuesday. Rogers Wireless (TSX: RCI.B) does not currently charge for incoming text messages. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #669 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:drg.jordan@sasktel.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)