Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, July 23 2008 Volume 11 : Number 790 In this issue: Manners' mom dodges 7 gunshots - Toronto Star Re: Column: Give Canadians right to use arms in self-defence USA - GUN RIGHTS FOR FELONS? Re: Soldiers helmet paraphernalia ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:28:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Manners' mom dodges 7 gunshots - Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/465565 Michele Henry Noor Javed Staff Reporters Loreen Small, community activist and the mother of slain student Jordan Manners, escaped unscathed late last week after seven shots were fired in her direction by her daughter's spurned suitor. Small and her two daughters, both in their 20s, were sitting in the front yard of the family townhouse on Shoreham Court, near Jane St. around 4:30 Friday morning when the young man approached, was rejected by one of the daughters, got mad and unloaded his gun just 3 metres from the women. The gunman, who was with another man, shot at the women seven times because his feelings weren't reciprocated, a source close to the case confirmed yesterday. He missed and the three relatives were unharmed. "Some words were spoken," the source said. "The daughter didn't want anything to do with him and he started firing shots." Small's lawyer, representing her civilly in matters pertaining to her 15-year-old son's death last year, has advised her to change addresses and move away from the area. Courtney Betty had a conversation with his client after the shooting and told her to leave her home as soon as possible. He said she's exploring the possibility both temporarily and more permanently. "She has already undergone a lot of trauma," he said. "So many things have happened. It's just best for her to relocate. She has to do what's best for her. She has to save herself." While she wasn't the target, Betty said that, with all the violence in the area and everything going on in her life, it's best that she leaves the Jane-Finch community behind. Arrest warrants have been issued Cameron Andre Richards, 31, and Jason Michael Johnson, 23, both of Toronto. They are wanted for attempted murder, uttering death threats and possessing an unregistered, restricted handgun. Small's son, Jordan Manners, was shot to death during school hours in May 2007. The Grade 9 student collapsed on the first floor of C.W. Jeffreys Collegiate Institute, shocking the city and galvanizing the debate about school safety and gun violence. This isn't the first time Small has been at the wrong end of a gun. Just hours after her son was buried, bullets were fired outside her home. Detectives recovered about 20 shell casings from three different guns in her area. But that incident, while it made her fear for her life, only strengthened her resolve, Betty said at the time, to be a vocal member of the community.She became an outspoken advocate for tighter controls on violence in schools and against racially segregating them. "This black school thing – no, it ain't right," she said during a Toronto school board meeting that approved black-only schools in January. "Don't propose it – Martin Luther King thought we could sit at the front of the bus together," Small pleaded. She was also vocal on the issue of school violence during and after hearings of the School Community Safety Advisory Panel, headed by lawyer Julian Falconer, conducted in the wake of her son's death. Small won a promise from Toronto School Board senior executive Gerry Connelly that Falconer's controversial report would be heeded and changes made. "I just don't want my son's name to go in vain," she said after the 1,000-page report was released. Last night at Shoreham Court, the sound of children playing filled the air. Neighbours sat around enjoying the pleasant summer evening, but few were willing to talk about the shooting that awoke them early Friday. Numerous residents called police to report the incident. "My daughter heard it and woke me up," said one woman who didn't want to be identified. She sat on her porch playing with a neighbour's dog and within minutes a fleet of police cars filled the street. "I was in my house looking outside," she said. "I didn't go outside at all. I could just see all the action." © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2008 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:10:39 +0900 From: Ian Jefferson Subject: Re: Column: Give Canadians right to use arms in self-defence Hi Folks, I just wanted to comment about the tone of this article. I think it's refreshing to see a little levity introduced. I suspect we have seen more than enough angry rhetoric. This is not a new theme for me anyway. I hope you all consider it for future letters and articles. Actually from my time in North Carolina I might have written that as "Try it out with yalls's letters" thus filling the gap in the English language for 2nd person plural possessive (I think). IJ On 23-Jul-08, at 10:10 AM, Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2 wrote: > Vermont, which has no laws regulating the possession or carrying of > arms > by non-criminal adults, has the third lowest violent crime rate per > capita > in the USA. (In fairness, that could be accredited to the similarly > lax > regulation of public nudity in the state combined with the aging baby > boomer population scaring off all of the potential muggers.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, July 23, 2008 10:00 am From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 2" Subject: USA - GUN RIGHTS FOR FELONS? New York Post July 22, 2008 GUN RIGHTS FOR FELONS? By DON B. KATES *Criminologist and a retired professor of constitutional and criminallaw http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gun_rights_for_felons__120908.htm Full Text of Article; GUN RIGHTS FOR FELONS? - New York Post By DON B. KATES Last updated: 8:07 am July 22, 2008 Posted: 3:30 am July 22, 2008 THE Supreme Court last month voided Washington, DC's extreme gun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Now, across America, public defenders and other lawyers for rapists, robbers and murderers are filing motions contending that their vicious clients have a Second Amendment right to have guns. If this were correct, the Second Amendment would be a very bad thing. Happily, it's not so. The high-court opinion vindicated the constitutional right of ordinary, responsible law-abiding adults to have a handgun to protect their families, homes and themselves. It also flatly stated that this right does not apply to criminals. Federal and state laws against convicted felons having guns are still valid: The Second Amendment protects a right of self-defense for "good" people only. The fact is, virtually all violent criminals have long criminal records - which disqualify them from owning guns under our laws against felons having guns. For instance, 90 percent of US adult murderers have adult records (exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records), with an average adult crime career of six or more years, including four major felonies. As criminologist Delbert Elliott said, in summarizing studies of murderers, robbers and rapists: "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system." (Most of the few murderers who lack criminal records are disqualified from gun ownership by our laws banning firearms possession by lunatics.) If such people obeyed gun bans, there would be virtually no gun crime in America. But, of course, criminals won't obey gun laws any more than they obey other laws. Is there any chance the Supreme Court would eventually buy the arguments of the criminals' lawyers? Not if it pays any attention to the clear record of the Second Amendment's history. The amendment guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms" - and the Founding Fathers did not think "the people" included criminals. Under the law as they knew it, felons were "civilly dead": They had no legal rights whatever. All their property (including guns) was forfeit. (Moreover, they were subject to execution - which made their rights irrelevant.) In all societies recognizing a right to arms, that right was limited to "the virtuous citizenry." In this, as in much else, our Founders looked back to the ancient Greek and Roman republics. There, every free man was armed so as to be prepared both to defend his family against criminals and to man the city walls in immediate response to the tocsin's warning of approaching enemies. Thus did each good citizen commit himself to the fulfillment of both his private and his public responsibilities. In sum, the constitutional right to arms simply does not extend to people convicted of serious criminal offenses. By "serious," I refer to the early common law - under which felonies were real wrongs like rape, robbery and murder. Unfortunately, modern legislatures have added a host of trivial felonies. For instance, in California an 18-year-old girl who has oral sex with her 17-year-old boyfriend has committed a felony. The courts should rule that conviction of such a trivial felony can't deprive such a "felon" of her right to arms. But the fact remains that people who have been convicted of serious criminal offenses have thereby lost their rights under the Second Amendment. They are subject to our laws against felons possessing firearms. Don Kates, a criminologist and a retired professor of constitutional and criminal law, is a fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. - -drgj ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:53:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark L Horstead Subject: Re: Soldiers helmet paraphernalia - --- On Wed, 7/23/08, Lee Jasper wrote: > From: Lee Jasper > Subject: Soldiers helmet paraphernalia > To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 10:39 AM > Bud sent me another Afghan troop booster post this a.m. and > it got me wondering again. > > One pic shows a rifle infantryman kneeling with a bulky > backpack which > combined with a flak jacket in the heat must be stifling, > but maybe it's > spring/fall because there's a lot of greenery in the > pic. There's a lot of greenery in various places, due to rivers and irrigation systems. Yes, the armour retains heat. > Anyway, the helmet. > > It has an apparatus which looks like a compact > 'scope' pointing forward. > Below that on the front of the helmet it has what looks to > be about a > 2"x3" 'flat paneled' object. (Is it some > kind of video screen)? Can you send me the photo? Some guys have mounted helmet cams (for personal reasons), although that practice seems to be more popular with Americans. Some examples: http://www.pimall.com/NAIS/helmetcam.html http://www.hoyttech.com/ There are programmes to equip individual troops with integrated sensor, sighting, navigation, and communications equipment, but I do not believe that we are actually doing any trials at this point. > I note > that some pics of troops show this item by itself. I have > noted many of > the troops in pics are wearing a mic as though their > helmets are > equipped with a receiver and transmitter. Is this intra > squad > communications gear? Short-range radio - headset and mike on one unit. Not part of the helmet, but worn under. Mark ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V11 #790 *********************************** 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".)