Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, September 9 2008 Volume 12 : Number 112 In this issue: [LETTER] Gun owner offended - Hamilton Spectator Re: 117.03 After Action Report Re: So what you gonna do? RE: Torstar election poll Re: So what you gonna do? Re: shilling for whomever Re: So what you gonna do? Re: Liberals announce ban on military assault weapons RE: Over the Target? RE: Think about it! Turning issue Over the Target? The truth on gun laws in Canada - Winnipeg Sun Central reason for Harper to call election? "Police display guns cache found Stevensville home-St. Catharines" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: [LETTER] Gun owner offended - Hamilton Spectator http://www.thespec.com/article/431272 Gun owner offended September 08, 2008 Bruce N. Mills The Hamilton Spectator Hamilton (Sep 8, 2008) Re: 'Collector's handguns turned in to police' (Aug. 29) I take the greatest offence at Hamilton police media officer Sergeant Terri-Lynn Collings' statement that a "large number of handguns would have made a lucrative target for criminals." Blaming law-abiding citizens just because they own guns that might get stolen is like saying a rape victim was asking for it by dressing provocatively. Gun owners who have their guns stolen are victims and shouldn't be re-victimized by the legal system, or the callous words of a copper. Gun owners are not to blame. Criminals are. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:19:48 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: 117.03 After Action Report - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edward Hudson" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:04 AM Subject: 117.03 After Action Report > After Action Report > CUFOA Challenge to CCC. s. 117.03 > Saskatchewan Court of Appeal > > Yesterday Joe Gingrich, Jack Wilson, & I appeared before the > Saskatchewan Court of Appeal > in CUFOA's challenge to Criminal Code section 117.03. > > This case began almost five years ago on 10 October 2003 when the RCMP > seized & confiscate a shotgun from us while Jack & I we out hunting > ducks. > (We had previously informed the RCMP that we would be in their area > without a firearms licence). > > This CC section allows the police to seize & confiscate a firearm > from anyone who "fails to produce" a licence. > > Speaking before three justices, > We presented six questions to the Justices > which summarize why we believe s. 117.03 is unconstitutional. > The Justices had a few questions for us in return. > > The federal Senior Crown Counsel then gave his presentation. > > We were granted a ten minute recess to prepare our rebuttal > which I think we handled well. > > The Chief Justice said the Court would reserve their decision & notify us > later. > > And then we were dismissed. > > Total time before the Court: one hour & twenty minutes. > > Among the observers was the retired Chief Judge of the Saskatchewan > Provincial Court. > > He believes we have a good argument. > > I personally have absolutely NO idea how I think the honourable justices > will decide, but I will certainly let you know we receive their decision. > > Sincerely, > > Edward B. Hudson, DVM, MS > Secretary > > Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association > Association canadienne des propritaires darmes sans permis > 402 Skeena Crt Saskatoon > Saskatchewan S7K 4H2 > (306) 242-2379 (306) 230-8929 > edwardhudson@shaw.ca > www.cufoa.ca > If theyre Lieberal judges you are toast.if otherwise?, you may stand a good chance of succeeding. I sincerely hope you do~! ed/on > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:04:12 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: So what you gonna do? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jules Sobrian" To: "CFD" Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:22 PM Subject: So what you gonna do? > We will be better off to go with owner licensing with screening to rule > out > the Kimveer Gills of this world. We have to give something to the > unwashed > majority so we could have some freedom to pursue our sport. If you can't > see that, the dog will be eating your breakfast the morning after the > election. > > To all the saboteurs on the CFD, HAVE A NICE DAY. > > Jules So far ? if we want to keep our guns the CPC is the ONLY party.There is NO question in my mind that ALL the other parties are totally anti-gun, if only to garner MORE votes from the great unwashed. Safety has nothing to do with it , its a catch phrase designed to lull the ignorant into casting a vote for the antis . No matter how much I am severely disappointed with Harper ? I feel at this time , only , that the CPC is our only hope , therefore, I WILL be voting CPC , no matter how much it grieves me to do so. If I didn't want to keep my property and freedom I would vote any other party. Please understand . I do NOT enjoy selling my soul for a vote for the CPC but what is the alternative? The only alternative is outright civil defense, for government discrimination against a minority. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:00:31 -0400 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: RE: Torstar election poll > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of Lee Jasper > Sent: 7-Sep-08 10:57 > To: Canadian Firearms Digest > Subject: Torstar election poll > > thestar.com Poll > > > http://www.thestar.com/# > > Early predictions on Sunday a.m.: > > Which party will you vote for in the October 14 federal election? > > Conservatives 277 34% > Greens 79 9% > Liberals 298 36% > New Deomcrats 89 11% > Undecided 64 7% Now: Conservatives 1487 37% Greens 343 8% Liberals 1464 36% New Deomcrats 276 6% Undecided 396 9% Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 00:01:07 -0400 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: So what you gonna do? > Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:22:00 -0400 > From: "Jules Sobrian" > Subject: So what you gonna do? > We will be better off to go with owner licensing with screening to rule > out > the Kimveer Gills of this world. > Jules Finally we get to the point. There is little wonder that someone that supports the licensing in the Firearms Act and related CC 91 and 92 would support the Cons come what may. Iam going to do just what I have been saying I would since the Cons were elected. That is support them to the degree that they show worthyness. I trust others will not let fear of what might be guide their course. Al ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:20:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: shilling for whomever - --- On Mon, 9/8/08, 10x <10x@telus.net> wrote: > Don't offer or suggest solutions Why not? Isn't it their job to listen to "us" and do what "we" want? Please explain. Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: So what you gonna do? - --- On Mon, 9/8/08, Jules Sobrian wrote: > > We will be better off to go with owner licensing with > screening to rule out > the Kimveer Gills of this world. We have to give something > to the unwashed > majority so we could have some freedom to pursue our sport. Why should we give up *ANY* part of our *RIGHTS*? You don't understand FREEDOM if you think you can give up a little bit, because the great unwashed don't like what you do. Don't you have any cojones left? Yours in LIBERTY! Bruce "It is not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." - From The Declaration of Arbroath, 1320. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:39:51 -0600 From: "Roger" Subject: Re: Liberals announce ban on military assault weapons snip > This prohibition would cover the short-barrelled Beretta CX4 Storm rifle > which was obtained legally by Kimveer Gill and used in the Dawson College > shootings two years ago and the Mini-Ruger 14, the weapon used by Marc > Lepine at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in December 1989 to kill 14 > young women. snip The Liberals are going to ban the Ruger Mini-14????? ATTN: fence-sitters, it's time to wake up!!! It's obvious they won't stop at the Mini-14; soon it will be ALL mag-fed, semi-auto, center-fire rifles. I think I'll vote Conservative, because I don't want to take the chance of even a minority Liberal government. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:09:52 -0400 From: "Ed Sieb" Subject: RE: Over the Target? Jim, Obviously! Otherwise, I wouldn't be getting flak, would I? ;-) Ed S - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca]On Behalf Of Jim Szpajcher Sent: September 8, 2008 5:42 PM To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Over the Target? Ed - You might not be over the target - but at least you're over hostile territory. :-) Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB > You know you're over the target, when you're taking flak!!!! > > Ed Sieb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:56:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: RE: Think about it! Ed Sieb wrote: > Hear! Hear! Douglas, Hear! Hear! > > I've been saying the exact same thing for a long time, as have Rob Sciuk, > and Mike Ackermann, but to no avail. It has fallen on deaf ears. The > hotheads, conspiracy mongers, the petulant, and the impetuous will never > get it. > > Ed Sieb Ed, Please, there are those who have made choices which are different from ours, and in each case, those persons are respected members of the RFC. Politics, like religion is personal, and even though we have a common cause, we have always had different ways of achieving similar goals. Having been on the receiving end all too many times, I will *NOT* impugn those whose opinions are different than mine, they have a right to those opinions, and a right to proceed according to how their conscience dictates. In many cases, they have earned that right the hard way!!! Regardless of the outcome of the election, we (the RFC) must remain if not united, at least civil amoungst our own kind. Having said this, I suspect that the vast majority of firearm owners will support the CPC party, and they remain the "silent majority". As this is the last kick at the cat, so to speak, in terms of achieving a CPC majority for the forseeable future, I certainly *HOPE* that this is the case. Given that Dion is about to "flash" as he hits the pan, those would be Liberal demi-gods (demagogues?) waiting in the wings with the long knives are not as vulnerable as is Dion (Ignatieff/Rae), and so the *NEXT* election will not give us winning condition, of that we can be sure. This is the best possible chance for a CPC majority we will see for quite a long time, and even the McCain/Palin bounce is helping (to some extent). Knowing full well that my handguns hang in the balance, and I am on the brink of becoming a "criminal" by government decree (Mayor Miller has already referred to me as IMMORAL owing to my handgun sports), I have little choice but to vote for enlightened self interest. Given that the "semi-auto" campaign of the anti's is gaining traction, I don't know why the hunters and shot-gunners aren't on side as well, but the anti-license crowd seem much less concerned with handguns and semi-bans than they do with prying "old betsy" from cold dead unlicensed hands. In the event, whatever will happen in this election will not likely be changed by a few disgruntled gun owners, we haven't come together sufficiently for that to be accomplished. Bruce, Willy, Al, Ed and Lee will no more change the outcome of the election than will you Doug, Mike, Jules or I. Together, we might have have had some political suay, but as it is, once again, we've muffed it. So be it. One way or the other, I've come to know the people on this digest as friends, and regardless their opinions, I hope that they will remain so, whichever government we end up deserving. Sincerely, Rob Sciuk Repeal the Firearms Act! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Douglas Bailey Subject: Turning issue Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:49:48 -0700 From: "RFOCBC" Subject: RE: Think about it! From one paragraph to the next, you describe the "long-gun registry" firstly as being "the turning issue" and then as an issue that "the rest of the country could care less about". Well, what is it? It cannot be both. Unfortunately, this post is filled with similar logic. Go back and read my post again. If Harper took abolishing the long gun registry to a confidence vote, he would be defeated because of the line up of the opposition parties. That would make the abolishing of the long gun registry the turning issue; however, the public don't really care about the long gun registry, so Harper would be trying to win an election on an issue Canadians don't really care about. The long gun registry would be the issue that caused the election because the government would have been defeated on it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:41:36 -0700 From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: Over the Target? Ed - You might not be over the target - but at least you're over hostile territory. :-) Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB > You know you're over the target, when you're taking flak!!!! > > Ed Sieb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:57:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: The truth on gun laws in Canada - Winnipeg Sun http://www.winnipegsun.com/canadavotes/news/2008/09/08/6704226.html The truth on gun laws in Canada Some facts on gun laws in our nation By PETER ZIMONJIC, NATIONAL BUREAU How are guns classified in Canada? Three ways: Non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Non-restricted guns are long-barreled rifles or shotguns that are typically used for hunting or shooting. A handgun or semi-automatic rifle is restricted but can still be obtained with a permit. A prohibited gun would be a fully automatic weapon but could also include a handgun or shotgun that has been altered to a different barrel size or to fire like an automatic weapon. I know someone with a fully automatic gun, is he breaking the law? That depends on when he bought it. Canada prohibited fully automatic weapons in 1978 and semi-automatic weapons that could be converted into one in 1991. When the law was changed current owners were grandfathered, meaning they were allowed to keep their weapons under certain conditions. What about restricted weapons, are they easy to get? Yes and no. To get one legally you have to be over 18 and able to prove you have a use for the weapon such as being a security guard, if you are a collector or are a member of a shooting club. What kind of gun was used at Dawson College? Kimveer Gill used a CX4 Storm semi-automatic rifle made by Beretta. This gun can fire bullets in quick succession. The CX4 is a restricted firearm but can be obtained with a permit, which Gill had. If Gill was suffering mental health problems how did he get approved? In a word: Legally. In Canada there is no medical requirement in order to be approved for a restricted weapon. Gill was a member of a Montreal gun club and also possessed a Glock pistol, a semi-automatic handgun used by police. He also had a permit to transport restricted weapons in his car. Who wants to ban weapons like the CX4? A whole bunch of people. Quebec Coroner Jacques Ramsay, who looked into the Dawson College shooting, issued his report last week in which he said guns like the CX4, which can fire up to 10 bullets in rapid succession, should be banned by the federal government. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion jumped on board today saying he wants military assault weapons banned but it is not clear which guns that would include, besides the CX4. The Conservatives have chosen to avoid gun restrictions and instead increase jail time for serious gun crimes. A number of police and citizen groups also want bans and restrictions increased. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:27:39 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Central reason for Harper to call election? In Ottawa, a week of heavy jockeying August 30, 2008; Linda Diebel > http://www.thestar.com/News/article/487967 Political economist Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist, Harper mentor and former Conservative campaign manager, compares Harper's goal in destroying the natural governing party with the Punic Wars, in which the Romans defeated Carthage. In an analysis in the Globe and Mail this week, Flanagan writes Harper is trying to push the once mighty Liberals, now cash-strapped, into "a financial pit they can never climb out of." - ---------------------- Harper aims to crush Liberals, says former adviser JOAN BRYDEN; CP; August 27, 2008 > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080827.welection why0827/CommentStory/National/ OTTAWA — Conventional wisdom suggests Stephen Harper must be mad to thrust the country into an election at a time when he has little hope of winning a majority. The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that public opinion polls “aren't particularly wonderful” and has predicted that another minority — either Conservative or Liberal — is the likely result. But a former chief of staff to Mr. Harper suggests there's method to the Prime Minister's apparent madness. Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, believes Mr. Harper would be satisfied to return with a strengthened minority — a result that would throw the Liberals into chaos, thereby advancing the prime minister's long-term strategy of destroying Canada's so-called natural governing party. “I don't think Harper has to be thinking about a majority at all,” Mr. Flanagan said in an interview. “Strategically, this is sort of a prolonged war of attrition.” As Mr. Flanagan sees it, the first major battle in this incremental war occurred in 2004, when Mr. Harper managed to reduce Paul Martin's Liberals to a minority. In the second clash in 2006, Mr. Harper won his own Conservative minority. The third skirmish, which Mr. Harper appears set to launch next week, likely won't kill what Mr. Flanagan jokingly refers to as “the evil empire.” But, if the Tories can win a few more seats at the Liberals' expense — an outcome Mr. Flanagan considers realistic given Mr. Harper's superior campaign skills and the Tories' fatter war chest — he predicted that would be enough to throw the Grits into a long-term tailspin that could eventually lead to their demise. “You can fight a war with some objective less than total victory,” he said of the coming campaign. - ---------------- The Readers speak: D Epp from Vancouver, Canada writes: So, this is what all the urgency's about? Not a dysfunctional parliament after all, but a dysfunctional PM. .... Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is totally Incompetent, but excel at whining that it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault., Canada writes: Shouldn't the PM's priorities be to govern our country? Harper's been campaigning 24/7 for 2.5 years always with his hate of the liberals driving his agenda. ...... Our PM's behaviour borders on the pathological. It's disturbing that our country's 'leader' is driven by his hatred of the opposition instead of his love and vision for our great country. Is he truly insane? Or is he simply a power hungry megalomaniac? Stand up for Canada! John Francis from Canada writes: Quote: Harper aims to crush Liberals, says former adviser. End Quote. What has this objective got to do with providing good governance for Canadians. Yo Harper does not seek to provide responsible government or transparent government; he seeks only to gratify his own egomania. Bring on Dion!! He looks better and better all the time. True conservative from Canada writes: And us conservatives are going to be happy with another minority govt? Oh right, the G&M think that Tory supporters are mindless sheep that are happy with whatever our dear leader does. Three elections and no majority means it is time to go Mr. Harper - the only saving grace you have now is that Dion seems to be worse than you, but if he gets replaced, then you are mucked. Bob Smitherman from Ottawa, Canada writes: This Harper fellow is seriously demented. So if I understand correctly, since he can't win on his ideas, he'll win by spending more than the opposition. ...on negative attack ads... Shades of Grey from Canada writes: After the election I want Harper to explain after $300 million in taxpayer dollars how another minority government has eased the dysfunction of the house of commons. Or how 30% of popular support has given a mandate for the Conservatives' agenda. True conservative from Canada writes: Michael Crowell - yes, but if Harper's action brings about a Liberal govt (as a minority in the next Parliament or a majority in the subsequent), what should we do to him. I recommend fire. ..... Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is totally Incompetent, but excel at whining that it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault., Harper: Canada's first Sociopath Prime Minister. Stand up for Canada! Kris Hayward from g-town, writes: Mr Harper if you get a Minority Gov't will you resign? We know that if the Libs don't get in then Dion is done. So what happens when the Libs get a stronger leader. Are you sure you have thought this out. You are neck and neck with a weak Liberal Leader who makes me wince when I hear him speak. Yet you are tied with this man and party. Haiden MitHand El from Canada writes: What a pathetic sociopathic megalomaniac -- putting his own personal self-interest ahead of service to his country as Prime Minister. Karma anyone? Instead of seeing the other viewpoint as another viewpoint which is shared by millions of Canadians, he sees those who hold different views as 'an enemy to be crushed'. This is not what Canada is based on. W M from Canada writes: Flanagan isn't completely wrong. Harper knows that the financial cost of the campaign will hurt the Liberals far more than the Conservatives. Harper is desperate to hold an election: before the sh1t hits the fan in the form of a slowing economy highlighting the incompetence of their fiscal management; before the inquiries into the Cadman affair and the Conservatives fraudulent election spending further highlight Harper's questionable personal ethics; and before Coulliard's book further highlights the weakness of his caucus. ...... In all the time I have been participating on these fora, I have not seen a single non-CPC-supporter suggest that the CPC and its supporters deserve oblivion, but I have seen CPC-supporters suggest this about the LPC, if not also the NDP. Indeed, see several posts above. A vibrant democracy requires the give-and-take of ideas and the full participation of all citizens. What Mr. Harper and many of his supporters want is vengeance followed by dictatorship, and this outlook has all the appearances of a banana republic in the making'. ** Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Don Adams asks for less political correctness. Here it goes. you ask what the difference is between conservatives and liberals. The science is in, Conservatives have a cognitive defect. Nature Neuroscience 10, 1246 - 1247 (01 Oct 2007), doi: 10.1038/nn1979, Brief Communication The article examines the cognitive adaptability of conservatives versus liberals. The following is from the article: Taken together, our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral kevel, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission.** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:26:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: "Police display guns cache found Stevensville home-St. Catharines" Subject: "Police display guns cache found at Stevensville home-St. Catharines Standard" http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1191216 Police display guns cache found at Stevensville home Posted By JENNIFER PELLEGRINI, SUN MEDIA Posted 6 hours ago Police checking an alarm activation at a Stevensville home last week didn't catch anyone trying to break into the house. But they did arrest the residents, after discovering a number of unregistered guns out in the open and outside found 30 mature marijuana plants worth about $1,000 each. Niagara Regional Police officers went to the College Street residence at 8:50 a. m. Friday to investigate a call from an alarm company, saying the security system had been activated. When they arrived, officers found the door slightly ajar. A search of the property revealed the full-sized pot plants growing in a wooded area near the house. Police searched to see if an intruder had gone inside the house, but found it empty. A short time later, a man who told officers he lives at the house turned up and gave police permission to search the property. Det. Sgt. Wayne Genders said once inside, uniformed officers found "two rifles and a shotgun in a bedroom, within easy reach of the bed." On Monday, Genders put the weapons found inside the house on display. A total of eight weapons were seized, including five shotguns -- one of which had been sawed-off and modified -- two rifles and and early-1900s Browning handgun. One of the weapons is likely a relic from the Second World War, a .32-calibre carbine rifle. The handgun and the sawed-off shotgun are considered prohibited weapons. None of the weapons were registered to the residents of the home. In addition to the guns, officers found nearly 1,000 rounds of ammunition inside a trailer in the yard. Some of it was in boxes that appeared to date back 25 or 30 years. Other bullets placed in plastic evidence bags had been loose, including a .50-calibre bullet Genders said would have been for military use. There were also a number of oversized clips that held about 30 bullets each, six times the amount legally permitted. "The weapons were properly stored, so we didn't have a problem with that," said Genders. "It was just the volume and the oversized ones." Also found were about 100 grams of dried marijuana and some drug paraphernalia, with a street value of about $1,500. Myles Lynk, 45, and Karen White, 48, each face charges of cultivating marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of a prohibitive device and six counts of unauthorized possession of a firearm. They are to appear in St. Catharines court for a bail hearing Saturday. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V12 #112 *********************************** 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".)