Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, April 24 2009 Volume 13 : Number 229 In this issue: RE: shooters defense fund Shooters defence fund re: "...it's just the money they're after ...." Before . . . Re: shooters defense fund EDITORIAL: Trappers, hunters, anglers are true environmentalists Re: GPS used to track cell phones Re: Shooters defence fund THE OUTDOOR WIRE: Setting The Stage for Precedent-Setting Decisions Re: "...it's just the money they're after ...." Letter to Sarnia Observer (just sent) NFR but true and timely ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:23:01 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: shooters defense fund I concur with Eduardo - Bruce Montague has the structure in place with the experience to do the job and a track record of transparency and accountability. Many of us are already supporting Bruce. This would minimize the time required to begin operations and allow for not only a coordinated legal defense plan based on the size of the fund, but also permit us to go on the offensive - something we must do if we are to overcome the political inertia in this country. We must also go on the offensive because the police chiefs and the RCMP are pulling out all the stops to act against us politically. I will pledge thirty dollars, and I am sure that Chilliwack Fish & Game members will also pledge, either individually or collectively. Clive Edwards Firearms Chair, Chilliwack Fish & Game Protective Association > May I suggest that we already have an established trust fund is > specifically dedicated to defending our Rights and Freedoms? > > http://www.BruceMontague.ca/html/index.html > > Bruce & Donna Montague have an constitutional challenge going forward > to the Ontario Court of Appeal. > Donations are needed to ensure that we finish this fight. > > Sincerely, > > Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:51:46 -0400 From: "candlestick" Subject: Shooters defence fund Under no circumstances should any firearms organization be it CSSA, NFA OFAH or other too numerous to mention, should these organizations have anything to do with holding or directing funds. These groups have shown themselves to do what they want most not what is good for all. An independent fund held by a law firm or trustee who would dispense funds to a defense, if the case met certain pre defined criteria. In the event that a case was borderline, either a minimal funds payment or none at all pending a tribunal fully agreeing that such a defense should be funded. No shooting group should hold or dispense funds. They are just too fickle and self serving. So those who belong to any organization who wants licensing or no license or even a partial license, these grouyps wont be able to do much for you except lip service. If you feel you can stand the pain of getting tagged by the government, great defend yourselves and spend your treasure. Get jammed up for at least four years or more defending your rights until you are broke. If on the other hand, you do not like C-68 and all that it brings with it including making shooters second class citizens in their own country, then get ready to put up the cost of a case of beer. Its cheap insurance against the time when the government or the Police will get you. Litman never thought it would happen to him, its been four years almost and hes still jammed up ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:32:43 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: re: "...it's just the money they're after ...." Ed Perhaps the captain of the ship that offered himself as a hostage, jumped overboard and was shot at would differ with that opinion. The fact that they haven't hurt anyone so far is probably due to better luck than good management of their firearms and rocket propelled grenades. So, it's just the insurance companies that are getting ripped off, right? How about the rest of their customers that have to pay vastly inflated rates due to huge ransom pay outs. Everyone who is a potential customer of the cargoes ransomed is a victim. Ever know someone who staged a 'breakin' at his house to get worn out appliances replaced? Or someone who faked a back injury to get compo for a while instead of working? I have, and in my opinion, that screws everyone who is playing it straight - - employers and employees alike; honest ship owners, insurers and customers. The moment the first ransom was paid, it set the stage for the copy cats. The Somalis have seized upon it as a lucrative business with minimal investment and poverty notwithstanding, that doesn't make it acceptable. This is a country that has no respect for law, government or the rights of others. A strict policy of non-negotiation and non-payment would have stopped the problem a long time ago. TB ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:55:00 -0700 From: Len Miller Subject: Before . . . Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:26:45 -0600 (CST) From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: Ok I am in I`m in for $30.00 and thats just for the first year ed/on - - ----- Original Message ----- From: "candlestick" To: Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 5:24 PM Subject: Ok I am in > Ok good and gentle readers. I read the pages of the digest, i read the > bickering sniping and general Bullsh**. > > I have the price of a case of beer that I will put up in any trust > fund > to safeguard the rights of shooters unjustly targetted by the > government and Police. > > > Now lets get that 30 bucks in to a trust fund so we can now begin to > protect ourselves aginst those who would harm us. - ------------------------------------------------ Len sez: BEFORE you pledge a nickel . ( see the failures of NFA, of CSSA, of CILA, of RFOCBC ) Learn first, just who is this . . who will burn at both ends . . like Hinter, with your money . . another 'road to hell'? I did ask who he was, and he did not respond . . Len Miller ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:02:10 -0400 From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: shooters defense fund - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> To: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 1:23 PM Subject: RE: shooters defense fund >I concur with Eduardo - > > Bruce Montague has the structure in place with the experience to do the > job > and a track record of transparency and accountability. Many of us are > already supporting Bruce. If this is so ? then my $30.00 bucks for this year is on its way. Now if we could get the other 6, 990,000 gun-owners to give up a case of beer ? Bruce would be a winner for sure. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, April 24, 2009 1:09 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: EDITORIAL: Trappers, hunters, anglers are true environmentalists TIMMINS DAILY PRESS - APRIL 24, 2009 Trappers, hunters, anglers are true environmentalists http://www.timminspress.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1538599 Earth Day has come and gone for another year. April 22 is dedicated annually to promoting environmental awareness. Many organizations and individuals talk about the need to treat every day as Earth Day. There is a group of people, often overlooked or even snubbed by self-proclaimed environmentalists, who are actively involved in making the world a better place. They were doing so long before it became fashionable. Northerners know these people as friends, family and neighbours. They are outdoorsmen (and women), commonly known as hunters, trappers and anglers. Yes, they are major stakeholders in the environment. Without a healthy ecosystem, their beloved outdoor activities would cease to exist. But they work tirelessly and give generously to preserve our natural resources. Groups such as the Timmins Fur Council, Ducks Unlimited and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters make a real difference in bettering the environment -- and their members aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in the process. The fur council, for example, will be improving portage trails along five different rivers beginning this year. This organization of local trappers also participates in fish-stocking programs, back-road cleanups and numerous other projects. They work closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources. While not strictly a hunting organization, Ducks Unlimited Canada was founded by a group of outdoorsmen in 1938. DUC welcomes hunters and non-hunters alike and they work together to improve wetlands. Ducks Unlimited, which has a big fundraiser Saturday in Timmins, has conserved more than 900,000 acres of wetlands in Ontario. The group works with various partners, including more than 1,700 private landowners. The OFAH, meanwhile, is involved in a wide range of environmental projects. As detailed in Wednesday's edition of The Daily Press, the OFAH helped bring nature into the classroom of a Fort Erie, Ont., school. It set up a project where students hatched salmon eggs and are in the process of raising the fish, which will be later released into a local ecosystem. Far too often hunters, trappers and anglers are portrayed by left-wing environmentalists as heartless users of resources. They get tarred with the same brush as poachers. Poachers are not outdoorsmen, they are criminals. Hunters, trappers and anglers may not agree with all government regulations, but they respect and follow the rules. Outdoorsmen are the ones out in the field making a difference. They are true environmentalists and deserve to be recognized as such during Earth Week. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:27:37 -0400 From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: GPS used to track cell phones - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Gingrich" To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:31 AM Subject: U.S.: GPS used to track cell phones > http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h85AZDF58UN4GpVbe_-8ZgsOPjcwD97OF3TO0 > > ACLU: US Attorney used GPS to track cell phones > > By ANGELA DELLI SANTI - > > TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - A former federal prosecutor running for governor > approved the tracking of citizens through their cell phones without > warrants while he was head of the U.S. Attorney's Office for New Jersey, > civil rights attorneys said Thursday. > > Christopher Christie, a former U.S. Attorney who is the Republican > front-runner in the governor's race said all actions were approved by the > court. > > The American Civil Liberties Union released documents Thursday showing > federal officials in New Jersey have gotten judges to approve the > surveillance without showing evidence that a crime is taking place. And why do you think GPS devices are being promoted ? If you can pinpoint your location on earth so can anyone else.(With the proper equipment ~! )(government)If the device is sending your position to you ? who else is picking it up ? ITS BAD ENOUGH THAT CISIS MONITORS OUR NFA CHAT AND DIGEST . I`m not saying that anyone is a criminal,? but there are some things that should be inviolate.The reason being that the police can now steal all your possessions without charging you with a crime or being convicted of any crime , JUST ON THEIR SUSPICIANS THAT YOU may ? HAVE COMMITED A CRIME OR ARE ABOUT TO. (ONTARIO ,CANADA) ( Hey what were you doing out in the woods ??? we think you were poaching ) we dont have the proof but thats too bad for you, we dont NEED IT ~!!!!! maaaaaaaaaaahahahahhahhah) This smacks of tyranny so badly I wonder why the media isn't promoting its repeal ? Could it be they are in the pay of their masters ? the police and politicians ? The kings of Jolly Old England couldn't have had it better. Welcome to Kanuckistan ........... ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:30:28 -0400 From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: Shooters defence fund I never said that a shooting organization should hold the funds ? If you read my original post I said it was to go into a trust fund managed by trustees who were independent . I dont rust shooters organizations either but they're the ones who SHOULD be contributing ,as well as those on this NG. ed/on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "candlestick" To: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: Shooters defence fund > Under no circumstances should any firearms organization be it CSSA, NFA > OFAH or other too numerous to mention, should these organizations have > anything to do with holding or directing funds. > > These groups have shown themselves to do what they want most not what is > good for all. An independent fund held by a law firm or trustee who > would dispense funds to a defense, if the case met certain pre defined > criteria. > > In the event that a case was borderline, either a minimal funds payment > or none at all pending a tribunal fully agreeing that such a defense > should be funded. > > No shooting group should hold or dispense funds. They are just too > fickle and self serving. > > So those who belong to any organization who wants licensing or no > license or even a partial license, these grouyps wont be able to do much > for you except lip service. > > If you feel you can stand the pain of getting tagged by the government, > great defend yourselves and spend your treasure. Get jammed up for at > least four years or more defending your rights until you are broke. > > If on the other hand, you do not like C-68 and all that it brings with > it including making shooters second class citizens in their own country, > then get ready to put up the cost of a case of beer. Its cheap > insurance against the time when the government or the Police will get > you. Litman never thought it would happen to him, its been four years > almost and hes still jammed up > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, April 24, 2009 1:52 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: THE OUTDOOR WIRE: Setting The Stage for Precedent-Setting Decisions THE OUTDOOR WIRE - APRIL 24, 2009 http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/ Setting The Stage for Precedent-Setting Decisions http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/archives/2009-04-24 When United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority-opinion in the landmark Heller decision last year, he was roundly criticized by legal scholars (primarily from the dissenting position) for having created a document that left many legal questions regarding firearms unanswered. Justice Scalia's response was simple: the broad decision was written, and the lower courts would use the Heller decision to create legal precedents from other cases going forward. In other words, precedent-setting cases on the nuances of the matter of the individual right to keep and bear arms enumerated by the Second Amendment would follow. Seems Justice Scalia was as on target with that estimation as he was in the majority opinion. Less than a year after Heller, the Circuit Courts of the United States seem to be headed back to the Supreme Court with contrary findings on gun rights. It is highly likely the Supreme Court will, once again, hear a case and decide another piece of precedent-setting law. On April 20, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court, historically one of the nation's most liberal and anti-individual and collective-rights biased courts, ruled the Heller decision had abrogated an earlier decisions in the matter of Nordyke, et al, versus King. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Alameda County, California was within its rights to pass an ordinance making the possession of firearms or ammunition on county property a misdemeanor offense. That ruling meant Russell and Sally Nordyke's Alameda Gun Show would no longer be permitted. In fact, the court wrote, the Heller decision prohibited the Privileges or Immunities clauses in state and local governments. Legal-ese aside, the court found that cities and municipalities could not use those local laws to unreasonably restrict firearms. The Ninth Circuit's Nordyke decision sets the stage for another trip to Washington where the Supreme Court will be asked to decide the question of municipalities' use of Privileges or Immunities to restrict firearms. That's because the Second Circuit Court has ruled Heller does not remove that option. In other words, The Ninth says Heller is individual in its definition of "rights" while the Second says it's still "collective" and subject to restriction by local ordinance. So, the stage is set for yet another Supreme Court appearance for the Second Amendment. If, or more accurately, when, that case makes the high court, it's unlikely that Alan Gura, attorney for Dick Anthony Heller - an amicus curiae filer on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation in the Nordyke case - will be underestimated by anti-gun groups. Last year, he was a virtual unknown, arguing against a veteran attorney with an impressive win/loss record in the Supreme Court. When the little guy wins against the bigger guy, that's not forgotten. Gura's arguments against the District of Columbia's case may have occasionally been shaky in their delivery, but solid in their positions. In the Supreme Court, that's what matters most. Other cases seem to be continually roiling across the legal landscape. Since Heller, what were occasional legal fights have developed into running battles over firearms ownership and the Second Amendment. With very little success on the federal level, anti-gun groups have chosen to take their fights to the state level, leaving ammunition as the big national battles. And we've received several inquiries from readers asking if other areas are experiencing a component shortage when it comes to ammunition reloading. We've made a few phone calls, and it seems there is a shortage of primers across the country. Industry leaders tell us there's no conspiracy to keep primers off the market, but loaded ammunition demands are sucking up what has normally been an adequate supply. As there aren't terrific numbers of primer manufacturers domestically, efforts are being made to import primers to meet the demand. Quantities of those, we've been told, are being delayed on the docks by United States Customs. We'll keep following the primer situation and keep you posted. Finally, we are pleased to report the Scholastic Steel Challenge continues to gain momentum. The Outdoor Wire Digital Network has already pledged significant support to the SSC in order to introduce safe, responsible and exciting handgun competition to the younger generation. It's no secret we're big fans of "bang-and-clang" and feel strongly SSC will help interest the coming generation in shooting sports. Fast-paced competition on steel is yet another infectious area of shooting competition. An announcement that GLOCK, the major player in the striker-fired, polymer pistol game, is coming aboard the Scholastic Steel Challenge, is said to be imminent. That would add considerable "gravitas" to a new area of outreach that already has the support of the NSSF, Smith & Wesson and other biggies in the industry. Earlier this week, word that the most difficult part of the competition to arrange- targets - had been handled, with Action Target's becoming the official target of the SSC. The Scholastic Clay Target and the National Archery in the Schools Programs have proven that shooting sports can be successfully introduced to schools. We believe the SSC will provide another major component in our campaigns to move shooting sports back into the mainstream. A central theme of our coverage of the outdoors is an emphasis on the positive aspects of shooting - and demonstrating that "average people" are shooters. That's not a message heard on networks that aren't primarily outdoor themed. The best way to dispel ignorance is through education, not confrontation. We're not afraid of either, but believe the best way to assure the future of all our outdoor activities is to engage the next generation. As always, we'll keep you posted. - --Jim Shepherd - editor@theoutdoorwire.com http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:14:26 -0400 From: "ed machel" Subject: Re: "...it's just the money they're after ...." - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Birch" To: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 2:32 PM Subject: re: "...it's just the money they're after ...." > Ed > > Perhaps the captain of the ship that offered himself as a hostage, > jumped overboard and was shot at would differ with that opinion. > The fact that they haven't hurt anyone so far is probably due to better > luck than good management of their firearms and rocket propelled grenades. > > So, it's just the insurance companies that are getting ripped off, right? > How about the rest of their customers that have to pay vastly inflated > rates due to huge ransom pay outs. Everyone who is a potential customer > of the cargoes ransomed is a victim. Ever know someone who staged a > 'breakin' at his house to get worn out appliances replaced? Or someone > who faked a back injury to get compo for a while instead of working? I > have, and in my opinion, that screws everyone who is playing it straight > - employers and employees alike; honest ship owners, insurers and > customers. > > The moment the first ransom was paid, it set the stage for the copy cats. > The Somalis have seized upon it as a lucrative business with minimal > investment and poverty notwithstanding, that doesn't make it acceptable. > This is a country that has no respect for law, government or the rights of > others. A strict policy of non-negotiation and non-payment would have > stopped the problem a long time ago. > > TB Your post merits much thought, indeed , however if I was in their position (and I try to put myself in their shoes for one mile ? ) and I was a young man I wouldnt hesitate to better myself. I didnt say it was acceptable I said I would probably do the same thing if ? I was in their shoes ? after all? what do they have to lose ? they have NOTHING~! their lives ? In that miserable place it would probably be a blessing for some. However would you take the chance of negotiating ,using innocent sailors lives as pawns ? NOT I ~!!! After all the money paid is paid by the companies that can afford it ? so their goods go up in price by a smidgeon / so what ? at least lives have been spared , innocent lives I might add. Suppose it was one of your relatives being held ransom on the threat of death ? would you want the company to pay the ransom or not ? Or you COULD ? say life is cheap ?? as long as its NOT yours? Ay ,thats the question Yorick? After all thats what capitalism is, improving your lot in life at the expense of someone less fortunate. Lets see now ? where does all our fresh food come from in the winter and sometimes in the summer ? Pears from Argentina in FOOD Basics.........8000 miles to bring pears here at what expense?I can just imagine the wages paid to the pickers. Our coffee ,tea ,and spices .? Gold, silver ,copper ,zinc etc.?(Peru) Diamonds (South Africa) They all come from people (or countries)much less fortunate than us. Dont get me wrong I think they should be immediately hanged on capture ,but thats the risk they take and are willing to take. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:04:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to Sarnia Observer (just sent) re: Canada can do better with gun control ... Dear Sir/Madame, Brian Rahilly of the Dawson committee for Gun Control attempts to create an exclusion zone for responsible firearm owners around the "truth" in order to stake a claim on the moral high ground of "public safety". I believe that if one were to actually pay attention to the message that the responsible firearms groups are actually trying to get across you will see nothing is of higher importance than the three tenets of responsible firearm ownership; SAFETY, RESPONSIBILITY and RESPECT. Rahilly could stand to use a little more of all three of these qualities, instead of simply trying to shout his rhetoric over the quiet voices who are trying to propose a simple evidence based approach to firearms regulation which is actually effective, and might save tax payers from wasting even more money. Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:21:11 -0400 From: TONY KATZ Subject: NFR but true and timely Spring: a dangerously distracting driving season By David Menzies, Sympatico/MSN Autos So there I was, just driving along, not minding my own business, cruising past the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets in Toronto (home of the imaginatively titled "Yonge-Dundas Square".) It was a warm April day - - the sun was shining; nary a single homeless person was using the nearby fountain as a bidet. And then - near-calamity! Suddenly, I was feverishly braking. Things looked dire for the front end of my vintage Honda Prelude as the coupe slid toward the rear end of an immobile SUV. Finally, Michelin rubber gripped Hogtown asphalt. And just in time. Had my '93 Honda sported another coat of Brittany Blue-Green Metallic, a collision would've surely ensued. And clearly I would've been at fault. Or would I? I neglected to mention a key detail regarding my near-miss: an apparel- challenged lass strutting her stuff down Yonge Street. Spring has sprung. And with it comes the most dangerous driving season. Forget Old Man Winter's snowstorms and black ice. That's nothing compared to the distractions via short hemlines and revealing halter tops. I know what you're thinking - "Show some restraint, Menzies, you pig! Take responsibility for your own actions." That's all good in theory. But men stink at multi-tasking. Despite thousands of years of (alleged) evolutionary progress, the male brain is hard-wired to respond in a specific fashion. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as high-heel shoes. My proposal: perhaps men shouldn't be held 100% responsible for accidents caused by external distractions? Scoff if you must. But consider the bizarre case of Linda Hunt of Wasaga Beach, Ont. Hunt got drunk at her office Christmas party in 1994. Although Hunt's boss offered her a cab ride or accommodation at a nearby hotel if she'd surrender her car keys, Hunt refused, got in her car, and promptly slammed into a truck. Here's the kicker: Hunt decided to sue her former employer based on the fact her boss should've restrained her from driving. And the Ontario Superior Court agreed. The court ruled Hunt's employer was 25% responsible for the accident and awarded Hunt $302,000. (The Ontario Court of Appeal later overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial, after which the parties reached a settlement.) Bottom line: if a judge can determine that someone who drinks and drives isn't fully accountable for her boozing, why should I be held 100% responsible for my libido? Like I've been saying since puberty - I'm a victim of circumstance ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #229 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca 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".)