Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, April 27 2009 Volume 13 : Number 236 In this issue: Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Somali Pirates RE: Montague trust fund Major gun trafficking story squelched? FACs, licencing, etc. Letter to a few pubs (just sent) ... Has Obama Paralyzed the CIA? MPs' VOTING RECORDS We think licensing serves a valid social polcy purpose ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:11:54 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Somali Pirates http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517955,00.html Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Somali Pirates Sunday, April 26, 2009 ROME - An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board fended off a pirate attack far off the coast of Somalia when its Israeli private security forces exchanged fire with the bandits and drove them away, the commander said Sunday. Cmdr. Ciro Pinto told Italian state radio that six men in a small white speed boat approached the Msc Melody and opened fire Saturday night, but retreated after the Israeli security officers aboard the cruise ship returned fire. "It felt like we were in war," Pinto said. None of the roughly 1,000 passengers and 500 crew members were hurt, Melody owner Msc Cruises said in a statement issued by its German branch. Domenico Pellegrino, head of the Italian cruise line, said Msc Cruises hired the Israelis because they were the best trained security agents, the ANSA news agency reported. Separately, the Turkish cruiser Ariva 3, with two British and four Japanese crew aboard, survived a pirate attack near the Yemeni island of Jabal Zuqar early Sunday, said Ali el-Awlaqi, head of the Yemeni El-Awlaqi Marine company said. "Pirates opened fire at the cruise ship for 15 minutes then stopped for no reason," he said, adding that the cruiser was heading to Aden, Yemen, to fix a broken engine. Civilian shipping and passenger ships have generally avoided arming crewmen or hiring armed security for reasons of safety, liability and compliance with the rules of the different countries where they dock. Saturday's exchange of fire between pirates and the Melody was one of the first reported between pirates and a nonmilitary ship. International military forces have battled pirates, with U.S. Navy snipers killing three holding an American captain hostage in one of the highest-profile incidents. It was not the first attack on a cruise liner, however. In December, pirates opened fire on a U.S.-operated ship carrying hundreds of tourists on a monthlong luxury cruise from Rome to Singapore, but the cruise liner was able to outrun the pirates. In early April a tourist yacht was hijacked by Somali pirates near the Seychelles just after having dropped off its cargo of tourists. Saturday's attack occurred about 200 miles north of the Seychelles, and about 500 miles (800 kilometers) east of Somalia, according to the anti-piracy flotilla headquarters of the Maritime Security Center Horn of Africa. Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet, noted that the distance from the Somalia coast was a sign of the pirates' increasing skill. "It's not unheard of to have attacks off the coast of the Seychelles, we've even had some in the past month," he said. "But at the same time, it is a sign that they are moving further and further off the Somali coast," demonstrating a "definite shift in their tactical capabilities." Pinto said the pirates fired with automatic weapons, slightly damaging the liner, and tried to put a ladder on board. But he said they were unable to climb aboard. The commander said his security forces opened fire with pistols, and the ANSA news agency said the pistols had been kept in a safe under the joint control of the commander and security chief. Cruise line security work is a popular job for young Israelis who have recently been discharged from mandatory army service, as it is a good chance to save money and travel. The Spanish warship SPS Marques de Ensenada was meeting up with the liner to escort her through the pirate-infested northern Gulf of Aden, the Maritime Security Center said. The cruise ship was headed as scheduled to the Jordanian port of Aqaba. The Melody was on a 22-day cruise from Durban, South Africa, to Genoa, Italy, returning to the Mediterranean for spring and summer season cruises. Meanwhile, Somali pirates on Sunday demanded a $5 million ransom for the release of two Egyptian fishing boats hijacked earlier this month, and the safe return of their crew, Egyptian Foreign Ministry official Ahmed Rizq said in Cairo. "Tribal sheiks are trying to mediate to convince the hijackers to release the boats and the sailors, but it's clear to everybody that we are dealing with piracy that has no other purpose but money," he said, adding that the negotiations were between the hijackers and the boats' owners. Pirates have attacked more than 100 ships off the Somali coast over the last year, reaping an estimated $1 million in ransom for each successful hijacking, according to analysts and country experts. Another Italian-owned vessel remains in the hands of pirates. The Italian-flagged tugboat Buccaneer was seized off Somalia on April 11 with 16 crew members aboard. On Saturday, the Foreign Ministry dispatched a special envoy, Margherita Boniver, to Somalia to try to win the release of the tug and crew. In a statement, the ministry also denied reports by relatives of the crew that an ultimatum had been issued by the pirates ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:22:02 -0600 From: "Bruce Montague" Subject: RE: Montague trust fund On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 Ross wrote: > It is pleasing to know there is a proper trust fund set up and > administered. Are the funds in it exclusively for the use of Mr > Montague or are all "three" able to avail them selves of funds if > approved. > > What is the criteria to approve the funds if any? > > The wheel has indeed been invented, we do not want to make mistakes. > Can this trust fund be modified or changed so that others may avail > themselves of the funds that come in. Existing funds for Montague would > not form part of the shooters defence fund. as they were donated for > that specific cause. So how do we get it moving in the right direction I don't know what prompted this comment by Ross, but I'd like to reply to it. I too am pleased that we have a proper trust fund set up that is open and accountable. I should point out that the funds are strickly for use in the Montague Charter Challenge of the Firearms Act (Bill C-68). It was set up for this purpose and people that donate to this fund can be assured that the funds are not used for any other purpose. I cannot answer some of your questions since I don't understand them. For instance who are the "three" that are talked about?? Also your second last sentence seemed to answer your own question about who can avail themselves of this fund. I'm sorry if I seem a little confused, but I'm trying to answer your concerns as best I can. [Mod Note: The three were Yourself, Edward Hudson and Pierre Lemieux. BUZ] The most important thing I want to address is your last question of "how do we get it moving in the right direction"? What do you consider to be the right direction? More important to me is the implication that you consider our legal challenge to these onerous laws to be going in the wrong direction. Myself and many others have been investing our lives, time and money into this fight for all firearms owners. I for one do not take this sacrifice lightly and would sincerely like to know how this can be done better? Yours in Liberty, Bruce. We are free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it. - - William Faulkner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:34:21 -0700 From: "Barry Glasgow" Subject: Major gun trafficking story squelched? To: ON Toronto Globe and Mail; ON Toronto Guardian; ON Toronto Mirror-Guardian; ON Toronto Star; ON Toronto Sun Cc: twilhelm@thestar.canwest.com; ON Windsor Star; AB Calgary Herald; AB Edmonton Journal; cacp@cacp.ca; mayor_miller@toronto.ca; william.blair@torontopolice.on.ca Subject: Major gun trafficking story squelched? Last week, Trevor Whilhem of the Windsor Star covered the investigation, arrest and conviction of ten people involved in a major handgun smuggling ring (operating out of Windsor and Toronto) that funneled more than 500 guns into Canada from the U.S. Perhaps more newsworthy was the fact that the gang's ringleader got 32 years in jail after Canadian authorities agreed to have him tried in the U.S. because the sentence there would be harsher. This is a serious problem that should be of great interest to GTA residents - yet there appears to be no reference to this story in any Toronto paper (except the National Post). Why is it that Toronto papers haven't seen fit to cover this while papers such as the Calgary Herald, the Edmonton Journal and even a small Mississippi paper did? Despite police investigations having determined that less than 16% of recovered handguns were once registered to Canadian citizens, (they don't provide information on how many were stolen from police and the military) Toronto city officials continue their push to ban and confiscate legally owned property under the false pretense that "almost half" of these guns are stolen from Canadian sport shooters and collectors. With so much concern over illegally trafficked handguns, does this story not fit the agenda in Toronto? Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:35:57 -0700 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: FACs, licencing, etc. At a dinner party recently, the wife of a guest asked how we arrived at the current state of affairs re: gun laws. It led to an interesting discussion. If memory serves, when we had FACs imposed on us, we were not required to record the FAC number of anyone we sold or traded a gun to, so long as he had one. Am I correct so far? Feel free to interject where I err in the time line. This allowed a pretty free exchange of firearms with no record other than that of the original purchaser whose name was entered in the 'book'. You didn't have to show your FAC to buy ammo, either. By acquiescing to this in good Canadian fashion, we set the stage for our own problems. It didn't take long for our controllers/preservers of the public good to realize their mistake and take it to the next level. They knew that turning the heat up gradually wouldn't cause more than a mild fuss. They were right, and there was a line up to become a 'Firearms Safety Instructor' and cash in on the new business opportunity. I'm not sure if the 12(6) grandfathering/delayed confiscation and the rifle prohib things came before or after the 'divide & conquer' POL/PAL era. No matter, because again, we rolled over. When universal registration of guns and gun owners came along, it was assured that it was going to be accepted based on the acquiesence history of gun owners to date. The Fed Up rallies might have had far more impact had it resulted in massive civil disobedience AT THAT TIME; with collective burning of firearms documents and an expressed willingness to go to jail. That momentum was lost as we broke into internecine warfare amongst gun owners. We're still waffling about and looking pretty impotent, but it is becoming more apparent that the solution is not to be found in working the political system. With the current level of political disillusionment with the CPC amongst voters, and the likelihood of a resurgence of the Liberal party, we are soon going to be at a make or break point. TB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to a few pubs (just sent) ... Bloc Motion to end amnesty extension for firearm registry ... (fwd) Dear Sir/Madame, The House of Commons recently voted 143 to 136 in favour of a Bloc Quebecois motion not to extend the amnesty for long gun owners not in compliance with the Firearms Act of 1995. Good you say? Police estimate that approximately 186,000 Canadians are not in full compliance with registry regulations, and have either not renewed their firearms license, or through some other paper infraction under the draconian Firearms Act of 1995 been deemed to be criminals. This even though they have neither threatened violence, nor done anyone any harm, nor are they likely to do so. To avoid making a laughing stock of our legal system, each and every one of these 186,000 "scoundrels" must either be rounded up, arrested, and punished to the fullest extent of the law; a maximum of four years in federal prison for each offense, plus thousands of dollars of fines, plus the legal costs and stigma of becoming criminals. By all means, let us ruin their lives, they are gun owners after all, and so they deserve it! Either that, or the Firearms Act should be repealed in its entirety. If we did repeal the Act, we could return to the very rational, effective and affordable firearms control regime (FAC) we had in place before 1995. The previous regime recognized the rights and property of law abiding Canadian citizens, respected the presumption of innocence and yet had all the background checks, safety courses, storage and transport regulations and safeguards of the current system at a mere fraction of the current costs. Imagine the costs of prosecuting and imprisoning 186,000 brand new law abiding criminals(?) all at one time. Then there is the tarnish to the system of liberal democracy that Canadians were once proud to call their own. The East German Stasi of the cold war have nothing on Canada in 2009 it seems, but we *COULD* roll back the clock to a more rational law! Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:06:57 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Has Obama Paralyzed the CIA? http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_cia/2009/04/27/207740.html Obama Has Paralyzed the CIA By: Ronald Kessler Monday, April 27, 2009 9:48 AM In September 1995, John Deutch, the director of Central Intelligence, bowed to congressional pressure and fired two CIA officials because they had recruited Guatemalan military assets who had been involved in political assassinations. Inside the agency's amphitheater, known as the "Bubble," Deutch then told CIA employees that despite the firings, they should continue to take risks in the service of their country. That brought snickers from many of the clandestine officers in the audience. Deutch laid down the law that recruitment of assets or spies with so-called human rights violations would require high-level approval. Yet who else would know about terrorists and our enemies except those who were themselves involved in treachery? The message was clear: Stay away from informants who are not politically correct. Deutch's effort to recruit Boy Scouts as spies was chilling. "People retired in place or left," says William Lofgren, who headed the Central Eurasian Division, which included Russia. "Our spirit was broken. At the CIA, you have to be able to inspire people to take outrageous risks." That risk-averse atmosphere, in turn, contributed to the failure to detect the 9/11 plot that killed 3,000 Americans and sent the economy reeling. Now, President Obama's release of memos on harsh interrogation tactics and his condemnation of those tactics - though approved by President Bush, the Justice Department, and key members of Congress - is sending an even greater shudder through the intelligence community. By their very nature, intelligence officers who obtain secrets of other countries or of terrorist organizations are at risk. This is no amusement park. They meet with terrorists in dark alleys to try to enlist them to spy for the agency. They break into foreign embassies to steal secret codes and install listening devices in homes of terrorists. They pick up top secret military plans from clandestine hiding places. They recruit arms dealers to report on efforts to steal nuclear weapons. If their work is uncovered, they may be arrested by a foreign power or murdered by a terrorist. Back when the forerunner of the CIA started in 1942, its first director, William J. Donovan, called it an "unusual experiment." For his Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the best and the brightest were recruited to embark on a dangerous mission: to penetrate the enemy, learn its secrets, and disrupt its operations through covert means, including sabotage and assassination. The enemy then was Nazi Germany and Japan, and the nascent intelligence agency was charged with preventing another Pearl Harbor. Indications of imminent war, properly pieced together, would have compelled President Roosevelt to place the U.S. military on alert and disperse ships at Pearl Harbor. But the strike caught the military by surprise. The attack killed 2,388 people. In the parlance adopted after Sept. 11, there was a failure to connect the dots. Still, that may not be enough to thwart an attack. What is needed is penetration of the enemy. Such a penetration usually entails inserting spies into the heart of an organization or government so that its innermost plans and secrets are passed along. That is the job of the CIA. When George Tenet became director of Central Intelligence in July 1997, he tried to overcome what Deutch had done to the agency. If employees "don't believe that you believe in them and the mission, you can articulate all the strategy you want and nothing will happen. You can't do it by yourself: They have to implement it," Tenet would say. Within two months of taking over, Tenet established himself as a champion of the agency and a leader who appreciated what is now called the National Clandestine Service. But it would take time to change the culture. Since 9/11, and especially under CIA Director Michael Hayden, the CIA has been operating on all cylinders. Now Obama has demonized CIA officers for following instructions from the highest levels of the U.S. government. He has raised the specter of prosecutions, saying it would be up to Attorney General Eric Holder whether to charge those who gave legal opinions authorizing the tactics. Contrary to conservative wisdom, the situation is quite different from what happened when the Church Committee investigated the CIA and held public hearings beginning in 1976. The committee exposed real abuses and a lack of focus, and it ultimately improved the agency. Back then, the CIA spied on Vietnam protesters, foolishly enlisted the Mafia to try to kill Fidel Castro, embarked on the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, and engaged in silly plots like an effort to humiliate Castro with his own people by trying to get his beard to fall off. In contrast, the CIA's coercive interrogations were focused, approved by members of Congress, and successful. During initial interrogations, Abu Zubaydah was reluctant to give up individuals who were close to him. After he was waterboarded - which is inflicted on our own special forces during training - he gave up Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle. In turn, that led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 plot, and the uncovering of a plot to target the West Coast in a second wave of attacks. If Obama were genuinely interested in "transparency" and spreading goodwill, he would have released CIA reports detailing those successes. Obama's message to the intelligence community was clear: Even if techniques have been approved by the country's elected leaders, you take your career in your hands if you engage in any operation that could be considered close to the edge. That same message would be sent to the military if the president and Congress declared war and a subsequent administration conducted witch hunts and threatened prosecutions of soldiers who killed the enemy in battle. As former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said, the effect of the release is to "invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001." As Hayden points out, releasing the memos discourages foreign intelligence services from cooperating with the CIA for fear their cooperation will be exposed. No wonder Leon Panetta, the current CIA director, four of his predecessors, and Obama's counterterrorism advisor John Brennan opposed releasing the memos. By disclosing the techniques, Obama made it impossible for him or his successors to authorize their use in the future in the event of an imminent future attack. That's because, as in waterboarding, many of them were intended to create fear but not actually hurt detainees. Despite failures and gaffes, Donovan's "unusual experiment" has paid off. Through the most terrifying moments of the Cold War, the CIA penetrated Soviet secrecy, warned of most threats, and allowed policymakers to orchestrate a measured response that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. While the CIA failed to uncover the plots of 9/11 and was wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as outlined in my book "The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack," it has scored a dazzling success in the war on terror. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 27, 2009 12:03 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: MPs' VOTING RECORDS MPs' Votes for Wednesday, April 22, 2009 Business of Supply Pursuant to Order made Tuesday, April 21, 2009, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin), seconded by Mr. Crête (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should not extend the amnesty on gun control requirements set to expire on May 16, 2009, and should maintain the registration of all types of firearms in its entirety. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1& Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3816531 New Parliamentary Votes recording system: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteList.aspx?Language=E& Mode=1&Parl=38&Ses=1 Welcome to How'd They Vote http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:06:14 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: We think licensing serves a valid social polcy purpose Monday, 27 April 2009 The Honounable Vic Toews President of the Treasury Board House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Dear Mr. Toews, Re: "We think licensing serves a valid social policy purpose" I was extremely disappointed on 26 April 2009 to read in the Winnipeg Sun that you stated, "We think licensing serves a valid social policy purpose". If this quote does indeed accurately reflect your position vis-a-vis the licensing mandate of the Liberals' 1995 Firearms Act, I would first like to know who is "we"? Then I would like to know: a. When did "we" break with Garry Breitkreuz, your Conservative colleague who served for twelve years as the Firearms Critic while you served as Justice Critic in Opposition? b. When did "we" choose to ignore the Policy of the Conservative Party of Canada? c. Have you personally found any evidence to support this new position? d. Are you willing to destroy the unique Canadian heritage and culture of responsible ownership of firearms? e. Are you a willing party to an unjust law that attempts to transform our Right to have Armes for their Defense' into a mere privilege? f. How can you justify allowing Mr. Harper to break his promises to Canadians that the Conservatives would repeal the entire Firearms Act? If this quote does not accurately reflect your position vis-a-vis the licensing mandate of the Liberals' 1995 Firearms Act, I pray that you forthwith clarify your true position. If, Mr. Toews, you and your fellow cabinet ministers of our "new" Conservative government truly believe that "licensing serves a valid social policy purpose", are you willing to send the RCMP to arrest honest, responsible, peaceful Canadian citizens who steadfastly refuse to submit to the licensing mandate of this unjust law? That is the question you need to address, because many Canadians are totally unwilling to be political pawns to a vain "social policy" that ignores Canadian history, destroys our unique culture, denies our Right to self-protection, and does nothing to address the real problem in Canada =96 the violent criminals and drug dealers who are not in the least affected by the licensing requirement of the Firearms Act. Sincerely, Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS Secretary Encl: (1) Personal firearm permit to stand, The Winnipeg Sun, 26 April 2009 - Paul Turenne http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/04/26/9249906-sun.html (2) The Whole Firearms Act Has To Go Not Just The Gun Registry - Garry Breitkreuz = http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article217.htm (3) Mr. Harper's Promise to Firearms Owners - Garry Breitkreuz http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_15_dec_2006.html (4) The Conservative Party of Canada Policy = Declaration As approved by the Convention on 19 March 2009 http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_27_july_2007_promises.html (5) The Canadian Right of "Armes for their Defense" - Ed Hudson = http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/armes/armes_17_sept_2007.html CC: Prime Minister Stephen Harper The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety Conservative Senators and Members of Parliament Don Plett, President, National Council of the Conservative Party of Canada Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association Association canadienne des proprietaires d'armes sans permis 402 Skeena Crt. Saskatoon Saskatchewan S7K 4H2 (306) 242-2379 (306) 230-8929 edwardhudson@shaw.ca www.cufoa.ca THE WINNIPEG SUN 26 April 2009 Personal firearm permit to stand Paul Turenne http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/04/26/9249906-sun.html There are currently two bills in Ottawa that are meant to scrap the gun registry, but neither proposes to stop licensing individuals. The gun registration system is similar to vehicle registration. Just as all vehicles must be registered, all firearms must be registered too, while gun owners must take a course on responsible use and pass background checks to possess or use a gun, just as drivers must hold a licence. "We think licensing serves a valid social policy purpose," said Vic Toews, Manitoba's senior cabinet minister. "Those who are qualified and trained are not a danger." ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #236 *********************************** 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".)