Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, November 15 2009 Volume 13 : Number 554 In this issue: I have to register my pooch -- so why bark about gun registry? Column - "Do I really Need a Rifle?" Cost of 'gun' registry EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban Information and questions for the House committee re C-391 CBSA officer euthanizes moose for Mountie Clearing Native protestors not the Lord's work Re: Do I Really Need A Rifle?, Rob O'Flanagan, November 13, 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, November 14, 2009 1:30 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: I have to register my pooch -- so why bark about gun registry? The Sault Star - November 14, 2009 I have to register my pooch -- so why bark about gun registry? By TOM KEENAN http://www.saultstar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2176492 Last week, I wrote a story in The Sault Star garnering local reaction to what appears to be the defeat of the long-gun (rifle) registry program. I am now at my St. Joseph Island property for the seven-day deer hunt, and if I decide to hunt, I have my 308 Browning rifle. And my grandson, who is 14, is using my 30-30 caliber Winchester rifle. Both guns are registered, along with three others I own. I have never had any trouble going hunting, have not had police knocking on my door and I am always amazed at the fact that so many who label themselves as outdoorsmen and hunters are so upset at the thought of a gun registry. Whichever way it plays out, look for a big reaction from those people who support a gun registry. Since the private member's bill was launched, most of those opposed to the idea of a gun registry have, over the last 19 years, flooded newspapers with letters and radio talk shows to vent displeasure. And there are the trucks and cars that have bumper stickers saying, in effect, "Remember this gun bill, let's defeat it and those politicians who support it." That is one side, but before you get to thinking this is over -- forget it. I believe that now the people who support a gun registry, but have never been as vocal as the other side, are going to come out and say that registering guns is a good idea. And those who think outdoorsmen and rural ratepayers are the big majority, rethink that position. I would guess that there are more rural ridings in Canada than there are urban ridings. So in effect, rural areas could possibly carry more seats with fewer supporters. Let's take a look at Algoma District. There are many of people who are not hunters, and although there are no polling numbers to prove it, I believe there are many thousands of people in the district who have stayed quiet all this time, and are now going to come out in support of the gun registry. Sault Ste. Marie has about 75,000 residents, and I would think that this is a higher number than those who live in all the rural areas of the district combined. Local Conservative spokesman Josh Pringle is quoted as saying NDP Member of Parliament Tony Martin is now going to pay the price for not supporting the elimination of the registry and labelling farmers and hunters as criminals for wanting to scrap the registry. Rethink it, Josh. You just may find out that those who are not farmers or outdoorsmen, and they are the big majority of district people, may support Martin's stand. Again, there are a lot more people who don't farm and hunt than those who do - -- they have just never organized and vented their feelings. Now I think they will. The Harper Conservatives like to say they are the "law and order party." If so, why do we continually read and hear of killers, rapists, thieves and pedophiles getting a jail sentence, and then being reminded that they will be eligible for parole not long before their sentence is served? Why do judges give a person a life sentence and then say they are eligible for parole in seven years? Just quit calling it a life sentence -- it rarely is. Why are there laws in place for gun owners that say you must have your gun and bullets under lock and key when not hunting? What happens when you are at your rural property and are sometimes confronted by a predator? My wife has the key to the gun cabinet hidden. My five-year- old granddaughter likes to find keys and hide them, and if a bear or another intruder does try coming into my camp -- and, yes, I have experienced it -- I will still be trying to locate the key and get to my gun while the bear or intruder has no such restrictions. And, I am told, that if I catch a person in my home and I beat the hell out of him that I will be charged and he might not be. I used to have a gun resting up high on the wall out of the reach of kids just in case I needed it fast for protection. Well, now it is under lock and key because my wife says that is the law. While talking of laws, how about the Chinese businessman in Toronto, who along with two friends, was arrested and charged with assault, forcible confinement, carrying a concealed weapon and kidnapping after he chased down a thief who robbed his store, the incident being caught on camera. The thief, slated to be in court soon, faces a maximum of 30 days in jail. David Chen, who chased and caught the thief, faces up to two years in the slammer if the judge finds him guilty. What a crock. I am not getting involved in the gun registry dispute. I don't feel threatened having my guns registered, but I do feel insulted that I have to get licences and pass tests to allow me to run my small boat and motor. The joke is, just about everybody had somebody write the test for them or they did it online with all the answers in a book beside them. As for the cost of the gun registry so far, $2 billion over 19 years and counting -- sure it is ridiculous -- but some of the boys who win elections can blow that much on a good day. My car and truck are registered, my boat and motor are accounted for, my boat trailer is accounted for, and the list goes on and on and on -- and my kids are registered. I just don't know why so many people feel threatened over registering their guns. We all accept the argument that criminals will never register weapons, and they can buy anything that shoots by going to the black market. I believe we are now going to start hearing from those who support a gun registry. And again, let us remember, there are probably a lot more of them than us, who like to hunt and farm. Tom Keenan, who held a number of editorships during his 40 years at The Sault Star, now serves as a district correspondent. He can be reached at tomkeenan@shaw.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:09:07 -0800 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Column - "Do I really Need a Rifle?" Sir Regarding your comment in the above mentioned article: "I do believe owning a sexy handgun or semi-automatic assault weapon is probabaly a very stupid thing to do. If you are the kind of person lusting after one of those pieces, you are probably the kind of person that would use it if the opportunity arose." If you mean that a lawful citizen who owns such a firearm might be inclined to use it to defend his/her own life or someone else's, you are probably correct. We do have the right to self defence, like it or not. But, if we were so inclined and the need arose, we wouldn't necessarily need or use a firearm of those types. There are no guns more inherently evil or violence prone than the people that operate them. Subscribing to that is nothing more than media hyperbole and handgun hoplophobia - "an unreasoning fear of weaponry with which one is unfamiliar". Other than that, you have done the tens of thousands of lawful owners of such firearms a grave disservice with your disparaging remark. We aren't the people misusing those guns or any others. We value them and enjoy using them lawfully too much to even consider it. I recommend that you do apply to become a licenced gun owner in Canada. The process will help you appreciate the degree of compliance and submission to intrusive and comprehensive scrutiny required. Then I recommend acquiring one of those "sexy handguns or semi-automatic assault rifles" to see if you are inclined to commit murder and mayhem with it. Let's put your theory to the test. Since you are likely not so inclined at present, it is doubtful that would change merely because you now own "one of those pieces". Sincerely Todd Birch Quesnel, BC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:25:12 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Cost of 'gun' registry O.K. but which one? Did I not read recently - was it from the Firearm's Commish that the cost - or was it total cost of 'both' registries --- was $8.4 Mil? > SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX - NOVEMBER 13, 2009 > Dangerous mistake to scrap long gun registry By Doug Cuthand > http://www.thestarphoenix.com/sports/Dangerous+mistake+scrap+long+registry/2 > 218041/story.html > A popular myth about gun control is that it costs the taxpayers billions > every year. A study done in 2006 by the auditor general determined that > the annual cost for the registry was about $3 million. This is good > value for money, when you consider its value to police forces. Cuthand writes: > Back in the 1980s, someone broke into our home and my hunting rifle was > stolen. We reported it to the police. There was no gun registry at the > time and I only had the basic information to provide the police. I doubt > if the gun was ever found, and I wondered over the years if it was used > in a crime or what happened to it. Had there been a gun registry at the > time, that rifle might have been traced and recovered. What responsible gun owner would not maintain their own exact and detailed records, even if for defense against claims that one's guns might have fallen into the wrong hands - but for insurance and other such purposes. Cuthand argues that we need an expensive privacy invading gov't 'registry' because gun owners can't/won't keep their own records. Additionally: > But Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said only 2.4 per cent of police > inquiries dealt with long guns. Did Van Loan have a source for this - or is it just more polyspeak? Bruce commented: > If police want to convince us to maintain the registry, they should do > more than tell us how many times they use it. Because if the registry, > like the Hummer, is sitting there, they will use it. > > Police should tell us how many times the registry alerted them to the > presence of legal, registered long guns before they entered into > confrontational situations such as domestic assaults. They should tell us > how often police, alerted by a registry search, were able to prevent > potential harm to themselves or others during such incidents. Bang on. I sure hope the 'smart' questions like these get asked - and *answered* in Committee. We're gonna need substantial rationale to maintain support from Opposition MPs. Bruce added: > If I had a Hummer H2 SUV, fully loaded, sitting in my driveway, I'd use > it. I know of a small dealer out in the boonies south of Cameron up in Jules' territory who has 4-6 used Hummers on his car lot. Musta got a buy on them. I've got pics of a monster mudder Yamaha Rhino utility vehicle you should have a go with. I'm told it's like driving a platypus. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:09:54 -0500 From: Bill Subject: EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/ Time after time, public murder sprees occur in "gun-free zones" - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire. Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones. Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That's why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's rampage. Everyone wants to keep people safe - and no one denies Mr. Clinton's good intentions. The problem is that law-abiding good citizens, not criminals, are the ones who obey those laws. Bans end up disarming potential victims and not criminals. Rather than making places safe for victims, we unintentionally make them safe for the criminal - or in this case, the terrorist. The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood understands all too well. In an interview on CNN Monday night, Anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster how she felt about her husband's upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an Army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's deadly rules even disarmed officers, the most trusted members of the military charged with leading enlisted soldiers in combat. Six of the dead and wounded had commissions. Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Research also shows that the presence of more guns limits the damage mass murderers can unleash. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the time that elapses between the launch of an attack and when someone - soldier, civilian or law enforcement - arrives on the scene with a gun to end the attack. All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned. Thirteen dead bodies in a Texas morgue are the ultimate fruit of gun-control illogic - in which guns are so feared that government regulation even tries to keep them out of the hands of trained soldiers. With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can end Mr. Clinton's folly and allow U.S. soldiers to protect themselves. Because we clearly cannot protect our soldiers from harm, the least we owe them is the right to protect themselves. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:25:49 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Information and questions for the House committee re C-391 I suggested before - if only Sheila Fraser could take a 'quick peak' at the current value of 'the [long gun] registry' for info to be entered into evidence. Any way this could happen? (Dennis)? I've commented on 'smart' questions coming before the House committee (I presume the standing committee on Public Safety will conduct a review stemming from C-391). Would it make sense for a CFDer to collate some ideas and submit them to committee members? Same for our pet peeves about police misuse of statistics - would a short list of items needing clarification be in order? eg. True origin of crime guns. Van Loan's assertion is significant information - if accurate. > But Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said only 2.4 per cent of police > inquiries dealt with long guns. - ---- Just musing out loud - but it seems that material from bodies of 'stakeholders' and organizations are given greater weight than ramblings from individuals. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:42:34 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: CBSA officer euthanizes moose for Mountie [Can't believe the Mountie wouldn't have tried his Taser gun or failing that he could have attempted the tried and true 'restraint asphyxia' to 'off' the moose. No mention of whether the Mountie and CBSA officer field dressed the animal for transport to a local homeless shelter. CGBA officers have been packing for over 2-years and this is the first discharge in the line of duty. Sounds like we were sold a bill of goods on this issue, too]. Moose becomes first victim of new border guard policy By Dean Beeby, THE CANADIAN PRESS > http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/11/14/11747326-cp.html OTTAWA — Canada’s newly armed border guards have claimed their first victim: a hapless moose. The creature was felled by the duty sidearm of a border officer in late August, newly disclosed documents show. The incident — marking the first time a border-guard sidearm has been discharged on duty — occurred about 25 kilometres west of Creston, B.C., as an unidentified intelligence officer with the Canada Border Services Agency was driving on official business to Nelson, B.C. The officer was behind an RCMP vehicle when both drivers spotted an injured moose struggling in the westbound lane of Highway 3. The animal had suffered serious injuries to the rear legs and pelvis, and was crawling forward into the eastbound lane using its front legs. The RCMP constable decided to put the moose out of its misery and prevent a possible highway accident, say documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. The constable discharged his pistol twice into the moose’s head, which brought the animal to a stop but did not kill it. The Mountie “then requested that (the) CBSA intelligence officer ... euthanize the moose based on his known familiarity with livestock,” says an official report into the incident. The border services officer “discharged one round from his CBSA duty pistol into the head of the moose, resulting in the death of the animal.” The carcass was then removed from the flow of traffic. An internal review of the Aug. 26 incident, required whenever a sidearm is even drawn, absolved the officer of any wrongdoing, noting that he was requested by a police officer to assist and that the injured moose was a serious threat to traffic. “The drawing, pointing and discharge of the duty firearm by officer ... was justified,” the review concluded. A spokeswoman said all procedures worked as intended. “As in all cases in which CBSA officers use their defensive tools, agency officials thoroughly reviewed the incident,” Patrizia Giolti said in an email. “CBSA operational procedures are developed and designed to ensure the safety of the public and of CBSA officers.” Canada’s border guards began to carry sidearms in July 2007, and are pulling them from their holsters about three times a month. The moose incident is the first time there has been a discharge. As of March this year, more than 800 border officers had been trained and assigned a duty firearm, the 9 mm Beretta P4X Storm. The agency wants to arm 4,800 guards at all land and marine border points by 2016. Agency officers are stationed at more than 1,200 locations across Canada, including 14 international airports and 119 land crossings. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:06:22 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Clearing Native protestors not the Lord's work [The OPP would rather direct its rather immense weight of the law at unarmed grannies or was this incident prior to the OPP's Religious awakening. You may recall the then OPP Commish Gwen Boniface departed quietly to the Irish National Police Service. You can bet that CPIC and the CFRO have been worked to death over the Caledonia affair]. Police tell of 'too-soft' reaction to Caledonia crisis By ALLISON JONES, THE CANADIAN PRESS > http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/11/14/11743281-sun.html HAMILTON -- Police were confronted with hundreds of aboriginal protesters armed with sledgehammers, axes, bats and even a chainsaw when a land claim demonstration erupted into chaos in the southern Ontario community of Caledonia, court heard yesterday. The alarming details of the events of April 20, 2006 -- when a police raid on an aboriginal-occupied housing development set off a chain of events that saw road and railway lines blockaded and a bridge burned to the ground -- came as evidence in a $7-million lawsuit launched against Ontario and its provincial police force. Crown lawyer David Feliciant made numerous references to a report on the events in 1995 at Ipperwash Provincial Park, where native protester Dudley George was shot and killed by a police sniper. Six Nation protesters began occupying the site in late February 2006 and in March a court ordered they be removed. Police acted on April 20, 2006 and removed most of the people when hundreds more protesters began streaming back to the site, court heard from Insp. Brian Haggith. After the failed raid, the protesters erected barricades blocking the town's two main roads -- blockades that would stay up for about five weeks. The actions surrounding the blockades were "all unlawful," Haggith said. Haggith's interview touched on other incidents in which he described aboriginals committing crimes in actions unrelated to the land claim, and police not taking action. On one day in June 2006, protesters swarmed an elderly couple's car and the man had a heart attack. The same day, protesters attacked a TV cameraman. Haggith said he went to his superiors, saying these were acts of aggression that had nothing to do with the protesters a land claim right. "Arrests should have been made and they weren't (right away)," Haggith told his bosses. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:08:11 -0500 From: "bletchleypark" Subject: Re: Do I Really Need A Rifle?, Rob O'Flanagan, November 13, 2009 Jim: Absolutely excellent! Peter - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Szpajcher" To: Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:36 AM Subject: Fw: Do I Really Need A Rifle?, Rob O'Flanagan, November 13, 2009 > Sent this morning. > > ----- Original Message ----- > Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:31 AM > Subject: Re: Do I Really Need A Rifle?, Rob O'Flanagan, November 13, > 2009 > > Sir/Madam: > > Re: Do I Really Need A Rifle, Rob O'Flanagan, November 13, 2009 > > http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/Editorials/article/561467 > > I read, with interest, Rob O'Flanagan's nonsensical opinion piece on > firearms in Canada. He proclaims that he doesn't need a rifle. Then he > talks about guns which he owns in Saskatchewan - which he did not > register. Nor did he dispose of them legally or surrender them to the > police. His actions make him a criminal under the legislation that > originated with Bill C-68, introduced by the Liberals in 1994. > > If he doesn't need a rifle, then why has he not disposed of these > firearms, as required by law? If he doesn't need a rifle, then why were > the guns not sold and registered to owners who were properly licensed, > as required by law? > > Where I live, actions speak louder than words. > > I'd submit Mr. O'Flanagan knows, despite his slap at the NRA, the old > saying: "You never need a gun until you need a gun. And then you need > one real bad." > > And THAT is why Rob O'Flanagan has not given up his guns. > > The fact that he is not in immediate possession is irrelevant. The fact > that he knows where they are is everything. The fact that he would talk > about this in print, while proclaiming that one doesn't need guns in > Canada, is breathtakingly stupid. > > Then he proceeds to write: "I don't believe in arming oneself with a gun > for self-defence - not in Canada, not in Nigeria. I think the > consequences of killing another person, even to save your own life or > the lives of your family members, would be too devastating to live > with.I do believe owning a sexy handgun or semi-automatic assault weapon > is probably a very stupid and dangerous thing to do. If you are the kind > of person lusting after one of those pieces, you are probably the kind > of person that would use it if the opportunity arose. " > > Perhaps he could explain to the members of Canada's Police and Military > just how stupid and dangerous they are as they patrol our streets and > serve our country in war zones far from home. > > I'd suggest that Mr. O'Flanagan revisit his thoughts on the law, > firearms, and the role they play, before he tries to tell other > Canadians what to think. This is something that he clearly had not done > when he wrote his opinion piece. > > As a hunter, who carries a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence for > firearms, who walked the woods on our farm in Alberta this morning with > a registered rifle, I'm outraged that Rob O'Flanagan passes judgement on > other firearms owners in such a glib and fatuous manner, on the one > hand, while proclaiming himself a criminal, on the other. > > He has no moral authority speak on such matters. > > Jim Szpajcher > St. Paul, Alberta ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #554 *********************************** 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".)