Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, April 19 2010 Volume 13 : Number 817 In this issue: Re: Hundreds of faulty RCMP Tasers destroyed [Excerpt] Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation [Fwd: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation] Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation If only everyone was ethical Re:Property Rights- Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #816 NFA: T97A Compensation for Confiscation: ... National Post: Ignatieff moves to save gun registry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:18:53 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Hundreds of faulty RCMP Tasers destroyed [Excerpt] Well thats pretty serious stuff? Its the current that kills,, not then voltage ed/on - ----- Original Message ----------------------------------- From: "Lee Jasper" To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 9:41 PM Subject: Hundreds of faulty RCMP Tasers destroyed [Excerpt] > [Our Accountable gov't was vigilant on behalf of average Joe smuck with > this burning issue, oh sure. The thing that's doubly frightening is that > the Mounties weren't ahead of the problem. Let me get it straight, the > Mounties and other police forces have been leaving quality control up to > Taser International. Gosh might we guess that Taser International's > interests diverge from yours and mine]? > > Hundreds of faulty RCMP Tasers destroyed > > By THE CANADIAN PRESS > >> http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/04/18/13630601-cp.html > > OTTAWA - The RCMP has destroyed or retired hundreds of Tasers after > laboratory tests found some Mountie stun guns were not performing > properly. >snipped< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:20:25 -0700 From: Bob Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:55:43 -0600 (CST), you wrote: |>Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:00:08 -0400 |>From: "bletchleypark" |>Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation |>Ex-cuuuse me but isn't the T-97 a bullpup design? Wasn't the bullpup |>already PROHIBITED by C-68? That's right, but the question is WHY is a "bullpup design" illegal? If a gun LOOKS menacing, the citizens can't have it, flash hiders, barrel shrouds, even Rodney Mofat's decorative space gun had a problem with some nutz. |>By the way, does one need an PAL to purchase a crossbow? [AsstMod: RAM: Note: Answer is NO! This has been answered many times. Maybe not, they are not listed on the PAL anymore, but you can make a 600lb pull crossbow from a gunstock and a leaf spring from any older car.......if your going elephant hunting. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:47:44 -0600 (CST) From: cfdmod@bogend.ca Subject: [Fwd: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation] Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation From: "Michael or Cathy Martinoff" Date: Sun, April 18, 2010 12:47 pm To: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Cc: "CILA National Office" I wouldn't be surprised if the bureaucracy sets a deadline by which a person who wants compensation must transfer ownership of his firearm to the bureaucracy, in return for the compensation. Having done that, a person who received compensation might have a hard time convincing a provincial court to cancel the notice of revocation of his registration certificate. The bureaucracy's plan would be that people who instead went to court would see the deadline for application for compensation pass by. If the bureaucracy were to do that, I suppose that it could be argued in court that once the bureaucracy announces a compensation program, discrimination against people who want to exercise their legal right to go to court to retain their registration certificates, which are "defences against criminal prosecution" [Morgentaler] would be a violation of "due process of law". Maybe the things to do in the circumstances would be to refer the revocation to the provincial court as soon as possible and apply for the compensation before the deadline (with whatever reservations may be necessary) and refuse to discontinue the provincial court proceedings - and let the provincial court judge sort it out. Judges would not likely be happy about a bureaucracy's attempting to coerce some citizens into abandoning their legal rights in court in order to join others in receiving compensation. Michael - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:48 PM Subject: CSSA: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION - APRIL 17, 2010 > http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/04/compensation_for_t97.html > > T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > > In interesting news yesterday, the Ministry of Public Safety has agreed > that compensation would be paid in the case of confiscation. > > The CSSA applauds this small step forward, and applauds the Minister for > taking it, but wishes to remind members that the fight is far from over. > Compensation does not make confiscation acceptable. >snipped< [AsstMod-RAM: This entire Post has been posted in it's entirety several times and has been shortened. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, April 18, 2010 12:47 pm From: "Michael or Cathy Martinoff" Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation I wouldn't be surprised if the bureaucracy sets a deadline by which a person who wants compensation must transfer ownership of his firearm to the bureaucracy, in return for the compensation. Having done that, a person who received compensation might have a hard time convincing a provincial court to cancel the notice of revocation of his registration certificate. The bureaucracy's plan would be that people who instead went to court would see the deadline for application for compensation pass by. If the bureaucracy were to do that, I suppose that it could be argued in court that once the bureaucracy announces a compensation program, discrimination against people who want to exercise their legal right to go to court to retain their registration certificates, which are "defences against criminal prosecution" [Morgentaler] would be a violation of "due process of law". Maybe the things to do in the circumstances would be to refer the revocation to the provincial court as soon as possible and apply for the compensation before the deadline (with whatever reservations may be necessary) and refuse to discontinue the provincial court proceedings - and let the provincial court judge sort it out. Judges would not likely be happy about a bureaucracy's attempting to coerce some citizens into abandoning their legal rights in court in order to join others in receiving compensation. Michael - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" To: "Firearms Digest" Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 10:48 PM Subject: CSSA: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION - APRIL 17, 2010 > http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/04/compensation_for_t97.html > > T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > > In interesting news yesterday, the Ministry of Public Safety has agreed > that compensation would be paid in the case of confiscation. > > The CSSA applauds this small step forward, and applauds the Minister for > taking it, but wishes to remind members that the fight is far from over. > Compensation does not make confiscation acceptable. > > The CSSA/CILA does not support ANY confiscations of ANY kind. The > decision to pay compensation for the seized T-97's merely represents > a portion of the accountability the CSSA has demanded from government, > as a consequence of the decisions made by government. This represents > a considerable change in policy from previous governments and raises > the bar on future decisions to confiscate the T-97's from Lever Arms > and Canada Ammo. > > For those that do not follow our legislative efforts, the CSSA/CILA > has been actively engaged for well over eighteen months in trying to > avert confiscation and re-classification/re-evaluation efforts by the > RCMP. Our effort, and the efforts of others, were able to keep those > RCMP initiatives at bay until recently. > > We have not been informed if there are any conditions to the > compensation as may be required by the Treasury Board and have been > led to believe compensation will be in full. This move by the > government, in no way, diminishes our efforts to prevent future > confiscations nor does it prevent current T-97 owners from pursuing > the issue in court and to all who choose to engage in a Reference > Hearing, we wish them success. As well, the owners of these T-97's > should continue to demand a full disclosure of the report prohibiting > the guns. > > There are still some 3,000+ firearms caught in limbo by the RCMP and rest > assured, the CSSA/CILA will make every effort to ensure those firearms are > released to the civilian market with appropriate classifications. > > Tony Bernardo > > Canadian Institute for Legislative Action > "Defending Canada's Heritage" > P. 905-571-2150 > F. 905-436-7721 > abernardo343@rogers.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:03:46 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation Thanks, Ed. I expect this is going to drag on for some time. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* > From: mred@295.ca > To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:02:10 -0400 > > Good luck and all success in your endeavor...ed/on > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Trigger Mortis" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 1:28 PM > Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation > > > The crossbow was originally included in the firearms license as a > > non-restricted item. It was never declared in force and still is not > > part of the licensing system to my knowledge. So to answer your > > question no license required for the crossbow. THAT is for the full > > size crossbow. There was a dinky pistol type of crossbow which is a > > prohibited weapon. I think that is courtesy of Kim Campbell. > > > > As I understand the bullpup question the law states that you cannot > > convert a regular stock long-gun to bull-pup configuration by > > installing a bull-pup stock. If it comes from the factory as a bull- > > pup gun then there is no conversion and therefore not prohibited. > > > > I will be attending provincial court tomorrow in Kingston Ontario re > > the revocation of my registration certificate for my High Standard > > model 10B shotgun (bull-pup stock from the factory). That's at > > courtroom #3279 Wellington St. > > > > I expect to be in and out in 5 minutes. It is the first hearing and I > > expect that it will be transferred to federal court so adjournment is > > expected. I have been advised not to talk about the case until it is > > settled. Rest assured I will have plenty to say then. > > > > Alan Harper > > > > alan__harper@hotmail.com > > > > SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM > > > > ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:11:58 -0500 From: "Larry Neufeld" Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation You do not need a PAL to purchase a crossbow. I believe that there were plans to treat crossbows the same as long guns but it did not get implemented. From: bletchleypark Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 8:00 PM Ex-cuuuse me but isn't the T-97 a bullpup design? Wasn't the bullpup already PROHIBITED by C-68? Just asking. By the way, does one need an PAL to purchase a crossbow? Peter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:47:52 -0600 From: "John R" Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation Reference: Near S.84CC Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No.3 #7 Prohibited = crossbow that can be aimed and fired by the action of one hand...or has a length not exceeding 500mm. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of Trigger Mortis Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 11:28 AM To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation The crossbow was originally included in the firearms license as a non-restricted item. It was never declared in force and still is not part of the licensing system to my knowledge. So to answer your question no license required for the crossbow. THAT is for the full size crossbow. There was a dinky pistol type of crossbow which is a prohibited weapon. I think that is courtesy of Kim Campbell. As I understand the bullpup question the law states that you cannot convert a regular stock long-gun to bull-pup configuration by installing a bull-pup stock. If it comes from the factory as a bull-pup gun then there is no conversion and therefore not prohibited. I will be attending provincial court tomorrow in Kingston Ontario re the revocation of my registration certificate for my High Standard model 10B shotgun (bull-pup stock from the factory). That's at courtroom #3279 Wellington St. I expect to be in and out in 5 minutes. It is the first hearing and I expect that it will be transferred to federal court so adjournment is expected. I have been advised not to talk about the case until it is settled. Rest assured I will have plenty to say then. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:47:55 -0600 From: "John R" Subject: RE: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation Agreed, it's the stock not the weapon that is prohibited. I see lately that some of you like references so see Part 4, Regulations prescribing certain firearms...as prohibited or restricted (the Regulation's name is too long for me to type here, hence the...). Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No.9., #2 (In most Criminal Codes near section 84). - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of Bruce Mills Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:47 AM To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Re: T-97s, Confiscation and Compensation - --- On Sun, 4/18/10, bletchleypark wrote: > Ex-cuuuse me but isn't the T-97 a bullpup design? Wasn't > the bullpup already PROHIBITED by C-68? The bullpup *stock* has been prohibited by OIC; this does not include guns that come with the bullpup stock as an integral part of the design of the gun (except the evil G22, that is). Yours in TYRANNY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:31:52 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: If only everyone was ethical From our discussion of the Tea Partiers: Populist 'free us from the shackles' measures are tried but invariably the divergent interests of opposing forces results in the abuse of the masses (and even the collapse of the world economic order) and the cry goes out - protect us from these predators. The very day after I noted SOME OF the problems, these items were posted in the media. Serious problems found at Massey mines since blast > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-16-mine-explosion_N.htm CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Federal inspectors turned up more than 60 serious safety violations at Massey Energy operations after the explosion that killed 29 miners at the company's Upper Big Branch mine, federal mine safety records show. Inspectors visited more than 30 underground Massey coal mines in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia after the April 5 blast, according to records from the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The agency has tentatively blamed preventable accumulations of explosive methane gas and coal dust for the worst U.S. coal mining disaster since 1970. - -- Massey Energy: 600 Safety Violations in Year and a Half By Tanya Roth on April 8, 2010 > http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2010/04/massey-energy-amassed-many-safety-violations.html The questions over safety standards at the Massey Energy Corporation's Upper Big Branch coal mine have begun. By April 7, it was reported that the company had been cited for 600 safety violations in less than a year and a half. Some of these violations were in connection with the failure to properly ventilate methane, the gas thought responsible for this week's massive explosion. - -- Goldman Sachs Charged With Fraud SEC Alleges Firm Misled Investors on Securities Linked to Subprime Mortgages; Major Escalation in Showdown With Wall Street By GREGORY ZUCKERMAN, SUSANNE CRAIG and SERENA NG > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187920845670844.html?mod=WSJ_Markets_section_Deals Goldman Sachs Group Inc.—one of the few Wall Street titans to thrive during the financial crisis—was charged with deceiving clients by selling them mortgage securities secretly designed by a hedge-fund firm run by John Paulson, who made a killing betting on the housing market's collapse. Regulators say Goldman allowed Mr. Paulson's firm, Paulson & Co., to help design a financial investment known as a CDO, or collateralized debt obligation, built out of a specific set of risky mortgage assets — essentially setting up the CDO for failure. Paulson then bet against it, while investors in the CDO weren't told of Paulson's role or intentions. Mr. Paulson earned $4 billion in 2007 for correctly betting on a housing collapse. The SEC lawsuit likely strengthens the position of President Barack Obama as he tries to push financial-overhaul legislation through Congress. He vowed Friday to veto any version of the bill that doesn't bring the derivatives market "under control." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:25:03 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re:Property Rights- Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #816 I disagree, we would still be in this constant battle but at least we'd have a leg or two to stand on. It would also be easier to rally around a listed right rather than an intuitive Common-Law, Natural one. The educational institutions and MSM seem to have stopped transmitting our cultural and political heritage about 20-25 years ago. For example last week I found out our Dept. of Education now classes a score of 30-39 as a D minus. Failing grades simply don't exist anymore. The chance of Western Civilization surviving the next 50 years is down to about 50/50. On 19-Apr-10, at 2:35 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:09:18 -0400 > From: "mred" > Subject: Re: Could she? > > I like your attitude Len, but it's not just about guns ? It's about > the right to own property, any property, and THATS what its all about. > > If we had property rights we wouldnt be in this constant battle for > our own property (guns) ...ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 19, 2010 10:20 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: NFA: T97A Compensation for Confiscation: ... Canada's National Firearms Association For Immediate Release 19 April 2010 NFA: T97A Compensation for Confiscation: IT'S TIME TO REIN IN THE MOUNTIES. The Government of Canada has announced that it will pay compensation to licensed owners of registered Chinese T97A carbines, if those owners surrender those firearms in compliance with the registration revocation notices sent to them by RCMP. These confiscations were originally to be facilitated with no compensation to the owners, as is standard practise in Canada when it comes to firearms. However, thanks to your polite and persistent pressure we did manage to convince the government that there were important issues in play here, particularly regarding private property rights. Unfortunately the Minister of Public safety appears to be convinced by RCMP that these registered firearms in the hands of licensed owners still constitute a threat to public safety. We still need to present a case effectively disputing RCMP's claims about T97A. The Minister's offer of compensation is not a solution to the problem. Some T97A owners may be satisfied by the compensation offered by the government; however, others will not be and they will continue with the reference hearings now being organized with the assistance of NFA. The issue of the two seized importer shipments still has not been addressed at this time. Canada's National Firearms Association is encouraged that the government has recognized the negative effects of RCMP's unilateral reclassification and has decided to deal with it, but the compensation offered doesn't solve the problem. RCMP approved the firearm for import and sale in Canada. On good faith and based on that approval, shipments of T97As were imported and these firearms were sold, transferred, and registered to licensed individuals . Unsurprisingly, this facilitated further shipments. Apparently, the seizures and reclassifications are based on a mysterious report that the RCMP will not share with anyone. It is unacceptable that RCMP can seize firearms without providing any reason beyond a vague claim of danger to society. This seemingly arbitrary action by the RCMP places both the Conservative government of Canada and the firearms community in a very awkward position. Is the RCMP on its own able to decide which firearms are to be prohibited without control by the Minister ? The government's decision to compensate will not end the controversy created by the RCMP's actions. Now more than ever is the time to ask the Minister of Public Safety who is in charge of firearms policy in Canada: Is it the government or the RCMP? This is not a win for the firearms community, it's not a win for the government, and the RCMP has tarnished its reputation yet again. With this compensation arrangement, the confiscations of T97A firearms will continue, but now Canadian taxpayers get to pay for it. Surely the Minister of Public Safety and the Government of Canada now understand this problem. It's up to us to make sure that they solve it. - - 30 - Contact: Canada's National Firearms Association Attention: Blair Hagen or Sheldon Clare 780-439-1394 www.nfa.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, April 19, 2010 10:25 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: National Post: Ignatieff moves to save gun registry NATIONAL POST - APRIL 19, 2010 Ignatieff moves to save gun registry Janice Tibbetts, Canwest news Service http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2925107 OTTAWA - Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made a pitch on Monday to save the federal gun registry by proposing changes aimed to unify the party's fractured stand and satisfy opponents on the Liberal benches who voted to scrap the contentious databank. Mr. Ignatieff said he would like to make it easier for firearms owners to register their long guns by streamlining the paperwork, removing renewal fees, and making it a ticketing offence, rather than a criminal one, for first-timers who fail to participate. "It would be wrong to ignore the frustration and legitimate criticisms we have heard about the gun registry in rural Canada, in northern Canada, in remote Canada," Mr. Ignatieff told a gathering of the Canadian Police Association. The Liberal party created the registry as a key element of an expansive gun-control package and the Harper Conservatives have repeatedly promised to scrap it. Conservative backbencher Candice Hoeppner introduced a private member's bill last year to eliminate the registry and it passed by a 164-137 margin, with the help of Liberals and New Democrats, in a preliminary vote in the House of Commons in November. The proposed bill now moves to the all-party public safety committee for hearings before returning to the Commons for a final vote. The committee holds its first meeting on the registry on Tuesday. Mr. Ignatieff, who permitted a free vote among his MPs the last time around, said he will whip the vote next time so that his caucus is unanimous in its opposition. It is unclear whether the forced unified stance would defeat the bill since only eight Liberals sided with Ms. Hoeppner last time, joined by 12 New Democrats and one independent. NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party will also propose amendments to Ms. Hoeppner's bill, but he would not comment on whether he will whip his MPs to vote against the bill otherwise. Ms. Hoeppner appealed to Liberals who supported the bill last year -- mainly from rural areas -- to vote with their constituents in mind, not their leader. "I think if they personally oppose the long-gun registry and their constituents oppose the long-gun registry, they certainly should vote against it," she said. "I would think it only makes sense that they should follow through." The bill would eliminate the need to register rifles and shotguns. The requirement to register handguns would remain in place. The registry is separate from gun licensing, which permits owners to have firearms, but does not require them to list their possessions. The registry was introduced more than 14 years ago as part of a wider gun-control package, largely after lobbying efforts by the families of victims of the 1989 Montreal massacre, when Marc Lepine used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique. Police, who normally side with the Harper government on law-and-order initiatives, have been at odds with the Conservatives over the program, maintaining it is an important crime-fighting tool that they use often. Ms. Hoeppner said the Mr. Ignatieff's proposals show the Liberal leader is out of touch with rural Canadians, who oppose the government keeping tabs on long guns and would not be satisfied by a more streamlined process. "It gets back to the idea of how creating this list of firearms owners will somehow stop crime," said Hoeppner. Police, however, say that the registry saves lives and that they tap into it more than 10,000 times a day. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #817 *********************************** 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".)