Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, June 8 2010 Volume 13 : Number 897 In this issue: Gun bill is likely on hold for the summer. Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 Re: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 Re: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 Re: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 Toronto Police Union Wants The Long Gun Registry Re: Urgent Alert- C-391 C-391 and the ongoing debate Liberals aim to put a bullet in bill to scrap gun registry New video from Katey's Firearms Facts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, June 7, 2010 1:45 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Gun bill is likely on hold for the summer. To: "OUTDOORS CAUCUS ASSOCIATION" TILLSONBURG NEWS - JUNE 7, 2010 Gun bill on hold By JEFF HELSDON, Tillsonburg News http://www.tillsonburgnews.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2611618 Bill C-391, the private member's bill that could end Canada's long gun registry, is likely on hold for the summer. The bill, introduced by Conservative Candice Hoeppner, passed second reading with the support of 20 votes from Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament. It was then referred to committee for debate and a clause-by-clause examination. Oxford MP Dave MacKenzie is part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. After testimony by witnesses in May, the committee was slated to exam the bill clause by clause last Tuesday and Thursday. That was sidetracked when Liberal MP Mark Holland introduced a motion the bill not proceed. His motion read: "That this committee pursuant to Standing Order 97(.1) recommend that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), because the committee has heard sufficient testimony that the bill will dismantle the tool that promotes and enhances public security and the safety of Canadian police officers." The motion passed with all opposition members voting for it and government members voting against it. Now, Holland's motion will go back to Parliament to be voted on. MacKenzie said that was not likely to occur before summer recess. Holland's motion was introduced before Liberal amendments that would have decriminalized first offences for not registering a long gun and permanently dropping fees were introduced. "Essentially what it means is the Liberals and NDPs who didn't agree with the bill and wanted to see what the amendments were, don't have any wiggle room," MacKenzie said. "It's a straight up, straight down scenario where you vote for it or against it and there will be no amendments." If the House of Commons votes in favour of a concurrence motion endorsing Holland's motion, Bill C-391 is dead. If Holland's motion is defeated, the bill is referred to report stage and then amendments can be introduced. After that, the bill goes on to third reading. "Everything hinges on this concurrence motion," MacKenzie said. "Nothing can happen until that vote occurs." And MacKenzie said it's unlikely the vote will occur before summer recess. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:05:57 -0400 From: "enigma1" Subject: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 Rob: Thank you for stating your position in a clear and unequivocal manner. We have come to expect no less from someone whom we admire and who's opinion we respect. However, I must state in no uncertain terms that I find the attempt of certain members of this forum to take my comments out of context thereby changing their meaning. This is counterproductive and disingenuous. At no time did I accuse Mr. Muir of being "delusional". Nor was it my intention to disparage his efforts to achieve his goals by whatever means he deemed appropriate. As a matter of fact, in my "Post Script", I was most respectful and conciliatory. Unfortunately, this was not reciprocated. Like you, I view the passage of C-391 as a "small" positive step in the right direction. This is why I took exception to Mr.Muir's statement that he intended to attempt to sabotage those efforts by deliberately calling upon the NDP member and convincing him to vote against the Bill. This is essentially the very petty infighting that is the core reason the CFD and other firearms organizations will fail to achieve the powerful potential that could be within their grasp. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is not the "right step" in any direction. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Sciuk" To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:09 PM Subject: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 > >> Ed Hudson wrote: >> Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 >> >> > To: Al and any like-minded firearm owner. >> >> A point of clarification: >> >> Al Muir is the designated spokesperson for CUFOA. >> >> If Al Muir is to be considered "delusional" (as suggested in subsequent >> posting), please include the entire leadership of CUFOA instep with Al's >> delusion. >> >> We do not consider Bill C-391 "a good first step"; >> - - we consider Bill C-391 a fatal, final step. > > A caution, here. > > Al Muir is entitled to his opinions, as are we all. Personal invective > should not be a part of this discussion, as Mr. Hudson correctly implies, > because Al's beliefs are not frivolous, nor are they delusional. I know > that Al has put a lot of thought into his position, and it must be > respected. He has a lot on the line, and his opinion matters, whether > you agree or not. > > The problem we face is that we have no single organization, CUFOA, or any > other which can speak for the entire RFC, at least none that we ALL agree > upon. We must therefore support the organizations that we believe > represent our interests, and then, (this is important) also act as > individuals in accordance with our own beliefs. > > Personally, I believe C-391 would be a *small* win, but the ultimate goal > is to return to the FAC regime, drop Sec 91/92 from the criminal code, > and use a certificate to provide the politically requisite "gun > control". My efforts are focused towards that end. I'd like to believe > that there are those amoung us who support my position, but frankly, I > don't give a damn -- I will proceed regardless. This is what I > believe. > > Al's efforts cause me no harm, and add a different voice to the > discussion. This is good. > > As for C-391 being in any way harmful to the cause, I RESPECTFULLY > disagree provided that the RFC use it as a rallying point to repeal the > remainder of the Canadian Firearms Act. Given the fallback to > a "rational firearms control regime (FAC)", it is politically possible > to achieve this. I believe this to be true, and the means to do so is > simply evidence based legislation -- the auditor general is our friend. > > As I represent no person other than myself, I must act alone. Were we > all to act alone, but say the same (or similar) things, then perhaps we > might actually give life (or the appearance of such) to the > Powerful-Gun-Lobby which remains a figment of Wendy's imagination -- > largely because of our own infighting. > > Cheers, > Rob Sciuk. > > (NFA, CSSA, CILA, OFAH, RFOCBC, CUFOA, CFI ... pick one, any one, get > behind it, and start making noise!). > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:23:14 -0400 From: "enigma1" Subject: Re: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 - ----- Original Message ----- From: "RFOCBC 1" To: Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:24 PM Subject: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 > BTW, can anyone explain how any organization that favours restrictions on > gun-owners - such as Licensing or CFSC - can be considered pro > gun-ownership? > Kevin Sure, Kevin, I'll try. But don't be surprised if I get 'flamed' for being the bearer of bad news. You see, the world is not black and white nor functions in the vacuum of absolutes. It revolves on the axis of compromise. Heck, I hate compromise. I'd like to have everything my way. Who wouldn't? But that's just not realistic. The world HAS changed. Guns didn't used to be a subject on anyone's radar. Nobody really cared one way or the other. But then the leftist media jumped at every chance to exploit each story about a psycho with a grudge and a gun. Every feminist group in the 70's and 80's looking for a cause to hang their bra on sought to equate male dominance with gun power and set about to correct this evil sexploitation. Politicians, the cunning sharks that they are, smelled the blood in the waters of expediency. I think that spells GUN CONTROL. Each successive government wanting to appear concerned and responsive to the 'new chic' of victimhood helped fund Ad Hoc women's groups with lots of public cash to continue their bleating about their victimization at the hands of all those abusive, redneck, gun toting troggs. Bingo! More GUN CONTROL. Lets not even take into account the nefarious UN agenda of world civil disarmament. Man, it's getting tight. Where am I going with this winded historical diatribe? Well, Kevin, some of us "compromisers" see that the world ain't really gun friendly no more, if you get my drift. So, when a government offers you a crumb of food in a world of famine, you take what you can get and leave behind all those other folks who are wasting away, waiting for the banquet. We still love our guns. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:25:08 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 Mr. Muir, like myself and several others on this Digest, is indeed working for a 'licencing reversal'. So, Mr. Enigma1, perhaps I misunderstood. What did you say? Eduardo Edward B. Hudson Saskatoon (306) 242-2379 On 7-Jun-10, at 2:05 PM, enigma1 wrote: > >>>. > > At no time did I accuse Mr. Muir of being "delusional". On 6-Jun-10, at 2:01 AM, enigma1 wrote: > Anyone hoping for a > licencing reversal is completely delusional. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:34:12 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 At 06:23 PM 6/7/2010 -0400, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "RFOCBC 1" >To: >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:24 PM >Subject: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 > >> BTW, can anyone explain how any organization that favours restrictions >> on gun-owners - such as Licensing or CFSC - can be considered pro >> gun-ownership? > >> Kevin > > >Sure, Kevin, I'll try. But don't be surprised if I get 'flamed' for being >the bearer of bad news. You see, the world is not black and white nor >functions in the vacuum of absolutes. It revolves on the axis of >compromise. > >Heck, I hate compromise. I'd like to have everything my way. Who wouldn't? >But that's just not realistic. >Where am I going with this winded historical diatribe? Well, Kevin, some >of us "compromisers" see that the world ain't really gun friendly no more, >if you get my drift. So, when a government offers you a crumb of food in a >world of famine, you take what you can get and leave behind all those >other folks who are wasting away, waiting for the banquet. > >We still love our guns. I would strongly suggest you read "Confrontational Politics" By Richardson. Available from GOA for about $3.00 plus shipping. Mr. Richardson points out how the anti gun crowd use "compromise" to win just a little each round. In Canada it was the politicians who made the compromises - sacrificing gun owners on the altar of political correctness to appease the anti gun owner crowd. In every round of firearms legislation firearms owners compromised and lost a little or a lot. But every time they did loose. Gun owners also lost between rounds of legislation as a result of Orders in Council (OICs) because of pressure from the anti gun crowd. The politicians compromised and took away a portion from the gun owners each time. Bill C68(1995) was the worst ever because it outlawed the possession of firearms by amending sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal code of Canada to prohibit the possession of firearms - it then created the firearms license to allow folks to keep firearms despite of sections 91 and 92. Folks with firearms licenses keep their firearms at the pleasure ane whim of the minister of justice ( read section 117 of the firearms act of Canada). Folks who do not have a firearms license or have an expired firearms license and who are in possession of firearms are in contravention of the criminal code of Canada and subject to criminal charges. All some of us folks want is to have the mere possession of a firearm removed as a criminal offense under the criminal code. Remember there is no victim and the crime is going against the wish of the state. So compromise if you like and sacrifice gun owners class by class - I think I will continue to fight to keep my property and for the right for my children to inherit my property. I have devoted almost forty (40) years to getting REASONABLE firearms legislation enacted in Canada. I'm not going to quit now. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:52:45 -0700 From: RFOCBC 1 Subject: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 Well Mr. Chamberl... err, Enigma1, I guess you would never have shown up for D-Day. (Anniversary yesterday.) Please don't tell me that Dunkirk was a great victory. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gentlemen, so far this discourse has been very interesting and of a particular high decorum and free of Ad hominem argument. Please, let's keep it this way so as we all may learn and understand. CFD Moderator-DRGJ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BTW, I certainly do 'get your drift'. Apparently you believe that not opposing will somehow morph into a 'victory'. Silly me thought that one had to show up to win a fight. Kevin > From: enigma1@rogers.com > To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > Subject: Re: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:23:14 -0400 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "RFOCBC 1" > To: > Sent: Monday, June 07=2C 2010 2:24 PM > Subject: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 > > > BTW, can anyone explain how any organization that favours restrictions > > on gun-owners - such as Licensing or CFSC - can be considered pro > > gun-ownership? > > > Kevin > > > Sure, Kevin, I'll try. But don't be surprised if I get 'flamed' for being > the bearer of bad news. You see, the world is not black and white nor > functions in the vacuum of absolutes. It revolves on the axis of > compromise. > > Heck, I hate compromise. I'd like to have everything my way. Who > wouldn't? > But that's just not realistic. > > The world HAS changed. Guns didn't used to be a subject on anyone's > radar. > Nobody really cared one way or the other. But then the leftist media > jumped at every chance to exploit each story about a psycho with a grudge > and a gun. Every feminist group in the 70's and 80's looking for a cause > to hang their bra on sought to equate male dominance with gun power and > set about to correct this evil sexploitation. Politicians, the cunning > sharks that they are, smelled the blood in the waters of expediency. > > I think that spells GUN CONTROL. Each successive government wanting to > appear concerned and responsive to the 'new chic' of victimhood helped > fund Ad Hoc women's groups with lots of public cash to continue their > bleating about their victimization at the hands of all those abusive, > redneck, gun toting troggs. > > Bingo! > > More GUN CONTROL. Lets not even take into account the nefarious UN agenda > of world civil disarmament. Man, it's getting tight. > > Where am I going with this winded historical diatribe? Well, Kevin, some > of us "compromisers" see that the world ain't really gun friendly no > more, if you get my drift. So, when a government offers you a crumb of > food in a world of famine, you take what you can get and leave behind > all those other folks who are wasting away, waiting for the banquet. > > We still love our guns. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:11:11 -0400 From: "Ron Collins" Subject: Toronto Police Union Wants The Long Gun Registry http://www.newstalk1010.com/node/1148231 I heard the interview and my response would be: McCormack said "if it saves just one life it's worth keeping." McCormack, Blair et al are essentially saying that the police can determine from the registry when there are firearms in a residence. This may or may not be true and the police should be expected to take the necessary precautions regardless. My fear is that some inexperienced, unwary or just plain dumb police officer will actually rely on the registry as McCormack suggests and because of a negative registry query incorrectly conclude that there are no firearms present and with that false sense of security pay with his or her life. So the reality is that it's worth dismantling if it saves just one life. A police officer relying on registry information for the presence of firearms is a fool and regardless what McCormick, Blair et al I believe most front line officers realize this. In any event the licensing component should be a good indication of the presence of firearms. And because the restricted and prohibs would continue to require registration no doubt the gang bangers will be lining up to comply. Ron Collins ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:30:07 -0300 From: Al Muir Subject: Re: Urgent Alert- C-391 > Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:55:48 -0400 > From: "enigma1" > Subject: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 > > Now that the smoke has cleared and the various players can be identified > clearly along with their withering agendas, I will withdraw from any > further discussions on the merits of accepting Bill C-391 as a positive > step in a retrogressive environment. Understood but instead of the "merits" could you answer the questions asked about C-391. First, could you provide the section of the legislation that states data previously gathered will be destroyed? Second could you provide the section that states what information one would need to give when they make the required call to privately transfer a long gun? You have said that the passage of C-391 would mean your individual long guns could no longer to tied to yourself. Your answers to the above questions have a bearing on the correctness of that important statement. Al ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:53:57 -0600 (CST) From: "Howard R. Hamilton" Subject: C-391 and the ongoing debate I thought it was time to add some copper to the fire :) Al Muir and the gentlemen from CUFOA remind me of the Spartans, holding off the Persians in the Pass of Thermopylae. They are out gun, out numbered, and they know that they are going to lose, but still they stand and fight till the bitter end. Their courage is undaunted and their purpose is clear. But the force they fight is overwhelming. The socialist majority in the cities is too scared of everything to allow anyone but their beloved rulers to have any power, and a gun gives an individual the power to protect them self. Therefore, they will legislate our guns away. The few of us that still live out in the rural areas who know that a gun is just another tool that we use are out numbered, and can only fight a rear guard action in our retreat, to try an slow down the advancing hoard. C-391 is a small piece of what we would like to happen, and is a step in the right direction that gives us some good optics, because it is in everyone's face. From a media perspective, we will have won a battle, which sets up the actions for the next battle. It is not the final battle, unless every one of us wants to roll over and let it be the final battle. I for one, will not roll over at that point. And that next battle is getting sections 91 & 92 out of the criminal code. In discussions that I have had with my MP, the fact that owning a firearms must not be a criminal offense is still on the table as a possibility. Even the Liberals under Iggy have broached this as a possibility. But the CPC need a majority to push a law like that through. Look at all of the flak that has gone up to prevent the visible registry from being dismantled. But, licensing in some form or other is here to stay with us, unless you can change the opinion of a lot of city slickers that are clueless, and like to suck on the tit of the government. And that is not something that I can see happening anytime soon. BUZ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, June 8, 2010 7:59 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Liberals aim to put a bullet in bill to scrap gun registry GLOBE AND MAIL - JUNE 8, 2010 Liberals aim to put a bullet in bill to scrap gun registry Jane Taber's Ottawa Notebook http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-aim-to - -put-a-bullet-in-bill-to-scrap-gun-registry/article1596013/ The Ignatieff Liberals are redoubling their efforts to save the long-gun registry, introducing a motion in the House of Commons this morning to keep the registry intact. Liberal Public Safety critic Mark Holland devised the motion — that the House should not proceed with the Conservative bill to destroy the registry — as a way to circumvent the Harper Tories' efforts. After he presents it, his motion will eventually have one hour of debate in the Commons and then it will be voted on; if it passes, the gun registry will live another day. “I think they (the Conservatives) are losing the information campaign right now,” says Mr. Holland, noting that police have come out strongly in favour of the usefulness of the registry. However, he said he believes that there is some foot-dragging on the part of the government on this bill: “I think the real issue here is they are much interested in playing politics with this as long as they can maybe even into a next election,” said Mr. Holland. “They are far more interested in that than actually scrapping the registry.” Meanwhile, if Mr. Holland’s motion fails, the House will vote on Manitoba Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner’s private member’s bill to abolish the controversial registry. That bill has been in the committee after it passed second reading last November with the help of eight Liberal MPs and 12 New Democrats. This has been a highly contentious piece of legislation, especially for the Liberals who brought in the gun registry under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien — and at considerable political cost. Since the November vote, the leadership of both opposition parties has been working on their members, who supported the government, to change their votes on third and final reading. In fact, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he he will whip the vote, meaning that any of his MPs who do not vote with him will face discipline. It is usually not the practice for a party leader to whip a vote on a private member’s bill. It appears the NDP will not whip their members, but they are hoping some acceptable amendments will come out of the committee that could change their members’ votes. Still, if the 12 NDP MPs support the government, the registry will die. Now, this could all be rendered moot by the machinations of the Liberals — if the Holland motion passes, then the registry will survive. In the Commons during Question Period Monday, Ms. Hoeppner accused the opposition of “political game-playing” with her bill. "The NDP, Liberal and Bloc coalition joined forces and passed a motion that would keep the wasteful and completely ineffective long-gun registry intact,” she said. “This motion (the Holland motion) proves that when it comes to the long-gun registry, this coalition is more interested in political games than representing their constituents.” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews replied: “The choice is now clear, even to the member for Malpeque (Liberal MP Wayne Easter, who voted for the bill on second reading, but appears to have changed his mind and will vote against it), they either vote to keep the long-gun registry or they vote to scrap the long-gun registry. No more political games by members … the constituents deserve better.” ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:57:35 -0700 From: Christopher di Armani Subject: New video from Katey's Firearms Facts Just to let you all know Katey Montague, Bruce's daughter, has released a couple of new videos on her Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/kateysfirearmsfacts The first is about the recent beating death of an 18-year-old by seven Toronto Police constables. The second is about Bill C-391 and Ignatief's motivations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-w8SYHjz2U Enjoy! - -- Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com http://www.diArmani.com Check out the latest from Katey Montague athttp://www.YouTube.com/KateysFirearmsFacts ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #897 *********************************** 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".)