Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, June 10 2010 Volume 13 : Number 905 In this issue: Why no compromise? Re: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office RE: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office THE MARK: How to Fix Canada's Political Parties: The Conservatives Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 - Explanation Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #904 Re: Come on, boys 'Vigilante shopkeeper' cites Charter in his defence-NP I will defend to the death your right to say it ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:09:25 -0700 From: "Fred Hoenisch" Subject: Why no compromise? To those in support of the 'small step' compromise approach, perhaps some benefit could be obtained by stepping back for a moment and OBJECTIVELY consider why the 'Spartan types' (me included) may be so entrenched in their opposition to 'flexibility'? In other words, this is an opportunity to better understand the other side's point of view. 1. Experience over the years supporting various gun groups Some groups and their leaders had/have political and personal agendas. Thus, they demonstrated their hearts weren't really into protecting individual gun rights ("the common goal" often touted in this forum). They were only interested in promoting THEIR agendas: to be Canada's voice for gun owners, to get elected, to get money, increase membership, etc. Been burned and fooled too many times, and now overtly challenge anyone claiming to support gun owners to expose what their 'true' intentions are. 2. Have personally experienced 'abuses of power' In a month, how many articles on this digest discuss corruption/abuse of power by 'authorities'? Some here have seen it first hand - and you want/expect them to compromise? Would you ask a misdiagnosed patient to go back to the same doctor? Would you ask an abused aboriginal to go back to church? Would you ask the parent's of a rape victim to trust a stranger, etc .? 3. Link history with today Over the last hundred years, how many times were civilian guns confiscated prior to a horrific situation? I'd suggest that some here may be a little more interested in history; and therefore, may be more 'attuned' to seeing those links than others. I don't know how many people got to reading the bottom of this post - but I hope it offered a little perspective and appreciation of why some of us may be 'tainted'(?) and not quite so willing to offer anymore. Fred in Saanich. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:15:16 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Re: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:51:43 -0600 > From: 10x@telus.net > Subject: Re: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office > > At 01:45 AM 6/10/2010 -0300, you wrote: > >> I cannot get over how bright the boys from the CSSA are. They have a >> "Conservative" working for them to get something from the Conservative >> Party. I wonder if this one will get as much attention as the firearm >> raffle. >> > > Their new employee is a disgraced C.P.C. staffer who said the wrong thing. > I'm not sure how that can be regarded as an asset in public relations. He didn't lie!! He's was just guilty of being too politically incorrect for someone writing for an MP. His mistake was in 'publicly' referring to the police chiefs, and Police Associations support of the registry, as being 'cult like'... Which it actually is! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:33:49 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: RE: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office I fully agree with Mr. di Armani. Those remarks are not a disgrace. They are the exact truth. Letting the chips fall where they may led the bleating left wing to call them a disgrace, but screw them. I am saying those remarks were true and accurate. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:12:43 -0700 > From: christopher@diarmani.com > To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > Subject: Re: CSSA opens Ottawa communications office > > > In the news release, Breitkreuz said defenders of the long-gun registry > > are "like a cult that is led by organizations of police chiefs who > > pretend the registry helps them do their jobs." > > > > The release also said "pro-registry groups such as the Coalition for Gun > > Control and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are politically > > motivated lobby groups that derive financial support from pro-registry > > sources." > > > > A quote is then attributed to Breitkreuz which says, "Their positions are > > tainted and suspect in my view, because their endorsement can be bought." > > Well, *telling the truth* can hardly be called a disgrace, even if its > political fallout cost Mr. Scott his job. He wasn't lying no matter how > loudly Iggy protests. Over the years we've proven those statements to be > fact. > > -- > > Yours in Liberty, > > Christopher di Armani > christopher@diArmani.com > http://www.diArmani.com > > Check out the latest from Katey Montague at > http://www.YouTube.com/KateysFirearmsFacts > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, June 10, 2010 12:52 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: THE MARK: How to Fix Canada's Political Parties: The Conservatives THE MARK - JUNE 10, 2010 http://www.themarknews.com/ How to Fix Canada's Political Parties: The Conservatives In the first of a three-part series, six conservative thinkers suggest one idea each for how the Conservative Party can break Canada's political gridlock and reengage the electorate. Stay tuned for a look at the NDP tomorrow and the Liberals on Thursday. The Conservatives need to demonstrate that they have a national vision & dash; and then follow through. by Keith Beardsley, Government relations strategist; former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff for issues management to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. http://www.themarknews.com/series/13-how-to-fix-canada-s-political-parties-t he-conservatives/articles/1548-articulate-a-vision COMMENT #1: Dennis R. Young You're right Keith but policies attracting voters from Quebec and from large urban centres will only be successful if they don't go overboard and alienate their western and their rural base of support in the process. Harper would be wise to go back and read his Alberta Firewall letter and share his vision for Canada and quest for power with the provinces. Harper's rural base is already disillusioned with his decision to equate his 2002 leadership campaign promise to repeal Bill C-68 (meaning the entire Firearms Act) with his government's efforts to repeal the long-gun registry; thereby, keeping the worst and most expensive part of the Liberal's useless gun laws intact. Here's a quote from a post in yesterday's Canadian Firearms Digest: "Persuading them to trust in the Conservative "White Knight" led them into a party whose official position is more hostile to them than was Kim Campbell. Irony abounds." It can be easily fixed but Harper has to start listening and stop assuming his rural and western base has nowhere else to go (his words). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:03:11 -0400 From: "enigma1" Subject: Re: Urgent Alert - C-391 - Explanation - ----- Original Message ----- From: "RFOCBC 1" To: Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:35 PM Subject: RE: Urgent Alert - C-391 - Explanation > Dear 'hide behind an alias', > > I'm afraid that you are quite mistaken in your beliefs. Firstly, the CFD > has never been a 'friendly forum' - quite the contrary. There have been > very many, angry and venomous postings that have often led to individuals > leaving this forum. Since you managed to depict yourself so accurately -- angry, venomous -- perhaps you should leave and seek anger management and then return to this forum and conduct yourself with decorum. It would be so refreshing. > > Secondly, YOU were the instigator of this current brouhaha by referencing > those who wish to reverse the firearms Licensing laws as "completely > delusional". Apparently you can give but cannot take. It was my opinion then and it remain so. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not give you license to hound and harrass them until they yield to your crude tactics. > > Thirdly, it is perfectly correct to link certain behaviours with names > from history. Ponzi, Boycott, and Chamberlain immediately spring to mind. > As said, if the shoe fits..... It doesn't. Nor does it entitle you to smear by comparison. If that is the best that you can offer by rebuttal then I would hazard to guess that the match point is mine. > > Fourthly, the historical bias of the 'Moderator' - no scratch that - the > historical bias of Dave Jordan, added to the stew. Letting your > name-calling - "completely delusional" - be considered acceptable, while > admonishing my retort is the complete antithesis of the definition of > 'Moderator'. > Au contraire, mon ami! The essence of the word "delusional" was meant to be generic. You have made it intensely personal. I certainly cannot be held responsible for your error. Furthermore, it is completely disengenous of you to criticize the Moderateror as being "bias" when you have displayed nothing but. Mr. Jordan has a very unenviable task of managing not only the many difficult issues in his personal life but also allocate enough time to devote to the forum. Perhaps, if you take exception to his performance, I suggest that you might offer your services. That said, if you should actually decide to contribute something positive to this forum in that manner, you should be prepared to leave your soap box behind. > BTW, the Mr Jordan seems to be confused between 'metaphor' and 'ad > hominem'. But that's another issue. "Another issue"? If you throw down the gauntlet, have the intestinal fortitude to complete the challenge. Mr. Jordan may be many things but confused he is not. That title obviously belongs squarely at your feet. > > Fifthly, you seem to find it acceptable to call me 'completely delusional' > but recoil when called 'treasonous'. Bit of a double-standard, eh wot? Desist from making false statements. I, at no time, stated that YOU were delusional (see above). Although, after embroiling me in this nonsensically, protracted debate, I may develop second thoughts. Furthermore, if someone is really "delusional", some might find reason to forgive on the basis of diminished mental function. However, "treasonous" action is cognitively wilful and is intended to being death or grievous harm to your countrymen and bring comfort to the enemy in times of war. You should know better the difference. > > And finally, (and true to form) the question of how can an individual or > organization be considered pro-firearms-ownership when they support > restrictions on gun-ownership is sidestepped and goes unanswered. To give light to this important subject matter in a mere paragraph would be an injustice. If you fail to understand the significance of that statement I can offer you only my condolances for your loss of logic capacity. I am on record as stating that licensing is abhorrent. As stated by Mr. Suick, Mr. Jordan and many other reasonably minded members, a return to pre C-68 certification would be prefered. However, all reasonably minded individuals also recognize the simple fact that the political climate in Canada would arrest any attempt to do so. Period. If we are to garner any support for our commitment to the LEGAL use and possession of firearms in our country with reasonable conditions attached such as background checks and safety training, we have to achieve that course of action piecemeal. I again state that in MY opinion C-391 is a positive first step that hopefully will invite a second. Sadly, with no promise of a third. But I did state earlier that I was a pragmatist. > Like others, I wonder who you really are. > If I told you, I'd have to ............ > Kevin > [MOD NOTE: This will be the end of this thread. Any future messages on this topic will not be sent to the list. The enemy is in Ottawa gentlemen. Moderator-CA] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:03:54 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #904 Rob; Yes, generally speaking the Judiciary are not sympathetic to our cause. I understand that. In fact, one of the Professor's of Constitutional Law with whom I discussed these issues, and who knew them personally described them as living in an 'Ivory Tower'. They're people who do not understand the reality of life in rural areas or even in the rough areas of the city. Access to an Oakes Test means that evidence is to be weighed and used to justify their decisions. The onus is then on the government to justify their laws and regulations. A provincially governed "Right to Hunt" provides that access. When that becomes public record for them to rule against the evidence brings the administration of justice into disrepute. They become reluctant to do that. Now we have the internet and popular Blogs to hold the MSM's feet to the fire. Al, yes, to act prejudicially against individual citizens like Bruce and Donna or even yourself is easy for them to do. You and they don't have anyone in power backing you up. No sympathetic media not even a group of lawyers. In fact in Ontario ordinary citizens owning firearms are one of the favourite scapegoats of the provincial and the city governments. One reason it would not be my first choice from where to launch a challenge. The Supremes would not lightly treat a provincial government that was standing up for the rights of it's citizens that way. The best evidence of that was a key part of my argument to the Professor, namely that of the validity of a Referendum on Constitutional change brought by the province of Quebec. They agreed to that with conditions. Conditions that the prairie provinces and perhaps the Maritimes, could meet. Now the referendum decision was to keep the Peace with a province that was standing up for itself. You are thinking what about the provinces court challenge to C-68? The Prof. laughed and said "They weren't serious, Larry." at the Saskatchewan government's factum. The other provinces had put more into their individual factums but not much. They would not have met a "standard of care" for such a case. By that time the 'surrender monkeys' had taken over the populist resistance organizations. They knew the 'surrender monkeys' (appeasers) would not ever challenge them or even figure out the ruse. (an aside, the Reformation and Martin Luther, he survived, as did his cause only because the Prince of Saxony, stood with his people, backed him up against the large and powerful. See the movie Luther (2003), with Peter Ustinov as the Prince and Joseph Fiennes as Luther.) Note the Prof. did not think the case would have been won in the way that it was done but that their challenge was obviously not serious but only for political cover. The same bureaucrats are still in power last time I checked. No one challenges them. It took me four years and two relevant S.C.C. decisions for me to figure out how to do it and the good Prof. to point out the relevant technical aspects of the process. ================================================================= Al, I'm not saying reasonable necessarily would not be acceptable in Ont. and Quebec, only they won't lead. They have a much more 'totalitarian' political orientation than do the prairies, or perhaps even the Maritimes. Only if a party needing rural support to attain or keep power will it be accepted in Ontario. The story about the farmer being chased by a black bear only confirms my point that the Spring Bear hunt is a litmus test for rural Ontario's political influence. On 10-Jun-10, at 10:53 AM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > >> From: Larry James Fillo >> What regulatory regime is acceptable is an interesting academic, >> theoretical exercise but: >> >> "1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the >> rights and >> Freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits >> prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and >> democratic society." >> >> Can the regulatory regime pass an Oake's Test or not? That is the >> only wording that gets us where we need to be. >> >> In any discussion ask the person or politician "Subject to such >> reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably >> justified in a >> free and democratic society." Could they live with that? >> >> Everything else subjects citizens to endless abuse, to that which is >> unreasonable. >> > > Larry, > > To date, the judiciary has not been particularly sympathetic with > respect > to personal freedoms over government (over) regulation. Indeed, > while you > are correct in your interpretation, your mileage may differ in > court. As > the courts have been stacked by progressives, it turns out that > firearm > confiscation is "deemed reasonable", and the principals of fundamental > justice are a sham. > > Constitutional law is no panacea for the right to own firearms. It > must > be spelled out clearly for even the hard of thinking to understand. > > Rob Sciuk > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:30:30 +0000 > From: Trigger Mortis > Subject: "detained but not arrested" > > "To date, the judiciary has not been particularly sympathetic with > respect > to personal freedoms over government (over) regulation." > > > Boy, there is an understatement, if ever I heard one. I recently was > talking to Ed Burlew, noted firearms lawyer. He advised me that a > recent > decision from the Supreme Court has specified that any citizen may > be held > for 24 hours for "investigative detention". I hope I am not mis- > quoting > Mr. Burlew. > > Now, that stinks! Any citizen may be dumped in a jail cell at the > whim of > a government agent. Yeah, yeah, I know that they have to have > "probable > cause", etc. > > I have personally been tossed in a jail cell at the border because > I had > (gasp) 3 sets of pistol grips with me. I said to the border guard, > as he > was locking me in a jail cell, "So, you are telling me I am not under > arrest and you are locking me in a cell?" He said, "Correct." > > I did nothing wrong and was released after 90 minutes in a jail > cell. The > ignorant pr*ck who arrested me offered no explanation, plus he entered > several lies onto a government data base about the incident, so > that it > kept coming up at subsequent border appearances. > > A lengthy complaint procedure was a total waste of time on my > part. The > Minister of Public Safety keeps getting changed and the last letter > I got > was a drop-dead-and-get-lost reply from Minister Toews. > > > Alan Harper ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:19:31 -0300 From: Al Muir Subject: Re: Come on, boys Walter what you and the others might have failed to notice is that those that are "concerned" about the quality of this debate are all supporters of C-391. Given your comments I would guess you fall in the same category. It is clear that you see only C-391 supporters as being picked on. The debate is both important and necessary. Lets not cloud it with the suggestion that those who oppose C-391 are petty. Al > > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:01:34 +1200 > From: Walter Martindale > Subject: Come on, boys > > Let's make sure everyone niggles away at everyone else and forget that we > all want some version of the same thing - the ability (in Canada) to > possess > and use firearms for hunting, target practice/competition, varmint control > (definition of varmint quite open). > > I'm likely returning to Canada, running the gauntlet of re-importing my > toys, and very much want to be able to continue playing with them either > on > the range or in the bush, so I'm interested in the firearms act being > binned > sooner rather than later, but I'm realistic enough to know that, since the > 70s, Canada has been gradually growing more and more firearm hostile > because > of the vocal antis and others. > > Can you guys agree to disagree on the niggly details and keep on with the > general principle of working for firearm ownership, or can you take the > leap, get involved in your local ridings, go for election, and start > making > noise in caucus, instead of picking away at people who are (in essence) on > our side? > > Sheesh. > > WM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:30:26 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: 'Vigilante shopkeeper' cites Charter in his defence-NP An interesting argument, a case worth following. 'Vigilante shopkeeper' cites Charter in his defence-Nat. Post http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/10/vigilante-shopkeeper-cites- charter-in-his-defence/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter ‘Vigilante shopkeeper’ cites Charter in his defence By Terrine Friday Toronto’s “vigilante shopkeeper” who was charged for detaining a shoplifter says the Criminal Code’s “narrow” definition of a citizen’s arrest is unconstitutional. David Chen, 36, was arrested last year after he and two co-workers detained Anthony Bennett, 52, for stealing plants from Chinatown’s Lucky Moose Market an hour earlier. The Criminal Code allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect their property and to make an arrest if someone is found to be “committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.” In documents outlining the defence, Mr. Chen and his lawyer say the definition is “too narrow and restrictive” because it is prescribed as lawful only while the crime is being committed “as opposed to having reasonable grounds to believe that the offence has been committed.” Lawyer Peter Lindsay says the Criminal Code definition is of no effect because it would bring the Constitution into disrepute. The Constitution Act, including Charter rights, supersedes any other Canadian law. “Part of your fundamental liberties is your right to stop other people from committing crimes against you. [...] I don’t think allowing yourself to be robbed blind by people like Anthony Bennett would be unreasonable force,” Mr. Lindsay said. During the incident on May 23, 2009, Bennett was caught on camera stealing plants from Mr. Chen’s store. When Bennett returned to the market an hour later, Mr. Chen and the co-workers confronted him, tied him up and locked him in a van until police arrived. Mr. Chen was charged with assault, forcible confinement, kidnapping and carrying a concealed weapon (Mr. Chen had a box cutter attached to his belt while he worked). The latter two charges were subsequently dropped. The two co-workers also face charges of assault and forcible confinement. All three men are to go to trial on June 21. The Crown has up until five days before trial to address the defence argument on the constitutionality of citizen arrests. Bennett pleaded guilty to theft last August. He has been charged since with theft from another store in Chinatown last October. In a similar case, Winnipeg resident Kwang Soo Kim, 62, was charged with manslaughter for striking an alleged shoplifter in his grocery store with a baseball bat last month. Geraldine Beardy, 29, slipped into a coma in hospital and died five days later. tfriday@nationalpost.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:44:24 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: I will defend to the death your right to say it Re: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."1 People who know more about Voltaire than I, consider the above expression as a summary statement of Voltaire's views on the importance of open communication. If one accepts Voltaire's maxim, then we should defend Wendy Cukier's Right to state her position. But does not Ms. Cukier's Right to state her position also carry a corresponding Responsibility to state her position clearly & concisely, and then allow a contra position to be expressed in rebuttal? For example, I believe in God although I cannot prove the existence of God. I fully realize that some people on this Digest do not believe in God although (I do not think) they can prove that God does not exist. As long as we do not attempt to convert the other person to our own personal belief, we can very peacefully co-exist on the Digest. But if the person were open to discussion & wanted me to explain why I believe in God, I would point to the Bible, although to an unbeliever the Bible holds no relevance. I would also point to people I respect who believe in God, although to a person who does not know these people, that reference likewise holds no relevance. I would also point to my own personal experience, but, again, to a person who does not know me, my experiences would also provide little persuasion. So I might have a hard time "selling" my belief in God. But more to the point of this Firearms Digest, I also believe that Bill C-391 is an extremely bad proposition; "a fatal, final step", although I cannot prove that. I fully realize that some people on this Digest consider Bill C-391 a good proposition, "a good first step", although (I do not think) they can prove that. But even though we may not know one another personally, we do have had some "shared" experiences & have shared acquaintances, so that if we were willing to share ideas, we have some basis for mutual understanding. So my suggestion: Let us share the common information, the "facts" if you will, that we do have. Therefore if you truly believe that Bill C-391 is "a good first step", then please, to use the Missouri State Motto, "show me". That is, tell me on what your opinion is based. Then I, and possible others, will tell you on what we base our contra-opinion. All we have to lose is the faith in our opinion. Or to paraphrase Socrates, 'The unexamined opinion is not worth expressing.' Sincerely, Eduardo 1. Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire 2. "The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #905 *********************************** 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".)