Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, July 5 2010 Volume 13 : Number 945 In this issue: EDITORIAL: Don't Take Your Guns To Town The Police state has arived CBC: The [US] Supreme Court and the right to carry NP: The real censor at U of Ottawa Re: Maybe THEY should do the reading![Re:Chicago new gun...] TorStar: Protesters: Bill Blair’s resignation,inquiry G20 policing Edmonton Sun: Letter: (Not everyone likes firearms, Glen.) Montreal Gazette: Letter - Self-defence is a right Houston Today: "Decision to delay gun registry vote “outrageous” ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, July 5, 2010 10:54 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: EDITORIAL: Don't Take Your Guns To Town 630 CHED RADIO - JULY 5, 2010 BOB LAYTON'S EDITORIAL Don't Take Your Guns To Town Posted 7/5/2010 1:00:00 AM http://www.630ched.com/Blogs/BobLaytonsBlog2/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10124000 You have to know a country is headed down the slippery slope when you've got the Chicago City Council fighting the Supreme Court. This is all about the American right to bear arms and some politicians who don't like it. The high court ruled Americans have a right to own a gun for self-defence. That would mean Chicago's ban on handguns would have to fall. So Chicago council is retaliating by banning gun shops and making it against the law to step outside of your house with a gun, even onto your porch or into your garage. Council rationalized, "The Supreme Court decision is not in the best interests of our people". Good to know a local politician has more knowledge than a Supreme Court judge. But, wait. The city also cancelled a permit for a public meeting to complain about the restrictive city law. It was being put on by a man and his girlfriend, both of whom had just been robbed by crooks who had guns. In the U-S, they cancelled the right to public assembly because they didn't like the topic? I think they've got more than gun trouble to worry about. - -- -- BTW, you've noticed that I can now add up to 5 pictures on a rotating basis on this blog. If you'd like to email me one of your own creations at; blayton@630ched.com - - we'll give you a credit. And, the best original photo of the day to my blog will get 50,000 Bonus Insider Trading Points! Note: If you wish to leave a comment, please keep it no longer than my editorial, unless you wish us to edit it. Your comment will not appear on the blog until it has been cleared by Bob. Where it asks for your URL - put your email address. You have until 8 tomorrow morning to collect 630 CHED Insider Trading points by entering the code word: 179 HERE. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:14:55 -0400 From: Subject: The Police state has arived The Police state has arrived. Since the G20 summit, nary a peep has been heard from any media outlet about the Police lying to the public about their right to search, seize, arrest anyone outside the fence. Of course they say it is all a misubnderstanding tehy didnt know what was meant. I say BS. Chief Blair of Toronto stated clearly there were no such laws, yet he did nothing to stop, [Law enforcement officers in his town from detaining, seizing, searching people outside the fence 5 kmeter or even further. Politicians are ducking and covering blaming the Police, Just mayor Miller says.. he does not question the police. Maybe he should, he is after all the mayor. But when politicians see nothing wrong with the Police taking such powers and lying to use them we are in deep trouble. The Police state is now here to stay because we the people have barely made a whimper. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 11:29:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: CBC: The [US] Supreme Court and the right to carry http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/02/f-rfa-champ.html#socialcomments#ixzz0sovOXDmP Guns in America Henry Champ The Supreme Court and the right to carry Last Updated: Friday, July 2, 2010 | 3:06 PM ET By Henry Champ, special to CBC News First, let me establish some bona fides. I get it. I understand the affinity the vast majority of gun owners have for their guns. Growing up as I did in rural Manitoba, I was 10 years old when I bought my first rifle, a .22-calibre Cooey bolt-action repeater for $10. With my friends, who also had .22s, we spent many summer days hunting rabbits and gophers. Gophers in particular. At the time, the province paid a nickel bounty for every gopher's tail you brought in. Designed to curb Manitoba's burgeoning gopher population, the policy was a distinct failure, although my friends and I did what we could to wipe them out. We all used .22 Whiz-Bang long rifle ammunition. It came 50 shells to a box. A box cost 85 cents. Simple arithmetic meant you had to have 17 hits to buy a new box of Whiz-Bangs. You can develop a pretty good shooting eye working to that standard. Growing-up moment In the fall, we went duck and deer hunting with our fathers and other older men. To be invited to shoot over decoys or to be assigned a deer stand was a big growing-up moment. In that part of the world, guns were mixed in with the baseball season, fall football, bicycles, paper routes and hanging around. Guns were a part of the scene but by no means the dominant activity. When I left Manitoba to work elsewhere, almost always in urban areas, guns and hunting simply faded from my life. I've never owned one since. My wife and I live in Washington but we also have a small farm in northern Virginia. Fauquier County to be exact. It's about 80 kilometres from the capital. Fauquier is very much about hunting and the outdoor life. Most of my neighbours hunt, many belong to skeet, trap or pistol clubs and, as was the case in Manitoba, guns are part of a family tradition with one notable difference: women are now fully active in these sports. Many young girls follow the same path as their brothers. Guns on the bar Many are also National Rifle Association members. And while I don't shoot anymore, my neighbours and I have common cause. It is that the lunatic-fringe gun owners, and the weak-kneed politicians who serve them, have now gone too far. In Virginia, you can carry a concealed weapon. You need a permit that requires some minimal knowledge of your weapon and a check of your background. I remember a few years back, when the law came into effect, the local newspaper interviewed the first Fauquier County recipient of such a permit. They also ran a picture of the man, a beefy, crew-cut young guy who said he was a construction worker. Asked why he wanted to carry a gun, his response was simple and straightforward: " It makes me feel good." More than 100,000 such permits have been issued since. These permits have always had no-go areas. You can't carry a concealed weapon in schools, hospitals, at the mall, etc. But this week, the state legislature passed a law that allows gun-toters to wear their iron in bars and restaurants where liquor is sold. This law passed despite being opposed by every police chief in the state. The majority of restaurant and bar owners opposed it as well. The new law says a permit-holder cannot drink alcohol while packing a gun. But bar owners say, if a gun is concealed, how would they know who may be breaking the law. One of those in the forefront of the law's successful lobbying effort is Philip Van Cleave of Virginia's Citizens Defence League. He told reporters he wanted the law because: "If there is somebody drinking in there and suddenly they pull a knife and start to stab people or whatever, I want to protect myself." There was another, perhaps more significant defeat this week for the gun-control movement: The U.S. Supreme Court strike down the city of Chicago's strict gun rules. In a shot heard nationwide, the court ruled that "states and local jurisdictions cannot significantly limit the right to keep and to bear arms," a direct response to Chicago's 28-year ban on handguns being kept in the city's homes. 'Commonsense regulations' The news triggered a barrage of headlines and dire warnings. Many commentators, such as CNN/New Yorker legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, felt that gun control had just been thrown out the window and someone was soon going to have to figure out how to stop someone from legally owning a Stinger missile. Silly, I know, but this is the U.S. Almost overlooked, the justice did add language that indicated states and local jurisdictions could enforce "commonsense regulations." That was enough for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. His council immediately passed a new law, even tougher than the previous one. Its teeth is that it makes gun permits very difficult to get. The procedure is time-consuming and the mayor promises that if any loopholes are found he will plug them. This newest step by Chicago will almost certainly end up in the courts as well. Pretty much everyone, on both sides of the gun issue, believes the court's inclusion of "commonsense regulations" will open the door to hundreds, if not thousands of lawsuits testing the limits of gun control right across the land. Obviously, you don't want guns in schools. But with the right to own guns by individuals now firmly established, where do you draw the line? The vast majority of the gun owners that I know understand what is right. It's time for politicians to get with it and not just play to the loudest voices. Some quick statistics. Every year more than 100,000 Americans are shot and more than 30,000 will die as a result of their wounds. Eighty-five people in the U.S. die each day from gun violence, nine of them are teenagers or children. And a note to Philip Van Cleave and his concern about being stabbed in a bar: Gun owners are four times more likely to die from guns than those without weapons. About the author Henry Champ has been one of the world's top foreign correspondents for most of his 40 years in journalism. Until his retirement in November 2008, he was CBC Newsworld's authority on Washington, D.C., where he continues to live. A leading Canadian voice on the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and the growing concerns over the Canada-U.S. relationship, Champ continues to write a regular column for CBCNews.ca - -- -- Related NEWS STORY: Chicago gun ban unconstitutional http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/28/us-supreme-court-gun-ban-chicago.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:11:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: NP: The real censor at U of Ottawa http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/real+censor+Ottawa/3231684/story.html The real censor at U of Ottawa National Post: Saturday, Jul. 3, 2010 Last March, when controversial American conservative pundit Ann Coulter first proposed to speak on the University of Ottawa campus, the school's vice-president academic and provost, Francois Houle, sent an infamously smug, patronizing letter to Ms. Coulter, warning her to "educate" herself about what kinds of speech are and are not acceptable in Canada "before your planned visit here." He added a thinly veiled threat that "promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges." To avoid arrest or a lawsuit, he cautioned ominously, "weigh your words with respect and civility in mind." Now, thanks to an access to information request by The Canadian Press (CP), we have learned that U of O president Allan Rock, the former federal Liberal Justice minister -- not Mr. Houle-- was the force behind the intimidating email to Ms. Coulter. The CP reports that the day before Mr. Houle's message was sent to Ms. Coulter, Mr. Rock sent his own message to Mr. Houle instructing him to warn her of the potential for legal action should she go ahead with her planned address. In a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Rock wrote that "Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foulmouthed poltroon ... 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind.' She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times." A firestorm followed the release of Mr. Houle's sneering email. He received hundreds of angry, often vicious emails. Dozens of newspapers, this one included, wondered about his fitness for the job a leading a university, which is supposed to be a sanctuary for free inquiry, not a shrine for the worship of political correctness. Not once during the maelstrom heaped upon Mr. Houle did Mr. Rock step up and admit he was actually the person behind his vice-president's correspondence. Indeed, the emails obtained by CP indicate that after criticism of the provost's letter heated up, Mr. Rock -- who as Justice minister for Jean Chretien was responsible for such controversial legislation as the gun registry and divorce laws that force men to pay tax on the child support they send their ex-wives -- considered making a public offer to Ms. Coulter to return to the university and speak. Such a move would have been self-serving, making Mr. Rock look like the defender of free speech, even though it was him all along who wanted to "chill" Ms. Coulter's remarks. Mr. Rock was not the only one hoping to intimidate the controversial writer into moving her speech off campus. Mr. Rock seems to have been acting on the request of Seamus Wolfe, Ottawa's student federation president, who had posters for the Coulter event removed from student union property and who wrote to Mr. Rock urging that "you notify Ms. Coulter that she is not welcome on our campus, and that her event will not occur on uOttawa property." Of course, Messrs. Rock, Houle and Wolfe all would see themselves as champions of free expression, which highlights the danger posed by of hate-speech laws: They give intellectual cover to censorship by permitting politically correct persons simply to define any speech with which they happen to disagree as "hate speech." In this regards, perhaps most troubling was Mr. Rock's instruction to Mr. Houle that the latter urge Ms. Coulter "to respect that Canadian tradition" of free speech "as she enjoys the privilege of her visit." Free speech is a right, not a privilege. The right to speak one's mind did not descend from government or a university official. The world "privilege" implies a freedom that can be taken away at the pleasure of those in power or on the bench. By their nature, privileges cannot be bulwarks against the abuse of power. For a former head of the Law Society of Upper Canada to have such a false concept of fundamental political rights is appalling. Indeed, it casts doubt on his ability to lead a university. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:36:57 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Re: Maybe THEY should do the reading![Re:Chicago new gun...] Mike posted: [The articles a good read] > By ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article# > > >> "If people bothered to read as opposed to getting their news from >> the 'Tea Party Times,' they would understand and see that there is >> more harm done by the proliferation of handguns than there is >> benefit," said Ald. Freddrenna Lyle (6th)." > > This is just typical of the Lieberal (sic) arrogance and moral > superiority that we are exposed to on an ongoing basis. The thing that's also scary is to see Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis kissing up to Mayor Daley in the photo accompanying the news article. You'd expect the poelease would be Republican supporters. The cops are all for defenseless Chicagoans. Kind of a neurotic view of Law and Order. Not only in Canader, eh? As one Chicago alderperson retorted in a 'shot' at the U.S. Supreme Court: > Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias > and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis.” Maybe Chicago citizens should take her up on this line and start packing muskets around the city. WHAT'S IN THE NEW LAW • Chicago adults may purchase only one handgun a month. • Chicago residents have 100 days to register any firearm in their home, pay a $100 registration fee and a $15 application fee, and take five hours of firearms safety training. • Within the next 100 days, any Chicago resident who has ever been convicted of a gun crime must register their name and address at their local police station. That information will be posted on the Internet. Failure to comply could result in fines and jail time. • People convicted of gun crimes, violent crimes including domestic violence or two or more drunk-driving convictions, may not own guns. ********* I've got a word for these Chicago types. Fix yer bloody electrical weir to stop Asian Carp from getting into Lake Michigan and the rest of the Great lakes.******* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:45:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: TorStar: Protesters: Bill Blair’s resignation,inquiry G20 policing http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/831152--protesters-demand-bill-blair-s-resignation-call-for-inquiry-into-g20-policing Protesters demand Bill Blair’s resignation, call for inquiry into G20 policing July 01, 2010 WENDY GILLIS/TORONTO STAR *Note: This article was edited from a previous version. Hundreds of demonstrators demanding the resignation of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair and an independent, public inquiry into police actions and treatment of G20 protesters thronged a rowdy but peaceful rally at Queen’s Park Thursday night. Among the participating groups were Canadians Advocating Political Participation, Amnesty International and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, all there to decry what they called a violation of human rights over the G20 weekend, including alleged police intimidation, brutality and mass arrests. “We want an independent review to take a good, long, hard look at the conditions in the detention facilities,” Shanaaz Gokool, a spokesperson with Amnesty International, told the cheering crowd gathered in front of the legislature. “Who made the decision that Canadians could be treated like that?” Tommy Taylor, a 29-year-old Toronto resident, told protesters he was arrested on Saturday night while getting a soda in front of City Hall. He described conditions at the G20 detention facilities as “out of a George Orwell novel.” “There were cages of people screaming for water, and male officers could see women going to the washroom.” Gokool called for an inquiry that looked into how many arrested were charged, who made the decision to have the G20 in Toronto and whether police presence in the city deterred peaceful citizens from protesting. Justin Arjoon, one of the rally organizers, said organizers were calling for Blair to resign primarily because of what he called “misinformation surrounding the special laws passed for the G20 weekend.” Volunteers walked around collecting donations to help with legal costs of demonstrators facing charges, as protesters called for the release of all remaining detainees. The number of G20 demonstrators still detained is not known, but volunteers with the Toronto Community Mobilization Network estimate between 30 and 100 people remain in jail. The demonstration was followed by a march that went south on University Avenue, east on Dundas Street, then north on Bay Street then back to Queen’s Park. Demonstrators chanted “Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Bill Blair has got to go,” and carried signs reading “To Serve and Protect Who?” and “Get Your Goons Off My Civil Liberties.” The otherwise peaceful protest became temporarily tense when protesters bottlenecked at the corner of College and Bay Streets, prompting police — in a scene reminiscent of the G20 weekend — to form a barrier with bikes and mounted officers. Some protesters then approached police, a few yelling “shame” and “how do you sleep at night” in their faces. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has stated that an internal task force will examine "all aspects" of summit policing by the municipal forces, OPP and RCMP in the G20 Integrated Security Unit. Blair and other senior Toronto police officers have said G20 security forces have nothing to apologize for, although Staff Supt. Jeff McGuire conceded earlier this week, “We’re not suggesting we’re perfect,” adding police were “doing the best we can.” According to a new Angus Reid poll that surveyed 1,003 Canadians and 503 Torontonians in the wake of the G20, 73 per cent of Torontonians and 66 per cent of Canadians believe police treatment of protesters was justified during the summit. Also Thursday, about 1,000 protesters marched peacefully through downtown Montreal on to condemn the way police handled security at the summit. Unionist Francis Lagace, one of the few marchers sporting a suit and tie, had been in Toronto for the summit. "Those people were arrested without knowing why, they were detained in horrendous conditions," he said. "This is a clear violation of human rights in Canada." Montreal's Anti-Capitalist Convergence, who organized the march, also say Quebecers were unfairly targeted at last weekend's summit. They estimate between 200 and 250 Quebecers were detained in Toronto during the summit protests, which saw about 900 people taken into custody. Laurence Olivier, 22, said she was saying at a friend's home in Toronto last weekend. She was relaxing there after a day spent protesting and when the police came knocking. She was in the shower when she heard someone at the bathroom door yelling: "Police." "I thought it was a joke it seemed so surreal," she said. She said she and a friend were arrested and taken to the temporary detention centre where the bulk of detained protesters were held. She said she was held for eight hours and released without charge. "It's unbelievable I was arrested in my shower, coming back from a march where I had done nothing wrong." Amnesty International, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Civil Liberties Association are also calling for a review. The three hour march wound through Montreal's trendy Plateau district for three hours before converging in front of the headquarters of the Montreal police union. Fears of violence proved unfounded when the crowd then dispersed. Protest organizers had previously described window-smashing Black Bloc tactics as a legitimate form of protest. Organizers had refused to give police an itinerary of the march. Montreal police confirmed two arrests during the demonstration, one for a breach of probation and another for assaulting a police officer. Both individuals were later released. - - With files from Canadian Press ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:58:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Edmonton Sun: Letter: (Not everyone likes firearms, Glen.) http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/letters/2010/07/02/14591271.html Letters, July 4 By Sun readers Last Updated: July 4, 2010 2:00am A firearm is an inanimate object. It doesn’t have the faculties of thought or independent action. Humans have both. What could make me apprehensive is someone completely clueless about firearms having such a weapon in his/her hands. I am of a much earlier generation. Had the term been used after the First World War, I could have been called a baby boomer. Because of that and having lived until my teens (in the mid-1930s) in a rural environment, it is beyond my comprehension that any adult Canadian males can be so soft as to be scared “spitless” of firearms. Glen J. Connolly (Not everyone likes firearms, Glen. ) - -- Edmonton Sun Send us a letter at mailbag@edmsun.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Montreal Gazette: Letter - Self-defence is a right http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/letters/Self+defence+right/3230481/story.html#ixzz0sjb6qCmE Self-defence is a right The Gazette July 3, 2010 Re: "Gun possession a 'fundamental' tenet of American freedom: U.S. top court" (Gazette, June 28). The headline should have read: "Right to self-defence a fundamental tenet of American freedom." The reason so many people are fighting to keep their sidearms, is because firearms just so happen to be the best tool available to fend off a violent attacker. When something "better" comes along, law abiding citizens (and law-enforcement officers) will switch to it. Until then, they'll stick to their guns. Being defenceless doesn't make you safer. Never did, never will. Michel Trahan Verdun - -- -- Letters to the Editor can be sent to; letters@thegazette.canwest.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:20:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Houston Today: "Decision to delay gun registry vote “outrageous” http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_north/houston-today/news/97350859.html Decision to delay gun registry vote “outrageous” says Cullen Published: June 30, 2010 5:00 AM Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen is disappointed with a move to delay a gun registry vote. As the parliament session ended last week, Cullen said it was outrageous that that Conservatives continue to “play politics with their own bill on the very serious issue of the gun registry.” The vote for a proposed bill, C-391, to kill the controversial long-gun registry has been held off now until September. “Rather than going before parliament before the summer break for a vote on a recommendation from the Public Safety Committee that the [long-gun] bill be dropped, we now have MP [Candice] Hoeppner towing her bill through 20 ridings on the public dime,” said Cullen. Cullen said it’s time to stop dividing the country over guns and move on to find effective ways to reduce gun-related violence. Cullen said in a media call last week that the Conservatives have decided to blow another three or four months with the registry “for no obvious reason.” While our NDP MP aims his shots at the Conservative MP Hoeppner, whose riding is Portage-Lisgar in Saskatchewan, she has put the delay blame on a Liberal-Bloc Quebecois-NDP coalition, according to a press release on her website. She said that the opposition-dominated committee passed a motion to report to the House of Commons that the Public Safety committee not proceed with Bill C-391. “Twelve NDP and eight Liberal members of parliament supported my bill at second reading,” said Hoeppner. “The question remains, what will those MPs when it again comes time to vote on this in the House?” Cullen and Hoeppner can both agree that they feel the long-gun registry should be scrapped. Cullen said his constituents have been clear on the issue and it is something he personally agrees with. Hoeppner said in a release that there is little evidence to demonstrate that the long-gun registry has fulfilled its mandate. On the website for Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering), who put forward the motion that derailed Hoeppner’s bill, he said that he has heard from people from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and others who all said that the gun registry works. While Hoeppner tows her bill in her riding, Holland said he’d be touring his own talking about the registry’s importance. - -- -- Letter to the Editor http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/letters/letter_to_editor/?curSection=%2Fbc_north%2Fhouston-today%2Fnews&bc09=true&contentID=97350859&contentPath=%2Fbc_north%2Fhouston-today%2Fnews ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #945 *********************************** 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".)