Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, August 18 2010 Volume 13 : Number 994 In this issue: Perhaps more than 'once a year' training might reduce ND's.. Re: Blago Panel Deadlocked 11-1 On Senate Seat CBC NEWS: Federal gun program head ousted Your analysis [Re: Subject: Tamils....] Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #993 Letter to Calgary Herald (just sent) ... Re: Perhaps more than 'once a year' training might reduce ND's.. Re: Your analysis [Re: Subject: Tamils....] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:05:10 -0400 From: Bill Subject: Perhaps more than 'once a year' training might reduce ND's.. Perhaps more than 'once a year' training might reduce ND's.. At least he only shot himself! http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/police/article/848514--police-officer-shot-during-training-exercise A police officer was taken to hospital with serious injuries Monday after he was accidentally shot in the leg during a training exercise in Etobicoke. The incident took place at the Toronto Police College at 70 Birmingham St., east of Islington Ave. EMS officials confirmed that the officer, who had at least one gunshot wound to the leg, was taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries just before 3 p.m. “Nobody shot him,” said Staff Sgt. Scott Roberts. Roberts said the shot was not fired by another person, but he could not confirm how or when the gun went off. “It was definitely an accidental shooting,” said Const. Tony Vella, a police spokesman. “It’s still unclear whether it was self-inflicted or not, but he is going to survive.” Vella said the 33-year-old officer has been with the service for a while. The college has training courses for new recruits as well as on-the-job training for veteran police. Vella said police officers renew their firearms training every year. He could not say whether the wounded officer was a trainer or trainee. Neighbourhood resident Bill Morton, 50, watched two emergency vehicles tear down the street to the college shortly after 3 p.m. “They went flying in there, came through the light on Birmingham,” said Morton, who was in his car at the time. Morton said an officer was standing on the street in front of the college and waved the emergency vehicles in when they approached the parking lot. He said the vehicles rushed through the security gate and disappeared behind the building. “I had no idea what was going on,” Morton said. He said his son soon called to tell him about the accidental shooting. “How stupid is that?” Morton said, adding he thought it was supposed to be one of the most high-tech training facilities in North America. “These things can happen when you’re putting your gun in and out of your holster in any situation,” Roberts said. “Any time you’re moving your firearm there’s a risk associated to it.” The college is housed in a new facility that opened last year. The building is also a substation for 22 division. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:59:00 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Blago Panel Deadlocked 11-1 On Senate Seat so she was bought off one way or the other..One person cant be right and eleven persons wrong................ed.on - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Gingrich" To: "Canadian Firearms Digest" Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 12:51 PM Subject: Blago Panel Deadlocked 11-1 On Senate Seat > "She just looked at things a different way," > http://cbs2chicago.com/local/jurors.blagojevich.corruption.2.1865627.html > > Juror: Blago Panel Deadlocked 11-1 On Senate Seat > > Aug 17, 2010 > > CHICAGO (CBS) ? Rod Blagojevich is a convicted felon. The former Illinois > governor was found guilty of one count: lying to the FBI. The jury > remained deadlocked on the other 23 counts. Some jurors are talking > Tuesday night, CBS 2's Kristyn Hartman reports. > > We've learned it was one holdout that saved Blagojevich from one of the > most explosive charges: that he tried to sell President Barack Obama's > old Senate seat. Jurors say one woman just wouldn't budge. > > The jury in the Blagojevich corruption trial deliberated for 14 days to > agree on just one of 24 counts. > > The question: were they satisfied with their work? > > Exhausted juror Jesse Blue wasn't happy with the outcome, but wouldn't > elaborate on deliberations or the decision to convict former governor Rod > Blagojevich on one count. > > Juror Jacklyn Ferino wasn't home yet. Ralph Schindler wasn't pleased to > see CBS 2 cameras. > > But criminal justice student Eric Sarnello was willing to speak about his > jury time. Some of what he said, we know: many votes just weren't > unanimous. But he also painted a picture of what we couldn't see. > > "Overall, I'd say everyone was pretty respectful. In the beginning, it > was a little more heated, a lot more emotions, voting was defensive. And > then we checked ourselves and took emotion out of it," said Sarnello. > "To me, it was pretty clear where we were gonna end about the third day." > > They ended in mistrial on 23 counts. > > Despite the division, according to Sarnello, the 12 came very close to > convicting Blagojevich on the biggest alleged scheme: trying to sell the > Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama. > > It was 11 to 1. The holdout was a woman. > > "She just looked at things a different way," said Sarnello. > > He says at times jurors were getting hostile towards the holdout juror, > but then they realized that she would shut down if she felt attacked. > > "We'd listen to a tape and people would be like, 'wow, that just confirms > that he's guilty' and she'd say, 'that just confirms to me that he's not > guilty,'" said Sarnello. > > He wouldn't identify the holdout juror because she's been through enough. > > But he said he felt had she not been in the pool, "We might still be in > there because we might have been closer to being unanimous. We probably > would have got that Senate seat." > > Jury foreman James Matsumoto is the man who tried to keep the jury on > course. He is a U.S. veteran of the Vietnam war and a retired videotape > librarian at Channel 11. > > "Some people looked at it and said, 'he was only talking. It was only > talk. It's just politics here,'" he said. > > Matsumoto says he knew from the first day in the jury room that there > might be trouble reaching agreement. > > "It was the difference in the approach to the evidence, in how they saw > it," said Matsumoto. "If someone said, 'oh, they're just talking' and a > number of people said that, then 'weren't you listening to the same > testimony I was?'" > > Matsumoto says there were often several holdouts on various counts, but > that as far as he is concerned, Blagojevich got off easy. > > "I'm very regretful that we could not reach a unanimous verdict, and to > my way of thinking, it would be a unanimous verdict for guilty," he said. > > Erik Sarnello also said there was all kinds of talk about what people > might think about the outcome. To that, he said, "They weren't there. > They don't know." > > CBS 2's Kristyn Hartman and Mike Parker contributed to this report. > > ---------------------------------------- > > In Canada trial by jury is severely limited by the Charter. > section 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (f) except > in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military > tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment > for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe > punishment;" > > However, Chapter 39 of the Magna Charta linked the law-of-the-land > principle with another important protection. It provided, "No free man > shall be seized, or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or > injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except > by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." > > In 1215, a person obtained "lawful judgment of his peers" through a > communal inquest in which twelve knights or landowners familiar with the > subject matter of the dispute took an oath, and swore to testify > truthfully based on their own knowledge or on knowledge gained from an > eyewitness or other credible source. > (http://www.answers.com/topic/magna-carta) > > > 1. Tempering the Law on Behalf of the Community > > "The claim that juries make excellent adjudicators is often advanced, but > it has never been the sole or even the primary justification for the jury > system, which is prized first and foremost as a political institution. > Indeed, even if it could be shown that individual judges outperform > juries as fact-finders, the jury system might well be retained on the > basis of its political justifications. Juries serve a number of purposes > that are broadly political, including the related functions of protecting > individuals against state oppression and meting out legal justice in a > way that conforms to community values. These twin functions depend on > juries' power to moderate, or even ignore, the law. 64 > > Because juries apply legal standards and deliver general verdicts without > reasons, they have the freedom to apply the law flexibly, in a way that > responds to the equities of the case and reflects community standards of > fairness and justice.65 Just as courts of equity historically granted > relief where strict application of the common law would have worked an > injustice, juries infuse the community's values into their decisions by > flexibly applying even those legal standards they recognize as valid and > just. A jury tried to moderate the law in this way in the celebrated case > of R. v. Latimer,66 which involved a father who killed his severely > disabled daughter with carbon monoxide from his truck in order to save > her from further pain, seizures, and surgery. Although a more planned and > deliberate murder is hard to imagine, the jury at Robert Latimer's first > trial convicted him of second degree murder rather than the first degree > murder with which he was charged.67 When improprieties in the > jury-selection process necessitated a second trial,68 Latimer was > convicted again, but the second jury recommended to the judge that > Latimer serve only one year in prison before becoming eligible for > parole,69 instead of the legally mandated ten-year minimum for second > degree murder. > Although its attempt was ultimately unsuccessful-Latimer is now serving > life in prison without possibility of parole for ten years70-it appears > that the jury tried to moderate the sentencing requirements in > circumstances where many in the community viewed the law as working an > overly harsh result. Thus, even when a law (such as the law of murder) > generally accords with the community's conscience, juries have a role in > softening its application to achieve individualized justice. > > In other cases, a jury's refusal to apply the law strictly can amount to > a more radical defiance of legal commands. Juries have the power to > "nullify" laws by refusing outright to convict accused persons who they > are convinced are factually guilty,71 and there are many historical > examples of such defiant acquittals by juries who refused to enforce laws > that they saw as unjust, oppressive, or otherwise illegitimate.72 Hence, > another recognized function of the jury is to protect individuals from > oppressive or unjust laws and law enforcement.73 The best-known Canadian > example of jury nullification is the case of Henry Morgentaler, a doctor > who in flagrant violation of the existing law operated free-standing > abortion clinics in Quebec and Ontario in the 1970s and 1980s, and was on > several occasions acquitted of abortion offences by Canadian juries.74 > The Morgentaler juries were not responding to the equities of the > individual case; instead, by refusing to convict, they repudiated the > criminal prohibition itself. By the time the Supreme Court of Canada > struck down the abortion laws under the Charter, the Canadian jury had > already spoken on the validity of those laws in the eyes of the > community.75" > > http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/documents/Dufraimont.pdf > > 2. Canadian trial judges are trained to "handle" a jury and can > influence a jury trial. Canadian judges have developed a jury control > system. > "Arguably then, modern trial procedure incorporates a complex system of > jury control devices, including jury-selection rules aimed at excluding > biasedindividuals, evidentiary rules that control the flow of information > at trial, binding judicial instructions on the law, and influential > judicial comments on the evidence." > http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/documents/Dufraimont.pdf > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, August 18, 2010 12:05 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: CBC NEWS: Federal gun program head ousted Cc: "OUTDOORS CAUCUS ASSOCIATION" CBC NEWS - Last Updated: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 | 11:19 PM ET Federal gun program head ousted http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/08/17/long-gun-registry-cheliak.html The head of the Canadian Firearms Program, who is a strong supporter of the long-gun registry, is quietly being bounced out of the position, CBC News has learned. RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, director general of the program, is being sent off to French language training after nine months on the job on orders from RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, according to police sources. The Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) oversees the administration of the Firearms Act and regulations. In 2006, the responsibility for the CFP was transferred to the RCMP. Cheliak had reformed the program and lobbied forcefully, including before a parliamentary committee, for a continued long-gun registry, something the Conservative government has been determined to scrap. But Canadian police are adamant that the registry, which requires gun owners to register each rifle or shotgun, is needed to protect the lives of police officers and citizens. Cheliak's key contribution has been to guide the country's three main police alliances - the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards - - into a common front to fight for registration. "Marty's contribution has been enormous. First of all, Marty has made the firearms program in Ottawa work," said William Blair, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Toronto's police chief. Blair said officers must be free to speak out on such a vital issue. "There's clearly a political discussion to this decision. The police are committed to staying out of politics. We'll leave the politics to the politicians," Blair said. "We're in the business of public safety. And we have a responsibility to the people we are sworn to serve and protect." Some police officers are questioning Cheliak's removal on the eve of September's expected battle in Parliament over a Conservative private member's bill to scrap the current registry. "I question why he's been transferred and who has made this decision to transfer him," said Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. "But it seems interesting that all of a sudden this transfer occurs when we know the vote is coming on this bill. I can tell you from a Canadian Police Association perspective, this is a huge loss. To the Canadian Firearms Program perspective, this is a huge loss to the Canadian public." CBC's Brian Stewart reported that Cheliak was set to unveil a major report before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their annual general meeting in Edmonton and get a president's award for his work on the long-gun registry. But Stewart said Cheliak was told by the RCMP he's not going to be sent there. "And that, more than anything almost, has convinced a lot of police chiefs, normally on the side of this government, to say this is a slapdown, and this is really unnecessary, and we don't like it," Stewart said. The RCMP said that Cheliak did have to take the French language lessons at some point and that he's doing that now. "Every police officer I've talked to thinks there's political interference here. Can't put their finger on it," Stewart said. "They can't really prove anything, but there's a feeling here that Cheliak was too outspoken. It was the wrong time. The government wanted the RCMP particularly to cool it at this stage and Cheliak was sort of made an example." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:09:15 -0300 From: Al Muir Subject: Your analysis [Re: Subject: Tamils....] I have removed the portion of your post that has nothing to do with firearms, but is dominating a "firearm" digest. I see you are back to your usual form that results in the censors, that share your views, ending any discussion. That aside I will try to slip a point by. Up until there was licensing just a few years ago Canadians accepted non-licensed firearms owners (pre C-68). If they do not now it is because of groups like the CSSA and individuals like yourself that did/do not have the forsight to point out the injustice of criminalizing gun owners that have held their property for decades without the Liberal/CPC mandated licensing. In falling over yourselves to accomodate the Cons you have/are denying us the opportunity to make a case. To your credit, you, unlike them, at least do not pretend there will be a miraculous 180% turn at a later date. Later, like now, a very large number of Canadians will be paper criminals because of the licensing you have accepted. Al > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:28:48 -0400 > From: "enigma1" > Subject: Tamils.... > > To complete my analysis of recent discussions, herewithin, the same old > suspects (you all know who you are) who adhere to the tired old mantra > of "From My Dead Cold Hands mentality, the debate over licensing is > finished. I apologize with great empathy, I really do, however, the > majority of Canadians will not accept non-licenced firearms owners. > Period. No firearm registration, maybe. No licencing. Uh,uh. Instead of > fuming and railing against the tide, you might want to wait patiently > for the opportunity to strive for a system that accepts lifetime > licences. That way forgetful old shooters wont face 'paper crime' > charges. Now that would be progressive. > > I hope that you all have had a safe and pleasant summer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:13:39 -0600 From: Rick User Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #993 On 2010-08-18, at 11:51 AM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: Bruce Mills > Subject: G&M - Gun registry advocate latest in Tory 'pattern' of > quashing > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/gun-registry-advocate-latest-in-tory-pattern-of-quashing-dissent-critics-say/article1677053/ > > Gun registry advocate latest in Tory 'pattern' of quashing dissent, > critics say > > Jane Taber > Globe and Mail > Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:12 AM Rubbish article. This is more of the same kind of crummy reporting we see at the CBC. The facts is that "political activity" by RCMP officers and ON chiefs of police is illegal. Full stop. It doesn't matter that they claim they are looking out for our safety, or looking out for their own safety, or are empire-building or were instructed to do so by the Great Pumpkin. It's illegal. Either there's a Rule of Law in this country or there isn't. Want to criticize Harper? Then do so on the grounds that this police mandarin and Chief Blair were not charged as they ought to have been for their lobbying around the country and uninvited, partisan participation in the C-391 hearings complete with polished half-truths, deceptions, undisclosed conflicts of interest and raw political and social views. For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988 contain the following prohibitions: 57. (1) Subject to subsection 58(2), while a member is participating in a political activity, the member shall not indicate, nor shall the member permit anyone campaigning for the member to indicate, that the member’s opinions or comments are made on behalf of the Force. …. 58. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Commissioner and all members holding any of the following ranks, officer equivalent level designations, or positions, namely, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or chief superintendent, commanding officer, director general or criminal operations officer, shall not participate in political activities. (2) The Commissioner and the members holding the ranks, officer equivalent level designations, or positions referred to in subsection (1) may, on behalf of the Force, present information regarding the provision of policing services by the Force pursuant to municipal, provincial or territorial policing contracts when the provision of such services is the subject of a direct vote by the population. [underlining added] SOR/99-26, s. 2; SOR/2000-251, s. 1. Our Fifth Estate is a low-life joke. We used to laugh at Pravda. Now we read and view the same propaganda crap daily. It doesn't come from government edicts, it comes from self-appointed elitist social engineers who call themselves "journalists". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:35:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Letter to Calgary Herald (just sent) ... "Calgarian who failed to report gun theft gets six-month jail term" Dear Sir/Madame, You report that "Provincial court Judge Barbara Veldhuis said she found Anthony William Beare's explanation for not telling anyone the 9-mm firearm was taken in a break-in 'defied logic'", but this is clearly a case of the unintended consequences of a bad law. Because the regulations of the Candian Firearms Act leave the definition of "safe storage" subject to interpretation, there have been many instances of law abiding citizens whose firearms are stolen by burglars to be charged by police with a criminal offense. One might suspect that a well written law does not inspire fear in otherwise law abiding citizens, but the Canadian Firearms Act is not a well written law. Sincerely, Robert S. Sciuk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:50:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Perhaps more than 'once a year' training might reduce ND's.. - --- On Wed, 8/18/10, Bill wrote: > Roberts said the shot was not fired by another person, but he could not > confirm how or when the gun went off. > > "It was definitely an accidental shooting," said Const. Tony Vella, a > police spokesman. It's still unclear whether it was self-inflicted or > not, but he is going to survive." The GUN did it! > "These things can happen when you're putting your gun in and out of your > holster in any situation," Roberts said. > "Any time you're moving your firearm there's a risk associated to it." Not if you KEEP YOUR MEATHOOK OFF THE TRIGGER!!!!!!! Yours in TYRRANY! Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:33:47 -0400 From: "enigma1" Subject: Re: Your analysis [Re: Subject: Tamils....] Mr. Muir: I was not aware that you had been given the prestigious and responsible position of moderator of this forum. It surprises me that you take offence to my valid position when it is shared by a majority within the firearms community and the public at large. What I find truly offensive is that, in my opinion, you have by this egregious act, brought the reputation and spirit of this open and challenging forum into disrepute. There are many individuals who contribute a plethora of ideas that sometimes may offend the sensibilities of others who do not share those same views. In a free society opposing views stated openly is a sign of liberty and good fellowship. I may not agree with your point of view but I would defend, to the utmost, your right to state it. It is a sad day when individuals who purport to champion those freedoms are seen to brook no dissent to their views. The word hypocrisy come quickly to mind. You unfairly accuse me and the CSSA of being responsible for maintaining the licensing program. I only wish that I had such power. If so, let me state unequivocally, I would abolish the FA in its entirety and reinstate the Certification Program immediately. Your argument holds no water and only serves to demonstrate how fragile your position really is when you have to revert to silencing any opposition to your dogma. My position is to encourage "lifetime licensing". This would negate any judicial or penal consequence, a position that seems to have eluded you. I slighted no one personally and stated my position commonly held by other qualified contributors to this forum. Your personal bias is clear. There is and was no excuse to censor my opinion piece. If this flagitious matter is not addressed in a civilized and fair manner then it would seem that this forum has degenerated to the point of spiteful interference in the valid opinions of its members. I hope that I am mistaken. If so, then there is hope for us all in our ability to share various points of view in a civil manner and contribute to our sport If not, then the provincial and myopically minded members such as yourself will suffocate any hope of consensus on overcoming the formidable barriers that lie ahead. God help us all. I await your response. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Muir" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:09 PM Subject: Your analysis [Re: Subject: Tamils....] > I have removed the portion of your post that has nothing to do with > firearms, but is dominating a "firearm" digest. > > I see you are back to your usual form that results in the censors, that > share your views, ending any discussion. > > That aside I will try to slip a point by. > > Up until there was licensing just a few years ago Canadians accepted > non-licensed firearms owners (pre C-68). If they do not now it is because > of groups like the CSSA and individuals like yourself that did/do not > have the forsight to point out the injustice of criminalizing gun owners > that have held their property for decades without the Liberal/CPC > mandated licensing. > > In falling over yourselves to accomodate the Cons you have/are denying us > the opportunity to make a case. > > To your credit, you, unlike them, at least do not pretend there will be a > miraculous 180% turn at a later date. > > Later, like now, a very large number of Canadians will be paper criminals > because of the licensing you have accepted. > > Al > >> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:28:48 -0400 >> From: "enigma1" >> Subject: Tamils.... >> >> To complete my analysis of recent discussions, herewithin, the same old >> suspects (you all know who you are) who adhere to the tired old mantra >> of "From My Dead Cold Hands mentality, the debate over licensing is >> finished. I apologize with great empathy, I really do, however, the >> majority of Canadians will not accept non-licenced firearms owners. >> Period. No firearm registration, maybe. No licencing. Uh,uh. Instead of >> fuming and railing against the tide, you might want to wait patiently >> for the opportunity to strive for a system that accepts lifetime >> licences. That way forgetful old shooters wont face 'paper crime' >> charges. Now that would be progressive. >> >> I hope that you all have had a safe and pleasant summer. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CFD Moderator's Note; I personally do not know of any "censoring" or selective deleting or adding any content or manipulation to anything in this discussion thread as far as any of "us" the CFD Moderators have indulged in or have concerned ourselves with. Nor have "we" seen or have been presented with any examples of any of the CFD's moderator's intentional manipulations in any CFD Member's submissions, other than addition of contact information and/or reference information, punctuation, re-spacing and obvious spelling error corrections, and the occasional deletion of inappropriate swear words that for the most part have been all signed and have been acknowledged and tagged by the moderators themselves within the particular submission. We categorically deny any deliberate practice of any type of changes or manipulation in any submission to alter the submission in anyway to change the meaning and/or intent of what the author of the CFD submission was trying to elucidate to the other members of the CFD's list of subscribers. Any content editing or selective deletion, addition, and/or any manipulation to any of the content of this subject thread, has been done by the authors of their submissions in this discussion thread. Respectfully - CFD Moderator- DRGJ drg.jordan@sasktel.net ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #994 *********************************** 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".)