Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, August 28 2010 Volume 14 : Number 017 In this issue: Blago's Holdout Juror Talks *NFR* (jury nullification at work) newsdurham.com - New report on gun registry not needed, Cons. say Street-level police officers don't echo chiefs' support Edmonton Journal - Letters - Agu 27/10 Charter rights We need to know if long-gun registry works, ... Victoria Times-Colonist - The gun registry and ignorance My Email to Barbara Yaffe Re: her article on the gun registry ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:05:02 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Blago's Holdout Juror Talks *NFR* (jury nullification at work) http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Blagojevich-trial-holdout-juror-joann-chiakulas-chicago-tribune-interview-101636493.html WARD ROOM Blago's Holdout Juror Talks JoAnn Chiakulas, the female juror who saved Rod Blagojevich's hide when she voted against 11 other jurors not to convict on charges he tried to sell the senate seat, says she "didn't do it for him." In her first interview since the trial ended, Chiakulas tells the Chicago Tribune she did what she felt was right, even if it wasn't the most comfortable thing to do. "I can't explain how badly I felt," she said to the Tribune. "I didn't sleep at night. I thought about it on the train. I wanted to make sure my reasonable doubt was reasonable." Despite speculation that her former career as a state worker and her late-husband's one-time donation to Rod Blagojevich's campaign played a role in her decision, Chiakulas makes clear that she was no fan of the former governor. Chiakulas thought he talked too much and "wasn't impressed with his shenanigans" and believed him to be "narcissistic." But in the end she saw a man filled with unfocused ideas and a Swiss cheese brain. Chiakulas said she didn't believe Blagojevich actually had a plan to sell the senate seat that was once filled by President Barack Obama. On the tapes he could be hear discussing an ambassadorship to India one day and directly after he fantasized about appointing Oprah Winfrey to the seat. While other jurors saw that as a sign of guilt, she saw shades of gray. "I could never live with myself if I went along with the rest of the jury," Chiakulas said during the Tribune interview. "I didn't believe it was the correct vote for me." Her stance didn't make her popular in the jury room, she said. People yelled at her, told her she was being illogical and belittled her. One juror switched seats so he could stare her down while she spoke. Another asked for a copy of the jurors oath, a backhanded way of saying she wasn't doing her job. But she stuck to her beliefs, and in the end, after Rod Blagojevich was convicted on just one count, her fellow jurors say she did her job and they have no hard feelings. Read the full interview in the Chicago Tribune. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-blagojevich-jury-20100827,0,1393639.story?page=1 COMMENTS: BY Andrew Greiner // 3 hours ago BillWalsh Harlan, shame on you. this feeling good about herself is something called conscience. You say she is brainless. Are you soul-less? This is the best aspect of our jury system. Even when eleven think themselves sure, one has a reasonable doubt, and follows her conscience. Praise God. (BTW, my politics is absolutely antithetical to Blagos) ~BillWalsh7:32 AM, 8.27.10 JustAGuy Good, she didn't give in to bullying! Now if the federal prosecutor would back off trying to stroke his ego and drop the 2nd attempt to get another notch on his belt..... moreGood, she didn't give in to bullying! Now if the federal prosecutor would back off trying to stroke his ego and drop the 2nd attempt to get another notch on his belt.....7:46 AM, 8.27.10 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:59:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: newsdurham.com - New report on gun registry not needed, Cons. say http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/160637 New report on gun registry not needed, Conservatives say Mark Holland criticizes Tories for their stand Aug 27, 2010 - 04:30 AM Richard J. Brennan DURHAM -- The Conservative government makes no apology for the delay in releasing a report praising the long-gun registry, even as a vote on a bill to kill it nears in the House of Commons next month. "Canadians don't need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. "They don't need another report to know that the registry does nothing to prevent crime," the spokesperson added, echoing the Conservatives' staunch opposition to the registry, which costs $4 million a year to run. And opposition critics say the government is prepared to sit on the Canadian firearms program evaluation report until after the vote so Canadians won't be able to see the value in keeping the program. "The government's position is never let the facts get in the way of ideology," said Ajax-Pickering Liberal MP Mark Holland. Senior deputy RCMP commissioner Bill Sweeney told the Commons' public safety committee in May that the report "was extremely positive" and should be released, Mr. Holland said. The House of Commons is to vote Sept. 22 on a Conservative MP's private member's bill calling for the controversial registry to be scrapped. Mr. Toews' office said it was still waiting for the RCMP to sign off on the final version of the evaluation report. For its part, the RCMP says the "long report" is still being translated into French and could be posted on the RCMP website as early as next week. "The report would then be submitted to the Minister for submission to the committee on behalf of the RCMP," Mr. Toews' office said. NDP leader Jack Layton on Tuesday called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to let Canadians see the report, which was completed in February and evaluates the effectiveness of the Canadian firearms program. "This report was supposed to be tabled in May but the government claimed that it was still in translation," said Mr. Layton. "There is no way it takes months to translate a report -- they're stalling for political purposes." It emerged last week that RCMP Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak has been removed from his position as director general of the national firearms program. Critics and observers have accused the Conservatives of political interference because Cheliak was a strong supporter of the long-gun registry. The September vote is expected to be a cliffhanger, with the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois voting against the private member's bill. NDP members with rural roots are torn and could tip the balance in favour of the government. On Monday, Canada's police chiefs reaffirmed their support for the federal long-gun registry and agreed to launch a campaign to persuade political opponents that it is worth saving. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Brennan is a reporter for the Toronto Star newsroom@durhamregion.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, August 27, 2010 10:32 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Street-level police officers don't echo chiefs' support EDMONTON JOURNAL - AUGUST 27, 2010 LETTER: Street-level police officers don't echo chiefs' support http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Street+level+police+officers+echo+chiefs+support/3448454/story.html Edmonton Journal August 27, 2010 Re: "Police chiefs back gun registry; Endorse controversial long-gun database in unanimous vote," The Journal, Aug. 24. Congratulations to Const. Randy Kuntz for his efforts. Again and still, there is a clear absence of support within the rank and file police officers of Canada for the long-gun registry; indeed most believe it is a potentially dangerous officer safety tool and it is ignored as a consequence. During the last three years of my work with the Edmonton Police Service as a duty officer (I retired in 2007), I was aware of only three occasions where a specific request was made to the firearms registry to check for weapons before we attended a "violence is likely" type of call; and those calls were at my insistence. Those calls did not assist the matter at hand at all. I monitored dispatch calls, on average, 10-12 hours a day on every one of my shifts, and there were no regular requests for such information. The officers on the street do not trust the information from the gun registry. Consequently, they don't ask for it or use it. It is disingenuous of supporters of the registry to say police across Canada query the system for firearms registrations many thousands of times a day. Those "auto generated" queries are built into a normal Canadian Police Information Centre name query, popping up as a statistical request for firearm registration. Actual "on-street" firearms checks are closer to one per cent of the total firearms queries that are held out to be so useful to Canadian police. It may be that during some criminal investigations, well after the initial street response, such queries are made. It might also be part of the duties of the administrative teams that work with firearms registration. But, none of those possibilities are the truly intentional firearms registration search on the part of the officers on the street. There are many priorities in managing the dispatch of a dangerous call, but checking with the Canadian Firearms Centre for a possible firearms registration is not one of them. It is beyond comprehension why the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police feel they must support the registry. It's even more tragic they link the deaths of 14 police officers in Canada to support for the registry. Perhaps it would be more imaginative to identify how many police officers' lives were saved because of the registry, but I don't think they have that kind of statistic. Thankfully, not all chiefs espouse the value of the long-gun registry. Loyalty is fine on a sports team, but it has no place in carefully considered police management. The management of police work should include focus on issues from the top down and the bottom up. This is one example where the association of chiefs doesn't ask, and clearly they don't want to know. If they truly understood the realities street-level officers face with firearms crime, they would not support the long-gun registry nor try to fool the public into believing it is a valued tool for police or public safety. Al Bohachyk, Inspector EPS retired, St. Albert ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:12:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Edmonton Journal - Letters - Agu 27/10 http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/first+time/3448459/story.html Not the first time Edmonton Journal August 27, 2010 I take offence to the premise that we should listen to the chiefs of police. They are an unelected body of persons who do not speak for Canadians. In a brief to the Senate/House of Commons special joint committee on the Constitution of Canada, dated Nov. 27, 1980, this exact same association opposed the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They opposed enshrining many of the legal rights we as Canadians enjoy under the charter. A copy of that brief can be found at http://www.ualberta.ca/~clement2/cacp.pdf If they were trying to deny us fundamental rights in 1980, what makes them any more credible in 2010? Chris Billard, Medicine Hat http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/Lobbying/3448458/story.html Lobbying is not the job Edmonton Journal August 27, 2010 Re: "Listen to the chiefs," Opinion, Aug. 25. Do you really want to take the advice of a body (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police) that argued (in 1980) in opposition to such freedoms as the right to counsel, right to silence, the right to be free from arbitrary detention? If bureaucrats had their choice, we would have no civil rights whatsoever. Why? Because it would make their jobs immeasurably easier. For example, getting rid of those pesky privacy laws would allow unrestricted "fishing expeditions." There's no telling how many potential crimes could be prevented. Or how about improving our crime clearance rate by allowing police to force confessions out of suspects? It would make their jobs easier, but it wouldn't be the kind of country I want to live in. The CACP is like any other lobby group, looking out for it's own interests and no one else's. The fact it's lobbying against the policy of a duly elected government also says something. I thought civil servants were to implement public policy, not make it. Peter M. Zupan, Edmonton http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/Trust+front+line/3448460/story.html Trust the front line Edmonton Journal August 27, 2010 Support for the long-gun registry must be based upon the facts. When Bill C-68 was first introduced, the chiefs of police strongly supported it even though many of their front-line officers did not. During committee hearings it was learned that the organization of chiefs of police received an annual grant from the federal government to run their organization. This amounted to thousands of dollars and appeared as a conflict of interest at the time. It politicized their organization and coloured their support for the gun registry. Legitimate support for the long-gun registry must come from the front-line officers who have hands-on experience in its effectiveness. After a decade-and-a-half of application, it's the front-line police officers who know of its value or the lack thereof. Comments from their chiefs are suspect, as they may simply want to protect a large and costly bureaucracy. Jack Ramsay, Camrose http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/letters/Leaders+touch/3448463/story.html Leaders out of touch Edmonton Journal August 27, 2010 The police chiefs association has chosen to advocate retaining the federal long-gun registry in spite of Const. Randy Kuntz's Canada-wide poll of 2,631 rank and file police officers, finding that 92 per cent of respondents agreed the registry was useless. Kuntz's findings are consistent with the views of the police officers I have spoken with over the years. Being a police officer is one of the most difficult jobs there is. It is axiomatic that in any successful organization those who do the work must have confidence in those who lead them. If the police chiefs are so completely out of touch with the officers under them, it must raise the question of whether or not the chiefs deserve to occupy the high positions of public trust they are in. The head of the chief's association says chiefs are going to take it upon themselves to "educate Canadians" as to why the billion-dollar boondoggle-registry should be retained. The chiefs' time would be better spent educating themselves on what officers who have worked under their leadership think. Jake Bureyko, Edmonton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:23:09 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: Charter rights Sorry, I lost the reference. Do you recall that the Association of Chiefs of Police stated that our Charter rights were not needed nor are they wanted by the Chiefs? What publication and what date of publication is that? That is quotable and I would like to note it. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM ************************* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:43:10 -0700 From: jim davies Subject: We need to know if long-gun registry works, ... We need to know if long-gun registry works, Independent data must be collected to determine its effectiveness By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun Debate about the Canadian long-gun registry has been hijacked by politicians and special interest groups, leaving most Canadians in the dark about the program's actual value. An Angus Reid poll this week reveals the public is all over the map when it comes to how they view the 14-year-old regimen for issuing licenses to shotgun and rifle owners. According to the poll, 43 per cent believe the registry has failed to prevent crime, 13 per cent believe it has prevented crime, and 29 per cent think it has had no effect. Some 44 per cent want the registry scrapped; 35 per cent want it kept. The public has every right to feel confused. Auditor-General Sheila Fraser pointed out back in 2006 that the firearms program does not collect data to measure the long-gun registry's effectiveness. Fraser noted that a performance report she reviewed at the time focused only "on activities such as issuing licenses and registering firearms." "The (Canadian Firearms) Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms." On Thursday, an RCMP "audit and evaluation" of the registry, carried out last February, was released. The report concludes that the current system is "cost effective and efficient." That might shed some light, but many see the RCMP as being in disrepute these days, and of course it's a policing agency with its own set of biases. Without empirical and independent data, politicians and self-interested lobby groups have taken over what has become an endless discussion, with the different players making claims and counterclaims about the utility of the registry, or lack thereof. From its inception, the registry got a bad rap, due to horrific cost overruns sustained in setting it up. Now that it's operational, the scheme costs something less than $4 million a year. While not a significant expense in the federal scheme of things, the issue has lately come to dominate the parliamentary agenda. Backbench Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner, actively lobbying against the firearms program, is sponsoring a private member's bill, C-391, that would kill the registry. It comes up for a third reading vote Sept. 22. The Conservatives have always opposed the registry, contending it constitutes harassment of legitimate gun owners such as hunters and farmers. Knowing that Albertans, rural residents and libertarians are most opposed, the party essentially is playing to its own constituency. Liberals, who hold more seats in urban areas, also are pandering to their supporters in favouring the registry. And, to bring some of their wavering rural MPs onside, Liberals lately have developed a compromise position by advocating elimination of fees for new firearms licences and making first-time failure to register a non-criminal offence. While those using the registry -- police -- could provide enlightenment on whether or not it's worthwhile, their response has been anything but uniform. Generally, police chiefs are for keeping the registry, front-line officers for scrapping it. And now the RCMP is arguing in favour of retention. In keeping with the politicization of everything related to the registry, the head of the Canadian Firearms Agency, Marty Cheliak, last week was sent for emergency language training after expressing support for the registry which, once again, the Harper crowd did not appreciate. Naturally enough, the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, representing sports shooters and firearms enthusiasts, this week has come out against the registry. In this debate, different groups have merely been shouting past each other, and the Conservative government has made no attempt whatever to give Canadians the facts they'd need to determine whether the long-gun registry has been useful. Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/need+know+long+registry+works/3448969/story.html#ixzz0xpSZMyc9 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:36:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Victoria Times-Colonist - The gun registry and ignorance http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/registry+ignorance/3449557/story.html?cid=megadrop_story The gun registry and ignorance Times Colonist August 27, 2010 The government's approach to the gun registry helps explain the Conservatives' failure to win enough voters to form a majority government. Leave aside, for a moment, the core question of whether the registry should be retained or abolished. MPs are to make a decision on that on Sept. 22. With the vote expected to be close, they should be seeking -- and the government providing -- all the information needed to make a smart, informed choice. Instead, the Conservatives are sitting on a Canadian firearms program evaluation completed by the RCMP in February. At a May hearing of the Commons' public safety committee, senior deputy RCMP commissioner Bill Sweeney said the report "was extremely positive" and should be released. Not necessary, says the government. "Canadians don't need another report to know that the long-gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told the Toronto Star. "They don't need another report to know that the registry does nothing to prevent crime." It's a trite, wrong and dangerous response. Trite, because the government has not even updated its talking points since it suppressed another positive report until after a preliminary vote last November. The comments were literally identical. Wrong, because Canadians -- aside from those on both sides of the debate whose minds are closed -- do need useful information to help assess the costs and benefits of the gun registry. And dangerous because of its underlying premise that ignorance is to be celebrated. The notion that prejudice or ideology should drive decisions while facts are ignored is extremely troubling. There is room for debate on the issue. Any time the state asks for information that affects privacy, the public should ensure the program is necessary. And although the costs of maintaining the registry are small -- about $4 million a year -- all expenditures should be justified. On balance, both the intrusion and the costs are easily justified. Obtaining the required licence and providing the information for the registry is not onerous. And the information is used about 14,000 times a day by police forces across Canada and about 2,500 times a day by police in B.C. That's why the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has campaigned against the move to kill the registry. The chiefs say eliminating it would make it harder to fight crime, reduce public safety and put officers' lives at risk. The Canadian Police Association, which represents front-line officers across the country, also supports the registry. Their interest in maintaining the registry is understandable. An officer serving a warrant or investigating a dispute at a home has the ability to check for the presence of registered weapons -- and learn how many and of what types -- and take those factors into account. Stolen weapons can be traced back to their original owner, helping police solve crimes. Criminals likely won't register guns. But that allows police to seize unregistered weapons from those people. Rifles and shotguns are useful tools. Some seven million firearms are registered in Canada (920,000 in B.C.). But the registry doesn't prevent people from owning weapons. It simply places them on a par with cars, which we all register without complaint. This should not be a matter of ideology. The gun registry makes Canada a safer place for everyone -- especially police officers. It should not be killed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:53:04 -0700 From: jim davies Subject: My Email to Barbara Yaffe Re: her article on the gun registry Dear Ms. Yaffe Thank you for presenting what is arguably one of the most balanced discussions of this topic seen [or likely to be seen] in the Canadian media. Like so many other issues in our world, there are pros and cons and each side has some valid points. Unfortunately for our democratic system today the vast majority of media opinion is left of center and this biases the presentation of facts. I mention the obvious just to highlight that your article on this topic enhances the idea of an informed populace making wise choices. As a strong believer in democracy, thank you. Canada is still a wealthy country and we can probably afford to continue to finance this sacred cow as we do other things that make us feel good. I have read several times in various places that the gun registry [including the handgun registry which goes back to 1934] has never contributed to one successful prosecution in it's history. However there is no doubt that many people feel that the gun registry is "doing something." As a former target shooter I have had a long history of dealing with the gun registry. Guess what? It is like all the other bureaucracies out there. Usually the individuals working there are helpful but often they are bound by various strictures and obvious problems cannot be solved and the paperwork obfuscation increases. I could bore you with various anecdotes but will not... I'll leave it up to you to decide whether controlling objects is preferable to controlling criminals. In general, one's attitude on this question depends on whether you have been a victim, or not. All the best. Jim Davies ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #17 ********************************** 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".)