Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, September 9 2010 Volume 14 : Number 047 In this issue: Ontario nurses urge Harper to save gun registry- TorStar/CP COLUMN: Inane politics propel registry issue - by Catherine Ford Opinion: Gun control a peace issue - The StarPhoenix G&M - Column - From gun owners to gun criminals Column: Alberta should not renew RCMP contract Police political advocacy Re: Police political advocacy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 1:38 pm From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Ontario nurses urge Harper to save gun registry- TorStar/CP Ontario nurses urge Harper to save gun registry http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/858615--ontario-nurses-urge-harper-to-save-gun-registry The Canadian Press Published On Thu Sep 9 2010 Ontario’s registered nurses are adding their voices to calls to save the long-gun registry. The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario has made its views known in an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The letter says that for nurses, the gun registry is not a north versus south or rural versus urban issue, but a health issue. It says even skeptics now acknowledge the registry is working and saving lives, and notes that police call it a useful tool. A Conservative private member’s bill would scrap the registry. The bill has passed second reading in the Commons and the next vote on the legislation is set for later this month. - -- Gun registry Related http://www.thestar.com/topic/gunregistry Letters to the Editor via email to; lettertoed@thestar.ca Letters to the Editor On-line Form; http://www3.thestar.com/cgi-bin/star_static.cgi?section=news&page=/Forms/lettertoed.html © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2010 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 1:43 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: COLUMN: Inane politics propel registry issue - by Catherine Ford SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX - SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 Inane politics propel registry issue By Catherine Ford, Troy Media September 9, 2010 http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Inane+politics+propel+registry+issue/3498831/story.html Canada's federal government is tough on crime but soft on guns. It's a case of being hard-nosed, but soft-headed. How this is being played out leads one to believe irony is not Prime Minister Stephen Harper's strong suit. Nobody has pointed out that a professed law-and-order government should be seeking to strengthen laws against gun ownership. Instead, the Conservatives are determined to eliminate the long-gun registry and destroy the records. This is despite objections of police chiefs across the country and real statistics showing the registry contributes to an enhancement of public safety. The rural rump of the Conservative Party is behind the move to eliminate the registry using the tired complaint that having to register shotguns and rifles discriminates against law-abiding citizens. Voters who want the registry abolished need not speak another word: Harper's already on their side. Because of that, every Conservative MP, all of whom know that to vote against a government bill, even if it is a private member's bill from Manitoba Tory MP Candice Hoeppner, is to incur Harper's wrath. There's no hope from the government benches for reversing this inane idea. Under the heading, "Standing up for those who helped build Canada" was this nugget in the March 3 Throne Speech: "Our government will continue to support legislation to repeal the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry that targets law-abiding farmers and hunters, not criminals." That was preceded by: "Our government will now focus on the further protection of children, women and victims of white-collar crime." Further protection of women and children? The worst part is not the obfuscation; it's the fact the electorate lets politicians get away with it. In fact, every person without a criminal record in this country is a law-abiding citizen, a few speeding tickets notwithstanding. That label can be applied right up until the law-abiding citizen takes his rifle and shoots another law-abiding citizen, usually his wife and/or children and then turns the gun on himself. So don't try that so-called law-abiding argument on people who can think their way out of a paper bag. The long-gun registry is certainly not perfect, but at the very least it lets police know when there is a gun in the house anytime they are called to a domestic dispute. Meanwhile, the ordinary cop on the beat believes the gun registry doesn't prevent spousal homicide. Of course it doesn't, but that's not the point. There's another aspect to the registry that's more to the point: "When individuals apply for a licence to acquire a firearm, their current or former spouse or common-law partner with whom they have lived within the past two years will be provided with an opportunity to voice any concerns they may have about their safety or the safety of others. A licence can be revoked if the licencee is involved in an act of domestic violence." This, from the RCMP, means police can seize any weapons in cases of domestic violence. Common sense, along with statistics, shows that killing one's spouse is rarely the first incident of violence in a home. At the very least, the studies done by Statistics Canada have the virtue of being scientific. Not so the "straw poll" conducted among the rank and file police officers who self-selected themselves in opposition to the registry, leading to the specious conclusion that police chiefs may support the registry, but the men and women "on the beat" do not. Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, on behalf of the Association of Police Chiefs, said the registry was a "cost-effective way of ensuring safe communities." Yet against the overwhelming weight of statistics, our government will decide within weeks to dismantle an important tool in keeping Canada safe. Only the combined opposition can stop this. Perhaps it would be instructive for all MPs, not just Conservatives, to review why the registry was initiated. Clearly, they have forgotten. Pat and Berwick Slinger, the couple whose personal tragedy led to Canada's gun laws being tightened in 1977, both died in 2008. Too bad Harper cannot face them. Too bad none of today's MPs were there with them, as I was, on that heart-searing day in 1975 when a kid with two long guns in a duffle bag shot up Brampton Centennial Secondary School, killing 17-year-old John Slinger and teacher Margaret Wright, and seriously wounding nine students before killing himself. The life-long Progressive Conservatives' plea for tougher gun regulations in the wake of their son's death led inexorably to the current law. The small Ontario town was home to then-Ontario premier Bill Davis, and with his help and thousands of names on a petition, they enlisted the Conservative government of Ontario to lobby Ottawa. Too bad Harper can't face the surviving Slinger children, Rob and Jayne, and make his argument for getting rid of the registry in front of them. Letters To The Editor citydesk@sp.canwest.com On-line Form Letter Submissions http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 2:26 pm From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Opinion: Gun control a peace issue - The StarPhoenix Gun control a peace issue http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/letters/control+peace+issue/3498842/story.html By Mae Popoff, The StarPhoenix September 9, 2010 Three national police associations -- The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards -- want to maintain the long gun registry. The CBC website quotes Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association that represents rank-and-file officers, as saying: "This should not be about us versus them. Or rural versus urban, or even police versus politicians. "The firearms registry represents a valuable tool in assisting police in doing their job. It is a valuable tool, which has significant preventative and investigative value in keeping our communities safe." Gun control is a peace issue, because effective gun control leads to a reduction in homicides and in personal injury to the innocent. The Saskatoon Peace Coalition supports the police and calls on Stephen Harper's government to maintain the long gun registry. We ask our local MPs -- Brad Trost, Lynne Yelich, Kelly Block and Maurice Vellacott -- to do the right thing by voting against Bill C-391 when it is brought back to the House of Commons. Mae Popoff Advocacy co-ordinator *Saskatoon Peace Coalition Letters To The Editor citydesk@sp.canwest.com On-line Form Letter Submissions http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html - -- -- *Saskatoon Peace Coalition Blog http://www.saskatoonpeace.tk/ Contact the Saskatoon Peace Coalition info@saskatoonpeace.tk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:46:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: G&M - Column - From gun owners to gun criminals http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/from-gun-owners-to-gun-criminals/article1701297/ From gun owners to gun criminals Andrew Steele Thursday, September 9, 2010 1:58 PM The Canadian Firearms Registry is one of those issues on which it is difficult to engage in rational debate. Like abortion, firearm policy is what Lawrence Tribe called a “clash of absolutes.” Foundational values – of personal liberty and personal safety – are diametrically opposed. The resulting conversation becomes increasingly distorted. Proponents of the registry are prone to ad hominem attacks disparaging opponents as witless rubes or overstating the impact of the registry. Opponents of the registry fall prey to over-reaction, citing their hunting rifle as the fountainhead of democracy or dismissing the registry as a tool for police. The current discussion about the future of the registry is less about policy or outcomes than about its status as a cultural touchstone. Part of the blame for this lays with the birth of the registry in the run-up to the 1993 federal election. The Mulroney government was made up of a coalition of rural Westerners and urban Ontarians and Quebeckers. Attempting to balance these interests, they responded to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre with a ban on paramilitary style weapons, a 28 day cooling off period and the requirement to pass a firearms safety course. However, some of the survivors and parents of the victims campaigned for further moves, which were adopted by the Liberals in their campaign. The policy was relatively low-profile in the campaign, but after the election became a rallying point among the Reform Party opposition. Free from any Eastern influence, the proposal of a gun registry hit a nerve among the rural base of Reform, while support for a registry was similarly passionate to the urban-skewed supporters of the Liberal Party. What had previously been a cross-cleaving issue that the PC Party chose to play down became a front-line issue in the new partisan dynamic. As a result, both parties chose to highlight the issue in media, advertising and fundraising appeals. Making common cause with gun registry opponents was a no-brainer for the Reform Party, who found a new driver for memberships and fundraising. Similarly, appeals in favour of the gun registry were a turnout mobilizer in urban centres among Liberally-inclined voters. The increasing polarization of the issue invited a knee-jerk response from both sides, exacerbated by civil disobedience against participating in the registry and cost overruns in the IT development. More than two decades after the tragedy that sparked its creation, the opponent side of the registry issue may have landed a potential coalition in the Commons large enough to defeat the registry. Should the registry be disbanded? Philosophically, I think if you have to register your car, it is fair to register your gun. They both have the potential to kill people when mishandled. More practically, the database is built and used. Certainly, if I were investigating an domestic violence call or other violent disturbance as a police officer, it would be helpful know if I should expect to find a firearm in the home. There were valid arguments about where to get the best bang for the buck in crime prevention when the database was being built. Frankly, that money would have been better spent on mental-health treatment in prisons, a perennially underfunded program that can directly impact recidivism. However, those same arguments would seem to call for continuing the registry once built, particularly given the relatively low on-going cost for operations. But I don’t expect to persuade opponents of the gun registry with those arguments. The lines are too deeply drawn and the issue reduced to shorthand. However, I do think there is a very important question to be answered around what next? If the registry is disbanded, or even if it isn’t, what should be done to impact gun crime? I would argue the logical move forward, under either a Conservative or Liberal government, is a Gun Offender Registry. Gun criminals – people who use a firearm in the commission of a crime – tend to do so again and again. Half – HALF – of those arrested in the United States on homicide charges have prior gun convictions. The cities of New York and Baltimore reacted to this trend by passing Gun Offender Registry Acts (GORAs). Several other jurisdictions in the United States are examining the policy for themselves. They require people convicted of gun crimes upon release to register their address with police, verify their location in person every six months and promptly notify police if they change. Unlike dangerous offender status, being placed on the list does not require judicial approval. It is automatic after conviction. The status ends after a handful of years, balancing concerns around second chances with public safety. A person remains on the registry for three years in Baltimore, four in New York City. Failure to abide by the law is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine of $1000. For those released early, it is also a parole violation. Both GORAs build on the existing Sex Offender Registries, cutting down on IT costs and start up delays. Baltimore passed their GORA in 2007, and it was up within the year, producing arrests. In contrast to Gun Offender Registries, the Firearms Registry put the emphasis on the “gun” rather than the “criminal”. This generated a obvious reaction from law-abiding gun owners who fear the potential loss of their firearms over time. It also required those same gun owners to participate in the program, making it vulnerable to both abuse and non-compliance. Operationally, the federal registry required a brand new IT solution that had to be customized. This came at a time when private companies and governments around the world were having trouble with IT management because of a lack of competency, unrealistic demands from the public and elected officials, and big bang approaches to project management. GORAs are almost the opposite of the gun registry. They require the criminal to register, not the gun; this dovetails with the long-standing gun owner complaint that guns don’t kill people, criminals do. Co-operation is mandatory, otherwise the convicted offender faces jail time or a fine. Finally, by piggy-backing on the existing sex offender registry, the GORA is cost-efficient and operating on a proven IT architecture. The highly successful New York City GORA was tracking 65 career criminals in its first year, expanding to hundreds in its second. Police were able to devote extra attention to these potential recidivists and parole officers welcomed the assistance. Politically, by adopting such a policy either the Conservatives or Liberals could gain the upper hand on their opponent. For the Conservatives, a GORA would be a powerful counterattack against the Liberal charge that they are putting politics ahead of public safety. It would allow Stephen Harper to outflank Michael Ignatieff on gun crime, with a new proposal with appeal in the suburban battleground. For the Liberals, a GORA would amplify their polarization around gun issues, while partially insulating their exposed rural members from charges of caving into big city interests. Perhaps most importantly, it would finally end the stalemate on gun safety policy and allow a – hopefully – more reasonable debate about what to do with the intersection of privately owned firearms and crime in our society. - -- Submit a Letter letters@globeandmail.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 5:09 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Column: Alberta should not renew RCMP contract CALGARY HERALD - SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 Alberta should not renew RCMP contract BY BRIAN PURDY http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alberta+should+renew+RCMP+contract/3498184/story.html When Alberta became a province in 1905, it immediately established the Alberta Provincial Police, despite that fact that the Mounties had been policing Alberta since their arrival at Fort Macleod in 1875. By 1932 the situation had changed. It was the height of the Great Depression. Turner Valley oil was no longer significant. Agriculture was trying to survive the dust bowl that the Prairies had become. The Alberta government was broke, so when the RCMP offered to police the province at less cost, it must have been an easy sell. From then on, the RCMP have done general policing in Alberta under a 20-year contract with the Alberta government. The RCMP contract has been renewed every 20 years, because the Mounties were good policemen, and earned a justified reputation for good work, discipline and professionalism. But the situation has changed again. Now Alberta, despite the deficit projections of the Stelmach government, sends billions of dollars every year to other provinces under the equalization program. And the RCMP has changed, for the worse. At the headquarters level there hasn't been a good report in years. Various inquiries have found incompetence, poor training, poor discipline, poor co-ordination and communication, and outright dishonesty. Those inquiries have used phrases like "horribly broken," "often flawed," "not justified" and so on. News reports made it clear that RCMP investigations into embarrassing and fatal actions of their own members were inadequate to the point of being a coverup. At the field level there were many reports of highly dubious shootings by RCMP members, and criminal investigations into the conduct of members when off duty. Former RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli resigned in disgrace after giving conflicting statements to a Parliamentary committee. How did it get like this? Paul Palango has written three books on the RCMP and probably knows more than anyone in Canada about the modern history of the force. He says the decline in the RCMP is easily traced to a change that was made by Prime Minister John Turner. He made the RCMP a department of government, rather than an autonomous body responsible to Parliament. As a result of this change, the Commissioner was appointed by the Prime Minister, not Parliament. The RCMP Commissioner now depends on the PM for his job, and reports to him through the Solicitor General. Even cities have police commissions, whose function is to insulate the local police from political control. That protection went out the window when the RCMP became a government department. In fact in Palango's third book, Dispersing the Fog, he writes that Chretien and Zaccardelli allegedly made a deal that the RCMP Commissioner could keep his job as long as he left Chretien and his powerful Quebec friends alone. The well-read reader will recall the remarkable reluctance of the Zaccardelli led RCMP to investigate Chretien over the Auberge Grand-Mere matter, the firing of Francois Beaudoin, former president of the Business Development Bank of Canada, who refused to give a loan to a man who owed Chretien money, or anything to do with Adscam. That's what we get when a prime minister has the power to control the police. When I had lunch with Palango and his talented wife Sharon a couple of weeks ago, the first question I asked him was, "did Chretien sue you for what you said about him in Dispersing the Fog? After all, he sued Gomery for much less." The answer was no. Palango was serenely confident his information was solid and from thoroughly reliable sources. I had more questions, and emailed them to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and the Solicitor General of Alberta, more than a week ago. The questions were: 1. Since the contract comes up for renewal in March of 2012, have negotiations developed as yet between your government and the RCMP as to its terms? 2. Has the government considered the option of the establishment of an Alberta Provincial Police for general policing instead of renewing the RCMP contract? 3. If such an option has been considered, has the government calculated the costs of establishing and operating an Alberta police force as opposed to renewal of the RCMP contract? 4. Has the government considered renewing the RCMP contract for a term of less than 20 years? If so, what term was decided would be in Alberta's best interest? 5. Does the government intend to open debate on the issue of the renewal of the contract in the legislature, and thus stimulate public discussion on the merits of it? 6. Is the government satisfied that the current operations and structure of the RCMP will be the best way to police Alberta for the next 20 years? None of the questions have been answered as yet. Don't you think they should be, before we sign on with the RCMP for another 20 years? Question number 6 is the main one that Premier Stelmach must answer, and time is running out. Brian Purdy is a Queen's Counsel who spent more than 30 years working in criminal law, primarily with the RCMP. He is a retired General Counsel with the federal Department of Justice, and lives in Calgary. Letters to the editor E-mail: letters@theherald.canwest.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 4:59 pm From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Police political advocacy > If you have this in line, verse, chapter and an official URL to go with > what you have guys, would you kindly submit as much that is relevant and > verifiable for post, in it's entirety to the CFD as you can? > [Or as much as is pertinent and feasibly to the subject at hand.] The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-r-10/latest/rsc-1985-c-r-10.html (Part IV Section 37 d, f) And Peel's Nine Principles of Policing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles >(especially #8) - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Canada mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ** Please always use BCC and erase appended address lists when forwarding or sending to groups ** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, September 9, 2010 6:50 pm From: "David R.G. Jordan" Subject: Re: Police political advocacy - ----- Original Message ----- From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Date: Thursday, September 9, 2010 6:24 pm Subject: Police political advocacy > > If you have this in line, verse, chapter and an official URL to > > go with what you have guys, would you kindly submit as much that is > > relevant and verifiable for post, in it's entirety to the CFD as you > > can? > > [Or as much as is pertinent and feasibly to the subject at hand.] > > > The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act > http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-r-10/latest/rsc- > 1985-c-r-10.html > (Part IV Section 37 d, f) > > And Peel's Nine Principles of Policing > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles >(especially #8) > > -- > M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) > Rural Family Physician, > Sherbrooke, NS > Canada > mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca > > "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". Thank you for taking your valuable time to research and submit this information to the CFD to post, Mike. Now....Let's see where this particular group of people stand on publicly advocating, and interfering in the political process of the business of government. If they want to play politics and effecting law-making on a regular basis, perhaps we who are the little people, who have to live with their decisions on to the practicality to enforce the will of government on the populace - maybe "we" little people should have the right to elect who "we" want to enforce the will of our elected government, as well? It is the law and does seem to work in some states, below the 49th? Thanks again! - - DRGJ "What do old men, women and children all have in common? They don't shoot back." - - Unknown ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #47 ********************************** 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".)