Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, October 3 2010 Volume 14 : Number 116 In this issue: Re: pound salt Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates LETTER: Listen to Iggy. By Robert S. Sciuk Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down RE: pound salt RE: Perfect posturing - Susan Riley CITY-TV - StreetBeat- October 2- Shots Fired Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down [none] [none] Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 09:32:34 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: pound salt On 2-Oct-10, at 10:49 AM, Trigger Mortis wrote: > I know that "pound salt" means, more or less, "go @$(&^$ yourself", > but I am curious about the origin of the phrase. Can anyone enlighten > me. I am more familiar with "go pound sand". The origin of the expression "go pound sand" is from a longer expression, not to know (have enough sense to) pound sand down a rathole. Filling rat holes with sand is menial work, and telling someone to pound sand down a hole is like telling them to go fly a kite. The expression dates to at least 1912 and is common in the midwestern United States. wordorigins.org http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/36783 I do not have any knowledge of the validity of this source. Sincerely, Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:17:33 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/30741.htm Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates By ANNIE YOUDERIAN Friday, October 01, 2010 BOZEMAN, Mont. (CN) - A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights advocates seeking a declaration that Montana law allows them to make and sell guns without abiding by federal regulations. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation to toss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because the commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate firearms. The Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and resident Gary Marbut had asked Molloy to declare that they could legally make and sell firearms under the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act without complying with federal laws, including licensing and registration requirements. The state law declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress (sic) to regulate interstate commerce." But the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives held a different view. It warned Marbut in response to his request for clarification that a violation of the federal Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act "could lead to ... potential criminal prosecution." To the extent that the state law conflicts with federal gun laws and regulations, federal law trumps the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the ATF explained. Marbut and other gun-rights advocates argued that this answer violates the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's authority to the powers specifically outlined in the Constitution. Molloy's dismissal sides with the Department of Justice, which argued that the Constitution's commerce clause grants Congress the ability to regulate guns -- even those that never leave Montana. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:17:33 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/01/30741.htm Judges Tosses Challenge by Gun-Rights Advocates By ANNIE YOUDERIAN Friday, October 01, 2010 BOZEMAN, Mont. (CN) - A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit brought by gun-rights advocates seeking a declaration that Montana law allows them to make and sell guns without abiding by federal regulations. U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula adopted a federal magistrate's recommendation to toss the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because the commerce clause grants Congress the power to regulate firearms. The Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and resident Gary Marbut had asked Molloy to declare that they could legally make and sell firearms under the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act without complying with federal laws, including licensing and registration requirements. The state law declares that a "personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress (sic) to regulate interstate commerce." But the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives held a different view. It warned Marbut in response to his request for clarification that a violation of the federal Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act "could lead to ... potential criminal prosecution." To the extent that the state law conflicts with federal gun laws and regulations, federal law trumps the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, the ATF explained. Marbut and other gun-rights advocates argued that this answer violates the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's authority to the powers specifically outlined in the Constitution. Molloy's dismissal sides with the Department of Justice, which argued that the Constitution's commerce clause grants Congress the ability to regulate guns -- even those that never leave Montana. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, October 3, 2010 1:33 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: LETTER: Listen to Iggy. By Robert S. Sciuk CALGARY HERALD - OCTOBER 3, 2010 LETTER: Listen to Iggy. By Robert S. Sciuk http://www.calgaryherald.com/Listen+Iggy/3616587/story.html Re: "Long-gun registry on target for safety," Naomi Lakritz, Opinion, Oct. 1. Naomi Lakritz invokes the spectre of the "collective good" to rationalize car registration, and that's fine, so far as it goes, because according to Stats Can, you are far more likely to be killed by a car or medical misadventure than you are to be shot. There is a big difference between automotive and firearm registration, and it seems to have evaded Lakritz entirely. If you don't register your car, you are not allowed to drive it on a public thoroughfare, no fine, no penalty, no nothing. Keep it in your driveway as long as you like, no problem. If you don't register a firearm, or you allow your licence to lapse while you are in possession of firearms, you have met all the criteria to be declared a criminal under sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. This in the absence of any action on your part. Yesterday, you were law abiding, but today you are a menace because the law decrees it. This subtle difference entitles you to be charged, fined and incarcerated for up to 10 years in a federal prison, and to enjoy financial ruin in the process of defending yourself against what amounts to a political crime of firearm ownership. Perhaps this distinction will help you to understand why millions of Canadians still resist the unjust and unwarranted criminalization brought about by the Liberals' Canadian Firearms Act. Even Michael Ignatieff has admitted that the law needs to be reformed. Robert S. Sciuk, Oshawa, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:43:26 -0400 From: tliner Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down yes but you still have to be licenced if you alone are in possession of it off your property do you not? - -------- Original Message --------- From: "mred" To: Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down > Its government policy it doesn't have to make sense. The gun is NOT in > storage it is in TRANSPORT which is a whole different kettle of fish. > ed/on > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tliner" > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down > >> i'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all. your saying this >> guys wife, with no pol, pal or any type of licence can charge around >> town with her husbands guns as long as they have trigger locks on them? >> >> this is beyond ludicrous. what's to stop her from stopping, unlocking >> them and suddenly ( pardon my french) taking a pms spell and going >> postal? or a reversal, if the wife has the licence and her hubby happens >> to be a gangbanger unknown to the law who decides to off his >> competition? >> >> if this is the law then it shows how truly stupid our gun laws are >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <10x@telus.net> >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 8:49 PM >> Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down >> >>> At 05:48 AM 10/2/2010 -0700, you wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/103659789.html >>>> >>>>Gun transfer triggers take-down >>>> >>>>By Chris Bush - Nanaimo News Bulletin >>>>Published: September 23, 2010 2:00 PM >>>> >>>>Nanaimo Mounties responded with guns drawn after a woman handed her >>>>husband his shotgun Thursday. >>>> >>>>The incident happened shortly before 11 a.m. when a woman, running >>>>errands at Country Club Centre, parked her car and discovered her >>>>husband's shotgun in the vehicle. > snipped << ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:49:56 +0000 From: Trigger Mortis Subject: RE: pound salt Somebody told me once it had to do with salt being a valuable commodity. He said Roman soldiers were sometimes paid in salt. I don't recall the relevence of that however. Being paid in salt and pounding it????? I don't recall how they are connected. Alan Harper alan__harper@hotmail.com SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM ************************* > From: edwardhudson@shaw.ca > To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > Subject: Re: pound salt > Date: Sun=2C 3 Oct 2010 09:32:34 -0600 > > On 2-Oct-10 at 10:49 AM Trigger Mortis wrote: > > > I know that "pound salt" means=2C more or less=2C "go @$(&^$ yourself" > > but I am curious about the origin of the phrase. Can anyone enlighten > > me. > > I am more familiar with "go pound sand". > > The origin of the expression "go pound sand" is from a longer > expression not to know (have enough sense to) pound sand down a > rathole. Filling rat holes with sand is menial work and telling > someone to pound sand down a hole is like telling them to go fly a > kite. The expression dates to at least 1912 and is common in the > midwestern United States. wordorigins.org > > http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/36783 > > I do not have any knowledge of the validity of this source. > > Sincerely > > Eduardo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:10:50 -0700 From: "Jim Pook" Subject: RE: Perfect posturing - Susan Riley Rob: Excellent idea! I think that this is something we can sell to the politicians and the public. The Police Chiefs will never buy it because it strips them of their empire, but who cares about them? The beauty of this is that we can call it "licensing" but technically, it is not, and avoids the criminalization that true licensing has given us. What we need is an outline of our proposal that we can all agree on that spells out how and why this is better than what we have now, so that it can be sold to the politicians and public. Jim Pook Vancouver Island-North - --------Original Message-------- From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of Rob Sciuk Sent: October 3, 2010 7:45 AM To: Canadian Firearms Digest Subject: Re: Perfect posturing - Susan Riley Sorry to jump in on this thread, gentlemen, but it occurs to me that we must use caution in stating publicly simply that we "oppose licensing". This, while true, has some nuance to it, which can if used correctly can strengthen our argument -- let me explain: - As has been pointed out on many occasions, the CFA brought changes to the CCC (sec 91/92) which make simple firearm posession illegal. - The previous FAC certificate allowed continued posession in the expiration of the certificate, but it must be renewed before coming into posession of new firearms. On consideration, the FAC is an ingenious compromise which didn't criminalize us, but has every public safety "tool" which the CFA/licensing claims to have invented. - The CCC changes were pre-requisite to allowing federal jurisdiction in what up until those changes was a simple property (Provincial) matter. Under criminal law, the feds could claim jurisdiction, and the Liberals were only too happy to criminalize us. So basically the differences between the FAC and the CFA licensing regime were purely PUNITIVE to the responsible firearms community. Ok, most of us understand these "subtle nuances", and we realize what the Liberals have done to Canada with the CFA. What I'm suggesting is that when we speak publicly to the great unwashed, is that we attempt to show how the "PREVIOUS REGIME'S LICENSE the FAC" is superior in every way to the current licensing regime because it doesn't unfairly criminalize firearm owners. This is a different message than "we oppose licensing" ... but the net effect is to educate just why we oppose the CFA's license. Iggy has spoken publicly about "reforms" directed at Sec 91/92 ... of course all he's talking about is you get one infraction free. But if he's discussing it, its on the table. WE NEED TO DUMP Sec 91/92 of CCC. In the battle, we cannot simply "oppose licensing" and retain the high ground, but we can certainly demonstrate why the "previous regime's license" made so much sense. ... It's all in the packaging. While no one wants to make Kim Campbell look like a legislative genius, it is clear to me that whoever came up with FAC - 77/91 knew what they were doing and had no desire to classify us as criminals. It makes Chretien/Rock et al look like idiots. So I guess I'm suggesting that we start working on getting the public to understand which "licensing" system works, and which one doesn't. The FAC reversion is achievable if it is carefully orchestrated. Cheers, Rob. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:30:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: CITY-TV - StreetBeat- October 2- Shots Fired http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/95520--streetbeat-october-2-shots-fired StreetBeat- October 2- Shots Fired 2010/10/02 | CityNews.ca Staff Toronto police are searching for suspects after shots were fired into a car at Dundas and River St. overnight Saturday. An older and younger man, reportedly a father and son, were riding in a car around 12:30am when two bullets struck their vehicle at 246 Sackville Street. Police have found shell casings in the area and have also recovered surveillance video from a nearby building. At this point, there's no word on any suspects. Anyone with information is asked to contact 51 division at (416) 808-5100 or Crime Stoppers at (416) 222-TIPS. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 19:07:15 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down YES..ED/ON - ----- Original Message ----- From: "tliner" To: Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 3:43 PM Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down > yes but you still have to be licenced if you alone are in possession of > it off your property do you not? > > -------- Original Message --------- > From: "mred" > To: > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:02 AM > Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down > >> Its government policy it doesn't have to make sense. The gun is NOT in >> storage it is in TRANSPORT which is a whole different kettle of fish. >> ed/on >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "tliner" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 10:06 PM >> Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down >> >>> i'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all. your saying this >>> guys wife, with no pol, pal or any type of licence can charge around >>> town with her husbands guns as long as they have trigger locks on them? >>> >>> this is beyond ludicrous. what's to stop her from stopping, unlocking >>> them and suddenly ( pardon my french) taking a pms spell and going >>> postal? or a reversal, if the wife has the licence and her hubby >>> happens to be a gangbanger unknown to the law who decides to off his >>> competition? >>> >>> if this is the law then it shows how truly stupid our gun laws are >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <10x@telus.net> >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 8:49 PM >>> Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down >>> >>>> At 05:48 AM 10/2/2010 -0700, you wrote: >>>> >>>>>http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/103659789.html >>>>> >>>>>Gun transfer triggers take-down >>>>> >>>>>By Chris Bush - Nanaimo News Bulletin >>>>>Published: September 23, 2010 2:00 PM >>>>> >>>>>Nanaimo Mounties responded with guns drawn after a woman handed her >>>>>husband his shotgun Thursday. >>>>> >>>>>The incident happened shortly before 11 a.m. when a woman, running >>>>>errands at Country Club Centre, parked her car and discovered her >>>>>husband's shotgun in the vehicle. <> ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 18:17:56 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: [none] Critics demand retirement home probe [Excerpt] [We blow $1.1 Bil in the charade known as G-8 and G-20. We spend $90 Mil sprucing up Muskoka alone; $23-Mil on the G8/G-20 international media security; the cost for the two summits was more expensive than the combined security costs of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia, which were $878 million - and some seniors live in their own excrement]. Critics demand retirement home probe [Excerpt] Moira Welsh and Dale Brazao Staff Reporters mwelsh@thestar.ca Oct 01 2010 >http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/869681--critics-demand-retirement-home-probe?bn=1 Ontario’s Minister of Seniors was “shocked” by an undercover Toronto Star expose on retirement homes and promises to create tough rules to keep residents safe in the future. But critics insist the province must launch a probe now into homes like In Touch Retirement Living. *A Star investigation published Friday found deplorable conditions at the 18 resident home in west end Toronto owned by Elaine Lindo. Minister Sophia Aggelonitis said in an interview she was “saddened and disturbed” by the video and story detailing the week in late August that an undercover Star reporter lived in the home. **** In the letter, Christine Elliott, deputy leader of the PC party, wrote: “It is simply unacceptable that our parents and grandparents, who did so much to build our great province, are left to live in these horrible living conditions.” “The details that have been revealed today require urgent action,” read the letter, sent to the government’s social policy committee. In an interview, Elliott said the living conditions were “terrible.” “Just to think of someone who is so powerless and alone to be left in those kind of conditions, it makes you want to cry,” Elliott said. **** Could be Christine that your angry little hubby, Fed Finance minister Jim Flaherty, had a hand in subjecting some of these folks (who built Ontario and Canada) to third world conditions when he broke his promise to not tax their Income Trusts therefore throwing well-intended retirement plans into disarray. We need some well meaning lawyer dude to check into this. Could a class action be launched against the lying little shrimp? - -- Note to gun owners, None of these seniors are too concerned with 'shall carry' and all that esoteric stuff. Note: There's a link to the reporters diary. Diary: Seven sad days via the article. Postscript: It's only a few years ago since Furious George Smitherman literally shed tears over standards of care. Swore he'd fix it. Nothing's changed. *Also see [A Star Investigation]: Seniors at risk in retirement home, investigation reveals Published On Fri Oct 1 2010 > http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/article/869045--seniors-at-risk-in-retirement-home-investigation-reveals?bn=1 - -- Letters to the Editor E-Mail: lettertoed@thestar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 18:17:56 -0400 From: Lee Jasper Subject: [none] Critics demand retirement home probe [Excerpt] [We blow $1.1 Bil in the charade known as G-8 and G-20. We spend $90 Mil sprucing up Muskoka alone; $23-Mil on the G8/G-20 international media security; the cost for the two summits was more expensive than the combined security costs of the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver and Whistler, British Columbia, which were $878 million - and some seniors live in their own excrement]. Critics demand retirement home probe [Excerpt] Moira Welsh and Dale Brazao Staff Reporters mwelsh@thestar.ca Oct 01 2010 >http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/869681--critics-demand-retirement-home-probe?bn=1 Ontario’s Minister of Seniors was “shocked” by an undercover Toronto Star expose on retirement homes and promises to create tough rules to keep residents safe in the future. But critics insist the province must launch a probe now into homes like In Touch Retirement Living. *A Star investigation published Friday found deplorable conditions at the 18 resident home in west end Toronto owned by Elaine Lindo. Minister Sophia Aggelonitis said in an interview she was “saddened and disturbed” by the video and story detailing the week in late August that an undercover Star reporter lived in the home. **** In the letter, Christine Elliott, deputy leader of the PC party, wrote: “It is simply unacceptable that our parents and grandparents, who did so much to build our great province, are left to live in these horrible living conditions.” “The details that have been revealed today require urgent action,” read the letter, sent to the government’s social policy committee. In an interview, Elliott said the living conditions were “terrible.” “Just to think of someone who is so powerless and alone to be left in those kind of conditions, it makes you want to cry,” Elliott said. **** Could be Christine that your angry little hubby, Fed Finance minister Jim Flaherty, had a hand in subjecting some of these folks (who built Ontario and Canada) to third world conditions when he broke his promise to not tax their Income Trusts therefore throwing well-intended retirement plans into disarray. We need some well meaning lawyer dude to check into this. Could a class action be launched against the lying little shrimp? - -- Note to gun owners, None of these seniors are too concerned with 'shall carry' and all that esoteric stuff. Note: There's a link to the reporters diary. Diary: Seven sad days via the article. Postscript: It's only a few years ago since Furious George Smitherman literally shed tears over standards of care. Swore he'd fix it. Nothing's changed. *Also see [A Star Investigation]: Seniors at risk in retirement home, investigation reveals Published On Fri Oct 1 2010 > http://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/article/869045--seniors-at-risk-in-retirement-home-investigation-reveals?bn=1 - -- Letters to the Editor E-Mail: lettertoed@thestar.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:59:13 -0400 From: tliner Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down all my guns have combination trigger locks. makes this point moot - -------- Original Message -------- From: <10x@telus.net> To: Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 8:20 AM Subject: Re: Nanaimo News Bulletin - Gun transfer triggers take-down >I am saying EXACTLY THAT! > > It states very clearly in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course Manual and > tests that a trigger lock is the minimum standard of disabling a firearm > that is acceptable for storage in the home. If that is the case then why > should not a trigger lock be acceptable as a minimum standard of > disabling a firearm while it is being transported. Neither the law or > the regulations state any minimum standard of disablement while > transporting so the standard of the trigger lock applies. > > If she does not have the key to the trigger lock and has no license then > everything is legal. > > If she does have the key and NO license then that is "unauthorized > access" > and she can be charged under section 91 and 92 of the criminal code. > Her husband can be charged as well for "safe storage" infractions. > > Please note that the "safe storage" laws and regulations have transformed > into "unauthorized access" charges. > The laws are for safe storage and safe transportation - the charges are > for not having the proper licenses. > > As for your speculation - that is all it is is speculation. What "might > happen" hasn't happened and folks are still given the benefit of doubt in > Canada. > > Our gun laws are not so much stupid as they are illogical and vague. > > BTW: the girlfriend of a well known miscreant with a firearms prohibition > did have a firearms license and guns. The guns were never used in a > crime, nor was there any "unauthorized access" proven. > > http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111907 > > It is too bad that many law enforcement personal do NOT understand the > laws regarding safe storage and transportation. > A very signficant number of Members of Parliament don't either. > > At 10:06 PM 10/2/2010 -0400, you wrote: > >>i'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all.Your saying this guys >>wife, with no pol, pal or any type of licence can charge around town with >>her husbands guns as long as they have trigger locks on them? this is >>beyond ludicrous. what's to stop her from stopping, unlocking them and >>suddenly (pardon my french) taking a pms spell and going postal? or a >>reversal, if the wife has the licence and her hubby happens to be a >>gangbanger unknown to the law who decides to off his competition? >> >>if this is the law then it shows how truly stupid our gun laws are >> snipped for length/repeat<< ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #116 *********************************** 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".)