From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #1002 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, March 12 2012 Volume 15 : Number 003 In this issue: re: TORONTO STAR: Known to police Step boldly forward and repeal the Firearms Act RE: Guns for self-defence Firearm for self defense at home Obama impeachment bill now in Congress Guns for self defence Amish Arrested After Buggy Hits Cop Car *NFR* Shooting inquest postponed again Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don't Know It *NFR* NATIONAL POST: There ought to be a law letters.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 06:49:51 -0700 (PDT) From: uglydukwling Subject: re: TORONTO STAR: Known to police That phrase always puzzles me when I see it in a news report. In our surveillance society, presumably everyone is" known to police". In fact, if a person was not "known to police", THAT would be a suspicious circumstance. It would probably mean he did not exist, ie a newly-created fictitious identity. Even Julian Fantino is "known to police". ("Known to Police" in today's vocabulary means that Police have arrested him before, or at least interviewed him before, or was a subject or person of interest in some case and was investigated, with or without his knowledge. The Phrase, was used often enough, became ingrained through useage. AsstMod-RAM) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:16:20 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Step boldly forward and repeal the Firearms Act Sunday, 11 March 2012 Ms. Kelly block, MP, CPC, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A6 Dear Ms. Block, Your warm smile and pleasant manner have made our brief conversations at the various CPC meetings enjoyable. Your knowledge of current issues has always seemed impressive. Therefore you will perhaps understand the extreme disappointment I felt upon reading your remarks in Hansard regarding Bill C-19. I can understand that you may have been "whipped" by Party disciple to rise in support of Bill C-19, Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, a very inadequate piece of legislation. But what I cannot understand is why you chose to endorse licencing, the very worst part of the Liberals Bill C-68, the 1995 Firearms Act. I was dismayed by your remarks on Tuesday, 07 February 2012: That is why the government is investing $7 million annually to strengthen front-end screening of first-time firearms licence applicants. Canada's gun control laws, including very important licensing requirements, are robust and effective. In your remarks you also spoke of keeping promises. You seemed to emphasize the promises the Conservatives made to the police and law enforcement. But you seemed to have neglected the promises made by the Conservatives to firearms owners.1 I do not understand what part of licencing fine-tunes the law so it targets criminals and not law- abiding citizens. A licence does not deter criminals from getting guns. The battle against licencing actually began when former Prime Minister Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservatives tried to pervert the Firearms Acquisition Certificate - the 1977, Bill C-51, FAC - into a licence. This licencing perversion was codified into law with the Liberals 1995 Firearms Act. The difference between the 1977 FAC and a licence is critical. The true 1977-style FAC 'certified' that the police had inspected their criminal records and the applicant was 'clean'. After acquiring a firearm, the FAC was not necessary for possession. But under the Firearms Act, Criminal Code sections 91 and 92 make the mere possession of a firearm illegal. The Liberals licencing scheme then gives the licence holder permission to do what is otherwise illegal. In response to this unwarranted attack on our unique Canadian culture of competent gun ownership, responsible gun owners drafted the firearms policy for the Conservative Party of Canada Convention in Montreal in March 2005. Through all aspects of the Convention debates, these dedicated firearms owners expressly ensured that the official CPC Policy recognizes 'the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly'.2 The Liberals Bill C-68 licencing mandate attempts to destroy that Right. If this Conservative Government does not repeal that unjust law, Canadians will suffer an irreparable loss of our proud heritage. Bill C-19 did nothing to change that. Until the Government recognizes our Right to own and use firearms responsibly this battle will continue. If your concern is truly to �minimize risks to public safety, the 1977 FAC will meet the need for efficient law enforcement. We in CUFOA recommend that the Government go one step further and follow Garry Breitkreuz's recommendation to 'Register Criminals NOT Duck Hunters and institute a Firearms Prohibition Registry to keep track of those violent person prohibited by court order from possessing firearms.3 Ms. Block, I do not know how to say it differently. You need to reappraise your endorsement of licencing. For the past seventeen years responsible firearms owners have, with Garry Breitkreuz's very able leadership, forthrightly fought against licensing by whole-heartedly supporting the conservative-minded parties.4 We deserve your whole- hearted support now. A 1995 quotation from the National Firearms Association states the present reality: Parties are going to have to deliver on their promises, or go the way of Campbell's Conservatives.5 The Government must step boldly forward and repeal the Firearms Act�s licencing database of gun-owners and delete sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. I trust we can count on your support. I would like to take you out for coffee to discuss this. Sincerely, Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS Secretary CC: The Right Honourable Mr. Harper and Ministers 1. Conservative Promises to Firearms Owners http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_19_jan_2002.html 2. The Conservative Party of Canada Policy Declaration http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_19_jan_2002.html 3. Firearms Prohibition Registry (FPR) http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_26_feb_2012.htm 4. Breitkreuz Re-opens Gun Control Debate - March 10, 1994 http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns01.htm 5. NFA Political Analysis � 10 July 1995 http://www.canfirearms.ca/Skeeter/NFA/analy10-795.txt Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association Association canadienne des propri�taires d�armes sans permis 402 Skeena Court Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2 (306) 242-2379 (306) 230-8929 edwardhudson@shaw.ca www.cufoa.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:14:59 -0400 From: TONY KATZ Subject: RE: Guns for self-defence I like the webly 455, big heavy slow bullet, six shots, no over penetration, more compact than even a shorty dbl barrel shotgun, not as obvious in the bedroom and designed to stop a fuzzy wuzzi. Tony Katz > From: bvhunting@xplornet.com > Subject: RE: Guns for self-defence > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:28:34 -0700 > To: > > I would agree with you, Jules. > Todd B > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca] On Behalf Of JULES SOBRIAN > Sent: March-10-12 1:39 PM > To: undisclosed-recipients: > Subject: Guns for self-defence > > < What are your thoughts on the best gun to keep by the bed for home < > defense? Shotgun? Handgun? Maybe an AR-15?> > > Here is my rationale for using a side by side, double barreled 12 or 20 > gauge, short barreled shotgun with 4-0 buck shot. > snipped for length, entire article has been Posted in it's entirety before, a couple of times. AsstMod-RAM) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 03:36:27 +0300 From: "Barry Holland" Subject: Firearm for self defense at home < What are your thoughts on the best gun to keep by the bed for home < defense? Shotgun? Handgun? Maybe an AR-15?> In Canada it is easier to legally have a 12g or other shotgun handy than a pistol of any calibre. A combination trigger lock is sufficient for security and you don't have to remember where the key is at 3am. I have often been asked what is the best gun to have for self defense and my response is always - " the one you have in your hand" and "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it". So the ideal self defense gun is not the one in your closet. Self defense by definition means you have to have it with you. Generally it is best to use the largest calibre you can comfortably handle. A shotgun offers a variety of load options. I recommend #4 shot as it has sufficient penetration to cause deep severe wounds even after penetrating a heavy leather jacket. Fact is that a center of mass hit inside 20ft with a shotgun with a shot round, the perp will die. In the US the law will likely support the defender here in Canada maybe - maybe not. I personally don't want there to be a "another side to the story". If I have sufficient justification to draw down on someone I better have justification to for dropping him if he doesn't do what I say, when I say and how I say. In this case I will be attempting to affect an arrest which gives me the authority to use whatever force is necessary to execute the arrest. In the absence of intermediate levels of force I have only 2 options if the perp doesn't comply - disengage or escalate. I recommend a pump action due to reliability, ease of use, 8rd capacity. A short barrel with a Sure-fire flashlight on a mount affixed to the magazine tube just in front of the fore-grip helps to have a light when you need it, pointing at and illuminating where you may have to shoot without encumbering your hands. The short-barreled pump allows the user to negotiate doors and corners while keeping the SG in a ready/alert position. A 3ft loop of bungie cord attached to the sling mount near the butt looped over the head and arm allows the SG to be released and left dangling just under the armpit if both hands are needed to apply restraining devices, climb a ladder or carry an injured person etc., and makes dropping the firearm or having it stripped from you very difficult. Firing multiple rounds with a rifle or pistol may result in a jam at the critical moment. Better to fire one round with a 12g than 3 with a .223 semi auto. Though a couple rounds from a .223 will take the fight out of just about anyone I rather engage once. Don't want to have to justify why I shot someone more than once; optics. One of the three established legal conditions for arming oneself is that the instrument is appropriate for the purpose. If a 12g wasn't appropriate for self defense then why do they issue them to the police? In that light Crown attorneys would have a hard time suggesting a 12g is not appropriate. Range is rarely a factor since the anticipated range of engagement is well within the effective range of #4 shot so the range "advantage" of a rifle is moot. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:56:12 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Obama impeachment bill now in Congress http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/?cat_orig=us Obama impeachment bill now in Congress Declares president's use of military without approval 'high crime, misdemeanor' by Drew Zahn Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, "it is the sense of Congress" that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor." Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama's authorization of military force in Libya. In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. "This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta's declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations," Tancredo writes. "This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta's policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution." Get the bumper sticker that tells everyone to Impeach Obama! In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, "Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress - I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here." "Well, I'm almost breathless about that," Sessions responded, "because what I heard you say is, 'We're going to seek international approval, and then we'll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.' And I just want to say to you that's a big [deal]." Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution. Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer. "Well, I'm all for having international support, but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat," Sessions said. "They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution." The exchange itself can be seen below: The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows: Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Daily Poll. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:23:07 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: Guns for self defence Kind of a moot discussion, isn't it? In the end, what you have may be the only real criteria, with your ability and WILL to use it being the real bottom line. With any number of guns to choose from, my wife's 'go to' for the two months I was at the cancer clinic two summers ago was her 22" barrel '97 Winchester that she uses in CAS. Why? because she's familiar with it, can load it in the dark and knows what she can do with it. Ammo was her CAS bird shot load. The shot column is dense enough at 15 yds to knock over steel targets and closer is VERY dense. There is no concern for wall penetration when one is fighting for one's life and we all know what you face if you should discharge a firearm at a criminal OUTSIDE your home. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 10:42:16 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Amish Arrested After Buggy Hits Cop Car *NFR* http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/4-Amish-Arrested-After-Buggy-Hits-Cop-Car-142308205.html?dr Four young Amish adults were charged with illegal possession of alcohol after their buggy collided with a police car, authorities say. Monday, Mar 12, 2012 The Chautauqua County Sheriff's Office tells media outlets that the crash occurred around 7:15 Sunday in the rural town of Sherman, near the Pennsylvania border in New York's southwest corner. Officials say deputies were responding to reports that people were drinking in several Amish buggies on a country road. As a patrol car arrived on the scene, one of the Amish buggies changed lanes, colliding with the police vehicle. The buggy flipped onto its side, causing minor injuries to one of the people on board. Police say several other buggies fled the scene. Associated Press / NBC 10 Philadelphia ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:24:52 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Shooting inquest postponed again http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Shooting+inquest+postponed+again/6286560/story.html Shooting inquest postponed again By Jeremy Warren, The StarPhoenix March 12, 2012 An inquest into the fatal shooting of Harry Haineault in a 2008 confrontation with RCMP has been postponed for the second time after provincial officials learned of new information related to the incident. The provincial Ministry of Justice announced the postponement in a news release on Saturday. The inquest was scheduled to restart in Meadow Lake today after it had originally been adjourned indefinitely in October 2010 when Haineault's brother Walter came forward with video and audio recordings he said would "shed light" on the shooting. "(The postponement) will provide the opportunity to thoroughly review this new information," the ministry said in a two-paragraph news release. "Once the review has been completed, the inquest will be rescheduled." A Justice Ministry spokesperson reached for comment on Sunday declined to detail the new information or how it could affect the coroner's inquest, but did confirm the "new information" is not related to the video and audio that emerged during the original inquest. The province's chief coroner also declined to comment for the story. Walter Haineault could not be reached for comment on Sunday. Presiding coroner Alma Wiebe decided to postpone the inquest on Friday, said justice spokesperson Noel Busse. "The information will be reviewed and the inquest will be rescheduled, but there is no definite timeline," Busse said. Haineault died from a gunshot wound suffered during a confrontation with an RCMP officer on the Clearwater River Dene Nation on Sept. 2, 2008. Officers had gone to the home of Walter Haineault looking for his brother Harry Haineault, who had 15 criminal charges outstanding. When officers tried to apprehend Harry, he tried to flee. An officer struggled with Harry outside the home. Harry, 38, was shot dead. The province started an inquest into the fatal shooting about two years later, but the inquest was stopped the same week it started after Walter Haineault submitted as evidence the video and audio he said was recorded by a security system on his property. Walter was out of town the day his brother was shot, but came home and saved the recordings, he told The StarPhoenix in October 2010. Walter said he did not hand over the recordings as evidence earlier because the RCMP never asked for the video and because he was skeptical of handing over the video to RCMP investigators as the case involves their members. The RCMP reopened its investigation into the shooting after the inquest was first postponed. Justice spokesperson Busse said that RCMP investigation is now closed and is not related to the new information that caused the latest delay. jjwarren@thestarphoenix.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 12, 2012 8:10 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don't Know It *NFR* Everybody Has Heard of Agenda 21; Most Just Don't Know It NOTE: Agenda 21 is not about a cleaner, healthier "environment" or lifestyle Mar 11, 2012 by: Jane Gaffin Filed under : Agenda 21, Charter of Rights and Freedoms Breaches, Land Issues, Liberty, Property Rights, United Nations http://christopherdiarmani.com/5047/liberty/heard-agenda-21-dont/?awt_l=Abats&awt_m=3VJJU0vZTCtLzRJ I can ask people if they have heard of Agenda 21. The inevitable answer is "no". The response to my short explanation is either met with disdainful silence or with a "you don't know what you're talking about" retort. If I ask the same people the same question 30 days later they still say "no" they haven't heard of Agenda 21. Obviously, my explanation didn't register with them. On the contrary, my audience has heard of Agenda 21. Everybody has heard of it. They just don't know it because the term has seldom if ever appeared in the major media outlets in the 20 years since the project materialized at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil during a United Nations Earth Summit Conference in June, 1992. Read more: http://christopherdiarmani.com/5047/liberty/heard-agenda-21-dont/?awt_l=Abats&awt_m=3VJJU0vZTCtLzRJ Exerpts from Website RE: Agenda 21: Agenda 21 simply means “Agenda for the 21st Century”. The 21st Century is here and, due to the Internet where the masses became enlightened about the tyrannical scam, the United Nations has ruthlessly accelerated its pace while simultaneously working in overdrive to block the “peasants” from Internet access. Agenda 21’s main thrust is to stealthily return ALL land and privately-owned property back to public domain (one-world government control) by relieving people of their rights to own personal property and/or titled real estate, the cornerstone to any free society. Agenda 21 also destroys industry and the middle-class society. People are reduced to paupers when land is rendered off-limits to mineral exploration, prospecting, mining, oil/gas, forestry, farming/ranching, trapping, big-game outfitting, airports, recreational (ski hills and golf courses) and any other ventures that require land for survival. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 12, 2012 8:26 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: NATIONAL POST: There ought to be a law letters.... NATIONAL POST - MARCH 12, 2012 Today's letters: There ought to be a law . Last week, letters editor Paul Russell asked readers: "If you were prime minister, what law would you pass?" We've been inundated with responses (75 words or less). http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/12/todays-letters-there-ought-to-be-a-law/ Note: Go to the National Post website and read them all but here are a few that digest subscribers will be interested in. Special thanks to Paul Russell for starting this brainstorm. THE RIGHT TO CARRY I would replace Canada's Kafkaesque self-defence laws that treat citizens as serfs under the King's protection, replacing them with common sense laws that will allow citizens to defend life and limb without fear of retribution from the state. George Fritz, Garson, Ont. Allow the qualified to carry concealed firearms. The police cannot protect your family from immediate harm. They are only 20 minutes away, arriving just in time to draw a chalk outline. Criminals already carry, and don't care about any of our laws. Daniel Prelich, Toronto. Violent crime has dropped significantly in each U.S. state that permits self-defence with the concealed carry of firearms by the law-abiding. I would like to see a repeal of the Firearms Act and legalize concealed carry for law-abiding Canadians. This will save more lives and protect more property than the Prime Minister's anti-crime bill. Joel Sturm, Thornhill, Ont. I would pass a law that no parliament can ever again pass a law that criminalizes any honest segment of society as has happened with the C-68 Firearms Act. And I would entrench the right to freedom of speech, assembly, and property which was destroyed by the Trudeau regime and subsequent governments. Don Klein, secretary Valley Rifle Club, Bon Accord, Alta. I would honour my promise to repeal the Firearms Act in its entirety and revert to the former Firearms Acquisition Certificate regime. I would rescind the Minister's power to proscribe, repeal section 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code, and collapse the prohibited classification of firearms into the restricted class. Perhaps then, all Canadians could rely upon the protections of the Charter, and be free from "J'accuse" allegations made by kindergarten teachers. Robert S. Sciuk, Oshawa, Ont. I would pass a concealed carry law. In every U.S. state that has done so, all rates of crime have dropped immediately and significantly. Allowing law abiding citizens to have the ability to defend themselves against criminals makes society a safer place. Jeff Gardiner, Wellesley, On POLITICAL REFORM I would reinstate the Committee of Supply in the House. Ministers demanding funds for pet projects would then have to ask taxpayers, through their MP, for the funds they need. Thus could we regain control of our tax money and curtail or eliminate wasteful Acts like C 68. Willy Floyd, Westbridge, B.C. CHARTER CHANGES Were I prime minister, I would change section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, removing the language entitling us to rights, only so far as they are demonstrably justified. Whether relating to freedom of speech issues or unreasonable seizure of property (as with the AP-80 firearm reclassification), fundamental rights ought to be absolute and not subject to bureaucratic whims or public opinion. Justin Loran, Edmonton. I would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to specifically guarantee that every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's property and the right not to be deprived of their property unless the person is: (1) accorded a fair hearing, (2) is paid fair compensation, (3) the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially and (4) the compensation is paid within a reasonable amount of time. Dennis R. Young, Calgary. Ban bans for starters. Then allow ownership of property in Canada, allowing appropriate personal defence from criminals, eliminate government funding to special interest groups and have MPs represent their constituents and eliminate whipped votes in the House. Mike Coyne, Sudbury, Ont. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #1002 ************************************ 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".)