From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #18 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 26 2012 Volume 15 : Number 018 In this issue: Royal Marine ... Re: "Taking aim at hobby's bad rap"- Digest V15 #16 Re: "Coyotes, wolves destroy livestock, wreak havoc on USA: STOP NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) B.C. coalition urges end to marijuana prohibition OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL: A dangerous law Small Arms Monitor - 23 March 2012 Vol. 4, No. 5 Statements on UNPoA - March 19, 20, 21, 2012 How gun free zones work FW: The Prospector THE FUTURE OF GUN CONTROL IN CANADA BY BLAIR HAGEN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:31:31 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Royal Marine ... Training and deployment of Royal Marine Commando. 3 hrs/30 minutes. How to earn a green beret, a well done documentary. Those bullpup stocked rifles seem a little short with fixed bayonet but ... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/commando-on-the-front-line/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:37:12 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Taking aim at hobby's bad rap"- Digest V15 #16 Now this is one brave citizen/soldier, we need more like him. Those that can should patronize his business. Canada's national anthem stanza of "We stand on guard for thee" takes on an ironic deeper meaning when 3 successive federal governments have told us in no uncertain terms that is doesn't trust to stand on guard for Canada. Neither a free and democratic society, nor Constitutional Rights are granted by government. Preexistent, their role is to constrain the machinations of government, which by it's nature, is always a threat to the rights of its citizens. The is the philosophical foundations of our system of government. On 25-Mar-12, at 11:05 AM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Sun, March 25, 2012 8:54 am > From: "Dennis R. Young" > Subject: Taking aim at hobby's bad rap > > CALGARY HERALD - MARCH 25, 2012 > Taking aim at hobby's bad rap > Shooting range owner sees public education as key to gaining > business while > reducing risk of more government controls > By Chris Nelson, For The Calgary Herald March 25, 2012 > http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Taking+hobby/6355981/story.html > > J.R. Cox knows only too well that guns are a dangerous business. Not > because they are capable of killing people - he's spent enough time > around weapons to be well aware of that capability. It's the social > and political risk that is much more disconcerting for the owner of > Calgary's only commercial shooting range. Cox has been running the > Shooting Edge along Blackfoot Trail since leaving the Canadian Forces > 11 years ago following two tours of duty in Bosnia as a countersniper. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:00:53 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Coyotes, wolves destroy livestock, wreak havoc on farms"-Digest V15 #15 References: <20120324230959.6AE6A28404A@scorpion.bogend.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120324230959.6AE6A28404A@scorpion.bogend.ca> Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca So does anyone think that unreasonable gun control has contributed to an increase in ungulate populations and an increase in both coyote and wolf populations, thus endangering farm animals, pets and humans? Gun control, the federal suppression of hunting, an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction that keeps on it's marauding ways. On 24-Mar-12, at 5:09 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Sat, March 24, 2012 12:15 pm > From: "Dennis R. Young" > Subject: Coyotes, wolves destroy livestock, wreak havoc on farms > > WINNIPEG FREE PRESS - MARCH 24, 2012 > Coyotes, wolves destroy livestock, wreak havoc on farms > By: Bill Redekop / Open Road > http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/predators-and-the--- > hunter-144073056.html > > BIRD RIVER -- Shooting 101 coyotes last year with a sniper rifle > sounds like > a lot. Many people might think the 62 coyotes Ron Alexander has > shot so far > this year is excessive and cruel. > But there's a context. We are in the midst of an explosion in the > coyote and > wolf populations. The canine predators are encroaching on built-up > areas -- > remember the coyote that ran loose in a downtown Winnipeg parkade > this week > - -- and have even threatened people. They are destroying > livestock. The > number of livestock killed has rocketed to 466 in 2010, from 115 in > 2003. > Wolves have also destroyed pets belonging to cottagers in Lake of > the Woods > and in Kenora. And then look at how many coyotes were killed in > Saskatchewan > after it introduced a $20 bounty per head in 2010 to control > population. > Almost 71,000 coyotes were destroyed in a single year. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 7:38 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: USA: STOP NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) The Polite Conference Rooms Where Liberties Are Saved and Lost by Chris Hedges by Chris Hedges, Featured Writer - March 26, 2012 http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-polite-conference-rooms-where-liberties-are-saved-and-lost-by-chris-hedges/ I spent four hours in a third-floor conference room at 86 Chambers St. in Manhattan on Friday as I underwent a government deposition. Benjamin H. Torrance, an assistant U.S. attorney, carried out the questioning as part of the government’s effort to decide whether it will challenge my standing as a plaintiff in the lawsuit I have brought with others against President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta over the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill. The NDAA implodes our most cherished constitutional protections. It permits the military to function on U.S. soil as a civilian law enforcement agency. It authorizes the executive branch to order the military to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus for citizens. The law can be used to detain people deemed threats to national security, including dissidents whose rights were once protected under the First Amendment, and hold them until what is termed “the end of the hostilities.” Even the name itself—the Homeland Battlefield Bill—suggests the totalitarian concept that endless war has to be waged within “the homeland” against internal enemies as well as foreign enemies. Judge Katherine B. Forrest, in a session starting at 9 a.m. Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, will determine if I have standing and if the case can go forward. The attorneys handling my case, Bruce Afran and Carl Mayer, will ask, if I am granted standing, for a temporary injunction against the Homeland Battlefield Bill. An injunction would, in effect, nullify the law and set into motion a fierce duel between two very unequal adversaries—on the one hand, the U.S. government and, on the other, myself, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, the Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir and three other activists and journalists. All have joined me as plaintiffs and begun to mobilize resistance to the law through groups such as Stop NDAA: https://www.stopndaa.org/ READ MORE: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-polite-conference-rooms-where-liberties-are-saved-and-lost-by-chris-hedges/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 7:48 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: B.C. coalition urges end to marijuana prohibition CALGARY HERALD - MARCH 26, 2012 B.C. coalition urges end to marijuana prohibition ER doctor is a co-founder of Stop the Violence B.C BY JASON VAN RASSEL http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/coalition+urges+marijuana+prohibition/6358458/story.html Call it a growing movement: a broad range of advocates who say ending the prohibition on marijuana would reduce the violence and property damage associated with its illegal cultivation and sale. That viewpoint won't be heard in Banff this week as police, municipal officials and real estate industry representatives convene a three-day conference on fighting marijuana grow ops. While cannabis users have long had their own reasons for wanting it legalized, in B.C. they've been joined by a coalition of academics, health professionals, former politicians and police officials called Stop the Violence B.C. The group argues legalizing and regulating cannabis would deprive organized crime groups of a huge revenue source and end the violence currently employed by gangs competing for illegal business. "Anyone who has taken a sober look at the issue of organized crime, gangs and grow ops can see the home invasions, the power theft and the rich organized crime groups are direct results of prohibition," said Dr. Evan Wood, a Vancouver emergency room doctor and a co-founder of Stop the Violence B.C. The group recently received support from four former Vancouver mayors, who penned an open letter calling on politicians to end prohibition. Although Wood backs legalization as a means of decreasing gang violence, the doctor stressed he doesn't condone using marijuana. "We're not saying it's harmless," he said. However, Wood said ending prohibition would give authorities a chance to strictly regulate the production and sale of marijuana and generate revenue through taxation. The World Health Organization estimates the rate of cannabis use in Canada as roughly double that of the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally sold to adults in coffee shops. Allowing marijuana sales in Canada - albeit in a less freewheeling way than the Netherlands - might lead to a decrease in consumption among Canadians, Wood argued. "We'd really like to see it in (an esthetically) sterile environment," he said. JVANRASSEL@CALGARYHERALD.COM - ----------------- NATIONAL POST - FEBRUARY 22, 2012 U.S. law panel urges Harper to avoid 'costly failure' of mandatory minimum pot punishments By Douglas Quan http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/22/u-s-law-panel-urges-harper-to-avoid-costly-failure-of-mandatory-minimum-pot-punishments/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 8:03 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL: A dangerous law CALGARY HERALD OPINION PAGE - MARCH 26, 2012 OTTAWA CITIZEN EDITORIAL: A dangerous law http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/dangerous/6358423/story.html http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/dangerous/6348220/story.html The shooting death of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin is an illustration of how dangerous badly drafted laws can be. The death of the unarmed 17 year old, shot by a self-appointed neighbourhood-watch volunteer, has prompted demands that the shooter be arrested. Under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law, that is likely not possible. The law says people have the right to use deadly force if they "reasonably" believe they or another person are threatened with death or serious harm. Zimmerman was detained but released by police who say they believed his account that Martin started the scuffle and that he fired in self-defence. Under the law, there is no need to prove imminent danger or the need to use deadly force. In Canada, we have had our own-self defence debate in recent years. The result is a streamlined law that gives those acting in self-defence more leeway and should avoid future cases such as that of Toronto shopkeeper David Chen, who was charged with assault and forcible confinement after tying up a man who had stolen some plants. Clarifying archaic laws is a good thing, but giving vigilantes power to take the law into their hands is not. - ------------------------------------- THE WASHINGTON POST - MARCH 25, 2012 Is it too much to expect to get the facts first? By Jennifer Rubin, The Right Turn http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/is-it-too-much-to-expect-to-get-the-facts-first/2012/03/24/gIQApysHYS_blog.html The left never wants to let a tragedy go to waste. The tragic killing of Trayvon Martin has set off angry assertions that the so-called "stand your ground" laws are to blame and this is all the doing of the NRA. In the same breath that Mother Jones polemicist David Corn can acknowledge that he doesn't know all the facts he declares that the legislation is the root of the problem. ("You know, a lot of this has to do with the Stand Your Ground laws, which allow people to go out there and say, well, I thought I was being threatened. And these are laws that the NRA is trying to get passed in every state of the union.") Actually that doesn't seem to be the case at all. The authors of the Florida legislation explain that if the assailant George Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, the law is inapplicable: Former state Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley say the law they passed in 2005 was designed to protect citizens by giving them the right to "meet force with force." Both men say they don't know all the facts of Trayvon's case. But, they say they believe the law would not allow a person like George Zimmerman to pursue and confront a person like Trayvon and then use deadly force. Zimmerman has not been charged. "They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. "He has no protection under my law." Peaden and Baxley say their law, at its heart, is a self-defense law. It says law-abiding people have no duty to retreat. Nowhere does it say that a person has a right to confront another. The law does say a law-abiding citizen can use deadly force if "if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." That's worth repeating: The Stand Your Ground legislation does not obviate the reasonableness requirement in state law. (In the words of the applicable statute, a person need not retreat if he "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.") (Emphasis added.) Those who have asserted or written otherwise should correct themselves. So if Zimmerman pursued Martin, Stand Your Ground legislation is inapplicable; and if he acted unreasonably, self-defense doctrine (whether in or out of a Stand Your Ground jurisdiction) cannot save him from prosecution. I say this as someone who doesn't agree with the premise of Stand Your Ground legislation. As a societal matter I don't think we should encourage people not to retreat when they can do so safely. But I will leave that argument for a case in which it appears to be on point. The New York Times symposium on the topic is interesting. Both the right and the left commentators acknowledge that Stand Your Ground law in all likelihood has nothing to do with this case. Kenneth Nunn from University of Florida Law School says the problem is racism, not the law: "Stand Your Ground does not permit the use of deadly force against an initial aggressor unless 'the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger.' Ordinarily, one would expect that a reasonable force requirement would provide ample protection against idiosyncratic or morally suspect behavior. But this is not the case when victims happen to be black." Meanwhile from the right Walter Olson argues: Under any criminal law, injustice can result if cops get the facts wrong. The Sanford, Fla., police, accused of buying a dubious self-defense tale after the Trayvon Martin shooting, will now come under searching scrutiny for that decision. Sanford's mayor says his town is eager to stand corrected by the evidence as a fuller story emerges. So who's left to disagree? Not the authors of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, who told The Miami Herald that the law they sponsored applies only to cases of genuine self defense and won't protect neighborhood-watcher George Zimmerman if critics of the Martin shooting are right about what he did that night. If the left is going to attack gun laws, I think they better find another vehicle. That said, there is certainly a legitimate concern that the police bollixed the case. There is an internal review. There is a state task force. There is a Justice Department review. The facts will come out. So for now the horrible death remains the predominate fact of which we are certain. Is this case of racism, as Nunn alleges? Of rotten police training, as others have suggested? Does it identify some infirmity in the common-law doctrine of self-defense going back hundreds of years? Was there some physical altercation (Zimmerman had injuries on his face and the back of his head), and if so, who instigated it? I didn't care for President Obama's cloying and personalized remark that "You know, if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon." Why is it always about him? I thought the president - like all of us - is supposed to care about those who look like his kids and those who don't. Nevertheless, unlike his grandstanding in the Cambridge case involving his friend Henry Louis Gates, in this instance Obama appropriately told the public: "I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. So I'm glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place, to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen, and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident." That's good advice for the public at large but most especially for the chattering class. By Jennifer Rubin | 09:00 AM ET, 03/25/2012 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 8:11 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Small Arms Monitor - 23 March 2012 Vol. 4, No. 5 SMALL ARMS MONITOR - 23 MARCH 2012 VOL. 4, NO. 5 Reaching Critical Will a project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Global Action to Prevent War http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/salw/monitor/SAM-4.5.pdf CONTENTS 1 | Debate on the draft report 3 | Law review 4 | Women and gender at the PoA Prep Com 5 | Reviewing for the purpose of strengthening 7 | The importance of National Commissions The Small Arms Monitor features civil society reporting and analysis on meetings of the UN Programme of Action (UNPoA) on small arms and light weapons. The Small Arms Monitor is coordinated and edited by the Reaching Critical Will project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and Global Action to Prevent War. All views expressed in this publication and corresponding blog, attmonitor.posterous.com, are solely those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the supporting organization. More analysis is online at www.attmonitor.posterous.com PDF versions of this and past Small Arms Monitors are available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org - ------------------------------------------- Women's International League for Peace and Freedom http://womenpeacesecurity.org/members/wilpf/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 8:26 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Statements on UNPoA - March 19, 20, 21, 2012 Statements to the 2012 Preparatory Committee for the Second Review Conference of the UNPoA - March 19, 20, 21, 2012 UNPoA: Preventing, combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects at the national, regional and global level http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/salw/prepcom2012/statements.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:03:49 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: How gun free zones work This video says it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?vhgzcioPet8&featureplayer_embedded#! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:19:42 -0400 From: R BAKER Subject: FW: The Prospector Date: Sun 25 Mar 2012 15:16:30 -0400 Subject: Fwd: The Prospector From: littlekyd@gmail.com An old prospector shuffled into the town of El Indio, Texas leading a tired old mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in town, to clear his parched throat. He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes, a young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand and a bottle of whiskey in the other. The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying, "Hey old man, can you dance?" The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said, "No, son, I don't dance... never really wanted to." A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you old fool, you're gonna dance now!" and started shooting at the old man's feet. The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. Everybody standing around was laughing. When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger, still laughing, holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon. The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun and cocked both hammers. The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd stopped laughing immediately. The young gunslinger heard the sounds too, and he turned around very slowly. The silence was deafening. The crowd watched as the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes of those twin 12 gauge barrels. The barrels of the shotgun never wavered in the old man's hands, as he quietly said: "Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?" The gunslinger swallowed hard and said, "No sir... but...but I've always wanted to." There are a few lessons for all of us here: *Don't be arrogant. *Don't waste ammunition. *Whiskey makes you think you're smarter than you are. *Always make sure you know who is in control. *And finally, don't screw around with old folks they didn't get old by being stupid. I just love a story with a happy ending, don't you? Have a GREAT Day!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 26, 2012 2:13 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: THE FUTURE OF GUN CONTROL IN CANADA BY BLAIR HAGEN NOTE: This is just one of the great articles in the most recent issue of the NFA's Canadian Firearms Journal - March/April 2012. Thanks to NFA President Sheldon Clare and Blair Hagen for approving this early release of Blair's Column. Contact the National Firearms Association to subscribe to the Canadian Firearms Journal www.nfa.ca THE FUTURE OF GUN CONTROL IN CANADA BY BLAIR HAGEN http://www.nfa.ca/canadian-firearms-journal The Canadian right and cultural tradition of firearms ownership underwent a game-changing metamorphosis as a result of the political failure of the Liberal C-68 Firearms Act. Hopefully it harkens the start of a new era of firearms law reform, beginning with the end of long gun registration through the Conservative government's Bill C-19, and ending with the complete repeal and replacement of the former C-68 and C-17 gun control bills. Prior to the Conservatives being elected in 2006, and certainly prior to the Auditor General of Canada's report on the Canadian Firearms Program in 2002, which exposed the lies, misdeeds and untruths of the civil disarmament lobby, this Canadian right and tradition was headed down the same road towards dissolution and disaster; just as it had in Australia and the UK. The political paradigm shift in Canada that resulted from the 2006 federal election then, has not only given Canadians the opportunity to re-assert their historic rights and re-affirm such traditions, but also the opportunity to secure those most important of all basic human rights; the right to self-defence and the right to own property. Certainly, on the surface, the Harper government is sympathetic to these rights, but at the time of this writing, has essentially taken little more than baby steps towards more efficiently codifying them into Canadian law. Time will tell if they have the will to fundamentally secure them for the benefit of all Canadians. But what of "gun control"? For decades Canadians have been told that "gun control" is a "Canadian value" and is what chiefly differentiates us from our American neighbors. However, the lies of the civil disarmament lobby have severely undermined this formerly sacred cow. In 2012, "gun control," as a movement, means a two billion dollar gun registry that didn't save any lives, and a pernicious firearms act that has sought to bully and strip widows and war veterans of their prized family heirlooms - whether it is their deceased husband's old deer rifle, or perhaps a cherished battlefield trophy liberated from enemy hand's on the beaches of Normandy or the frozen hills of Korea. Canadians don't like being lied to and they don't like bullies. That is two big strikes against the gun control lobby in Canada today. Unlucky for the Coalition for Gun Control, and similar lobby groups, the truth is slowly but surely coming out, and the increasing stridency and emotion-driven rhetoric of the gun grabbers is falling on increasingly deaf ears, even amongst the non-gun owning public. However, while they may be down, they're not out and more work remains for Canada's National Firearms Association. The mandatory C-68 firearms license for simple ownership or possession remains the law of the land. If you own or possess a firearm, any firearm - even a simple, unassuming old Cooey .22 rimfire, even one missing its bolt and unable to fire, you will continue to be a criminal in the eyes of the law and the courts; even after Bill C-19 passes, and long gun registration ends. If you allow your POL or PAL to expire, you instantly are guilty of committing a criminal offense as surely as when long gun registration was in effect. If you allow your firearms license to expire while still in possession of that old .22, the chief firearms officer of your province can, and will, prefer charges against you. They will order the police to confiscate your gun(s). You will, most likely find yourself prosecuted to the full extent of the law for doing so, just as if you owned registered restricted or prohibited firearms. Do not assume that simply because you are no longer required to hold a registration for a non-restricted long gun that you have escaped the clutches of the gun control bureaucracy. It is important to note that this is the same firearms bureaucracy whom the Auditor General of Canada noted in 2002 regarded the use of firearms is, in itself, a "questionable activity" that required strong controls, and believed, as part of its corporate culture, that there should be a "zero-tolerance attitude" toward non-compliance with the Firearms Act. As long as the Liberal C-68 mandatory firearms license remains, the principle tool by which civil disarmament in Canada is to be achieved will continue to be employed by the RCMP civil-disarmament bureaucracy. Some may still selfishly believe that this effort is only directed at owners of prohibited machine guns, ugly black rifles or handguns. That is simply wrong. The entire experience of the 1995 C-68 Firearms Act, including licensing and universal registration has destroyed any credible belief in the assertion that gun control, as currently practiced by Canadian bureaucracies, is anything other than a complete civil-disarmament agenda. This is supported by the increasing criticism C-68 has come under from the non-gun owning public, academics, front-line police officers and groups such as the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation. With the end of the long gun registry, civil-disarmament initiatives in Canada will ostensibly return to the type enforced prior to 1995. At that time, the preferred method was firearms confiscation through reclassification. You purchased your firearm legally with an F.A.C., but the government reclassified it as restricted or prohibited through Order in Council (OIC). This is what happened to owners of the Franchi SPAS-12 shotgun, Calico carbine, etc. Today, firearms reclassification has a different look. Instead of the Government of Canada reclassifying firearms, the RCMP has now taken it upon itself to do so where the government cannot or will not. The RCMP's unilateral firearms reclassification agenda began shortly after the Conservatives were elected in 2006, and has reclassified and confiscated scores of firearms for almost six years. To give the devil his due, they've gone about it the "smart' way. A couple dozen Chinese imports here, fifty or a hundred .22s there; these "small" scale reclassifications have added up over time, and have set a very bad precedent for further large-scale reclassifications in the future. By focusing on guns that are/were relatively rare, or held in very few numbers, the RCMP avoided large-scale outrage and protest from the firearms community, or so they hoped. Of course, they've also been aided and abetted by the seemingly ingrained apathy of Canadian gun owners, who invariably fail to act unless directly impacted. The most indicative example of this RCMP reclassification agenda has taken place recently, in the run up to the end of long gun registration. Owners of registered non-restricted Walther G22 .22 rimfire carbines were informed that the stocks on their rifles were "prohibited devices," and were ordered to either surrender their stocks or, if they prefer, the entire firearm for destruction. If not, their registration certificate would be revoked and the firearm confiscated. Just for clarification, it was the stock that was prohibited - not the firearm itself. Apparently owners can continue to hold a registration for their Walther G22s, as long as they are not in possession of the stock. Madness. Owners of Armi Jaeger AP-80 .22 rimfire carbines, who were assisted by the Canadian Firearms Program in registering these rifles as non-restricted firearms before the registration deadline at the end of 2002, are now receiving registration revocation notices from the RCMP. It seems that these rifles have been restricted since 1992, and prohibited since 1995, but the firearms bureaucrats forgot to inform their registered owners of this. The Canadian Firearms Program issued registrations for these Armi Jaeger AP-80s as non-restricted firearms, but now that the registration on non-restricted long guns is ending in Canada, they are to be confiscated from their firearms license holding owners. Not from criminals or individuals posing a danger to public safety, but law-abiding gun owners who complied with the firearms registration program as was demanded by their government. But "they" said that licensing and registration would never lead to confiscation.right? As outrageous as this situation is, what may be of even more concern is the RCMP's seeming intention to focus on what many within the firearms community now call "creative" firearms license revocations, and firearms prohibition; especially now that they can no longer rely on their preferred tool of civil disarmament, registration, to achieve their civil-disarmament goals. As it stands, you need not be convicted of a crime to have your firearms licence revoked. Your provincial chief firearms officer need only believe that it is not in the interests of public safety for you to have one. A complaint from a former spouse, a neighbor, a vindictive ex-employee can all result in your firearms license being revoked, with the onus being put upon you to defend yourself as to why it should not be. We see it today ever more often in the face of increasingly hostile divorces. False or exaggerated charges are used as weapons to strip former partners of their firearms licence and right to possess their firearms. The fight to regain their licence or retrieve their guns from local law enforcement can drag on for months, if not years. Proven anti-gun forces, such as the RCMP, in concert with allies within the gun control bureaucracy, can draw the process out even longer. Many gun owners in recent years have been forced to appeal to the courts, sometimes multiple times, in order to force local firearms officers to comply with court-issued orders requiring police to return seized firearms to their rightful owners. All too often the legitimate complaints of gun owners will fall on deaf ears. Complaints and appeals will often get you effectively nowhere when dealing with either biased firearms officers or gun control bureaucrats. You can expect the same answer, as was proffered recently over criticism of their last minute confiscation of the remaining registered Armi Jager AP-80 rimfire rifles in Canada, which essentially argued that we (RCMP) don't make the law, we are simply enforcing it, and exercising our legal powers granted under the Firearms Act. That is what is known the world over as passing the buck. As with the case of the Armi Jager AP-80, the RCMP has chosen to enforce the letter, but not the intent of the law as the current CPC government would interpret it. Unfortunately, they seem to have been given a free hand to "interpret" that letter in such a manner that is most advantageous to their own decidedly anti-gun institutional ethos. Equally disquieting is Minister Toews' blithe acceptance of their increasingly absurd assurances and arguments that they are acting in the "best interests" of the public, all the while confiscating .22 rimfire carbines that have imported into Canada as far back as the early 1980s and have never been used to commit a single criminal act! Sorry, but such arguments simply do not pass the sniff test used by any average Canadian to determine rottenness. So civil-disarmament through "gun control" will continue, just on a different scale and using different tactics and tools. The massive failure of the attempt at the universal registration of firearms in Canada has set that goal back considerably, but has not ended the agenda of the civil-disarmament lobby in Canada. The Canadian right and cultural tradition of firearms ownership will not be secure until the entire Liberal C-68 Firearms Act of 1995 is relegated to the trash heap of history. Let's use this opportunity given to us by the fortunes of politics to do just that. - ------------------------- OTHER ARTICLES IN THE MARCH/APRIL ISSUE OF THE CANADIAN FIREARMS JOURNAL Shot Show Part 1 by Al Voth Silence is Golden by Charles Schafer Gun Jobs: Forensic Examiner by Al Voth Genocide, The UN & Gun Control by Gary Mauser Registration and Other Problems by Sheldon Clare The Fenians are Coming by Sybil Kangas and Gary K. Kangas Case of the Armi Jager AP-80 by Sean Penney Political Correctness & Common Sense Policing by Thomas E. Lamont Western Lawman: "Bear River" Tom Smith by Jesse L. "Wolf" Hardin Canada's National Firearms Association P.O. Box 52183 Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2T5 Phone: (780) 439-1394 Toll Free: 1-877-818-0393 Fax: (780) 439-4091 www.nfa.ca ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #18 ********************************** 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".)