From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #22 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 Thursday, March 29 2012 Volume 15 : Number 022 In this issue: Re: "Gun charges dismissed over illegal search"- Digest V15 #20 Re: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada "Speak Out! Control Arms Now" campaign One-year sentence for smuggling submachine-gun part + ... Re: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal/SCC/Dismissed /c Costs RE: BC's push to legalize pot Neither will licencing Transporting guns in Maryland By Emily Miller Expert warns that bears in region in 'real trouble' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:46:54 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Gun charges dismissed over illegal search"- Digest V15 #20 This is an interesting example of what a search warrant is supposed to mean and the terms and conditions under which it is applied for and for which it is granted. Having said that, I'd wager dollars to doughnuts, that had anyone in the residence had a current or expired firearms licence and that was listed in the application for the warrant, then the judge would have found anything up to and including a body cavity search valid. Luckily for the gangster involved, he had never applied for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (or even a hunting licence?), as if he had he would have been in real trouble. On 28-Mar-12, at 11:09 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, March 28, 2012 8:29 am > From: "Dennis R. Young" > Subject: Gun charges dismissed over illegal search > > Gun charges against two Burnaby residents dismissed over illegal > search > BY KIM BOLAN, VANCOUVER SUN MARCH 27, 2012 > http://www.burnabynow.com/news/charges+against+Burnaby+residents+dismissed+over+illegal+search/6368587/story.html > > Thirty gun charges against two Burnaby residents were recently > stayed after > a judge ruled police illegally entered their suite, making four seized > firearms inadmissible at their trial. Lawyers for Damion Ryan, a > violent > criminal with gang affiliations, and his girlfriend Theresa Latham > successfully argued that RCMP violated their Charter rights when the > Emergency Response Team forcibly entered their suite in August 2010 > after > shots were fired outside. The Crown told Vancouver Provincial Court > Judge > Brian Bastin that officers were concerned someone might be injured > inside > the basement suite after a 911 call reporting shots fired and the > discovery > of three firearms in the bushes outside. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:30:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Szpajcher Subject: Re: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada Ed May the Supreme Court find in your favour on the application for Leave to Appeal. The Firearms Act is a miscarriage of government power, and you folks are to be commended in your extended efforts to challenge the malice which underlay the design and intent of this law. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, Alberta Mar 28, 2012 11:50:18 PM, cdn-firearms@bogend.ca wrote: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada On Thursday, 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada will release their decision on our application for Leave to Appeal. In our Application we argue that we have a 'Right to a trial' before the Government may destroy our firearms confiscated under Criminal Code section 117.03. Cases SCC Case Information Docket 34527 Edward Burke Hudson v. Attorney General of Canada (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) Please see: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dockregi-eng.aspx?cas=34527 http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/armes/armes_11_november_2011.html TAKE NOTICE that Edward Burke Hudson hereby applies for leave to appeal to the Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26, ss. 35 and 40 from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, 2011 SKCA 112 made 05102011, and for the Court to order the return of his property, or any other order that the Court may deem appropriate; . AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is made on the following grounds: Ground 1: That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 upholding the validity of the provision of the Criminal Code s. 117.03 by failing to recognize the vital, importance of property and the Right not to be deprived thereof without criminal charge, conviction at trial, and sentence by a judge. Ground 2: That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 by failing to recognize the manner in which Criminal Code s. 117.03 violates the "unwritten Constitutional principles" that protect a citizen for state-imposed forfeiture of his property without charge, trial, or conviction. Ground 3: That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 by failing to recognize the manner in which Criminal Code s. 117.03 violates a citizen's Right to appeal to the common sense of Canadians in peaceful, non-violent protect against an unjust law. SIGNED BY 11 November 2011 Edward Burke Hudson 402 Skeena Court Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2 (306) 242-2379 edwardhudson@shaw.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 8:06 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: "Speak Out! Control Arms Now" campaign "100 DAYS OF SPEAKING OUT!" A countdown to the Arms Trade Treaty http://speakout.controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/100_Days_Action_Alert-final_EN.pdf ACTION ALERT This package has been made to help Control Arms members and partners prepare for the "100 Days of Speaking Out!". In it, you will find: 1. What is the 100 Days of Speaking Out? 2. Key Dates 3. Suggested Messages 4. Suggested Actions 5. Resources 6. Reporting back 1. WHAT IS THE 100 DAYS OF SPEAKING OUT? The 100 Days of Speaking Out! is a countdown to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations, which will take place at the United Nations from 2-27 July 2012. It is part of the "Speak Out! Control Arms Now" campaign led by the Control Arms coalition. Control Arms members and partners have been campaigning for a bulletproof ATT for many years. The less than four months before negotiations are our last chance to make sure that governments hear the strong, diverse and global call for an humanitarian and effective ATT. Now more than ever, we need to speak out! This countdown is how we will do it. What is the purpose of the countdown? - -To increase web, media and our public presence - -To pressure governments for a strong and robust ATT with high common standards - -To build relationships with new individual supporters and new organizations READ A LOT MORE: http://speakout.controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/100_Days_Action_Alert-final_EN.pdf ------------------------------ Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 8:36 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: One-year sentence for smuggling submachine-gun part + ... ... 15 year firearms ban + lifetime restricted weapons prohibition. BRANDON SUN - MARCH 29,2012 One-year sentence for smuggling submachine-gun part By: Ian Hitchen http://www.brandonsun.com/local/one-year-sentence-for-smuggling-submachine-gun-part-144892175.html?thx=y A former member of the military who tried to smuggle a submachine-gun part into Canada by hiding it in a bag of empty beer cans has been sentenced to one year in jail. Defence lawyer Trent Sholdice said his client, Cameron Eugene Bell, intended to weld the part to other parts of the gun to display as art. - ------------------------ Smuggling Part Lands Man 1 Year In Jail http://cklq.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13167:smuggling-jail-part-lands-man-1-year-in-jail&catid=44:news&Itemid=27 A 47 year old former member of the military has been sentenced to one year in jail for smuggling a submachine gun part into Canada from the United States. He did so by hiding it in a bag of empty beer cans when crossing the border on November 5th, 2011. Cameron Eugene Bell says he was going to just display the parts of the gun as art. Along with one year in jail he was sentenced to a 15 year firearms ban and lifetime restricted weapons prohibition. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:53:26 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Re: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal/SCC/Dismissed /c Costs Re: Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada DISMISSED WITH COSTS / REJETÉES AVEC DÉPENS Edward Burke Hudson v. Attorney General of Canada (Sask.) (Criminal) (By Leave) (34527) Coram: McLachlin / Rothstein / Moldaver http://scc.lexum.org/en/news_release/2012/12-03-29.3a/12-03-29.3a.html On 28-Mar-12, at 10:58 AM, Edward Hudson wrote: > Right to Trial/Leave to Appeal Supreme Court of Canada > > On Thursday, 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada will release > their decision on our application for Leave to Appeal. > > In our Application we argue that we have a 'Right to a trial' before > the Government may destroy our firearms confiscated under Criminal > Code section 117.03. > > Cases SCC Case Information Docket 34527 > > Edward Burke Hudson v. Attorney General of Canada > (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) > > Please see: > > http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=345 27 > > http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/armes/armes_11_november_2011.html > > TAKE NOTICE that Edward Burke Hudson hereby applies for leave to > appeal to the Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. > S-26, ss. 35 and 40 > from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan, 2011 SKCA > 112 made 05102011, and for the Court to order the return of his > property, or any other order that the Court may deem appropriate; . > > AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is made on the > following grounds: > > Ground 1: > > That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for > Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 upholding > the validity of the provision of the Criminal Code s. 117.03 by > failing to recognize the vital, importance of property and the Right > not to be deprived thereof without criminal charge, conviction at > trial, and sentence by a judge. > > Ground 2: > > That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for > Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 by > failing to recognize the manner in which Criminal Code s. 117.03 > violates the “unwritten Constitutional principles” that protect a > citizen for state-imposed forfeiture of his property without charge, > trial, or conviction. > > Ground 3: > > That the Honourable Justice Caldwell of the Court of Appeal for > Saskatchewan erred in law in his decision of 05 October 2011 by > failing to recognize the manner in which Criminal Code s. 117.03 > violates a citizen’s Right to appeal to the common sense of Canadians > in peaceful, non-violent protect against an unjust law. > > SIGNED BY > > 11 November 2011 > Edward Burke Hudson > 402 Skeena Court > Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7K 4H2 > (306) 242-2379 > edwardhudson@shaw.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:42:49 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: BC's push to legalize pot yes, but where else would cops, sheriffs, prison guards, judges, court clerks, and those who supply these people with boots, guns, file folders and the like find equivalent employment? We are dealing with one of our largest industries here - the "justice" industry. It is not about rights but about paychecks and payoffs. Clive - -----Original Message----- From: Todd Birch Sent: March-28-12 8:38 AM To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: re: BC's push to legalize pot When several ex-Mayors and Attorney's General lead the fight to legalize pot, it gets your attention. Just as the criminal element rejoiced with the passing of the US Volstead Act that brought in Prohibition, organized crime in BC is laughing all the way to the bank. Alcohol and tobacco are more addictive, cause more harm to society in general and generate billions in tax dollars. Failure to legalize it is hypocrisy in the highest and feeds into the hands of organized crime, just as criminalizing guns created a thriving black market in firearms. The two are different sides of the same coin. If it was legalized, there would be those who would try to beat the tax man, just as with illegal tobacco sales, but people wouldn't be clogging the courts with charges for possession of small amounts. Busting individual pushers and grow shows is a waste of police resources. The business is too lucrative to be eradicated. Better to legitimize BC's largest cash crop industry. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:36:17 -0700 From: Len Miller Subject: Neither will licencing Date: Wed, March 28, 2012 12:18 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Ask Canada -- gun registration won't make D.C. safer Len sez: Neither will licencing . . Vancouver has just had its latest round of shootings . . THREE separate crimes, during which people died . . Made big news, which was rapidly downgraded in succeeding readings . . media does this . So, children, just what has the 17 year . . three billion dollar boondoggle accomplished ? Well, it killed Bob and Bonnie Dagenais . Ottawa. Veteran Ragnar (Ray ) Michaelson . . Vancouver, and placed Ian Thomson, Port Colbourne, Onterrible in jeopardy, for the legal use of a firearm to defend his life . . Do we need any more continuance of a completely useless piece of legislation? I say NO . . and it's long past the time our Prime Minister keep his promise to rid us of this calumny . . C-68 and its illegitimate children . . Len Miller from Vancouver where criminals constantly remind us who is affected by 'gun control' . . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 12:56 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Transporting guns in Maryland By Emily Miller WASHINGTON TIMES - MARCH 29, 2012 Transporting guns in Maryland By Emily Miller http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/mar/29/miller-transporting-guns-maryland/ D.C. gun transport laws are not nearly as stringent as city officials tell the public. But the Washington Metropolitan Police Department has refused for two weeks to remove false information about the laws from its forms and website. While D.C.'s transport laws turn out to be similar to the standard state law and the federal law, its neighbor Maryland has many more restrictions. I grew up in Baltimore and all my oldest and closest friends still live there. My girlfriends have grown interested in shooting from watching me go through the process and buying a gun and training with it. Recently I offered to take a couple of them to a shooting range for their first time. I wasn't familiar with Maryland's laws or ranges. Except for one time shooting at On Target in Severn as part of D.C.'s required ownership gun class, I'd so far done all my target practice in Virginia at Sharpshooters in Lorton and the NRA range. Knowing all the state firearm rules are different, I Googled Maryland's laws and chose the only link that took me to a government agency. The office that handles guns within the Maryland State Police is oddly called "Firearms Registration", even though the state does not require guns to be registered. The only places in the country where the government tracks guns through registration are D.C. and Hawaii. The website does not have a breakdown of the laws, but rather a link to frequently asked questions. There I found the very narrow question: "Can I legally transport my regulated firearm to the range?" The answers was yes, "provided the handgun is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an enclosed holster, and you are transporting the handgun to or from the places listed in section 4-203 of the Criminal Law Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland." So what are the places listed in the law? Maryland officials don't make it easy for people to know. I tried to click through every link on the site to find "section 4-203" , but there was no direction for further information. I called the number for the state police office on the website to make sure I was taking my gun legally in Maryland. One positive thing about the D.C. firearm registry office -- and there is only one -- is that if you call from 9am-5pm on weekdays, someone always answers the phone and gives out information on gun laws and registration procedures. Unfortunately, the information given out is often wrong and the registration procedures are always frustrating. But at least they answer questions by phone, unlike the neighbors in Maryland. When you call the Maryland state police firearm office, you get put into a voice mail system which very slowly offers seven options. None were related to transport laws, so I chose the one for handguns. I then got eight more options, none were what I needed. I selected one option, only to find out that no matter what number you choose, it's an automated voice giving information. I hung up and called back to the main system and listened to all the prompts again. Finally, after a long pause, the automated voice added that, "for all other inquiries or to speak to a command administrator, press seven." I pushed the button and the phone rang. Good, no more voice mail, I thought. The phone rang some more. And rang. And rang. No one ever picked up the phone. And there was no option for going back to the main menu. I figured the only way to know what was in mystery Section 4-203 was to Google. I don't like using random website to find firearms law because they are not dependable enough to avoid inadvertently committing a crime that carries a heavy penalty. Also, if the police give out the wrong laws, like in Washington, at least if you are arrested for it, your attorney might have a good case. The criminal law section says that no one can wear, carry or transport a gun in Maryland - concealed or open- in a car or on their person except in certain circumstances. The only time a gun can be taken out of the home is if you are law enforcement, military, police, or have a concealed carry permit. The only exceptions for the rest of us is if you are going to "a target shoot, formal or informal target practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a Department of Natural Resources-sponsored firearms and hunter safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or show." A dog show? I wonder if the ASPCA knows about that exception. The law is specific that transporting the firearm in these cases can only be done, "while the person is engaged in, on the way to, or returning from that activity." This law reminded me of the false one described by the firearm experts at the D.C. registry office. Did it mean I couldn't stop for gas? What about going to dinner with my family while I was in Baltimore? I called On Target range to ask for help. The salesman said that Maryland, "doesn't want you driving around here and there with the gun in your car." So that meant that legally, I could only drive the hour to the range and turn around and come back to D.C. Federal law states that you can transport a gun anywhere as long as you are going from one state where the firearm is legal (D.C. is considered a state in this law and my gun is registered) to another state where the firearm is legal (my gun is not on the banned list in Maryland) for any lawful purpose (like a shooting range). So if I stopped for lunch or gas and left my locked gun in the far back of my SUV, it should be legal under federal law, but which law applies? Firearms attorney Richard Gardiner said that, "The federal law trumps inconsistent state law." In the end, I met my friends Freestate shooting range in White Marsh, which I chose because it's nearest to where my friends live in Baltimore. My girlfriends were excited by the challenge and, as I still am, a little afraid of the action and noise in the range. Kim had never shot a handgun before and got every round of the rented 22 into the bullseye. Melissa has a revolver at home in South Carolina, but had only shot outside. Once she got more used to the loud bangs from the rifle in the next lane, she shot my 9mm Sig and hit the center of the target. Both Kim and Melissa said they wanted to shoot again soon. Watch out men, the girls are going to take over the ranges soon. "Emily Gets Her Gun" is a series following senior editor Emily Miller as she tries to legally get her hands on a gun in the nation's capital. You can also follow her on Twitter and Facebook. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, March 29, 2012 1:11 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Expert warns that bears in region in 'real trouble' CALGARY HERALD - MARCH 29, 2012 Grizzly bear killed by Crowsnest Pass landowner Expert warns that bears in region in 'real trouble' BY SEAN MYERS http://www.calgaryherald.com/travel/Grizzly+bear+killed+Crowsnest+Pass+landowner/6377351/story.html A man who shot and killed a grizzly bear, in the first reported sighting in the province this spring, acted in self-defence and will not be charged. But environmentalists say more needs to be done to limit bear encounters with humans, especially now that grizzlies are emerging early from hibernation following a mild winter. "It's obviously a pretty grim start to the year for grizzlies," said Nigel Douglas, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. "It's a time to reflect, have we progressed any from last year? Are things any better for grizzly bears now than they were from a year ago? The short answer is, 'no.' " Douglas said he doesn't take issue with the shooting itself, which occurred on a property in the Crowsnest Pass near Coleman on March 19. The night before, a rancher's wife saw what she thought was a wolf feeding on the carcass of a deer at the edge of her property. Her husband went out the next morning to check the carcass and encountered a grizzly bear. According to the investigation by the Alberta Solicitor General and Public Safety office that followed, the man tried to back away slowly and then made loud noises to try to scare it off. Unmoved, the bear charged at the man, who shot it at a distance of 16.5 metres. "It was a self-defence kill," Douglas said. "We're not going to criticize what the guy did in this specific incident. But as much as anything this hammers home, really, that grizzly bears, and particularly grizzly bears in southwest Alberta, are in real trouble. The mortality rates over the past few years are totally unsustainable in that area." There are estimated to be about 700 grizzly bears in Alberta, most of them in the north. There may be as few as 50 in the southwestern corner of the province, Douglas said. The government's grizzly recovery plan, released in 2008, created several programs and initiatives to deter contact with grizzlies by removing attractants such as animal carcasses. Conservation groups such as the Alberta Wilderness Association say these programs have been positive steps but need to be put into much broader use. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development claims that the fact mortality rates of grizzlies are going down shows their deterrence programs are working. Of the 21 known grizzly deaths in 2010, 19 were human-caused, according to the province. Last year, 18 died, of which 15 were caused by humans, said a spokesman for Sustainable Resource Development. "We've had a lot of success here considering the fact we're seeing more and more Albertans out there in bear country," said department spokesman Dave Ealey. "It's a very busy landscape. I think we're doing quite well in keeping the mortalities at the level they're at right now." Since bovine spongiform encephalopathy was found in Alberta cattle, slaughterhouses have accepted fewer cattle carcasses for rendering. So ranchers started burying cattle that died in holes on their property, which grizzlies can easily dig up. Now a provincial plan has set up composting sites where ranchers can bring their dead livestock. Every spring, the province also collects roadkill found on the side of highways and rural roads for transport to higher ground where bears are known to hibernate and away from human settlements. "We've got lots of things we're doing to limit conflicts." Ealey said. "But this is not something government is going to do on its own. We can't. Albertans have a role to play here." Other than the bear shot near Coleman, there haven't been any grizzly sightings officially reported to the province or the national parks so far this season. But the Alberta Wilderness Association has several reports of grizzly tracks and sightings have been reported south of the border in Montana and Yellowstone National Park. smyers@calgaryherald.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #22 ********************************** 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".)