From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #89 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 Sunday, May 13 2012 Volume 15 : Number 089 In this issue: Re: "Firearms sabotage by police" Re: illegal possession of ...-Digest V15 #84 Re: Hunters Police State: When the Police choose which laws they will obey Torontogloabeandmail anti-gun poll NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism Re: Hunters Re: what is the current situation for those buying a gun at retail? LORNE GUNTER STRAIGHT TALK: Shadow gun registries can not ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 02:17:48 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: "Firearms sabotage by police" You need to speak to government M.P.s about this, and any sympathetic Members of Prov. legislature. The police will continue to do this until they become liable for such damage. Ontario needs a Right to own property amendment to the provincial Constitution but that won't happen until one of the Western provinces lead. Not that there are any politicians that come to mind of high calibre but many would follow a populist property rights movement, where one to start. Politically, the more I hear about the state of affairs in Ontario, the more I view it sort of like Somalia, as a failed state. There seems to be no credible, provincial Opposition Party. All three seem like a single consensus party agreeing with whatever schemes and abuse the bureaucracy comes up with. The feds could amend the act to make public servants liable for property damage to the personal property of firearms under their care. They need to be convinced that this insubordination by the CFPOs is just a tip of a much larger iceberg. On 12-May-12, at 8:19 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:40:17 -0700 (PDT) > From: "bletchleypark@rogers.com" > Subject: Firearm Sabotage by Police > > To All, > > If ever there was any doubt that the police are not our friends > anymore, it has now evaporated completely. > > > Scene#1 > > > Last February when I picked up my stolen firearms from the police > property unit in Etobicoke I noticed that several of my guns were > either damaged or missing important expensive parts. Upon further > inspection, I became suspicious that the damage and theft of vital > components was not the result of the original thieves taking it upon > themselves to be spiteful. After all, what street smart thug having > just acquired an expensive semi-auto assault rifle would render the > gun inoperative. They usually prize guns that go bang! The same could > be said for expensive large capacity magazines. So when I noticed that > all the springs and followers were missing, I started to have my > doubts..... > > Scene#2 > > Yesterday I contacted a well respected gunsmith (name withheld by > request) to ask him if some of my damaged rifles were salvageable > (four > out of six could not be fired). When I told him how this all came > about > he laughed. He used to be an armourer for the OPP awhile back and > confided that it was common practise for the police, when returning > stolen firearms to the rightful owners, to remove critical components > and attachments from those firearms! > > BASTARDS! > > And the police wonder why we have lost all respect for them. > > Peter ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 07:45:07 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: illegal possession of ...-Digest V15 #84 At 11:49 AM 12/05/2012 -0700, you wrote: > >>> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 05:28:05 -0600 >>> From: 10x@telus.net >>> Subject: Re: attack on VicPD constable >>> If you have a gun with a trigger lock on it and it is in your home >>> - your wife and children have access to it - that also leaves >>> the gun in their possession when you leave home, and leaves your wife >>> with no license subject to charges under section 91 of the criminal >>> code. >>> Under section 91 the only defence to charges of possession of a >>> firearm is a valid license. > >This is not true. The key to "possession" is the "intent" to possess. >This was clearly stated in R. v. Joe: her husband "stored" a rifle behind >her dresser; she was charged with "possession" and was acquitted. > >I can't find this online, but I have it on my desktop if you really want >the citation. > >Yours in TYRANNY! >Bruce You have faith in the courts to get it right all of the time? Read section 91 very carefully and see if the word "intent" is mentioned. Any thing and every thing can happen in a Canadian Courtroom and there is some very solid precedent that states "The law is as the law reads". If the law is NOT as the law reads then what is the value of the law? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:03:32 -0400 From: Keith Subject: Re: Hunters Nice to see such statistics for a foreign country. What are they for Canada? Keith Clive Edwards wrote: > Something to consider, An interesting view of things > > Gun control means that only Law Abiding citizens will be without a gun. > > AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- > > Pretty Amazing! > > The world's largest army... America's hunters! > > I had never thought about this... > > A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a > handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: > > There were over 600,000 hunters this season > in the state of Wisconsin . > > Allow me to restate that number: 600,000 > > Over the last several months,Wisconsin's hunters > became the eighth largest army in the world. > > More people under arms than in Iran. > > More than France and Germany combined. > > These people deployed to the woods of a single American state, > Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. > > That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 > who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and > Michigan's 700,000 hunters, > all of whom have now returned home safely. > > Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia > and it literally establishes the fact that the > hunters of those four states alonewould > comprise the largest army in the world. > > And then add in the total number of hunters > in the other 46 states. > > It's millions more. > > The point? > > America will forever be safe from foreign > invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower. > > Hunting.... > > it's not just a way to fill the freezer.. > > It's a matter of national security. > > *************************************** > That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, > want to see us disarmed. > Food for thought, when next we > consider gun control. > > Have A Great Day! > ------------------------------------- > > Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that > hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, > the question would still remain...what army of 2 million > would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens. > > (IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF > MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE > GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS) > For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control > or confiscation of guns. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, May 13, 2012 10:34 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Police State: When the Police choose which laws they will obey by Christopher di Armani Police State: When the Police choose which laws they will obey by: Christopher di Armani - May 13, 2012 | one comment. http://christopherdiarmani.com/5461/abuse-of-police-authority/police-state-when-the-police-choose-which-laws-they-will-obey/?awt_l=Abats&awt_m=3V_3t29T58tLzRJ When the Police choose which laws they will obey, what do you have? This question has come up this week in the wake of the refusal of at least 5 provincial Chief Firearms Officers across Canada to obey the law of the land as expressed by the passage of Bill C-19. As most already know, Bill C-19 struck down the requirements for people to register their non-restricted firearms. Ontario's Chief Firearms Officer is leading the pack in declaring Bill C-19 null and void and that they will interpret Section 58 of the Firearms Act to mean whatever they want it. Section 58.1 of the Firearms Act reads as follows: 58. (1) A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person. The Ontario CFO is interpreting this section of the Firearms Act to mean he can impose any condition he wants to a Business Firearms License. After all, as CFO, he is the one who gets to decide what "reasonable" means. The fact that this "reasonable" condition is in direct conflict with Bill C-19 is entirely beside the point. At least as far as the Ontario CFO is concerned. Dr. Mike Ackermann recently wrote: "What do you call a state where the police refuse to obey the laws of the land, and instead attempt to make up the law themselves? Here's a hint, we swear every November 11th, 'Lest we forget, Never again!'" Dr. Ackermann is, of course, 100% correct. READ MORE: http://christopherdiarmani.com/5461/abuse-of-police-authority/police-state-w hen-the-police-choose-which-laws-they-will-obey/?awt_l=Abats&awt_m=3V_3t29T58tLzRJ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 10:05:52 -0700 From: jim davies Subject: Torontogloabeandmail anti-gun poll http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/vote-do-you-support-provincial-long-gun-registries/article2430007/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 11:33:03 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/stop-and-frisk-nypd-stands-ground-while-facing-sharp-criticism/?testlatestnews?testlatestnews Stop-and-Frisk: NYPD stands its ground while facing sharp criticism "Stop and frisk is a good police tool." By Perry Chiaramonte Published May 12, 2012 FoxNews.com Baltimore native Chris Bilal was walking through his adopted Brooklyn neighborhood when he was stopped by a police officer. The NYPD officer peppered the 24-year-old with questions about where he lived, requested Bilal's ID and rummaged through his bag. "I was coming home from the Laundromat and I was stopped by the police officer. Asking me, 'Let me see your ID. 'Where are you from?' 'Do you live around here?' " The officer then proceeded to rummage through Bilal's bag of freshly cleaned and folded laundry to see if he was carrying anything illegal. The search produced nothing, and the officer sent Bilal on his way. "They were searching for drugs. The funny thing was that it was a mesh laundry bag. I'm not sure what I could hide," Bilal said. Bilal, who is African-American, came to New York to follow his dreams of being an artist, but has felt more suspicion than inspiration since arriving a little over a year ago. He is repeatedly stopped on the street, being asked what he's doing, where he's going and even, on occasion, being frisked. "I feel guilty all the time," said Bilal, an artist and writer. "I feel like I'm being watched and targeted all the time." Bilal has been affected by the NYPD's policy of Stop, Question and Frisk, in which officers randomly stop a person to determine if they are up to any wrongdoing or possess weapons and contraband items. His experience is all too common, especially among minorities in low-income neighborhoods. In 2011, the New York City Police Department stopped 685,724 people of whom an overwhelming 88 percent were deemed innocent. Backers of the policy say it is an effective tool for deterring crime, which has dropped nearly 80 percent since the Giuliani administration enacted Stop, Question and Frisk in the mid-'90s. But critics say the price of living in what they consider a police state is too high. "[NYPD] Commissioner Kelly says he believes that the large number of Stop and Frisk prevents crime, but the data really doesn't support that," said Dr. Delores Jones-Brown, professor and director of the Center on Race, Crime and Justice at John Jay College in New York. "The overwhelming problem with Stop and Frisk is that many of the people stopped are innocent." Jones-Brown has extensively studied the NYPD's Stop, Question and Frisk practice and co-authored a 2010 report on the matter. The findings of "Stop, Question and Frisk policing practices in New York City: A primer," concluded that the number of stops tripled between 2003 and 2009, and a majority of the people stopped were either black or Hispanic. Those in favor of the practice at City Hall and One Police Plaza say the Stop and Frisk policy is especially effective at getting guns off the streets. And while statistics do show a steady decline in gun violence stretching back several years, an updated version of the primer expected to be released in the coming months shows that in 2011 only 0.4 percent of all arrests during Stop and Frisk were for gun possession. A majority of arrests were due to contraband items, such as drugs and paraphernalia. A separate detailed report released by the New York Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday shows that of 56 percent of the stops that resulted in a search, only 1.9 percent were found with a weapon. The study also concludes that while young black and Latino men account for only 4.7 percent of New York City's population, they accounted for more than 40 percent of all stops in the city. While this demographic is more likely to be frisked than a young white male, they were less likely to be found with a weapon. Jones-Brown believes complaints have only made the NYPD more stubborn in its embrace of the policy. "The requests from the communities where these stops occur have caused him [Kelly] and his supporters to stand behind it more and more. I think it says something bad about police and community relations," said Jones-Brown. Local reports also surfaced on Thursday that commanders from every precinct have been ordered by top officials to carefully review all stop, question, and frisk reports to ensure that proper protocol is being used by officers. Representatives for the NYPD did not respond to requests for comment on this story. But the policy has plenty of support. "Stop and Frisks are a necessary evil," said Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, an NYPD union. "A lot of times it's hard for the general public to understand." He said subjects targeted for stops are not merely victims of racial profiling. "I understand how people may feel the way they do about Stop and Frisk, but what's always left out of the equation is that we target those that fit a description," Mullins said. "Our role of stopping someone is based on an incident report from someone in that particular neighborhood." Still, Mullins recognizes the policy can have a negative effect on community relations, especially if it is overused. "The issue shouldn't be people being stopped," Mullins said. "It should be the frequency in which it happens." Nearly 30 advocacy groups within the city's five boroughs formed Communities United for Police Reform, with the goal of ending what they consider discriminatory practices by the NYPD. "It's not 'Stop and Frisk' that's happening, and it's not in that order," said Jose Lopez, who works as a community outreach leader for Make the Road NY, a Brooklyn-based community advocacy group that is part of the coalition. "We are not getting stopped, questioned and frisked. We are getting searched. There's a difference." "Every time I get stopped, I'm not getting questioned first. I'm usually stopped, then searched. I'm usually questioned after they find nothing," he added. Lopez, who works with many of the city's youth, says that the main issue among those stopped is the after-effects and that a stigma among others in their neighborhood that sticks with them. "It's that part of being put on display. That looms in the head of all the community members watching, wondering if these kids did something," he said. "So when that's not addressed in that moment, it's left up to an individual to decide on their own without enough information." Also a part of Communities United is City Councilman Jumaane Williams, who has been vocal about changing Stop/Frisk policies since he experienced it firsthand while attending the West Indian Day Parade in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, this past September during Labor Day. "Stop and frisk is a good police tool that should be used for the purposes that it was intended," said Williams, who represents the 45th District in Brooklyn. "What I think is happening now is that it's being abused in specific communities, specifically black and Latino communities. "If there is some sort of probable cause, there is reason to stop someone," Williams said. "But being black or Latino is not a probable cause. " This past February, Williams introduced three bills before the City Council to try to regulate the rampant use of Stop, Question and Frisk, by increasing police accountability and reducing racial profiling. Proposed in the three bills are: a.. Forbidding police officers to use race, gender, ethnicity or sexual identity as just cause to stop someone on the street. b.. Officers would have to make clear to people that they stop, that they do not need consent to a search. c.. Officers not on undercover assignments must provide personal business cards to those that they Stop, Question and Frisk. A council vote on the bills is still pending. Getting guns off the street and saving lives trumps many of the concerns of the policy's critics, said City Councilman Peter Vallone. "I think Commissioner Kelly summed it up best at our last committee hearing. What alternative do you propose?," said Vallone, who represents Astoria, Queens, and also serves as the chair of the Council's Public Safety Committee. "No one has an alternative on how to get guns off our streets. What do we do? Wait until a shooting happens or do we try to prevent it? "We had 800 guns removed from the streets last year. Do you know how many lives that saves?" The councilman said the fact that black males are being stopped at about twice the rate that they exist in the census is not necessarily cause for criticism. Police should base their decisions on professional observation, not mere census data, he said. "Doing so would necessitate quotas to make sure everyone was getting stopped at the same rate," said Vallone, who also co-sponsored a law that banned racial profiling by law enforcement in New York. "What the stops should be compared to is civil observations." Vallone also dismisses claims that an arrest rate of 12 percent is too low to consider the practice of Stop, Question and Frisk effective. "That rate makes absolute sense when it comes to stop and frisk. The stops are based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. It would be impossible to get higher numbers based on this," Vallone said. While the debate continues, many other American cities have dropped or modified their stop, question and frisk techniques. In 2011, Philadelphia settled a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, agreeing to collect more data on Stop and Frisk incidents and to ease up on the practice, refraining from questionable methods. In 2008, Baltimore settled a suit brought by the NAACP on similar terms. In the consent decree, the Baltimore Police Department agreed to end its policy of Zero Tolerance Policing and to require officers to provide their names and badge numbers to those who make a request while stopped. The proposed measures are similar to Williams' bill in New York City. Cincinnati has also agreed to terms for a similar decree filed in Ohio. In California, the cities of San Diego and East Palo Alto have done away with Stop, Question and Frisk entirely, focusing on more direct engagement with the community and focusing on suspects with probable cause. While the debate continues in New York as to whether Stop and Frisk infringes on people's civil liberties, Bilal, and countless others like him, will have to endure suspicion while walking on the street or going to the store. "I think it's a big hindrance on a lot of people's lives and it happens to a lot of people in the community," said Bilal. "I'm just looked at as a possible criminal. It kind of sucks." Bilal, who always admired police officers while growing up in Baltimore, said the feeling of always being under suspicion has left him disillusioned about the Big Apple. "New York is an idealistic place for me in my mind," Bilal says. "I kind of aspired to always come here and when I did, I was like, 'Yes! I've finally come here. I can be free. I can write and I can do my art, but it really hasn't turned out that way." This article was written by the author as part of the Henry Frank Guggenheim Fellowship program at the Center on Media, Crime and Justice at John Jay College in New York. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/07/stop-and-frisk-nypd-stands-ground-while-facing-sharp-criticism/?testlatestnews?testlatestnews#ixzz1ultlAGKf ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 13:20:23 -0500 From: Subject: Re: Hunters > Hunting.... > > it's not just a way to fill the freezer.. > > It's a matter of national security. Excellent point! I think I see some camo t -shirts with this slogan in the works! ;') Subject: Re: what is the current situation for those buying a gun at retail? > So what is happening elsewhere? Same thing happening at Wholesale Sports and Cabala's in.Manitoba. Be on the look out for private gun sales, all they need to do is see your license (and I know of some that think they don't even need to do that!) Get them while you can! Cheers ------------------------------ Date: Sun, May 13, 2012 12:28 pm From: "todd rudderham" Subject: LORNE GUNTER STRAIGHT TALK: Shadow gun registries can not ... ... be tolerated http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2012/05/20120513-083854.html LORNE GUNTER | QMI AGENCY It's staggering the lengths - very likely the illegal lengths - that many of the country's provincial chief firearms officers (CFOs) are willing to go to keep the gun registry alive. It doesn't seem to matter to the CFOs that they have been told this week, in no uncertain terms, by both the minister of Public Safety and by the commissioner of the RCMP that they can no longer require gun shop owners to collect personal data about lawful gun owners when they buy a firearm. It doesn't seem to matter that Vic Toews, the federal public safety minister, has threatened to use any legislative or regulatory means necessary to stop the CFOs from demanding that gun-shop owners keep detailed ledgers of gun-buyers' names and licence numbers, along with the make, model and serial number of the guns they are buying. It doesn't seem to matter that Bob Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, has told them the legal argument they are relying on has been trumped by the Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act passed by Parliament earlier this spring. The CFOs seem to have decided they are a law unto themselves. They seem to believe they can choose to obey laws (or not) based on whether they agree with the laws' objectives. On Tuesday, after learning that most CFOs had instructed gun retailers in their provinces to start maintaining sales ledgers after the federal computer registry was disbanded, Toews wrote to Paulson (who is in charge of the CFOs) and told him the CFOs were violating the spirit of Bill C-19 - - the legislation ordering the dismantling of the registry. At least one CFO - Ontario's Chris Wyatt - said he didn't care what the minister wanted. Wyatt said his legal advisers had told him he could impose "reasonable" conditions on gun-shop owners and to his mind a ledger was reasonable. If the RCMP commissioner wrote him and told him to stop, that might be different. Then he would reconsider his options. Such blatant disregard for the will of Parliament and for the instructions of an elected minister is unconscionable. But it gets worse. On Friday, Commissioner Paulson wrote to Wyatt and the other CFOs and reiterated what Toews said on Tuesday - the registry-ending legislation prohibits the collection of any registry-like information. Stop it. Paulson even directly addressed the legal argument the CFOs have been using to defy Toews. Section 58 of the Firearms Act permits CFOs to attach reasonable conditions to the business licences of gun shops. Keeping ledgers is, to the CFOs' thinking, reasonable. Therefore they believe the law justifies their defiant action. They have also argued that because the ledgers existed before the registry began in 1998, the ledgers are nothing new and do not constitute a backdoor registry. But as the head of the RCMP explained in his letter on Friday, Bill C-19 supersedes what was previously in the Firearms Act, as well as what came before the registry. "Accordingly, as the commissioner of firearms "¦ I instruct all chief firearms officers to ensure that the licensing conditions you impose on business records pursuant to the Firearms Act do not facilitate the creation of long-gun registries in your jurisdictions." This, too, apparently isn't enough for the obstinate CFOs. As of late Friday afternoon, the CFOs in at least Ontario and Alberta were continuing to demand gun sellers keep ledgers. But the ledgers contain the same information as a registry, so they are a registry no matter what the CFOs choose to call them. This blatant defiance of the will of Canadians' elected representatives cannot be tolerated, no matter what one thinks of the registry and the Tories' efforts to get rid of it. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #89 ********************************** 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".)