From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #105 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 Saturday, May 26 2012 Volume 15 : Number 105 In this issue: [NatPost] Semi-rogue Tory MP shouldn’t unde RE: Bear Baiting Brouhaha RCMP boss says case of Alberta Mountie 'sad' *NFR* "Rand Paul vs. armed bureaucrats"-wnd.com Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 07:28:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: [NatPost] Semi-rogue Tory MP shouldn’t unde ?utf-8?B?cmVzdGltYXRlIGNhdWN1cyB1bnJlc3Q? Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/matt-gurney-semi-rogue-tory-mp-shouldnt-underestimate-caucus-unrest/ Semi-rogue Tory MP shouldn't underestimate caucus unrest Matt Gurney May 24, 2012 12:51 PM ET Last Updated: May 24, 2012 4:23 PM ET David Wilks, a Tory MP from British Columbia, recently made the rookie mistake of telling the truth in front of a guy with a video camera. Wilks was speaking to a small group of constituents unhappy at the government’s massive omnibus budget bill, which shoehorns in significant reforms and laws, knowing that they won’t receive much (if any) scrutiny in the haste to pass the budget. Post columnist John Ivison is entirely right to say that many of these reforms have no place in a budget bill. And Wilks was only being honest when he said that he doesn’t like everything in the bill, but didn’t see any point voting against it unless 12 other Tory MPs were also willing to break ranks and vote against the bill — the minimum number of dissenters required to stop it. If those 12 were willing to do it, he said, he’d do it, too. Wilks was quickly encouraged to walk back those comments by the Prime Minister’s Office, and walk them back he did, but he should have stuck by them. Not only because he’s right, but because the last few months have already seen several examples of the Conservative government changing course after their own caucus became restive. The first is well known. In February, during the public outrage over Bill C-30, the so-called Lawful Access Internet surveillance bill, even while the government was firmly dug in defending its bill (see Toews, Vic; and, “With us or with child pornographers”), backbench Tories were not happy. And they weren’t shy about talking to the media, even if their backbench position required that they talk to the media … quietly. Those in the public who were closely following the debate may recall reading, in the Post and elsewhere, columns and reports hinting at “unease” and “concerns” in the Conservative caucus that the bill’s search provisions went too far. I was one of the columnists writing on the issue, and myself heard from “people in the know” that media columns attacking the government’s position on the bill were being received like manna from heaven by Tory MPs, who then used those columns to hammer away at the senior party operatives’ insistence that the bill go forward as-written. It’s hard to say with certainty what exactly tipped the scales against the government pushing ahead with the bill — media backlash, public anger, strong opposition from, well, the opposition, or caucus unrest — but for my money, the caucus unrest shouldn’t be underestimated. This government — all governments, really — are rarely much impressed by what the media thinks, and majority governments have little to fear from the opposition. Public anger is riskier, of course, but dissension in the ranks has got to be read by any government as a sign that it has gone too far. The opposition thinking you’re wrong is one thing. Your own MPs — and probably your own voting base with them — is something far different. It’s no surprise that, in recent weeks, the Conservatives have quietly let Bill C-30 die. The other example of an unhappy caucus revolt is a little less well-known, but has the benefit of at least being more recent. After the scrapping of the long-gun registry, pro-gun advocates across Canada were quick to notice that, using the (overly) broad powers granted them under the Firearms Act, provincial Chief Firearms Officers were ordering gun stores to record the personal information of all those purchasing a non-restricted firearm. The information, kept in ledger books owned by the firearms programs of the individual provinces, were said by many to constitute back-door gun registries. (I don’t agree with that, but certainly understand the frustration of Canada’s lawful firearms owners.) At first, the government wasn’t interested. Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner, one of the strongest pro-gun voices in the government, released a statement confirming that the government had lived up to its promise to scrap the long-gun registry and dismissed the ledger books as a provincial issue. This isn’t surprising — while killing off the long-gun registry was a promise that had to be lived up to, it’s unlikely that the Tories are interested in doing much more for Canada’s firearms owners, lest their newly found urban support in Toronto, and southern Ontario generally, wilt away in the face of attacks slamming the Conservatives as pro-gun. That logic went up like a lead balloon with the rank-and-file. Exactly as with the Lawful Access bill, within a day or two I began to hear, from multiple sources, that backbench Tory MPs were furious and were fielding many angry phone calls from constituents. The issue simmered for a while, meetings were held, and I continued to get frequent updates from those involved in the discussion — in and out of government – reporting that brushing off the ledgers as a provincial issue simply wasn’t going to fly with Tory MPs. Less than two weeks after the issue seemed to be dismissed by Hoeppner, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews changed course and ordered the head of the RCMP to instruct his firearms officers to stop collecting the data. That hasn’t gone over well with the provinces, Ontario especially, but it’s still proof that when the backbenches are restless, the government does sometimes listen. That’s why it’s unfortunate that Wilks wasn’t willing to stand by his entirely truthful, entirely correct comments disagreeing with the federal government’s decision to cram all sorts of unrelated regulations and laws into the budget bill. It’s sneaky, it’s undemocratic, and it’s simply not necessary for a majority government. And there are lots of Tory MPs, who believe in democracy more than simple raw partisan politics, who agree with Wilks. If given someone to rally behind, even behind the scenes, they may have done so. David Wilks could have been that man. Too bad he won’t be. National Post mgurney@nationalpost.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 09:38:51 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: Bear Baiting Brouhaha <20120525162759.C9286284001@scorpion.bogend.ca> In-Reply-To: <20120525162759.C9286284001@scorpion.bogend.ca> Thread-Index: Ac06k1obIse95YlySjS6vws23RAfyQAAIR6w Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca >> I find the practice of bear baiting abhorrent, as I do the feeding of >> deer near a shooting stand. Just doesn't seem right to me. > I see no difference between using food as bait and using scent lures, > decoys, and calls to attract game. They're all just exploiting the > natural biological responses of animals. I agree with both Todd and Bruce. I should point out that virtually all fishing with a hook involves using bait. If you are staking out a willow stand for moose, is that not in essence baiting? Clive ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:50:02 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: RCMP boss says case of Alberta Mountie 'sad' *NFR* http://www.thestarphoenix.com/life/RCMP+boss+says+case+Alberta+Mountie/6676237/story.html RCMP boss says case of Alberta Mountie 'sad' By Douglas Quan, Postmedia News May 25, 2012 The actions of a senior Alberta Mountie who engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct, as well as the punishment he received, represent a "sorry, sad and shameful set of facts," the RCMP commissioner has told Postmedia News in a series of candid emails. Bob Paulson said the case of Donald Ray - who was docked 10 days pay, given a formal reprimand and demoted one rank from staff sergeant to sergeant - underscores a need to revamp the force's disciplinary system, and that the force is pursuing legislative changes to make that happen. "If I could change this case I would, I cannot," he said. "What I can do is make sure that we get a system where this sort of frustration is eliminated." The force has come under fire since details of Ray's disciplinary case - first obtained by the Ottawa Citizen - came to light this week. According to a three-member adjudication-board decision reached in January, Ray, a polygraph operator, engaged in a "disturbing pattern" of activity affecting a number of women over a period of years. The activity included consuming alcohol at work and encouraging subordinates to join him; exposing his penis to an employee and asking her to touch it; having sex with a woman in a polygraph suite at "K" Division headquarters during lunch breaks and after work; having sex with a woman in a parking lot; and calling a woman a "hottie" when he learned of her age and saying she "must have a really good sex life with her husband or she must be having an affair" while commenting about her clothing. Board members said the gravity of Ray's misconduct was such that dismissal was at the "forefront" of their collective minds. But the board decided against dismissal, swayed by a number of mitigating factors, including "strong" letters of support from colleagues, "sincere expressions of regret and remorse" from Ray, and his desire to admit the allegations "at the first available opportunity." In addition to docking his pay and demoting him, the panel recommended he be transferred and get counselling. Ray, who is being relocated to British Columbia and will be working in some kind of federal policing capacity, could not be reached for comment Thursday. The lawyer who represented him at his disciplinary hearing declined to comment. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:04:04 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "Rand Paul vs. armed bureaucrats"-wnd.com Rand Paul opposes unnecessary use of armed federal bureaucrats to intimidate citizens in matters of regulatory law. This is long overdue. His motion failed to get a majority but, at least, a politician is addressing the para-militarization of the U.S. federal government. In this case, it is Food and Drug Administration harassing farmers over the sale or ownership of unpasteurized milk. http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/its-rand-paul-vs-armed-bureaucrats/ "In proposing the plan, Paul said there were 40 different federal agencies that have armed officers, and he was recognizing an issue on which WND has reported in the past. In fact, some 15 years ago, WND documented how a commando-style raid by “20 heavily armed federal agents and local sheriff’s deputies” involved employees of the National Park Service. Even then, there were an estimated 60,000 federal agents trained and authorized to enforce thousands of laws, and that was long before the development of the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, May 26, 2012 8:40 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? Posted By David Bosco - Friday, May 25, 2012 - 11:02 AM http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/24/will_a_global_arms_trade_treaty_be_worth_the_trouble At the United Nations, national diplomats, NGOs, and UN officials are gearing up for a July negotiating session on a long sought arms trade treaty. The notion is to enact international standards for transfers and sales of conventional weapons, from AK-47s to fighter jets. At a recent seminar in New York, co-hosted by the Japanese, Turkish and Polish missions to the UN, diplomats and specialists spelled out some of the daunting complexities negotiators still face. In theory, the case for comprehensive treaty to address conventional arms flows is sound. As my FP colleague Christian Caryl pointed out here, it's conventional weapons, not their more anxiety-inducing cousins, that actually take lives in conflicts around the world: WMD have killed very few people in the decades after World War II. The overwhelming majority of the millions of people who have died in conflicts since 1945 were killed by bullets, bombs, and artillery. And most of these casualties, in turn, are caused not by tanks or planes but small arms -- which nowadays usually means assault rifles. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/in_the_crosshairs_by_christ ian_caryl Existing international law covers nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; other international mechanisms attempt to staunch the illicit flow of weapons. But when it comes to states or businesses openly selling conventional weapons to others, international law has little to say, even when the recipient country or group may be putting the weapons to bloody and irresponsible use. The UN hosts a voluntary registry to which states can report arms transfers (they do sometimes, but reporting rates have apparently declined in recent years). Plenty of states, including the United States and the EU countries, have tough domestic export restrictions, but they do little to address the practices of others. Predictably, the UN negotiations have attracted the attention of gun rights organizations. And that in turn has got some folks on Capitol Hill engaged. For the most part, the fears articulated by these voices are untethered from the actual substance of the negotiations, which will not include domestic arms productions and transfer. The relevant question is not whether the planned treaty will impinge on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but whether it will in any meaningful way impact the flow of arms to bloody-minded governments and organizations. Although negotiators have been preparing the groundwork for years, key issues remain unresolved. These include whether the treaty will cover all classes of weapons (ammunition is a particularly tough subject), whether developing states will get funds to improve their export controls, and whether the treaty will create legal obligations for brokers and middlemen. Most important is the set of standards against which arms transfers will be judged. Are certain governments and organizations inherently illegitimate recipients? And how much assurance do those transferring weapons need that their product won't be used for human rights violations? At the moment, negotiators appear headed toward a rather vague insistence that sellers not transfer weapons they suspect will be used for human rights violations or to undermine international security. But who gets to decide when a seller should be suspicious? It appears likely that states themselves will be the judge and jury. Some observers hope that the International Court of Justice might have a role refereeing the treaty provisions, but that seems unlikely (and not terribly reassuring, given the glacial pace of ICJ proceedings). The treaty may also include some kind of reporting requirement, but probably one that cannot be effectively enforced. The question that the advocates enthusiastically pushing this treaty may soon face is whether a porous treaty that is ripe for abuse is better than no treaty at all. At the New York roundtable, I had an exchange with Jeff Abramson, who coordinates the civil society effort on the issue. While insisting that NGOs would not support a deeply flawed treaty, he argued that even an imperfect document may change international norms and facilitate domestic steps against dangerous arms transfers. He could be right. But a treaty whose letter and spirit gets regularly abused may also further debase the coin of international law. Norm-creation works in many directions, and a weak treaty may unintentionally bolster the norm that treaty requirements aren't serious. In the past twenty years, civil society organizations have become major players in developing new international treaty regimes. With that newfound influence should come some sense of responsibility for negotiations that are, by their nature, exercises in locating the lowest-common denominator. States often endorse ineffective instruments just to say they've done something. NGOs should hold themselves to a higher standard, and that might just mean distancing themselves from a process they helped initiate. - ------------------------------------- THE HUFFINGTON POST - MAY 25, 2012, 3:27 pm The Most Important Treaty You've Never Heard of and How the NRA Wants It Dead BY Eric Sapp, Founding Partner, Eleison Group http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-sapp/the-most-important-treaty-youve-neve r-heard-of_b_1544593.html There are currently no international laws or treaties regulating the international sale of conventional weapons. You read that right. There is more international oversight of the sale of bananas and iPods than grenade launchers and AK-47s. As a result, the bullets killing our troops in Afghanistan and the weapons used by warlords to commit genocide in Africa are purchased on the black and grey international weapons markets that thrive in this unregulated environment. Thankfully, all of that is about to change -- at least, we hope. This July, the nations of the world are gathering in NYC to negotiate the first ever Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which would set up a global framework to regulate the international weapons trade and close loopholes exploited by evil doers around the world. A robust ATT would help prevent weapons sales to states that are human rights violators, and create uniform laws and transparency that would put a serious squeeze on black market arms dealers who supply weapons to terrorists. As a result, a large and ideologically diverse coalition has emerged to support this treaty. Some of the strongest voices come from the faith community: The National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches have joined the Vatican and the World Evangelical Alliance to call for a robust ATT. Last spring American Values Network organized Christians in 48 states from over 3,500 mostly evangelical congregations to join in a day of prayer and fasting for a successful ATT. And numerous services and prayer rallies are being organized around the upcoming July negotiations. Joining this chorus of the faithful have been a number of retired generals and admirals who are echoing the Pentagon's assessment that the greatest future threats to America's troops and security will likely come from terrorist groups and small bands of guerrilla fighters -- currently arming themselves through the under-regulated international weapons market. Last but not least are the humanitarian organizations like Oxfam, Amnesty International, Arms Control Association and countless others who toil non-stop to be a voice for the voiceless and make our world a safer and more just place. Yesterday, more than 50 groups from this combined faith, security, and humanitarian coalition submitted a letter to President Obama thanking him for his Administration's leadership on this issue, highlighting the treaty priorities, and encouraging the President to "seize the historic opportunity to negotiate a robust, bullet-proof Arms Trade Treaty." You'd think there would be universal support for a treaty that will help stem the flow of weapons and ammunition to terrorists, warlords, pirates and dictators -- that would help save American lives and reduce atrocities around the globe. But if so, you haven't met the NRA and Heritage Foundation. Sadly, for these groups, politics and money are more important than protecting our troops, patriotism and moral decency. And in the ATT, they see a way to raise money by telling their base that Obama and the UN are coming to take your guns. They know full well that 1) the ATT charter forbids it from having any impact on domestic gun laws or sales, 2) the Obama Administration has said it would oppose any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment, and 3) no international laws trump our Constitution. But what are facts when money is to be made and political muscles can be flexed? And so yesterday, the NRA got an amendment introduced in the Senate to forbid the U.S. from participating in negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty that would violate the Second Amendment. But rather than fighting the amendment as the NRA had hoped, supporters rallied every Democrat to endorse the NRA amendment, sending a clear message that the ATT is no threat to the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment is no threat to the ATT. Bishop Elias Taban, a former child soldier who now heads the evangelical churches of Sudan, has said this treaty would be an "answered prayer" for him and his people. It would be a disgrace if a fundraising ploy by the NRA and Heritage somehow prevented Bishop Taban's prayer from being answered. You may not have known what the ATT was before reading this piece, but now you know what it is and what is at stake. Spread the word in your communities and congregations. Check back on American Values Network's ATT page over the next few weeks to learn more about the Day of Prayer and Fasting and other events leading up to the July negotiations. And pray that our leaders will put our moral interests over the special interests and lead the world toward a robust ATT with strong humanitarian protections that will create a brighter future for all of God's children. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, May 26, 2012 8:40 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? Is a global arms trade treaty worth the trouble? Posted By David Bosco - Friday, May 25, 2012 - 11:02 AM http://bosco.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/05/24/will_a_global_arms_trade_treaty_be_worth_the_trouble At the United Nations, national diplomats, NGOs, and UN officials are gearing up for a July negotiating session on a long sought arms trade treaty. The notion is to enact international standards for transfers and sales of conventional weapons, from AK-47s to fighter jets. At a recent seminar in New York, co-hosted by the Japanese, Turkish and Polish missions to the UN, diplomats and specialists spelled out some of the daunting complexities negotiators still face. In theory, the case for comprehensive treaty to address conventional arms flows is sound. As my FP colleague Christian Caryl pointed out here, it's conventional weapons, not their more anxiety-inducing cousins, that actually take lives in conflicts around the world: WMD have killed very few people in the decades after World War II. The overwhelming majority of the millions of people who have died in conflicts since 1945 were killed by bullets, bombs, and artillery. And most of these casualties, in turn, are caused not by tanks or planes but small arms -- which nowadays usually means assault rifles. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/22/in_the_crosshairs_by_christ ian_caryl Existing international law covers nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; other international mechanisms attempt to staunch the illicit flow of weapons. But when it comes to states or businesses openly selling conventional weapons to others, international law has little to say, even when the recipient country or group may be putting the weapons to bloody and irresponsible use. The UN hosts a voluntary registry to which states can report arms transfers (they do sometimes, but reporting rates have apparently declined in recent years). Plenty of states, including the United States and the EU countries, have tough domestic export restrictions, but they do little to address the practices of others. Predictably, the UN negotiations have attracted the attention of gun rights organizations. And that in turn has got some folks on Capitol Hill engaged. For the most part, the fears articulated by these voices are untethered from the actual substance of the negotiations, which will not include domestic arms productions and transfer. The relevant question is not whether the planned treaty will impinge on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, but whether it will in any meaningful way impact the flow of arms to bloody-minded governments and organizations. Although negotiators have been preparing the groundwork for years, key issues remain unresolved. These include whether the treaty will cover all classes of weapons (ammunition is a particularly tough subject), whether developing states will get funds to improve their export controls, and whether the treaty will create legal obligations for brokers and middlemen. Most important is the set of standards against which arms transfers will be judged. Are certain governments and organizations inherently illegitimate recipients? And how much assurance do those transferring weapons need that their product won't be used for human rights violations? At the moment, negotiators appear headed toward a rather vague insistence that sellers not transfer weapons they suspect will be used for human rights violations or to undermine international security. But who gets to decide when a seller should be suspicious? It appears likely that states themselves will be the judge and jury. Some observers hope that the International Court of Justice might have a role refereeing the treaty provisions, but that seems unlikely (and not terribly reassuring, given the glacial pace of ICJ proceedings). The treaty may also include some kind of reporting requirement, but probably one that cannot be effectively enforced. The question that the advocates enthusiastically pushing this treaty may soon face is whether a porous treaty that is ripe for abuse is better than no treaty at all. At the New York roundtable, I had an exchange with Jeff Abramson, who coordinates the civil society effort on the issue. While insisting that NGOs would not support a deeply flawed treaty, he argued that even an imperfect document may change international norms and facilitate domestic steps against dangerous arms transfers. He could be right. But a treaty whose letter and spirit gets regularly abused may also further debase the coin of international law. Norm-creation works in many directions, and a weak treaty may unintentionally bolster the norm that treaty requirements aren't serious. In the past twenty years, civil society organizations have become major players in developing new international treaty regimes. With that newfound influence should come some sense of responsibility for negotiations that are, by their nature, exercises in locating the lowest-common denominator. States often endorse ineffective instruments just to say they've done something. NGOs should hold themselves to a higher standard, and that might just mean distancing themselves from a process they helped initiate. - ------------------------------------- THE HUFFINGTON POST - MAY 25, 2012, 3:27 pm The Most Important Treaty You've Never Heard of and How the NRA Wants It Dead BY Eric Sapp, Founding Partner, Eleison Group http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-sapp/the-most-important-treaty-youve-neve r-heard-of_b_1544593.html There are currently no international laws or treaties regulating the international sale of conventional weapons. You read that right. There is more international oversight of the sale of bananas and iPods than grenade launchers and AK-47s. As a result, the bullets killing our troops in Afghanistan and the weapons used by warlords to commit genocide in Africa are purchased on the black and grey international weapons markets that thrive in this unregulated environment. Thankfully, all of that is about to change -- at least, we hope. This July, the nations of the world are gathering in NYC to negotiate the first ever Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which would set up a global framework to regulate the international weapons trade and close loopholes exploited by evil doers around the world. A robust ATT would help prevent weapons sales to states that are human rights violators, and create uniform laws and transparency that would put a serious squeeze on black market arms dealers who supply weapons to terrorists. As a result, a large and ideologically diverse coalition has emerged to support this treaty. Some of the strongest voices come from the faith community: The National Association of Evangelicals and National Council of Churches have joined the Vatican and the World Evangelical Alliance to call for a robust ATT. Last spring American Values Network organized Christians in 48 states from over 3,500 mostly evangelical congregations to join in a day of prayer and fasting for a successful ATT. And numerous services and prayer rallies are being organized around the upcoming July negotiations. Joining this chorus of the faithful have been a number of retired generals and admirals who are echoing the Pentagon's assessment that the greatest future threats to America's troops and security will likely come from terrorist groups and small bands of guerrilla fighters -- currently arming themselves through the under-regulated international weapons market. Last but not least are the humanitarian organizations like Oxfam, Amnesty International, Arms Control Association and countless others who toil non-stop to be a voice for the voiceless and make our world a safer and more just place. Yesterday, more than 50 groups from this combined faith, security, and humanitarian coalition submitted a letter to President Obama thanking him for his Administration's leadership on this issue, highlighting the treaty priorities, and encouraging the President to "seize the historic opportunity to negotiate a robust, bullet-proof Arms Trade Treaty." You'd think there would be universal support for a treaty that will help stem the flow of weapons and ammunition to terrorists, warlords, pirates and dictators -- that would help save American lives and reduce atrocities around the globe. But if so, you haven't met the NRA and Heritage Foundation. Sadly, for these groups, politics and money are more important than protecting our troops, patriotism and moral decency. And in the ATT, they see a way to raise money by telling their base that Obama and the UN are coming to take your guns. They know full well that 1) the ATT charter forbids it from having any impact on domestic gun laws or sales, 2) the Obama Administration has said it would oppose any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment, and 3) no international laws trump our Constitution. But what are facts when money is to be made and political muscles can be flexed? And so yesterday, the NRA got an amendment introduced in the Senate to forbid the U.S. from participating in negotiations of an Arms Trade Treaty that would violate the Second Amendment. But rather than fighting the amendment as the NRA had hoped, supporters rallied every Democrat to endorse the NRA amendment, sending a clear message that the ATT is no threat to the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment is no threat to the ATT. Bishop Elias Taban, a former child soldier who now heads the evangelical churches of Sudan, has said this treaty would be an "answered prayer" for him and his people. It would be a disgrace if a fundraising ploy by the NRA and Heritage somehow prevented Bishop Taban's prayer from being answered. You may not have known what the ATT was before reading this piece, but now you know what it is and what is at stake. Spread the word in your communities and congregations. Check back on American Values Network's ATT page over the next few weeks to learn more about the Day of Prayer and Fasting and other events leading up to the July negotiations. And pray that our leaders will put our moral interests over the special interests and lead the world toward a robust ATT with strong humanitarian protections that will create a brighter future for all of God's children. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #105 *********************************** 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".)