From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #134 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, June 14 2012 Volume 15 : Number 134 In this issue: OFAH: Toronto city councillor off target with gun ban Re: Onmibus bill sidelines MPs- Digest V15 #132 "Eaton Centre suspect faces another murder charge" RE: When you're out of good ideas, call for a handgun ban RE: "Obama's kill list- Digest V15 #130 EU Parliament calls for tighter regulation of arms trade The truth about the international Arms Trade Treaty re: C-38 re: Conservatives' arrogance will come back to bite them ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, June 13, 2012 10:34 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: OFAH: Toronto city councillor off target with gun ban Toronto city councillor off target with gun ban Irrational call for outright ban will do nothing to stem gang violence http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/toronto-city-councillor-off-target-with-gun-ban-158961255.html TORONTO, June 13, 2012 /PRNewswire/ - The call for a complete ban on all guns and ammunition in the City of Toronto by Toronto City Councillor Adam Vaughan is another naïve and misdirected attempt to address the issue of gun violence by gangs in that city. "Once again, we see an urban politician seeking to demonize all legal law-abiding firearms owners and portray them as part of the problem, when the recent violence in Toronto is clearly the result of gang activity and has nothing to do with trained and licensed hunters and recreational sport shooters," said Greg Farrant, Manager of Government Affairs & Policy. "We agree that having bullets flying in public areas of the city where innocent bystanders are caught in the crossfire is deplorable. The recent shootings at the Eaton Centre are profoundly disturbing, but they had nothing to do with the legal, lawful use of firearms by trained, licensed and law abiding firearms owners, and everything to do with street violence. To suggest that by banning legally owned guns and ammunition, this type of gang related activity will cease, is ridiculous." Police forces across Canada have indicated that a large number of illegal guns that have ended up on the streets of their communities and in the hands of criminals and gang members have been smuggled in from the United States. The OFAH does not believe that a ban on guns and ammunition in the City of Toronto will hamper criminals' ability to illegally acquire guns, nor will it stop them from using illegal firearms to target their rivals. Criminals who cannot acquire guns within the City limits will simply travel to neighbouring jurisdictions and use these same guns on the streets of Toronto. "The only ones affected by bans are the legal firearms owners. Criminals will continue to acquire guns on the street, whether it's in the City of Toronto or elsewhere, and use them to settle their differences. No ban, however well intentioned, will address that fact," added Farrant. "Instead of targeting the law abiding, the Councillor should be looking for ways to work with the senior levels of government to significantly increase the penalties for the illegal possession and/or use of illegal firearms and to prevent these illegal guns from getting into the country in the first place." With over 100,000 members, subscribers and supporters, and 675 member clubs, the OFAH is the province's largest nonprofit, fish and wildlife conservation-based organization, and the VOICE of anglers and hunters. For more information, visit www.ofah.org SOURCE Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1emxo) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:27:10 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: Onmibus bill sidelines MPs- Digest V15 #132 On 13-Jun-12, at 8:25 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > SASKATOON STAR PHOENIX - JUNE 12, 2012 > EDITORIAL: Omnibus bill sidelines MPs > http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Omnibus+bill+sidelines/6766944/ > story.html > > Pundits, journalists, parliamentary experts and even former > Progressive > Conservative cabinet members have warned the federal government's > massive > budget implementation bill will change in unpredictable and > dangerous ways > how Canada works. However, the omnibus bill makes a much larger > gamble than > that, for most of the changes to Canada's institutions presumably > can be > undone by future governments. I remember an omnibus bill furor over one passed in 1968. It actually had major changes. Not that I've seen with this one. This isn't new. > The great gamble of this massive bill, which > goes further to change the nature of Canada than any previous bills > have > done, is that it all but removes any vestiges of power Parliament > still > retained. Parliament debates, committees debate, there are three readings and a vote, how has it been any different with majority governments in the past? > > It's worth remembering that opposition parties, whose job it is to > oppose > government bills, aren't the only ones objecting this time. The > case last > month of David Wilks, the rookie Conservative MP from British > Columbia, > demonstrates this isn't merely a case of partisan politics. Mr. > Wilks was > caught on video assuring constituents that many of his Conservative > backbench colleagues, too, want the government to divide its > omnibus bill > into manageable bites. He was subsequently forced by the Prime > Minister's > Office to humiliate himself with an about-face and confirm undying > fealty to > his leader and Tory tactics. Our party system rest power in the cabinet and in the P.M., a single M.P. vote wasn't needed to get it to pass. After 6 years in minority government, why would a majority government act like a minority one. One bill at a time means very few things get passed. I've not heard of any major changes that have citizens rallying in protest. This government has an incremental nature. That's been our main complaint. Dismantling the Firearms Act and Regulations, a few bricks at a time, tries our patience after all these years. > Mr. Wilks apparently didn't understand that > passing the omnibus bill is part of a high-stakes game about how > Canada and > its government work. What high stakes? We are not Greece? And are not likely to be unless a certain citizen of France gets elected as Canadian P.M. Even the Canadian federal budget restraints are pretty modest in nature. The federal Public Service Alliance didn't have massive rallies on Parliament Hill. > > And it isn't Prime Minister Stephen Harper who invented the rules > of this > game. In fact, he was on record in 1994 loudly decrying the use of > similar > tactics by the Liberals on much smaller bills that were making much > more > incremental changes to the nature of Canada. But the Liberal > government at > the time ignored Mr. Harper's plea "in the interest of democracy" > to break > up their omnibus bill. And this wasn't a fleeting interest of the > man who > then went on to become the leader of the official Opposition. In > 2005, Mr. > Harper asked: "How can members represent their constituents on > these various > areas when they are forced to vote on a bloc of such legislation?" Admittedly, I've not read the bill, but on the other hand, I've not heard any actual critique's offered that mention a radical shift of significant budget or departments going out or coming into existence. > Mr. Harper's concern for democracy appears to have vanished. Not > only is his > government forcing through even larger bills more aggressively by > quickly > ending debate and by more determinedly turning parliamentary > committees into > partisan attack dogs, but he sees nothing wrong with silencing > those with > whom he disagrees. I'm still waiting to hear of some major issue that would inspire an M.P. to sit as an independent. Whenever, there is one, it's usually more than one M.P. who lobbies for a change. > > While on a European tour last week, he told a journalist that he > doesn't > believe Canadians, in times of restraint, would support financially > assisting organizations such as the National Roundtable on the > Environment > and the Economy, the First Nations Statistical Council and the > National > Welfare Council when they offer solutions that run counter to > government > policy. This is double-speak, it's not their solutions that run counter to government policy, their policy runs counter to government policy. Let me guess, they want a carbon tax to fight global warming, First Nations statistics are in what way wouldn't be covered or better covered by Statistics Canada? Oh, right, it's that $5 Billion thingy that Paul Martin promised them. The National Welfare Council, that by definition is a provincial jurisdiction and as such it would come up in a first minister's or similar conference if it had a case for something. > Meanwhile, Yorkton-Melville MP Garry Breitkreuz stood in Parliament > on Monday to brag about the newly-created Hunting and Angling > Advisory Panel > that's meant to advise the government on conservation. Apparently, > in times > of restraint, Canadians have no difficulty with government > assistance to > organizations that are likely to support its agenda. I damn well hope so, but we're not expecting to see much money involved, nothing like say the $5 Billion gift Paul Martin promised the Indian Industry lobby, and that they are still trying to get a hold of. > If Canadians disagree, > it is becoming increasingly clear that Parliament isn't the place > to air it. The newsmedia gives lots of coverage to whatever the NDP or Liberals want to say. Bob Rae is good at debate rhetoric. He doesn't need facts, nor analysis as he's not trying for leadership of the Liberals. Thomas Mulcair thinks the Western resource wealth that keeps his province of Quebec from being another Greece, is tainted but not so much so that Quebec won't accept it. The old friend of the hard hat worker/farmer party is now anti-male, anti-blue collar worker, anti-rural culture, anti-Western culture, anti-oil/gas/potash boom, but big on third world immigrant non- integrated culture. Oh, I almost forgot anti-hunting, anti-gun, but really that's just part of the anti-male culture, they currently ascribe to. It's going to interesting to see how their fundraising goes between now and the next election. And who shows up to work for them. > - -------------------------------- 1. The Harper government used, a rural female M.P. Candace Hoepner to sponsor a private member's bill to dismantle the long gun registry. 2. A second private member's bill, by MP Brian Storseth, has been used to remove Section 13 of the Cdn. Human Right Act, which had formerly allowed the criminalizing of free speech or anything that might offend, e.i. like Mark Steyn in Maclean's. 3. Now a third private member's bill from a Treaty Indian and former RCMP officer, M.P. Rob Clarke, is a proposal to amend/repeal/reform the Indian Act. First, historically, few Private Member's bills ever pass, they have almost no power under our Party System. Unlike the argument of the above editorial, private M.P.s are getting way more profile and being entrusted with shepherding more bills through Parliament than we've ever heard of before. Do we have a pattern here? Anything that might be considered controversial and maybe spark a media feeding frenzy of political correctness is being put forward as a Private Members Bill. That way if it faces a real firestorm it can be defeated passively in committee or withdrawn without the government being formally associated with it. Call it plausible deniability in an electoral sense. So far, the opposite has occurred. It has proven more popular than expected and the criticism is muted or slight. The government thus can step up and back the bill with enough votes to see that it passes. They then take credit for the passage of a bill they supported in the first place. It's a clever political tactic, like the result of so many years of being hammered in the media under the Reform banner and then in a minority government position. So unless it has pretty clear support with little for seen possible problems, this looks to be how a majority Harper government will operate using private members bills. So with Solomon Friedman and Ed Burwell and SunnewsTV covering the issue, and the case law, Jesse Sansone, Ian Thompson, Buddy Traveres, and who knows what tommorrow will bring, which and how many bricks are in range. Of course if there is a more widespread political support that is raised, e.i. from a bunch of provinces as before more could be done in a single bill. There will likely be more omnibus bills coming forward, too. Some obvious common sense stuff might fit into one of those. (note-Regulatory changes, not required to go through Parliament need some political impetus but wouldn't require such a lengthy commitment. Note-there are thousands of Liberal appointees or Public Service hires that will obstruct the Conservatives in a tooth and nail Holy War, e.i. the CPFOs. They have a union contract that is more like a university Professor's tenure. They don't risk getting fired, though that could change for the RCMP. ) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:43:16 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "Eaton Centre suspect faces another murder charge" So now we read that the shooter (alleged) and two deceased shooting victims, all are members of the same criminal gang but the Toronto police claim the shooting isn't a gang shooting. This is because the police think it was a personal rather than a "gang" motivation. Internal violence is natural to gangs, didn't they watch all the Godfather movies, or the TV series the Untouchables. Good thing they are not under oath or they might be in trouble with that part about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/national/Eaton+Centre+shooting+suspect+faces+another+murder+charge/6778155/story.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:16:46 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: When you're out of good ideas, call for a handgun ban When all inanimate objects are banned, will they start banning people? The Irish were derided as criminals in their day, as were the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese, the Japanese. Perhaps it's time we banned Jamaicans and Eastern Europeans or God knows who else. When everything is banned and everyone is in jail, will we have reduced crime? I suggest we take the state out of banning things and people. What does work is concealed carry. It worked in Israel and it works in those states where it is legal. Citizens are nearly always closer to the violent events than the police. Gangs will stop shooting in public when they know they are no longer the only ones with guns. If they forget that and get drilled by a granny with a Ladysmith in her purse or an old guy in a wheelchair, it cleans the gene pool and saves the cost of deportation. (Deportation - now there's a concept). Anything else has been proven by John Lott and others as falling short of expectations. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:24:51 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: "Obama's kill list- Digest V15 #130 <4FD8C556.2060404@teksavvy.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD8C556.2060404@teksavvy.com> Thread-Index: Ac1J1Vlg3shRfSL+TJCvkcDH4ljF8gAMU8kg Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca > I like Al Jazeera for the same reason that I like the BBC. They're all > biased but if you take the average of Fox, Al Jazeera, and the BBC, you > start to >get close to the truth. Or you could go straight to Alex Jones and Prison Planet http://www.prisonplanet.com/ or http://www.infowars.com/ and forget about the BS. :) Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, June 14, 2012 8:51 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: EU Parliament calls for tighter regulation of arms trade NOTE: Open this link and look at the picture. This is where the UN wants your rifles and shotguns. http://www.thejournal.ie/arms-trade-weapons-un-att-485632-Jun2012/ EU Parliament calls for tighter regulation of arms trade http://www.thejournal.ie/arms-trade-weapons-un-att-485632-Jun2012/ THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT is calling for UN members to publicly disclose details of all of their arms trade deals. A new UN Arms Trade Treaty is to be negotiated next month, and the Parliament wants it to require member states report regularly on all of their arms deals and to pass national laws ensuring that the measures taken to enforce the treaty are credible. The arms deals which are reported should include agreements for selling light weapons and small arms, according to the EU body. The treaty is to be negotiated at a UN conference in New York from 2 to 27 July and the UN says that the new agreement will not interfere with the domestic arms trade or the way a country regulates the civilian possession of weapons. The UN says that that ATT will aim to create a level playing field for international arms transfers by requiring countries to abide by a set of standards concerning transfer controls. Today, the European Parliament called for an effective ATT covering as wide a spectrum of weapons as possible and which supports greater transparency and accountability. MEPs also called on the EU to do more to ensure the thorough regulation of arms trading, particularly given that EU members are responsible for about 30 per cent of all arms exports. The UN says that its peacekeeping operations cost $7 billion a year, while the annual global burden of armed violence has reached $400 billion. - ----------------------------------- CSSA Executive Director Speaks Frankly to the UN Regarding the Foolish Arms Trade Treaty Posted on June 13, 2012 by Ammoland http://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/13/cssa-executive-director-speaks-frankly-to-the-un-regarding-the-foolish-arms-trade-treaty/#axzz1xmK35MuA - --------------------------------------- CANADA'S NATIONAL FIREARMS ASSOCIATION JUNE 7, 2012 POLICY STATEMENT - NFA OPPOSES ARMS TRADE TREATY http://www.nfa.ca/news/policy-statement-nfa-opposes-arms-trade-treaty ------------------------------ Date: Thu, June 14, 2012 9:03 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: The truth about the international Arms Trade Treaty The truth about the international Arms Trade Treaty by Geoffrey Van Orden - 13 June 2012 http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2070/the-truth-about-the-international-arms-trade-treaty We should focus diplomatic efforts on ensuring that countries such as China and Russia are signed up to the highest possible standards, rather than wasting time harmonising European positions that are already very similar and responsible - claims MEP Over the past six years, following a 2006 United Nations General Assembly resolution, a group of governmental experts has been negotiating an international Arms Trade Treaty. The aim is to complete it at a UN Conference in New York, in July. Of course, the Arms Trade Treaty is just that - a trade treaty and not a disarmament treaty. Over recent years, I have been much involved in the campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines. That was different in that it was about eliminating a certain, very specific weapon - often used indiscriminately and with terrible consequences; mainly by terrorist and insurgent groups. There were those that constantly sought to widen the scope of the resultant Ottawa Treaty into other fields. So it is important that we be clear about the limited purposes of this Arms Trade Treaty, which would not interfere with the right of a state to decide nationally on its arms export controls in compliance with internationally agreed criteria. We must also ensure that it is not hi-jacked by those with a different agenda. The United Kingdom has a special interest in these matters - it is Europe's leading arms exporter. It was also one of the co-authors of the UN General Assembly Resolution of December 6, 2006, that called for an internationally agreed arms trade treaty to be drawn up. I am disappointed that, through an amendment, the resolution no longer refers to the important role that defence industries play in terms of national security - and in our economies. Clearly, in discussing such matters we are entering into important and sensitive areas of national sovereignty. The European Union is constantly on the prowl for ways of extending its competences and trying to establish a 'state-like' presence at international meetings. The European Parliament, in spite of the presence of groups such as the European Conservatives and Reformists and Europe of Freedom and Democracy that oppose European political integration, is largely made up of federalists who work hand in hand with the European Commission and other EU institutions to push for deeper integration. Almost every resolution of the EP almost inevitably includes some language to this effect. It is no surprise then to find that the parliament's resolution on the Arms Trade Treaty "calls on member states to openly and unequivocally declare their full support to the EU delegation taking part in the negotiations," and curiously "a united, coherent and consistent EU approach is crucial for such a treaty to be adopted and effectively implemented at a global level". It is unclear why this should be so. Instead, what is actually important is that we put diplomatic effort into ensuring that countries such as China and Russia are signed up to the highest possible standards, rather than wasting effort harmonising European positions that are already very similar and responsible. We need to ensure that attention is focused on abuse. Too often - and I saw this over the Ottawa Treaty negotiations - we in the democracies indulge in debilitating self-flagellation while the real abusers just carry on. Only today, we hear that shipments of helicopter gunships are on their way from Russia to bolster the Assad regime in Syria. This is the sort of abuse that has to stop. It remains to be seen whether what emerges from the UN in July will have this effect. Geoffrey Van Orden MEP is vice-chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists group and Conservative Party spokesman on defence and security Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2070/the-truth-about-the-international-arms-trade-treaty#ixzz1xmP5kBup ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:06:46 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: re: C-38 So what's new? It isn't as if this was the first omnibus bill package in our history. When Ron Basford stuck it to us under the PET regime, my MP voted for the 'gun control' aspect included in the bill. I took him to task over it and he said that there was some good stuff in the bill and it was vote for it as a package or not; no other options. Canadian parliamentary democracy at it's finest. Nor is it the first time MPs have been told to shut up and vote the party line. It's the way Parliament has conducted it's affairs since the days of Sir John A. You want your perks, your committee appointments, your nomination papers signed, your shot at the MPs gold plated pension, you do what you're told. A base salary of $157,000 plus perks is hard to walk away from. No surprises there. All parties parties do it as a matter of course; majorities as well as minorities. It underscores the need for parliamentary reforms, beyond an elected senate. Reform, under Manning, made a show of allowing 'free votes' along with other hollow statements about opting out of the MPs pension plan, not using a public limo and converting Stornoway into a Bingo hall. Not one reform MP opted out in the end, including Deb Gray, who I heard make that statement more than once. We KNOW how corrupt and bogus the system is and instead of demanding parliamentary reforms, we change parties, expecting different results each time, coming away disappointed and disillusioned. The electorate deserves the contempt it gets from our politicians. They play us for suckers because we are. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:27:22 -0400 From: Barry Glasgow Subject: re: Conservatives' arrogance will come back to bite them "Jim Szpajcher" wrote; Subject: Re: Conservatives' arrogance will come back to bite them I would like to re-read Den Tandt's editorial remarks about the Liberals when Chretien was busy beating up the West from 1993 to 2003. - --------------------- Jim, here's what I sent; From: Barry Glasgow Sent: June-14-12 9:58 AM To: AB Calgary Sun; AB Edmonton Sun; ON Toronto Sun; ON London London FreePress; ON Ottawa Sun; BC Vancouver Sun; Winnipeg Sun; SK Saskatoon Star-Phoenix Cc: michael.dentandt@sunmedia.ca Subject: re: Conservatives' arrogance will come back to bite them Columnist Michael Den Tandt seems terribly offended by the Conservatives' "arrogance" and believes that it will hurt them in the next election. Why? The Liberals got away with it for 12 years! Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #134 *********************************** 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".)