From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #444 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 owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, January 2 2013 Volume 15 : Number 444 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] Sopuck spearheads Hunting and Angling Caucus DECEMBER 8, 2012 - KAITEN CRITCHLOW/NEEPAWA PRESS http://www.neepawapress.com/article/20121208/NEEPAWA0101/121209969/-1/neepawa/sopuck-spearheads-hunting-and-angling-caucus Robert Sopuck, Member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, chaired the inaugural Conservative Hunting and Angling caucus, with his vice-chairs Blaine Calkins, Member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin, and Ryan Leef, Member of Parliament for Yukon. The caucus was established for Conservative Members of Parliament to move forward on conservation issues and the concerns of Canada's hunting and angling communities. "The Conservative Hunting and Angling caucus is a venue for Members of Parliament to discuss the common concerns of their constituents and move forward with solutions for our government," said Sopuck. "The caucus will also have the opportunity to meet with hunters, anglers, and trappers across the country and bring the wealth of knowledge they possess on conservation to bear on environment issues." 30 Conservative members and senators have now joined the Conservative Hunting and Angling caucus with more expected to join in the coming days. "The establishment of a Conservative hunting and angling caucus is an exciting opportunity to advance the issues surrounding conservation, habitat and enhancement of fish and game while engaging the millions of Canadians who enjoy the great outdoors," said Blaine Calkins, MP for Wetaskiwin. During the meeting the caucus set out the goals of the caucus and discussed outreach to Canada's hunting, angling and trapping community. The panel was a 2011 campaign promise that has now been kept. The Hunting and Angling caucus is one step more on behalf of this important part of Canada's Conservation community. ------------------------------ National News: Establishment of Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus Contributed by admin on Dec 05, 2012 - 10:28 PM http://www.northumberlandview.ca/index.php?module=news&type=user&func=displa y&sid=19064 (Northumberland-Quinte West)- Rick Norlock, Member of Parliament for Northumberland-Quinte West has joined the Conservative Hunting and Angling caucus. This caucus was established for Conservative Members of Parliament to address conservation issues and concerns of Canada's hunting and angling communities. "I am pleased to join this newly established caucus and to ensure members of the hunting and angling community in Northumberland-Quinte West have a voice in addressing conservation issues," said MP Norlock. "These are the folks who see, first hand, the effects of sound conservation practices and are keenly aware of the areas that need improvement." Thirty Conservative members and senators have now joined the Conservative Hunting and Angling caucus with more expected to join in the coming days. "The Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus offers an opportunity for us to meet directly with those Canadians who regularly enjoy outdoor pursuits and to discuss their ideas and areas of concern in regards to habitat, fish and game and conservation issues," said MP Norlock. The Hunting and Angling caucus held an inaugural meeting to specifically set goals and priorities as well as how best to communicate with Canada's hunting, angling and trapping community. Your government is addressing many issues that concern hunters such as eliminating the long-gun registry and establishing the hunting and angling advisory panel. These efforts will ensure the government and the Minister of the Environment are kept well informed of important conservation issues. -------------------------------------- BC OUTDOORS - Good News From Ottawa For Hunters And Anglers October 17th, 2011 - By Othmar Vohringer http://www.bcoutdoorsmagazine.com/othmarvohringer/?p=349 When I think of Parliament Hill I think of politicians shouting and pointing fingers at each other like small children. Imagine my surprise when I learned that an all-party team made up of such opposites as a former liberal cabinet minister, a conservative house leader, assorted NDPers and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs happily sitting together in a congenial atmosphere being in agreement on a single subject. Perhaps it is not so surprising that this group of people get along so well. They are all members of the Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus. I guess the common love of fishing, hunting and the great Canadian outdoors can overcome political divides and agendas. The point of this five-year-old Outdoors Caucasus is to bring like-minded MPs together to the benefit of Canada's hunters, anglers, trappers and sport shooters. The Canadian Outdoor Caucus with an estimated 81 MPs and Senators is the largest all-party group in North America of this type. The goal of this group is to protect hunting, fishing, trapping and the shooting sport as a unique Canadian heritage. Outdoors Caucus co-chair, NDP MP Bruce Hyer said the caucus is trying to address the increasingly large but little known, "nature deficit disorder" which many Canadians suffer from today. "Hunting, fishing and trapping are a big part of the Canadian roots. It's a huge part of our history and even today it's an important element in many people's lives. It's not just recreation. I think a lot of people don't understand it isn't just getting food and it isn't just fun-it's a connection to the land in a very different way than from people who interpret the outdoors through television and who think meat comes in Styrofoam." Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz, caucus co-chair, said heritage activities are healthy pursuits that can help keep young people from getting "involved in other unsavoury activities." The all-party outdoors caucus, founded by Garry Breitkreuz in 2006, is often visited by industry members such as Ducks Unlimited, Fishing Alliance of Canada, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, plus many others. The groups share the goals of the caucus and provide input. One of the goals of this caucus is to provide a much needed counter balance to the anti-hunting, anti-fishing and anti-shooting culture. The outdoor caucus was responsible for creating legislation such as the anti hunter harassment laws and Bill C-261; the National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day in Canada. As can be expected the animal rights groups are not very pleased about the existence of the Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus, they much rather would prefer if hunting and fishing did not have a "government sponsored lobby". I, on the other hand, appreciate that the government realized that our unique outdoor sports and their economic contributions are the foundations upon which Canada was built and are giving us their support and protection through the Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus. ---------------------------- Sopuck, Leef, Calkins Organize First Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus - November 30, 2012 http://www.robertsopuck.ca/subfeature/sopuck-leef-calkins-organize-first-conservative-hunting-and-angling-caucus/ http://www.ryanleef.ca/news/11292012.html ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] SUN NEWS: The future for Canadian gun owners After a banner year, Solomon Friedman and Brian Lilley discuss the state of gun laws in Canada. QMI AGENCY 18 comments - UPDATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 01, 2013 02:01 PM MST - 18 comments http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/01/the-future-for-canadian-gun-owners http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/01/the-future-for-canadian-gun-owners POLL: How do you feel about Canadian gun laws? 7% - They need to be more strict - 271 votes 59% - They need to be loosened - 2407 votes 33% - Let's keep things the way they are - 1333 votes 1% - I'm not sure - 54 votes NOTE: Results as of 10:20am MT ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] ...semiautomatic weapons from arms show Saratoga public safety commissioner seeks removal of semiautomatic weapons from arms show The Business Review - Last Modified: Wednesday, January 2, 2013, 8:22am EST http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/morning_call/2013/01/saratoga-public-safety-commisioner.html The Saratoga Springs public safety commission is presenting a resolution to the City Council tonight that will limit what types of weapons can be displayed at a gun show coming up next week. Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen's resolution says semiautomatic weapons and the types of weapons used in the Newtown, Connecticut, tragedy should not be displayed during the Jan. 12-13 gun show, the Times Union reports. To vote on The Business Review's latest poll on gun control Business Pulse - Polls and Surveys: Gun control WHERE DO YOU STAND ON GUN CONTROL? Votes Cast: 94 Gun control laws should be made less restrictive = 11% Current laws should be more rigorously enforced = 23% Sales of assault weapons should be banned = 43% Limit the amount of bullets in a clip = 1% Strict background checks should be instituted = 20% Other (tell us in a comment) = 2% ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Submitted, not yet published... re: Handgun choice carries weight http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/862948--handgun-choice-carries-weight While it's obvious where The Record stands on firearms in the hands of civilians (we shouldn't have them), your editorial writer should at least make a passing attempt at the facts. According to the coroner in the Newtown tragedy, the children were all killed with .223 calibre rifle, not handguns. I realize the Newtown coroner only made this assertion on national television (and it was repeated by major press outlets across America for days) so I can understand why The Record's editorial writer missed it. You want to stop mass killings? Get rid of Gun-Free Zones. Gun-Free Zones Kill Kids. The ONLY person they protect is the deranged killer. The evidence is clear. Every mass shooting has this same common denominator. In every case the victims of these heinous crimes were rendered defenseless by law*. This only guaranteed the deranged lunatic could kill as long as he wanted, without interruption. While The Record editorial board obviously believes otherwise, millions of law-abiding gun owners in Canada, and hundreds of millions of law-abiding gun owners in America, are NOT murderers-in-waiting. We didn't kill anyone yesterday. We didn't kill anyone today. We're not going to kill anyone tomorrow, either. -- Yours in Liberty, Christopher di Armani christopher@diArmani.com http://diArmani.com http://ChristopherDiArmani.com http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Wed, January 2, 2013 12:00 pm FORBES: With Gun Control, Cost Benefit Analysis Is Amoral Harry Binswanger, Contributor OP/ED | 1/01/2013 @ 11:15AM |7,229 views http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/ Before the Newtown horror, I, like many people, was in conflict regarding gun control. On the one hand, guns are dangerous. Their wide availability means people can kill on impulse, and surely that means more domestic quarrels turn into killings. And only anarchists would deny Ayn Rand's point that "the government is the means of placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control." On the other hand, what about those who want to use guns to defend themselves? What about people who aren't ever going to fly into a rage and shoot anyone in anger? And at Newtown, wouldn't a few armed adults have meant that the lives of many of those children could have been spared? We don't need statistical studies to know that banning guns from cities doesn't stop criminals from getting them. Note that this "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" does not arise from looking at different aspects of the same case but from focusing on two different kinds of cases. The pro-gun side focuses on cases of legitimate self-defense (and hunting and target-shooting). The anti-gun side focuses on wrongful uses of guns: the Newton killer or an enraged husband who shoots his wife (and on deaths from accidents with guns). Both sides are looking at cases that are real. The question is: how can we take all of them into account? What is the proper way to think about this issue? The answer I've come to is radical: reject entirely the collectivist mindset. Don't look at populations; don't ask: among 300 million Americans, would law X result in more lives being saved than lost? That sort of cost-benefit analysis is amoral; lives are not balanceable one against the other. And, in practice, it leads to endlessly battling statistical studies. I realized I should not take a God's eye perspective, looking down on the flock, seeking to preserve the herd. Mankind is not a herd. Junking the collectivist approach, ridding myself of the idea that the lives of the few can be sacrificed to the lives of the many, I found the issue almost settled itself. Taking the individualist approach, I asked myself: what laws should the individual be subject to? What is the principle governing the individual's relation to the state? The principle is "individual rights"-your rights and mine. Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the Declaration states, government is established "to secure these rights." To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns, clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual's rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors. The issue with guns is the threat of force. But the threat of force is force. Orders issued at gunpoint are as coercive-as rights-violating-as laying on hands and overpowering you. (All this is explained in more detail in Ayn Rand's articles "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government.") The government may use force only against an objective threat of force. Only that constitutes retaliation. In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force. The remaining issue is: what constitutes an objective threat? An objective threat is constituted by specific evidence of a clear and present danger to someone's person or property. For instance, waving a gun around ("brandishing") is an objective threat to the individuals in the vicinity. Having a rifle at home in the attic is not. Carrying a concealed pistol is not (until and unless it is drawn). Yes, there are always borderline cases, but rational standards, such as "clear and present danger," can be set. Statistics about how often gun-related crimes occur in the population is no evidence against you. That's collectivist thinking. The choices made by others are irrelevant to the choices that you will make. People understand the wrongness of collectivist thinking in other cases. They would indignantly reject the idea that a member of a given racial group is under suspicion because 10 percent of those with his skin color commit crimes. But the individualist approach also applies to gun ownership and concealed carrying of guns: group ratios offer no evidence about what a given individual will do. The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And The tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school personnel. The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force. Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Wed, January 2, 2013 12:20 pm N.J. Town Agrees With The NRA's Advice, Puts Armed Guards In Schools By Jason Lewis Wed., Jan. 2 2013 at 11:52 AM Write Comment http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2013/01/nj_town_takes_nras_advice.php Amid the backlash NRA President Wayne LaPierre received after calling for the installment of armed guards in U.S. schools, one New Jersey district began the new year with the NRA's preferred method of security. Students attending Marlboro Township Public Schools returned to class this morning with armed police officers patrolling their campuses. The district's board of education has partnered with Marlboro Township Police to institute a 90-day pilot program where every school has one armed police officer on-duty. District leaders moved to implement the measure in response to last month's shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., which left 20 children and eight adults dead. After a week of remaining "respectfully silent" about the tragedy, LaPierre dropped a masterfully-timed call to arm all schools with "a good guy with a gun" to protect against "a bad guy with a gun." "As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable -- through no fault of their own -- to stop it," LaPierre said in his Dec. 21 statement. Several local politicians slammed the NRA for its announcement. "The [NRA's] announcement today was salt in the wounds for all those families affected," Council Speaker Christine Quinn wrote on her Twitter page. "[Seven] days after [the Newtown shootings] the [NRA] only added more pain for those families affected." As ill-timed and insensitive as many found LaPierre's statements, Marlboro's pilot program proves that the NRA isn't alone in its theories on school safety. In fact for years, prior to the Sandy Hook shooting, armed Marlboro policeman have conducted rotating patrols of the district's schools -- albeit in fewer numbers than now. The NRA had proposed that Congress work with its organization to immediately institute its newly formed National School Shield Program for the start of the new year. NSSP would rely primarily on retired law enforcement and military people to serve as armed guards in schools across the country. The big problem with the theory of armed guards in schools is that no one can say that it really works. Thus, widespread practice of this system could present more problems than it would solve. "I understand the impulse to put guards in schools, but I think in the long run, that's not the message we want to give our kids," Joann Angel, a Marlboro resident, told WABC-TV. "That the only way they are safe is if people with guns, armed, follow them around...I think the problem is bigger than just putting somebody at the front door." --------------------------------- George Jonas: Don't blame the NRA for wanting armed guards in schools. It was Clinton's idea George Jonas | Dec 28, 2012 1:06 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 29, 2012 9:16 AM http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/28/george-jonas-dont-blame-the-nra-for-wanting-armed-guards-in-schools-it-was-clintons-idea/ School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards By AWR Hawkins, 24 December 2012 Article source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service CBC - 50 Toronto high schools to have police presence Last Updated: Monday, June 29, 2009 | 6:55 PM ET CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/toronto-officer-schools.html ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] From: "Joe Gingrich" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 13:05:20 -0600 Subject: Re: CPC? You all betrayed the electorate . From: jyoung@aernet.ca Date: Tue, January 1, 2013 8:02 pm Re: CPC? You all betrayed the electorate . "This PM is truly the worst crooked, nasty, ugly, fat, slobbish, stupid, obnoxious, psychopathic liar that we have had...ever!" --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure about your terms ugly, fat, and stupid as being applicable. But, you did miss a few topics of discussion. 1. Mr. Harper is the most prolific gun-grabber in Canadian history. 2. Mr. Harper has delivery vehicles "on the ready" for many more firearm confiscations.(2) 3. Mr. Harper did not promote CPC firearms policy or its property rights policy as mandated under section 10.2 of the CPC constitution. Mr. Harper, instead, promoted his own fabricated firearms policy. a. The CPC firearms policy was to repeal Bill C-68 and Mr. Harper did not b. The CPC firearms policy was for a CPC govt. to respect "the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly", and Mr. Harper did not. c. The CPC firearms policy was to turn "a licensing system" into " a certification screening system", and Mr. Harper did not do it. Firearms Policy A Conservative Government will repeal Canada's costly gun registry legislation and work with the provinces and territories on cost-effective gun control programs designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. Measures will include: mandatory minimum sentences for the criminal use of firearms; strict monitoring of high-risk individuals; crackdown on the smuggling; safe storage provisions; firearms safety training; a certification screening system for all those wishing to acquire firearms legally; and putting more law enforcement officers on our streets. d. Mr. Harper has never compensated anyone for the property he's stole from innocent Canadians. "Property Rights Policy i) A Conservative Government will seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include this right, as well as guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just, and timely compensation. ii) A Conservative Government will enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation." Mr. Harper didn't do it. 4. Mr. Harper did not promote the CPC's founding principles under section 2.1.11.3 of its constitution Mr. Harper betrayed the CPC delegates, his supporters as well as the public. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox sources: 1. http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_19_jan_2002.html 2. The Conservative Party Policy - March 2005 3. Western Canadian Firearms Conference, March 10, 2001 4. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/rep-rap/2009-comm-rpt/sec3-eng.htm#f The RCMP CFP Mobile Service Delivery Vehicle Unit 5. 'Gun licensing is rights infringing to rural people', by Joe Gingrich, page 4, Northeast Sun, July, 22, 2011, 6. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2832975/posts 7. http://nfa.ca/news/rcmp-reclassifying-firearms-and-rifle-stocks-run-end- long-gun-registration 8. SWF Convention 2012 in Lloydminster, 9. How Bill C-68 Violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Dr. Ted Morton 10. Constitution of the Conservative Party of Canada 12. Draft Apology to Responsible Firearms Owners http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_13_jan_2009.html ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #444 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator 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".)