From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #545 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 Thursday, February 7 2013 Volume 15 : Number 545 In this issue: [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:45:36 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Toronto's latest honour killing The latest "honour killing" in Toronto but the media is staying away from that term, so far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?vOvSgRF44i28&featureplayer_embedded ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:47:06 -0500 From: Walter Martindale Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #542 > It is actually a right given us by God. We inherited the > re-affirmation and recognition from England. > > -- > Roger Walker Although… Some would say that we have the right to defend ourselves by whatever means necessary and available, just because we exist. We inherit the birthright of self defense. Gods, on the other hand, being a fabrication of humans in an attempt to explain things we don't understand, do not exist, and we don't inherit or receive anything from them… W.Martindale. [Mod Note: Probably enough on this thread. We are not here to debate religion. BUZ] ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:39:39 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Oppose Joe Manchin's Veterans Gun Ban and National Gun Registry Gun Owners of America Wednesday, February 06, 2013 2:08 PM Oppose Joe Manchin's Veterans Gun Ban and National Gun Registry ACTION: Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators. http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertidb384071 Ask them to oppose Joe Manchin's veterans gun ban and national gun registry Reports out of Capitol Hill reveal that just-reelected turncoat West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin is about to stick a big knife in the back of American gun owners. And to make matters worse, he's lying about what he's doing. Both Manchin and House anti-gun crazy Carolyn McCarthy are claiming to be "working with NRA" to enact gun bans and national gun registries. NRA says flatly that Manchin is lying, and we believe he is. (The Hill, 1/24/13) Ironically, Manchin was the "gun owner's best friend" on November 5 -- the day before his reelection to a six-year term let him to pull a great big "gotcha" on those West Virginians who were tricked into believing his representations. But make no mistake about it: Joe Manchin's draft would impose a gun ban on veterans and would set up the framework for a national gun registry. 150,000 honest law-abiding veterans are currently in the NICS system. They didn't do anything wrong; they honorably served their country. But when they sought VA counseling for a traumatic combat experience, the VA appointed a fiduciary to oversee their fiscal affairs and then took away their guns. And, again, there are 150,000 honest veterans in the system. New York Senator Charles Schumer viciously fought a Coburn amendment on the DoD bill which would require that veterans get their day in court before their rights were taken away from them, and he won. What the Manchin bill is about is insuring that "bad guys" like veterans can't get guns. And, under Barack Obama's "Executive Action #1," the NICS list could soon include tens of millions of additional soldiers, police, firemen, and other law-abiding Americans. But veteran disarmament is not the only problem with Joe Manchin's gun ban. Manchin's bill would set the framework for a national gun registry and impose a chokehold on gun sales. There are at least four big reasons for this: FIRST: Every gun owner in the country would have a "Form 4473." Increasingly, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives are going into gun dealerships and illegally copying all of those 4473's. SECOND: The FBI refuses to tell us how or whether it's complying with federal law by destroying the Brady Check names, rather than keeping them for a national gun registry. THIRD: As it is, the Brady Check system is breaking down on days such as last year's Black Friday -- outlawing all gun purchases. If you have to drive 200 miles from your farm to sell your gun to your neighbor, this effectively outlaws any efforts to sell or buy a gun. FOURTH: Increasingly, the FBI is blocking transfers because someone's name is "similar" to someone else. When the legal purchaser complains, the FBI's response is "Sue us!" ACTION: Please click here to contact your U.S. Senators. http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertidb384071 Ask them to oppose Joe Manchin's veterans gun ban and national gun registry. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:51:11 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: JPFO Article: British Gun Control and the American Revolution JPFO Webmaster Wednesday, February 06, 2013 3:19 PM JPFO Article: British Gun Control and the American Revolution IMPORTANT: Our alert from 2/4/13 showing events, rallies etc is available for a short-term referrence point. Find the page here http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130204.htm and note some events coming up on very short notice. NOTE - Denver area - download the Flier http://jpfo.org/images12/colorado-webflier2.jpg. Some people are of the opinion that government restriction or confiscation, has no negative consequences. David Kopel demonstrates, in a very scholarly way, that this is not the case. In fact, he shows how government confiscation of guns was the ignition event of The American Revolution. The referenced article is a substantial PDF file http://jpfo.org/pdf03/charleston-law-review-id1967702.pdf -- "How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution" -- a section of a major law review project. Start at page 2 and note the many references to court cases and sources. Understanding the United States Constitution requires understanding the British practices that drove the Americans to armed revolution. Yours in Freedom, The Liberty Crew at JPFO Protecting you by creating solutions to destroy "gun control" Our mailing address is: jpfo@jpfo.org P.O. Box 270143,Hartford ,WI 53027, USA ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: FW: The Conservative Party of Canada Survey From: "Dennis R. Young" Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 6:35 pm Your Voice: On The Issues http://www.conservative.ca/?page_id=2653 ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Subject: Child Pretends He's Saving the World, Then Gets Suspended From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 7:15 pm Shades of Canada where a father gets a large fist shoved up his rectum because his little 4 year old girl drew a stick gun on the blackboard and said "that's what daddy uses to shoot bad guys and monsters." ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Child Pretends He's Saving the World, Then Gets Suspended From: "GOPUSA Midday Report" Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 1:05 pm To: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Child Pretends He's Saving the World, Then Gets Suspended What is going on with people? Is there a virus sweeping the country that burrows deep inside the brain and destroys all common sense? Just look what happened in Loveland, Colorado where a seven-year-old elementary school student was suspended for trying to ''save the world'' while using an imaginary grenade. Read more... http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2013/02/06/child-pretends-hes-saving-the-world-then-gets-suspended/?subscriber=1 Read full E-mail here: http://www.gopusa.com/archives/midday/2013_02_06.html ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 18:58:06 -0700 From: "Todd Brown" Subject: RE: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... I agree with you 110% on that, part of the problem is that there is NO definition in the FA or CCC that defines 'reasonable'. So it boils down to the 'opinion' of the CFO having legal clout. 'reasonable' is not the only word or phrase that has no legal definition, there are plenty of others. Know your rights, or you won't have any Todd Brown Concerned Gun Owners of Alberta Co-founder CGOA bvhunting@xplornet.com -----Original Message----- From: jyoung@aernet.ca Sent: January-06-13 6:38 AM Subject: Re: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... Subject: Re: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... From: jyoung@aernet.ca Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 1:38 pm Re: TEAM CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be challenged... March 5th now...initially it was Feb 7th. The more I delve into this, the more I believe it's entirely the wrong move. Sure hope that I'm wrong... Section 58(1) of the F/A Act *PROVIDES* the CFO the requisite authority to attach these conditions. As a result, I fear a loss is imminent. And when that occurs, he'll be empowered to take further swats at our community. The only possible hope is that the judge place a greater importance on the word "reasonable" and deems that this condition is "not". A better solution, in my opinion, would have been to have the power granted under 58(1) reined-in by Parliament. Cheers. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 19:01:08 -0700 From: "Todd Brown" Subject: RE: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... Also , see the article(Discretionary Powers) I posted earlier that explains all of this......or do I have to put it up again? Know your rights, or you won't have any Todd Brown Concerned Gun Owners of Alberta Co-founder CGOA bvhunting@xplornet.com -----Original Message----- From: jyoung@aernet.ca Sent: January-06-13 6:38 AM Subject: Re: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... Subject: Re: CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be ... From: jyoung@aernet.ca Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 1:38 pm Re: TEAM CSSA E-NEWS - CFOs who make up their own rules must be challenged... March 5th now...initially it was Feb 7th. The more I delve into this, the more I believe it's entirely the wrong move. Sure hope that I'm wrong... Section 58(1) of the F/A Act *PROVIDES* the CFO the requisite authority to attach these conditions. As a result, I fear a loss is imminent. And when that occurs, he'll be empowered to take further swats at our community. The only possible hope is that the judge place a greater importance on the word "reasonable" and deems that this condition is "not". A better solution, in my opinion, would have been to have the power granted under 58(1) reined-in by Parliament. Cheers. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:11:48 -0500 (EST) From: LawrenceAWehren@aol.com Subject: Confiscation on large scale. Happened in atlantic canada?. of course this happened many years ago but somewhere in the history books is the story of the Acadian's that had all their firearms confiscated by the British and then when they couldn't fight back were deported in mass to the US and became "Cajuns". Does anyone have the full details because if it happened then it can happen again?. "acadians" "cajuns"? ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 11:23 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Alta. opens property rights advocate office Property rights advocate office opens today WEDNESDAY, 06 FEBRUARY 2013 02:01 Dave Mabell, LETHBRIDGE HERALD dmabell@lethbridgeherald.com http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/local-news/property-rights-advocate-office-opens-today-2613.html Premier Alison Redford will be in Lethbridge this morning for the official opening of the province's first property rights advocacy office. Lethbridge lawyer Lee Cutforth was appointed late last year to head the new agency, now operating in a street-front location in the city's Provincial Building. The premier will be joined by Jonathan Denis, the province's solicitor general and minister of justice. After naming Cutforth to a three-year term in December, the justice minister pointed out selecting an official advocate and opening a property rights office were among recommendations made by a task force that toured the province last year. "Property rights are fundamental to our province, and the advocate will ensure individuals, municipalities, government and industry are aware of the principles enshrined in our legislation," he said. Southern Alberta property owners' concerns about land use and ownership were frequently raised during last spring's provincial election. They're cited as one reason the governing Conservatives lost many southern seats to opposition Wildrose candidates. Denis' officials describe the new advocate's job as working with Albertans "to provide them with impartial and independent information to deal with issues that could affect their property rights, and help them find the appropriate resolution mechanisms when disputes arise." Cutforth was selected after a nation-wide competition, the minister said. Denis cited community service as well as Cutforth's southern Alberta farming roots as assets he'll bring to the role. Born in Lethbridge and raised on the family farm near Barons, he earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Lethbridge and his law degree at the University of Saskatchewan. He's since practised law in Saskatoon and then Lethbridge, working on criminal cases as well as municipal, family and real estate law. Cutforth serves on the Lethbridge Regional Police Commission and previously chaired the city's subdivision and development appeal board. He also ran for city council in 2010. His landowners' advocacy position is an Alberta-first, Cutforth says. "This is the first one I'm aware of," so there are no models to follow. Part of his job has been working with justice department officials to get things started. "It's a complaint-based service," he says. "We don't have a mandate to go out and make our own case." With most of the province's rural land used for agriculture, Cutforth says he expects to hear about conflicts between farmers and energy producers. "There's a lot of drilling," across southern Alberta and much of the province. With a head office in Lethbridge and a satellite location in Edmonton, the new advocate expects to spend many hours on the highways. While his staff will keep regular office hours, Cutforth expects he'll often be meeting landowners across the province at times that meet their needs. Just how much time he's in Lethbridge will depend on how many calls he receives from other areas. ----------------------------------------------- Alta. opens property rights advocate office Feb 6, 2013 6:43 PM - By: Staff http://www.canadiancattlemen.ca/news/alta-opens-property-rights-advocate-off ice/1002052895/ A provincial pledge to set up Alberta's first property rights advocate has reached the grand opening stage. A provincial advocate's office opened Wednesday at 200 Fifth Ave. S. in Lethbridge, following the appointment of Lethbridge lawyer Lee Cutforth to a three-year term as the advocate, and the proclamation of related legislation, both in December. The role of the advocate, the province said, will be to work with Albertans to provide them with "impartial and independent information to deal with issues that could affect their property rights and help them find the appropriate resolution mechanisms when disputes arise." That includes information for landowners about the right to compensation where land is expropriated or where landowners "claim to have suffered a compensable taking," and the procedure for any claim to compensation. The advocate is also expected to provide information about "proposed legislation and its likely effect on property rights." The office is also meant to help people determine "the appropriate resolution mechanism, including the courts, through which they can have their property rights concerns addressed, including by directing them to appropriate resources." The office can also assist "expropriating authorities" or people or offices "involved in a compensable taking" in such matters. The advocate's office is also expected to review complaints relating to expropriations or "compensable takings." "Alberta is growing at an incredible rate, and it is vital that we strike the right balance between the rights of landowners and the need to expand our communities," Premier Alison Redford said in Wednesday's release. The advocate's office can be reached by phone at 403-388-1781 or by email. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Wed, February 6, 2013 11:57 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Brother of Ecole Polytechnique Victim Speaks up Claude Colgan, frère de Helene, assassinée par Lépine Le frère d'une victime de Polytechnique se confie MARDI 05 FEBRUARY 2013 13H02 - Durée de l'extrait : 00h 19m 00s http://montreal.radiox.com/extrait/cklx_-_207_-_118476_-_le_frere_dune_victime_de_polytechnique_se_confie/ Témoignage percutant d'un homme qui a perdu sa soeur dans la tuerie de l'école Polytechnique, mais qui milite contre le contrôle des armes d'épaule au Québec. ----------------------------------------- Tous contre un régistre Québécois des armes à feu 2,304 likes · 916 talking about this https://www.facebook.com/TousContreUnRegistreQuebecoisDesArmesAFeu?ref=ts&fref=ts Political Organisation: Cette page facebook a pour but de se regrouper pour dénoncer la tentative du gouvernement Québécois de rattraper les données du registre des armes à feu. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Thu, February 7, 2013 12:15 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Hunting not just for boys Hunting not just for boys By Darren Lum - Tuesday, February 5, 2013 4:36:32 EST PM http://www.mindentimes.ca/2013/02/05/hunting-not-just-for-boys She says it's her claim to fame. A few years have passed and Nikki Latanville, a married woman with two boys, is still in disbelief about the 16-point buck she shot in her backyard with her crossbow while eight-months pregnant. Other hunters have told her taking down a 215-pound buck is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Latanville actually took a doe while carrying her first son. This situation brings an opportunity to share her story on a panel with three other outdoorswomen at the Toronto Sportsmen's Show this weekend. Through her husband Dallas, a connection was made on Facebook with panel organizer Amanda Lynn Mayhew, a prolific hunter and media personality. Mayhew was looking for women to be on a panel and learned of Latanville's buck. Initially the Haliburton County resident was nervous, but reassured by Mayhew and buoyed by a chance to encourage other women. It enables her to inspire other women to not only hunt, but to remind them that it doesn't have to stop with pregnancy. "I just want to encourage them that if it's something that you love to do why would you stop? If you have no underlying health issues preventing you, why shouldn't you be out there?" she said, comparing it to any physical exercise. Hunting is not dangerous, she said, describing it as "relaxing." Latanville has hunted for 11 years. In that time she has hunted moose, turkey and duck, including small game like grouse and rabbits. She has started bear hunting, but admits she hasn't seen any while out. Mayhew, who was asked to speak at the sportsmen's show, started the panel this year to raise the profile of female hunters. She believes this will be far more effective in promoting hunting than just sharing her experience. The panel is a diverse group and includes Mayhew, trapper Tracy Herold of Red Lake and "newbie" hunter Bailey Palmer of Elmira. Originally from Cobourg, Lataville was raised in a family of hunters from her dad to her uncle and cousins. "Everybody was trying to protect me from it," she said. She remembers standing by the window in her cousin's home, watching as a deer was being skinned. Latanville, interested in the process, begged to help, but her family kept her inside for fear of traumatizing her. A few years later she went out and got her hunting licence and her family realized her passion for hunting was like theirs. A girl, she said, is just as capable of loving hunting as a boy. "If you have a girl don't count her out she might be just as eager to get into it just as any boy might be," she said. It's all about the family. Last year, Latanville took her eldest out to hunt deer and hopes to pass on her passion to her children. "That's definitely something that I want to expose my kids to at a young age. I hope that they get into it and love it as much as my husband and I do," she said. ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Regarding: 2A Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:56:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Roger Walker Subject: Re: Regarding: 2A On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Joe Gingrich wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Joe Gingrich wrote: > > > The Second Amendment: > > > > Attorney General Eric Holder said that this is one of his major issues. > > Holder does not 'believe' the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to > > bear arms. > > > > 1. First vote at: > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm > > The correct answer to the question "Does the Second Amendment give > individuals the right to bear arms?" is "No - it only recognizes and > reaffirms that right." This is not subjective... > > -- > Roger Walker > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Yes. It's a right we (Canadians and Americans) inherited from England. It is actually a right given us by God. We inherited the re-affirmation and recognition from England. -- Roger Walker --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many religious documents and theologians agree with you. Religious experts make reference to the Talmud, the Tora and Christian Bibles, Roman Catholic doctrine and theologians such as (St. Thomas Aquinas), and Protestant theologians such as (Samuel Rutherford) probably all prior to the EBR of 1688. There are likely other religions with similar views on armed self defense. In addition Trudeau's document seems to support your position. "Constitution Act, 1982 (79) Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c. 11, which came into force on April 17, 1982 PART I Canadian charter of rights and freedoms Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" And yet, Mr. Harper continues to enforce the Lieberals' unjust Bill C-68, refuses to respect the rights of law-abiding Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly and disarms innocent accountable gun owners rendering them and their families defenseless victims to criminals (civillian and official) without compensation. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:38:30 -0500 From: Bill Subject: No gun club membership needed case This complete decision can also be found on the Digest Archives http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives/text/v11n001-099/v11n010.txt Bill ------- REMEMBER: If you don't fight for your rights NOW, you may not have the right to fight for them later! On 2/6/2013 11:27 AM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:03:33 -0800 (PST) > From: Bruce Mills > Subject: No gun club membership needed case > > Kevin kindly sent me the case file on this, so I didn't have to slog > through my hard drive to find it. > > Court File No. 01-0187 > > ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE > > MATTHEW MCBAIN > > Applicant ------------------------------ Date: From: Subject: [none] Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 10:48:40 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Obama gives himself permission to kill http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/07/obama-gives-himself-permission-to-kill/ Obama give himself permission to kill By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Published February 07, 2013 FoxNews.com After stonewalling for more than a year federal judges and ordinary citizens who sought the revelation of its secret legal research justifying the presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas -- even Americans -- claiming the research was so sensitive and so secret that it could not be revealed without serious consequences, the government sent a summary of its legal memos to an NBC newsroom earlier this week. This revelation will come as a great surprise, and not a little annoyance, to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, who heard many hours of oral argument during which the government predicted gloom and doom if its legal research were subjected to public scrutiny. She very reluctantly agreed with the feds, but told them she felt caught in "a veritable Catch-22," because the feds have created "a thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret." She was writing about President Obama killing Americans and refusing to divulge the legal basis for claiming the right to do so. Now we know that basis. The undated and unsigned 16-page document leaked to NBC refers to itself as a Department of Justice white paper. Its logic is flawed, its premises are bereft of any appreciation for the values of the Declaration of Independence and the supremacy of the Constitution, and its rationale could be used to justify any breaking of any law by any "informed, high-level official of the U.S. government." The quoted phrase is extracted from the memo, which claims that the law reposes into the hands of any unnamed "high-level official," not necessarily the president, the lawful power to decide when to suspend constitutional protections guaranteed to all persons and kill them without any due process whatsoever. This is the power claimed by kings and tyrants. It is the power most repugnant to American values. It is the power we have arguably fought countless wars to prevent from arriving here. Now, under Obama, it is here. This came to a boiling point when Obama dispatched CIA drones to kill New Mexico-born and Al Qaeda-affiliated Anwar al-Awlaki while he was riding in a car in a desert in Yemen in September 2011. A follow-up drone, also dispatched by Obama, killed Awlaki's 16-year-old Colorado-born son and his American friend. Awlaki's American father sued the president in federal court in Washington, D.C., trying to prevent the killing. Justice Department lawyers persuaded a judge that the president always follows the law, and besides, without any evidence of presidential law breaking, the elder Awlaki had no case against the president. Within three months of that ruling, the president dispatched his drones and the Awlakis were dead. This spawned follow-up lawsuits, in one of which McMahon gave her reluctant ruling. Then the white paper appeared. It claims that if an American is likely to trigger the use of force 10,000 miles from here, and he can't easily be arrested, he can be murdered with impunity. This notwithstanding state and federal laws that expressly prohibit non-judicial killing, an executive order signed by every president from Gerald Ford to Obama prohibiting American officials from participating in assassinations, the absence of a declaration of war against Yemen, treaties expressly prohibiting this type of killing, and the language of the Declaration, which guarantees the right to live, and the Constitution, which requires a jury trial before the government can deny that right. The president cannot lawfully order the killing of anyone, except according to the Constitution and federal law. Under the Constitution, he can only order killing using the military when the U.S. has been attacked or when an attack is so imminent that delay would cost innocent lives. He can also order killing using the military in pursuit of a declaration of war enacted by Congress. Unless Obama knows that an attack from Yemen on our shores is imminent, he'd be hard-pressed to argue that a guy in a car in the desert 10,000 miles from here -- no matter his intentions -- poses a threat so imminent to the U.S. that he needs to be killed on the spot in order to save the lives of Americans who would surely die during the time it would take to declare war on the country that harbors him, or during the time it would take to arrest him. Under no lawful circumstances may he use CIA agents for killing. Surely, CIA agents can use deadly force defensively to protect themselves and their assets, but they may not use it offensively. Federal laws against murder apply to the president and to all federal agents and personnel in their official capacities, wherever they go on the planet. Obama has argued that he can kill Americans whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any due process whatsoever. No law authorizes that. His attorney general has argued that the president's careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly force are an adequate and constitutional substitute for due process. No court has ever approved that. And his national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are "surgical" and only kill their targets. We know that is incorrect, as the folks who monitor all this say that 11 percent to 17 percent of the 2,300 drone-caused deaths have been those of innocent bystanders. Did you consent to a government that can kill whom it wishes? How about one that plays tricks on federal judges? How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- How long will it be before the presidential killing comes home, the judge asks? Perhaps it already has. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #545 *********************************** 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".)