From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #591 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 Monday, March 4 2013 Volume 15 : Number 591 In this issue: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones The Great Ammo Shortage Of 2013 Continues Obama Pushing Most Anti-Second Amendment Nominee in Recent ... Canadians should be able to speak without fear & Unworthy of ... RCMP: RECLASSIFICATION OF SSD MODEL BD38 CARBINE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 10:22:00 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57572207-38/dhs-built-domestic-surveillance-tech-into-predator-drones/ DHS built domestic surveillance tech into Predator drones Homeland Security's specifications say drones must be able to detect whether a civilian is armed. Also specified: "signals interception" and "direction finding" for electronic surveillance. by Declan McCullagh March 2, 2013 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has customized its Predator drones, originally built for overseas military operations, to carry out at-home surveillance tasks that have civil libertarians worried: identifying civilians carrying guns and tracking their cell phones, government documents show. The documents provide more details about the surveillance capabilities of the department's unmanned Predator B drones, which are primarily used to patrol the United States' northern and southern borders but have been pressed into service on behalf of a growing number of law enforcement agencies including the FBI, the Secret Service, the Texas Rangers, and local police. Homeland Security's specifications for its drones, built by San Diego-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, say they "shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not," meaning carrying a shotgun or rifle. They also specify "signals interception" technology that can capture communications in the frequency ranges used by mobile phones, and "direction finding" technology that can identify the locations of mobile devices or two-way radios. The Electronic Privacy Information Center obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security's requirements for its drone fleet through the Freedom of Information Act and published it this week. CNET unearthed an unredacted copy of the requirements that provides additional information about the aircraft's surveillance capabilities. Concern about domestic use of drones is growing, with federal legislation introduced last month that would establish legal safeguards, in addition to parallel efforts underway from state and local lawmakers. The Federal Aviation Administration recently said that it will "address privacy-related data collection" by drones. The prospect of identifying armed Americans concerns Second Amendment advocates, who say that technology billed as securing the United States' land and maritime borders should not be used domestically. Michael Kostelnik, the Homeland Security official who created the program, told Congress that the drone fleet would be available to "respond to emergency missions across the country," and a Predator drone was dispatched to the tiny town of Lakota, N.D., to aid local police in a dispute that began with reimbursement for feeding six cows. The defendant, arrested with the help of Predator surveillance, lost a preliminary bid to dismiss the charges. "I am very concerned that this technology will be used against law-abiding American firearms owners," says Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. "This could violate Fourth Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights." Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection agency declined to answer questions about whether direction-finding technology is currently in use on its drone fleet. A representative provided CNET with a statement about the agency's unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that said signals interception capability is not currently used: U.S. Customs and Border Protection is not deploying signals interception capabilities on its UAS fleet. Any potential deployment of such technology in the future would be implemented in full consideration of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy interests and in a manner consistent with the law and long-standing law enforcement practices. CBP's UAS program is a vital border security asset. Equipped with state-of-the-art sensors and day-and-night cameras, the UAS provides real-time images to frontline agents to more effectively and efficiently secure the nation's borders. As a force multiplier, the UAS operates for extended periods of time and allows CBP to safely conduct missions over tough-to-reach terrain. The UAS also provides agents on the ground with added situational awareness to more safely resolve dangerous situations. During his appearance before the House Homeland Security committee, Kostelnik, a retired Air Force major general who recently left the agency, testified that the drones' direction-finding ability is part of a set of "DOD capabilities that are being tested or adopted by CBP to enhance UAS performance for homeland security." CBP currently has 10 Predator drones and is considering buying up to 14 more. If the Predator drones were used only to identify smugglers or illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican and Canadian borders, or for disaster relief, they might not be especially controversial. But their use domestically by other government agencies has become routine enough -- and expensive enough -- that Homeland Security's inspector general said (PDF) last year that CBP needs to sign agreements "for reimbursement of expenses incurred fulfilling mission requests." "The documents clearly evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is developing drones with signals interception technology and the capability to identify people on the ground," says Ginger McCall, director of the Open Government Project at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This allows for invasive surveillance, including potential communications surveillance, that could run afoul of federal privacy laws." A Homeland Security official, who did not want to be identified by name, said the drones are able to identify whether movement on the ground comes from a human or an animal, but that they do not perform facial recognition. The official also said that because the unarmed drones have a long anticipated life span, the department tries to plan ahead for future uses to support its border security mission, and that aerial surveillance would comply with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other applicable federal laws. The documents show that CBP specified that the "tracking accuracy should be sufficient to allow target designation," and the agency notes on its Web site that its Predator B series is capable of "targeting and weapons delivery" (the military version carries multiple 100-pound Hellfire missiles). CBP says, however, that its Predator aircraft are unarmed. Gene Hoffman, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who's the chairman of the Calguns Foundation, said CBP "needs to be very careful with attempts to identify armed individuals in the border area" when aerial surveillance touches on a constitutional right. "In the border area of California and Arizona, it may be actively dangerous for the law-abiding to not carry firearms precisely due to the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the border in those areas," Hoffman says. CBP's specifications say that signals interception and direction-finding technology must work from 30MHz to 3GHz in the radio spectrum. That sweeps in the GSM and CDMA frequencies used by mobile phones, which are in the 300MHz to 2.7GHz range, as well as many two-way radios. The specifications say: "The system shall provide automatic and manual DF of multiple signals simultaneously. Automatic DF should be able to separate out individual communication links." Automated direction-finding for cell phones has become an off-the-shelf technology: one company sells a unit that its literature says is "capable of taking the bearing of every mobile phone active in a channel." Although CBP's unmanned Predator aircraft are commonly called drones, they're remotely piloted by FAA-licensed operators on the ground. They can fly for up to 20 hours and carry a payload of about 500 lbs. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 4, 2013 10:47 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: The Great Ammo Shortage Of 2013 Continues DHS blacks out information on another firearms-related order GOVERNMENT - MARCH 1, 2013 - BY: RYAN KELLER The Department of Homeland Security has been buying large amounts of ammunition over the last year, along with 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles. http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-blacks-out-information-on-another-firearms-related-order Gun control talk by politicians leads to ammunition shortages GUN RIGHTS - FEBRUARY 18, 2013BY: DEAN CHAMBERS http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-control-talk-by-politicians-leads-to-amm unition-shortages http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/04/talk-of-gun-control-driving-ammo-shortage/ The Great Ammo Shortage Of 2013 Continues By Tara Dodrill February 18, 2013 http://www.inquisitr.com/530029/the-great-ammo-shortage-of-2013-continues/ East Tenn. gun stores face ammo shortage, gun owners struggle to stock up By HAYLEY HARMON, 6 News Anchor/Reporter Posted: Feb 26, 2013 2:44 PM MST http://www.wate.com/story/21388776/east-tn-gun-stores-seeing-ammunition-shortage-gun-owners-struggling-to-stock-up Ammo shortages follow as gun-control debate continues February 22, 2013|By Henry Pierson Curtis, Orlando Sentinel http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-02-22/news/os-ammo-shortage-hits-orlando-2-20130222_1_ammunition-gun-dealers-assault-rifles Gun Store Owners Seeing Ammunition Shortage February 22, 2013 9:12 PM http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/02/22/gun-store-owners-seeing-ammunition-shortage/ Gun shops running short of ammo Fears of gun-control laws drive demand for ammunition Written by Henry Miller, Statesman Journal - February 22, 2013 http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130222/NEWS/302220032/Gun-shops-running-short-ammo?nclick_check=1 Ammo Shortage Hits Big Box Stores By: CHAD PETRI | WKRG - Published: February 19, 2013 http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2013/feb/19/ammo-shortage-hits-big-box-stores-ar-5631761/ Ammunition Shortage in Northern Nevada Updated: Feb 25, 2013 4:55 PM MST http://www.ktvn.com/story/21253156/ammunition-shortage-in-northern-nevada GUNS AND AMMO MAGAZINE Industry Report: Rise in Gun Sales Prompts Industry Chaos by Dylan Polk | January 30, 2013 http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/01/30/industry-report-rise-in-gun-sales-prompting-industry-chaos/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 11:46:30 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Obama Pushing Most Anti-Second Amendment Nominee in Recent ... ...History Gun Owners of America Monday, March 04, 2013 Obama Pushing Most Anti-Second Amendment Nominee in Recent History Senators on Capitol Hill are telling Gun Owners of America that Harry Reid is twisting arms to get support for one of the most anti-gun judicial nominees in recent memory. Her name is Caitlin Halligan, and she has a long track record in favor of gun control. In fact, one Senate Republican said that she is the most "anti-Second Amendment nominee Obama has ever put forward." As New York's Solicitor General, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York's baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law. Halligan's public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for "handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns." Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item -- whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else -- would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America. After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan's office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a legal brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers' Protection Act unconstitutional. Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus. Halligan's failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes "fraud" against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant. But, of course, none of this matters to Harry Reid. He and President Obama are doing what they can to pack the Appeals Courts with radical leftists. We have to stop this Reid/Obama court-packing scheme. Please act now, as Reid is pushing hard for a vote on Halligan's nomination. ACTION: Click here to contact and demand that your U.S. Senators http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertidb467136 oppose the Caitlin Halligan nomination to the DC Court of Appeals and support ANY and ALL efforts to filibuster her nomination. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 4, 2013 12:43 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Canadians should be able to speak without fear & Unworthy of ... ...Canada's highest court Canadians should be able to speak without fear It's time to hold our politicians' feet to the proverbial fire By Derek James From, Canadian Constitution Foundation - Calgary Herald March 4, 2013 7:07 AM http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/Canadians+should+able+speak+without+fear/8044017/story.html Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that governments are permitted to violate the right of Canadians to speak freely about issues of public importance in order to stamp out any expression they consider hateful. In 2001 and 2002, William Whatcott, a self-proclaimed anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-you-fill-in-the-blank activist, distributed offensive flyers in Regina and Saskatoon. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the flyers contravened the province's hate speech prohibition. On appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench upheld the tribunal's decision, while the provincial Court of Appeal overturned it. The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal in October 2011. The Supreme Court of Canada's decision is a devastating blow to free speech and the rights of every individual Canadian. In principle, this decision means that the government can silence your speech on issues of public importance if that speech is deemed hateful. It doesn't matter if what you said was true, that it caused no one any harm, or that you never intended to say anything discriminatory - you can still be dragged into court and lose for committing a victimless crime. In its 1990 Taylor decision, the Supreme Court of Canada reached a similar conclusion - with one salient difference. In Taylor, Justice Beverley McLachlin (as she was then) wrote a strong and clear-headed dissent. She canvassed many of the problems with hate speech prohibitions. Hatred is an ambiguous and emotionally charged term, capable of a wide range of meanings among different people. Incapable of precise definition, it inevitably functions as a proxy for the personal and political views of the judiciary. Further, a successful hate speech prosecution requires no proof of actual harm or intent to discriminate, and truth is no defence. These are serious, irremediable flaws. Fast-forward to 2013. Unlike Taylor, the Whatcott decision is unanimous and monolithic - there is no dissent. The Supreme Court of Canada has closed ranks and will no longer broach alternatives. This means that McLachlin's Taylor dissent has effectively been redacted, leaving us with muddled confusion. The problems canvassed in Taylor are not resolved in Whatcott - all we get is the Supreme Court of Canada's undivided assertion that no problems exist. Does that imply that there never was a problem? What has happened in the intervening 23 years to change McLachlin's mind? It wasn't always this way. The Supreme Court of Canada once recognized that the freedom to express unpopular and even offensive ideas is of foundational importance to a free and democratic society. In 1986, Justice William McIntyre said, "(Freedom of expression) is one of the fundamental concepts that have formed the basis for the historical development of the political, social and educational institutions of western society. Representative democracy, as we know it today, which is in great part the product of free expression and discussion of varying ideas, depends upon its maintenance and protection." In other words, the continued existence and thriving of our free society is dependent upon the right of each individual to freely express his or her ideas without fear of reprisal. There's one simple and ironic fact that cannot be overlooked in all of this. If Whatcott is on a hate campaign, Saskatchewan's hate speech prohibition has provided him with a powerful means to disseminate his views. Each judicial decision has reproduced and circulated his materials. Had no complaint been made about Whatcott's flyers in 2001 and 2002, they would have faded into obscurity and this marginalized, bigoted, fundamentalist would not have received national media coverage. At this stage, it's entirely likely that Whatcott will be elevated to the status of folk hero by those who share his prejudices. Instead of facing a legal prosecution, lending credence to the appearance of martyrdom, Whatcott should have been ignored or debated. It's best not to silence bigots - let them speak, freely. As the old proverb says, even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise. The Supreme Court of Canada has shown itself unwilling to uphold the right of Canadians to express their views without worry of a state prosecution. The best answer to this problem has always been legislative. Canada's hate speech laws were enacted by governments and can be repealed at any time by those same governments. It's time to hold our politicians' feet to the proverbial fire for the good of all Canadians. Derek James From is a Calgary-based lawyer practising law with the Canadian Constitution Foundation http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/ -------------------------------- Unworthy of Canada's highest court by Karen Selick - Ottawa Citizen, February 28, 2013 http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/article.php/361#.UTTp6jCTjng In the wake of this week's Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision finding anti-gay crusader William Whatcott guilty of hate speech, those of us who support freedom of expression are plagued by the burning question: what made Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin go over to the dark side? For 22 years, free-speechers have cherished the hope that another case involving censorship and human rights legislation would come back before Chief Justice McLachlin. That's because in 1990, before becoming chief justice, she wrote dissenting judgments in two cases, Taylor and Keegstra. Her opinion then was that the censorship sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Criminal Code violated the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression, and that the violation was not justified in our free, democratic society. She therefore voted to strike down the censorship clauses as unconstitutional. Justice McLachlin was outvoted in both Taylor and Keegstra by the narrowest of margins: 4-3. The majority of the 1990 court found both the CHRA and the Criminal Code provisions constitutional. However, Justice McLachlin penned a long and eloquent paean to freedom of expression, recounting its historical value as "an essential precondition of the search for truth," a promoter of the "marketplace of ideas" and "an end in itself, a value essential to the sort of society we wish to preserve." Free-speechers hoped that, given another opportunity to exert her influence among an entirely different panel of SCC judges (she is the only member of the 1990 court still on the bench), she would be able to sway a majority to her 1990 views. Instead, she herself has apparently abandoned those views, voting with a unanimous court (6-0) in the Whatcott case to uphold the main censorship clause of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. We'll probably never know what persuaded Chief Justice McLachlin to change her position. Judges don't discuss such things. But it was dismaying to learn that she is no longer the court's champion of free expression, and that not a single member of the court stepped up to assume that mantle. Instead, the court reiterated the absurd thesis that it had propounded in the Taylor case: that it is possible for tribunals and courts to apply prohibitions on hate speech objectively, without lapsing into subjectivity. They can do this, supposedly, by keeping in mind that "hatred" refers only to "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification." But the history of the Whatcott case itself plainly demonstrates this thesis to be false. Before reaching the SCC, Whatcott was heard by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, where all three judges knew the Taylor test and applied it. They held that the four anti-gay flyers distributed by William Whatcott were legal. They wrote, ". when examined in the context of a debate about the actions of the Saskatoon School Board, the entire flyer would not be seen by a reasonable person as communicating the level of emotion required to expose persons on the basis of their sexual orientation to a level of hatred within the meaning of that term as prescribed ." The judges of the SCC, looking at the same flyer and applying the same test, held the opposite. The judges of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal didn't just fall off the turnip truck the day before writing their decision. They are lawyers and jurists of long experience. In fact, they are among the small, select pool of legal talent from which future SCC judges are ordinarily drawn. So how can anyone logically account for the diametrically opposed opinions of the two courts except to say that the illegality is very much in the eye of the beholder? In short, the test is hopelessly subjective. This subjectivity is confirmed by the fact that the SCC actually exonerated two of Whatcott's four flyers, but two lower decision-makers - the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench - both acknowledging and presumably applying the Taylor test, had pronounced those two flyers illegal. When people in positions of authority purport to apply the same test but arrive at opposite results, our society has a huge problem. These apparently random outcomes mean that no-one can ever know ahead of time whether his words are legal or not. This will chill expressions of opinion in ways that are sure to be detrimental to society, for all the reasons that Chief Justice McLachlin described in 1990 but apparently no longer values. The final ugly blemish in this SCC decision is the order that William Whatcott pay the legal costs of his opponent, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, from start to finish of this sordid affair. It seemed to escape the court's attention that Whatcott's efforts had been partially successful: they had exonerated him on two of the four charges of which he had originally been found guilty. They also seemed to have forgotten that they themselves, in the very same decision, had effectively struck several words out of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code: namely, the vague prohibition on speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" individuals without reaching the level of exposing someone to hatred. This rectification of the legislation to comply with the Charter would not have occurred without the efforts of Whatcott, and for that he should have been given credit. The costs order departs so markedly from what would normally occur under circumstances of divided results that it appears purely spiteful. It was definitely unworthy of our highest court. Karen Selick is the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, March 4, 2013 1:06 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: RCMP: RECLASSIFICATION OF SSD MODEL BD38 CARBINE RCMP: RECLASSIFICATION OF SSD MODEL BD38 CARBINE Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 http://nfa.ca/news/rcmp-reclassification-ssd-model-bd38-carbine RCMP: RECLASSIFICATION OF SSD MODEL BD38 CARBINE Below is a link to the complete three-page response I received from the RCMP dated February 15, 2013 stating: "Find enclosed a copy of all the information to which you are entitled." WORDING OF ORIGINAL REQUEST SUBMITTED JANUARY 13, 2013: "From January 1, 2011 to present, please provide copies of all correspondence, e-mails, policies, proposals, directives, memoranda, reports, papers, briefing notes and advice to the Minister, regarding the classification and reclassification of firearms received in the office of the Commissioner of Firearms." RCMP - SSD BD38 Reclassification - Briefing Note to the Minister of Public Safety http://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP%20-%20SSD%20BD38%20Reclassification.pdf Please let me know of other documents that the RCMP have that we know should have been provided so I can include our knowledge of them in a complaint to the Information Commissioner of Canada. Thanks, Dennis R. Young ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #591 *********************************** 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".)