From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #850 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, August 1 2013 Volume 15 : Number 850 In this issue: Liberty's backlash - why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden TORONTO SUN - Changing Florida's Stand Your Ground law a ... Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house regarding: Anti C-68 and Pro 2nd Amendment the same argument RE: re-focus on Digest Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house RE: "pre-PTSD"- Digest V15 #847 re: Toronto street car shooting Video: 180 guns discovered in Côte St-Luc home SUN NEWS VIDEOS - BEHIND THE CRIME STATS Re: 182 scary guns- Digest V15 #848 Re: U.S. coverage- Digest V15 #848 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 07:19:15 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Liberty's backlash - why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/01/libertys-backlash-why-should-be-grateful-to-edward-snowden/?intcmpHPBucket Liberty's backlash -- why we should be grateful to Edward Snowden By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Published August 01, 2013 FoxNews.com Last week, Justin Amash, the two-term libertarian Republican congressman from Michigan, joined with John Conyers, the 25-term liberal Democratic congressman from the same state, to offer an amendment to legislation funding the National Security Agency (NSA). If enacted, the Amash-Conyers amendment would have forced the government's domestic spies when seeking search warrants to capture Americans' phone calls, texts and emails first to identify their targets and produce evidence of their terror-related activities before a judge may issue a warrant. The support they garnered had a surprising result that stunned the Washington establishment. It almost passed. The final vote, in which the Amash-Conyers amendment was defeated by 205 to 217, was delayed for a few hours by the House Republican leadership, which opposed the measure. The Republican leadership team, in conjunction with President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, needed more time for arm-twisting so as to avoid a humiliating loss. But the House rank-and-file did succeed in sending a message to the big-government types in both parties: Nearly half of the House of Representatives has had enough of government spying and then lying about it, and understands that spying on every American simply cannot withstand minimal legal scrutiny or basic constitutional analysis. The president is deeply into this and no doubt wishes he wasn't. He now says he welcomed the debate in the House on whether his spies can have all they want from us or whether they are subject to constitutional requirements for their warrants. Surely he knows that the Supreme Court has ruled consistently since the time of the Civil War that the government is always subject to the Constitution, wherever it goes and whatever it does. As basic as that sounds, it is not a universally held belief among the power elites. Gen. James Clapper, the current boss of all domestic spies, obviously lied when he testified under oath to a Senate committee recently that the government was not accumulating massive amounts of data about tens or hundreds of millions of Americans. Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the NSA, materially misled a House committee when he was asked under oath whether the NSA has the "ability" to listen to phone calls and he stated it lacks the "authority" to do so. Right off the bat, we can see that these senior spies do not feel bound by the laws prohibiting perjury and the misleading of Congress. Congress itself has legislatively attempted to amend the Constitution, knowing that the supreme law of the land can only be amended by three-quarters of the states. The Constitution requires probable cause of criminal activity to be presented to a judge as a precondition of the judge issuing a search warrant. It also requires that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. Yet, Congress told the secret FISA court that it can avoid the Constitution and issue a warrant to any spy looking for the phone calls and electronic communications of anyone in America, without probable cause, without naming the persons whose records are sought and without describing the place to be searched. Secrecy-smitten judges, whose clerks are NSA agents and who are not permitted to keep copies of their own rulings, have gone along with this. Obama, who did not want a national debate on all this before Edward Snowden blew the whistle on it, has backed off of his earlier claims that the feds are not reading emails or listening to phone calls. He has done this, no doubt, in light of unrefuted statements by Snowden and other NSA whistleblowers to the effect that federal spies can, with the press of a computer key, read emails and hear phone calls. Only after the Snowden revelations did Obama welcome the "debate" in the House. That debate, in which more than half of his own party rejected his spying, lasted precisely 24 minutes. How can a deliberative body of 434 current members debate an issue as monumental as whether the government is bound by the Constitution when it seeks out terrorists in just 24 minutes? Apparently, the House Republican leadership that established the absurd 24-minute rule feared a serious and meaningful public discussion in which its authoritarian impulses would need to confront the Constitution its members swore to uphold. In that 24-minute time span, millions -- millions -- of Americans' phone calls and emails were swept into the NSA's supercomputers in defiance of the Constitution. There is a political wildfire burning in the land, and we should all be grateful to Snowden for igniting it. The fire eventually will consume the political derelictions of those who have abandoned their oaths to uphold the Constitution so they can sound tough back home. The Amash-Conyers amendment would have required the feds to tell the court the name of the person whose communications they seek and the evidence they have against that person -- just as the Constitution requires. And it would have prohibited the NSA dragnets the Constitution obviously was written to prevent. Instead we have the almost unimaginable prospect and the nearly unthinkable reality of the feds claiming that they can legally put every person in America under their privacy-invading scrutiny in order to catch a few dozen evil ones -- most of whom were entrapped by the FBI in the first place and never posed a serious danger to the public or the nation. Would we all be safer if the feds could knock down any door they wished and arrest any person they chose? Who would want to live in such a society? What value is the Constitution if those in whose hands we have reposed it for safekeeping are afraid to do so? I expect that the Amash-Conyers amendment will be back on the floor of the House soon. When it is, who will have the courage to preserve, protect and defend personal liberty in a free society? Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. His latest is "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/01/libertys-backlash-why-should-be-grateful-to-edward-snowden/?intcmpHPBucket#ixzz2aishG6JJ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, August 1, 2013 8:45 am From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: TORONTO SUN - Changing Florida's Stand Your Ground law a ... ...tough hill to climb TORONTO SUN - Changing Florida's Stand Your Ground law a tough hill to climb BILL COTTERELL, REUTERS - UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2013 10:04 AM EDT http://www.torontosun.com/2013/07/31/changing-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-a-tough-hill-to-climb TALLAHASSEE, FLA. - Every night for the last three weeks about 50 young protesters have slept on the stone floor of Florida's state Capitol building in a bid to change the state's Stand Your Ground self-defence law. Calling themselves "Dream Defenders", and inspired by the 1960s African-American civil rights movement, the protesters want to change a law they blame for the acquittal this month of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Their nights of sleeping in blankets and living off fast food are unlikely to lead to a repeal or major reform of Stand Your Ground, political analysts say. Such a move is virtually out of the question in Florida's Republican-dominated legislature, according to analysts. "Gun rights are big, especially with the blue dog Democrats that Republicans need in Florida," said Lance deHaven-Smith, a political scientist at Florida State University. "This law is not repealable. Certainly not by the present legislature." "RETURN TO THE WILD WEST" The Zimmerman case sparked a debate on Stand Your Ground legislation that in 2005 amended the statute governing Florida's self-defense law. The amendment allows a person in fear of serious injury to use deadly force to defend themselves rather than retreat. Jurors in Florida said the law left them no option but to acquit Zimmerman for the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager. Martin's grieving parents, backed by African-American civic leaders, students and politicians, including Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, all say the Stand Your Ground law needs to be re-examined. "By allowing - and perhaps encouraging - violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety," Holder told the convention of the NAACP earlier this month. Some, including civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and singer Stevie Wonder, have gone further, calling for a boycott of Florida until the law is repealed. Florida's self-defense law and the Zimmerman case are seen by many African Americans as emblematic of a lack of racial equality in the U.S. justice system. According to a study by the Tampa Bay Times, legal defense claims under Stand Your Ground were more likely to be successful when the victim was black. Several groups, including the Martin family, say they are working on drawing up a Trayvon Martin Law to more narrowly define self-defence in cases that involve racial profiling. The Dream Defenders - who have been joined in their nightly protest by the likes of activist/entertainer Harry Belafonte - say they won't leave until Florida Governor Rick Scott calls a special legislative session on the Stand Your Ground law. Scott, a firm supporter of the law, is standing his ground and has rejected their demand after meeting them. "This is just one tactic we have, focusing on the governor's office," said Phillip Agnew a young union activist from Miami who is the leader of the group. "We are also contacting legislators in their districts." The National Bar Association, which represents African-American lawyers and judges, threw its weight behind the initiative on Monday and called for Scott to hold a special legislative session to review the Stand Your Ground law. "Quite simply. You've given a license to kill, to shoot first and ask questions later. It's a return to the Wild West and Dodge City," said the association's president, John Page. LAW'S SPONSOR TELLS FEDS "LEAVE US ALONE" Florida became the first state in the country to adopt a Stand Your Ground law when it passed in 2005 with resounding bipartisan approval from Florida legislators, including some leading Democrats who now outspokenly oppose it. Polls show the law still enjoys strong support in Florida and at least 21 states have since adopted similar laws, according to the National Council of State Legislatures. Inspired by an outbreak of looting after a string of Florida hurricanes Florida in 2004, the law was meant to protect law-abiding citizens from prosecution for stopping a violent attack. The law's leading sponsor says he has no regrets about the legislation despite the public outcry. Dennis Baxley, a conservative Republican state representative and staunch supporter of the National Rifle Association, said recent remarks by the president and Holder questioning the law were misplaced. "It's not a federal issue and they need to leave us alone," Baxley, 60, told Reuters. Advocates of the law say violent crime has fallen in the state since it was passed. At the same time, justifiable homicides in Florida have climbed to a record 66 cases in 2012 from an annual average of 13 between 2001 and 2005, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After the Martin shooting, bills were introduced in Florida to repeal or scale-back the self-defence statute, but none even got a committee hearing. Whatever happens in the legislature, Stand Your Ground is likely to remain a hot political issue headed into the 2014 electoral season. Democrats and Republicans are likely to make gun control and self-defence core issues, said Susan MacManus, a Tampa political scientist at the University of South Florida. "One thing is for sure is that it's an issue that's not going to die down soon," she added. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, August 1, 2013 10:26 am From: jyoung@aernet.ca Subject: Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house That's not the point...it is, rather, that somehow this chap's PAL wasn't previously revoked...following his 2010 scuffle w/ the law. ------Original Message------ From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house Sent: Aug 1, 2013 09:00 At , you wrote: > >So given that history, why did he have a PAL??? > >-- >M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) >Rural Family Physician, >Sherbrooke, NS > >mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca > Do really think a PAL would stop a crazy person from acquiring 40 litres of gasoline and a bic lighter? Recent correlations between the introduction of gun laws in Canada between 1974 and 2008 indicate that not one restrictive gun law has had any impact in either the violent crime rate, homicide rate, or total suicide rate. - that is information arising from hard data (Fact) from the Federal government and using 3 different statistical means to compare the data to the impleimentation of gun laws. (Langmann, 2012) Many folks have between 10 and 40 litres of gasoline and Bic® lighters in their possession - does that make them arsonists? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:09:25 -0700 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: regarding: Anti C-68 and Pro 2nd Amendment the same argument Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 21:09:25 -0700 From: j davies Subject: Anti C-68 and Pro 2nd Amendment the same argument against ... ...the same I assume you misinterpreted my comments on the 2nd. In my mind, defense of the Second and standing against the C-68 mindset are so closely linked that discussion of one inevitably involves the other, which is why I said: "If what you are about to post is not about C-68 related topics, INCLUDING second amendment stuff from the US, then it shouldn't be here." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Davies: There's no reason to "assume" I misinterpreted your comments, I did misinterpret your comments. I send my apologies to you for MY misunderstanding. Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:01:05 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: re-focus on Digest > Many of us, though it seems not Jim, nor Clive, believe that Gamel > Gharbi was NOT representative of Canadian male values but something > more the opposite. I believe that if one victim of Gharbi, or one other student or faculty, had a gun and used it there would have been a different outcome. If a group of individuals armed only with testicles and grit had swarmed Gharbi, there would have been a different outcome. If the person stopping Gharbi had used in illegally carried firearm, we might have different rules for self defense in this country. Everyone who feels the need for "armes for their defense" should have access, whatever the law says. They are fools if they don't. That includes Muslims who may at some time have a justified fear of a resurgence of "the Klan". Personally I admired two groups during the American civil rights era. Those who followed Martin Luther King, and those who supported the Deacons for Defense. If those who talk about peaceful solutions are ignored or worse, shot, then it is time to equalize the discussion with force of arms. 45clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:03:53 -0600 From: 10x@telus.net Subject: Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house The point is that a person who is a danger to society is dangerous with or without guns. With or without a gun license. Another point is that between 1998 and 2008 the number of folks with firearms prohibitions in Canada increased from 34,000 to over 300,000. According to the very valid and very solid Langman study (2012) this increase in the number of folks with prohibitions had zero effect on homicide with a gun, total homicide, and other crime. The bottom line, taking guns away from folks who are "considered dangerous" does not seem to have a measurable effect on criminal events in Canada. The gun license certainly does not stop folks from using guns in a criminal way. In fact mere possession of a gun with an expired license can garner up to 4 years in prison as possession of a gun is a criminal code offence since December 1, 1998. At , you wrote: > >That's not the point...it is, rather, that somehow this chap's PAL wasn't >previously revoked...following his 2010 scuffle w/ the law. > >------Original Message------ >From: 10x@telus.net >Subject: Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house >Sent: Aug 1, 2013 09:00 > >At , you wrote: >> >>So given that history, why did he have a PAL??? >> >>-- >>M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) >>Rural Family Physician, >>Sherbrooke, NS >> >>mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca >> > >Do really think a PAL would stop a crazy person from acquiring 40 litres of >gasoline and a bic lighter? > >Recent correlations between the introduction of gun laws in Canada between >1974 and 2008 indicate that not one restrictive gun law has had any impact >in either the violent crime rate, homicide rate, or total suicide rate. - >that is information arising from hard data (Fact) from the Federal >government and using 3 different statistical means to compare the data to >the impleimentation of gun laws. (Langmann, 2012) > >Many folks have between 10 and 40 litres of gasoline and Bic® lighters in >their possession - does that make them arsonists? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:07:48 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: "pre-PTSD"- Digest V15 #847 > Parts of our government are "traumatized" by the prospect of a "Clash > of Civilizations", but the Capt. Semrau's, et al are not. They signed > up to defend our way of life. Let's make sure we have a way of life worth defending. A society of defenseless sheep who roam at the pleasure of the shepherd is not a society I would defend, rhetorically or with arms. That means fixing our problems at home before tromping over the rights and lives of those overseas, who are not nearly the immediate danger Harper, Trudeau, and our Canadian Bureaucracy are. > I'm sure all of them are aware of the grisly death of Fusilier Lee Rigby. Rigby likely would have survived if he had a pistol handy. British gun laws allowed the bad guys to act with impunity. 45clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:28:36 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: re: Toronto street car shooting Our police are 'trigger happy' as never before in our history. Once again it is brought to light that you are more likely to be shot by a cop in Canada than by a civilian creep or gang banger; the latter occurring as ''collateral damage" during a "spray & pray" on the street. The weekly gang-related shootings in the lower mainland of BC are models of efficiency by comparison, the shooters rarely missing their intended victim and without injury to bystanders. One wonders why the Toronto cops did not practice containment, having the knife wielder already bottled up. The whitewash is already being stirred for this cover up ..... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, August 1, 2013 12:42 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Video: 180 guns discovered in Côte St-Luc home Video: 180 guns discovered in Côte St-Luc home “There are actually, based on ownership and importation records, about 20 million firearms in Canada,” Hagen said. THE GAZETTE AUGUST 1, 2013 http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/b4te+home/8733455/story.html MONTREAL — Investigators found 180 guns in the Côte St-Luc home of an elderly man who barricaded himself there for more than 20 hours. The standoff ended Wednesday morning with police using a battering ram and an armoured vehicle to bash through the front door. But even before they started their inventory, police knew that the homeowner, 71-year-old Isidore Havis, had many guns registered in his name — although it wasn’t yet clear how many or what kind. While Quebec is fighting in court to preserve provincial data on rifles and shotguns collected by the now-defunct federal gun registry, the Quebec portion of the information continues to be available to police. “(Ottawa) has agreed to maintain the Quebec long-gun registration data until the Supreme Court has decided on the motion,” said Public Safety Canada spokesperson Jean Paul Duval. Also, owners are required by law to hold a valid firearms licence to purchase and possess, transport or sell a gun in Canada. The RCMP Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) keeps records of firearms licences. But no law or licence can limit the number of firearms a person can own, explained Blair Hagen, executive vice-principal of the National Firearms Association of Canada, a gun advocacy group. “There is no said limit. You can own as many firearms as you can safely store,” Hagen said. “If you own a large number of firearms or you plan to a collect, the onus (under the Firearms Regulation Act) is on you to store them safely and prevent unauthorized access and theft. And most collect responsibly.” Gun owners are licensed under two categories, as target shooters and hunters or as collectors, he said. Many collectors in every province in Canada own upwards of 100 to 150 guns that are stored in specially-built safe-rooms “because they like firearms and because they can,” Hagen said. “It’s an investment. Enthusiasts use them as a retirement plan.” But no gun registry program could have prevented the incident in Côte St-Luc in which a police officer was injured, he added. “People barricade themselves under all kinds of circumstances. Did the firearms contribute to it? No. He could have been armed with all kinds of things,” Hagen said. “But law enforcement always assumes there is an arm in this situation, so they wouldn’t have acted any differently.” The RCMP’s website says there are 1.9 million valid gun licenses issued throughout Canada as of March 2013. “There are actually, based on ownership and importation records, about 20 million firearms in Canada,” Hagen said. “If you are in possession and you don’t have a licence, you are committing a criminal offence.” A report by Canada’s auditor-general said the gun registry has cost Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion. ------------------------------- CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house Family lawyer identifies suspect as 71-year-old Isidore Havis CBC News Posted: Jul 31, 2013 7:36 AM ET Last Updated: Jul 31, 2013 4:45 PM ET http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2013/07/31/montreal-cote-st-luc-standoff-gun-police-guelph-street.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, August 1, 2013 1:12 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: SUN NEWS VIDEOS - BEHIND THE CRIME STATS SUN NEWS VIDEO - BEHIND THE CRIME STATS - July 29, 2013 20:44 Mike Sutherland, of the Winnipeg Police Association, explains to Tom Brodbeck what the latest crime stats mean for the safety of Canadians. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/behind-the-crime-stats/2572734508001/page/2 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:36:09 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: 182 scary guns- Digest V15 #848 On 2013-07-31, at 9:49 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Wed, July 31, 2013 5:58 pm > From: "mikeack" > Subject: Re: CBC - Man in Montreal-area standoff had 182 guns in house > > So given that history, why did he have a PAL??? Precisely, and even before P.A.L.s a court order or even power of attorney by his son would have allowed the firearms to be removed from his home. This is just played by the anti-gun CBC to frighten people, to make guns scary. > > -- > M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) > Rural Family Physician, > Sherbrooke, NS > > mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca > > "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:26:54 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Re: U.S. coverage- Digest V15 #848 On 2013-07-31, at 9:49 PM, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:50:00 -0700 > From: "Joe Gingrich" > Subject: regarding: off topic detritus in the digest > > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 20:50:00 -0700 > From: j davies > Subject: off topic detritus in the digest > > If what you are about to post is not about C-68 related topics, > including second amendment stuff from the US, then it shouldn't be > here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I probably post most of the "second amendment stuff" from the U.S. on > the Digest. > > Since Harper's Bill C-68 is so relevant to the U.S. 2nd Amendment, if we > fail to post about one we actually fail to post about the other and we > all lose. Much of the prejudice against civilian possession of firearms in Canada originates from the U.S. anti-gun media and corrupt big city politics, e.i. Chicago, New York City, L.A. . Because the in the U.S. criminal codes are under state jurisdiction, most unreasonable firearm restrictions has been successfully resisted on a state by state fight. Again, we need to do what equivalency we can here. There are lessons and inspiration to be garnered from those who successfully defend their rights. They refuse to give up. But they don't tilt at windmills. They do fight the federal intrusions but are based in a state by state tactic that supports a larger strategy. Though, admittedly, we are sometimes distracted by too much focus south and only live in the shadow of their accomplishments. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #850 *********************************** 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".)