From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #240 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, April 24 2014 Volume 16 : Number 240 In this issue: Too Much Faith in our RCMP? CSSA E-NEWS COMMENTARY: RCMP Using Gun Bans As Last Gasp For ... Re: CBC - Handguns, assault rifles seized at Alaska/Yukon ... Civility Works Both Ways "Man who stopped Molotov cocktail attack at gas station to ... USA TODAY - Gun checks miss millions of fugitives Spring bear hunt- Ont. Minister admits it's an issue of ... WILDROSE QUESTIONS JUSTICE MINISTER ON "HIGH RIVER GUN GRAB" re: "Shoot Like A Girl" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:29:57 -0600 From: "Bruce Montague" Subject: Too Much Faith in our RCMP? Larry James Fillo wrote in response to Mr. Wright not being charged by the RCMP: "No charges were laid by the R.C.M.P. because no crime was committed [by Mr. Wright]. The elements of a criminal charge don't exist. period. They certainly had the time to decide if there was." I would like to point out that our RCMP are a very biased organization that is run more by politics than justice. I'm puzzled as to why you seem so sure a "crime" was not committed. Am I the only one who doesn't believe that Wright just gave over $90,000 of his own money to help out us poor taxpayers??? I would think that it would take a VERY good friend or family member that would voluntarily fork over that much money out of their own pocket! I think it's obvious (to me at least) that a crime was committed, the only real questions are 1- Can it be proven, and more importantly 2- Does the RCMP have the guts to press on with charges? Just think of what would happen if it was one of us who overcharged, say the government, then when it looked like you might get caught another one of us would bail you out with money from a questionable source. I think it would be safe to say that both of these "friends" would end up facing criminal charges. Just my take on things. Yours in Liberty, Bruce. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, April 22, 2014 1:11 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: CSSA E-NEWS COMMENTARY: RCMP Using Gun Bans As Last Gasp For ... ...Relevance TEAM CSSA E-NEWS Bulletins - Apr 21, 2014 E-News http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/e-news.html COMMENTARY: RCMP Using Gun Bans As Last Gasp For Relevance COMMENTARY: CSSA Honoured To Present Esteemed AGM Speakers Ottawa Pistol Match Sun News Celebrates Three Years Amnesty Reminder For Gun Owners Are Knives The New Guns? Shoot Like A Girl Animal Rights Lefties Say Bear Hunt Is Cruel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:23:43 -0400 From: Kindanyume Subject: Re: CBC - Handguns, assault rifles seized at Alaska/Yukon ... ...border /facepalm @ cbc as well as the other morons involved.. On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Young wrote: > CBC - Handguns, assault rifles seized at Alaska/Yukon border > 2 U.S. residents face firearms-smuggling charges > CBC News Posted: Apr 20, 2014 8:57 AM CT| Last Updated: Apr 20, 2014 8:57 > AM > CT > > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/handguns-assault-rifles-seized-at-alaska-yukon-border-1.2614154 > > Canada Customs officials intercepted three people in the last few months > trying to bring weapons across Yukon's Beaver Creek border crossing. In one > incident, an Alaska man was charged after failing to declare several > firearms in his possession. On Feb. 15, a U.S. resident failed to declare > a > handgun, a loaded assault rifle and an empty 30-round magazine while trying > to cross into Canada. He has been charged with two counts of smuggling, two > counts of possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition, and one count > of possession of a prohibited weapon. Another U.S. resident faces nine > counts of firearms-related smuggling offences after officers found a > handgun, an assault rifle and 79 prohibited ammunition magazines in his > vehicle on Feb. 24. > Canada Border Services Agency says the law is clear - all persons crossing > the border must declare weapons in their possession. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:59:27 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Civility Works Both Ways http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/civility-works-both-ways.htm Civility Works Both Ways By Nicki Kenyon, April 22nd 2014 JPFO writer contributor, © 2014. Have you ever noticed how gun grabbers belittle, vilify and berate those of us who vocally support and defend the Second Amendment as "paranoid," "irrational" and "extremist," while hypocritically demanding "civility" when we begin to push back? We are supposed to bow to their recently-invented, unreasonable "right to feel safe," (which must be in the Constitution right between the right to a pony and the right to your very own leprechaun with a pot of gold) as justification for relieving us of our fundamental right to defend ourselves against violence. We are supposed to show respect for their hoplophobia, even if it harms us and destroys our freedoms in the long run. We're supposed to be polite and civil, even as they berate us for merely wishing to freely exercise our rights. We're supposed to subordinate very real basic freedoms to their irrational whims. Some so-called "gun rights advocates" have fallen for this drivel. "I'm a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, but ..." But what? Apparently it is not civil to exercise your Second Amendment right openly. It is considered "crossing a line of decency." Apparently asserting our rights is akin to rubbing them in the faces of those who seek to destroy them. Apparently we must genuflect at the altar of capriciousness and cowardice, so we can avoid criticism from those who seek to destroy our freedoms. "Strapping a pistol on your belt makes a strong statement that sometimes inflames others similar to a person wearing a very offensive T-shirt," says one "staunch defender" of the Second Amendment. No. Just no. It is repugnant to the very principle of liberty to compare a fundamental right to an obscenity on a T-shirt. We can discuss whether it is tactically wise to open carry a firearm. We can discuss whether it gives a potential assailant a strategic advantage and time to plan how to better disarm his prey. We can even discuss the advantage of being openly armed and the deterrent open carrying can be, potentially forcing a would-be aggressor to think twice before attacking. But what we should not ever discuss is the concept of a fundamental right as a comparison to an obscenity. And we should never ever allow our ideological opponents to transform the discussion into an abhorrent, irrelevant, hysterical strawman that drags the debate into the mire of their histrionics. The moment we allow our opponents to define our rights and freedoms as Americans and human beings as something obscene and offensive, we have already lost, and we will be left to defend ourselves against allegations that, in their warped world, turn the basic right to own and carry your property as something indecent and extreme. As Kurt Hofmann wrote in an earlier alert, "The idea that we must be more 'polite,' lest we frighten 'the very people we want to attract to our side,' ignores the nature of the right we are fighting for." It is the right to repel violence with violence -- whether said violence stems from an individual looking to do you harm or a government aspiring to trample your freedoms. This is not a polite goal, and beating around the bush about the true purpose of the Second Amendment only paints us as frightened and embarrassed of our own convictions. Likewise, hiding the freedoms we claim to treasure as a shameful secret, lest someone gets nervous to assuage their feelings of hysteria merely weakens our convictions. That said, class, consideration and decency never go out of style. Last year, Starbucks changed its longstanding policy of abiding by state law and welcoming open carry, concealed carry and non-carry coffee drinkers to their stores to prohibiting firearms inside its stores. Why? Because instead of calmly exercising their rights, some open carry advocates dragged Starbucks kicking and screaming into the gun-rights controversy by staging "Appreciation Days" (read: mini victory rallies, because Starbucks would not grovel at the gun grabbers' feet and would not ban firearms in their stores) and invading their local Starbucks in droves while openly carrying their AR15 rifles. Starbucks didn't want to be in the middle of a gun control debate. They just wanted to serve coffee and make money. But that did not matter to some, who decided they would exercise their rights as flamboyantly as possible, so they could show that they could, and so they could rub that ability into the faces of their opponents. As a result, Starbucks asked them politely to leave their guns at home when visiting their stores, and our ostentatious friends succeeded in accomplishing what hoplophobes could not: they caused Starbucks to no longer welcome armed citizens to their stores. As a result, gun rights advocates snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. No, open carrying is not provocative. It is your right, and you should be free to choose whether to carry concealed or in the open, as best fits your circumstance. But a little consideration and courtesy go a long way, and we would do well to remember that. Was this information valuable to you? If so, please consider donating, becoming a member or renewing your membership, or buying a DVD, book, tee-shirt, or other gear at our JPFO store. Nicki Kenyon has been an avid gun rights advocate since she returned to the United States from an overseas Army tour in Germany. She began writing about Second Amendment issues in 2001 when KeepAndBearArms.com published her first essay, "The Moment.". She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in International Relations from the Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from American Military University. Her area of expertise in those fields is European and Eurasian affairs. When not writing about gun rights or hanging out with her husband and son, she practices dry-firing her M1911 at the zombies of "The Walking Dead." 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: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:23:47 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: "Man who stopped Molotov cocktail attack at gas station to ... ...get bravery award " In an emergency the police and fire fighters are only minutes away. Citizen cop to the rescue. ================================================== http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/ottawa/stopped+Molotov+cocktail+attack+station+bravery+award/9764346/story.html Man who stopped Molotov cocktail attack at gas station to get bravery award By Oliver Sachgau, OTTAWA CITIZEN April 23, 2014 10:52 AM Brennan Richardson is to receive a Medal of Bravery from Gov.-General David Johnston on Thursday. Richardson stopped a man who threatened to blow up a gas station with a Molotov cocktail. Photograph by: Jean Levac , Ottawa Citizen OTTAWA — His friends introduce him as Ottawa’s Batman, and the federal government is rewarding him with a medal of bravery this week. But Brennan Richardson says he’s lucky things didn’t go worse that time he stopped a man from blowing up a gas station. Richardson, 28, said Tuesday that he was buying an energy drink around midnight at the Esso gas station on Bank Street and Gladstone Avenue when a man, dressed in black and wearing a ski mask, came in. “I thought it was silly of me at the time, suspecting anything. Maybe his face is cold. It’s legitimate to wear a ski mask in January,” Richardson said. But when the man turned around, Richardson saw that he was holding a lit Molotov cocktail — a bottle containing flammable liquid with a rag stuffed in the top. Richardson said he wasn’t sure whether the man meant to rob the station, or destroy it. “He said, ‘All right boys.’ That’s the only thing he said. At the time I wasn’t sure if he meant, ‘All right, this is my protest statement against Esso,’ or, ‘All right, give me your money before this fireball goes off,’ ” Richardson said. Richardson lunged at the man and tried to hold him so that he couldn’t throw the cocktail at the gas station employees. “I believed if I could hold his arms above his head he wouldn’t be able to throw it,” Richardson said. They struggled, and Richardson managed to push the man out the doors to the pumps. Looking back, he says, that was also a dangerous move, but it made sense at the time. “It was either that or have him drop it in the gas station convenience store. That’s a pretty small space,” Richardson said. Things got a little scary when the man managed to break Richardson’s grip and throw the cocktail at one of the gas pumps. The bottle broke but, luckily, it didn’t ignite. At that point, the gas station manager came out and ripped the mask off the man, who then fled. For his actions, Richardson will be recognized on Thursday, along with 41 other Canadians, with a Medal of Bravery present by Gov.-Gen. David Johnston. Richardson said he doesn’t feel his actions were all that heroic. “I have a number of friends who’ve been in the Canadian Armed Forces, friends who work in the health care industry, and I think there’s a lot of acts of bravery that go on, on a daily basis, that go unnoticed. I don’t think I have any right to claim it more than they do,” he said. He also recognized that he was lucky to escape without any serious harm. Had the bottle dropped on one of them, he could have been set on fire. “In the moment, I didn’t think about how much worse it could have gone,” he said. “As we were fighting I could feel the flames singeing my face and hands, but I didn’t really register it until after it was done,” His only regret, he said, is that he didn’t think of anything cool to say as they struggled. “He was swearing at me pretty profusely, and in the midst of it all I could think to say was No. And I didn’t even say it in a dramatic way, I said it like a teacher would.” Richardson said he won’t make a habit of running toward danger but that he couldn’t guarantee that it won’t find him. “I don’t go looking for the dangerous situations. I just seem to find myself in them.” ------------------------------ Date: Wed, April 23, 2014 12:22 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: USA TODAY - Gun checks miss millions of fugitives USA TODAY - Gun checks miss millions of fugitives Enormous gaps remain in overnment's National Instant Background Check System particularly when it comes to identifying fugitives Brad Heath, USA TODAY 1:37 p.m. EDT April 23, 2014 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/22/fugitives-gun-background-checks/7959529/ WASHINGTON - Millions of fugitives can pass undetected through federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments across the country routinely fail to put their names into a national database that tracks people on the run from the law. Those background checks, conducted by the FBI, are designed to block fugitives, felons, the mentally ill and others who might be violent from buying firearms. They automatically bar sales to anyone identified in federal records as having an outstanding arrest warrant, even if it is for a minor crime. Yet despite years of attempts to shore up the government's National Instant Background Check System, enormous gaps remain, particularly when it comes to identifying fugitives. In five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI about at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, police and court records show. Among them are tens of thousands of people wanted for violent offenses and other felonies. "I remember when I bought my first gun thinking that I could have had a felony warrant for murder and they wouldn't have known," said Kevin Collins, who supervises Michigan's fugitive database for the state police. Michigan police are required to report every arrest warrant to the state police, but they share only about 7% with the FBI - a process that would require little more than checking two boxes in the state's computer system. The result is that the federal databases used to conduct background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants. That means a fugitive from Michigan could walk into a gun store anywhere in the country, agree to a background check and walk out with a gun and neither the FBI nor the store would have any way to know he was wanted. The gaps are largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. The FBI fugitive database is built to help police find people once they leave the state, and many agencies see no reason to include the names of fugitives they have no intention of pursuing. An investigation last month by USA TODAY found that tens of thousands of fugitives - including people on the run from charges of robbery, sexual assault and murder - could escape justice merely by crossing a state border. Those fugitives are responsible for a substantial share of violent crime. In Washington, for example, one of every six people charged with murder was already wanted by the police for another crime. READ THE REST: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/22/fugitives-gun-background-checks/7959529/ COMMENT: I suspect the same is true in Canada. The only guaranteed way to get listed on CPIC and checked daily by police is to apply for a federal firearms license. -------------------------------- CANADA FREE PRESS - Maintaining Information on Law-abiding Citizens on CPIC Serves No Legitimate Purpose By Gary Mauser (Bio and Archives) Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - "Quis costodiet ipsos custodes?"--"Who will watch the watchers?" Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61374 CANADA FREE PRESS: Real Gun Control Means Controlling Bad Guys It's time to stop treating law-abiding hunters, farmers and sports shooters worse than criminals By Dennis R. Young (Bio and Archives) Thursday, January 9, 2014 Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/60369#.UtAI3J5dXNk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:13:23 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Spring bear hunt- Ont. Minister admits it's an issue of ... ...human safety Having the Ont. Minister, whose Dept. oversees hunting, admit that the re-introduction of the Spring Bear Hunt, is being done as a matter of public safety, that is significant. If the Conservative Mike Harris government had done that Ontario would have never lost the spring hunt. That this is being done by an electorally desperate Ont. Liberal government is interesting. (And if the P.C. of Mulroney/Campbell hadn't attacked peaceful firearms owners, they would not have been reduced to two seats. The "safe storage" and safety course regulations increased the number of people, including children mauled and killed by bears. see Gary Shelton's "Bear Attacks: The Deadly Truth" I + II) What neither the spoke persons, nor Sunnews Faith Goldy has mentioned yet, is the first rule of wildlife management (and herd management, too). Animal population grow to the limit of their food supply, habitat and predation upon them. So an expanding population is always going to have some new adults and juveniles and even older adult bears showing up in cities, towns, farms and acreages and cottage country. And also, they'll be presenting more of a danger to humans in wilderness settings. Hunted predators are wary of humans and come to regard us as something to stay away from. That helps to keep us safe. By reducing the bear population, it also reduces the competition for territory and food supply. Usually, a full bear is a happy bear. (Though don't show up in his/her blueberry patch, unarmed.) Also, the quickest way to reduce an animal population is to shoot females, whether that is deer or bears. In the fall areas that are overpopulated with deer, they have anterless seasons. Where an extra one or two does tags are offered. It works. Having a two bears per season(combining spring and fall) reduced predatory bear populations around Hudson Bay some years ago, and resulted in an increase in the moose calf survival rate. Bears shot in the fall are going to include some females and though fewer in the spring, a few will be shot as well. The number of sows and cubs killed by traffic and dominant adult male bears will greatly exceed this. Banning the spring bear hunt undoubtedly led to fewer bear cubs surviving being predated upon by dominant adult male bears. A study of a no bear hunt area experiment on a large island found that after a few years very few cubs survive. The large male bears heavily predated on them. With a spring bear hunt, the cub survival rate does go up, but again a percentage of them will end up having to be hunted or shot as they grow up and expand into new territory. Juvenile bears out hunting/gathering on their own can be quite aggressive, and attack humans just because we, slow running, unarmed and made of meat and are just such easy targets. I recall a story of a woman in her yard near Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba being attacked by a small juvenile bear. Traditionally, rural people simply shot them and often kept the fur and meat for generations. It worked cheaply and effectively and kept livestock and people safe for generations. Now with over regulation of both hunting bears and the means to do so, firearms, Conservation Officers and sometime police are called on to kill bears at taxpayer expense. This instead of hunters or local residents doing so as a benefit to the community. Researching for an article some years ago, I found that there was a significant increase in people being mauled, eaten and killed(often in that order) by bears in the last 25 years that hadn't been seen in the previous 100 years. And with animals at the top of the food chain, humans. (A bear ham, cured like a pork ham and then pressure cooked briefly, can be very like back bacon. Though uncured bear meat can be quite gamey, not for everyone.) http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3496687974001 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, April 23, 2014 1:36 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: WILDROSE QUESTIONS JUSTICE MINISTER ON "HIGH RIVER GUN GRAB" WILDROSE MLA SHAYNE SASKIW QUESTIONS ALBERTA JUSTICE MINISTER JONATHAN DENIS ON "HIGH RIVER GUN GRAB" Here is the text from the Alberta Hansard, Page 538 http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/hansards/han/legislature_28/session_2/20140422_1330_01_han.pdf The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills, followed by Leduc-Beaumont. Firearm Collection during High River Flooding Mr. Saskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This very liberal Justice minister has done a good job ducking responsibility for his government's part in the High River gun grab. However, documents obtained through an access to information request show a yet to be identified minister had advance information about plans to kick in doors and seize guns from private homes in the flood-ravaged town well before it happened. Minister, the truth has a way of coming out. If any minister in this PC government had advance information about the High River gun grab, shouldn't it be you? Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I thank this member for his question about the continuation of our common-sense conservative justice policies. As I've indicated before at our main estimates, I can only speak for myself, and I found out about this issue when I was visiting the RCMP detachment and saw many guns coming in. I immediately wrote a letter to the RCMP former commissioner, Dale McGowan, which I've already tabled here. That actually has triggered a full investigation. I'll let the RCMP complete that. The Speaker: First supplemental. Mr. Saskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that we now know a minister from this incompetent PC government had advance information about the gun grab in High River, will the minister commit to an independent investigation to see which minister took actions against law-abiding gun owners in High River, or is that a stone he just doesn't want turned over? Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, there already is an independent investigation going on, and that's with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. That's not police investigating police; that actually is a fully independent body. I expect that probably sometime in June, but that's in their hands. I will make it public to this Assembly when I get it. The Speaker: Final supplemental. Mr. Saskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that this Justice minister said that there was no direction from his government to do this, does he understand that if the minister named in this document turns out to be him, Albertans will know with certainty that he was the one that ordered the gun seizures and that his Trudeau-inspired and PC-endorsed liberal agenda will be uncovered? Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order. I'd like to indicate that perhaps this member should be doing better research as an MLA and stop practising law as a criminal defence attorney. -------------------------------------- SHAYNE SASKIW, Wildrose MLA, Lac La Biche-St. Paul-Two Hills http://www.saskiw.ca/ JUSTICE MINISTER JONATHAN DENIS PC MLA for Calgary-Acadia http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_contact&rnumber=03&leg=28 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:50:27 -0700 From: Todd Birch Subject: re: "Shoot Like A Girl" I'm going to suggest that my wife sign up on that forum. She has a Remington baseball cap (in pink, of course) with the logo "Shoot like a girl if you can!" Wearing that hat, she has twice won in club rifle matches with her .243, winning in 200 and 300 yard shoot-offs against a hot shot male shooter with a 6.5 Swede. No – she did not offer him the hat as a prize! Subsequently, they upped the minimum calibre first to .25 and then to 6.5, as it was listed as a "big game rifle match", the local belief being that effective deer/moose cartridges start at the .300 Magnum potential. That effectively ruled out the ladies, so they came up with an "Itty-Bitty Buddy" shoot where you got teamed up with another shooter by draw. Anyone who got paired up with her had it in the bag. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #240 *********************************** 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".)