From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #280 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 Tuesday, May 20 2014 Volume 16 : Number 280 In this issue: ?utf-8?Q?‘High_risk’_label_from_feds_puts? Moms' group targets Chipotle's gun friendly atmosphere Maxime Bernier: Quebec needs to embrace Canada Re: Letter to John Walsh ... response ... RE: CONSERVATIVE MP BLAKE RICHARDS RESPONDS Canada's 3rd Annual Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus Shooting Day My response to my MP, Blake Richards Re: Firearms Licensing machete men car jacking in Saskatoon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:03:44 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: ?utf-8?Q?‘High_risk’_label_from_feds_puts? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/ ‘High risk’ label from feds puts gun sellers in banks’ crosshairs, hurts business Obama plan pressures financial institutions Editors’ Picks: May 18, 2014 Gun retailers say the Obama administration is trying to put them out of business with regulations and investigations that bypass Congress and choke off their lines of credit, freeze their assets and prohibit online sales. Since 2011, regulators have increased scrutiny on banks’ customers. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2011 urged banks to better manage the risks of their merchant customers who employ payment processors, such as PayPal, for credit card transactions. The FDIC listed gun retailers as “high risk” along with porn stores and drug paraphernalia shops. Meanwhile, the Justice Department has launched Operation Choke Point, a credit card fraud probe focusing on banks and payment processors. The threat of enforcement has prompted some banks to cut ties with online gun retailers, even if those companies have valid licenses and good credit histories. “This administration has very clearly told the banking industry which customers they feel represent ‘reputational risk’ to do business with,” said Peter Weinstock, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams LLP. “So financial institutions are reacting to this extraordinary enforcement arsenal by being ultra-conservative in who they do business with: Any companies that engage in any margin of risk as defined by this administration are being dropped.” A Justice Department representative said the agency is conducting several investigations that aim to hold accountable banks “who are knowingly assisting fraudulent merchants who harm consumers.” “We’re committed to ensuring that our efforts to combat fraud do not discourage or inhibit the lawful conduct of these honest merchants,” the Justice Department said in a May 7 blog post. But gun retailers say their businesses are being targeted in the executive branch’s efforts: • T.R. Liberti, owner and operator of Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami, has felt the sting firsthand. Last month, his local bank, BankUnited N.A., dumped his online business from its service. An explanatory email from the bank said: “This letter in no way reflects any derogatory reasons for such action on your behalf. But rather one of industry. Unfortunately your company’s line of business is not commensurate with the industries we work with.” • Black Rifle Armory in Henderson, Nevada, had its bank accounts frozen this month as the bank tried to determine whether any of Black Rifle’s online transactions were suspicious. • In 2012, Bank of America suddenly dropped the 12-year account of McMillan Group International, a gun manufacturer in Phoenix, even though the company had a good credit history, the owner said. Gun parts maker American Spirit Arms in Scottsdale, Arizona, received similar treatment by Bank of America, the country’s largest banking institution. “This seems to be happening with greater frequency and to many more dealers,” said Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms. “At first, it was the bigger guys — gun parts manufacturers or high-profile retailers. Now the smaller mom-and-pop shops are being choked out, and they need their cash to buy inventory. Freezing their assets will put them out of business.” Choking off access to banks After McMillan Group owner Kelly McMillan publicized Bank of America’s action on his Facebook account, he found that thousands of small gun-shop owners across the country were in the same situation. Banks were either dropping them, freezing their accounts or refusing to process their online sales, so he opened a credit card processing company for the gun industry called McMillan Merchant Solutions. “Four generations of my family have been in this industry. This is my way to give back,” said Mr. McMillan, adding that many of his customers were denied banking access because of the nature of their business. “This is an attempt by the federal government to keep people from buying guns and a way for them to combat the Second Amendment rights we have. It’s a covert way for them to control our right to manufacture guns and individuals to buy guns.” BankUnited N.A., which dropped Top Gun Firearms Training & Supply in Miami from its customer list, declined to comment. In a statement to The Washington Times, Bank of America said: “We would not deny banking services to an organization solely on the basis of its industry.” The banking giant blamed a misunderstanding with the Arizona gun manufacturers McMillan Group International and American Spirit Arms. However, the American Banking Association, the industry’s advocacy group in Washington, said businesses deemed “risky” will be frozen out of the financial system if the Justice Department continues Operation Choke Point because the regulatory burden and risk of investigation will be too great for less-specialized banks to bear. “We’re being threatened with a regulatory regime that attempts to foist on us the obligation to monitor all types of transactions,” Richard Riese, a senior vice president at the American Bankers Association, said in the April 28 issue of American Banker. “All of this is predicated on a notion that the banks are a choke point for all businesses.” In an interview with The Times, Mr. Riese said the cost of doing business with gun retailers outweighs the benefits for some banks, given that regulators deem the industry as “risky,” state laws vary on the sale of guns and ammunition, and the Justice Department’s enforcement. The Independent Community Bankers of America, an association for small banks, said enforcement actions from the Justice Department are too broad and overly aggressive. “While preventing fraud is a top concern for community banks, it needs to be balanced with ensuring that businesses and consumers that operate in accordance with applicable laws can still access payment systems,” bankers association President Camden Fine told the Justice Department in an April 7 letter. “ICBA requests that the DOJ suspend Operation Choke Point immediately and focus its resources directly on businesses that may be violating the law, rather than targeting banks providing payment services.” Justice’s operation threatens to “close access to the financial system to law-abiding businesses, because the mere prospect of an enforcement action is sufficient to cause financial institutions to restrict access to their payment systems to only established companies that present low risks,” the organization said. ‘No statutory authority’ Regulations on the financial industry have increased over the past few years, said Thomas P. Vartanian, chairman of Dechert LLP, a global law firm specializing in regulatory and financial matters. He noted the chilling effect of overregulation by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency behemoth that includes the departments of Commerce, Justice, Labor, Education, Homeland Security and Justice along with the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Social Security Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. “The key to effective regulation is the balancing between too little and too much regulation,” Mr. Vartanian said. “The problem here is that there are now so many regulators, including the Department of Justice, with their fingers on the scales on that balancing act.” Congressional Republicans say the Obama administration is using its regulatory powers to shutter industries it doesn’t like. Last year, 31 Republicans accused the Justice Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of intimidating banks and payment processors to “terminate business relationships with lawful lenders.” In a March hearing before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs subcommittee on consumer protection, Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, complained that several payday lenders — another industry labeled “risky” by the administration — were being dropped by their banks in his home state. “There is a determined effort from [the Justice Department] to the regulators to cut off credit and use other tactics to force [payday lenders] out of business,” Mr. Vitter said. “I find that deeply troubling because it has no statutory basis, no statutory authority.” In a House hearing in April, FDIC acting General Counsel Richard Osterman defended his agency’s definition of what constitutes a “risky” business — subject to money laundering or other criminal behavior — but made it clear that no bank is outright prohibited from serving any such companies. “We have actually put out a policy statement on this issue to make it very clear from the very top that as long as financial institutions are properly managing their relationships and the risks, they’re neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing these services,” Mr. Osterman said. “Basically, what we’re saying is, these types of programs can be, can involve high-risk activities that could create litigation risk and reputation risk for financial institutions,” he said. “So, they need to do due diligence to ensure that the folks who they’re banking are acting in a safe and sound manner.” But the cost of that due diligence, coupled with the threat of a lawsuit for doing business with a customer in an industry the government has defined as risky, is having a chilling effect on legitimate companies such as gun dealers, said Mr. Weinstock, the Hunton & Williams lawyer. “We are one of the most heavily regulated industries in America,” said Mr. Sirochman of American Spirit Arms. “We have to ship our guns to another federal licensed dealers for pickup. The people that are picking up the rifles have to go through a background check to make sure they don’t have any felonies. You can’t own a gun or pass the background check if you do. “All this is, is an assault on our Second Amendment rights.” ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 08:31:19 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Moms' group targets Chipotle's gun friendly atmosphere http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/20/moms-group-targets-chipot les-gun-friendly-atmosphe/ Moms’ group targets Chipotle’s gun-friendly atmosphere By Cheryl K. Chumley Tuesday, May 20, 2014 Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group that campaigns for crackdowns on Second Amendment carry freedoms, has set its sights on Chipotle restaurants, calling for a reversal of the chain’s open-door policy for gun owners. The group just fought for Jack in the Box to ban guns from the inside of chain restaurants, after a group of permitted carriers brought their rifles into one Fort Worth facility. Now the members are trying to capitalize on that effort, and have turned to Chipotle, where Dallas patrons were seen carrying in their lawful rifles, Breitbart reported. Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts started the social media swirl with a tweet: “Tell @ChipotleTweets open carry isn’t good for business. Just ask @Starbucks and @JackBox #BurritosNotBullets @MomdDemand #gunsense.” She also sent another tweet: “@ChipotleTweets If @Starbucks and @jackbox did it, you can, too: momsdemandaction.org … Stop open carry in your stores. #BuurritosNotBullets.” Ms. Watts‘ tweets carry a bit of spin. Neither Starbucks nor Jack in the Box issued company commands to stop patrons from openly carrying their weapons, Breitbart reported. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said that due to the Moms Demand Action group’s pressure, he’s asked customers to try and contain their flamboyancy while addressing the gun rights issues, but they were not prohibited from carrying in the establishments, Breitbart said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 8:49 am From: "Dennis Young" Subject: Maxime Bernier: Quebec needs to embrace Canada Maxime Bernier: Quebec needs to embrace Canada Even when Ottawa sends more money, the reaction in Quebec City is that it’s never enough Maxime Bernier, National Post | May 20, 2014 8:30 AM ET http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/20/maxime-bernier-quebec-needs-to-embrace-canada/ Since the provincial election, the media has devoted a lot of space to the uncertain future of the Parti Québécois. But there is a much more pressing and relevant matter to address, one that has received hardly any attention: How are we, as Quebecers, going to reclaim our place in Canada? As I see it, that stability that we need hinges on three major changes in attitude. First of all, we must come to terms with who and what we are, we Quebecers. Throughout the election campaign, Parti Québécois politicians kept repeating that we need to defend our identity and values. And it did this by playing on the fear of the other: fear of immigrants, fear of anglophones, and fear of the rest of Canada. The truth is, they refuse to accept what Quebec is today. They have always been obsessed with changing it. In particular, politically correct nationalist rhetoric demands that Quebec be referred to as a solely francophone society, where French is the only language that defines our identity. But this is simply not true. A large English-speaking population has been living in Quebec for a very long time. Unless you believe that only the descendants of French settlers are “real” Quebecers, the undeniable reality is that English has been a part of Quebec’s identity for some 250 years. Can we not just clearly acknowledge this once and for all? Acknowledge that English is a part of us, a part of our history, a part of our culture and a part of our identity. Acknowledge that English isn’t some foreign language but is one of Quebec’s languages. And consequently, give up the endless battle to restrict its use and its legitimacy through coercive policies. In addition to our French heritage shaping who we are, so too did the English language, and so too did British and Canadian institutions and symbols. Our identity includes all of this. Just like the French fact is part of the identity of all Canadians. The second major change in attitude that I see as necessary if we are to reclaim our place within Canada involves the benefits of federalism. In the 1970s, Robert Bourassa coined the term “profitable federalism” to counter separatist rhetoric. This was a very poor way of defending the merits of federalism. In the mind of many a Quebecer, the more money we extract from the rest of Canada, the more profitable federalism is deemed to be. Federalist and separatist Quebec governments have both used the threat of separation to go and get more money. Even when Ottawa sends more money, the reaction in Quebec City is that it’s never enough. We always want more, and if we don’t get it, well, then there’s the proof that federalism is not profitable. We need to stop looking at our membership in this country in such a selfish way, solely in terms of its financial benefit for us. Asserting our place in Canada means committing to responsible co-operation with our Canadian partners so that the country can function more effectively for every region and every Canadian. Finally, the third major change in attitude I see as being crucial concerns the reform of federalism. It’s been a truism for more than a generation that there is only one constitutional position that could rally the vast majority of Quebecers: a more autonomous Quebec within a united Canada. But this autonomist position has always been poorly defended. This is because every Quebec government for the last 50 years has undermined it by constantly making unrealistic demands. We’ve asked our Canadian partners to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to use that distinction in interpreting the Constitution. We’ve asked for more representatives in Parliament than our population would justify. We’ve asked for the only veto power over constitutional changes. And we’ve asked for all of this while holding a knife to their throats: Say yes or we’ll separate. Every party has engaged in this game of one‑upmanship. READ THE REST: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/20/maxime-bernier-quebec-needs-to-embrace-canada/ MAXIME BERNIER Email: maxime.bernier@parl.gc.ca Web Site: www.maximebernier.com/en ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:35:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Re: Letter to John Walsh ... response ... Dear Digest, The response to this message has been overwhelmingly positive. May I humbly suggest that if you agree with the gist of it, that you make your feelings known to your local Conservative MP. Mine, unfortunately has recently passed (Jim Flaherty), but this message seems to be hitting home amoung the faithful, and should be more widely adopted. We have several months before the next federal election, and there is no guarantee that the Harper gov't will be re-elected. There is much to be done. Cheers, Rob. [Mod note: Well put Rob] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 10:53:17 -0700 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: CONSERVATIVE MP BLAKE RICHARDS RESPONDS "In cleaning up the legislative mess left by the previous Liberal government, our Conservative government stands firmly with law-abiding and responsible gun owners. It was our government that took action to eliminate the Liberals' wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. Thanks to the support of citizens like you across Canada, we achieved this goal at long last in 2012. At the same time, our government has been clear that longstanding licensing requirements for firearms owners under Bill C-68 will remain in place." This is a classic bait and switch routine. Reel us in by promising to get rid of C-68, then telling us that getting rid of the "long gun registry" was the original agreement. These lying sons of bitches couldn't put lipstick on a pig without putting it on the wrong end. 45clive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, May 20, 2014 12:45 pm From: "Dennis Young" Subject: Canada's 3rd Annual Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus Shooting Day Excitement Builds for Canada's 3rd Annual Parliamentary Outdoors Caucus Shooting Day Ammoland - Published on Monday, May 19, 2014 Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/05/excitement-builds-for-canadas-3rd-annual-parliamentary-outdoors-caucus-shooting-day/#ixzz32Hb2qcB4 Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook Distributed to you by - AmmoLand.com - The Shooting Sports News source. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:25:08 -0600 From: "Dennis Young" Subject: My response to my MP, Blake Richards Re: Firearms Licensing Dear Minister Blaney: Below is my response to my MP, Blake Richards. Despite spending the last two years trying to educate Mr. Richards, he still doesn't get it, Bill C-68 does "penalize law abiding citizens". In fact, it treats licensed gun owners worse that criminals. See my letter attached that I never did receive either an acknowledgement or response from your office. I hope Mr. Richards is expressing his own views and not regurgitating PMO talking points. Thanks, Dennis R. Young Honourary Life Member of the CSSA and the NFA Airdrie, Alberta E-Mail: dennisryoung@telus.net From: Dennis Young [mailto:dennisryoung@telus.net] Sent: May-19-14 2:51 PM To: 'writeblake@blakerichards.ca' Cc: Blake Richards (blake@blakerichards.ca); blake.richards@parl.gc.ca Subject: RE: Canadian gun laws Importance: High Thanks Blake but licensing is the most egregious part of Bill C-68 because it makes us instant criminals the moment that piece of paper expires. I have owned a gun since I was 15 years old and have used it safely all my life. It is an insult that the Liberals forced me to buy a piece of paper every five years from the government just to possess something I have owned and used safely for decades. It is even more insulting that the Conservative government is not keeping their past promises to gun owners to repeal the whole mess (see below). I have not made a donation to the Conservative Party since January 2006 and will not vote for you until and unless you keep all your promises to law-abiding gun owners. Sincerely, Dennis 2004 - "The Conservative Party if Canada remains firmly committed to repealing the current Firearms Act, including its firearms registration provisions, and replacing it with a system of firearms control this is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly." Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C. M.P., Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada SOURCE: Letter to Edward B. Hudson DVM, MS dated September 9, 2004 http://www.cufoa.ca/articles/primeminister/pm_09_sep_2004.html 2002 - I leave you with the promise then leadership candidate Stephen Harper made to us all in January of 2002: I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on June 13, 1995: =91Bill C-68, if passed into law, will not be a good law. It will be a bad law, a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad law? It should be repealed C-68 has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government. As Leader of the Official Opposition, I will use all the powers afforded to me as Leader and continue our party's fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly. SOURCE: Excerpts from a speech given by Garry Breitkreuz, MP, Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association in Toronto, Ontario, on November 25, 2006. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006_new/110.htm PS: While you're at it, get your majority of Conservative members on the Public Safety Committee to uncover the true costs of Bill C-68! CANADA FREE PRESS - The Billion Dollar Boondoggle Continues The Conservative Government is spending of $57 million a year and keeps a staff of 500 to run the Liberal Government's Firearms Program By Dennis R. Young (Bio and Archives)=A0 Monday, May 12, 2014 http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63017 -------------------------------- From: writeblake@blakerichards.ca [mailto:writeblake@blakerichards.ca] Sent: May-19-14 2:36 PM To: dennisryoung@telus.net Subject: Re: Canadian gun laws Dear Dennis, Thank you for copying me on your recent letter to Minister=A0Aglukkaq. In cleaning up the legislative mess left by the previous Liberal government, our Conservative government stands firmly with law-abiding and responsible gun owners. It was our government that took action to eliminate the Liberals' wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry. Thanks to the support of citizens like you across Canada, we achieved this goal at long last in 2012. =A0At the same time, our government has been clear that longstanding licensing requirements for firearms owners under Bill C-68 will remain in place. Since the end of the long gun registry, I have personally and consistently advocated on behalf of responsible firearms owners, bringing your concerns to the Minister and the department. As a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I can tell you that our message is being heard. As you know, earlier this year when RCMP bureaucrats chose to reclassify a line of Swiss-imported firearms, our government took swift action, enacting an amnesty to ensure that individuals in possession of these firearms can continue to possess their property without threat of criminal charges. Moving forward, it is clear that the system by which firearms are classified must be reevaluated. Additional reforms of Canada's firearms legislation may be required. I will continue seeking common sense solutions that reinforce Canada's reputation as one of the safest countries in the world, without penalizing law-abiding citizens. Please know that I appreciate being made aware of your views and concerns as they help me to best represent our constituency in Parliament. Again, thank you. Yours sincerely, Blake Richards, Member of Parliament [Mod note: .pdf file deleted, as the CFD cannot handle binary files.] ------------------------------ Date: May 20, 2014 11:31 AMRelease Number: 2014346 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: machete men car jacking in Saskatoon Date: May 20, 2014 11:31 AMRelease Number: 2014346 Released By: Kelsie FraserOccurrence Number: 14-43766 Subject: Assault / Robbery - 200 Block Avenue L South Saskatoon Police are investigating after an early morning assault and robbery. At approximately 6:15 a.m., May 20, 2014, Saskatoon Police received a call that two males had been assaulted and had their vehicle stolen while stopped in the 200 block of Avenue L South. The victims reported that while stopped, two males wearing masks and armed with machetes had approached their vehicle and assaulted them. The suspects then stole the vehicle and were last seen traveling eastbound on 21st Street. At 6:33 a.m., Police recovered the stolen vehicle in a back lane in the 500 block of Avenue J South. The vehicle was unoccupied when located and the suspects have not been located. Both male victims, ages 27 and 58, were taken to hospital for treatment of injuries. Police continue to investigate. Anyone with information on this incident is asked to contact Saskatoon Police at 306-975-8300 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477. ================================================== Why do I label this "machetemen"? Well if everyone with a gun is labelled a gunman, then consistency would have terms like knifeman, macheteman and my fav., batman. Dial 9-11 be carjacked and hospitalized or dial .357 magnum? Support freedom of choice. The federal government(all parties) and the judiciary, they claim Canadians have a "right" to be a victim of crime. They've taken a dangerously radical political line. It violates Canada's tradition, under Common-law, of the right not to be a victim, and the responsibility to suppress crime. With rights come responsibility, tradition par of the meaning of a liberal democracy. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V16 #280 *********************************** 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".)