Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, October 19 1999 Volume 03 : Number 180 In this issue: RE: other Acts like C-68? SMALL HANDGUN SITUATION Re: Kearns "May" be correct??!!**$$ Just when you figure you've seen it all........... Re: Registration of personal property other than firearms WHICH REGISTRY WOULD SAVE THE MOST LIVES? Gun lobby favours sensible firearms control ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:13:21 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: RE: other Acts like C-68? Stephen Jenuth said: > They are too numerous to mention. Some examples include: > the Divorce Act, the Copyright Act, the Explosives Act, > the Competition Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, > the Income Tax Act, the Interest Act, the Food and Drug Act, > the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Bank Act, the Bankrupcy > and Insolvency Act, and the Integrated Circuits Topography Act. Folks, meet Stephen Jenuth. Ardent gun control enthusiast, and diehard Federal Liberal - waiting in the wings for his shot at an MP's seat or Liberal porkbarrel appointment for staying true to the cause, some believe. If the name doesn't ring a bell, perhaps this will. Stephen's greatest contribution to Canadian society to date is being one of the lawyers instrumental in winning our incarcerated rapists, murderers, and child molesters the right to vote in elections. Hmmmm... I wonder if that is because a convicted criminal would most likely rather deal, and therefore vote for, a court system run by a Liberal government as opposed to a criminal justice system with Reformers at the helm? Ahhh, but I digress.... Anyway, Stephen is (as usual) minimizing the unique and Draconian status of the Firearms Act - an act he describes as being little different than the legislation that requires him to register his car. Are Stephen's claims accurate? My blasting license is issued under the authority of the Explosives Act - but I didn't have to fill out ANYTHING remotely like an FAC application (even the older, kinder, gentler one) in order to get that license. How many of those other acts require people covered by those acts to submit to a similar questionaire and police investigation - every five years. When was the last time Revenue Canada demanded to know about your terminated personal relationships, business or school failures, etc when you filled out your income tax form? Tell us Stephan... how many of the above Acts that you mention as being similar require license applicants to fill out anything as remotely as invasive as what firearms license applicants must fill out - every five years? In fact, does Stephen have to submit to a similar questionaire and investigation every five years in order to continue practicing law? Not hardly. How many of the "examples" that Stephen mentions allow police (errrr... sorry... "firearms officers") to routinely search (errrr... sorry... "inspect") the HOME (not just the business place) of a person covered by that legislation? Not because of suspicion of wrongdoing, mind you - the authority for a "just because" search every year or so, no matter how law abiding. You can, of course, deny them permission to "inspect" your home - but that is de facto grounds for a search warrant. In fact, the belief that you will refuse to allow the search is also grounds for obtaining a search warrant. Some choice. And so it goes. All of the Acts Stephan mentions include SOME aspects of the Firearms Act - but not a single one of them comes anywhere near including all the aspects of the Firearms Act as it infringes on the private lives of Canadians, their homes, their property, and their recreational activities (despite their being in full compliance with all existing legislation and legal requirements). > Just about every piece of federal legislation intrudes into > the jurisdictions of the provinces. Whether it is draconian > depends on the eye of the beholder. Perhaps, but none is so thoroughly invasive into the personal lives of Canadians as the Firearms Act. Stephan doesn't think the Firearms Act is Draconian at all - of course, he believes it won't affect him personally, so if them nasty ol' gun owners get thoroughly screwed and their legally owned property stolen by their own government, it is no skin off of his nose. Stephan is also reasonably certain that HE won't have to suffer regular "inspections" of his home because of some legally owned property or license that he holds. Interesting that a man can work up so much angst that the rights of convicted child killers and rapists are violated by being denied the right to vote - but doesn't see a problem with police regularly doing "just in case" searches of the homes of Canadians who have been law abiding their entire lives. It do make one wonder, don't it? Welcome to the list Stephan; isn't it nice to be recognized and get a nice warm welcome everywhere you go? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:58 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: SMALL HANDGUN SITUATION >Myself and some of the other local guys who own F.A. 12(6) guns are getting >nervous as the November 30th deadline approaches. Remove the barrel and cylinder (if any). That moves the entire firearm inside the CC s. 84(1) "restricted firearm" (a) definition, so that is what the firearm IS after the barrel and cylinder have been removed. I personally have registration certificate number 71769.0001 for a "prohibited firearm" which had its barrel and cylinder removed. That registration certificate shows the firearm as "Restricted." The firearm is a Harrington and Richardson "Young America" revolver -- a typical 'suicide special.' The registration certificate shows NO "Barrel Length," NO "Calibre," and NO "Shots." Photocopies of registration certificate 71769.0001 are available from NFA, Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1. A small donation is requested to cover the cost of copying, mailing and handling, but I will send it even if you are too poor to donate. A stamped self-addressed envelope will speed the return by making it easier for me to stuff the envelope. The law only requires that your (or my) firearm be registered. If it IS registered, there is NO requirement that it be re-registered, for any reason, except in regulations 4, 5, 6 and 7 on pages 22 and 23 of the March 1998 Regulations or in a case where the registration certificate is revoked. The regulation 4, 5, 6, and 7 requirements only kick in IF there is a condition "attached to" the registration certificate that you have for that firearm. If you have no "attached condition," those regulations have NO effect on YOU. They just order the Registrar to do things that he has not been doing, so they might get HIM in trouble -- but not YOU. There is no place on either a pre-Dec-98 registration certificate OR a new plastic-card registration certificate for such a condition to BE "attached." The Registrar has not been "attaching" any conditions -- probably because the NFA pointed out, early on, that (1) those regulations constitute an attempt to illegally "fetter the discretion" of the Registrar, and (2) there is NO authority in either FA s. 117 or CC s. 117.15 for the Governor in Council to make such a regulation, so the regulations are null and void anyway. (On the back of registration certificate 71769.0001, it says, "Additional conditions are attached to this Registration" -- but there are no such conditions attached to it in any manner detectable by the holder, so that sentence is meaningless. It is not legally possible to bind the holder by imposing conditions that are kept secret from him.) Therefore, there is NO requirement to re-register the firearm simply because uncontrolled spare parts have been altered, removed, added or substituted. The LAW does not require it. You can be charged and convicted if you are found in possession of a short (under 105mm/4.14") handgun barrel, which is a "prohibited device." You do NOT have to "turn in" such a barrel if you remove it from one of your firearms, you just have to dispose of it. The law says that you are not allowed to be in possession of it -- and that's ALL the law says. The law does not give the firearms control officials any power to "demand" that you turn it in, so why do it? If you turn it in, then you are creating work for firearms control officials, and that costs tax dollars. Therefore, it is a tax dollar saving to dispose of the illegal barrel in some way that does not involve your employees who are paid by your tax dollars. Besides, if you take it to the police or a firearms control official, you are providing direct evidence that you are in possession of a "prohibited device" -- the short barrel -- and you MAY be arrested. It is safer to dispose of it privately. You can legally remove any or all uncontrolled spare parts from any firearm and dispose of them as you see fit. The registration certificate continues to cover the remaining "frame or receiver" -- which IS still a "firearm," in law -- and that registration certificate is still valid. Registration is like death or pregnancy -- it is an absolute, and no adjective can be legitimately applied to it. One is dead, pregnant, or registered -- or one is not. There is no half-way about an absolute. Perhaps it will cause upset in Ottawa if the firearms they registered as "prohibited firearms" yesterday turn out to be "restricted firearms" today. Perhaps it will come as a shock that they have no authority to seize or confiscate a firearm that they REGISTERED as a "prohibited firearm" yesterday, because it is NOT a "prohibited firearm" today -- it is now a registered "restricted firearm." True, the word "Prohibited" may be on the registration certificate -- but so what? The law defines the various classes of firearms by their physical characteristics, NOT by what it says on a registration certificate. That is not OUR fault, or our problem. They wrote the law, and they have to live with what they wrote -- just as we do. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:23 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Re: Kearns "May" be correct??!!**$$ briandrader@canada.com wrote: > Peter Kearns may be correct when he says that Canada Customs cannot LEGALLY > divulge the contents of your imports to the US authorities, Peter Kearns wrote: I suggest Brian thoroughly reads the Customs Act, Excise Act, and the Criminal Code of Canada. Brian will then find that I am correct in my statement, (and being one who puts his money where his mouth is) have included unlawful transmittal of confidential information relating to customs declarations in my lawsuit against the feds in Montreal, (and a new one for exactly the same thing at Halifax.) In Montreal kustoms handed over data and information relating to my customs declaration relating to 73 deactivated firearms to those worthy protectors of the innocent and oppressed (the Surete du Quebec, and to the Attorney General of Quebec) so that they could file false and malicious criminal charges against me! At Halifax they brought in R.C.M.P. forensic technician to examine my goods and thereby transmitted confidential information relating to my customs declaration.......... (They really don't ever learn!) For Brian's information. When you declare goods to a customs officer, the declaration is covered by exactly the same regulations as your personal income tax return, (absolutely confidential between you and Revenue Canada) and by similar sections in different Acts. They all say that no information may be transmitted by an employee of Revenue Canada to anyone not directly in the employ of Revenue Canada. Customs is an arm of Revenue canada, and kustoms officers are "direct employees, servants or agents" of Rev. Can. (The chumps did try an end run around that section of the law by designating all R.C.M.P. officers as customs officers.) It didn't work though, as they aren't directly employed by Revenue Canada, and no-one may clearly define where their police duties end and their customs duties begin. Clearly the potential is there for misuse by the (horrors not our national police!) R.C.M.P. of information supplied by Canada Customs, and that is why those sections are in the three Acts. Brian does us all a disservice by inventing scenario's in which he claims CSIS casually obtains and divulges confidential customs information to U.S. customs agents. I think this would make a great plot for a dime novel, but doesn't have any relationship to reality in the world as we know it. Canada Customs may not lawfully transmit or transfer any data relating to goods that you declared to any police or security agencies. To demonstrate this I will cite the following. Customs used to call ahead to the police when they suspected a driver was intoxicated at the border, and the police would merrily pick up the (supposed) drunk a few miles down the road. Unfortunately this convenient arrangement came to a grinding halt when an alleged drunk challenged the right of customs to transmit any information they garnered during his declaration of goods. The situation now is that either kustoms lets the drunk proceed, or arrest them (as peace officers) and file the DUI charges themselves. No Brian, I am not naieve enough to believe that unlawful transmission of our private tax information doesn't happen between Revenuse Canada and domestic police forces. The information we found to support my cases against the feds clearly demonstrate that the buggers do it when they figure they won't get caught. Because people like Tomlinson and myself "educate" the citizenry, this is indeed happening far less than it used to. Cheers, (as they say) Peter Kearns (The above opinions are mine, and may not reflect those of any national firearms organization or group.) Simon says: We must insure that those we pay to enforce the law, don't act unlawfully while doing their job. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:27 -0600 From: "Peter Kearns" Subject: Just when you figure you've seen it all........... I had my customer who tried to buy the Bushmaster receiver that caused the "Dealer Challenge" to be filed last December, visit me today. He received a new plastic registration card for the receiver in the mail this morning! This despite us notifying our CFO and Mirimachi that the sale was cancelled on 4th December 1998, and despite the customer notifying them as well. The reason we cancelled the sale was that the CFR attempted to have us illegally transfer a firearm that hadn't been verified or registered, (only in the country for two days,) and the refusal of our CFO to produce a letter stating that neither the seller nor purchaser would be criminally prosecuted for allowing them (the CFR) to transfer the restricted firearm. The CFO issued a TAN (by fax)and an authorization to transport, (by fax) on 3rd December 1998, but no letter. The customer said that Visa debited his account in August 1999 for this transaction and he immediately had them get his $25 back. So we have a really efficient bunch of registrars that tried to illegally transfer an unverified restricted firearm; refused to tell the purchaser or seller that they would not be prosecuted for followinng CFR instructions that both purchaser and seller knew were illegal; lifted $25 from the purchaser of the cancelled sale NINE MONTHS LATER, then promptly lost the $25........ Then two months later the idiots issued a registration to the customer who now legally owns my property! The receiver is safe in my vault, but according to the Firearms Act I am holding an arm for which I don't have a registration, so I guess I'm now a criminal! The registration, letter and envelope will go to my lawyer for use in the "Dealer Challenge," and afterward I think we'll donate the registration certificate to the NFA, (as they deserve a few good laughs!) I think the federal judge who hears this case will be unimpressed by the CFR's assertion that they are operating efficiently and enhancing public safety. Even Valin won't be able to put a spin on this latest screw up! By the way, the receiver is shown by the feds as being in stock at my store as well. ............ And we thought the old system was bad!!! regards, Peter Kearns Simon says: "I think we may have a legitimate claim against the feds for stealing K & McM's lawful property." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:38 -0600 From: "Glenn Springer" Subject: Re: Registration of personal property other than firearms >Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:28:11 -0600 >From: briandrader@canada.com >Subject: Registration of personal property other than firearms > >I'm aware of a few types of property that currently are registered with the >feds. Radio gear (ham radios and the like) and aircraft are currently >registered with the federal government > Untrue. Ham operators are licensed, their equipment is not. Interesting sidebar, graduated license system, annual expiry, renew it or lose it. I gave up my license a few years ago. Had it for over 30 years Glenn Springer ex-VE2BMS and VE3BMS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:42 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: WHICH REGISTRY WOULD SAVE THE MOST LIVES? NEWS RELEASE October 19, 1999 For Immediate Release LIBERALS WILL NOT SPEND MILLIONS WHERE THEY WOULD SAVE THE MOST LIVES "Organ donor registry and fight against organized crime take back seat to $275 million gun registry." Ottawa - Yesterday in the House of Commons, Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville, exposed two serious flaws in the government's priorities. "The Minister of Health says he wants to save lives but he rejects an organ donor registry because of the financial implications. The Solicitor General says fighting organized crime is his number one priority but he can't or won't invest the hundreds of millions to finance the RCMP's fight. Isn't it odd that these two Cabinet Minister's don't know where to find the money but I do?" asked Breitkreuz. Here are Breitkreuz's questions and the Liberal Minister's twisted answers: Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Health Minister has rejected the standing committee's recommendations to establish a national registry for organ transplants. The minister's office said it did not have time to fully explore the financial implications of such a proposal. This is not unusual for this minister when it comes to setting up registries. His gun registry is already 300% over budget. Can the minister tell us whether the $275 million his government has spent on a gun registry would have been better spent on an organ donor registry that actually saves lives? Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this member can always be relied upon to get his facts wrong; always. It is no surprise that he would ask the question he has just put. The committee did not recommend a national organ donor registry. The committee recommended a national effort by all governments working together to increase the rate of organ donation in this country by taking specific concrete steps. We have accepted those recommendations. We are working to achieve them. The provinces have agreed it will happen. By November we will have a work plan to make sure it does. Once again the Reform Party is completely out to lunch. Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week in the House the Solicitor General declared: "Fighting organized crime is the number one law enforcement priority of the government". The Canadian Police Association recently referred to organized crime in Canada as an epidemic. If fighting organized crime is the number one priority of the government, can the Solicitor General please explain why it spends hundreds of millions to register shotguns owned by duck hunters rather than improving public safety by giving the RCMP the resources it needs to fight organized crime? Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and I am pleased my hon. colleague is well aware, this government has indicated that it will give the RCMP the tools to do the job. For example, we gave CPIC $115 million to make sure it was brought up to date. We put $18 million into a DNA data bank. I am very pleased the opposition has come to realize this government is fighting organized crime. - -30- For more information, please call: Yorkton Office: (306) 782-3309 Ottawa Office: (613) 992-4394 e-mail: breitg0@parl.gc.ca ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 07:34:47 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Gun lobby favours sensible firearms control PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 1999.10.19 EDITION: FINAL SECTION: Letters PAGE: A13 BYLINE: Peter Kearns Gun lobby favours sensible firearms control In a recent letter to The Journal, Robinson Koilpillai claimed a poll (taken four years ago) indicated that 70 per cent of Canadians supported the new gun control measures. The writer was wrong, and apparently distorted the poll results. All Canadians favour gun control. But not all Canadians favour the ridiculously expensive Firearms Act that benefits nobody except perhaps the unemployed in New Brunswick. The actual question was not ``Do you support the new Firearms Act?''; it was ``Are you in favour of gun control?'' Only idiots would answer in the negative, but as the writer stated, only 70 per cent were in favour ... I note the writer flatly stated that anyone opposing the draconian new legislation ``must'' be a member of the mythical ``all powerful gun lobby.'' I should remind Mr. Koilpillai that the Coalition for Gun Control is funded directly from our tax dollars, while the organizations opposing a law that does nothing to reduce crime or to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, use their own hard earned money to support their views. Yes, Mr. Kolpillai, all Canadians do really favour good and sensible gun control laws ... and that includes ``the gun lobby!'' Peter Kearns, Fort Saskatchewan ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #180 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:parry@ionline.net List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ Digest Back-issues: by FTP (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Digests), or visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above), or put the next command in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n022 end (022 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered.