Received: by dot.crosswinds.net (mbox republican) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Fri Nov 5 14:34:22 1999) X-From_: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Fri Nov 5 11:03:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (majordomo@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by dot.crosswinds.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12873 for ; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:01:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03400; Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:11:00 -0600 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:11:00 -0600 Message-Id: <199911051311.HAA03400@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #193 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, November 5 1999 Volume 03 : Number 193 In this issue: FOULED-UP CASE TODAY STANDARD QUESTIONS ON REGISTRATION SAAMI Facts book for the media Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #191 CILA Letter: "The Debate Is Not Over" Re: Re spousal abuse ad and Crimestoppers Re: Firearms "facts" Austin vs Ottawa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:35 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: FOULED-UP CASE TODAY >I don't know if I am bothering you with these messages, but you said to >keep you updated. I am following this with keen interest. It will probably develop into an NFA-funded court case. >I talked with Cst. Roberge today, all of the firearms in question except >for the Glock 23, have been approved and cert. #'s issued. He tells me >that the Registry's Legal Team in considering the matter, but that there >will be an answer in a couple of weeks. >I am asking a little advice here, should I just pack it in and get a >longer barrel. I would like to fight this - but I feel more than a >little alone on this, due to the facts. The CFR's position is that the CFR made a criminal error by "transferring" the Glock to you, because the Glock is a "non-grandfathered" gun that can never be transferred. The CFR authorized the seller to deliver the firearm into your hands ( a crime), and authorized you to take it (another crime). Neither the buyer nor the seller are guilty of any offence, because they were victims of "official misdirection." However, those who authorized the illegal movement of the Glock have no protection. They have apparently committed an indictable offence -- violation of CC s. 126 -- and are eligible for up to two years in the slammer. They also apparently violated CC s. 99 and 101, qualifying for an additional 15 years in prison. So, you should be demanding that the CFR confiscate your "non-grandfathered" Glock [which the CFR claims is a "non-grandfathered" specimen as per FA s. 12(6)], destroy it, acquire a "grandfathered" glock which is IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS to the firearm they just destroyed, give it to you, and register it to you. That is what the LAW requires them to do in this situation, if they are reading it correctly. You should also be demanding that the criminals be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If WE have to obey this legislation, SO DO THEY. If they refuse to do that, tell them that the NFA will be very happy to fund your appeal against their refusal to register the firearm, and that the case will propose exactly that what is said above be issued as a ruling, including a directive from the judge to start prosecution of the responsible bureaucrats. >1) While some gun owners registered guns knowing they (the owner) were >not grandfathered, >2) Some others registered guns that they knew (the guns) were not >grandfathered. >3) They all signed C-68 waivers when they registered them. >4) I signed no waiver - and got my gun, all after Dec 1. >5) I was a short barreled owner continuously since 1993 >While I know the gov't screwed up, and the gov't knows this - I seem a >little alone, are there others like me. If so what can we do. We can demand justice -- an area of law that the Department of Justice has lost sight of. This is why an organization like the NFA is vitally necessary. Without it, the system shafts the citizen, and the bureaucrat who CAUSED the problems gets off scot free. That is not JUSTICE. 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: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:41 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: STANDARD QUESTIONS ON REGISTRATION >The government does not tell you if you can register jointly. Yes, it does. Firearms Act section 16: "A registration certificate for a firearm may be issued to only one person." >In this province my wife, by law, owns half of everything. This means the >firearms should be jointly registered to protect her. Can this be done? No, not under C-68. Anne McLellan apparently has no interest in protecting your wife, and you should write to her about that. >What constitutes a firearm? A whole gun, or the "frame or receiver" of a gun, or any part of a gun that includes a "frame or receiver" is a "firearm" by definition [Criminal Code section 84(1)]. This is a fouled area, as some firearms have two receivers - -- an upper and a lower. Others have both a "frame" AND a "receiver" (the Luger, for example). Others have NO "frame or receiver" (many muzzle-loading single shot rifles, pistols and shotguns). The government has no way to "fix" the problems created by this situation, as it is LAW. Only a judge in a court of law can tell us what it means, because anything said by anyone else is merely an opinion, and a judge can ignore it in favor of his OWN opinion. Then a higher-court judge can ignore the ruling in favor of HIS personal opinion. It cannot be resolved until the Supreme Court of Canada rules, because until then there is always another judge who CAN overrule what has happened before. The legislation is a shambles in this area. >Must I tell them how many barrels I have? No. A barrel is an uncontrolled spare part. If you have a handgun with multiple barrels, and some of those barrels are less than 105mm/4.14" long, the barrels are "prohibited devices" unless they are a part of the "firearm" and you can legally have that firearm. You must register the "firearm" -- but there is no requirement to tell them what uncontrolled spare parts you own, whether they will fit a firearm that you have or not. You are, howver, forbidden to own an unattached short barrel unless you have a licence to possess a "prohibited device." A .25 or .32 handgun barrel longer than 105mm/4.14" is NOT a "prohibited device," but a barrel under 105mm/4.14" for a muzzle-loading handgun IS. >What is likely to complicate it all? The form says the firearm must >bear a number, and they are willing to supply a sticky. Does the law >make it mandatory to attach the sticker? Yes. However, the law does not say that a person should de-grease the firearm before applying the sticky, and that may cause problems, particularly with firearms in storage. They offer free replacement stickies, so stickies that fall off should not be a major problem. It is likely that replacement stickies will be costly, as each must have the original number printed on that single sticky. >Your membership couild use some help in ensuring we do not expose >ourselves needlessly to the whims of the crown. Perhaps you could >devote an issue of Point Blank to each question in the application. >This should typically be done in a fashion that would permit us to >deal with any "loose ends" prior to being obliged to register. Please >do stress that we should rush out and do it now. You are not obliged to re-register anything that you have which is already registered until 31 Dec 2002 [FA s. 127(2)(b)]. You are not obliged to register any unrestricted firearm that you had on 01 Dec 98 until 01 Jan 2003 [FA s. 112(3) and CC s. 98(3)]. So why should anyone "rush out and do it now?" Bill C-68 gun control is already in very serious trouble (cost overruns, system failures, ill-trained staff, etc.), and it may well be gone before 31 Dec 2002 (or 01 Jan 2003). >On a separate note, in the current issue of PB, the CPA has made >recommendations to have the crown review cost recovery after your , >speech. How does this benefit us? It moves toward having the police dump support for C-68. At the time of the vote, they did not have enough direct experience with it to know how to vote. That should improve as they gain experience -- especially when the system tells them there are no firearms at an address, when there are. Legally [FA s. 33]. 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: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:49 -0600 From: "The Gayders" Subject: SAAMI Facts book for the media The Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI) has put out a free booklet entitled: Non-Fiction Writer's Guide: A writer's resource to firearms and ammunition. Although the law sections are written from an American perspective, the technical parts are excellent. Write SAAMI for a few copies (they are free!) and send them to members of your local news staff. Then there will be no excuse for such errors as "semiautomatic machine guns" and "thirty-ought --eights" appearing in the news. Maybe they will even find out the REAL definition for an "assault rifle". Contact: SAAMI 11 Mile Hill Road Newtown, CT 06470 Happy hunting! John A. Gayder, secretary TSCON "Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us." -- Robert Anton Wilson "It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head." -- Sally Kempton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:25:50 -0600 From: "Tom Zinck" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #191 >Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 07:11:46 -0600 >From: "Peter Kearns" >Subject: Let's play the federal game. > I agree with Peter. It is obvious that the Feds are using these tactics to rebutt any positive letter that the RFC manage to get published. However, the RFC has managed to get over 300 letters published this year alone, in papers across Canada. These letters come from people on the Digest, NFA members, hunters, and people that are just mad about C-68. To see some of these letters check out : http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck/publish.htm The Firearms Writing Project (by CILA) was designed to create small writting 'cells' in which we could get our letters proof-read before sending them to the papers. This has worked, and is working quite well. It is available at : http://www.fedupcanada.org/CILA%20Reports/cila_2.htm Some of the letters published (say about %20) are from people activily involved inthe fight against C-68, but the rest are from people that are just regular folk who are mad. In the last year only a handfull of pro-C68 letters have been published and those have ALL been from either employees of the CFC, or Wendy (or Wendy's mom ;-). For anyone who follows the letters in the papers, there is no doubt that Canadians do NOT support C-68. Also, I would say that for every letter we get published, about 4 are not published. It seems that the CFC are actually following OUR example in writting to the papers, and responding to letters that get published. They are on the defensive, and they are loosing. - -Tom Reform, OHA, NFA, ARRA, JPFO, NRA, GOA http://www.comnet.ca/~tzinck Frustrate a Liberal : Lease a gun today ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:10:46 -0600 From: Al Dorans Subject: CILA Letter: "The Debate Is Not Over" CILA / ICAL Defending Canada's Heritage - --------------------------------------------- Letter to the Edmonton Journal Editor "The Debate Is Not Over" Regarding "Canadians Do Support Gun Control" (Nov. 3) by Wendy Cukier, Coalition for Gun Control, Canadians truthfully have no idea what gun laws they are supporting. In "Canadian Attitudes Toward Gun Control: The Real Story", Mauser and Buckner (1997) found that only 200 Canadians out of 30 million know Canada's 1600 pages of complex gun laws. Consequently, surveying uninformed citizens on the need for stricter firearms legislation is utterly meaningless, unethical and fraudulent. As an educator, is Ms. Cukier so prejudiced and foolish to believe that fully informed Canadians would support a fatally flawed Bill C-68 that: * deceives them with inflated statistics,bogus polls,flawed surveys,fraudulent research? * demonstrates no evidence of reducing crime or saving lives, despite 64 yrs and $630M? * costs $3.5B when it was supposed to cost $85M and scrapped at $150M? * seizes legally owned private property for needless destruction without compensation? * intimidates citizens with police home invasions on suspicion, with no search warrant? * destroys Canada's $6B/year shooting sport industry with 33,000 jobs/33,000 taxpayers? * imposes the ridiculous penalty of 10 years in jail for not registering a firearm? * sentences gun owners to 5 years in jail for an error made on a registration postcard? * circumvents Parliament, the Senate and the Supreme Court through Orders-In-Council? * steals their basic freedoms, hunting heritage and recreational shooting lifestyles? * harasses responsible gun owners with endless courses, costs and red tape? * violates their following constitutional and Charter rights: to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; to private property; to remain silent; to avoid self-incrimination; to legal counsel; to be represented by their MP; to be treated equally before the law; to privacy; and to freedom of association? Responsible firearms owners rightfully demand the repeal of C-68, replacing it with reasonable and effective firearms legislation that reduces crime and saves lives. The upcoming FED UP III Rally sends another powerful message that the debate is not over. Professor Al Dorans Director of Operations, Ottawa Office Canadian Institute for Legislative Action / Institut Canadien pour l'Action Legislative National Office: P.O.Box 44030, 600 Grandview St. S. Oshawa, ON. L1H 8P4 Ph: (905) 571-2150 Fax: (905) 436-7721 e-mail: teebee@sprint.ca Ottawa Office: 27 Cedar Grove Crt. Nepean, ON. K2G 0M4 Ph: (613) 828-8805 Fax: (613) 828-6967 e-mail: aldorans@magma.ca Home: http://www.cila.org A proud member of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities / Forum du Monde sur le Futur d'Activites des Sports des Armes a Feu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:10:50 -0600 From: Andy Krywonizka Subject: Re: Re spousal abuse ad and Crimestoppers At 05:25 PM 11/4/99 -0600, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: >I called crimestoppers to determine how they knew that the rounds >were fired from an AK. Their reply was that the police ballistics >lab had "studied" the rounds and could tell (from the brass) that the >shooter had been using an AK. When I tried to point out that this >was simply untrue and it sounded like they had added the "AK-47" bit >to make the commercial more sensational, the person on the telephone >became somewhat irritated. He informed me that a good ballistics lab >could so figure this out and that he was more inclined to believe the >police than me. I hate to break this to you Jason, but apparently Kalashnikov actions DO have a way of characteristically marking spent brass. Apparently the brass is dinged quite badly on the mouth upon ejection which makes reloading for the AK a not-so-good idea. I don't have first-hand knowledge of this, I'm taking this from an article in Small Arms Review on the VEPR hunting rifle which also dents brass, and a comment is made about how the VEPR doesn't differ from the standard AK in this respect. However, I do agree with you that Crime Stoppers likely threw in "AK-47" just for sensation, just like the Hawaii shooter had an "arsenal" of 11 handguns. Makes me sick too. Andy K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:10:58 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Re: Firearms "facts" Jason Hayes wrote > As a provincially funded organization, one would expect a high level of > professional integrity to be present in the ACICR. However, your "Firearm > FACTS" page smacks of emotionalism, poor judgment, improper scientific > method, and a partisan view toward firearms and their owners. I think you might as well have saved your virtual ink, Jason. I also wrote them and pointed out their lack of sticking to primary sources, using correlation rather than causation as "proof" (something they would probably cheerfully crush a graduate student for doing if they ever caught them at it), etc. I was not terribly shocked when nobody from ACICR could even come up with enough backbone and guts to at least acknowledge receipt of the letter - much less try and defend what they were doing with that shoddy piece of psuedo-academia. Of course, not much point in getting into a fight when you're unarmed, is there... I wish I had thought of this earlier. I'm in Edmonton this week, doing some Novell networking courses, and the UofA is right across the street. If I'd have thought about it earlier, I would have done enough digging to find out where to go and then wandered over there to have a face to face chat with whoever is the ACICR here at the University. Would have been interesting to see them handle the same questions from somebody standing there in person, who can also write all sorts of silly letters after their name - but my silly letters refer to criminology, not communications spin doctoring. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:10:55 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: Austin vs Ottawa Don Shesnicky said: > They compare Ottawa and Austin TX because both are about > the same population (1 million) and both are becoming high > tech oriented. > > The interesting fact is in the chart where they compare > the two cities in a number of areas one of which is > violent crime rates per 100,000. Before I actually glanced > at the numbers I thought - maybe equal, maybe Austin slightly > higher. Actual numbers - 521 for Austin and 911 for Ottawa. While it looks nice for us, Don, I don't think it is honest for us to use that sort of comparison - unless we want to get lumped in with the Wendies of the world. Comparisons like this are no different than - in fact even poorer than - studies such as the rather infamous Seattle vs Vancouver study that "proved" that Canada's handgun laws are the cause of Vancouver having a lower murder rate than Seattle. This one, along with Kellerman, is a real favorite of Cukier and her acolytes. James Wright and others drove a stake through the heart of that study in fairly short order when it came to the peer review process, pointing out that the two cities were uncommon in many ways and nothing had been done to even attempt to eliminate these confounding variables. A casual comparison of relevant crime rates is even worse, as far as reliability goes. Cross cultural comparisons are tempting for both sides - they drag out Japan and company, firearms owners counter with Switzerland and Israel, etc. However, statistically valid comparisons between societies are difficult at the best of times, for the very reason that it is so difficult to eliminate variables to the satisfaction of a legitimate peer review process. Such correlation based proofs, in my mind, are nothing more than proof of the dishonesty of an "expert" who knows better when they haul them out. When Cukier (who has been a graduate student and supervises graduate students and well understands the importance of primary source material) points to US firearms deaths as "proof" of the dangers of firearms, it is only proof of her academic dishonesty. When the government does the same thing, pointing to Kellerman's work or some country in the world with rigid firearms restrictions and low murder rates, it is just more of the same. However, it follows that we are then left with the choice of being equally dishonest - or being scrupulously honest, pointing out that the other side is being dishonest as hell, and then pointing out that the TRENDS in the correlations seem to indicate means that this is something that requires a great deal more attention. And suspicion regarding the supposed benefits vs the costs... Japan is not proof that gun control works. Switzerland is not proof it doesn't work. Ditto for Austin vs Ottawa. And increasing crime rates in England and Australia are not proof - not yet anyway - that prohibitive gun laws are the causal factor. As I had beaten into my head over and over again in my first years of university "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION". For either side. Now... that doesn't mean you don't bother mentioning this kind of stuff until somebody gets around to doing definitive research that passes peer review. Certainly, there is no CORRELATION in England and Australia to back up their new gun laws - just as there is bound to be no correlation like that here either. In fact, most correlation points to all the opposite. The point I guess I am trying to make is I think we should stick to being academically honest about this while at the same roasting Wendy as much as possible about their deliberate dishonesty. The ordinary person may well have an excuse for confusing correlation for cause - but not somebody in Wendy's position and line of work, nor the government with all the trained people they have on their payroll (one of which I know and has emphatically told them what the body of knowledge says about this issue). I think we should be scrupulously honest in our claims and arguments while at the same time taking great pains to point out that the academically dishonest Ms. Cukier is about as deliberately crooked as she thinks she can get away with at any one time. With her education and training and understanding of the scientific process, what she is doing, quite bluntly, is being a bald faced liar. Would she accept emotional anecdotes and refuted research from one of her graduate students defending their Master's thesis? Hardly. She just hauls out a different set of rules for herself when it comes to her favorite form of hysteria. But, I think that if we decide to pull the same kind of crap that Wendy does, perhaps feeling that tit for tat is justified, then I believe we hurt our cause. People do not respect a thief or a liar whose defense was that their opponent stole from them or lied to them first - they still see you as a crook. Occupy the moral high ground and then beat them over the head with it. My two cents worth (devalued, of course). ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #193 ********************************** 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.n122 end (122 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.