From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Wed Dec 20 16:14:49 1995 From: Owner-Cdn-Firearms-Digest@SFN.SASKATOON.SK.CA To: Cdn-Firearms-Digest@SFN.SASKATOON.SK.CA Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest #377 Content-Length: 27267 X-Lines: 650 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, 20 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 377 In this issue: Re: MEDIA BIAS and the INTERNET ... Re: useful thoughts (three rules of communication) simplification -- copy and spread this another anti-hunting article (Bear Watch) Knotted Special (UN monument) Knotted Special (UN monument) *** Alert*** Mini-14 owners, AR-15 owners A suggestion to those persons who have not yet taken the FAC test E-mail sent to Globe & Mail Boycott seems to work ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fyoung@oxford.net (F Young) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 14:01:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: MEDIA BIAS and the INTERNET ... >This is the Internet. It is the wave of the future; it is an >alternative path of communication which cannot be warped and twisted by >the media. It connects us, and it spreads ideas in a way formerly >impossible. What a great article by Dave, and the comments by Skeeter too! However, let's not forget by the same token that the Internet is considered one of the goverment's biggest enemies. If everyone knows the truth, there will be no place for the in-your-face type big governments. If I recall correctly, Allan Rock is planning on introducing legislation on controlling the Internet too - all in the name of controlling the distribution of pornography and other "illegal" materials. (It was reported on the Fincancial Post.) Various bills has been introduced by the White House, in the US Congress and Senate regarding such subject. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) has the lastest scope in legislations regarding the Internet. ----- End Included Message ----- The Electornic Frontier Canada (EFC) was founded to ensure that the principles embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are protected as new computing, communications, and information technologies are introduced into Canadian society. The EFC has two mailing lists: efc-talk-request@insight.mcmaster.ca and efc-announce-request@insight.mcmaster.ca Try their home page at http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/ Skeeter ------------------------------ From: ae417@freenet.unbc.edu (Dave Zirul) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:56:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: useful thoughts (three rules of communication) Just got the following from a friend: Roger Haywood, managing director of Tibbenham PR Ltd. Norwich, England, offers the following three rules of communication: First Rule: There is no such thing as vacuum in information. Rumour, gossip and speculation will grow to fill any gaps in the facts. Second Rule: In the absence of information, rumour, gossip, and speculation become fact. Third Rule: Information influences opinion; opinion creates attitude; and attitude is the single most important factor influencing any decision. best wishes for the holiday season Dave ------------------------------ From: nfadat@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 16:13:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: simplification -- copy and spread this When you try to get a message across to a mass audience, the message is most likely to be understood and accepted if it is simple. In the recent campaigns against C-17 and C-68, the firearms community presented complex statistical material to politicians, with reasoned arguments as to the proper interpretation of that material. It is now clear that the majority of politicians neither understood nor cared about those presentations. They ignored the research or discounted it as coming from a "tainted" source, and they rejected the arguments AS LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE ORDERS OF THE PARTY LEADER. Some politicians did read the material, and did fight for our rights and property. They formed a small minority within the Liberal and Conservative Parties, and had no effect on Party decisions. Those two Parties cooperated to pass C-68 and the earlier Conservative C-17. NEVER MIND WHAT INDIVIDUAL MPS AND SENATORS DID; WHAT DID THE PARTY DO? IN DEALING WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WE NEED SIMPLER ARGUMENTS. 1. C-17 and C-68 caused a huge increase in smuggled guns. 2. While crime statistics show decreases in crime, violent crime is not decreasing like the rest, and violence LEVELS are going up. That is caused by disarming the victims, which makes violent criminals feel safe and protected. C-68 encourages criminals to be more violent, and the flat refusal of the Liberal-Conservative unity to keep violent criminals in prison turns them back into the street--TOO SOON--to attack US. 3. Inability to get at a locked-up firearm stored as required by law has encouraged violent home invasion crimes and burglary of occcupied homes. 4. Where a victim does manage to use a firearm for self-protection, it is now automatic for our criminal justice system to disarm him, charge him, and try to convict him. Once convicted, he is hit with a prohibition order so that he can never protect himself again--even from the same annoyed criminal, come back for revenge. Whose side are our politicians and our criminal justice employees on? NOT OURS! 5. Retired police officers and prison guards are not allowed any access to firearms for self-protection against the many violent criminals they have arrested, testified against, or offended during their careers. 6. The registration system is vulnerable to hackers and criminals who have "legal" access to its records. It is a source of information for criminals who want to steal guns. They are encouraged by storage laws that are designed to prevent owners from getting at their own firearms to protect themselves--even inside their own homes. 7. When was the last time you read about, or saw on the TV news, a case where the police arrrived in time to prevent or even interrupt a violent crime? Face it, Canadians: The violent criminal has absolute choice of where and when he attacks. He does not choose a time and place where the police are easily available. IF YOU CANNOT PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY, WHEN THE DAY COMES--YOU WILL BE ALONE. LEGAL POINTS FROM THE NFA: RED WARNING: A judge may not agree with these legal points, and may convict you in spite of your using them as arguments in your own defence. Our firearms control laws are an unholy mess. They can be interpreted in dozens of different ways--and often are. The arguments below are good arguments--but they are NOT GUARANTEED TO SAVE YOU. THE NFA ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR YOUR RELIANCE UPON THEM. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. 1. The "storage" regulations apply when your firearms are in storage, the "transportation" regulations when you are moving them from one place to another by vehicle. Because they are different, THEY CANNOT BOTH APPLY AT THE SAME TIME. ONE OR THE OTHER--NOT BOTH. Remember that, because the system often makes the WRONG charge. 2. You may take any firearm you own out of "storage" at any time, for examination, cleaning, use, etc. THE MOMENT YOU TAKE IT OUT OF "STORAGE," THE "STORAGE" REGULATIONS NO LONGER APPLY TO IT. In the past year, many charges of "improper" or "careless" storage have been dropped when the NFA pointed out that the charged person was at home, and therefore proving that the firearms were being "stored" AT THAT TIME was impossible. Similarly, the "transport" regulations do not kick in until you begin to "transport" the firearm, and kick out when you arrive at your destination. 3. It is an offence under an Order in Council to load any firearm at a place where you cannot lawfully discharge it. FORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO SUCH PLACE IN CANADA. Under "the doctrine of necessity" you can do almost anything where it is necessary to do it to save or protect human life from genuine threat of death or grivous bodily harm. That includes breaking into a home that is on fire to rescue those inside, shooting an armed and dangerous attacker inside your home, and knocking out a panic-stricken swimmer in order to save him from drowning--and it is LAWFUL. 4. The NFA has accumulated much legal expertise and won or assisted in winning many court cases. Many more court cases have been DROPPED because the NFA provided the accused with a good defence strategy. 5. Have you been using NFA assistance long enough to see the value in joining the NFA to strengthen it, and to gain eveen better access to NFA material? WE NEED YOU MEMBERSHIP FEE AND/OR DONATION TO DO MORE WORK LIKE THIS. A COURT CASE OF CONSEQUENCE--THAT NEVER HAPPENED: Early in 1995, the NFA received a call requesting assistance from Mr. Sapiano, a lawyer in Toronto. His client was charged with possession of 4 unregistered rifles, all .22 rimfire. They were two M-16 lookalikes and two AK-47 lookalikes. The rifles became "restricted" under an Order in Council, then "prohibited" under another. We supplied the entire Simmermon file, and paid $3000 (the owner could not afford to fight the case, but wanted to fight) to cover it. We funded it because winning would confirm the Alberta Simmermon case in Ontario, and set precedent in Ontario. Mr. Sapiano produced a half-inch book of Arguments and two Books of Authority (case law, totalling 3" of material). It is essentailly the same material used in the Simmermon case in Alberta. The case is crystal clear; if the Order in Council which made those 4 rifles "restricted weapons" is valid, then Mr. Sapiano's client is guilty. On 24 Nov 95, the Crown invited the judge to dismiss its application for forfeiture on the basis that the Crown could not prove the rifles were "prohibited" or "restricted" firearms. Mr. Sapiano's client is to get his rifles back. It is disappointing that this test case was destroyed by the Crown caving in; it would have been valuable confirmation of Simmermon. As it is, it sets an interesting precedent anyway: How can you prosecute ME when you couldn't prosecute HIM? The Simmermon/Sapiano files are available from the NFA. They are expensive, due to the cost of photocopying 4-1/2" (1" of Simmermon, 3-1/2" of Sapiano) paper plus shipping costs. Dave... ------------------------------ From: Jim Powlesland Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:46:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: another anti-hunting article (Bear Watch) Originally published in the Nanaimo Times Nanaimo, British Columbia Tuesday, December 19, 1995, page A7 Retransmit freely in cyberspace Author holds standard copyright Kim Goldberg: at491@freenet.carleton.ca Bear Essentials Stiffer penalties mandatory to address poaching problem (c) Kim Goldberg Beaver, bear, moose and maple leaves. What could be more Canadian? Unfortunately, without some decisive action from federal and provincial governments, Canada's quartet of natural emblems may soon be reduced to a trio. Before the day is over, odds are that at least one bear in this province will be illegally killed and left to rot in the woods, while a few of its body parts make their way to Vancouver and beyond to stoke a lucrative black market trade. While Canada's bear population is still healthy, it can't remain so indefinitely with some 22,000 bears killed annually by poachers, including 3,000 annually in B.C. The pressure on Canada's wild bear population, whose gall bladders and other body parts are used in a multitude of traditional Asian medical remedies, is mounting due to the near-total extermination of wild bears in China and southeast Asia and the epidemic of poaching currently wiping out Russia's bears. And the rapid economic development of Asian countries has increased the number of people who can afford to buy the coveted bear parts by more than a hundred fold, according to an investigative report released last month by the Humane Society of Canada. The report, titled "From Forest to Pharmacy: Canada's Undergroud Trade in Bear Parts," was prepared by the US-based Investigative Network, whose work was assisted by the Korean Federation for the Environment Movement, The Life Conservation Association of Taiwan and The Green Consumer Foundation of Taiwan, among others. Last May the network sent an Asian undercover investigator looking for bear galls in Vancouver's Asian pharmacies. Sixty-five percent of the pharmacists offered to sell the banned product, despite knowing it was banned. It's little wonder. Bear galls are worth more than their weight in gold or cocaine. Seriously hampering Canada's ability to protect its bear population is an inconsistent patchwork of regulations varying from province to province, allowing bear parts illegally obtained in one province to be legally sold in another, or even sold back to the province from which they originated. The answer, say the report's authors, is for Canada to enact consistent nationwide legislation banning all aspects of trafficking in bear parts, accompanied by much stiffer penalties and more resources for enforcement of those laws. The U.S. Congress is currently reviewing a similar bill. Bear Watch, a Vancouver-based conservation group, has taken the report's findings one step further and is calling for an end to bear hunting altogether. "It's the legal hunt that allows the illegal hunting to continue," says Bear Watch researcher David Baker, pointing out that nearly all bear poaching in B.C. occurs during the spring and fall bear hunting seasons when poachers don't appear out of place in the woods. What can one person do to make a difference? Write to federal environment minister Sheila Copps urging her to introduce legislation banning the import, export, sale, barter, purchase or possession (separate from the carcass) of bear viscera, paws and products that contain or claim to contain bear viscera or bile. Send your letter to: House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 (no postage required). Or fax it to: 613 992-2727. On the provincial scene, write B.C. environment minister Moe Sihota urging him to put an end to bear hunting in B.C. or, at the very least, to revise the 1993 legislation banning commercial trade in bear parts to include a minimum penalty upon conviction and a greater maximum penalty. Send your letter to: Parliament Buildings, Victoria, BC V8V 1X4, or fax it to: 604 387-1356. ----- End Included Message ----- Once again we have people trying to convince us that if we make something illegal for everyone, then the criminals already breaking the law will stop or be stopped. Skeeter ------------------------------ From: gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Garry Dormody) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 13:59:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Knotted Special (UN monument) Skeeter wrote: >Have you seen the monument outside the UN? It's giant revolver with >the barrel tied in a knot ... the same symbol they used on TV here when >talking about "gun control". What a hoot. Like our own "minister of justass" they probably will find out too late that such as thing eventually will blow up in your face. dorm Will there be a separate line for * gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca criminals to register their firearms * P.O. Box 51, Portugal Cove or will we all be treated the same as * Newfoundland, Canada, A0A 3K0 we are now ? * (709) 579-7191 (fax) 895-1223 ------------------------------ From: gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Garry Dormody) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:03:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Knotted Special (UN monument) Skeeter wrote: >Have you seen the monument outside the UN? It's giant revolver with >the barrel tied in a knot ... the same symbol they used on TV here when >talking about "gun control". What a hoot. Like our own "minister of justass" they probably will find out too late that such a thing eventually will blow up in your face. dorm Will there be a separate line for * gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca criminals to register their firearms * P.O. Box 51, Portugal Cove or will we all be treated the same as * Newfoundland, Canada, A0A 3K0 we are now ? * (709) 579-7191 (fax) 895-1223 ------------------------------ From: "barry (b.w.) glasgow" Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:39:14 -0600 (CST) Subject: *** Alert*** Mini-14 owners, AR-15 owners Well kids (I mean that affectionately - unfortunately the government thinks of us as kids but not in an affectionate manner), the fun has just started (and before Jan. 1, no less) Check out the following which is sure to be quite common in the coming months and years. For the most part, I've heard nothing but good things about the poor cops who are saddled with this bureaucracy but some interesting scenarios come to mind and make me wonder how much time is going to be wasted while these Firearms Officers try to figure out how to implement something that would never have got out of a first-year law school class (kinda tells you something about Rock's competence - and he wants to be PM !). In the following story, the gun in question was registered after the bill was tabled but before it passed. He made the terrible mistake of not having previously owned one (makes you wonder how new members will get into service rifle competition). Now, the crazy part about this is that they can seize his AR-15 because he had previously registered it yet if he had bought a Mini-14 at the same time (privately), they couldn't do a thing about it. Who knows when the OIC for the Mini-14 is supposed to go through? PEOPLE WHO HAVE BOUGHT MINI-14's AFTER VALENTINE'S DAY, 1995, CAN EXPECT TO GET A VISIT OR PHONE CALL FROM THOSE AGENCIES INCLINED TO GO THROUGH THE FAC BOOKS AT STORES IN YOUR AREA. Now some people may have already sold these things privately, and not recorded the person's name or FAC number. This is indeed unfortunate because you won't be able to tell them where it is but do not worry, you only were required to check for a valid FAC when you sold it - not record the number. The government need not worry either because it will turn up when the person you sold it to realizes they need to register it and brings it in. Anyway, for the horror file that Skeeter is sure to start (I hope he has a lot of disk space): Nepean Police Station, Dec. 1995 - --------------------------------------------------------------------- ...guy in line in front of me wanted to register his AR-15. He was made to sign a declaration that in 1996 it would be confiscated and destroyed WITHOUT COMPENSATION! He was upset. Norma explained that anyone who registered one since 14 Feb 1995 had to sign that paper. I called up a buddy who owns one (he's a Captain in a reg force artillery regiment, range safety officer, owned an AR-15 for 3 years, competitive shooter since RMC days vs West Point, etc.). He went ballistic to hear that he might lose his property with no compensation. "They gotta put property rights in the Charter" was his reaction (plus some great profanity). Really nutty to ban the things just because they're black and have a pistol grip. Shoulda bought a Ruger Mini-14... - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ontario ------------------------------ From: Rod Regier Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:46:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: A suggestion to those persons who have not yet taken the FAC test For your consideration: - ----------------------- As I currently understand, present law (incl C-68) and public statements by Allan Rock would suggest that you will only be required to take and pass one (1) version of the FAC / FPC firearms course, even if the content of the course is later changed. It is not necessary that the test be taken *just* before your application to renew your FPC or FAC, simply that you can prove the test was successfully completed *sometime* in the past. It is unlikely that the course content will become simpler over time. In fact, there are hints that multiple courses will be created for each firearm class that you want to possess and use. (i.e. handguns, long guns, etc). At minimum, there will likely be *more* legal/regulation content added to the course to include all the nifty new stuff created or enabled in C-68. :-( It is also unlikely that the course(s) will become cheaper over time, even when measured in "constant" non-inflated currency units. If you intend to continue to legally *possess* firearms in Canada, you will need to have taken a version of the FAC course in order to renew your "firearm licence" (or grandfathered FAC) sometime in the next 5 years (or thereabouts). Therefore: - ---------- I would suggest that you and those you advise on firearms matters make rapid arrangements to take the *current* course/test, before it is changed and/or the price is increased. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I have taken my own advice and successfully completed the test today (16-Dec-95), even though I renewed my FAC just before the course was required in my province and I won't need to renew until 1999. - -- Rod Regier, Software Development bus: (902)422-1973 x108 Dymaxion Research Ltd., 5515 Cogswell St., fax: (902)421-1267 Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 1R2 Canada Internet: RRegier@dymaxion.ns.ca ------------------------------ From: Austin MacPhee Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:52:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: E-mail sent to Globe & Mail Globe & Mail Dec 9, 1995 Margaret Wente "The exploiting of Dec. 6" I read with interest Margaret Wente's column "The exploiting of Dec. 6", however, I'm confused as to her logic in the second to last paragraph. Not only does she rise to the occasion for such exploitation, (sic), maybe she could indulge her readership as to how, if Bill C-68 were in force before the Marc Lepine massacre, it would have prevented this tragedy. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Globe & Mail Dec. 9, 1996 "These are matters of constitution and constitution is not always a matter of logic" Justice Minister Allan Rock to reporters on Wednesday. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: "etienne (e.) vallee" Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:55:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Boycott seems to work I have written to the Hudson's Bay Company (I like them and shop there a lot). Here then is what I wrote, and follows is the reply. Hull, November 30th, 1995 To: Hudson's Bay Company Re: Please STOP Contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada To Whom it may Concern, I have been advised through my community sources that your organization has contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada, to the tune of 16000 dollars. With the advent of bill C-68, it is clear that this party does NOT support the democratic process and furthermore uses all manner of threats to influence it's voting deputies and members! This party is creating a Canada where honest citizens are treated like criminals. It is then my obligation to boycott your stores until this situation is rectified. I feel obligated to continue this harsh but necessary measure until all support for the Liberal Party from your organization is withdrawn. I am deeply saddened by this course of action, as the Hudson's Bay Company has been our (my wife and I) favorite department store for many years, and especially near Christmas time, for our holiday shopping. Believe me when I say that I hope this matter is resolved in the briefest delays. I await your answer on this matter. Yours truly, Etienne Vallee Faithful Customer And the reply: (Yes, I got permission to distribute this.) - ------------- Decmeber 7th, 1995 Dear Mr. Vallee, Your fax of November 30 concerning Bill C-68 has been passed to me for attention and reply. We are sorry that you have decided that you can no longer support our Company. Particularly so, as our Board passed a resolution a year ago to the effect that we would discontinue making political donations. Obviously I can not influence your decision but I hope that you will reconsider. Yours truly B.C. Grose Vice-President Secretary and Controller (Any typos are mine) - -- Etienne - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "A Sherman can give you a very good ... edge." Oddball - KELLY'S HEROES - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #377 **********************************