From owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Tue Nov 19 12:56:53 1996 From: Owner-Cdn-Firearms-Digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca To: Cdn-Firearms-Digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #660 Content-Length: 24274 X-Lines: 600 Status: RO Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, 19 November 1996 Volume 01 : Number 660 In this issue: Just a reminder: last chance for political donations RE: Only $10.00 . What's the big deal? U.S. election & the Canadian media Patch Program Ban on BB and pellet guns ? FAC renewal Spud cannons FAC renewal Re: CFSC course Coastguard takes lessons from Justice in the news re: RED WARNING to CFSC instructors more detail on Bill C-55 (monitoring without being charged) Zaire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Skeeter Abell-Smith Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:35:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Just a reminder: last chance for political donations It's nearly the end of the year and your last chance to make a political contribution for the 1996 tax year. Since an election is coming, I am asking people to consider donating what they can now, and doing so again in the spring. Whether you agree with it or not, you can deduct a major portion of your contribution from your income tax payable. Below are some examples of the actual cost of a donation. A $68 donation will cost you a mere $17. More examples: Your Tax You Contribution Credit Pay $10.00 $7.50 $2.50 (25%) $25.00 $18.75 $6.25 (25%) $50.00 $37.50 $12.50 (25%) $100.00 $75.00 $25.00 (25%) $120.00 $85.00 $35.00 (29%) $350.00 $200.00 $150.00 (43%) $550.00 $300.00 $250.00 (45%) $1150.00 $500.00 $650.00 (57%) $1200.00 $500.00 $700.00 (58%) $1500.00 $500.00 $1000.00 (67%) For all donations: the amount from $0 to $100 gets a 75% tax credit, the amount from $100 to $550 gets a 50% tax credit, the amount from $550 to $1150 gets a 33% tax credit, and the amount from $1150 to $9999+ gets a 0% tax credit as the maximum tax credit given to individuals is $500. ------------------------------ From: anon@inter.net Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:20:18 -0600 Subject: RE: Only $10.00 . What's the big deal? > So I made up a few dozen more and will be posting them up in any gun and >sporting good store as well as a few grocery stores, since this is a >farming and hunting riding. > > I will even send one to my Liberal Back Bencher. Since he voted for it, >he might as well find out what he voted for, and why a lot of people won't >be voting for him. > > Allen Rock seems to have left out a few details when he said, > " But it's only 10 dollars, What's the big deal" The entry fee is only $10.00 but once the true cost of the system is a fact and the second round of licenses comes due, the fee will become 'user pay' making the cost of the license prohibitive for new owners or people who didn't bother to register the first time. And of course if you don't bother to renew your license, you may be subject to an "inspection" to ensure you don't have any firearms and you may also be asked very detailed questions about where the firearms are now. Especially if the firearms are still registered to your address under your name. Once a person is in the system, they are at the mercy of who ever sets the fees for license renewal. If you can't afford to renew your license, then you can't afford to own firearms and are subject to criminal prosecution if you keep firearms without a license -even though they are registered to you. And of course if your license to own firearms lapses, you can bet your registration on your firearms will be revoked with the lapse. The criminal code is there to ensure public safety. Prosecuting a person for not renewing a license does not add to public safety in Canada and may not be in the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code. This is part of a long term plan to discourage private ownership of firearms. As was said before in another post 'there is no protection for firearms owners in the legislation'. $10.00 may not be a big deal to Mr. Rock but it is a big deal to those Canadians who don't have $10.00 and have to buy groceries and cover other costs of living. It is an even bigger deal when they use firearms to supplement their food and for part of their income. Of course if you can prove you are impoverished you may get exempted from the fees - maybe. Heard this in a song on CBC on the weekend. " he lies through his teeth while using perfect grammar! " and I couldn't help thinking about politicians in general. ------------------------------ From: "Alfred.Hovdestad@usask.ca" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:32:30 -0600 Subject: U.S. election & the Canadian media There is an interesting story in the Financial Post today. For complete details, check out the story at http://www.canoe.ca/CalgaryNews/11_c1.html Here are some exerpts: --------------------------------------------- November 18, 1996 DON'T BLAME SOCCER MOMS By DAVID FRUM The Financial Post Canadian reporters confidently informed their readers and viewers that Bill Clinton was re-elected because he won the overwhelming support of "soccer moms" -- married women in the suburbs who had formerly voted Republican but were offended by Newt Gingrich's conservatism on social issues. Post-election exit polls suggest this story line was very wrong. Clinton did win the women's vote: He beat Bob Dole among women by 54% to 38% But the women voting for Clinton weren't soccer moms, and they weren't repudiating the Republican stance on abortion or gun control. ........... It was pocketbook concerns, not guns and abortion, that swung their votes. ........... Again, the Canadian press -- reflecting its domestic political preferences -- was eager to see in the 1996 result a repudiation of tax cuts. ........... That is not a mandate for a renewed outburst of liberalism. When asked whether government should do more to solve problems, or whether people should rely more on themselves, the number of voters opting for more government was a distinct minority of the electorate: Just 41%. ........... There are a lot of fascinating lessons to be learned from the exit polls. Perhaps the lesson that ought to alarm Canadians the most, though, is the gross unreliability of the news they are getting on their giant neighbor. The Canadian reporters in the U.S. so dislike American conservatism that it distorts every report they file. Which means ideological dust is clouding the lens on the foreign news story that matters most to Canadians. ------- End of Forwarded Message -- Alfred Hovdestad -- Member of -- Saskatchewan Responsible Firearm Owners Saskatchewan Bowhunters Association National Firearms Association Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation Reform Party of Canada CRIME CONTROL, NOT MORE GUN CONTROL! ------------------------------ From: Mike Chamberland Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:33:42 -0600 Subject: Patch Program David Tomlinson asked me to post the official response of the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario to the Patches Program submitted to our Board of Directors. The Board instructed me to convey our congratulations to the NFA for developing a program that would appeal to a broad spectrum of shooters and help bring more unity to our various shooting disciplines. The Board recognises the motivational aspect of the patches, as well as the long term benefits to shooters of implementing such a program. Unfortunately because of our limited resources and the major work load involved in implementing the Instructor Training for the upgraded CFSC and the new Restricted/Prohibited firearms training program we cannot allocate to this valuable program the resources required to make it a reality in Ontario. We encourage instructors and local shooting clubs to investigate implementing it locally, and conceptually endorse the program. Mike Chamberland Chief Instructor, Ontario ------------------------------ From: gdormody@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Garry Dormody) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:12:56 -0600 Subject: Ban on BB and pellet guns ? Hello folks, It seems that our local MP, Bonnie Hickey ( a real Chretien puppet if there ever was one) is bringing in a Bill to completely ban BB and pellet guns in Canada. This comes after a woman wrote her because her son had been injured by a friend with a BB gun. I am putting all aside for tonight to get a letter off to her ASAP. Being the unimportant peon that she is I guess it will be good exposure to do this and jump on the Anti-gun bandwagon now. She was one of the new lackeys ordered to support C-68 by Cretin. I am going to remind her that I will be in attendance at her nomination meeting. dorm ******************************************************************* Who says the pushers of C-68 don't know any math? So far they have added to the deficit, subtracted from our freedom, multiplied our frustrations and divided the country. ------------------------------ From: glepore@direct.ca (Guido Lepore) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:44:35 -0600 Subject: FAC renewal I'm in the process of renewing my FAC that expired last year. They looked at my old one and said "$50 bucks, your FAC has expired so this is a new issue, not a renewal". Of course I waited for it to expire, why would I go through grief and money to renew something that was still valid. They said "$50 bucks, we make the rules". Is that the way it is? If you don't renew before the stroke of midnight on the day it expires it becomes a whole new issue? I can't think of any other licence that goes by this rule. Guido Lepore glepore@direct.ca . . . . .._ _//// ------------------------------ From: "barry (b.w.) glasgow" Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:51:09 -0600 Subject: Spud cannons >From: anon@inter.net > >I'm sending this note as an update for Dave Tomlinson ( and anyone else >who is interested ) about spud cannons. I had found plans for a spud >cannon on the internet, they consist of a 2" dia. barrel and a 3" dia. >combustion chamber with a barbeque igniter in the side of it. You stuff a >spud in the muzzle end, give a shot of hairspray in the other end, close >it up, and push the button. My personal best is 205 yards (paced). We made one using 4-inch ABS for the combustion chamber and I'm sure a few of the better blasts went well over 200 yards. We're thinking of having a contest to see what design yields the best results. So far, I have made a number of modifications to improve on the original design. Anytime we demonstrate this thing, it draws bursts of laughter from onlookers who are simply amazed at what a little shot of hairspray can do. >I had >e-mailed Dave asking if something like this would be illegal. His >response was basically that his guess is as good as theirs. In Edmonton, >last Saturday Nov 9, a couple of chaps were discharging one of these >things from their balcony. They were observed, by the police, shooting the >cannon several times. They were brought in for questioning and released >with no charges laid. I read about this in the Sunday Nov 10 edition of >the Edmonton Journal. Interesting. Can I interpret this as saying that >these things are actually legal? Or were the police using their own " >discretion " . Your insight on this would be appreciated. For one thing, the spud cannon makes quite a bang when you happen to hit the right combination of vapour/air/ignition. They may be breaking some noise bylaw. You also have to consider what the implications are regarding littering the neighbourhood with potatoes. In all fairness though, it doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see what kind of damage can result from spuds hurtling down on cars, windows and small children. Even if it didn't break some bylaw, I'm sure one would be drummed up in a hurry the same way they banned super-soakers here when some moron started spraying people with Javex. Like everything else in our overlegislated society, all it takes is some idiot to abuse something and it ends up getting banned. The spud cannon is quite impressive in what it can do to things at close range. We broke a piece of chipboard in half with one shot and put a hole through it with another. One could argue that you can get the same effect with huge rubber bands but in today's society anything that goes bang is evil. This alone would be enough for all the Nervous Nellies on your local city council to be clamouring for a ban on spud cannons. I'm sure the D of J folks are running around at this very moment trying to figure out a way to restrict flamable hairspray. I won't let them in on the various experiments we've done with other combustibles. Happy launching, Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ From: Skeeter Abell-Smith Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:54:37 -0600 Subject: FAC renewal glepore@direct.ca (Guido Lepore) wrote: } I'm in the process of renewing my FAC that expired last year. They } looked at my old one and said "$50 bucks, your FAC has expired so this } is a new issue, not a renewal". Of course I waited for it to expire, } why would I go through grief and money to renew something that was } still valid. They said "$50 bucks, we make the rules". } } Is that the way it is? If you don't renew before the stroke of } midnight on the day it expires it becomes a whole new issue? I can't } think of any other licence that goes by this rule. Yes, you must start the paperwork with the police _before_ your old FAC expires. There will likely be some overlap, but at $25 for a renewal, it's still cheaper than $50 for a new one. I can think of only one other example: car insurance. If you let your insurance lapse in some places, your rates go way up because you will be a "new driver" when you purchase insurance again. Skeeter ------------------------------ From: Glenn Springer Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:40:08 -0600 Subject: Re: CFSC course >From: "David A. Tomlinson" >Subject: RED WARNING to CFSC instructors > >Section 4 of the Canadian Fiirearms Safety Course [CFSC] gives >instructions for loading "a semi-automatic firearm (starting with the >action open):" > [snip out the description of the procedure] Damn, I should know better than to respond to this type of post because it's probably going to open a huge flame war, but I have to... David, we are both making assumptions, but mine are different from yours. I personally have taught over 50 FAC instructors and none of them, without exception, would teach this procedure exactly the way it is written in the CFS Manual. I draw a parallel to learning how to drive: there's only so much of a physical skill that you can learn out of a book and you've hit on some of the reasons why. You make really light of the concept of muzzle control and finger on the trigger but you should know if there is anything our students take out of our courses it is this. We try to get the CONCEPT of firearms safety across, not the detail. My assumption is that the CFSC instructors are not mindless robots. They are experienced people and they all teach with intelligence. You make a big deal about the checking of a tubular magazine which is not correct in the book. But you should know that the subject came up in the second Master Instructor course in the spring of 1993 (probably in the first one too, but I don't have personal knowledge about it) and every instructor we or any other master instructor that I know have taught, teach "check the chamber, check the follower". All of us. The course was designed by non-shooters. But it is taught by experienced Master Instructors to experienced Instructors. And in experienced hands, it ain't so bad. I expect to get flamed for my stand. I became an instructor because I am a safety fanatic and I want to pass that on. Also because I believe that it's better if we, the so-called "self-proclaimed experts" teach this subject instead of retired high school gym teachers (please, no nasty emails from phys-ed types!!). I also believe in the RFC and I try to create an enthusiasm in the courses I do because if we don't get the new people - especially the young people - interested in the sport then we've had it. Glenn Springer CPFO Master Instructor ON-B0095 ------------------------------ From: fhryder@nbnet.nb.ca (fhryder) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:43:38 -0600 Subject: Coastguard takes lessons from Justice Today Nov 18, 1996 the Daily Gleaner reprinted an editorial from the Halifax Chronicle Herald under the banner "Sink the Paddle Tax." It seems that the Coastguard has proposed that _all_ boats in Canada be registered before the next boating season. "even small vessels like canoes and kayaks probably would be subject to a one time licensing fee of perhaps five dollars. Larger craft could pay an annual fee of as much as $25 or $30." "Ottawa will fatten it's coffers without providing any commensurate service in return." "Little red wagons are in danger of being next on the tax collectors hit list." Anyone seeing the substance of this story should post a reference to it. This would seem to be a useful context for us to place the firearms registration issue and at the same time to forge an alliance with boat owners. Frank Frank H. RYDER | fhryder@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca B.Sc. M.Eng. P.Eng. | Even the dog knows the difference (SM)IEEE (SM)IIE C.Eng. FIEE | Between being kicked and being stumbled over CONSULTANT | Oliver Wendell Holmes ------------------------------ From: kdesolla@cyberus.ca (Keith P. de Solla) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 07:22:41 -0600 Subject: in the news >From recent issues of the Ottawa Sun: Francoise Bertrand is the new chair of the CRTC and is making noises about wanting to control the content of the Internet (huh?) She apparently wishes to make providers responsible for "any content not approved by the CRTC". and Sean Durkan sings praises of the Liberal party and their accomplishments in the area of improving law and order (what???) He sort of sidesteps the Section 745 issue, but tells us even though we may disagree on firearms registration, the rest of the bill is "an improvement", and "Even Reform and the Alberta government agree on that". (smell that?.. its propaganda.....don't step in it...) Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng kdesolla@cyberus.ca http://www.cyberus.ca/~kdesolla/eohc.htm ------------------------------ From: Mike Chamberland Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:17:54 -0600 Subject: re: RED WARNING to CFSC instructors "David A. Tomlinson" wrote: >>John is going to sue. He is going to sue the government agency that >>published the book, and he is going to sue YOU. If he can show that you >>knew that the Section 4 instructions were faulty, he is going to _collect_ >>from you -- for the lifetime expenses his daughter will run up during her >>life in a wheelchair. In Ontario all instructors are covered by a multi-million dollar insurance policy taken out by the Firearms Safety Education Service. It is a full "Professional Liability" policy. It should be pointed out that if you teach / examine Johny, and Johny accidentally shoots Bill next year, Bill's estate can also sue the instructor. If the estates lawyer can prove the course/test was not meeting national standards or was taught in an incompetent manner they could collect a significant settlement. Even if the evidence proves the instructor was doing a great job, without insurance the instructor is will have to pay a significant lawyers bill. I urge any instructor in a province without "Professional and Personal Liability" insurance to investigate acquiring it! >>If you teach the CFSC "verbatim," you are at serious risk. In a wider context, teaching is more than reading the manual or course content pages to the student. If you are teaching "verbatim" any course you are cheating the students, a tape recorder could replace you. They have a right to benefit from your knowledge and experience. ------------------------------ From: Skeeter Abell-Smith Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:06:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: more detail on Bill C-55 (monitoring without being charged) I have added a page on Bill C-55 to the Cdn-firearms Home Page. The page is actually located at the EFC site at http://insight.mcmaster.ca/org/efc/pages/law/bill/Bill-C-55.html The above page has more detail on C-55 than printed here in the digest, as well as links to the debates in Parliament, news paper articles on the bill, etc. For those who don't recall, or who have just joined us recently, Bill C-55 would allow a person to have her firearms confiscated and be monitored for up to a year at a time if the Attorney General of a province feels the person _may_ offend and a judge agrees. No charge need be laid and there is no conviction: just an ankle bracelet to track your movements (where such is available). If there is no electronic monitoring in your area, then you will have to regularly report to police and or corrections officials. Please take a moment to read the above EFC page and be horrified by the implications of yet another violation of human rights by your friends and mine, Allan Rock and the Chretien Liberals. ------------------------------ From: "David A. Tomlinson" Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:55:27 -0600 Subject: Zaire Jean Chretien announces the sending of a massive international force to Zaire (a Francophone country -- is that significant?). He bullies and persuades various countries into "maybe" sending troops, with the whole shebang to be commanded (if that is anywhere near reality in a multi-national force) by Canadians. Why? In Rwanda, the Hutus were the government. They decided to eliminate the minority tribe, the Tutsis. That turned out to be an error; the Tutsis rose in rebellion, the Hutu government and Army fled into Zaire, and millions of Hutus who feared the Tutsis followed them. In Zaire, the Hutu government's gunmen ran the refugee camps, still armed, still dangerous. They ambushed food convoys, stole the food, and sold it. Chretien did not tell us what our troops were supposed to do in Zaire. Ride shotgun on food convoys? Find and disarm Hutu gunmen and Army personnel? Disarm the Tutsi rebels in Rwanda? What? The first reconnaisance party left Canada, and landed in Rwanda. The current (rebel Tutsi) government refused to allow them to carry arms, or to leave the airport -- a magnificent example of pre-planning. Unexpectedly, a flood of Hutus started marching home. Seeing the column, nearly everyone who could walk joined them. Now the Hutus are all back in Rwanda, the situation the multi-national force was to "deal with" has changed beyond recognition, most of the contributor nations are having second thoughts, and only our troops are out on a limb. I hope that the troops were sent for some good -- even if mistaken -- reason. I would hate to think that Chretien sent in the troops because he saw an opportunity for a lot of favorable publicity, timed just before Eelection 97. If it was an Election 97 publicity stunt, it may have backfired. The CBC's nationwide TV call-in show, "On The Line" learned that many Canadians felt operations in Zaire (or will it be in Rwanda now?) served no Canadian vital interest. 78 per cent were opposed to sending our troops in, and only 22 per cent thought that Chretien's decision should be supported. This is an interesting subject for discussion as Election 97 approaches. Please discuss it with your friends, relatives, gun clubs, etc. Dave Tomlinson, NFA Information that YOU have is useless unless you USE or TRANSMIT it. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #660 **********************************