Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:42:24 -0600 Message-Id: <199912211542.JAA31818@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 #240 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 Tuesday, December 21 1999 Volume 03 : Number 240 In this issue: HUMANE SOCIETY KILLERS Private companies accessing CFC databank Re: Humane Society vs Human Society Guns are boy toys responsibility shooting fish in a barrel Fw: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #238 Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #238 Killing Fields and the Comparison to Cars RE: Obeying the Law! ( - - NOT- - ) re: We'll obey the law Re: Cowards and killing grounds SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR SHOOTING CLUBS & RANGES No. 2 Pt.I ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:34 -0600 From: Wally Butts Subject: HUMANE SOCIETY KILLERS Lets also remember that the slaughter houses of this country legally kill millions of chickens, turkeys and ducks every year, as well as millions of cattle and hogs. But guess who is one of the greatest killers of mammals in this country - - its the self-righteous humane society. It's called euthanization of unwanted pets- hundreds of thousands of them every year in Canada, and I'm sure millions in the United States. And they think they have the right to complain? Wally Butts ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:48 -0600 From: "Byting Mouse Computer Services" Subject: Private companies accessing CFC databank Dan MacInnis Wrote; Please see page one of the Toronto Star today, Saturday, December 18th, 1999. Five hundred and seventy (570) private companies have paid access to your drivers license and automobile ownership information, which they can access online, by telephone or facsimile. In this example it raises the question of "front" companies setting up to access these databanks. To date we have been promised that this would not be the case with the CFC, but with the cost going up and up there will be more and more pressure to get private companies involve in order to keep the cost down (I am sure it has already been done). Is our information safe? No it is not! Joseph Robichaud ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:52 -0600 From: "T. Bryant" Subject: Re: Humane Society vs Human Society The following post certainly opened my eyes. I must have lived a sheltered life - I never realized that the Humane Society was anti-hunter. I always considered them anti cruelty. Hunters as I know them are not cruel. Only people that are totally out of touch with nature could think that - while they eat their hamburger and wear leather shoes. Of course they hire a mercenary to murder their animal. My personal and corporate contributions to the Edmonton Humane Society will now end. May I suggest anyone who feels the same way let their local Humane Society know. Many of their largest contributors (that I know) are also hunters. Why would they willingly give money to an organization that has pledged to destroy their way of life? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:40 -0600 From: "Ron Coughlan" Subject: Guns are boy toys In my case a firearm "gun" is an "economic necessity" because I have to be able to protect my livestock form predators. One calf at todays prices would be $250 at birth. At 500 lbs the value goes to $675 plus and finished (butcherd) over $1000. That is a substancial loss to a hungery coyote or a pack of wild dogs. A producer can not aford to lose even one animal with input costs rising and grain prices at a 60 year low. Please remember that firearms have many different uses other than what Hollywood or TV producers of the nightly news chose to show the general public. And one other thing before I a sign off. One of the Olympic "Golds" that our country holds in shooting sports history, was won by a woman with a "Hand Gun". I think she might have a word or two to say about guns being "boy toys". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:08 -0600 From: Jim Davies Subject: responsibility On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, Cdn-Firearms Digest wrote: > > I watch and read the senseless shootings and killing by young people . I > can't help but see that much of this is influenced by the lessons taught > by the various video games. eg DOOM etc... > ... I don't believe for a second that one of those games will > make a kid a killer any more than a gun would... Our western, industrial societies rose to their current heights on logical underpinnings, one of which was that people are responsible for their own actions. Our western, industrial societies are currently under siege by well-meaning, narrowly academic, utopian mullet-heads whose every wishful advance drags us backwards towards helplessness and confusion. There have always been criminals, some of them killers, in society. The advent of computer games does not give them any excuse, as you say, to kill. They killed and they are solely responsible for their actions. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:04 -0600 From: Brian Drader Subject: shooting fish in a barrel The penned hunting diatribe from the Humane Society rep was most amusing. The animal-rights radical compared hunting within fenced spaces to shooting fish in a barrel. Of course, most fish in Canada are also "penned" within the confines of their lake. Surely the anti-hunting (anti-meat?) extremist doesn't also mean to put end to the pastime of fishing? Or to end domestic livestock production, most of which is also carried out within enclosed areas? And just correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the "Humane" society a "kill" type shelter? That is, if no one adopts an animal within a few days, then the animal is led from its tiny cage and slaughtered. Maybe Mr. Humane Society is just feeling guilty about killing all those adorable little puppies, which other "no-kill" type shelters manage to keep alive. Cheers, Brian If it saves just one little puppy from a rabid anti-hunter, it's worth it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:37 -0600 From: "Mike Hargreaves" Subject: Fw: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #238 >People who drive on the wrong side of the road??? > >As an Ex, Brit, they do NOT!! drive on the wrong side of the road! WE do! >does anybody know why the Brit's drive on the left? > >It is due to the inherent right of self defence, still alive and well in the >Canadian Criminal Code, when you were out on your rounds as a free man, on >your horse, you carried your sword! and as most people were right handed, >the strike with your left side carried sword, was much better when your >assailant was on your right side, so you passed any fellow horsemen on your >right, hence you were "driving on the left" >For the above reason, are we going to change sides in North America? >probably not!! > >We have heard a lot on the Digest in the last little while about "self >defence" and read all the {correct I might add} quotes from the Criminal >Code you can handle, but let me make it a easier, you can fight off an >attack, using no more force than necessary, and in using this force, you >stop when you have neutralised the threat, and the most important bit!!!! >DO NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE, NONE / NON, not know-how!! > >Mike Hargreaves. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:28 -0600 From: "David A. Bush" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #238 > Subject: RE: We'll obey the law, right? > > My comments follow: > > > Subject: We'll obey the law, right? > > Now I don't want to start a cat fight, but........ Wait a minute, Constable! Since when did the LAW become something sacred that we don't question and must obey without reservation? Oh, I get it, ALL laws are good. Well, with that attitude, some people will make wonderful little toadies for the New World Order. And they would have done equally well in Nazi Germany where the LAW was that Jews went to gas chambers and as I recall, there were very, very stiff penalties for hiding Jews. That was against the LAW, you see. So, do you obey ALL laws just because they are laws? If you do, I think you end up in Hell. And you deserve to, because you have no discernment. History repeats itself, but never in exactly the same way, or else everyone would be a winner. There is no game in the world where everyone is a winner. If you don't think we live in a dictatorship, READ C-68! I don't even want to talk about the Niska deal. Or the fisheries deal. Or photo radar. or............... "..History teaches us that governments never learn anything from history.." Dudley Pope. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:45 -0600 From: YoungR@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Subject: Killing Fields and the Comparison to Cars Just a couple of quick observation: 1) For the person feeling that cars are instruments of economic activity while guns are only "boy's toys" - please shake your head, your eyes are stuck! Obviously you have never heard of hunting or recreational shooting. Cars are instruments of transportation, not the fuel of industry, just as firearms are a tool of hunting and sport. They just happen to be damn handy as well for keeping yourself alive when a predator (two or four legged) has identified you as an entree. Let's see your Cadillac perform that feat on some cold, lonely night. 2) Killing fields - I, for one, could never condone the shooting of a penned animal as "sport", but before Mr. SPCA gets entirely warped out of shape, perhaps he should visit his local abetoire. It never ceases to amaze me how vehement "anti-hunters" seem to think that cows, chickens and pigs voluntarily crawl onto the styrofoam trays, piece by piece, of their own free will. View a killing pen as what it is - a slaughterhouse for non-traditional species - and all of a sudden it's no where near as sensational a story. Call it a sport in any way, shape or means and it demeans the intelligence of all parties to the arguement. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:11 -0600 From: "Bruce Montague" Subject: RE: Obeying the Law! ( - - NOT- - ) Hi all, and Merry Christmas. It's been a while since I've written, but this article by Allen ruffled my feathers a bit. Allen stated "we should show the world that we are a responsible, law abiding community that is capable of respecting our democratic institutions and the laws of this country -even while we're fighting them." I say- -If it was democratic that would be one thing but that is clearly not the case here. It is quite clear to me that we have a government that is out of control, and that is systematically trying to make us helpless. I am not nearly as politically correct as Allen. I will fight this law in every legal way I can, - - BUT - - , when it comes right down to my privately owned property I WILL NOT BE COERCED INTO COMPLIANCE. I, for one, am not a sheep and I REFUSE TO BE DECLAWED! We have a civic duty not to obey unjust laws. These laws have extremely far reaching consequences, if not for us, for our children. By the way, I do respect your opinion, I hope you respect mine. Yours in Liberty, Bruce. A couple of thought provoking quotes come to mind for you to ponder: A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - - Edward Abbey >From 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:11:48 -0600 From: Barry Glasgow Subject: re: We'll obey the law Allan Scott wrote; [snip] Let's not play into the hands of those who would portray us as unbalanced gun-nuts by hinting that we may disobey the law. [snip] Can we stop the name calling please? Colourful nick names for federal officials may make us feel better, but they do nothing to advance our cause. [endquote] As you pointed out, those government officials portray us in a negative light in national papers. In other words, we who dare to become aware and criticize the lies and deceit are branded as radicals by the likes of Valin, Parry, Hayes and Mosley. Why the hell should I be polite to such treacherous liars and treasonous scum ? They've had it far too comfortable for far too long and I fail to see how anyone can advocate an appeasing posture after 20 years of this crap. That's precisely why we're in this mess - 6-7 million gun owners politely taking it up the derrier for two decades by a small handfull of new-age social engineers in the Justice Department (the same clowns who think that letting murderers out after 15 years and letting half the federal inmates out by the year 2000 is "progressive"). You tell us that the pendulum will swing the other way and that unjust laws will somehow get fixed. Last time I looked, the seatbelt law was still on the books and the government can still rob you of $110 at gunpoint for choosing not to or forgetting to buckle up. That's just a tiny example of the regulatory noose that's been tightening up around your neck and this latest round of firearms legislation is just a peek into what's really in store for us if we don't stop sitting around being nice, polite Canadians. The only way to get their attention is to quit being nice and making it easy for them. I'd say that, given what they've been doing to us so far, the bad-mouthing we're giving them is a lot more civility than they deserve. And if we can ever get their Liberal/PC sponsors voted out on their collective asses, the next item on the agenda should be a major housecleaning over at the Justice Department. I wouldn't mind being polite as I handed each and every one of those sleazy carreer bureaucrats their walking papers. Barry Glasgow Woodlawn, Ont. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:26 -0600 From: "Albert Chambers" Subject: Re: Cowards and killing grounds Cowards and killing grounds ... like shooting fish in a barrel > VANCOUVER, Dec. 19 /CNW/ - The Humane Society of Canada has been > >carrying out a four-year investigation into killing grounds located >in >British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and >other parts >of Canada. >"In our opinion, these macho men are nothing more than brutal >cowards. >Their lives are so empty that the only way they can feel >better is by >shooting a helpless wild animal trapped inside a fenced >in compound," said >a disgusted Al Hickey, Western Regional Director >for The Humane Society of >Canada. I live near one of these "fenced in compounds" - the one in Texas, mentioned later on in this article. It's called the King Ranch. It's larger than some states, and almost as big as England. Fish in a barrel? > For example it costs $ 20,000 to blow a gaping hole in a bighorn > >sheep. You can kill a penned up musk ox for $ 10,000. Some of the > >animals are even listed as endangered species on the Convention on >the >International Trade in Endangered Species to which Canada is a >long time >signatory. One of the things that are done at the King Ranch is the breeding of rare and endangered African wildlife. This is expensive, and normal game culling occurs...Just like in zoos and game preserves. > "We are opposed to the recreational killing of wildlife in all >of its >forms," said O'Sullivan. "A recent study for the Canadian >Wildlife Service >shows that millions of people share our views on >this issue. Less than 5% >of all Canadians hunt and this number is >becoming smaller with each >passing year." This is the heart of the matter: These PETA and "Humane" Society folks believe that man should have no contact with any animal. "Polluted" animals that require contact with Man should be destroyed, usually by being spayed or neutered. Thus, Man must not enjoy or profit from contact with animals. The animals come from zoos and game farms and are obtained through a series of brokers who buy and sell wildlife. In response to a public backlash, some zoos have said they have a policy on paper not to sell wildlife for canned hunts -- however, they also admit that this policy is virtually impossible to enforce once they sell the animal. Basically true. Laws and rules are poor substitutes for ethics, and some animals are killed in this way. It's also true that most of the zoos obtained their animals through similar channels, and, biologically speaking, animals that are kept in zoos purely for viewing (and prevented from reproducing)are the same as dead. > For example, the Metro Toronto Zoo sold three sable antelope to >a game >farm in Alberta, which in turn sold them to a killing ground >in Texas. I think I'll forward this article to the folks at King Ranch. Last I heard, it was partially owned by the Rockefellers. Maybe they'll do something about mr. O'Sullivan. -Knowledge is power - be powerful -Al in Texas ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:12:21 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR SHOOTING CLUBS & RANGES No. 2 Pt.I >Canadian Firearms@CFC 12/17/99 02:31 PM >Canadian Firearms Centre >SPECIAL BULLETIN FOR SHOOTING CLUBS & RANGES No. 2 >APPROVAL OF SHOOTING CLUBS AND RANGES >Under the Firearms Act, all shooting ranges must be approved for >operation by your Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). NFA: Incorrect. FA s. 29(1) says that "No person shall operate a shooting club or shooting range except under an approval of the provincial minister for the province in which the premises...are located. FA s. 29(1) is not yet in force, although the rest of FA s. 29 IS in force. Therefore, the requirement to be approved by the "provincial minister" -- who may or may not delegate that duty to the CFO [FA s. 29(4)] -- is not yet in force. >The only shooting clubs, however, that must be approved are those >non-profit organizations whose activities include target practice >and target shooting competitions with restricted firearms or >prohibited handguns. NFA: That is correct -- for a shhoting club. It is incorrect for a shooting range, which may be a commercial enterprise. >In a Snapshot >- All shooting ranges need to be approved NFA: But not until FA s. 29(1) is brought into force. Until that happens, they can be operated without an approval. >- Shooting clubs that use only restricted or prohibited firearms >need to be approved NFA: But not until FA s. 29(1) comes into force. >- Technical guidelines for ranges are now available >Restricted/Prohibited Firearm Shooting Clubs and Ranges >Shooting clubs and ranges where restricted and prohibited firearms >(mostly handguns) are used, currently are applying for approval. NFA: Although they do not need to have that approval until FA s. 29(1) comes into force. >It is important that all restricted/prohibited firearm shooting >clubs and ranges get in touch with their CFO as soon as possible >to start the approval process, if they haven?t already done so. >As of December 1, 1999, approvals that were provided under the >former Act cease to be in effect and a new approval must be >obtained under the Firearms Act. NFA: False. FA s. 29(1) says that no "person" [individual or corporation] shall operate..." but FA s. 29(1) has not yet come into force. >Another consideration is that people who shoot with restricted or >prohibited firearms need to be a member of an approved club and >shoot at an approved range, or transport their firearms under >approved conditions specified by their CFO, in order to get Auth >orizations to Transport (ATTs) for their firearms. NFA: False. Regulation 6 at page 121 of the March 1998 Regulations, "SHOOTING CLUBS AND SHOOTING RANGES REGULATIONS" allows anyone who is a "guest" of anyone who is a member of ANY "approved shooting club" to use restricted firearms or prohibited handguns at ANY shooting range (not just the one where the "host" is a member of the shooting club that operates that shooting range. THINK about that -- the guest does not have to be a member of any shooting club, so refusal to issue an ATT because one is not a member of a club is WRONG and illegal. TAKE THEM TO COURT! >To contact your CFO, call the Canadian Firearms Centre toll-free >at 1 800 731-4000 and an operator will connect your call. >Non-Restricted Firearm Shooting Ranges >Like restricted/prohibited ranges, all non-restricted ranges must >meet all the requirements found in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting >Ranges Regulations NFA: Correct. > and in the technical guidelines provided by >their CFO. NFA: False. The CFO has no authority to make an Order in Council with force of law, and, where he exceeds his authority by imposing rules that are not in either the law or the regulations, he is exceeding his authority -- so his "technical guidelines" are, essentally, PERSONAL OPINIONS with no force of law. >Again, if you haven?t already done so, you should >contact your CFO to get started on the approval process >immediately. NFA: Why? >Shooting ranges where non-restricted firearms (most hunting rifles >and shotguns) are used, will have some additional time to >officially meet the new requirements. >The Firearms Act specifies that all provisions must be in effect >by January 1, 2003 unless some earlier date is set. NFA: Correct -- so FA s. 29(1) may not come into force until 01 Jan 2003. It may even come into force LATER than that. Anne McLellan has already been forced to introduce amendments to C-68 Titanic, and she will be forced to introduce others because that Act CANNOT work as it is. >Exemptions >The only shooting ranges that are exempt from the Firearms Act and >the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations are ranges that >are: >- part of a licensed business and used only by business owners and >employees who hold a licence to acquire restricted firearms (the >business licence conditions would govern conditions for the >operation of these ranges); or >- used only by public officers (such as police officers) for >job-related purposes. NFA: This is a sore point, because the government makes all these regulations and imposes them on OUR ranges -- while EXEMPTING their own ranges. If the object of the exercise is REALLY safety, then there is NO REASON for THEIR ranges to be exempted from the regulations that WE have to live with. The exemption that they provided for their own ranges is striking proof of the fact that the EAL intent is to harass shooting clubs and shooting ranges into converting their ranges into golf courses. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #240 **********************************