From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #429 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, December 13 2002 Volume 05 : Number 429 In this issue: Have you written a letter today? Affleck should be commended Federation Quebecoise de la Faune: We're an endangered species, hunters say CFO not entitled to look back more than 5 years Police safety jeopardized by policy lost file Greg Bohnert Show - Monday Dec 16 Shortcut to miraimachi In french now My letter to the Stratford Beacon-Herald 32 Caliber Semi-automatic My letter to the Toronto Sun - Published! Registration Re: Payments Ideas for Ottawa ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:10:14 -0600 (CST) From: Michel Hebert Subject: Have you written a letter today? Submitted not yet printed To: The Montreal Gazette Subject: What kind of country is Canada? What kind of country is Canada? Heard on the news last night that our minister of justice wants to decriminalize the possession of less than 30 grams of pot. That is so nice. We have all known for a long time now that drugs are a direct link to organized crime. Will the cops have to carry a small scale to measure the amount seized? The irony of this is that as a firearm owner, if while registering my guns I happen to make a mistake I can get a five years sentence. This would be imposed on me for trying to remain a law abiding citizen. These are quotes from the firearms act to support the above statements. article 106. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring a licence, registration certificate or authorization for that person or any other person, knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading or knowingly fails to disclose any information that is relevant to the application for the licence, registration certificate or authorization. Definition of "statement" (3) In this section, "statement" means an assertion of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, whether material or not and whether admissible or not. 109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. I also happen to smoke cigarettes. The government is into a lot of programs to make me quit smoking. On the other hand, it is OK for someone to be in possession of pot. Now, what do you do with pot or weed or whatever you want to call it, you smoked it. I guess that when Mr. Cauchon tried it in his youth it did as one american anti drug add shows, it did fry a few cells. Where is this country going? Michel Hebert ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:15:42 -0600 (CST) From: Paul Chicoine Subject: Affleck should be commended http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/letters/story.asp?id=A6B4AC65-E19B-42FC-8409-A28788FD5C6D LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Affleck should be commended The Gazette Friday, December 13, 2002 Too bad Doug Camilli decided to poke fun at the serious issue of animal abuse (Column, Chinchilla coat? What chinchilla coat?: Affleck chickens out when confronted by PETA"). Making fun of Ben Affleck for taking a stand against fur and the slaughter of animals for sheer vanity is irresponsible. What you should be doing is commending those that have the courage to protect those that have no voice. Teach our society that animal abuse is wrong and morally unacceptable. The article also alluded to PETA's intimidation of celebrities into working for its cause. How ridiculous. To the millions of Canadians and Americans (such as myself) who voice their respect and love of animals by refusing to wear them or eat them, your article is insulting and absurd. As a major newspaper, you have a responsibility to educate, enlighten, inform and advocate; Mr. Camilli failed on all fronts. Robert Eschenasi Toronto, Ont. **** http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/columnists/story.asp?id=021A0F8B-F9DA-47BD-864E-ACB4567D8BD7 COLUMN Chinchilla coat? What chinchilla coat? Affleck chickens out when confronted by PETA. And Barbra Streisand needed subtitles for 8 Mile, but says she empathizes with her homeboy Eminem DOUG CAMILLI The Gazette Monday, December 09, 2002 The extremists at the group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have scared Ben Affleck into sending them a cheque and a nice letter. You might recall that Us magazine said a couple of weeks ago that the actor was buying a chinchilla coat for his lady love, Jennifer Lopez. PETA sent him a letter of denunciation, and made sure everyone in the media knew about it; this is part of what appears to be a continuing campaign to intimidate celebs. Fortunately few people pay attention, but the PETA zealots were quick to show the Washington Post Ben's reply. It was a weasel-worded (oh sorry, is that phrase anti-animal?) non-denial denial of the chinchilla-coat story ("I can tell you that if I bought every gift for Jennifer that I am reported in the paper to have bought, I'd have gone broke long ago"). But it praised PETA's "good work" and included a promise to send a cheque soon. Ben Affleck: what a chicken! Oops - sorry! I mean, umm, what a moron! ******* - - abd about Babs Streisand, oh ya-snip- TML> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:17:12 -0600 (CST) From: "Paul Chicoine" Subject: Federation Quebecoise de la Faune: We're an endangered species, hunters say Montreal Gazette December 13, 2002 Page A9 We're an endangered species, hunters say Numbers will keep falling unless season is extended, lobby says, but wildlife service sticks to its guns MICHELLE LALONDE GAZETTE ENVIRONMENT REPORTER Quebec wildfowl hunters say the federal government should stop worrying so much about conserving ducks and start worrying about a truly endangered species: the Quebec hunter. Quebec's main hunting, lobby, the Federation Quebecoise de la Faune, has been pressuring the Canadian Wildlife Service at Environment Canada to lengthen the wildfowl hunting season in southern Quebec. The number of active wildfowl hunters has been in free fall from about 78,000 in the 1970s, to 28,000 this year, said Alain Cossette, executive director of the federation. The group has been trying to lure people back to the sport, and they say one way to do this is to start the season earlier. The hunters want the season to open no later than Sept. 25. Though the season lasts until Christmas, few Quebecers hunt in November or December, so every week in the early part of the season is key, they say. But at its annual meeting with the federation and other stakeholders last month, the Canadian Wildlife Service announced the 2003 season in southern Quebec will begin as usual - on the fourth Saturday in September. The service argued that even though many bird populations are up in Quebec compared with previous years, they wanted to give a "safety margin" to some migratory bird populations. Close to 2,000 fewer hunting permits were sold in 2002 than the year before in Quebec - part of a cross-country trend, the federation said in a statement. "Imagine then what impact this safety margin for 2003 will have on the number of hunters. Soon it will be hunters themselves who need a safety margin." Conservationists praised the federal wildlife service for resisting the hunting lobby. "These hunting groups are always campaigning for longer seasons, and the right to target more species and (bag) more individuals within each species," said Ray Raymond, who heads the Quebec and Eastern Canada chapter of the Sierra Club. Jean Rodrigue, a biologist with the Canadian Wildlife Service, said the service decided not to advance the season because of concerns about black ducks, blue-winged teal and females of various species that are still molting in September and therefore more vulnerable to hunters. mlalonde@thegazette.southam.ca. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice _________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:21:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard A. Fritze" Subject: CFO not entitled to look back more than 5 years ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judicial Review Section 74 Firearms Act - Review court overturns CFOs refusal to issue firearm and acquisition license where officer relied on incidents occurring outside five-year review period and applicant established that it was desireable "in the interests of the safety of that person or any other person" that he possess a firearm Applicant applied for PAL. Application refused by CFO. The notice of refusal specified that the applicant was not eligible for the following reasons: "Failure to meet the eligibility criteria under s.5 of the Firearms Act, in particular, subsection 5(1) - not in the interest of the safety of that person or any other person. Your record includes 4 assault charges, 1 utter threat charge, 1 careless storage of a firearm, 5 drinking and driving charges. You just completed a 1-year Peace Bond plus a five-year gun prohibition. Your application under personal history had two answers of 'NO' which are obviously misleading." Applicant referred refusal to the court under s.74 of the Firearms Act. HELD: refusal not justified; CFO directed to issue applicant license. Section 74 of the Act provides, inter alia, that where a CFO refuses to issue a license, the applicant may, within 30 days after receiving notice of the decision, refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division in which the applicant resides. The role of the court is not clear in the Act, but would appear to be to determine for itself if "it is desireable, in the interests of the safety of that person or any other person that the applicant possess a firearm." One of the questions to which the applicant answered "NO" was whether in the past 5 years, he had been charged, convicted or granted a discharge for an offence. In fact, the charge for uttering threats had been withdrawn upon applicant entering into a Peace Bond. The other question to which the applicant had answered "NO" was whether, in the past 5 years, he had been reported to the police or social services. In fact, the incident arose out of a spousal dispute and the applicant himself had called the police. Applicant was a 62-year old status native who is a self-admitted alcoholic. Most of his past convictions related to alcohol. However, he has not consumed alcohol for two years, has built himself a house and was helping others in his community. The previous prohibition order related to a storage issue, and the firearms were eventually returned to the applicant. The court is satisfied, on the evidence, that the applicant did not intentionally providse false or misleading information on his application. The CFO is permitted by the Act to consider certain criteria existing "within the previous five years," but many of the matters itemized go back in history to a point exceeding 5 years from the date of application. The legislators recognize that people change. Applicant has demonstrated a more stable, positive and productive lifestyle such that it cannot, at this time, be said that he fails to meet the eligibilty criteria so that the issuance of a license would not be "in the interest of the safety of that or any other person." R v. J.W.B. [Ont SCJ, Lalande, J., Nov 1, 2002] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Richard A. Fritze Barrister & Solicitor Tel. (780) 941 3809 www.fritze.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:25:31 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Glasgow Subject: Police safety jeopardized by policy Michael Snook's commentary about firearms licensing is partly right but it also presents the same myths that allowed the feds to blow a billion dollars. Yes, licensing promotes competency and is somewhat of an indicator of non-criminality but I disagree that any system will guarantee that "police know you have firearms at your address". A license does not guarantee that firearms are in the house. More importantly, lack of a license does not mean there are no firearms at an address. Mr. Snook claims that if police "get called to a disturbance at one of our houses, they can come prepared". Seeing as how career criminals cause most of these disturbances and aren't inclined to be licensed, you just have to wonder why any cop would ever come unprepared to a disturbance. An extension of this arguement is that gun registration does not provide any more of a comfort zone for police - despite what politically motivated police chiefs might claim. Barry Glasgow 4041 Torbolton Ridge Rd. Woodlawn, Ontario 613-763-3097 (w) 613-832-2449 (h) ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca ow ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:27:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Paul Chicoine" Subject: lost file I guess I ziged when I should have zaged but I've lost the letter penned by that ipsos fellow. The same which explains how uninformed the general population is when it comes to polls. If anyone has a copy close by I'd appreciate a replacement. Of digest, I guess, would be best. __________ Paul Chicoine Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice _________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:28:43 -0600 (CST) From: Alfred Hovdestad Subject: Greg Bohnert Show - Monday Dec 16 Greg Illerbrun, SWF Firearms Chairman and Chairman of the Recreational Firearms Community of Saskatchewan will be a guest on Greg Bohnert on Mon, December 16 at 8:30 am (620 CKRM Regina, Saskatchewan) on the topic of the gun registry. Call in line: 1-866-767-0620 or 936-6262 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:34:34 -0600 (CST) From: Moderator@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Shortcut to miraimachi Subject: tweak their noses To: Gordon Hitchen Hello Gordon I found out how to bypass the waits and stuff. It inconveniences the minister of justices office, but I think that is fair, no? Phone the ministers office at 1-613-995-7691, and they will put you through to Miramachi immediately, no waiting and no hassles. Course, Miramachi hasn't helped yet, but... at least the Minister's office is knowing there are issues... Sender's info withheld. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:42:11 -0600 (CST) From: Michel Hebert Subject: In french now To: La Presse Subject: Quel pays! Quel pays! On disait aux nouvelles hier soir que notre ministre de la justice voulait= =20 d=E9criminaliser la possession de moins de 30 grammes de pot. Nous savons= =20 tous depuis longtemps que la drogue est sous le contr=F4le direct du crime= =20 organis=E9. Les policiers devront-ils avoir une balance pour mesurer la=20 quantit=E9 de drogue avant de porter des accusations? L' ironie dans toute= =20 cette histoire est que comme propri=E9taire d'arme =E0 feu, si je fait une= =20 erreur lors de l'enregistrement de mes armes, je suis passible d'une peine= =20 d'enprisonnement d'un maximum de cinq ans. Cette sentence me serait=20 impos=E9e pour la simple raison que j'essaierais d'=EAtre un citoyen= honn=E8te. Voici les articles de la loi sur les armes =E0 feu sur lesquels mes dires=20 s'appuient: article 106. (1) Commet une infraction quiconque, afin d'obtenir,= =20 ou de faire obtenir =E0 une autre personne, un permis, un certificat= =20 d'enregistrement ou une autorisation, fait sciemment, oralement ou par=20 =E9crit, une d=E9claration fausse ou trompeuse ou, en toute connaissance de= =20 cause, s'abstient de communiquer un renseignement utile =E0 cet= =E9gard. D=E9finition de "d=E9claration" (3) Au pr=E9sentarticle, "d=E9claration" s'entend d'une assertion= de=20 fait, d'opinion, de croyance ou de connaissance, qu'elle soit=20 essentielle ou non et qu'elle soit admissible ou non en preuve. article 109. Quiconque contrevient aux articles 106,107 ou 108 ou= =20 au paragraphe 29(1) ou =E0 un r=E8glement d'application des alin=E9as= 117d),=20 e), f), g), i), j), l), m) ou n) dont la contravention est devenue une=20 infraction aux termes de l'alin=E9a 117o) est coupable: a) soit d'un acte criminel passible d'un emprisonnement maximal de= =20 cinq ans; Je suis aussi fumeur de cigarettes. Le gouvernement met sur pied plusieurs= =20 programmes pour m'aider =E0 arr=EAter de fumer. Mais on dit que c'est ok=20 d'=EAtre en possession de pot. Mais, que fait-on avec cette substance, on= la=20 fume. Il semblerait que des effets secondaires se sont produits lorsque M.= =20 Cauchon en a fum=E9 dans sa jeunesse. Michel H=E9bert 739 Lafond St-Alphonse-Rodriguez, Qc J0K 1W0 tel: 450-883-0343 (pour fins de v=E9rifications seulement) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:43:12 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Stratford Beacon-Herald Just submitted, not yet printed. Have you written a letter today? - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Guns more often used for aggression than protection Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:08:15 -0500 From: Bruce Mills To: dloveless@bowesnet.com Dear Editor: Rod Cowen trots out every asinine argument in the anti-gun lobby's rhetorical handbook. His claims that guns are used more often for aggression than protection are simply false. Professors Gary Mauser and Taylor Buckner found that Canadians use firearms 64,000 times a year to protect themselves against criminals and animals. They estimated that 3,300 lives are saved each year because of civilian gun ownership in Canada. For every life lost with a firearm in Canada, 40 lives are saved. Cowen's claim that the only good home invader is a dead home invader is fallacious, also. Gun owners do not seek to kill attackers, they simply seek to discontinue the attack. Most often, the mere suggestion that one has a gun is sufficient to cause an attacker to remember an important appointment elsewhere. In only about 2% of all such confrontations is a gun actually pointed at an attacker, let alone someone being shot or even killed. Using ad hominem attacks, Cowen then attempts to deny the fact that it is, indeed, a right to own firearms in Canada. We derive this right from the same source as do the Americans: the English Bill of Rights 1688 and English Common Law. He further casts aspersions upon gun owners by strongly implying that gun ownership makes up for certain anatomical or psychological inadequacies. I wonder what all the female shooters would have to say about that - no doubt they are all suffering from penis envy. Cowen then trots out the doctrine of "need": no one "needs" to have a gun. Well, no one "needs" to have a car that exceeds the speed limit - hand over the keys to that Porsche! No one needs to have a car; take a bus, or get a bicycle - - half a billion Chinese can't be wrong! The doctrine of "need" always implies that there is someone else who gets to decide what *you* "need". Once it is used for one type of property, it can just as easily be applied to all types, until all property ownership is under the control of those who get to make such decision: the State. In my neck of the woods, that is called "tyranny". As for becoming "vigilantes", self defence is not "vigilantism"; self defence is the inherent right of all individuals. Most violent crimes occur when there is no one but the criminal and the victim present - because criminals aren't stupid, and they arrange for times when the cops are elsewhere. If only one of those 14 unfortunate women at the Ecole Polytechnique had been "allowed" to carry a handgun for their own protection, the rampage of that madman most certainly would have been cut short. Instead, the actions of that aberrant individual are still being used to blame and punish all other law abiding gun owners, who have never committed any crime, and never will. Well, we are fed up with it - it is time that it stopped. Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:49:40 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: 32 Caliber Semi-automatic Dear Mr Fritze, Re: 32 Caliber Semi-automatic Last weekend I purchased a .32 caliber, short barrel semi-automatic pistol for personal protection. Since I no longer have a firearms license, and I have never previously owned "prohibited", the seller is concerned that the CFC may turn down the request for transfer. If this indeed happens, would a writ of mandamus based upon Dr Ted Morton's evaluation of our Charter "Right to Securuty of Person" be on any benefit in expediting the transfer of this firearm ? Sincerely, Eduardo http://www.cufoa.ca "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 11:50:14 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: My letter to the Toronto Sun - Published! http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/editorial.html Toronto Sun Letters to the Editor December 13, 2002 WHY IS it that gun owners can be liable to up to five years in prison for making an honest mistake on a form, and yet the various ministers of justice can blow one billion or more of our hard-earned tax dollars and get off scot-free, and get a golden parachute to boot? Where's the justice in that? Bruce N. Mills Dundas (It's Liberal justice) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:39:20 -0600 (CST) From: Michel Hebert Subject: Registration Writing my letter to the editor this morning, I reread article 106 of the FA. One part is really disturbing to me. The last part states that non disclosure of relevant information that can help in registration is an offence as well as a statement. Here is a copy of part of said article: 106. (1) Every person commits an offence who, for the purpose of procuring a licence, registration certificate or authorization for that person or any other person, knowingly makes a statement orally or in writing that is false or misleading or knowingly fails to disclose any information that is relevant to the application for the licence, registration certificate or authorization. I am referring to the last three lines specifically. Could writing "unknown" be a failure to disclose? To me, it means that if you make a mistake or fail to provide useful information is an offence. Any lawyer on this forum can explain? Michel ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:40:29 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: Payments On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, mac mcbride wrote: > No action can be taken because of a simple error of omission. When I applied for a PAL, I supplied them with a credit card number for payment. I thought I had filled it in correctly. However a month or so later, I received a letter stating the number did not work and to submit another form of payment. I then sent in a cheque which came back NSF (they cashed it just before payday). I then received another letter stating that I had one more chance to pay before they cancelled the application. I then sent them a certified cheque and recieved my PAL a few months later. an ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 12:42:02 -0600 (CST) From: Edward Hudson Subject: Ideas for Ottawa Ideas for Ottawa One of our original ideas for the Freedom and Liberty Demonstrations in Ottawa on 01Jan03 was to attend in front of the Governor General's Residence Wednesday evening while our Queen's Representative held a reception for the Members of Parliament and the Senators who reminded in the Capitol. Unfortunately, I read that Her Excellency will be away for Christmas "visiting the troops" and that the levee will be held this week. We would be very appreciative of suggestions of other activities that we could employ instead of visiting Madam Clarkson. Sincerely, Eduardo http://www.cufoa.ca "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead nly ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V5 #429 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@shaw.ca 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/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ 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 in any way.