From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #633 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 Monday, October 27 2003 Volume 06 : Number 633 In this issue: Do you care about Canada? Re: unacceptable aspects of the old FAC? CGC... CFDv6n632 Debate (and a fine debate it is!) West-end gunfight kills 2 What will we accept? Re: Do you care about Canada? One million guns registered this year Letter: Gun registry produces more criminals Falling number of hunters: "blow to sport" and "the economy" Tough rhetoric on guns by Democratic Party blamed for the loss of COPS MUM ON DETAILS AFTER SIX-HOUR SIEGE ENDS PEACEFULLY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:35:37 -0600 (CST) From: "C. Dillabough" Subject: Do you care about Canada? How much is Canada worth to you? How about $20 lousy bucks? That is all it costs to join both the PC Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance Party. Why would you want to join these political parties you ask? Well, there is an historical movement underway to join these two parties into one united force to stand as opposition to the long reigning Liberal domination of Canadian federal politics. And this is your chance to have a grassroots say in whether this motion advances or just dies before it even gets out of the gates. NOTE: You must join on or before October 27/03 in order to be eligible to participate in the ratification vote for both parties!!! If you are like myself and want to see a "viable alternative" emerge to vote for other than Liberal, then this is your chance. However, even if you think the Liberals are the best choice for government, you have to admit that they have no real opposition holding them accountable and curbing the arrogance that we have seen grow since 1993 under Chretien. A strong opposition is always a healthy thing for government and thus the people of the country. Please give this some thought, and if you feel it has merit then go to the links below and spend the $10 each to become a member so you can vote YES to the proposal to merge the two parties into one. As well, don't forget to pass this along to others. Charles Dillabough http://www.pcparty.ca/site/membership/ https://www.canadianalliance.ca/english/membership/index.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:43:52 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: unacceptable aspects of the old FAC? Mark L Horstead wrote: > I agree with what you say, but... > > Should we also therefore trust all drivers to ensure their competency personally > without having to undergo testing and licensing? How about pilots, doctors, > lawyers, teachers etcetera? Are we prepared to accept the increased death, > injury, and ignorance tolls? The problem with your shopping list is that *owning* a car, or a plane, or a gun, is a *right*. However, when it comes to *using* those types of property, it is not unreasonable to require the operator to have a minimum level of competency. Note that I said *USING*: this would allow for a simple, practical test for you to *USE* your car, airplane or firearm IN PUBLIC. As well, I don't think that there is a requirement for a pilot's license to fly an ultralight. And when it comes right down to it, it is in the owner's enlightened self-interest to learn how to properly operate his equipment/property so that he doesn't hurt himself or others, because he is ultimately liable for any injuries or deaths he causes as a result of his own actions. This is called "Personal Responsibility". Having said this, the "Rules" for "operating" a gun are much simpler and easier to learn than how to drive a car safely, which is an order of magnitude easier than how to fly a plane. Also, pilots, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc, are "professions", they are not "rights". Nowhere does it say you have a *right* to be a pilot, or a doctor, or a lawyer. Property ownership, however, *is* a right. Finally, there are all kinds of people who can and probably do drive quite safely without having taken any test, or acquired any license, and who never cause any accidents at all. As I have said before, no amount of licensing can ensure competency, just like the lack of a license doesn't mean that you are automatically incompetent. > The trick is to balance the ideal with the real. There _are_ people wandering > around who should not have access to firearms; not all such people are in gaol > or mental hospital and probably should not be either. They've done their time, > paid their debts etcetera but have still lost the trust of society - plus we > simply cannot afford to warehouse all of them indefinitely anyway. So what do we > do? Tattoo or brand them as unfit to possess firearms? That's not going to fly > and I wouldn't support it either. That > leaves either a background check or some sort of certificate that an honest and > sane citizen can produce. I could accept either method but nothing more. I guess people missed when I said that if you are under a Court ordered firearms prohibition, and you go and buy a gun, then it is YOU that has commmited a CRIME, not the seller! Neither the shop owner nor individual private citizen should have to act as the filter or turnkey of the State. Certainly, if someone seems to you to be suspect, you are well within your rights to NOT sell to that person, but as for ascertaining the bona fides of everyone who wishes to buy a gun only leads to the current sentiment that gun buying is somehow suspect. > And I fully accept that no licensing or registration system will prevent crooks > from arming themselves. But unless there is some sort of system in place to > segregate the trustworthy from the untrustworthy when it comes to the > acquisition of firearms from legal sources, however, we will always be > vulnerable to political attack from the willfully ignorant citizens, reporters, > or politicians eager to scapegoat. A minimally offensive > competency-certification system would protect us from that to some degree. > > Yes, the old FAC could be perceived to be the thin edge, but even if that didn't > already exist there'd still be a danger. The only thing that can protect us from > any unreasonable governmental intrusion is vigilance, both personal and > collective. OK, then let us be vigilant against State or publicly sanctioned infringement of our rights, including the unfettered right to own property and to keep an bear arms. Let's not *give* them away in some misguided effort to appease the masses. > I recognize that firearms offences are adequately covered in general weapons > offence statutes and that penalties should ideally be for the crime itself > rather than influenced by any implement used for their commission, but that > does not deter a criminal from equipping himself better. If he/she/it were to > get the same penalty for unarmed robbery as armed robbery, clearly being > armed gives an (unpunishable) advantage. I don't think that anyone was advocating removing "armed robbery" from the list of crimes that should be effectively enforced. Persons who commit crimes with weapons *should* serve a more severe penalty, since it shows an escalation in the level of violence involved. However, the problem occurs when one particular weapon is singled out as specifically more heinous than others, as guns have. This leads to a situation that many Judges find unpalatable, and thus they refuse to impose sentences for these additional types of charges. > Project Exile seems to have given tremendous results > in those US cities that have adopted it because criminal misuse of firearms was > punished harshly. I'll take real results over philosophy any day. "The ends justify the means". Sorry, that dog won't hunt. Personally, I disagree with Project Exile since it relys almost exclusively on the US prohibition against convicted felons from ever owning a firearm, for life, even after they have served their full sentences. Such felonies need not even be for violent crimes - things like DUI and marijuana possession are felonies. This amounts to an additional penalty, which is not in keeping with the punishment fitting the crime, or due process. If someone has served their time, and proven that they are no longer a danger to themselves or to others, then they should have all their rights reinstated. > Compromise is necessary in any society. It is time, however, that government > compromised with _us_ and not the other way around. Moving back to a modified > FAC as discussed, plus replacement of C-68 with decent legislation beginning > with an acknowledgement of our rights, would be significant, welcome, and > acceptable to me. This, taken alone, is the best thing you've said. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario MIKE HARRIS FOR PRIME MINISTER! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:44:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Linda J." Subject: CGC... Hmmmmm - not guns but axes and hatchets. Check: http://coalitionforguncontrol.org/911_1.htm This is a parody site and NOT the official site for the Coalition For Gun Control. Still reminds me of the bumper sticker "Call 911 and die". Linda ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:45:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: CFDv6n632 Debate (and a fine debate it is!) Dr. Hudson wrote: >"We can OWN as many unregistered automobiles as we desire with NO license >if we keep them off the street at home." So, would we accept licensing (of us) and registration of ONLY those firearms that we take from our premises? As long as we can own as many unregistered firearms "as we desire with NO license if we keep them off the street at home"? I suppose, the FA being honoured more in the breech, we almost have that now for the 1 000 000 "partially" registered out there. Of course, that's notwithstanding the annoying bit about it being against the law and all, to only "partially" register. So, do we push for a "Don't ask, don't tell" law, where you only register what you use in public? If we hunt or target shoot with it, then "the car is on the street." Comments? Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:49:54 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: West-end gunfight kills 2 http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1067173041384&call_pageid=968350130169 Oct. 26, 2003. 02:36 PM West-end gunfight kills 2 EMILY MATHIEU TORONTO STAR STAFF REPORTER Two people are dead and three others are in hospital after a shootout in a west-end karaoke bar early this morning. The shootings took place just after 2 a.m. Sunday inside the bar on Ossington Ave., near Queen St. West. One of the victims died at the scene, while the second victim died en route to the hospital, police said. Three other people were also shot and were taken to hospital. Authorities refused to release any more information on their conditions. Toronto police are still looking for suspects. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:06:08 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Gingrich Subject: What will we accept? So are we thinking towards a national system for a firearms acquiring certificate, no fees, and for life; unless revoked by a court of law? Not what some would like but palatable enough to be accepted by most firearms owners it seems. What would be the pros and cons of the federal government referring any decision concerning firearms legislation back to the provinces as per 92(13) of the Canadian Constitution."Property and Civil Rights in the Province"? This is thinking outside the box but certainly a legitimate possiblity cnd is the law of the land even though our judges can't read nor understand it. Discussion? Yours in tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:06:52 -0600 (CST) From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: Do you care about Canada? At 10:35 PM 10/26/03 -0600, you wrote: >How much is Canada worth to you? How about $20 lousy bucks? > >That is all it costs to join both the PC Party of Canada and the >Canadian Alliance Party. Why would you want to join these political >parties you ask? Why don't firearms owners bite the bullet, join the Liberal Party, and make some basic changes there? We do need more Liberal members of Parliament who are firearms owners and have gone through the P.A.L. licensing process. Why not hit this issue on ALL fronts? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:08:33 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: One million guns registered this year PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) DATE: 2003.10.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: National PAGE: A7 BYLINE: Tim Naumetz SOURCE: For CanWest News Service DATELINE: OTTAWA - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= One million guns registered this year - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= OTTAWA --The Canada Firearms Centre has registered more than one million guns since the registration deadline passed last Jan. 1, the head of the controversial agency says. Firearms commissioner Bill Baker told a Commons committee that the figure includes roughly 250,000 firearms that have been registered since the end of a further six-month grace period last June. The total, while a significant accomplishment for the beleaguered program, leaves 1.3 million firearms still to be registered, according to the government's previous estimate of 7.9 million privately owned guns in Canada. Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz, who has long claimed the government's estimate is too low, dismissed suggestions that the figures show the government is making headway with stubborn gun owners who oppose the registry. "I don't think it makes any difference," Breitkreuz said in an interview Friday. "I think a lot of that was because of the backlog, and they're just trying to clean up the backlog." Despite the high number of guns still outside the program, Baker told the Commons justice committee the government does not intend to spend even "one dollar" attempting to determine the rate of compliance. Asked how many firearms there are in Canada, Baker replied: "I really don't know, I don't think anybody in the country knows how many guns there are." The newly appointed commissioner rejected opposition suggestions that the firearms centre is set to increase spending. The centre froze many activities and slashed expenses following Auditor General Sheila Fraser's revelation last December that the program was expected to cost a total of $1 billion by 2005. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:10:14 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Letter: Gun registry produces more criminals PUBLICATION: Times Colonist (Victoria) DATE: 2003.10.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: Comment PAGE: A7 BYLINE: Frederick Hoenisch SOURCE: Times Colonist - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Gun registry produces more criminals - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Re: "Registry prevents domestic killing," Oct. 18. The letter-writer misses the target when he attributes the billion-dollar gun registry to the recent drop in domestic homicides. For starters, basic statistics tells that a sample size of at least 30 (in this case, years) is needed before drawing any reasonable conclusions -- not one. Second, the National Rifle Association is a U.S. organization with no presence in Canada. Third, the registry has resulted in more criminals than there would otherwise be because many people refuse to register their firearms. Frederick Hoenisch, Victoria. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:13:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Falling number of hunters: "blow to sport" and "the economy" PUBLICATION: The Moncton Times and Transcript DATE: 2003.10.27 SECTION: News PAGE: A1/A7 COLUMN: Natural Resources BYLINE: JAMES FOSTER Times & Transcript Staff PHOTO: COMMUNICATIONS N.B. ILLUSTRATION: Many hunters are concerned about the size of N.B.'s deerherd. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Deer season opens today; Record-setting hunter disputes notion that N.B. herd is unhealthy - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Deer hunters are better off to get out and hunt rather than sit home and complain about the state of the deer herd in the province, says the hunter who shot the second-biggest buck in Canadian history right here in New Brunswick. "My opinion is, yeah, maybe you had a hard winter, but the big bucks are out there," says Bill McIntire. McIntire, of Sinking Spring in deer-laden Pennsylvania, was hunting near Mazerolle Settlement, near Fredericton, in 1999, out of Kelly's Sporting Lodge, when he scored the giant buck. With two days left in the season, he was stalking through the woods as rain, wind and wet snow pelted him. "The weather sucked. It was windy, it was rainy and it was just terrible out, maybe 20 or 30 degrees" Fahrenheit, or 0 to -5 Celsius. It was about 10 a.m. and McIntire kept moving because it was just too cold and miserable to sit still, the most widely accepted method of hunting wary bucks who can spot the blink of a hunter's eye from more than a hundred metres away. There were does around, but McIntire, a seasoned hunter who travels from coast to coast in the U.S. and Canada to satisfy his passion for the sport, was interested in a big buck. Then something caught his attention off to one side. "And there he was. That sucker came in behind me and I didn't even see him until he was about 25 yards away. He was huge. He field-dressed to 260 pounds (119 kilograms.) He was a monster." Provincial biologists say predation, poaching and bad winters have taken a toll on New Brunswick's deer herd and forced them to reduce the amount of does that can be shot in the one-month season that gets underway this morning to 2,355, down from about 20,000 in the late 1990s. That, coupled with gun laws that many hunters find onerous and ineffective, has discouraged some hunters in recent years. Licence sales have dwindled to the point where last year about 51,000 deer licences were sold to New Brunswickers, down by more than half since the mid-1980s. However, McIntire's buck puts the lie to several contentions put forth by those upset with the state of New Brunswick's deer herd: there are few record-sized deer in the province; deer don't move around much in bad weather; woods-wise older and bigger bucks only come out at night. The Boone & Crockett Club, which is the authoritative organization on rating deer by the size and shape of their antlers, scored the McIntire buck at 198 and one-eighth the biggest buck ever taken in Canada by a non-Canadian. And the respected Buckmasters organization, which uses a different scoring system, rates it the finest specimen ever. It was so big, McIntire says, that he and his hunting partner could barely move it even after it was field dressed. "I had my GPS I didn't even know where I was. I had to hitchhike back to the camp and get four or five other guys." McIntire has returned to New Brunswick to hunt several times since then, and he doesn't agree with local hunters who say this province offers only average deer hunting opportunities. "They're telling me they're seeing a lot of big deer up there," he says. "Your biggest problem is just seeing them." However, he does share the concern of many New Brunswick hunters that the new gun laws in Canada have compelled some long-time hunters to lock up their firearms for good. And regulations are far more burdensome for American hunters who must transport firearms and venison across the border, a big problem because out-of-province hunters are the backbone of business for New Brunswick outfitters and guides. The falling number of hunters is not only a blow to the sport, McIntire says, but also to the economy of rural and small-town New Brunswick. "It's terrible for all your gas stations, your restaurants, all your little stores, and especially the outfitters. It's just scaring off all the hunters." Meanwhile, the McIntire buck remains the subject of much talk and writing in North America's whitetail deer hunting community, with replicas of the beast drawing people to gun shows and other hunting-related gatherings just to see it. The deer has been the subject of numerous magazine articles and its photo will grace the January page of the 2004 calendar published by the National Rifle Association. The mount has proven extremely interesting to those interested in big deer, and perhaps too much so - the replica hanging on the wall at Kelly's Sporting Lodge has been stolen. Quick facts A check of 21 per cent of the 5,491 bucks taken in the 2002 deer season in New Brunswick by the Department of Natural Resources show there are some amazing specimens prowling the forests. Largest antler beam diametre: 57.3 mm, shot west of Moncton. The deer carried a 12-point rack. Heaviest buck (field dressed): 127 kg or 270 lb., taken near Fredericton, sporting a 10-point set of antlers. Oldest buck: A seven-pointer shot near the Fundy coast had an antler beam of 19.1 mm and was 12.5 years old. So was a buck taken near Fredericton, and a third deer that was shot west of Saint John. Most points: A 17-point buck was taken near Fredericton. It was 8.5 years old, had a beam of 38.2 mm and weighed 81 kg or 178 lb. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:15:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Tough rhetoric on guns by Democratic Party blamed for the loss of PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 2003.10.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A9 BYLINE: Jim Vandehei SOURCE: The Washington Post DATELINE: MANCHESTER, N.H. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Democratic hopefuls play down gun control: Tough rhetoric on guns by Democratic Party blamed for the loss of political support - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Democratic presidential candidates are distancing themselves from tough gun control, reversing a decade of rhetoric and advocacy by the Democratic Party in favour of federal regulation of firearms. Most Democratic White House hopefuls rarely highlight gun control in their campaigns, and none of the candidates who routinely poll near the top is calling for the licensing of new handgun owners. Democratic strategists and several candidates predict the debate over gun laws in this campaign will be less divisive. Democrats might fight for narrow proposals to make guns safer and more difficult for children and criminals to obtain, they said, yet voters are likely to hear as much about enforcing existing gun laws as creating new ones -- a position Republicans and the National Rifle Association have pushed for years. "What you are seeing ... is a sea change" from the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton and [Vice-President Al] Gore championed several major gun laws -- and paid a big political price for it, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA. The change holds true in Congress, too. Many Democrats are playing down gun issues there, and several are co-sponsoring a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits - a top NRA priority. In the 2002 congressional races, 94 per cent of NRA-endorsed candidates won. In the presidential race, several candidates said the gun issue contributed to Gore's defeat in 2000 and could backfire on the party again next year if Democrats do not quickly lose their anti-gun image. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 08:37:45 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: COPS MUM ON DETAILS AFTER SIX-HOUR SIEGE ENDS PEACEFULLY PUBLICATION: The Edmonton Sun DATE: 2003.10.27 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 16 BYLINE: TIMOTHY SCHAFER, SUN MEDIA DATELINE: FORT McMURRAY - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= STANDOFF EVACUEES USE LADDERS TO ESCAPE FORT MCMURRAY COPS MUM ON DETAILS AFTER SIX-HOUR SIEGE ENDS PEACEFULLY - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= A standoff that later ended peacefully here this weekend forced residents to evacuate a quiet Fort McMurray neighbourhood by using ladders. Some residents found themselves using the ladders held by Mounties to get over a fence that separated homes and a busy street to escape the area, says a relative of one of the evacuees. "My sister (in-law) was on the phone with my brother when it happened and the cops came and knocked on the door and told them they had to leave until it was safe for them to come out," said Susan Jackson. Jackson said her relatives had to use the ladders during the evacuation because going out the front door would have put them in harm's way. Jackson doesn't live in the evacuated area. Fort McMurray RCMP responded to a complaint of a "distraught neighbour" in a home on J.W. Mann Drive around 3:30 p.m. on Saturday. RCMP blocked the street at either end with police cars and wouldn't let anyone into the area. The standoff ended around 9:50 p.m. on Saturday when successful negotiations brought the person into police custody without incident, said RCMP spokesman Cpl. Beth Campbell. Mounties wouldn't confirm if the person was armed, nor would they give the person's gender nor the nature of the initial complaint. But residents said they had been told by police that firearms were involved. "They said it was two gunmen," said Jackson. "Some neighbour had called and said the person next door was distraught." Jackson met up with her brother and sister-in-law at an evacuation centre set up in a Fort McMurray elementary school gym where about 60 people were registered. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #633 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.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.