Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, February 2 2011 Volume 14 : Number 248 In this issue: THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" - Neal Boortz Political Joke - Not PC CSSA Supports Self Defence Case ObamaCare Unconstitutional - Why Judge Vinson's Ruling ... Man sentenced for gun-waving armed robbery Canadian firearms laws not so bad bear caused fatalities since the spring bear hunt cancelled? Police officer charged with second assault at G20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 07:31:18 -0800 From: "Jim Pook" Subject: THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" - Neal Boortz http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2011/02/there-is-no-gun-show-loophole.html THERE IS NO "GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" By Neal Boortz Homeowner shoots 3 would-be robbers: fox10tv.com Somebody, somewhere, perhaps Obama, is going to be making a speech soon about guns. Liberals love to obsess about guns. Why is this so? Perhaps it's because the use of a gun for self-defense or the ownership of a gun for the protection of one's family might be called an ultimate exhibition of individualism. Liberals don't like individualism either. In fact, it might be a rather close race as to whether liberals dislike guns or individualism the most. Remember, in the liberal world, everything worth doing is worth doing by government. This includes protecting you from thugs and criminals. Liberals simply do not want you doing something for yourself that they think the government should be doing for yourself. Somebody sent me a story yesterday I can't find it in my stack here, but I remember the details. It was nine o'clock at night when the 72-year-old man heard a knock on his door. When he opened the door somebody on the other side of immediately whacked him in the head with an aluminum baseball bat. Then, three young men, wearing their traditional hoodies, started coming through the door swinging a baseball bat. The 72-year-old man was a tough old coot, and it just happened that he had a gun by his side when he opened the door. As he fell backward from the impact of the baseball bat. He started firing. Two of our holy thugs were hit and all three of them ran away. Later on, the cops rounded up the two that have been shot at the local hospital and the third one was soon arrested. Now liberals would've preferred that the old man simply dial 911 and wait for the cops to come take care of the situation. People with rational thought capabilities that exceed those of liberals understand that this man probably would've been dead if he hadn't had that gun. Anyway, let's get to this gun show loophole thing. When whoever it is going to be makes this little speech about guns. They're probably going to talk about the need of the Congress to close the gun show loophole. The problem is there is no gun show loophole. It is a complete fabrication of the left and of those people who aren't exactly on friendly terms with the Second Amendment. Here's the deal: when you buy a gun from a gun dealer. You have to undergo the required background checks. When you buy a gun from a private individual you do not have to undergo background checks. Individual sales from private owner to private owners do not require background checks. Now at guns shows that you will find both private individuals selling guns on a private basis and you will find licensed gun dealers selling guns. The same laws apply at the gun shows that apply in everyday life for the sale of any gun by either a private individual or a licensed gun dealer. If you are a private individual at the gun show you do not have to perform a background check on somebody who purchases a gun from you. If you are a licensed dealer at a gun show you do have to perform a background check on a purchaser. So can somebody please tell me what the difference between the two are? How are the laws any different at a gun show then they are in everyday private transactions? Answer: they're not. So the so-called "gun show loophole" simply doesn't exist. It is a complete fiction created to aid and abet the anti-gun crowd out there; those people who want to deny you your most effective means of self-defense. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 10:06:08 -0600 From: Edward Hudson Subject: Political Joke - Not PC Indian Wanting Coffee: An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other. He says to the waiter: "Want coffee." The waiter says, "Sure. Coming right up." He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee...... The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, Turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, Causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere And then just walks out. The next morning the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling Another male buffalo with the other. He walks up to the counter and says to The waiter "Want coffee." The waiter says "Whoa! We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday. What was all that about, anyway?" The Indian smiles and proudly says, "Training for position in Canadian government caucus: Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, Leave shit for others to clean up, Disappear for rest of day." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:03:05 -0500 From: "Larry Whitmore" Subject: CSSA Supports Self Defence Case CSSA/CILA endorses defending those who defend themselves Firearms lawyer Ed Burlew says citizens allowed to protect themselves against violent attack (Vaughan ON - February 1, 2011) The Canadian Shooting Sports Association / Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CSSA/CILA) support the historic, fundamental right of an individual to defend themselves when under attack. Ian Thomson of Welland was recently charged with numerous firearms offences when he defended himself again three masked men throwing Molotov cocktails at his home and dog house. While Mr. Thomson was not injured, one of his dogs suffered burns. Firearms lawyer Edward L. Burlew LL.B., is defending Thomson by demonstrating that Canadians must be allowed to protect their own safety and property without being forced to defend themselves against criminal charges. Thomson, who is a qualified firearms instructor, shot a firearm outside his home to dissuade the attackers. "The courts have stated police do not have an official mandate to protect the safety of individual Canadians," explains CILA executive director Tony Bernardo. "Who among us would stand still if someone was trying to burn down our house with us inside? In the literal heat of the moment, it is surely instinctual to use reasonable force to end this kind of attack. If a qualified individual has a firearm in a home that is being fire-bombed, can anyone expect the endangered victim not to use it?" Bernardo says he wishes Burlew well in what may develop into a landmark case. "While we do not know the details of this case before the evidence is presented, the videos of people hurling gasoline bombs and death threats at people and pets is pretty compelling," adds Bernardo. "Our legal system appears to have evolved to a point where Canadians who try to defend themselves are somehow confused with criminals. Our forefathers would no doubt roll in their graves if they witnessed how the laws are being torqued to fit the mold of political correctness. We wish Mr. Burlew and Mr. Thomson well in trying to bring the legal community and police back in line by reminding them of the real difference between right and wrong." Mr. Burlew has organized a peaceful day of protest on March 2nd at 9:00 a.m. to attract attention and support to the case. The rally will be held at the Welland Court House, 102 East Main Street, Welland, Ontario L3B 3W6 and all caring citizens are encouraged to participate. The CSSA/CILA has contributed funding to Mr. Thomson's defence and hopes Canadians across the country will show their support by making a donation. Contributions in the form of check, money order, VISA, MasterCard, AMEX, may be sent "IN TRUST" to: "EDWARD BURLEW IN TRUST" Edward L. Burlew 16 John Street Thornhill, Ontario L3T 1X8 Telephone: (905) 882-2422 FAX: (905) 882-2431 NOTE: You can call Mr. Burlews office to contribute via credit card. Please call and request a form to be sent out to you. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:23:43 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: ObamaCare Unconstitutional - Why Judge Vinson's Ruling ... http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/01/obamacare-unconstitutional-judge-vinsons-ruling-important/ ObamaCare Unconstitutional -- Why Judge Vinson's Ruling Is So Important By Ken Klukowski February 01, 2011 FoxNews.com The federal court in the massive 26-state challenge to ObamaCare on Monday held that the health care law's individual mandate is unconstitutional. And, even more importantly, the judge accepted the argument in my court brief that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of this 2,700-page legislative monstrosity, and struck down the entire law. Roger Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the judge presiding over this case, did so because of a single word: Severability. A single law usually contains many different provisions. Lawmakers know that if someone challenges the constitutionality of a statute, they often challenge only one or two provisions of it. So lawmakers usually try to make sure at least part of their law will survive. The process of striking down only part of a law is called "severability." Therefore Congress almost always inserts a severability clause, saying that if part of the law is struck down, the remaining provisions continue in full force and effect. Congress did not insert a severability clause in ObamaCare. So even though only a couple provisions of the health care law are being challenged in the Florida case-those two provisions being the individual mandate aka the requirement that every American has to buy insurance and also the sweeping expansion of Medicaid-the issue arises that if a court strikes down either of those provisions, it might strike down the entire statute. The legal counsel representing the states in Florida, led by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (and her predecessor Bill McCollum) and Washington, D.C.-based lawyer David Rivkin raised the issue of severability in this lawsuit (as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli likewise did in his Virginia lawsuit). So I filed a brief in Florida on behalf of the Family Research Council to fully explore the issue of severability to assist the states in challenging ObamaCare. The states lost on one of their issues yesterday. Judge Vinson carefully considered their argument that Medicaid has become so overbearing that it's no longer a voluntary program, and thus that it becomes coercive of the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The judge said that while this argument was plausible, it goes against every other court to consider Medicaid and is contradicted by the declarations of a couple states in this lawsuit that they could withdraw from Medicaid, so he sided with the Obama administration on that count. But he also said the Medicaid issue didn't matter, because he struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and then held that the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the ObamaCare law. Thus, in striking down the mandate, the court struck down all 2,700 pages, including the Medicaid overhaul. Severability is an issue so far off the beaten path that few lawyers have ever dealt with it, even though including a severability clause in legislation-or in contracts-is so common that it's now boilerplate. So it would surprise most lawyers that a judge would strike down all of ObamaCare. But it's not surprising if you look at how the Supreme Court deals with the issue of severability. The High Court instructs that first you look to see if the law doesn't even make sense anymore, that grammatically and logically it becomes gibberish. If so, you strike down the whole thing. However, if the law still makes sense grammatically, that's not the end of it. A court must instead then ask if the challenged provision is integral to the law, such that Congress would rather have no law at all than have the law without the unconstitutional part. Not only does ObamaCare lack a severability clause, Congress also includes in the individual mandate section (which is Section 1501) a declaration that the mandate is "essential" to the statute functioning in the manner Congress desires. This closely tracks language in the Supreme Court's precedents for when a court must strike down the entire law. So Judge Vinson's actions were not only appropriate, they were necessary. A lower-court judge must faithfully follow the Supreme Court. When it comes to ObamaCare, as I explained in detail in my brief and as Judge Vinson explains in his opinion on pages 63 to 74, the only proper action is for a court to throw out the entire statute, and return this issue to Congress to write a new law. Judge Vinson shows us in this decision exactly what a good federal judge looks like. This case was a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law, which makes it a victory for the American people. Ken Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, and a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:17:24 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Man sentenced for gun-waving armed robbery http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/sentenced+waving+armed+robbery/4208624/story.html Man sentenced for gun-waving armed robbery By Lori Coolican, The StarPhoenix February 2, 2011 A 22-year-old Saskatoon man received an eight-year prison sentence Tuesday for a terrifying armed robbery at an Eighth Street gas station last fall. Michael Darcy Keenatch and another man were wearing red bandanas over their faces when they walked into the Shell convenience store shortly after 11 p.m. on Oct. 19. One customer and three staff members were inside. Keenatch was carrying a .22-calibre handgun, which he fired twice during the robbery, Crown prosecutor Buffy Rodgers told provincial court. "It took merely 34 seconds," she noted. Surveillance footage shows Keenatch pointing the gun at a clerk's chest and face, at a surveillance camera and also at the head of his accomplice, who then went behind the counter and took about $150 in cash from the till before the pair fled. Bullet holes were later found in the tobacco cabinet behind the counter and near the camera, Rodgers said. Two of the gas bar's employees hid in a back room during the robbery, while the customer took shelter in a maintenance closet. Rodgers said all of them were traumatized by the experience. Witnesses from outside the store approached city police at the scene a few minutes after the robbery to report seeing the two masked men cross the street and get into a waiting SUV, court heard. They had gotten its licence plate number. Officers subsequently located the SUV in traffic and followed it to 22nd Street and Avenue D, where its four occupants tried to flee on foot, Rodgers told court. Keenatch was arrested close to the vehicle and was in police custody less than 20 minutes after the robbery. Three other suspects were apprehended later that night. The red bandanas and the gun used in the robbery were found inside the SUV, along with some crumpled cash, Rodgers said. Keenatch pleaded guilty Tuesday to armed robbery, wearing a mask in the commission of an indictable offence and two gun-related charges. In exchange for his plea, the Crown stayed several other charges, including one count of participating in activities of the Indian Posse criminal organization. Three other men -Dallas Lucas Durocher, 27, William Jeremy Morin, 21, and Nolan Randal Thomas, 18 -are scheduled to stand trial in April on a list of charges connected to the robbery. Despite his young age, Keenatch has a long criminal record, Rodgers noted. "Unfortunately, he's no stranger to the court," defence lawyer Treena Sikora conceded. "I think he realizes it was a stupid decision to make," she said of the robbery. Born in Prince Albert to parents who abused alcohol and drugs, Keenatch grew up in the care of a grandmother on the Big River First Nation until the age of 12, and was in and out of foster care during his teens, Sikora said. Now a high school dropout and the father of three small children, he wants to work on his education while serving his penitentiary sentence, she told court, noting Keentach's girlfriend -the children's mother -has stuck by him. Dressed in red and black, his girlfriend attended court and wept quietly through Tuesday's hearing. "It's also a sentence for his family," Sikora told Judge Peter Kolenick. Keenatch told the judge he's sorry for traumatizing the people in the gas station. "It shouldn't have happened to anybody," he said. Sikora told court Keenatch's father was killed in an altercation and another man has been charged with murder in connection with his death. Mike Keenatch, 37, died in a Saskatoon hospital on Oct. 31, 2009, nine hours after an incident in the parking lot of a liquor store on Second Avenue North. John Newburn Miller, 50, is awaiting trial on a charge of second-degree murder. lcoolican@thestarphoenix.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 1:21 pm From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Canadian firearms laws not so bad 100 Mile House Free Press - Opinion Canadian firearms laws not so bad Updated: February 02, 2011 10:32 AM http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_cariboo/100milefreepress/opinion/115070959.html "Firearms registration continues to be a political football with the [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper's government dangling the carrot of abolishing the Firearms Registry if given a majority and the Liberals ranting about public safety and the banning of handgun ownership by lawful citizens." This is an example of the e-mails we received generated by our Jan. 19 column on the firearms' registry. An equal number of readers wrote supporting the registry, feeling if firearms owners have nothing to hide, they shouldn't object to registering their "weapons" to allay the safety concerns of non-gun owners. Others complained about the difficulty in obtaining a firearm in Canada and lambasting the Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) firearms-licence process. One reader scribed he was in California recently, visited several gun stores and was surprised with the state's firearms restrictions, having assumed a more liberal philosophy would prevail in an American state. The store owner told the visitor that if he were a resident, he would be finger printed there at the store and his application would be processed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco (ATF) within 28 days. If approved, the purchaser would have to take a firearms safety test with a pass/fail score determined by the clerk. The store owner was surprised to hear that a Canadian PAL holder could purchase any legal firearm either privately or commercially without further enquiry. Arizona seems to have what the writer had expected from California, a more lenient firearms ownership philosophy. Last year, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill allowing people to carry a concealed weapon (CW) without a permit. The legislation eliminates a background check or firearms course previously required for the CW. In 2009, Arizona passed legislation allowing people with concealed-weapons permits to take their guns into restaurants and bars. In 2009, a man openly carried a semi-automatic rifle to a Phoenix speech presentation by President Barack Obama, much to the consternation of Obama's secret service detail. Some applauded the carrier, while others were appalled by the ramifications of such an act. American federal law requires a background check to purchase a firearm, just as in California, but that doesn't apply if the seller isn't a firearms dealer. Wyoming requires no permit to purchase a handgun, no registration and no licensing. Washington D.C. recently had its handgun ban declared unconstitutional with law enforcement responding with extremely tight permit restrictions. Hawaii appears to be one of the most restrictive states, as it requires a Permit to Acquire (PA) issued at the discretion of the county police chief. There is a 14-day waiting period for the permit, which is valid for six days (Canada's PAL is valid for five years). A separate permit is required for each handgun to be purchased. In addition to passing a criminal background check, all applicants must provide an affidavit of mental health, agree to the release of medical records, be fingerprinted by the FBI, and pass a handgun safety course. If you receive the PA and purchase a handgun, it must be registered with the police chief within five days. Handgun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds are prohibited. These restrictions are in addition to the federal process mentioned previously. Contact the National Firearms Association at www.nfa.ca or the National Rifle Association at www.nra.org for further details on Canadian and American firearms legislation. Are Canadian firearms laws looking any better? Let us know your thoughts at www.ruralcrimewatch.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:09:04 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: bear caused fatalities since the spring bear hunt cancelled? A Ontario outdoorsman's e-mail was read on the Charles Adler show regarding a sled dog cull. Trying to place it in perspective the letter writer said that there had been 9 people killed by bears in Ontario since the banning of the Spring Bear Hunt. As urban media may not know or care to cover these things. Has anyone any data on mauling and or deaths due to bear attacks in Ontario since the ban? I understand there is a single rural MPP who is standing up for rural residents and rural culture in Ontario. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:49:38 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Police officer charged with second assault at G20 Police officer charged with second assault at G20 2011 02 02 Published 55 minutes ago http://www.thestar.com/news/torontog20summit/article/932020--police-officer-charged-with-second-assault-at-g20?bn=1 A Toronto police officer now faces a second assault charge in connection with last summer’s G20 protests. In December, the Star published a photo of an officer wielding a baton at a Torontoist blogger Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy. Bettencourt-McCarthy, 23, is out of the country and could not be reached for comment, but in December she told the Star she had been struck twice during the protest at Queen’s Park and left with a welt on her right hip. “I got hit from behind by an officer,” she said. “He struck me twice. Then he turned, and I ran.” Const. Babak Andalib-Goortani, who has three years service, was arrested Tuesday and charged with assault with a weapon. The Toronto Police Service said Wednesday that the latest charge followed a complaint received by the office of the Independent Police Review Director. He is scheduled to appear in court at College Park on March 7. In December, Andalib-Goortani was charged with assault by the province’s Special Investigations Unit after another officer identified him as the badgeless officer seen in a video apparently wielding a baton during the Queen’s Park takedown of protester Adam Nobody. ["Babak Andalib Goortani. He wouldn't be presbyterian, would he?" > http://now.uz/equ9Qb] [Don't we deport felons]? [To heck with the 2nd Amendment; methinks my vote will go to the politician and party who has the cojones to 'promise' that the poelease will be required to honour citizens Charter Rights and also cut their budgets like every other gov't dept]. - --- Police union loses bid to end mandatory name tags Feb 01 2011 Peter Small Courts Bureau http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/931743--police-union-loses-bid-to-end-mandatory-name-tags?bn=1 The Ontario Labour Relations Board has turned down a Toronto police union bid to end the mandatory wearing of name tags by uniformed officers. The Toronto Police Association, which represents 5,500 officers and 2,200 civilians, argued that the name tags, which display an officer’s first initial and last name, increase the risk of their being harmed. But Ian Anderson, vice-chair of the OLRB, turned down the union’s appeal of an earlier decision by a labour ministry safety inspector. “Policing is an inherently risky profession,” Anderson wrote in his Dec. 20 ruling. “The evidence does not establish that the wearing of name tags has been related to any material increase in that risk.” About 90 Toronto police officers are facing disciplinary action for removing name tags from their uniforms during last June’s G20 summit of world leaders. Those officers will receive one-day suspensions without pay. At a hearing before the board, the police union argued that in this electronic environment a name can be used to determine an officer’s home address, telephone numbers and other personal information. The union said organized criminals, bikers, stalkers and others can and do use this information to harm officers. It argued that the tags disproportionately endanger female officers or those from ethnic or religious minorities. According to Toronto police statistics, serious offences committed against officers — ranging from attempted murder to assault — increased from 1,116 to 1,729 per year between 2003 and 2007. [On or Off duty]? ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V14 #248 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)