Cdn-Firearms Digest Monday, October 18 1999 Volume 03 : Number 177 In this issue: Part 3 - Yellow Brick Road Part 2 - Promises, Promises Part 1 - Cake PAL Application Delay Francesca and RM Publishing... Re: [chat] Francesca and RM Publishing... Some good news....... Fw: BOYCOTT UPS Web Page Free sign for anti-gunowners-download and print Privacy gone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:42:08 -0600 From: "Trowell" Subject: Part 3 - Yellow Brick Road (III) FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD I would also like the opportunity to speculate, since so much of everything about the Act is pure conjecture; it could; it might; it may; that the Act will have as its most immediate effects, some or all of the following; a negative, subtractive impact on the economy, through reduced revenue, trade and taxation; an increase in the value of illegal, black-market firearms, through scarcity; increased criminal use of guns and public vulnerability to criminals engaged in gun trading or gun related crime; and ultimately, and the worst of all effects, in my view; increased ignorance among the general population of the safe and responsible use of firearms, guns being difficult to find, costly to obtain and inconvenient to learn how to use, as a result of prohibited trade, diminished domestic distribution, manufacturing and businesses red-taped into failure, through prolonged and progressively complicated licensing requirements. If the Firearms Act, by erecting obstacles and barriers designed to discourage legitimate ownership and thereby restricting access to guns, raises the value of guns to criminals, increases the number of illegal guns in circulation, escalates crime, exposes the population to a greater threat and increased vulnerability to gun related crime, whether that is a possibility or a probability that exists, just like everything the Act presumes, it is something we cannot wait to find out, it's just too much of a gamble. Where law significantly damages an economy through increased prohibition, such as to make investment unworthwhile or by impairing trade, the end result is an unfettered underground market, as is always the case where efforts are aimed at reducing the presence of commonly used goods. Such as when governments engage in embargoes, creating artificial deprivation and dependency. Relief eventually has to be volunteered from elsewhere, where it is also often hijacked or pirated before arriving, if at all, at its intended destination, or to its starved recipients. The Firearms Act is like a kind of internal embargo, applied upon innocent citizens, intended to dissipate their resolve and willingness to pursue their own purely private interest, and to discourage them from participating in a perfectly legitimate activity, an activity which, truth-be-told, we are not only all the better-off for having but all the wiser for encouraging. Guns and shooting are interests and activities that encourage not only responsibility, discipline, skill and excellence, through personal competition, but the study and awareness of history, technology, society, and much more besides. Moreover, at its most innocent, the ownership and enjoyment of guns, to some, whether appreciated or not, is simply a question of pleasure, fascination, interest and relaxation. Guns represent roughly 500 years of social and technological progress, playing as important a role as the printing press or the wheel. Perhaps because Canadians have always depended on the United States for their security, or because their own nation has not been through the collective crucible of a civil-war, the warding off of or waging of war upon (exceptions noted), a hostile aggressor, they have come to take the role of firearms in history for granted and assume they themselves shall never have need of them, have no pride in their use as a means of self-defense, - -preservation or -protection, nor any desire to permit their use except in the control of crime, or, without hesitation, on a mission of enlightenment, whenever possible involving charitable acts of "peacekeeping," in the affairs of foreign nations, so globally distant and culturally "distinct" as to constitute alien beings. Equally important, is the question of whether the Act, in its zeal, dangerously tampers with or actually violates guaranteed individual rights and civil liberties. Liberties are not simply figures of speech, not just something worth talking about. Heaven knows, liberties have and always will be, something worth fighting for having, or arguing against the removal of, whether it be done politely or bluntly. Soon enough, if things continue as they have, within the general population, only the wealthy and criminals will be able to afford and use guns, and neither without threat of severe punitive action, regardless of their intention, so sweeping are the Firearms Act's powers. Should the wealthy be supposed, for any reason, to be of better character or more deserving than the poorer? Here again there seems to be only one logical inference to be derrived from such a predictable and calculated condition; that the poor are more likely, as a result of their deprivation, to commit a criminal act with a firearm, so as to acquire whatever they are otherwise unable to have by the reward of their own efforts. Yet again, who is responsible for creating the very conditions, not unreasonably likely to arise, but those responsible for encouraging them in the first place? Setting aside from consideration, for the present, other contradictions and issues, such as the confiscation of private property, warrantless searches, denial of the right against self-incrimination, cost overruns, in perpetuity, associated with implementation and enforcement of the Act, preferential treatment of some businesses over others, and on and on, it seems to me worth asking again, what is the purpose of the law? What is it good for? Can the law prevent an act of insanity? Will it prevent a crime? Will it prevent carelessness, negligence, accidents or irresponsible behavior? And at what expense? If not, then what is the point of it and does whatever that good it appears to do, justify the extent of the measures required to attain it? Can we ever really know? If so, please explain how. If it can't be proven to do so, then how can it be justified, or the expense of it be legitimately defended? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:43:04 -0600 From: "Trowell" Subject: Part 2 - Promises, Promises (II) PROMISES, PROMISES How will we ever know, except by waiting, and for who knows how long, that the Act will "save even a single life," as so many of its proponents and other gun-control advocates presume? And, if we wait, only to discover that the Act turns out to be responsible for more deaths, or worse yet, the "taking of a single life," then who shall we hold accountable? After all, as far as guns are concerned, government has almost entirely taken over the role and responsibility of primary educator. With limited exception, an individual cannot own a gun without taking the Department of Justice's mandatory Canadian Firearms and/or Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CR/FSC). That being the case, government having taken over the role, should it not also share some of the blame, perhaps even the liability, for acts of carelessness and negligence, malicious or otherwise? Canadians assuming, on behalf of society-at-large, the inability of their fellow citizens to act responsibly or carefully upon their own, thus demand that they first be instructed in a course designed and approved for them, provided by instructor/representatives permitted and licensed, by their government. Yet, imprinted on the very government manuals, opposite the page laying out the curriculum, something every gun owner knows better than anyone, is the disclaimer; Ultimately, responsibility for firearms safety rests with the individual. Well-put and rightly so, same as it ever was. Supporters of the Act cannot truthfully say that it does not contradict its purpose. It cannot claim to educate or encourage education while simultaneously discouraging ownership and use. Firearms are neither theoretical nor hypothetical devices, no one can claim to know how to use one safely without having one to use, nor without having used a loaded one. Does the DoJ, CR/FSC include, as a requirement, any demonstration of that capability? No, it doesn't. Nor is that the only glaring contradiction in the Act, there are plenty more to anyone who actual takes the time to examine it. The over-reaching powers of the Firearms Act are like a shotgun in the hands of a child, criminal or deranged individual, so unrestrained, undisciplined and wildly aimed, in so general a direction, that it is bound to hit something, and being so wide in its scope and broad in its powers, cannot help but miss much else besides. Spray and pray, so the saying goes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:43:40 -0600 From: "Trowell" Subject: Part 1 - Cake - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Firearms Act - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I A PIECE OF CAKE - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- II PROMISES, PROMISES - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- III FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I) A PIECE OF CAKE A law cannot be said to be good if the effect of it is contrary to its intended purpose, and in my opinion, the Firearms Act is such a law. If the law itself is more likely to endanger society, than to protect it from the very behavior it attempts to prevent, it is itself worse than the evil it seeks to undo and ought, either, to be restrained, swiftly amended or scrapped. If this is the case with the Act, it appears to me that we are in jeopardy, all of us, of suffering not only a trimming of our liberty, but of serious damage to our collective social and economic well-being, an injury to our common prosperity and security. If nothing else, or for no other reason, I believe it is a question that has to be examined far more completely and conscientiously than has so far been evident. I can only speak for myself, not on behalf of others, and I especially don't presume to speak for gun owners, given that the variety of opinion among them is spread far and wide, straddling all incomes, occupations and professions. I can't, in all honesty, say that I believe there are no benefits to be derived from the Firearms Act or from having laws or regulations controlling firearms and governing their use, nor does any other law-abiding gun owner that I know of. However, I don't believe the Firearms Act was necessary to derive that which existing laws already provided. Even the most immediate, or obvious, good that the Act pretends to supply, is really a matter of opinion, at worst, speculative at most. Is mandating that an individual prove, by some common standard, that they can safely handle a gun, offensive to anyone? No one would likely disagree. Does the Act actually succeed in achieving that objective? Most people, if they gave it much thought, would probably admit that it doesn't. Requiring something, isn't, as we'll see, the same as providing it. It has been my experience that people who own guns, operate clubs or associations, or use guns professionally, provide the most practical education in the safe and responsible use of guns, and an excellent deterrent to careless or negligent gun-related behavior. That can be said without denying that there must be those among them, who, despite every counter-measure, will act irresponsibly, yet to date I have not witnessed any such person. On the whole, I have found law-abiding gun owners more often predisposed, to an above average level of habitual self-restraint, self-discipline and patience, and altogether most agreeable. All I know about guns, I learned through them. It would almost seem self-evident, except it seems to me necessary to point out, that those shared characteristics are not only useful but necessary to obtaining the requisite skill, through repeated practice and training, required for controlling potentially lethal, high-velocity projectiles, whether for sporting competitions, target practice, the time-honoured and respectable tradition of hunting or the less frequent, but necessary often enough, subduing of dangerous criminals, on behalf of the unarmed. Does being constantly reminded of the legal, moral and social responsibilities, through laws that surround every movement and action, even while sleeping, relative to guns, render an individual more conscious of those responsibilities and, therefore, less likely to act otherwise? We should hope so, but again, that was already the case before the Act came into force, as anyone very well knows who has, in recent history, bought a gun in Canada. There are many other suppositions, endless in fact, that I can't possibly attempt to examine here, for, it seems to me, beyond the two instances mentioned above, safe-handling and consciousness of one's legal and moral responsibilities to others, much else that the Act rationalizes as necessary for correction or prevention, has no basis in fact, and not a shred of serious evidence to uphold it. Indeed, there is as much, if not more, credible evidence to support the belief that, under many circumstances, the Act inhibits safety or creates more dangerous conditions than exist without it. So, while many of the aspirations and expectations of gun-controllers, seem to me, preposterous, wholly unrealistic, hopelessly naive, childishly idealistic, hysterical, even borderline superstitious, I would still hesitate to suggest that they are not without some underlying good intentions. It's the irrational translation of those intentions, by the imposition of unjustifiably harsh and extreme legal measures opposed to innocent citizens, coupled with a willingness to suspend or eliminate fundamental liberties in the pursuit of them, that troubles me and is something I find almost intolerable. Nevertheless, I am not prevented from understanding, in as far as such an understanding is possible at all, as I am absolutely certain is every other gun owner, the incommunicable personal grief of anyone, even remotely related or associated with the victims or incidents of senseless, insane, inexplicable, random, unpredictable or criminally motivated acts of intentional gun violence, and the consequential reflex of avenging "public" reaction. However, grief, though it be great, or overwhelming, even were it a reaction strictly limited to tragic death or injury resulting from the misuse of firearms, is not sufficient cause or justification, according to my own rather dim wit, for punishing people not responsible for the act that preceded or caused it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:45:54 -0600 From: archer0@home.com Subject: PAL Application Delay I just got off the phone with the CFC, this is the third time I have called to find out what the delay is with my PAL. The address on the envelope attached to my application form was for Miramachi, since I live in BC the application should not have had that address on it. The application should have gone to NB. As a result, the form I sent off in April did not arrive at the proper processing site until September. I told her that my current FAC expires in a few weeks and that I need my PAL to transport restricted firearms, but she said their was nothing that could be done, and that I should call back in after a week or two has gone by. So if you picked up an application form and you don't live in Que. check the address on the envelope attached to the form. Scott PS Does anybody know who handles complaints for the CFC, I think this calls for a letter of some sort. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:50:38 -0600 From: ":-)" Subject: Francesca and RM Publishing... > As one writer suggested, it might make sense to find out more about > "Francesca Gibson of RM Publishing". RM Publishing, which seems to be > "Rogers Media Inc." (from domain name check), actually has a very WIDE > involvement in several areas. Their relationship to Maclean Hunter > Publishing, and all its connections is quite vast here in Canada. > > FYI -- from: http://www.rogers.com/rogers/employ/profiles.html > > "Rogers Media Inc. which includes Rogers Broadcasting Limited and Maclean > Hunter Publishing Limited is Canada's integrated media company. Its assets > include many radio stations across Canada, a mutlicultural television > station, Canada's only home shopping network and over 50 of Canada's > leading consumer, business, parenting and healthcare magazines and a new > media group. Rogers Media Inc. has over 2,000 employees. > > Maclean Hunter Publishing is Canada's largest and most diversified > publisher of magazines and ancillary communications products. The company > publishes over 50 consumer, business, parenting and medical magazines, as > well as a host of communication product and services including directories, > newsletters, consumer and new media products and marketing communication > services. The company's mid and long term goals include an aggressive > growth plan through business start ups and acquisitions, diversification of > its revenue base and an extension of its well known brands including > Maclean's, Chatelaine, L'actualite, Canadian Business, Medical Post, > Marketing Magazine to name a few. The company offers a variety of > stimulating career opportunities in the area of general publishing, > editing, writing, advertising sales and consumer marketing. Our New Media > group offers leading edge employment job opportunities in the interactive > media and Internet area. Job opportunities in our general administrative > areas including Finance, Human Resources, Information Systems and Magazine > Production are also available." > > LJ > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 06:54:14 -0600 From: Jim Powlesland Subject: Re: [chat] Francesca and RM Publishing... On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, :-) wrote: > As one writer suggested, it might make sense to find out more about > "Francesca Gibson of RM Publishing". RM Publishing, which seems to be > "Rogers Media Inc." (from domain name check), actually has a very WIDE > involvement in several areas. Their relationship to Maclean Hunter > Publishing, and all its connections is quite vast here in Canada. [http://www.rogers.com/rogers/employ/profiles.html#media] Which is interesting since Maclean Hunter also publishes the hunting and fishing magazine "Ontario Out of Doors". See: http://www.rogers.com/media/publishing/index.html [Their link to the magazine is out of date. Go to http://www.fishontario.com/ and click on the magazine icon.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:11:54 -0600 From: Peter Kearns Subject: Some good news....... Edmonton Police Service rank and file officers have voted on, and carried a motion that withdraws their support for the registration of rifles and shotguns portion of the Firearms Act. Other local CPA are rumoured to be following EPS lead......... For those interested in such things: These are the same policemen who patrol Anne McLellan's district to make life safer for her. Of some marginal interest, (and to inject a little humour) : It appears that the only police officer who does support this crappy legislation in Edmonton is the Chief of Police, (and he is under investigation for corruption!) As DAT would say, "Oh dear........" regards, Peter Kearns Simon says: Remember when they said that police support for the Firearms Act was essential? I wonder what that axxxxxx Valin will trot out now? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:06 -0600 From: Joe Horn (by way of MJ ) Subject: Fw: BOYCOTT UPS Web Page - -----Original Message----- From: Leroy Pyle To: Leroy Pyle! Date: Saturday, October 16, 1999 4:50 PM Subject: BOYCOTT UPS Web Page >See boycott web page at http://www.paulrevere.org/boycottups and please feel free to offer suggestions/additions. > > Thanx, > Leroy > > >================================================= >The Paul Revere Network >*subscribe to PRN discussion list by e-mail to: LISTSERV@AIRGUNHQ.COM >*in body of msg type: SUBSCRIBE PRN FIRSTNAME LASTNAME > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:02 -0600 From: Nancy Subject: Free sign for anti-gunowners-download and print Free sign to pass on to all your anti self-defense friends, guaranteed to make them feel safe http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/bumpbig.gif ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 15:12:13 -0600 From: Dan MacInnis Subject: Privacy gone. This weekend, a Mississauga man was observed, through the windows of his apartment, walking around naked with a pellet gun. He was inside his apartment, a woman saw him and called police. The man was later arrested and charged. Public knowledge. These are the aspects of the new law which concern me and should concern us all. If you are cleaning your 12 gauge on the kitchen table for instance, and a nosy neighbor sees you through the windows or open doorway, they can call the police and you will get a visit for sure. Maybe the SWAT team. I know there is a line between someone naked with a pellet gun and you cleaning your shotgun after a hunt, but it is a fine line indeed. But the law exists and can be applied. Your house is no longer your castle. Keep those blinds closed, for Gawds sake. Now gun owners must hide their sport and hobbies. I have no doubt a verbal report from a citizen is justification enough to warrant a search for firearms. Without a warrant. Public safety if nothing else will be quoted. Please do not criticize me for reporting this, "if you cannot kill the message, kill the messenger" thing. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #177 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:parry@ionline.net 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/ Digest Back-issues: by FTP (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Digests), or visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above), or put the next command in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n022 end (022 is the digest issue number and 03 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., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! 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.