Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, October 20 1999 Volume 03 : Number 183 In this issue: Re: EDS Systemhouse The Allan Rock Fan club?? National Post Article Re: [alert] BCWF ALERT FACs and PALs ACICR: Firearms "Facts" too danagerous...except for special events!!! Fw: CFC IGNORING COURT ORDER Re: EDS Systemhouse [Fwd: thoughts of l999] Alberta Firearms Reference Posponed Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #182 THEFT, INSURANCE AND OWNERSHIP Re: [alert] Making our Voices Heard Women need guns ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:25 -0600 From: "Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng" Subject: Re: EDS Systemhouse > Company policy overrides a permit authorized and issued by the state? > > Karen & Jerrold Lundgard > Peace River, Alberta > mailto:lundgark@telusplanet.net I would have expected that to depend on the actual statue. I think here in Texas, a business can prohibit legal concealed carry but only if a state-approved sign is displayed. Interestingly, most of the signs I see don't prohibit legal carry, but point out the penalties for UNLICENSED carry. - -keith (Republic of Texas) - -- Keith P. de Solla kdesolla@shield.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:28 -0600 From: "Randy Nelson" Subject: The Allan Rock Fan club?? I found this on the net while searching for the following: "AR-15 disassembly and modification - Author: Dinosaur, Barney, the" Not really, but this is just as unbelievable! http://www.homestead.com/allan_rock/club2.html OTFL...Randy Nelson "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - - Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:07 -0600 From: OFAH@oncomdis.on.ca (Mark Holmes) Subject: National Post Article OFAH FILE: 828/401-11 October 20, 1999 FAX: 416-510-6830 The Editor The National Post 300 - 1450 Don Mills Rd. Don Mills, Ontario M3B 3R5 Dear Editor: Hooray for the National Post and its October 18 editorial "Who's shooting whom." Finally, the nation's media and the general public are seeing the folly of the Canadian Government's horribly misdirected attempt at firearms control. And kudos must go out to the Post for proclaiming the truth. As Ottawa dithers around with registering every law-abiding firearm owner's duck gun or target shooter, criminals are, literally, laughing all the way to the bank. Sadly, as the government continues to funnel money into its abysmally slow and inaccurate gun registration scheme, police forces are starving for even basic funding to fight crime. In British Columbia, our national police force, the RCMP, is quickly becoming a national disgrace. This group of dedicated, professional police officers has had to park their vehicles due to a lack of gas money. The RCMP has had to put on hold, or outright cancel, investigations because of the fiscal handcuffs imposed by Ottawa. Meanwhile, nearly $300 million has been spent on the gun registry. And, as law abiding citizens wallow through the complicated, wasteful registration process, criminals must be rubbing their hands with glee knowing full well their odds of getting caught just dropped a few more notches. Canada's Justice Minister Anne McLellan MUST end this fiasco and start taking more meaningful steps to fight criminal use of firearms. Yours in Conservation, Mark Holmes Communications Specialist ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:42 -0600 From: rmcreat@istar.ca (Michelle Traver) Subject: Re: [alert] BCWF ALERT Rick Lowe wrote; (snip) > Apparently, the magistrate told Myles and his friend that he >really didn't know how to make the police comply with his court order. > >This astonishes me somewhat. I would think that, in the absence of any other >order from a superior court, if the provincial magistrate issued an order >to the >local RCMP detachment commander to surrender the firearms to the court, >and they >refused to do so, then he could send the sherriff's to arrest the commander and >bring him before the court for contempt. > >I believe I suggested to Miles that he look into getting the order confirmed >with a QB order, they would probably take THAT order a little more seriously. This senario was proposed as a possibility shortly after this Firearms Act was announced. Very few people took it seriously. It is a technicality that provides benefit to the government. The onus is on the defendant given this Firearms Act. It is possible that the RCMP detachment commander will be able to say that, under the circumstances of this matter, the Act instructs him to see a firearms licence. It would not surprise me if the RCMP force this man to register the firearm after all the court proceedings take place. Privacy is a sacred thing, Michelle Traver (owner) SSAC NCBCS Pres. & Spokesperson HACS member, PPLC Assoc. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/9460/index.html 604-253-3311 fax 604-255-2202 1708 E. 1st Ave. Vancouver, BC V5N 1B1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:50 -0600 From: Brian W Bedingfield Subject: FACs and PALs Hi Sheldon, We have had reports from our local firearms dealer that the CFO's office has been declining transfer of new firearm purchases to owners of valid FACs and PALs. These FACs and PALs in question have all been issued over the past year or two. The reason given for not transferring these firearms being that upon further investigation of these affected individuals, it was found that there was something on the FIP (Firearms Interest Police), that was being investigated. For example one individual had been just been issued an PAL in 1999, and when he went to purchase a new firearm he was told that because of an incident from 1971 that showed up on the FIP, He was being denied the transfer, and his PAL was under further investigation. Another individual who carries a firearm as part of his job and held a valid FAC, purchased two firearms under the valid FAC. While waiting for the transfer of these firearms he reapplied for a PAL which was a requirement for his job. When he applied for renewal of his FAC to a PAL, his application was denied and his license was revoked. All this because of hearsay information received from his ex wife from 27 years ago, He has been divorced from her for 18 years. He is now out of a job. Brian Bedingfield, NFA-BC Field Officer, Victoria ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:16 -0600 From: Rick Lowe Subject: ACICR: Firearms "Facts" Sirs: I am not a medical doctor; my degree is in criminology. With that in mind, having read your "Firearms Facts", I have grave concerns about the validity of the data you are putting out. I am not familiar with all the research you quote in your "Firearms Facts". I am however, as a criminologist, particularly well informed regarding Kellerman et al who you cite at the bottom of your "firearms facts" as one of your sources. Kellerman's studies have been thoroughly refuted by practically every prominent criminologist working in the violence/firearms field - in criminology circles they have a well deserved reputation for being founded on personal bias. In fact, the only place I am aware they can claim "peer review" is in NEJM - hardly a criminology periodical. Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly, the NEJM was involved in funding and supporting this "research" and was not exactly at what one would call arm's length relating to this study. I believe I also recall that the very same editor of NEJM from that time was recently fired for publishing poorly done and prejudiced research in other areas. Whatever the fate of the editor of NEJM was, I find it appalling that an organization connected with a university would use refuted and discredited research as a reference for published claims. I suspect that any graduate students at your university who tried to defend their thesis using discredited research would be given short shrift indeed. Why then, would you feel it perfectly acceptable to use refuted research in your firearms "facts"? Were you incapable of finding the work of Kleck... Wright, Rossi&Daly... Suter??? All of whom, I suspect, are prominent and available in your university's criminology library? If Kellerman is indicative of the quality of research used by your organization as the basis for information disseminated to the public, then the public is poorly served. Those using such research to back up their allegations should be sent back to redo some basic first year university courses until they gain the necessary understanding of the importance of using peer reviewed research - not claptrap psuedo science written to serve the author's personal prejudice. You do the university which hosts you little credit. I wonder whose "research" you will cite next... Keegstra's? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:21 -0600 From: Garry Dormody Subject: too danagerous...except for special events!!! Hello folks, Went to the local firearms office to get my authorization to transport restricted/prohibited firearms. I was met by a nice gentleman who sat down and showed me all the paperwork and then proceeded to explain to me that I was "allowed" to keep my FN/FAL but was not allowed to shoot it! However, under certain circumstances I would be allowed to go to the firearms office and apply for "special authority" to bring it to the range for "occasional" test firing or for special events. After chatting for a few minutes he did say that this was a creation of more paperwork for their office and a hassle for gun owners. He said that he had been in contact with the president of the local shooting club and that they were trying to cooperate to get something in the works to make this less of a hassle. He mentioned things along the lines of giving owners of prohibited firearms a year long permit etc.instead of having to go to the firearms office every week or so. My question is that if these firearms are "too dangerous" to leave on the restricted list then why on special events and for occasional test firing are they not "too dangerous". I guess this is just another mystery of the FART patrol! I had talked to a friend back in Newfoundland and he tells me that the firearms office in St. John's is also looking at some way to simplify this bit of "rocky stupidity". Has anyone else gotten any ideas from their local shooting clubs or firearms office ? My FN is just too nice to leave all alone in the safe!!! Thanks. dorm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:10 -0600 From: "Darryl and Sandra Schemenauer" Subject: Fw: CFC IGNORING COURT ORDER This is to inform all my customers and friends that even though a Court Order was issued Oct. 14/99 for the Provincial Firearms Officer of Saskatchewan to re-issue me my business licence it still has not been issued. I have met all the conditions that were set forth in the court order but am being met with stonewalling at C.F.C. The Government has already prevented me from fully operating my business for 5 weeks, any more delay is inhumane!! I would like to thank everyone for their support and HOPE to be serving your hunting needs in the very near future! Darryl Schemenauer T'nT Gunworks Regina, Sask. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:09:45 -0600 From: "Andrew D. Kennedy" Subject: Re: EDS Systemhouse At 08:03 10/19/99 -0600, lundgark@telusplanet.net wrote: >"Andrew D. Kennedy" wrote: > > >As an EDS employee (here in the States), I may be able to offer a little > >insight into the EDS Systemhouse position. >snip > >That being said, EDS has a company policy specifically prohibiting the > >possession of firearms on company or customer property, or while on EDS > >business (except for uniformed security employees.) This policy > >specifically states that this is regardless of whether one can legally do > >so. As a holder of a non-restricted concealed-carry permit issued by the > >State of Michigan, I can walk into a police station with a firearm, but I > >cannot leave it in my car at work. > > > >So, perhaps there is a bit of corporate anti-gun bias. > > > >Andrew D. Kennedy > >Royal Oak, MI > >Company policy overrides a permit authorized and issued by the state? > >Karen & Jerrold Lundgard >Peace River, Alberta >mailto:lundgark@telusplanet.net Yes... in that violating company policy could lead to disciplinary action by the company, up to and including termination. They could not prosecute me, however. In effect, any private homeowner or business could deny access much in the same way by saying they don't want armed individuals there. On the other hand, unless it is posted, how would you know? The worst they can do is ask you to leave, assuming you would otherwise be carrying legally. At least, in Michigan. Things are a little different in every state. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:19:18 -0600 From: Gordon <> Subject: [Fwd: thoughts of l999] It is not about Firearms- it IS about Freedom of Choice! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:07:46 -0600 From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Alberta Firearms Reference Posponed McLennon Ross, Barristers & Solicitors have advised that the Alberta Firearms Reference is being posponed by the Supreme Court until the next court sitting in early 2000. Exact dates have not been set. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:07:48 -0600 From: Gordon Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #182 and this from the guy who stabbed Dief in the back!!!! A supporter of joe who no doubt and as such to be labeled "loser". Moderator's Note: That was my first thought to, this is the guy who stabbed Dief. DJP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:07:53 -0600 From: Dave Tomlinson Subject: THEFT, INSURANCE AND OWNERSHIP >Since the stolen PPK was replaced, does not the original, grandfathered >PPK, become the property of the insurance company -- meaning the >original SBH owner no longer owns a grandfathered SBH ? To be "grandfathered," the person had to have "on February 14, 1995 (a) held a registration certificate...for one or more of those handguns, or (ii) had applied for a registration certificate that was subsequently issued...for one or more of those handguns, (b) on [01 Dec 98] held a registration certificate.. for one or more of those handguns; and (c) beginning on [01 Dec 98] was continuously the holder of a registration certificate for one or more of those guns." Registration has nothing to do with ownership. It has to do with possession, because the registration certificate authorizes possession -- no matter who owns the firearm. "Grandfathering" has nothing to do with ownership or possession. It has to do with holding a registration certificate, and the registration certificate is still held by the previous owner after the firearm has been stolen, and after the ownership has been transferrred to the insurance company. It does not HAVE to make sense. It is GOVERNMENT POLICY. This clarification is offered by the NFA. Print and keep, you may need it later. David A Tomlinson National President, National Firearms Association Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:07:56 -0600 From: John Gass Subject: Re: [alert] Making our Voices Heard Why such late notice?. Your message received Oct 20 @ 6:48 EST, I have friends in Van. that would have gone had we only known in time. Moderator's Note: I only do the posting to the Digest once a day on average. If a submission arrives after I have done my daily duty, it generally has to wait until the next day for me to see it. When this is the case an it is time related I send it out on Alert to give as much lead time as is possible. I know that this does not always allow enough time to act, but I do not know what the solution is either. DJP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:07:49 -0600 From: Jason Hayes Subject: Women need guns Thanks Jason Hayes FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 20, 1999 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give these women guns The newspapers reported Donna Hernandez of Las Vegas did everything she could to protect herself. Fearing that her estranged husband was going to kill her, she repeatedly informed the police that she feared for her life. She even went to court and got protection orders. Seven of them. It didn't help. Two weeks ago, Donna Hernandez was found stabbed and strangled in her home. Her ex-husband is now in jail, facing murder charges. About a third of all slayings in the Las Vegas Metro police jurisdiction stem from domestic violence. In October of 1997, 17-year- old Maureen McConaha obtained a protective order against her ex- boyfriend. Weeks later, she was shot to death. The ex-boyfriend, Johnny Walker, is awaiting trial on murder charges. In January of 1998, police found Judy and Ronnie Norman dead inside the couple's Las Vegas home. Next to their bodies police found a protective order that Judy Norman had taken out against her husband. Police ruled the deaths a murder-suicide. In October of last year, Brenda Denise James was shot to death in front of her six children, days after she applied for and received a protective order against her ex-boyfriend, Robert Lee Carter, 30. A murder charge against Carter is pending. While court-issued protective orders are "a good tool for law enforcement, they don't stop a bullet or knife, and we need to make sure everyone knows that," offers Clark County Domestic Violence Commissioner Patricia Doninger. "We have to find a better way to protect people like Donna Hernandez," says a frustrated District Judge Nancy Saitta. But that better way has long been available. God may have made women, but Colonel Colt made women equal, and carrying the tool he invented remains the constitutional right of every American. The problem is, so far as can be determined, Donna Hernandez, Maureen McConaha, and Brenda Denise James did not do everything they could to protect themselves and their children: They did not buy and carry handguns, and acquire the skill to use them. Police cannot provide an armed bodyguard for every woman who's been threatened. Therefore, police should actively recommend that such women acquire appropriate, effective weapons for self-defense, and the minimal training necessary to handle them safely. In fact, if any arbitrary "background check" or "concealed-carry permit" paperwork delays stand in the way of a woman who holds such a valid "protection order" and wishes to acquire a handgun, our state lawmakers- and particularly U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, a proponent of women's rights and an avowed supporter of the Second Amendment-should immediately introduce legislation to provide for an instant waiver of any such waiting periods or bureaucratic delays, authorizing the immediate, legal placement of a handgun in any such woman's purse. Those with an irrational phobia of firearms-though they would never propose that we send our boys to Bosnia armed with nothing more than a whistle on a key ring-will whine that "A woman is in greater danger if she has a gun; the assailant will just take it away and use it on her." In fact, Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, examined the statistical evidence for that concern in his book, "Targeting Guns." Guns are taken away from their owner and used by an assailant in fewer than 1 percent of defensive handgun uses, Professor Kleck determined. Nor is there any indication that more widespread gun ownership would turn our neighborhoods into "shooting galleries": Dr. Kleck also found that in more than 90 percent of defensive handgun uses, the weapon isn't even fired. "It's one of the great lies of the anti-gun people, that people are so incompetent that they're going to have their guns taken away from them," says David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo. and author of the book "Guns: Who Should Have Them?" In fact, if the authorities would send out a notice that the victim is now armed, along with the court "keep-away" order, most of these attacks might never occur, at all. "There's very strong evidence that knowledge that victims have guns is a great deterrent to attacking," adds Don Kates, a criminologist with the Pacific Research Institute in California. "The National Institute of Justice has sponsored extensive surveys of criminals in prisons, and ... they attest that they were far less likely to commit crimes against people when they knew that they were likely to be armed. "The other thing is, it is universally reported that women respond much better to firearms training than men do, because the problem with men is that their testosterone levels get in the way," Mr. Kates explains. "They're supposed to already know about guns, and so you have to get them to unlearn things that they know that are wrong, and they're very stubborn about that." So, if at-risk women find it easy to learn to use guns safely and effectively, why aren't they all urged by authorities to go out and get themselves a Smith & Wesson? "That's to admit that the whole system is a complete failure," explains criminologist Kates. "Notice that the whole thing with restraining orders is a failure designed to remedy a failure. We already have laws against violence, so why do we need restraining orders? Because police won't enforce laws against violence within the family." October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a time when our political leaders annually call on us to reflect on the number of domestic-violence incidents that occur each year, and to take action to stop them. OK then. Let's stop mooning and moaning. Let's do something that works. It's not big, sturdy men who fear to be the last person leaving the shopping mall late at night, walking across that darkened parking lot. It's America's women. Let's really reduce violence against our womenfolk. Let's give them guns. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His new book, "Send in the Waco Killers," is available at 1-800-244-2224, or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed- and thus clamorous to be led to safety-by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."-H.L. Mencken * * * - - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - --------- If you have subscribed to vinsends@ezlink.com and you wish to unsubscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your OLD address, including the word "unsubscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #183 ********************************** 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.