"I said before and I'll say it again"

I am vehemently opposed to the Firearms Act. I would like to see all but the use offences or the what is known as "TRUE CRIME" sections gone. According to the UN there are 26 000 000 smalls in Canada. 21 000 000 small arms are in the hands of other wise law abiding citizens hands. which leaves about 5 million unaccounted for or in the hands of Police, Military, and criminals. The number of other wise law abiding citizens is about 5 million, the number of law abiding citizens is about 2 million for a total of 7 million. Having said this where is the blood bath that the Gun Control nuts keep warning everyone about. I mean after all if you listen to the MSM and the Gun Control nuts these evil mind control devices known as guns should be controlling nearly a third of the population. There should be mass shootings weekly if you follow their logic. We shouldn't have any women and children left with that number of guns in people's hands.

We have had 6 mass shootings in Canada in 34 years. Six people out of 32 million people in Canada had their trolleys slip their rails and obtained guns and decided to shoot people. Of the six three happened before our draconian gun laws were enacted. They are the reason that the Liberal Government of Jean Chretien decided to spend $2 billion creating the firearms act and the infrastructure to implement it. We will never know the true dollar amount because much of the documented expenses were declared cabinet secrets and sealed forever. I think our great grand children will be able to unseal them. We have had three since, under the strictest laws we have ever seen regarding firearms. Proving that the idea of trying to legislate against insanity is, well, insane.
It just doesn't work. The odd thing is that the shooters were seen as deteriorating emotionally by friends and family, or were known to have psychological troubles long before they found a gun.

If we are serious about keeping firearms out of the wrong hands then what we need to do is "Register Criminals". it would certainly be more cost effective. Simply because we have the infrastructure in place already and criminals are a small segment of our population. A registry of "Prohibited Persons" anyone convicted of a crime will be prohibited from owning firearms. With the addition of a stiff prison term if found in possession of a firearm. Even those persons that are on bail could be on the list temporarily, that is until their case is disposed of by the courts. Then whether that is temporary or not will depend on the outcome of course. Police already know about criminal records of individuals when they check the information data bank. It would be remarkably easy to figure out whether the person they just stopped for running a red light has a) a criminal record and b) whether they should just check to make sure they don't have guns in the car. Without fear of the race card being played. "Checked your licence you have a record for _____ I think I will take a look inside your vehicle. Checking for guns in the car of a known criminal is reasonable is it not? If not, why then is it okay to look in a vehicle of a citizen with no record what so ever? that does happen by the way, only because the citizen has a firearms licence.

From the time I started this entry much has happened I will now show you a news item

RCMP nab one of their own in child-porn sweep

---

Saint Johns, NFLD (CBC) - (CBC) - A Gander man charged last week in a Canada-wide crackdown on child pornography happens to be a retired RCMP officer.

Police described Operation Salvo, which led to the arrests of 57 people across the country, as the largest child porn sweep in Canadian history.

CBC News has learned one of the people caught in the net was Hank Johnston, 71, a former RCMP officer who was stationed for a time in central Newfoundland. He was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.

Last Thursday, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a residence in Gander, and seized computers and associated storage devices.

Johnston was released after he promised to appear in court.

CBC News contacted people who know Johnston, but none were willing to be interviewed. One, however, told CBC News that Johnston is a fine man.

Johnston is scheduled to appear in provincial court on June 16.

In all fairness to the RCMP this individual is retired. However what is probative is that he was a member. How on earth could this happen? The truth is it does, through no fault of the force's even with rigorous back ground checks how can anyone expect the force to be all knowing and all seeing? We can't, can we. No more than the firearms act can. This does demonstrate though what is wrong with the logic that Gun Control orgs, the MSM, and the Government follow. If you notice no one is saying that computers should be banned because "someone might" commit a crime with them. Nor is anyone calling for the internet to be dismantled. No that would not be fair to everyone who uses them without committing a crime. No indeed, once again correctly the person that committed the crime is being held responsible not the inanimate object. But some reason this is okay when it comes to firearms? Someone gets shot we hear nary a word about the shooter but we do hear about how guns should be outlawed because "someone might" commit a crime with one. It just defies explanation....

You Be The Judge

I know it is a great deal of legalese to follow(you ought to try being a firearms owner) but where in this is the "Sky" falling in on Gun Control? I have provided the Criminal Code Of Canada Sec.
and the Firearms Act If you are seriously worried compare the changes proposed against the old laws and regs. It does boil down to common sense. And when you come down to it is a piece a paper an obstacle for someone committing a crime? If they were worried about that they would not be planning to break the law in the first place.

PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL

MP: Garry Breitkreuz Party: Conservative
Date: Monday, 09 February 2009

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (registration of firearms)

This enactment amends Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to modify the conditions required to obtain a registration certificate for firearms. It also directs the Auditor General to conduct a cost-benefit analysis once every five years to determine whether existing firearms control measures have been effective at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


CRIMINAL CODE

1. (1) Subsections 91(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following

Unauthorized possession of firearm
91. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm without being the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.


Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon
(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, without being the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

(2) Subparagraph 91(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsection 91(5) of the Act is repealed.

2. (1) Subsections 92(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

92. (1) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a firearm knowing that the person is not the holder of
(a) a licence under which the person may possess it; and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized

(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

(2) Subparagraph 92(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) obtains a licence under which the person may possess it and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsections 92(5) and (6) of the Act are repealed.

3. The portion of subsection 93(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Possession at unauthorized place

93. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, possesses the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition at a place that is

4. (1) The portion of subsection 94(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Unauthorized possession in motor vehicle

94. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless

(2) Subparagraphs 94(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of
(A) a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it,


(ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of
(A) a licence under which that other occupant may possess the firearm, and
(B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it.

(3) Subsection 94(5) of the Act is repealed.

5. The portion of subsection 95(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of

6. Subsections 117.03(1) and (2) of the Act are replaced by the following:

Seizure on failure to produce authorization

117.03 (1) Despite section 117.02, a peace officer who finds
(a) a person in possession of a firearm who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess the firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate for it, or
(b) a person in possession of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition who fails, on demand, to produce, for inspection by the peace officer, an authorization or a licence under which the person may lawfully possess it,

may seize the firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition unless its possession by the person in the circumstances in which it is found is authorized by any provision of this Part, or the person is under the direct and immediate supervision of another person who may lawfully possess it.

Return of seized thing on production of authorization

(2) If a person from whom anything is seized under subsection (1) claims the thing within fourteen days after the seizure and produces for inspection by the peace officer by whom it was seized, or any other peace officer having custody of it,
(a) a licence under which the person is lawfully entitled to possess it, and
(b) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and registration certificate for it,
the thing shall without delay be returned to that person.



FIREARMS ACT

7. Subparagraph 4(a)(i) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(i) licences for firearms and authorizations and registration certificates for prohibited firearms or restricted firearms, under which persons may possess firearms in circumstances that would otherwise constitute an offence under subsection 91(1), 92(1), 93(1) or 95(1) of the Criminal Code,

8. (1) Subsection 7(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (d)
(e) is or was in possession of a non-restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms

(2) Subsection 7(2) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b)
(c) is or was in possession of a restricted license and possesses one or more firearms and does not require a licence to acquire other firearms

9. Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6):

(6.01) A particular individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing that particular individual to possess a handgun referred to in subsection (6.1) if that individual had applied for a registration certificate on or before December 31, 2002.

10. (1) The portion of subsection 19(1) before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

19.(1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms shall be authorized to transport a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more places for any lawful purpose, including,

11. (2) Subsection 19(2) of the Act is repealed.

12. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(b) of the English version of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;

(2) Paragraphs 23(1)(c) to (f) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c) in the case of a transfer to an individual, the transferor verifies the validity of the transferees Firearms Licence with the Canada Firearms Centre, and obtains a reference number for the inquiry;
(d) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer and a new registration certificate is issued in accordance with this Act; and;
(e) the prescribed conditions are met.

13. Subparagraph 33(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; or

14. Paragraph 34(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the transferor lends the registration certificate for it to the borrower; and

15. Paragraph 35.1(1)(b) of the Act, as enacted by section 27 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to acquire and possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm;


16. Subsection 36(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Temporary licence and registration certificate

36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(b) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess only that firearm and, in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm until
(a) the expiry of sixty days after the importation, in the case of a firearm that is neither a prohibited firearm nor a restricted firearm; or
(b) the earlier of the expiry of sixty days after the importation and the expiry of the authorization to transport, in the case of a restricted firearm.

17. Subparagraph 38(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) produces his or her licence and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the registration certificate for the firearm; and

18. Paragraphs 40(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, as enacted by section 30 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, are replaced by the following:
(b) the individual produces a licence authorizing him or her to possess that kind of firearm;
(c) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual satisfies the customs officer that the individual holds a registration certificate for the firearm; and

19. Section 41 of the Act, as enacted by section 31 of chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003, is replaced by the following:

Temporary registration certificate

41. An authorization that is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 40(2)(e) has the same effect as a registration certificate for a restricted firearm until a registration certificate is issued for it.

20. Paragraph 44(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, holds the registration certificate for the firearm;

21. Section 60 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Registration certificates and authorizations to export or import

60. The Registrar is responsible for issuing registration certificates for prohibited firearms and restricted firearms and assigning firearms identification numbers to them and for issuing authorizations to export and authorizations to import firearms.

22.(1) Paragraph 64(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) ten years after the birthday of the holder next following the day on which it is issued, and

(2) Section 64 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1)

Extension period

(1.01) Despite subsection (1), an individual who has not applied to renew a license by the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued shall receive an automatic extension of the period for which the licence is expressed to be issued by an additional period of up to two years in order to permit the individual to apply for a renewal

Conditions of extension

(1.02) An individual who receives an extension under subsection (1.01) may not acquire any new firearms or ammunition until his or her license has been renewed.

23. Subsections 65(1) to (3) are replaced by the following:

Term of authorizations

65. (1) Subject to subsection (4), an authorization expires on the expiration of the period for which it is expressed to be issued

24. The portion of section 66 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Term of registration certificates

66. A registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm expires when

25. Paragraph 71(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and

26. Subsection 72(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Disposal of firearms — registration certificate

(5) A notice given under subsection (1) in respect of a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm must specify a reasonable period during which the applicant for or holder of the registration certificate may deliver to a peace officer or a firearms officer or a chief firearms officer or otherwise lawfully dispose of the firearm to which the registration certificate relates and during which sections 91, 92 and 94 of the Criminal Code do not apply to the applicant or holder.

27. Paragraphs 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(a) every licence, every registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm and every authorization that is issued or revoked by the Registrar;
(b) every application for a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is refused by the Registrar;

28. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 97:

97.1 The Auditor General shall be directed, every five years, to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on each existing firearms control measure to determine its effectiveness at improving public safety, reducing violent crime and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals

29. Section 105 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Demand to produce firearm

105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the person is the holder of the registration certificate for it.

30. The portion of section 109 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Punishment

109. Every person who commits an offence under section 106, 107 or 108, who contravenes subsection 29(1) or who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n) the contravention of which has been made an offence under paragraph 117(o)

31. Section 112 of the Act is repealed.

32. Sections 114 and 115 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Failure to deliver up revoked licence, etc.

114. Every person commits an offence who, being the holder of a licence, a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm or an authorization that is revoked, does not deliver it up to a peace officer or firearms officer without delay after the revocation.

Punishment

115. Every person who commits an offence under section 113 or 114 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

33. (1) Section 117 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (m):
(m.1) regulating the keeping and destruction of records by businesses in relation to firearms that are neither prohibited firearms nor restricted firearms;


(2) Paragraph 117(o) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(o) creating offences consisting of contraventions of the regulations made under paragraph (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (j), (k.1), (k.2), (l), (m), (m.1) or (n);


34. Subsection 119(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Exception — urgency

(3) A regulation made under paragraph 117(i), (l), (m), (m.1), (n), (o), (q), (s) or (t) may be made without being laid before either House of Parliament if the federal Minister is of the opinion that the making of the regulation is so urgent that section 118 should not be applicable in the circumstances.

COORDINATING AMENDMENTS

35. (1) In this section, the “other Act” means An Act to amend the Criminal Code (firearms) and the Firearms Act, being chapter 8 of the Statutes of Canada, 2003.

(2) On the later of the day on which section 13 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 28 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — subsection 36(1) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:

Temporary licence and registration certificate

36. (1) A declaration that is confirmed under paragraph 35(1)(d) has the same effect after the importation of the firearm as a licence authorizing the non-resident to possess that kind of firearm, and in the case of a restricted firearm, as a registration certificate for the firearm, for a period of
(a) in the case of a declaration where a report referred to in subparagraph 35(1)(b)(i) was produced, one year after the importation; or

(b) in the case of any other declaration, 60 days after the importation.

(3) On the later of the day on which section 14 of this Act comes into force and the day on which section 29 of the other Act comes into force — or, if those days are the same day, then on that day — paragraph 38(1)(a) of the Firearms Act is replaced by the following:
(a) holds a licence to possess that kind of firearm and, in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, a registration certificate and an authorization to transport the firearm; and

Freedom From The Press

What ever happened to the days of the press reporting the news rather than manufacturing it. I say press but I do mean all media outlets in reality. I contend that you can fit onto a couple of pages all the actual news everything else is what I will refer to as fluff and stuff. Of Course it costs money to run anything and advertising is a major source of revenue. I understand that people need a place to advertise their events, that aside. I am talking about "JOURNALISTS" or "COLUMNISTS" People paid to write OPINION not report the news. And of Course every outlet has their "EDITORIAL POLICY ". The trouble with opinions is they are like noses, nearly everyone has one.

The trouble with many columnists they get to put theirs in everyones home. Some can be quite insightful others are merely the "house orchestra" for the editorial policy which in some cases is the politics of the publisher. Which is fine,,,,really,,,. I just take exception when they are used to pontificate about issues that they truly know nothing about. The journalist on the other hand wants to be a columnist, he's the weasel in the hen house so to speak. He has something to prove, he wants to show his employer he has the right stuff to be one(a columnist). We live in a world of competition he has to get noticed so they will write or present a news story as though it is earth shattering news they have uncovered. Have I mentioned they needn't get the facts straight. noooo,,,they are not writing for your sake but for their own. After all they want the promotion.

I think of this as freedom of the press run amok. The problem is they have forgotten about the responsibility that the right carries with it. They could care less about every other right they might trample in producing their story, the only right that matters is their right. Maybe if they truly championed individual rights from time to time rather than looking out for their self interest we peons would actually be able to make an informed choice about something. It would be nice for a change to get a news report that is unvarnished and unbiased, one that is in fact a report. A tennis star once said when asked by a journalist about her sexuality she said "In my Country (Czechoslovakia) there is no freedom of the press, here in the west there is no freedom from the press".

Another Informed Voice

Bellow is a letter to the Prime Minister written by Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control. I have read the proposed bill c301 and have to ask did Ms Cukier even read the bill? Or is it the usual modus oporendi of the Coalition for Gun Control to make it up as they go along. To be frank and honest about the proposed bill it doesn't even come close to dismantling gun control in Canada. As usual there is a great deal of rhetoric and little real substance to the CCGC position. The proposed bill would only eliminate the registry of shotguns and rifles. It would still require one to have the proper licence and background checks.

There are some other inclusions into the bill that fall under what a normal person would regard as "Common Sense" issues. Whether you realize it or not some people have a licence for what are known as 12(x)s or prohibited firearms. They have these because the law has allowed them viz a grandfathering clause in the law. They are in lawful possession of these firearms. The previous Liberal Government pulled their special authorizations to shoot these on a licenced range. In pulling this authorization they effectively made having these firearms pointless. They did this for no other reason than they could but could not lawfully suspend their licences without just cause.

The goal of the firearms act is disarmament of the civilian population one class at a time. Bill 301 would restore what was already lawful before it would not create anything new. Another item to be streamlined was the registering of pistols, revolvers, and short barrelled long guns known as the restricted class. Instead of having a piece of paper for each it would be reduced to one piece of paper for all of them you own. Another item was the authorization to transport again each individual firearm in the restricted class has to have an ATT for each this was to be streamlined into one for all. No different than your automobile insurance you get one slip with all the cars you have insured on one pink slip.

These are only reductions in the amount of paper work that must be processed. It is premised in the fact that if you have a valid licence for the class of firearm it is logical that you are qualified to possess it and transport to the range, the gunsmith, and home. No where in the bill does it do away with the registration of the restricted or prohibited classes of firearms. Nor does the bill do away with the rigorous screening process in order to be licenced.

To have a restricted licence you must pass three levels of screening and have no criminal record. The first is local the second is cross Canada the third is with Interpol. To purchase and register a firearm in this class you must be a member in good standing of an approved gun club. So contrary to popular belief that any person can walk into Walmart or the corner gun shop and buy a gun and walk out with it. It is very strictly controlled and will remain so.

Now if you take for gospel what is being said about firearms in the Mainstream Media and the various gun control orgs you would be lead to believe that blood is running in the streets and guns need to be removed from society. However if you look at the actual numbers that statscan compiled you will actually be amazed. In all of Canada there were 594 homicides, this includes all methods. 188 shootings, 190 stabbings 116 beatings, 50 strangulations, 4 burnings/suffocations, 19 other methods, 27 not known, in 2007. 188 people shot sounds like a great deal but when you compare the total of the other categories 406 in total 188 isn't even half of the others and and is not even a third of total homicides. Putting it into perspective 406 people were murdered without guns.

I will not get into a battle of the sexes and who hurts who more. That is just childish and places a higher value of one human being over another. To me violence is violence and that is not acceptable in a civil society. It is no more acceptable than what a feminist of note suggested some years ago. That all males between the ages of 15-45 ought to be incarcerated in order to prevent violence against women. Yet these humanitarians fail to mention anything about violent women.

The one thing the statscan report makes clear about domestic homicide is the perpetrator has a long history of spousal abuse. By law they would be prohibited from owning a firearm. However it does not seem to impair their ability to kill the one they claim to love. It seems by Ms Cukier it is better they be beaten, stabbed or strangled than shot the sad fact of the statscan study is domestic violence has remained steady and unchanged 7% of all crime. Another sad fact is among suicides, her gun law hasn't changed that number either in the absence of a gun they chose another method. I really wonder where this woman's gets her sensibilities. Personally I would rather take a bullet than being beaten to death.

Friday, March 6, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re : Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009 Dear Sir,

The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz’s Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.

You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women, most recently in the letter many of us received on December 6th 2008. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.

Our laws have made Canada safer.
· In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
· The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
· Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in
2004 (the numbers of
murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).

· Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.
Policing, public health and victims’ organizations across Canada – including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women’s
issue: women represent a small
percentage of Canada’s 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.

Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women.
Renewable licenses reduce
the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms.
Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada’s licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women.
Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.

Continued from page 1


Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses.
Information about the guns
individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada’s police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.

There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson =E
2 that the lists of prohibited
firearms have not been
updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill
C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.
Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:

· 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;

·Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides; · 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners; ·When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children; ·Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women.
Ending violence against women

requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.
Signatories listed on attached page.

One Picture Paints A Thousand Words

London, ON Board of Control member Gina Barber interrupted a city council meeting, waving a bumper sticker she received in the mail. Despite being ruled out of order and on the verge of tears, she read the message aloud in council chambers. Barber had requested London Council support Toronto Mayor Cottontop the Halfwit’s handgun ban. Her motion was defeated.

'No' to gun ban support


On Monday, March 9th Gina Barber of London Ontario's Board of Control tabled a motion to help pressure the Federal government for a nationwide ban of legally owned handguns. The motion was in support of Toronto's Mayor David Miller, who blames legal owners and Americans for the problems of violence with guns in his city. Several council meetings were held with advice from legal owners who wanted a more effective crime prevention strategy without affecting legitimate sportsmen and women. Council also heard commentary from the police chief, deciding with a vote of 12 to 5 against supporting a ban, as it would have no useful effect on criminals.

Ms. Barber noted in council that she had recieved very little community support for a ban, but a large volume of mail against it. Even the city's Police Chief, Murray Faulkner has said, "Those who choose to break the law will do so, regardless of bans."

Responsible owners across Canada have been pushing for changes to firearms law that would put more public money into enforcement and reduction strategies, instead of money-wasters such as a Long Gun Registry or handgun bans. The debate about effective crime control has continued to be one of the most talked about topics in Canada next to the economy.


The bumper sticker reads:Only Crooked Politicians Fear Armed Citizens.
Indeed one has to question their motives, after all why would a politician support a law that disarms the law abiding while leaving the criminal elements of society to carry on business as usual. I think I would have to agree that only a crooked politician could support such a law one that would support this in the name of "Public Safety". If anyone is interested Britain banned handguns back in 1998, since then they have been awash with gun crimes. And they are an Island State.

Now on YouTube 1000 Words

Enough with guns already

Paul J. Henderson
The Times

Friday, March 06, 2009

OK Chilliwack, this will not be popular, but in light of ongoing gunplay on the streets of the Lower Mainland I think it's time to say there is almost no reason for anyone other than the police and the military to have guns.

I say "almost" because there are certainly paramilitary organizations such as border services who need to have firearms. And a shotgun or rifle is important for those who work in the bush (myself included at one time) as defence from bears. Farmers and ranchers also clearly need guns at times.

But that's about it. I really don't see why anyone else should have any gun of any kind.

On Wednesday I was at a press conference at the Pacific Region Training Centre with a display of weapons seized from a Surrey couple who were also found with more than 1,500 armour-piercing rounds. What struck me was something said, I believe, by RCMP Superintendent Bill Ard: "There is no legitimate purpose for this ammunition."

An overstatement in the extreme. Because after the announcement, the media were escorted to the PRTC firing range where we were given a demonstration by Sgt. Robert Tan from the Lower Mainland Emergency Response Team. Tan fired his weapon at a dummy wrapped in body armour.

The reality was that Sgt. Tan was not shooting illegal armour-piercing bullets such as those seized. He was shooting perfectly legal .223-calibre shells from his police issue C7 rifle. A gun that is the Canadian equivalent of the well-known American M-16. And, more importantly, the equivalent of the commercial AR-15: a gun that is legal to own.

So why would anyone need the equivalent M16 in the city? Or in the suburbs? In the bush or in the country for that matter?

I suppose firing a gun as an extension of shooting a bow and arrow at a target is some sort of transposed primal urge, which comes from a species that has been hunting for longer than it has been farming. And there is nothing I respect more than someone who has the wherewithal and the inclination to get meat by killing it themselves.

So, there is clearly then a logic to the legality of hunting firearms, but many of the guns available from gun dealers--like the couple caught illegally importing high capacity assault rifle magazines and in possession of 1,500-plus armour-piercing rounds--have nothing to do with hunting.

(At least not anything other than hunting humans.)

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on a massive pickup truck driven by a stern looking fellow that said, "Keep Your Laws off my Guns." To that I say, "yikes."

Those who oppose any governmental interference into their gun ownership always overlook, or more likely willingly ignore, an important point: guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill.

Whenever I have suggested that almost no one should have guns, target shooting is brought up. To that I say try archery or badminton or knitting. Get a new hobby.

But the accidental and intentional killing of men, women and children by guns has to stop. The only way to stop it is to eliminate the gun culture perpetuated by Hollywood and those who like to shoot stuff for fun.

I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.

Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already.
© Chilliwack Times 2009;

Mr Henderson says more about himself than about guns. But lets retire some untruths and myths first shall we? Firstly all rifle ammunition will penetrate police body armour. It is just not designed for it. Secondly Mr Henderson makes a big deal about the appearance of a rifle that people with the correct licence may buy and own. We are talking about the AR-15 rifle which resides in the restricted category. This means that it receives the same treatment as a handgun. It resembles a M-16 or C7 rifle
M-16

 

 

 

 

 

AR-15

 

 

 

 

Look alike fire roughly the same size ammo. M16 5.56 mm AR15 .223 cal. but that is where the similarity ends. They both function differently
here is a video explaining the differences of Function semi automatic v full automatic


I hope this clears up any misconceptions. I dislike it when journalist sensationalizes something in order to try and sway public opinion. If one were to replace the stern pick up driving gun owner with the bumper sticker with black man in SUV we would call him a bigot! Now as for his comparisons of a gang member and a law abiding gun owner and the wish to own an AR 15 "I don't see much difference between a Chilliwack gun collector who has an AR-15 and a gang member who wants his hands on armour-piercing bullets.Both like to play with something that kills. Both will probably kill if pushed too far, and both own weapons that may unintentionally kill an innocent bystander. Enough already." In Psychology they call this Projection. When a person disowns their own thoughts because they are unthinkable or too disturbing too them, that they would even think this way they attach these thought to another person. This is how the mind copes with such thoughts that run contrary to our own morals or ethics. So what Mr Henderson is really saying is I don't see any difference between myself and a gang member I would like to own something that kills and use it to that end this kind of thinking would rattle anyone, no shame in that. So he "Projects" those thoughts onto a generic person in this case "A lawful gun owner". So I would hope Mr Henderson never is allowed to own any gun because he is truly dangerous. I would like to close with this last thought. "guns, when used as directed and intended, do nothing but kill." No this is not true a gun when used properly will hit the target you are aiming at, it is an effective means of preserving your life. The Gas Chamber, the Electric Chair, and the Hangmans Noose when used as directed do only one thing that is kill. And we all know that the aforementioned serve entirely different function in a Society.

Dalton's Bad Habit:

PC Leader, Finance Critic say McGuinty frittered away $27 billion revenue increase
Fri, 02/27/2009 - 08:00

QUEEN'S PARK – Dalton McGuinty has raked in unprecedented revenue from taxes and federal transfers and has squandered it all, Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leader John Tory and Ontario PC Finance Critic Tim Hudak (Niagara West-Glanbrook) said today.

“The reality is, Dalton McGuinty has a serious spending problem,” said Tory. “To fritter away $27 billion - a 40 per cent revenue increase - and have nothing set aside for when times got tough is an extraordinary failure of leadership on Dalton McGuinty’s part.”

Added Hudak, “If Dalton McGuinty had increased government spending at a still generous rate of inflation plus population growth, Ontario would have had a $17 billion cushion to reduce taxes or invest in infrastructure during this recession. Instead, we are plunging into a deep deficit."

Tory and Hudak said total government program spending has increased by $28.3 billion or a whopping 48 per cent since 2003. Until this year, program spending grew at an average annual rate of 8 per cent, more than double the average rate of inflation and population growth combined. In 2008 for example, program spending grew by 10.5 per cent, nearly five times the combined rate of inflation and population growth.

“How can Dalton McGuinty possibly claim to have a plan when Ontario’s finances have gone from surplus to record deficit in weeks?” asked Tory. “This government’s inexcusable foot-dragging when it comes to the budget has left Ontarians in the dark about the finances of their own province!”

While Dalton McGuinty drained the Provincial Treasury, Ontario lost 275,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs and finished last or next to last in growth and private sector job creation in Canada.

“If you owned a business that had a 40 percent increase in revenue over five years but you lost some of your most talented staff, you made fewer products and you ended up in the red: wouldn't you fire that manager?,” asked Hudak in the Legislature on Thursday.

“Dalton McGuinty increased spending unsustainably and missed opportunities to make Ontario more competitive. Ontario is in considerably worse shape today because of this,” said Tory.

I'm Not Blowing Smoke

Wed, 02/11/2009 - 18:32

Whoever coined the phrase "truth is stranger than fiction" must have had extensive dealings with government. Poor Ted Kindos has one strange story to tell.

Ted Kindos is the owner of Gator Ted's Tap & Grill in Burlington. Four years ago, Kindos committed the apparently grievous act of asking a medically licensed marijuana smoker to move away from the front door of his restaurant. The smoker, a man by the name of Steve Gibson, took such objection that he decided to complain to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) on the grounds of bias against a disabled person.

A reasonable person might have expected the case to be dismissed outright, but the ensuing details makes one wonder what the OHRC was smoking. Here's what they came up with:

As part of a settlement offer that took no account of Kindos’ $40,000 in legal fees (Gibson had his bills generously covered by the taxpayer), the struggling business owner was ordered to pay the licensed marijuana smoker a sum of $2,000 for pain and suffering, to educate his staff and the public about the human rights code, and to post signs saying, “We accommodate medicinal marijuana smokers.”

But Kindos' ordeal doesn't end there. After the settlement, Kindos was helpfully informed by Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission that Ontario laws prohibit him from serving anybody in possession of a controlled substance, even if that substance is medically permitted. With the OHRC-mandated signs hanging in his restaurant, Kindos was told that his liquor license was now in jeopardy.

As he enters the fifth year of this dispute, Kindos continues to incur substantial legal fees in the defense of his liquor license. Meanwhile, his business prospects are clouded by a recession that has been particularly harmful to the hospitality sector.

The OHRC was originally intended to mediate cases of housing or employment discrimination. How did this agency overstep such a simple but important mandate?

Unfortunately, the McGuinty government has given the OHRC and other government agencies the green light to take on a more intrusive role. After all, why worry about the backlog of 3000 OHRC cases, including complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace, when you can blaze exciting new trails for human rights through Gator Ted's Tap and Grill?

If the McGuinty Government doesn’t bring about an intervention and focus these drifting agencies to their actual mandates, the whole experience will simply leave the OHRC and others jonesing for more.

Bill would more than scrap long-gun registry

Video Safe and Secure





Published Tuesday March 3rd, 2009 Kings Country Record

One of the most expensive and ineffective programs ever imposed on the people of Canada has been the long-gun registry for non-restricted firearms. When the federal Liberals first introduced the long-gun registry 10 years ago, they insisted the cost would be about $2 million. Today, its cost is pegged at $2 billion and counting.

The Conservative Party of Canada has been on record for some time in opposing the registry and it was a campaign pledge in the 2006 election to eliminate it. It is common knowledge that such action has been stalled because the three opposition parties, with their majority in the House of Commons, would not allow such legislation to pass. As a result, our government has instead acted to improve licensing provisions, granting periods of amnesty to allow gun owners to bring themselves in compliance with the law and setting aside costly registration fees. And, just recently, the prime minister re-stated the government's determination to abolish the registry and concentrate resources on attacking the criminal use of firearms rather than targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Meanwhile, my colleague Garry Breitkreuz, the MP for Yorktown-Melville in Saskatchewan, has brought the issue forward with Private Members' Bill C-301. His bill not only proposes to scrap the long-gun registry, but goes much further to lower costs and reduce what he calls the unnecessary complexities of the Firearms Act. And, he contends, these moves will have no negative effect on public safety. There are numerous changes proposed in Mr. Breitkruz's bill. In addition to the elimination of the long-gun registry for non-restricted firearms, there is a requirement for the Auditor General to perform a cost/benefit analysis of the program every five years. Other clauses would combine the Possession Only licences with the Possession and Acquisition licences, change the licence-renewal period to 10 years and change the grandfathering dates for handguns to clarify and improve what is now a confusing situation for legal owners.

Mr. Breitkreuz has been a severe critic of what he describes as the "myths" of the long-gun registry. He dismisses the contention, for example, that it's a valuable tool for police who access it thousands of times a day. He notes that this police usage mostly happens automatically when police officers check the Canadian Police Information Centre for daily inquiries and get gun registry information whether they want it or not. Lists of firearms provided when police respond to emergency calls show legal guns only, which are the weapons an officer is least likely to be harmed by. In addition, police investigations are not greatly helped by the registry because the information is so inaccurate it cannot be used as evidence in court.

Registered long guns were used in homicides nine times from 1997 to 2004 and the registry of some seven million firearms did not prevent any of these deaths. Instead, 84 per cent of the firearms used in the commission of crimes are unregistered and 75 per cent of those were illegal guns smuggled into Canada. Where firearms were used in a violent crime, more than 71 per cent involved handguns and only nine per cent involved rifles or shotguns. Very few of those were even registered.

There were 306 illegal breaches of the national police database documented between 1995 and 2003 and 121 of those cases are still unsolved. Many police investigators have publicly voiced their concerns that the gun registry has been breached and become a shopping list for thieves. Mr. Breitkreuz sums up his position this way, "Many Canadians have come to realize that the long-gun registry wasn't working because it targets the wrong people. Criminals are not hampered in the least by the registry." Even the Auditor General's 2002 report says the program was excessively regulatory, overly complex and very costly to deliver and had become difficult for owners to comply.

It remains to be seen how Bill C-301 will fare in the minority Parliament. The proponent's best bet could be a free vote. There has been speculation that several opposition members could support such a measure, if Party discipline is not imposed, because their constituents have given them that message.

Greg Thompson is MP for N.B. Southwest and minister of veterans affairs.

Let me make myself clear. I am not a right wing nut job, I am philosophically an Anarchist. The truth be told the existence of sovereign states has done more harm than good. Realistically I am a "live and let live" libertarian. If states are to exist they should be seen and not heard, or perhaps more aptly put not felt. If I appear to be less than progressive so be it all progress is not for the good as we are lead to believe. We in Ontario have standards that we have become accustom to I see it as the job of Government to keep are standards up without breaking the bank and keeping their nose (the government's) out of my life and my business.
That meaning maintaining our freedoms and our rights to conduct our lives as we see fit. When I became eighteen years of age I was much freer from my parents than a year earlier. Choice was the reward, the ability to make choices including bad ones. That was my right. I have over time come to cherish my rights, appreciating what it means to live in a free society where I am free to screw up or not. However I couch that statement firmly with the proviso that no one is harmed by my screw ups.

I cannot for the life of me understand people who are willing to give up any rights in the pursuit of a perceived good. "Public Safety" has become the a catch all blanket motive with the rallying cry of "If it saves one life". That is the most disingenuous statement ever uttered by anyone, largely because if one takes full meaning of that phrase and put it into practise we would be legislated into bubble wrap and not allowed out our front doors. After all how many people are accidentally killed in their homes? Driving to work everyday would be right out after all how many people are killed on the way to work. If acted upon that phrase could bring society to a screeching halt.

Life has always had its dangers. From are earliest beginnings there was always something looking to eat us. We learnt to over come this, we even thrived in a very dangerous world. Now what has this to do with Dalton McGuinty? Honest, I will get to that. Our species learnt to live with risks and dangers. People getting killed or maimed was part of living yes we did learn to do thing safer but that was not a guarantee that accidents wouldn't happen. So we invented Tort Law, which is the idea that we are responsible for the harms we cause. Which when you think of it, it is not a bad thing on the whole. How ever clever solicitors and barristers have become quite rich of of it. Anyone who has needed a Lawyer knows the cost of justice in our Country.

Many of would agree rules are a good thing, they tell everyone what is expected of them and set a limit on what will be tollerated in a civil society. But what happens when the rules become more important than the business of living in a free society. Where there is a naive belief that all anyone has to do is make a rule and a problem is solved. Dalton McGuinty seems to think so. McGuinty has in his tenure as Premiere of Ontario broken more promises than any politician in the history of the Country. I was always taught as a child that breaking a promise was the same as telling a lie, thus making me a liar. We all know liars cannot be trusted. Why then would you put your trust in Dalton Mcguinty?

While some of his lies are in the form of broken promises (263 last count) other are in the form of flip flopping on an issue. He said that he would not pass a law banning smoking in cars with children low and behold he did that very thing. He has even made lies of omission he did tell us that he was going to pass a law making it mandatory that children must be in a safety seat. To me either one is a no brainer. I do not require a law for that, do you? Maybe other people do? I then must ask you How did we reach the ages that we are today with out child safety seats or our mothers and or fathers smoking in the car? We all have at least one know it all friend who has an opinion on everything who at times gets on our nerves when the offer unsolicited advice on raising our children. We do not enjoy them when they do it, why is alright when a government does it?