December 15th, 2006 01:11 PM
CANADA: more NFA articles
I have received several more articles from the National Firearms Association.
These were sent to me from David Tomlinson, as a responce to me posting The Story of Margo.
David A. Tomlinson
National Firearms Association
The attached messages and files will give you
an idea of how active we are in this area. The
CFJ articles have been published in our
GS9 (an attached Microsoft
Word file) tells you what you can do to
protect human life from criminal violence, and
how you can do it. Some of it is quite surprising.
GS1&2 show how you do NOT
have to lock up your firearm or keep it
unloaded WHEN YOU ARE AT HOME.
the apparent illegality of several key
sections of the Criminal Code with respect to
licences and registration certificates and
carrying arms. This information is now in
active use in R. v. Montague. Artguments
will be heard in March 2007, and we may
have parts of the firearms law struck down.
ANTIQUES explains how to get a handgun, and
carry it, without all the paperwork--indeed,
with NO paperwork.
You may be interested in lioness and
LionessGiveAway.doc. You may publish any or
all of the attached documents, but GS15
should only be published in the CFJXVI1GS15
format, as there are things in it quoted from
a copyright book that had to be rewritten
before we could publish them.
If you like, send me a mailing address so I
can send you our last eight magazines. We've
been hitting this issue very hard, focusing
on the need for concealed carry permits FOR
WOMEN. With a little thought, you can see why
we are focusing there.
The C-68 firearms control system contains
loopholes one can drive trains through. We've
been driving trains through them ever since
December 1, 1998 when it came into force.
Never fight an elephant on ground chosen by
the elephant, or using rules chosen by the
elephant, or using tactics that the elephant
Have a nice day.
David A. Tomlinson
The first one is also by Cindy Lightheart.
WOMEN IN DANGER
by Cindy Lightheart
The police do not come to a woman before or during a violent crime. They come after the crime has been completed and the violent criminal has left the scene. It is extremely rare for a police officer to arrive in time to prevent or even interrupt a violent crime when a woman is the victim. How could he? She could not call the police before her attacker left.
Given that truth, it is vitally necessary for a woman in danger to have the right and the ability to protect herself and her children when the attack begins. If she cannot protect herself, the police will not be there to protect her, and she will be just another headline.
Allowing a law-abiding woman, who has met all the qualifications and standards required of an RCMP constable and has no criminal record, to have the ability to protect herself does not make her a menace to society. Issue her an authorization so that she can carry a handgun for protection of human life from criminal violence. Then the mere fact that she exists is enough to spread a blanket of protection over all women, because a violent criminal does not and cannot know when his chosen victim will be able to protect herself from his attack.
The law allows the issuance of such authorizations, but the federal and provincial bureaucrats refuse to issue them--and that is illegal. A bureaucrat can say no, but he is only a decision-maker, not a lawmaker. He has no legal right to reject all applications!
Of course, there will be few such women, because the training required takes time, money, and effort. But if a violent criminal does not know which woman is carrying a handgun, he will be deterred from attacking any woman.
You think that's ridiculous? In Orlando, Florida, in 1966, the rape rate was very high. Therefore police began to train women in the safe handling and use of handguns. The rape rate fell from 36 per year in 1966 to 4 per year in 1967. And it stayed down. That was not because the women were shooting anyone. They weren't. It was because major publicity said that some of them could--and might! We need that protection for Canadian women.
Violence against women is a major crisis in our society. For decades, our government has failed in its obligation to protect women. As long as perpetrators of violence against women can commit their crimes without serious fear of prosecution or punishment, the circle of violence will never be broken. If a man intends to commit suicide after killing a woman and her children, the law is helpless and cannot deter him.
For a woman in danger, the ability to defend herself and her children with a handgun is by far the safest course of action. The propaganda about an attacker advancing toward an armed woman is just that--propaganda. In real life, he is terrified, and runs like a rabbit.
The usefulness of a handgun doesn't always involve firing it. A verbal request to be left alone, if and only if coupled with a displayed handgun, is sufficient to discourage most violent attackers from further hostile actions. In fact, it scares the pants off them. If a woman had a handgun, would you move toward her, or away from her? In the rare instances where presenting a handgun does not stop aggression, firing it usually does. A man with a bullet in his leg loses all interest in rape, assault, and murder.
Women are targets in violent crime, and that endangers women's lives. If violent crime towards women is to be controlled, it is only the intended victims who can do it. Violent criminals do not respect the right to life. They do not fear the police or the justice system. Therefore, they must be taught to fear their victims!
Violence against women is evident in all communities, cultures and income levels. It's a horrifying reality. It is also a horror for many women who are forcibly intimidated, sexually assaulted, or brutally raped. They are frequently permanently disabled by long-term terror--or they are murdered in cold blood, with no chance of protecting themselves.
There is no one type of woman victim. All women are vulnerable to violence, but some are more vulnerable than others. Inconceivably, innocent women with disabilities of all types and helpless elderly women are at a very high risk of being physically and sexually abused by dangerous men.
Women in the sex trade and women who are trafficked for forced prostitution or forced labour are at enormous risk of sexual and physical abuse, and even murder. As the police tell us, the malice and viciousness of some of those sexual assaults and murders is beyond belief.
Police describe the behaviour of many of the men who assault prostitutes as very physical, very intimate, and designed to hurt. Statistically, prostitutes very frequently get into the sex trade as very young girls fleeing abusive homes. They do not deserve to become victims of violent, vicious men. They deserve to be protected from criminal violence, and are not.
The same is true for many women who are trapped in abusive relationships. Young women, many still in their teens, married or living common law, are statistically at higher risk of being "owned" and abused by their partners. However, even mature educated women can be and often are fooled by dangerous men, falling into a trap that offers them only violent physical and sexual abuse. Dangerous men are not monsters all the time. They can be quite charming and likeable, when they choose to be. Their deadly violence is preceded by gradually increasing psychological abuse and control, which makes it even harder for women to find their way out of abusive relationships.
Ironically, this means that many women put their lives in peril when they decided to end such a relationship. The most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is the time when she decides to leave. The majority of such women who are murdered are killed either when they give notice that they intend to leave or when they actually try to leave, but many are killed after leaving. The danger can persist for years, with police losing interest every day.
Other women live in constant fear, because once a violent man loses his power of control, his obsession and persistence, as well as his stalking and threats against his victim, can be unimaginable. Restraint orders issued by the courts to such men are ineffective. They mean nothing to truly dangerous men. When we see the results in a newspaper headline, it is not enough to say, "Why did they let him out of jail?" Women need something better.
Some women have no choice but to work alone. For example, some women real estate agents must go to meet men they have met only over the telephone, at vacant houses, farms, or acreages. There are women who work alone in businesses that are open late at night or open very early in the morning.
Parking lots and garage parking are also opportunities for violent abuse of women. Staff parking is often in an isolated area with poor lighting. Elevators and stairways to garage parking are prime hiding spots for attackers, leaving women no choice but to enter dangerous situations. When a criminal has the ability to predict the location and movements of a potential victim, an ambush is easy.
Minor skill in a martial art is not enough to protect a woman against attack by a violent man. Men are larger and stronger, so only one solid blow is required to knock a woman to the ground, stunned, helpless, and terrified.
Whistles and alarms are not really useful. They are often mistaken for a common car alarm, and who pays any attention to a car alarm these days?
Our homes are full of potentially dangerous things. As parents, we have a responsibility to teach our children the safety aspects of daily living as they grow. The kitchen is a very dangerous room, full of knives, stove burners, utensils, and appliances. We have vitamins, prescription drugs, and hazardous household cleaners. We have power tools, the lawn mower, garden tools, and sports equipment. We teach our children about all of these hazards.
We also teach them how to ride their first bike, and eventually, how to drive the family car, as well as water and land recreational vehicles. So, why shouldn't firearms be on the list of things in the house? They are not a greater risk than other things on those lists. Cars are far more dangerous, and kill far more people.
Not only is women's self-protective potential still politically ignored, women are also handicapped by firearms control law restrictions. How long do we have to wait for justice? Our government has the responsibility to protect women in this country--and doesn't. The government holds the solution for improved prevention of violent crime against women, and yet it keeps on actively and lethally perpetuating the problem.
Women everywhere have the right to live free of the fear of violent crime. It's up to us as women to fight for the rights of women. We must persuade our government to change its attitude about the firearms control laws! Don't let the danger to your sisters continue to get worse! Making Canada a safer place for women is a priority!
If you are tired of reading headlines about abused and murdered women, write to Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice, 284 Wellington St, Ottawa ON, K1A 0H8. Better still, phone him at (613)995-0121. Tell him that you want any woman who has met all the qualifications and standards required of an RCMP constable and has no criminal record to be able to apply for an authorization to carry a concealed, loaded handgun for the protection of human life from criminal violence--and get it.
Last edited by Pyro; December 15th, 2006 at 01:25 PM.
December 15th, 2006 01:15 PM
This one is a technical explaination of self defence issues.
WARNING. As always, get a lawyer if in doubt.
PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE FROM CRIMINAL VIOLENCE
Parliament established an administrative structure and a set of administrative procedures enacted to control and deal with the problems that arise from the use of force to protect human life from criminal violence. People--including police officers--are often confused by the scattering of the various relevant provisions. They exist, but they are not placed together in the Criminal Code.
It is necessary to examine certain sections of the Criminal Code to determine when a person may legally use force--including firearms--to protect human life from criminal violence. The relevant provisions are:
Criminal Code section [CC s.] 494 (emphasis added), which says, in part:
* 494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
* (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
* (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes
* (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
* (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.
* (2) Any one who is
* (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
* (b) a person authorized by the owner or a person in lawful possession of property may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a[ny] criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
* (3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.
Those are the ways in which any individual is authorized to arrest another individual. If one is faced with a situation where one may have to use force in order to protect human life from criminal violence, it is very important to try and prevent violence before using it. One can do that by attempting to arrest the person, if a crime is being committed.
Assault is defined [CC s. 265 (emphasis added)] as:
* 265. (1) A person commits an "assault" when
* (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
* (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
[Notice that; he commits an assault if he only threatens to apply force to another person.]
* (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
* (2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
* 266. Every one who commits an assault is guilty of
* (a) an indictable offence...
Therefore, as soon as the thought comes, "My God! I am, or someone under my protection is being, assaulted!" one should always shout, "You are under arrest!"
Shouting that out transforms the situation. It is no longer one of self-protection (which is allowed by the Criminal Code, but only by way of the weak protections offered to the victim by CC s. 27, 34 and 35). Shouting "You are under arrest!" transforms the situation into one in which the arresting person is protected by the stronger protections of CC s. 25. Unless the criminal then submits peacefully to arrest, the criminal will probably be guilty of resisting arrest, violating CC s. 270(1)(b) (emphasis added):
* 270. (1) Every one commits an offence who...
* (b) assaults a person with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or another person...
What protections apply to a person who is arresting someone under CC s. 494?
CC s. 25 (emphasis added) says, in part:
* 25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
* (a) as a private person...is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose...
* (3) ...a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or any one under his protection from death or grievous bodily harm.
Study that sequence carefully. CC s. 494 authorizes one to arrest anyone found committing an indictable offence, anywhere, or any criminal offence on, or in relation to, one's property. It also provides the same protections to the arresting individual that it provides to a police officer.
CC s. 265 defines "assault"--the most likely reason for making an arrest--broadly, and brings a criminal guilty of assault (by the actual or threatened use of force) into the CC s. 494(1)(a) "indictable offence" zone, allowing arrest wherever the offence is taking place.
Where one is trying to arrest someone for a property offence (attempted theft, vandalism, etc.), CC s. 270(1)(b) upgrades that offence into the CC s. 494(1) "indictable offence" zone if the criminal resists arrest by threatening or using force against the arresting person.
Then CC s. 25(1) justifies one who does, or tries to, make an arrest through or partly through the lawful real or threatened use of force. It authorizes the use of force in "doing what he is required to do (arresting the criminal) and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose (arresting the criminal)." Therefore, CC s.25 apparently authorizes the use of whatever force is necessary to complete the arrest.
Then CC s. 25(3) says one cannot use force of a kind likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless¬ it is necessary to protect either one's self or a person under one's protection from "death or grievous bodily harm." One cannot shoot someone who is stealing hubcaps, but one can arrest him. If he resists arrest violently enough to cause reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm, the use of deadly force may be justified.
Those protections apply to a person who is trying to make an arrest. The provisions that protect one who is simply acting in self-defence are weaker:
CC s. 27 (emphasis added) says, in part:
* 27. (1) Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary
* (a) to prevent the commission of an offence
* (i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and
* (ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or
* (b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).
CC s. 34 (emphasis added) says, in part:
* 34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to defend himself.
* (2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in the assault is justified if
* (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
* (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
From the above, it seems that Parliament intended to recognize the right to the use of force to protect human life from criminal violence in cases where the assistance of a peace officer was not immediately available to the victim. Parliament also intended to provide protection for those attempting to arrest wrongdoers.
The use of a firearm or other weapon by the victim or protector to protect human life from criminal violence is not excluded by the relevant legislation.
The protections granted by CC s. 27 and 34 are weaker than the protections granted by CC s. 25, and it is much more difficult to prove that they are applicable to the event. Situations in which self-protection becomes necessary are often messy and confused.
A police officer carries a loaded firearm for the primary purpose of protecting human life from criminal violence--his own, or lives of those under his protection. An officer is not authorized to use that firearm to protect property, or to threaten an individual who is no threat to the officer or anyone else, or to shoot a criminal who is fleeing the scene of a crime. He may not use it unless he is acting to protect human life from criminal violence.
By the very nature of police work, there is a small possibility that the police officer will, some day, need that loaded firearm for that purpose. It is the act of a reasonable person for him to carry that loaded firearm into all situations where he may need it.
It is often the fact that the police officer has the power to arrest a criminal that prompts the criminal to resist arrest with deadly force. That can easily escalate a property crime into the realm of a deadly force confrontation and trigger the police officer's right to use his firearm for "protection of human life from criminal violence."
Where an individual is faced with a situation where he may be forced to protect human life from criminal violence, he is abruptly in the same situation that a police officer is in during his activities. For example, a farmer may investigate an unknown vehicle in his pasture. Such a situation may be an attempt to steal cattle or horses, and may bring into play the farmer's CC s. 494(2) power to arrest a criminal who is stealing property.
It is the act of a reasonable person for the police officer to have a loaded firearm with him when he may require it to protect human life from criminal violence. Similarly, it is the act of a reasonable person who is investigating possibly criminal activity to take with him a loaded firearm if he is competent to handle and/or use it safely in such circumstances. He should know how to handle and use the firearm safely, and know the relevant laws.
The escalation from simple theft to resisting arrest by criminal assault, with or without a weapon, is a distinct possibility, and a reasonable man would prepare to deal with that. He may reasonably do that before he is even certain that a crime is in progress, or that arrest is an avenue open to him in dealing with the situation.
However, any person dealing with such a situation should be aware of CC s. 87.1(1) (emphasis added):
* 87.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded [emphasis added].
The penalty is up to five years in prison. Therefore, one should never point a firearm at another unless it is clearly necessary, and the only allowable purpose is to protect human life from criminal violence in a situation where there is a real threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If only a property offence is involved, that is insufficient; the individual must be in a state of reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.
In the material above, a farmer is used as the illustration in the situation because rural crime is usually committed at a long distance from possible peace officer assistance. If the crime in progress is taking place in an urban setting, the above rules are correct--but the likelihood of the person who is protecting human life from criminal violence being arrested and charged are considerably higher.
In any situation where an individual who is not a peace officer acts to arrest a criminal, or acts to protect human life from criminal violence, it is probable that charges will be laid against that individual. Many police officers do not like a "civilian" doing work that "belongs" to a police officer, and many Crown prosecutors believe that such behavior should be discouraged.
Therefore, charges are often laid against those who are innocent of all wrongdoing. The cost of defending the accused is very high, and often, such cases are lost in the courts.
Protection of human life from criminal violence and arresting the criminal should therefore be used only if the need is great and the circumstances are clear.
If an individual believes that it may someday be necessary to exercise those protected powers, he or she should adopt this concept now, not when the need arises:
At the moment that I realize that I am going to have to protect human life from criminal violence, I will shout, "You are under arrest!" before I do anything else.
If that is strongly built into one's brain, it is the realization that will trigger the shout.
It is far, far better to be in court dealing with an attempted arrest than it is to be in court dealing with a fight that you claim was self-defence. Self-defence is just too hard to prove, and the Criminal Code provisions about it are too weak.
If the person submits to arrest, and the arresting person takes custody of him, the arresting person should immediately:
(a) tell the arrested person who the arresting person is; for example, "I am the owner of this store/property/thing,"
(b) tell the arrested person again that he is under arrest, tell the arrested person exactly why he is under arrest and what law he has broken, (assault, theft, vandalism, et cetera; Criminal Code section number not required), and
(c) tell the arrested person that you are now going to deliver him to a police officer, so his Charter rights can be dealt with by the police.
If you do not do those things, you have not done anything wrong. A recent Court of Appeal decision ruled that a private citizen does not have to do those things when arresting someone, but a police officer does.
Last edited by Pyro; December 15th, 2006 at 01:21 PM.
Reason: General clean-up, formatting did not carry over properly.
December 15th, 2006 01:33 PM
Criminal Code section (CC s.) 84(3) says, in part:
* For the purposes of (CC) sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
* (a) any antique firearm...
Therefore, no FAC, licence, ATT, ATC, registration certificate, transfer procedure, or documentation is required for any transfer, transportation, or possession of any "antique firearm". Also, as CC s. 84(3) says, nothing in the Firearms Act applies to any "antique firearm".
That also applies to an "antique firearm" that is also a "prohibited firearm" or a "restricted firearm". Yes, that odd pairing can and does happen!
CC s. 84(1) "restricted firearm" says, in part:
* 84. (1)... "restricted firearm" means (a) a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm...
Therefore, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "restricted firearm" unless it is both an "antique firearm" and a "prohibited firearm".
CC s. 84(1) "prohibited firearm" says, in part:
* 84. (1) "prohibited firearm" means (a) a handgun that
* (i) has a barrel equal to or less than 105mm [4.14"] in length, or
* (ii) is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge...
Therefore, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "prohibited firearm" if it has a barrel less than 105mm/4.14" long, regardless of whether it is a muzzle-loading handgun or a cartridge-firing handgun, and regardless of calibre.
Also, any handgun that is an "antique firearm" is also a "prohibited firearm" if it is "designed or adapted" to use "a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge".
So which firearm is an "antique firearm" today?
* 84. (1) "antique firearm" means:
* (a) any firearm manufactured before 1898 that was not designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition and that has not been redesigned to discharge such ammunition, or
* (b) any firearm that is prescribed to be an antique firearm.
So far, any matchlock, wheel-lock, flintlock or cap-and-ball firearm made before 1898, including a handgun, is an "antique firearm" under CC s. 84(1)(a). But what about CC s. 84(1)(b)? Are there any "prescribed" antique firearms?
Yes, there are. They are listed in Regulations Prescribing Antique Firearms, SOR 98-464, 16 Sep 98, proclaimed in the Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 132 No 20, dated 30 Sep 98, at page 2725, which defines them, in part, as:
* 1. A reproduction of a flintlock, wheel-lock, or matchlock firearm, other than a handgun, manufactured after 1897.
Note: Post-1897 cap-and-ball long arms, and handguns of any kind, are not "antique firearms" under this paragraph.
* 2. A rifle manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging only rim-fire cartridges, other than 22 Calibre Short, Long, or Long Rifle.
Note: This puts a repeating rim-fire rifle that is not .22 calibre, like the lever-action .44 rimfire Henry or Swiss Vetterli in .41 Swiss rim-fire, into the "antique firearm" class.
* 3. A rifle manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, whether with a smooth or rifled bore, having a bore diameter of 8.3 mm [.327"] or greater measured from land to land in the case of a rifled bore, with the exception of a repeating firearm fed by any type of cartridge magazine.
Note: This includes only single-shot large-bore rifles and unrifled "rifles". (It is probable that this odd wording is intended to include items like smoothbore versions of the Trapdoor Springfield in 45-70 or 50-70. With this wording, the dividing line between a "rifle" and a "shotgun" is so blurred that judges will be required to draw the final line -- with a Supreme Court of Canada decision being needed for finality.
* 4. A shotgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging only rim-fire cartridges, other than 22 Calibre Short, Long or Long Rifle.
Note: This defines an old 9 mm rim-fire shotgun as an "antique firearm". That seems likely to cause dating problems, as few of the many 9mm rim-fire shotguns in Canada can be accurately dated.
* 5. A shotgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, other than 10, 12, 16, 20, 28, or 410 gauge cartridges.
Note: This is fairly useless, except to exempt guns for a few advanced collectors. It may be helpful for a collector who owns several 8 gauge shotguns, but there are severe problems in dating old shotguns.
* 6. A handgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging only rim-fire cartridges, other than 22 Calibre Short, Long or Long Rifle.
Note: This defines every .30, .32, .38, and .41 calibre rim-fire derringer and revolver as an "antique firearm".
* 7. A handgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging centre-fire cartridges, other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge 32 Short Colt, 32 Long Colt, 32 Smith and Wesson, 32 Smith and Wesson Long, 32-20 Winchester, 38 Smith and Wesson, 38 Short Colt, 38 Long Colt, 38-40 Winchester, 44-40 Winchester, or 45 Colt cartridges.
Note: This includes any pre-1898 Colt Single Action or Double Action revolver in .41 calibre, plus any Smith and Wesson or other revolver in any .44 calibre other than .44-40 Winchester. If a Colt revolver, manufactured in 1882 in .44-40 calibre, is not an "antique firearm" because .44-40 is on that list. If the barrel and cylinder are removed and disposed of, it becomes an "antique firearm, because it is not designed or adapted to discharge" any cartridge on that list. If it is then re-barreled and re-cylindered to fire .44 Special cartridges, it is still an "antique firearm" because .44 Special is not on the cartridge list.
Note: The term "manufactured before 1898" is vague. For example, the Remington .41 rim-fire double-barreled derringer was manufactured continuously from 1866 to 1935. The actual date of manufacture of a particular specimen cannot be determined, because no list of the serial numbers used in any particular year is available.
The key to the confusion at this point is that the CC s. 84(1) definition uses the words, "any firearm manufactured before 1898". That wording is ambiguous, and has been, historically, interpreted in two different ways by CFR/FRAS.
The question is whether Parliament intended that a firearm should qualify as an "antique firearm" on the basis of the actual age of that particular firearm, or on the basis of the antiquated design of the firearm.
It seems very probable that Parliament intended that the designation "antique firearm" should apply to an antiquated design rather than to the age of the particular firearm. While the age of a particular firearm may be important to an antiquarian or a collector of historic relics, the firearms control legislation is concerned with public safety, not academic matters like absolute age. A firearm manufactured at 11:59 PM on 31 Dec 1897 and another manufactured at 00:01 AM on 01 Jan 1898 are identical in the danger that they pose to public safety. It therefore seems very unlikely that Parliament intended to sharply distinguish the way in which the firearms control system would treat two such identical firearms on the basis of age.
In some cases, a recognized authority states that all of the particular handguns actually assembled and in the warehouse ready to be shipped by a manufacturer before 1898 bore serial numbers below, say, "123456". In such a case, CFR/FRAS often treats all handguns with serial numbers below that serial number as "antique firearms". CFR/FRAS then treats firearms with serial numbers above that serial number as "restricted firearms" or "prohibited firearms" that are not "antique firearms".
In simple language, when the CFR/FRAS personnel have that type of serial number information, the above pattern of behavior is frequently -- but not always -- the pattern of behavior adopted by CFR/FRAS officials.
In cases where the manufacturer no longer exists, or the manufacturer's lists of serial numbers used before and after the year 1898 have been destroyed or are no longer available for any reason, the behavior of CFR/FRAS officials has been different. In such a case, the fact that the firearm began being manufactured before 1898 has frequently been considered as adequate evidence that every handgun of that pattern is an "antique firearm," not subject to registration requirements.
In sum, the CFR/FRAS officials have sometimes treated handguns as if the legislation's words, "any firearm manufactured before 1898" means "any firearm of a design manufactured before 1898" and sometimes as if they means "any particular firearm that was itself manufactured before 1898".
It is not possible that both interpretations are correct. One is correct, and one is incorrect. It is either the age of the design, or the age of the particular firearm.
Parliament's intent may have been communicated by its choice of the word "manufactured" and by its rejection of the use of the words "assembled and ready to be shipped". Understanding Parliament's intent requires understanding of other definitions pertinent to the situation.
Parliament's intent is further clarified by the choice of wording in FA s. 12(7), another provision that deals with firearms by date of manufacture.
* 12. (7) A particular individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the particular individual to possess a particular handgun...that was manufactured before 1946...
That wording clarifies the intent, showing that it is the particular firearm that must have been manufactured before midnight of 31 Dec 45. A particular firearm of a design manufactured before 31 Dec 45 -- but which itself was manufactured in 1946 or later -- would not be included.
Obviously, if Parliament had intended its provision "manufactured before 1898" to apply to the manufacture of each particular firearm, it could have used the same language. It did not.
What is striking about this situation is that FA s. 12(7) and 84(1) "antique firearm" were written as parts of the same Bill for enactment by Parliament. Therefore, the difference in wording is apparently significant, and should be taken into consideration when deciding Parliament's intent regarding the "antique firearm" definition in CC s. 84(1). It is strong evidence that Parliament intended that "any firearm manufactured before 1898" means "any firearm of a design manufactured before 1898", not "any particular firearm that was itself manufactured before 1898".
CC s. 2 defines "firearm" as "a barreled weapon...and includes and frame or receiver of such a barreled weapon".
Therefore, clearly, once a "frame or receiver" has been manufactured, a "firearm" has been manufactured, under Canadian law. That was not the understanding of a factory at the turn of the century when it was compiling production records. In their view, a firearm had not been manufactured until it was assembled and completed in all respects.
A manufacturer may make a "frame or receiver," and stamp it with a serial number immediately -- or manufacture many receivers, and not stamp them with serial numbers until the date that an entire firearm is assembled using that "frame or receiver". It is therefore obvious that the date of manufacture of a particular firearm -- as determined by current Canadian law -- can at best be approximated, but not definitively known.
Clearly, accepting the word of some "authority" that a particular serial number marks a solid and definitive dividing line between firearms "manufactured" on or before 11:59 PM 31 Dec 1897 and firearms "manufactured" on or after 00:01 AM 01 Jan 1898 is unrealistic. The "frame or receiver" might well have been manufactured well before the dividing moment, but did not receive its serial number until after the dividing moment. It may have received its serial number before the dividing moment, but not have been recorded in the manufacturer's record books as a firearm until after the dividing moment. The truth is, in most cases, unknowable.
Many manufacturers did not stamp the serial number on the "frame or receiver". They stamped it on the barrel. A barrel, in Canadian law, is an uncontrolled spare part, not a "firearm". In other cases they stamped the number on some other uncontrolled spare part. Where that happened, the serial number is clearly useless for determining the date of manufacture of the "frame or receiver". There may well have been an innocent substitution of parts that altered the apparent serial number of the firearm, somewhere in the interval between 01 Jan 1898 and the present.
Many manufactures, particularly manufacturers of cheap "utility" firearms, did not stamp them with serial numbers at all. In such cases, there is no possibility, at this late date, of determining the actual date of manufacture of a particular "frame or receiver", or event the date that the complete firearm was first assembled.
Parliament clearly intended that its legislation should have one meaning. It seems unlikely that Parliament intended to write legislation requiring its officials to know the unknowable. That would have been rather silly.
It is therefore highly probable that Parliament intended that the legislation's words, "any firearm manufactured before 1898" to mean "any firearm of a design manufactured before 1898" and not "any particular firearm that was itself manufactured before 1898".
It is also probable that Parliament did not intend to create the ridiculous situation that the latter interpretation would require. It is not reasonable to believe that Parliament intended the "frame or receiver" of a single-shot rifle manufactured at 11:59 PM on 31 Dec 1897 is an "antique firearm" not requiring registration, while an identical rifle manufactured two minutes later is not an "antique firearm".
Clearly, a Walker Colt cap-and-ball revolver manufactured in 1847 is an "antique firearm". The 1847 batch of Walker Colts was not manufactured by Colt. Each specimen was manufactured in a factory not owned by Colt, marked "Colt," and sold to Colt. Colt then sold it to Colt's customers.
It may well be that a Walker Colt manufactured in 1974, bearing the Colt factory markings and sold by Colt, is also an "antique firearm". Like the 1847 Walker Colt, the 1974 batch of Walker Colts was not manufactured by Colt. Each specimen was manufactured in a factory not owned by Colt, marked "Colt," and sold to Colt. Colt then sold it to Colt's customers.
The 1974 Walker Colts are identical to the 1847 Walker Colts, and their serial numbers begin where the 1847 Walker Colt series of serial numbers end.
That may well be sufficient to have the 1974 batch of 1847 Walker Colt revolvers ruled to be "antique firearms".
If that is how a judge rules, and it may well be, then another 1847 Walker Colt -- made in the same Italian factory but marked differently and sold in or from the United States by a different importer -- may also be an "antique firearm" under the CC s. 84(1)(a) definition.
The dividing line between what is and what is not an "antique firearm" is undefined at present. The only person who can give us an answer is a judge in a court of criminal law, and a final answer is only available at the Supreme Court of Canada level. The law allows everyone to have an opinion -- but it does not allow anyone but a judge to rule on what this sadly vague legislation actually means.
If the principles established by the Orders in Council of 01 Dec 98 that put so many firearms into the "prohibited firearm" and "restricted firearm" classes are followed, the "antique firearm" class is again expanded. Those Orders in Council named one "firearm of the design commonly known as the..." and then included under that designation "and any variant or modified version of it". Lists of "variants" accompanied some of the designated 'parent' firearms [Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 132, No 20, 2702 to 2711].
On those lists, firearms made in a different factory in a different country in a different calibre, but with a similar mechanism, were listed as "variants" of the "firearm of the design commonly known as the...", and therefore also became, in law, a "firearm of the design commonly known as the..."
Firearms that had totally different mechanisms, and merely looked somewhat like the designated "firearm of the design commonly known as the..." were listed as "variants" of the firearm designated by law. They therefore also became, in law, "restricted firearms" or "prohibited firearms" by virtue of their relationship to the designated firearm.
If those broad-brush principles apply to the definition of "antique firearm," then minor changes such as calibre or altered mechanism would not be enough to take a firearm based on a design that began to be manufactured before 01 Jan 1898 out of the "antique firearm" class.
There is another major change between the previous legislation and current legislation. In the previous Act, CC s. 84(2) said:
* 84. (2) Notwithstanding the definition "firearm" in susection (1), for the purposes of the definitions "prohibited weapon" and "restricted weapon" in that subsection and for the purposes of section 93, subsections 97(1) and (3), and sections 102, 104, 105 and 116, the following weapons shall be deemed not to be firearms:
* (a) an antique firearm unless
* (i) but for this subsection, it would be a restricted weapon, and
* (ii) the person in possession thereof intends to discharge it... [emphasis added throughout].
The equivalent subsection in the current legislation says,
* 84... (3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 1007 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
* (a) any antique firearm [emphasis added throughout]...
Therefore, under the previous legislation, any antique firearm became a "firearm" and a "restricted weapon" or a "prohibited weapon" (if it met the CC s. 84(1) physical characteristic list for such a designation) at the moment the possessor formed an intention to discharge it.
Under the current legislation, "any antique firearm" (including, apparently, a loaded one) is not a "firearm" for the following purposes:
* 1. Firearms Act: None of the provisions of the Firearms Act, including those requiring registration, licences, ATTs and/or ATCs, apply to any "antique firearm".
* 2. CC s. 91 and 92: Possession of any "antique firearm" without a licence or registration certificate is legal.
* 3. CC s. 93: Possession of any "antique firearm" at any location is legal.
* 4. CC s. 94: Being in a motor vehicle with any "antique firearm" is legal.
* 5. CC s. 95: Being in possession of a loaded "antique firearm" (which is also a "restricted firearm" or a "prohibited firearm"), or one with readily accessible ammunition is legal even if the person is not the holder of any licence, registration certificate, ATT, or ATC.
* 6. CC s. 99: Transferring or offering to transfer any "antique firearm" is legal.
* 7. CC s. 100: Dealing in any type of any "antique firearm" is legal.
* 8. CC s. 101: Transferring any "antique firearm" is legal if the transfer apparently violates the Firearms Act.
* 9. CC s. 103 and 104: Importing or exporting any "antique firearm" is legal.
* 10. CC s. 105: Not reporting the loss or finding of any "antique firearm" is legal.
* 11. CC s. 106 and 107: Not reporting the destruction of any "antique firearm" is legal, and knowingly making a false report of that type to a firearms official or the police is legal.
* 12. CC s. 117.03: A peace officer who finds a person in possession of any "antique firearm" is not authorized to demand that the person present a licence, registration certificate, ATT, and/or ATC.
On the other hand, an "antique firearm" is still a "firearm" for the purposes of all sections of the Criminal Code other than those listed above. For example, an "antique firearm" is a "firearm" for the purposes of CC s. 85 (using while committing an offence), 86 (storage and transportation rules -- but the rules for "antique firearms" are very mild), 87 (points a firearm at another person), 88 (possession for a purpose dangerous to the public peace), 89 (possession at or on the way to a public meeting, and 90 (carrying a weapon [see CC s. 2 "weapon" and "firearm"] concealed).
December 15th, 2006 01:35 PM
Another article by Cindy Lightheart.
by Cindy Lightheart, NFA Field Officer
Today, it's better for a woman to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it. Violent crime rates have been going through the ceiling ever since Bill C-68 was enacted. C-68 created a new firearms control system, and that program's cost has escalated to over 500 times the originally estimated cost. The system is seemingly out of control financially, and is failing as a crime deterrent. Police are failing to control the rising violent crime levels, even with its help. Violence towards women is bad and getting worse!
My "Women In Danger" article was written primarily for the last Canadian Firearms Journal [CFJ XV-4]--but because violent crime is also increasing in and around the small community where I live, I decided to send the article in to one of the local newspapers as well.
Was I nervous anticipating the outcome of my offering? Hell, yes! A Canadian does not speak out explicitly on issues like this, and certainly not a woman!
Am I a militant feminist who believes that every man is a danger to every woman? No. Most men are nice, and some are real sweethearts. Am I a realist who believes that a violent criminal who happens to be a man can be a deadly danger to women and children? Yes, I am.
I received a rather detailed lecture from a very irate hometown editor who strongly disagreed with me--before my little opinion paper surprisingly appeared in his guest column the next morning. Amazingly I received only three negative comments, all from women who were all associates of the Women's Emergency Centre. It made me wonder how many women out there quietly agreed with me.
With all due respect, I couldn't agree more. Feminist groups are vitally important. It is evident to us, as women, that we are all seeking justice and equality. However, it is also essential for us, as women, to recognize and respect the diversities that arise among women in our society, as well as the significance and observance of an unwritten code of honour within our feminist groups. We do not always agree on what constitutes justice and equality as we evolve, but we must make sure that we accept our own diversity.
That's my reasoning for what follows. It is important to remember that no single group has a monopoly on virtue. Almost all individuals, whether they own firearms or not, deplore violent crime and brush-fire warfare. Firearm owners share with every other community group the wish for a safer society and a reduction in the ability of those who cannot be trusted with weapons to acquire illicit firearms.
Our legal system is based on British common law and the sanctity of customary rights. Sir William Blackstone wrote his "Commentaries" in the middle of the 18th century, and that book is still the most important standard reference work on British common law and the British constitution. When Sir William explained the common law, he noted that every individual has certain rights, including the rights to personal security and personal liberty and the right to own and use property. He also pointed out that all of those rights can be attacked by criminals who ignore the distant protection offered by our system of police, courts, and laws. He knew that distant protections can fail, and then the victim can lose everything--life, liberty, and property--unless that victim can protect herself. He recognized that everyone has a right to protect human life from criminal violence.
Canada has had a closely controlled firearm regime for a long, long time. Handguns have had to be registered since 1934. (In spite of that, "closely controlled" handguns have always been the most popular firearms for use in crime.) Government control has been applied to all legal firearm purchases since 1977, and many firearms are classed as "prohibited firearms." In 1991 a large number of military-style semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines became prohibited or restricted. Canadian criminals don't seem to use any of them, although they are all easily available illegally.
When Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, was enacted in 1995, homicides were at a 25-year low. Firearms-related suicides were at a 25-year low. Hospitalization due to firearms was at an 8-year low. The data clearly showed that the levels of firearm-related accidents and deaths had been decreasing for a number of years prior to 1995, and that there was no demonstrable need for a new and expensive policy of universal gun registration. In fact, the majority of the remaining violent crimes were being committed with knives, fists, and hockey sticks.
However, at about the same time, much of society was disturbed--upset with talk of war and terrorism, and further upset when a crazed lone gunman in Montreal shot and killed 14 women before killing himself.
There is little difference between a mass murderer (a crazed lone man using a gun to murder a group of innocent women) and a serial killer, (a crazed lone man using a knife, strangulation, or bludgeoning to kill a group of innocent women individually over a period of time). Both are rare, shocking, and incomprehensible, but the final results are the same. This type of man is capable of killing multiple victims with no remorse. His message is loud and clear: he hates women, and he will kill as many as he can before he is stopped or kills himself.
Placing the firearms control laws, which are regulatory in nature, in the Criminal Code, which is criminal law, created great confusion. Also, the firearms control laws are often internally contradictory, and
have far too many gray areas. Operating the firearms control system is very costly, and it is also frustrating to try to keep up with its forever-changing technicalities and legalities. Not only do the complex firearm laws adversely affect legal gun owners, they also have negative effects on people in the law enforcement business and in the justice system.
In firearms-related court cases, the judge has the final say, and each judge has his own view of firearms. Some judges hunt, and so do some police officers, lawyers, and even politicians, but prejudice against law-abiding firearm owners is becoming a problem.
An individual must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course before applying for a firearm licence. A background check is done on anyone applying for a firearm licence. All firearms licences are photo ID. The questions on the application are comprehensive and personally invasive. Spouses, partners, and ex-partners are interviewed by a government official. You cannot get a firearm licence if you have a criminal record or a history of violence.
Individual firearms are secured with a trigger lock or stored in a locked steel cabinet or safe. All ammunition is stored separately. Legal firearms are registered in the government's computers. The law allows officials access to legal firearm owners' homes to check on storage methods.
Enough already! Legal firearm owners are not the problem! They are and have been complying with the latest firearms control laws for the past seven years, and, as previously mentioned, whatever the laws and regulations were at the time for a many years before that.
Criminals smuggle large numbers of illegal guns into Canada to supply the illegal marketplace. Those guns are readily available to drug dealers, gangs, and other violent criminals. Criminals do not apply for a gun licence, nor do they register their guns in the government's computers. They ignore all firearms control law, and don't do any of the paperwork the rest of us have to do. Criminals often habitually carry concealed loaded handguns. So--if they're the problem, why isn't anyone working on it? Why target us?
Statistics Canada results reveal we are living with violent crime--criminals at large, violence towards women and children, and children suffering from and witnessing family violence. Not all Canadians are passive, law-abiding people, and we need to acknowledge that.
Overall, stabbings were the most common method (31per cent) of committing homicide in 2002, followed by shooting (26 per cent), beatings (21 per cent) and strangulation or suffocation (11 per cent). For the 548 murders in 2003, 71 per cent were committed with something other than a firearm. Is our government focussing too narrowly on firearms, and missing the larger problem of the use of other weapons?
A "weapon" is anything that is used to kill, injure or threaten. Many weapons are routinely found in or around our homes, and too many of us refuse to acknowledge that. Guns, knives, hockey sticks, tools,
vehicles--all are, or can be, weapons. It is not the weapon that is the problem. It is the person behind the "weapon"--the person who is committing the murder, injuring, or threatening. Think about it. Does it make sense to try to eliminate everything that can be used to kill, injure, or threaten? Of course not, because we are still left with the real problem: humans--people who are capable of violent behaviour and murder.
Society is diverse, and will never be able to rid itself of all violent criminals--particularly those who are willing to abuse, rape, mutilate, or murder women and children. Men are already equal on all levels to women, and men are also frequently attacked, mutilated, and murdered by violent criminals. Violence and abuse are already "not tolerated by our society."
Violent criminals are routinely charged, convicted, and sent to prison. Many of them commit more crimes while they are in prison and then commit more again when they get out. Some violent criminals have no interest in being rehabilitated--they enjoy being violent criminals, and do not want to change.
Not all men are "powerful," and not all women are "powerless." It is certain that not all men are capable of abuse or murder. However, the fact remains that there are men who do commit murder, and men who abuse and injure women and children. Women and children are abused and die in disproportionately large numbers. Statistically, we know that a very high percentage of them are women being abused and murdered in their own homes by their partners.
The police cannot provide a guard for each threatened woman. There aren't enough police officers to do that. So, unless a woman can protect herself, there is never going to be anyone there to protect her. She is limited by having only her hands to protect herself when she is being brutally attacked by a violent criminal who is often much larger and stronger than she is and who may be using a weapon while attacking her! Too often, she becomes just another headline--because the police do not come before or during a crime. They come after the crime has been committed and the violent criminal has left the scene, or after the criminal
has killed himself--and that is TOO DAMNED LATE!
My previous article proposed armed status only for a law-abiding woman who has met all the qualifications and standards required of a RCMP constable. I think that is reasonable. A woman police officer carries a loaded firearm for the primary purpose of protecting human life from criminal violence--her own, or the lives of those under her protection. Such an officer is not authorized to use that firearm to protect property or to threaten an individual who is no threat to the officer or anyone else or to shoot a criminal who is fleeing the scene of a property crime. A criminal cannot take a gun away from a woman unless he gets close enough to touch the gun--which the woman will not allow.
Most believe that a women police officer is capable and trustworthy when using a firearm. So--why are there still some people who think other women are not capable or trustworthy when using a firearm? Especially women as well-trained as woman police officers? Or is it that some people think that all women should be disarmed, including the woman police officer?
An excellent course of instruction in easily learned effective methods of coping with vicious attacks came roaring through in "For Women Only--The Lioness Method of Rape Prevention." It is included in this issue of this magazine. It's well written and easy to follow, and well illustrated. It offers a woman a fighting chance to protect herself, even if she is unarmed, and I found it quite sane and sensible. The Lioness also educates women on what types of men are capable of such violent attacks. I found that knowledge interesting, and it lessened my fears about resisting the wimps who rape women.
Women are, in cold hard fact, unequal because they are almost always smaller and weaker than the men who attack them. If society insists that women be treated as equals of the men who attack them, is that abusive?
December 15th, 2006 01:38 PM
This is by David Tomlinson, commenting on Ms Lightheart's article (the first post on this thread).
Women in Danger
by David A Tomlinson
As Cindy Lightheart said in her "Women in Danger" article in Canadian Firearms Journal Volume XV Number 4 (XV-4): "The police do not come to a woman before or during a violent crime. They come after the crime has been completed and the criminal has left the scene. It is extremely rare for a police officer to arrive in time to prevent or even interrupt a violent crime when a woman is the victim. How could he? She could not even call the police before her attacker left."
Her statement hit me hard, so I began to look into ways that a woman can protect human life from criminal violence. She may need to protect her own life, or those of her children, or someone else. But as a practical matter, how can she do it?
As a result of Ms. Lightheart's article, we published "For Women Only--the Lioness Method of Rape Prevention" in Canadian Firearms Journal XV-5. It was designed to teach a woman how to protect herself from a rapist or other attacker, using only her hands and feet and the other weapons built into her body. The Lioness Method techniques are quite sophisticated, very effective, and simple enough so that a woman can learn them just by reading and looking at the pictures.
Clearly, this is a method of protecting human life from criminal violence--but it is an inadequate method for anything other than emergency use in fairly specific circumstances. She may need something better.
She may need to carry a concealed handgun. Yes, I know that is a startling idea. No, it is not an unreasonable idea, and, yes, it is perfectly legal in Canada, if she has an authorization to carry.
Women are usually smaller and weaker than the men who attack them, rob them, rape them, and murder them. Therefore, they need a tool that equalizes the situation, and, it is to be hoped, makes them more powerful than the criminal they are dealing with.
"But--they can't do that!"
Why not? Any woman can legally carry a concealed handgun if she has been issued a Type 3 Authorization to Carry (ATC) by the appropriate firearms control bureaucrat, "to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals" [Firearms Act section 20(a)]. It's right there in the law (see Legal Corner for more legal details).
Many American women have permits to carry concealed handguns, and the structure of the state has not been damaged by American trust in women. In those states (now almost all of them) that issue such permits, violent crime rates where the victims are women went down sharply as soon as the women were allowed to have those permits. It is obvious why: the criminals became afraid of the victims.
Look at it from the criminal's point of view. He is moving in on the woman, with criminal intent. Suddenly, he is looking at the muzzle end of a handgun. What goes through his mind? "If she shoots me--even if I am only slightly wounded--I'll have to go to a hospital, and the bullet they take out of me will carry the signature of her gun. There will be no doubt at all about my guilt." After thinking that, he is almost certainly going to abandon his intentions and run like a rabbit.
Normal women do not shoot at people without clear justification, and protecting human life from criminal violence is the only legal justification in Canada. Besides, we know from the American experience that women who are allowed to carry concealed firearms are more likely to frighten an attacker away or arrest him than to shoot him.
"But--Canadian women can't arrest anyone!"
Sorry, but you're wrong. Every Canadian is authorized to arrest anyone she "finds committing an indictable offence (and threatening is an indictable offence)" or "finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to" property in her lawful possession or custody.
So--how many women have taken advantage of this offer in the law to apply for and get ATCs? Alas, our government will not tell us how many applications have been filed--but we do know how many Type 3 ATCs have been issued since the federal Liberal Party became our government 12 years ago:
Not a single one.
The bureaucrats drafted that area of law to give themselves godlike power over women who apply for Type 3 ATCs. If another type of licencing document is refused, the applicant can take the refusal to a reference hearing--but not this one. With this one, the power of the bureaucrat is absolute.
After writing this proviso into their proposed law, the bureaucrats presented it to the then Liberal Minister of Justice, Alan Rock. He either backed what they wanted to do, or was too negligent to notice what they had given him. The Liberal majority passed it in the House of Commons and in the Senate. No Liberal MP
opposed what was being done to women by this odious legislation.
We all know that there are women in danger--women who have left abusive relationships and who are being threatened or stalked because of that. Women who work in jobs that require them to leave work very late at night, who must get to their car in the employee's section of the parking garage (dark and far away). Women who must carry the day's take from the store, late at night, to the bank's deposit slot. Women who must meet strange men at acreages or houses for sale...the list is long.
So why does the federal Liberal Party refuse those women the protection they need? Why does it claim that the police will protect those women when it is glaringly obvious that a woman can call the police only after the crime has been committed and the criminal is gone, when the police do not come before or during the crime, but afterwards? Those questions are not an attack on the police. This is just real life. Police cannot and do not offer protection before the crime, and usually cannot arrive during the crime.
I do not know how you feel about this, but I am disgusted that the Liberals would do this to women. It is unjustifiable--something out of the Middle Ages--and they should be ashamed of themselves. Women deserve our respect and protection, and this policy strips women of the protection they need.
The Liberal party's attempt to disarm criminals by the use of woefully defective and hyper-expensive legislation has failed completely. Read your daily paper; are violent criminals unable to get illegal guns? No. Women need protection more than ever before, and what are the Liberals doing about it? Nothing.
Please write to (personal letters are very effective; each one is counted as 500 angry voters) or email:
Paul Martin, PM: email@example.com
Anne McLellan, DPM: firstname.lastname@example.org
Irwin Cotler, MoJ: email@example.com
Garry Breitkreuz, MP: firstname.lastname@example.org
Their mailing address is (no stamp required):
House of Commons
Tell them what you think about this situation. The first three are the people who are responsible for what the bureaucrats are doing to prevent the issuance of Type 3 ATCs to women. The law allows women to have those ATCs, but the bureaucrats are a blockage as solid as Hoover Dam.
I'm asking you to send a copy of what you write to Garry Breitkreuz so that he can tell the world about your support for women in danger.
December 15th, 2006 01:41 PM
THE STATUS TODAY…
by David A. Tomlinson
For a very long time, the National Firearms Association has been studying the scientific research that has been done regarding the effects of severe gun control laws. During this time, our Canadian government has been studying the recommendations of Canadian gun control bureaucrats, who themselves have not been studying what science is available in this area. The bureaucrats have been arrogant, ignorant, and incompetent. The government has been unwise to listen to their advice and obey their instructions.
It has been conclusively proved that the imposition of severe gun control laws is always followed by major increases in the violent crime rates. That has happened in Canada, and in Australia, and in Britain. The source of the Canadian and Australian laws is clear. they were copied from British ideas and laws.
Those are just the latest results. In every jurisdiction, worldwide, where severe gun control laws have been tried, the result has been the same. The violent crime rates went up instead of down, as they were supposed to. Britain has now passed through several cycles of this error, which look like this:
* Violent crime rates are rising, so we will impose tougher and tighter gun control laws. That's odd; they went up instead of down. Violent crime rates are rising, so we will impose even tougher and tighter gun control laws. That's odd; they went up instead of down. OK, we'll fix it; we'll outlaw every privately-owned handgun in Britain. That should end "gun crime"!!
Well, that just did not work. Britain now has more "gun crime" than ever before. Every type of violent crime (not just "gun crime") is up, and is still rising. Britain's violent crime rates are now higher than the U.S. rates (yes, on a per capita basis), and still rising.
Even a bit of scientific analysis demonstrates why this is so.
The severe gun control laws make it difficult, complicated, and expensive to own or use a firearm--if you are a law-abiding citizen. The same laws have absolutely no negative effects on violent criminals. If you were a person prepared to rape, rob, or murder, would violation of a gun control law worry you, and make you give up crime? No? Well, it doesn't bother real violent criminals, either.
Do such laws have any effect on violent criminals? Yes. They provide the violent criminal with a government guarantee that his law-abiding victim will be unable to protect herself or himself while the violent crime is being committed. The victim either has no firearm, or has the firearm in secure storage where it is not available to protect human life from criminal violence. That guarantee is a disaster for women, because women are the preferred targets of violent criminals.
The National Firearms Association is seriously concerned about the safety of Canadian women, and our government is doing nothing to improve their personal safety. The NFA is providing women with a free course in unarmed methods of protecting human life from Criminal violence. We are (see www.nfa.ca) giving away the excellent "Lioness Method" and the right to copy it, print it, distribute it, and teach it. Our government has no equivalent program to protect women.
Is that important? Yes, it is. As Cindy Lightheart, in "Women in Danger," said, " The police do not come to a woman before or during a violent crime. They come after the crime has been completed and the violent criminal has left the scene. It is extremely rare for a police officer to arrive in time to prevent or even interrupt a violent crime when a woman is the victim. How could he? She could not call the police before her attacker left."
Ms. Lightheart is correct. If a woman is unable to protect the lives of herself and her children when she is attacked by a violent criminal, she becomes just another bad statistic. While the Lioness is not a perfect answer to this problem, it is a serious, useful, and practical advance on screaming. A woman actually can defeat an attacker, and, if he is a rapist, it is usually not very difficult to do that. If she has a firearm, she can often arrest him (American women do that) and end his career as a predator.
"Police protection" is a myth, because police do not provide a protective service to anyone other than the occasional visiting dignitary or high government official. For an ordinary Canadian woman, a request for police protection will get a response only if the caller can and does state that she is under active attack by a violent criminal. On the rare occasions when such a call can be made before the criminal has completed the crime and left the scene, it is very rare for police to be able to arrive before the criminal has departed.
Our nation is changing. In earlier years, the police and the citizens acted as a team, with both taking active roles in dealing with violent criminals. Today, every Canadian woman is being advised to allow the criminal to do anything he wants to do, cooperate with the criminal, and hope that he does not murder her before he leaves. The team has been broken, and that is wrong. Our laws still provide an active role for the citizen, but bureaucrats and politicians try to prevent women from realizing that.
The possibility that a violent criminal will murder his victim before he leaves is becoming more and more likely. That is, apparently, a result of lenient sentencing, easy parole, and the government's desire to get violent criminals out of prison as quickly as possible because it is expensive to keep them inside prisons.
Now Paul Martin is copying the British mistake again. He proposes to ban all handguns and confiscate them. His plan will have no way to take even a single illegal firearm away from any violent criminal. His plan is unclear, because the legislation has apparently not been written yet--but we already know what the result will be. Violent crime rates will go up--very quickly, very strongly. If a government gives violent criminals a guarantee of their personal safety, what else can one expect?
Paul Martin's plan is particularly a disaster for women. Women are generally smaller and weaker than men, and therefore can be killed by a violent criminal armed with nothing but his bare hands. Unless the woman has some way to equalize the difference in strength, she is going to be just another bad statistic.
It is not generally known that the Liberal government's gun control laws are specifically designed to prevent women from being able to protect human life from criminal violence. For example, when a woman leaves an abusive partner, experience proves that he is likely to stalk her, attack her, and even kill her. There is no doubt whatever that such behaviour is a very real problem in our society today.
Let us consider a typical case. He is nearly twice her size. He has threatened to kill her. The police refuse to arrest him, because they have no "confirmation" of his threats. They offer no protection beyond giving her a phone number to call. The courts have issued restraint orders--which he ignores.
If she wants to acquire a firearm to protect her own life and those of her children from his criminal violence, she must first get a firearms licence. If she tries to do that, a government bureaucrat will notify her abuser that she has done so. Then he will refuse to issue the licence she needs for 28 days. He has to do those things, because the law says that he must. And so she must sit for an absolute minimum of 28 days, helpless and afraid, because the procedure is what is important to a bureaucrat--not her terror. Our government is providing that abusive man with a window of opportunity to terrorize, beat, or murder her. And that is wrong.
The National Firearms Association has studied this problem in depth. We have taken note of the utter failure of severe gun control laws as demonstrated in Britain, Australia, Canada, and other nations. We have taken note of the dangerous "reverse effect" as the gun control laws cause violent crime levels to increase. We are surprised by the fact that the government does not understand what is happening.
There can be no security or safety in a country that has adopted severe gun control laws. We all live in a smuggler's paradise, where the required speed of international shipments has resulted in masses of containers full of merchandise--some legal and some contraband--crossing our borders every day. Under two per cent of the containers are opened by Customs, and even fewer are examined carefully and fully.
That means that the loss rate for shipments of illegal drugs, illegal guns, and other contraband is well under two per cent. The loss rate is merely a minor cost of doing business. Therefore, violent criminals are not now, and probably not ever, going to have difficulty in acquiring the firearm of their choice.
The National Firearms Association is now warning Canadians that the rising violent crime rates are going to get much worse, before they can possibly get any better. Unless the incorrect policy of imposing severe gun laws on the law-abiding victims and providing the criminals with a guarantee of their personal safety is reversed, there is no hope for improvement--particularly for women.
The National Firearms Association is doing what it can to protect Canadian women, because women are the people who are most in danger as a result of the foolish policies and laws imposed on Canadians by their Liberal government. We are providing a free course for women that covers simple but effective unarmed protection of human life from criminal violence. We allow anyone to publish, print, distribute, teach, and use our course in any way they see fit, free of charge. We call it the Lioness Method, and you can find it on our web site.
It is not enough. A woman cannot be expected to protect human life--her own and that of others--from any and all forms of criminal violence unless she is allowed to use the tools that equalize the imbalance between male strength and female power. No, the National Firearms Association does not want to arm every woman in the country. We do want a woman to be able to choose if she wants to be armed, if and only if she meets the same standards required of an RCMP constable for proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of relevant law. We regard that as a reasonable proposal in a period of rising crime rates.
If such a policy is ever adopted, the small number of women who will take advantage of it will spread a shield of protection over all Canadian women. Violent criminals are very unlikely to attack an armed woman, and they will not know whether a chosen victim is armed or not. That will make them hesitate to attack any woman. That effect has been well demonstrated in the United States, where the re-establishment of the old partnership between a woman and her local police officer is now dealing with violent criminals in an efficient and practical manner. Violent crime rates in the United States are dropping in every state where gun control laws have been eased in recognition of the usefulness of the private citizen as a deterrent to violent crime. The same can be true in Canada, Australia, and Britain.
This is not a "radical" solution to our violent crime problem. It is merely taking a realistic look at the failed British theories, and comparing their actual results to the actual results of the successful American laws.
There is no point in continuing to reinforce failure, or in escalating our violent crime rates even farther by preferring theories to facts. It is to be hoped that our next government will start dealing with reality.
The National Firearms Association cannot do everything our government should be doing to protect Canadian women. What we can do, we are doing. It's expensive; if you can help us with a small donation, we will be grateful.
David A. Tomlinson
December 15th, 2006 01:44 PM
By Cindy Lightheart, NFA Field Officer
Law affects ordinary people, touching every aspect of everyone's day-to-day existence--so it is essential for Canadians to challenge the government when it passes bad laws, especially when bad laws are threatening women's lives. I've seen too many cases of women in danger being murdered in the last few years, and it is getting worse. I want real protection, not babbling from Liberal politicians!
I was born in Canada, and I have lived here all my life. Our government tells women to rely on police protection, even though the police do not provide protection before the crime. They come after the crime, and the fact that the police are chasing the criminal is supposed to protect the women by discouraging criminals.
My God, the horror that some women suffer. Look at your daily news reports, ladies! This isn't working! The police arrive after the crime, not before. They arrive in time to sort through and mop up the sickening bloody mess the violent criminal has left behind, and that is too damned late! Canada used to be a very safe place to live, but sadly, that is no longer true, especially for women. We are the preferred targets of violent criminals--abusive males, robbers, rapists, and murderers.
Bad laws are good for armed robbers, black marketeers, gun smugglers, and drug dealers. Some of we women have to deal with the rampant rage of controlling, abusive, and dangerous partners or ex-partners. Others of us have to deal with rapists, muggers, gangs, or murderers. Cases of all these types have become commonplace items in our daily news. The criminals prefer that their chosen victims be unarmed, and disarming us is what our federal government insists upon doing--as a way of discouraging the violent criminals. Does that make any sense to you?
Violent crime is soaring out of control. And worse is coming. We're only in the edge of the storm yet!
The current gun control laws were passed as Bill C-68 by Parliament in 1995. A gun registry was imposed on the people of Canada, intended, the Liberals said, to reduce the amount of violent crime in our country. The concept failed immediately, never had the intended effect, did have the reverse effect, and cost us about $2 billion in tax dollars. Now Canada's violent crime rates are like those of the United States. Looking at all the states that touch our provinces and territories, the rates are about the same on both sides of the border.
All women are vulnerable to violent crime. Violent crimes that the police can't get to until after the fact is what drove our sisters in America to demand permits to carry concealed handguns, which they now have. No one, not women, not the Liberal politicians, not the bureaucrats who refuse us the Type 3 authorizations to carry that we need, knows who the next woman victim will be!
Getting the knowledge and proper training in how to use a firearm safely and well is not a frightening experience for a woman. American women who have been properly trained (like our many sisters in law enforcement) in safe firearm use and the relevant laws are permitted to carry concealed handguns. Those women have proven worthy of the trust given to them. They do nothing wrong or illegal while owning and carrying their handguns. They are normal people who have families, businesses and recreational interests. And in each state (nearly all of them) that allows a woman to carry a concealed firearm, the violent crime rates have dropped considerably and are continuing to drop. If American women can do that for their society, we Canadian women can do it in Canada.
Were the consequences for women of Bill-C-68 even considered before it was passed? Did the federal Liberal Party and its then Justice Minister, Allan Rock have a conscience? Is this the ever-increasing violence the kind of society the Liberal government wants to give to the women of Canada?
As a woman, I find our gun control system grossly offensive and depressing. Not only do Canadian women have to contend with violent crime, we are also handicapped by the firearms control laws. How many female victims would still be alive today if they had had access to firearms for the protection of their lives from criminal violence? That is a question that can't be answered by crime statistics tables. An example: What if you were a retired policewoman, living alone on a small pension in a very bad section of the city? You are known as an ex-cop and not liked. Obviously, your life is in danger. Of course you want permission to carry a concealed handgun for protection, and you have the right to apply for that. But the bureaucrat who receives your application will refuse you. That's guaranteed--no Type 3 authorizations to carry (ATCs) have been issued since the C-68 firearms control system came into effect! He refuses to issue a Type 3 ATC to you, simply because bureaucrats have decided not to issue any. That is outrageous and illegal.
Look at another possibility. Some men think they "own" a woman. In their view, the woman exists for the comfort and convenience of the man. Quite often this type of men abuses "his" woman sexually, physically and mentally. Fortunately, this type of man is fairly rare, but as we all know, they do exist! They are the reason we have shelters for battered women.
The most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is when she decides to leave it. Restraint orders mean nothing to a violent man in a state of rampant rage. He wants his woman back! If he can't have her, by God, then no one else is going to have her! He's going to threaten her and anyone else who helps her. He's going to stalk her, and he may be going to kill her. She is defenseless and unarmed. If he's suicidal he's probably going to kill anyone who gets in his way before he kills himself. And because the bureaucrat said no, she cannot protect herself or her children from his criminal violence.
In such a case, a woman's life is threatened. Why can't anyone help her? Because the law is not on her side. First she must apply for a firearms license. When she does that, the firearms control bureaucracy will notify the man she is running from that she has done that. But the bureaucrat will not issue her license until the mandatory 28-day waiting period is over. By that time, it may be too late. Until she gets the license, it is a criminal offence for her to be in possession of a firearm.
In effect the government guarantees the safety of each violent and abusive man for at least 28 days. By doing that, it is telling him that it is safe to attack her during this period. And that is disgusting! This government has no respect for the welfare or safety of an abused woman. The law should provide an exception for them, and it does not. It ignores their problems.
Who exactly is it that wishes women to be unarmed? Is it the bureaucrat ? Does he have this kind of power over women? Does this mean a bureaucrat can make the law out of his own prejudiced brain? If he is refusing every application, he is not decision-making. He has made a new law, and is applying it. He has no authority to do that! Do bureaucrats care about the safety of Canadian women? Apparently not!
ENOUGH! The governments gun control system does not stop criminal violence. It increases violence, because the laws disarm the victim instead of the criminal. Canada's violent crime rates are out of control and getting rapidly worse!
Women everywhere have the right to live free of the fear of violent crime, the way we used to, not that many years ago. Women are human beings. We have the right to life, security, and dignity. We shouldn't have to be afraid.
How does any man, especially a bureaucrat or Member of Parliament, dare to advise, expect and force defenseless women to submit to vicious criminal violence, including murder? Not one of them knows who will be the next woman victim until it is too damned late! That is today's danger to a teen-aged girl, a woman, and far too often to the woman's child. TOO DAMNED LATE is just not good enough!
You know that no one can predict the precise time of a crime. It is time for Canadian women in danger to arm themselves, as American women have. No, I am not being unreasonable, I'm being realistic. Our government has disarmed nearly everyone -except violent criminals. They are still armed and dangerous!
If a woman can protect herself , she has a much better chance of survival. More--she has a chance to end her attackers string of violent crimes by arresting him. Or she may simply frighten him away--screaming won't have that effect, but a snub-nosed .38 usually does!
Why did our government outlaw the entire range of Ladysmith handguns that were specifically designed by Smith & Wesson to be used by women protecting human life from criminal violence? These small handguns are ideal for a woman, but now they are all "prohibited firearms" that can't even be imported into Canada. Don't tell me that the law intended to keep small handguns out of the hands of criminals. Media reports tell me that the criminals are having no difficulty in getting as many illegal small handguns as they want. The law isn't controlling the criminals, it's protecting them!
I do not expect that a majority of Canadian women will apply for, and get, a Type 3 ATC, even when they become readily available. But I'll tell you this: if even a very small percentage of women take the training and get those ATC's, the criminals of Canada are going to be afraid of all women. That is what happened in the U.S., because the criminals could not be sure which women could protect themselves, and which women were safe to attack. That small number of armed women will hold their new shield in front of all women!
December 15th, 2006 01:46 PM
The LIONESS method…
Canadian Firearms Journal Volume XV Number 4 was the start of something new in the firearms community, and it seems to be working. CFJXV-4 contained "Women in Danger" by Cindy Lightheart, and explained how Canadian women are often in danger of becoming victims of violent crime. The article aroused quite a lot of interest, because firearms community leaders rarely look at women's issues.
In CFJXV-5, Cindy Lightheart expanded on that theme, and we published my "For women only--the Lioness Method of Rape Prevention." That increased the interest in what the National Firearms Association was doing, and we received a number of letters requesting that we allow re-publication of both articles, and requesting extra copies of the Lioness. Well over 2000 copies of the Lioness.
Most short courses in protection of human life from criminal violence are not very effective. Jabbing car keys at a attacker's eyes doesn't work, because those eyes see them coming. Knee in the groin does not work, because men spend their entire lives being protective of their testicles. Their defensive moves are quick and effective. The Lioness concentrates on SIMPLE techniques that WORK.
The Lioness is interesting. It is eight pages that teach a woman how to defeat a rapist or other attacker. The pictures are clear, the text is easy to follow, and the woman student's ability to protect her own life from criminal violence is sharply improved--even if she only reads it. Rapists, you may be surprised to learn, are almost always men who have never won a fight with a man. They are easy to defeat--IF a woman knows how to do it. She can learn enough to defeat almost any rapist in just one hour.
The NFA allows anyone to produce as many copies of the Lioness as he or she chooses, in any manner, in any form, and distribute them, so long as the Lioness is not abridged or altered. The distributor may charge a cost-recovery fee for copies, and send no money to the NFA. There is no charge made by us.
The Lioness is the NFA's contribution to the safety of women. An adequate-definition .pdf file version can be downloaded from www.NFA.ca and printed by anyone. Copies can be made and distributed. A high-definition .pdf file version, with a separate file for each page, will soon be available from the same source.
Free printed copies of the Lioness are available from email@example.com or by calling (780)439-1394 or by writing to NFA, Box 52183, EDMONTON AB, T6G 2T5.
The Lioness is written in "Voice of the Instructor." Reading it is like listening to an Instructor teaching the course… so one can read it to learn what it is teaching, or one can read it to learn how to teach it.
The Lioness is a good short course that anyone of normal intelligence can learn, and anyone of normal intelligence can teach. The NFA encourages anyone who wants to teach the Lioness to get a copy, learn it and how to teach it by reading it, and then go ahead and teach classes. The NFA has no objection to the Instructor charging a fee for doing the teaching, and does not want any money from the Instructor. The NFA recommends that the Instructor ask for enough copies of the Lioness to be able to give each student a copy to keep. The NFA will supply those copies, free.
In short, the NFA wants the Lioness to be distributed as widely as possible. Does the local women's shelter need copies? We'll send them. Does the local Rape Crisis Centre want them? We'll send them. Does the women student organization at the local University want to distribute them? We'll send a CD that they can give to a printer, and get as many copies as they need. This is a service to the women of Canada, and we are proud to be a part of educating women in how to protect human life from criminal violence. Our Liberal government has protected violent criminals, and made Canadian women more vulnerable to attack by violent criminals. Let's all do what we can to improve that situation.
David A. Tomlinson
National Firearms Association
By JohnK87 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 03:11 AM
By Pro2A in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: December 8th, 2007, 09:07 AM
By Euclidean in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 5th, 2005, 12:23 PM
By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: July 16th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Search tags for this page
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups abdominal exercise equipment
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups advantages of carrying a concealed weapon
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups canada gardening zones
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups carrying a concealed weapon in florida
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups criminal law
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups gardening zones of canada
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups hometown newspapers
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups lever action
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups real world examples of power and politics in organizations
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups samples of writing research for legal cases
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups springfield arms model 40
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups what does the us government do about illegal drugs
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups what year was my springfield arms 45 made?
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups winchester firearms
published news upcoming news submit a new story groups women sex
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors