Canadian Firearms Journal - June 2009 by NAftional Firearms Association

Tel: (780) 426-4866

Phase IV

Fax: (780) 426-4867

West Edmonton Mall

www.shootingcentre.com

Edmonton, Alberta

Handguns

Shotguns

Ruger MK III SS................ $450 & up

Beretta Extreme I.......................................................................................... $1680

Ruger Single Six.................. $495 & up Ruger SRH 480............................ $850

Springfield Armory GI 45....................... Springfield Armory XD 40, 9 45

............................................ $825 & up Baby Eagle Hardchrome.............. $899 Glock 17....................................... $825 Beretta NEOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.............................. $395 HK USP.................................... $1295 Sig Sauer P226.......................... $1195

Rifles

Stevens Model 200....................... $365 Tikka T3 Synthetic DM..... $675 & up Savage 111 c/w 3-9x40 DM

............................................ $695 & up Sako 95M Synthetic SS DM.... $1499

Mossberg c/w pistol grip.........................................................................$475 & up

Benelli M2 MX4 Camo................................................................................ $1569

Canadian

Firearms Journal From Head Office Please keep all your letters, phone calls and e-mails going to your MP’S, the Minister of Public Safety, the Prime Minister and the Senate! Bill C-301 was a start and we can not let up now. Bill C-391 is now on our plate, and we’ve got to let our politicians know how we expect them to vote on it. We are all keeping our noses to the grindstone around here. With a little spring cleaning and reorganizing we seem to be making things easier in different ways. We are in the process of updating our membership database, so we’re hoping will be much more accurate and faster to access than before. We are all looking forward to this. Have a great summer!

Mission Statement Canada’s National Firearms Association exists to promote, support and protect all safe firearms activities, including the right of self defence; firearms education for all Canadians; freedom and justice for Canada’s firearms community, and to advocate for legislative change to ensure the right of all Canadians to own and use firearms is protected.

Inside this issue Regulars From the Editor’s Desk................................................................6 Christopher di Armani President’s Column......................................................................8 Blair Hagen Vice President’s Column............................................................10 Sean G. Penney Letters to the Editor...................................................................12 Self-Defense...............................................................................14 Clive Edwards Kids & Guns - Talking to Older Kids About Firearms..............26 Kathy Jackson Politics & Guns - Roots of Gun Control....................................30 Bruce Gold Preserving Our Firearms Heritage.............................................36 Gary Kangas & Branko Duklitch The International Front - Targeting Ammunition......................38 Dr. Gary Mauser Old West Armory - Smoothbores & Highwaymen....................50 Jesse L. Hardin Youth Development - Saturday Morning Cadet Shoots.............54 David Chappelle

On the Cover There is a growing movement across Canada to withhold access to private ranges from government and police agencies. Will this movement conttinue to gtow, and if so, will it be effective in getting our message across?

Caution! Technical data and information contained in this magazine are intended to provide information based upon the limited experience of individuals under specific conditions. They do not detail the comprehensive training, procedures, techniques, and safety precautions that are necessary to properly carry out similar activities. Always consult comprehensive reference manuals before attempting any similar activities. Any printed reloading data may contain printing errors and so is used entirely at the risk of the reader. It is the responsibility of all hand loaders to check factory reloading manuals for the specified components in use. Canada’s National Firearms Association has no ability to control the conditions under which any published information may be used and therefore assumes no liability for use or misuse of published reloading information. The contents of the Canadian Firearms Journal are copyrighted and may be reproduced only when written permission is obtained from the publisher.

Liberty - Rightwing Extreemests are Concerned ... . ................58 Vin Suprynowicz Why Gun Owners Do Not Like “Gun Control”.........................60 Phil Hewkin The Last Word - Everyone Knows that`s Illegal!......................62 Christopher di Armani

Features Book Review..............................................................................17 Clive Edwards Killing You Softly......................................................................18 Teresa Thompson Lets Know More About Recoil..................................................22 Bernard Pelletier Classic Arms: The Winchester Model 1894...............................32 Jesse Hardin A Line in the Sand......................................................................35 Christopher di Armani Screw the Farmers - We Hate Guns...........................................40 Dave Chappelle Sheep & Sheepdogs...................................................................43 Jon McCormick Unknown Allies.........................................................................44 Frank Hilliard What’s New in Quebec..............................................................46 Yvon Dionne IDPA Provincial Championship.................................................57 Christopher di Armani

by Christopher di Armani

Welcome to summer! I can’t speak for where you live, but here in BC the weather has been fantastic. This issue brings the usual faces back with some fantastic stories, and highlights a few issues that have been causing gun owners across Canada a great deal of concern. One of our members had a run-in with police, who apparently didn’t know or understand the regulations on firearms in a vehicle. In our Letters to the Editor section Sheldon Clare answers Blaine’s question on what the law really is and how it applies to his family. The cover shows an image that might shock a number of you. You might find it confrontational, even offensive to our police brothers. You might be even more shocked to learn that serving police officers whole-heartedly endorse the idea expressed in the sign shown on the cover. Later in this edition I’ll talk about where the sign came from and why. Perhaps then you’ll be a little less shocked, and little more understanding, and maybe even supportive of the idea. Who knows? Anyways, back to what you can expect to find in this issue. First, you’ll see a number of columns in French in this issue. We’re working towards more French content in the magazine, but it’s not easy for us onelanguage Canadians. We owe a large debt of gratitude to Bernard Pelletier

and Yvon Dionne for translating columns for this issue. In this edition’s Self Defense column, Clive Edwards delves into a case in Vancouver where a jewelry store owner shot back at the armed robbers who tried to steal his livelihood. It’s a fascinating story whose ending has yet to be written. Clive also reviews the historical book “Nazi Germany and the Jews 19391945” by Saul Friedlander. I hope you find the review of the book interesting and informative. Teresa Thompson brings us face to face with one of the dangers of shooting that most of us ignore: lead poisoning. Ms. Thompson, using sound science, shows us what the dangers are, and how we can recover from them. Bernard Pelletier brings us, in both Official Languages, a wonderful article on recoil, describing what it is, how it affects our shooting, and how we can minimize it’s negative effects. Kathy Jackson, in her column Kids and Guns, writes about how to talk to your older children about firearms. It’s not just our homes our children must be concerned with, it’s their friends’ homes as well, and Kathy gives sound advice on how to prepare your own children for what they might find out there in the world. Bruce Gold digs into the Roots of Gun Control, specifically the much-spouted (but thoroughly debunked) “guns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder” myth. In this installment of Classic Arms, Jesse Hardin brings us the

June / July 2009

Winchester Model 1894. In Jesse’s usual style, he brings us many littleknown gems about this old favourite. Then, in Old West Armory, Jesse brings us the second half of Smoothbores and Highwaymen, a delightful read that I couldn’t wait to get my hands on. Hopefully you were waiting as eagerly for this half of his article as I was! Dr. Gary Mauser brings us more from the International Front, this time delving a little deeper into the issue of ammunition and how the international gun banners are trying to stop you from getting any. This is an issue we looked at with regards to bullet serialization and micro-stamping a few issues ago. Coyotes are a problem in many areas of the country, and cost farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost livestock every year. David Chappelle takes on the Bambi Generation in his article “Screw the Farmers - We Hate Guns”. Gun owners in Canada have more allies than they sometimes believe. Frank Hilliard brings us some information on two of these allies, and who they are just might surprise you. Yvon Dionne helps shed some light on what’s happening in Quebec, as most gun owners outside la belle province don’t really know what’s happening there due to the language differences. Pierre Lemieux’s story is one all of us should know, understand, and defend. Enjoy the issue! Yours in Liberty,

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

by: Blair Hagen, National President

President’s Column C-301, S-5, Does anyone know what’s going on ?

he past few months have certainly been eventful in Ottawa regarding the firearms issue. First, in February, we had the introduction of long time stalwart MP Garry Breitkreuz’s private member’s bill C-301. Unlike previous government bills, C-301 demonstrated a real understanding of the fundamental issues in replacing the Liberal Firearms Act. No, it did not replace the failed and embarrassing Firearms Act, that affront to Canadian citizenship and to all Canadian taxpayers, but it did seek to make substantial amendments to it. The National Firearms Association had to recognize that effort. Some people in Ottawa see NFA as being rather intransigent on the issues of firearms law reform, and especially the issue of replacing the failed Liberal Firearms Act. Very odd. The fundamental fact is that this law has failed. It was based on a failed ideology of civil disarmament, and is hostile to all of the freedoms that Canadians enjoy as their birthright. In April, the government introduced a Senate bill, Bill S-5, which purported to end the requirement to register non-restricted long guns. Unfortunately, S-5 was merely a re-introduction of an earlier bill from the last parliament, Bill C-24. The Problems with S-5 are fundamental. Unlike Bill C-301, it does not address any of core problems of the C-68 Firearms Act. S-5 only ends the requirement for firearms owners to hold a little paper registration for their long guns. All firearms transfers require the approval of provincial chief firearms officers under S-5. There’s the catch. You might assume that those transfers would be automatic, unless denied for real public safety considerations. 8

June / July 2009

You’d be wrong. S-5 does not contain any real guidelines on how firearms transfers should be approved or facilitated. It does not prevent provincial CFO’s from collecting information on the firearms involved in those transactions. S-5 does not prevent the establishment of provincial firearms registries. If S-5 were to be passed and implemented, your firearms transfer could be refused if you failed to provide the make/model/serial number of the firearm in question on demand of the CFO demanding that information. A firearms transfer could be denied if that CFO decided that the transfer of non restricted Ruger Mini 14 rifles was not in the interest of public safety. A firearms transfer could be denied simply if a provincial CFO decided that too many firearms transfers were taking place within a given time period. Under S-5 every firearms transfer must be approved by the CFO. Doesn’t matter if it’s your mom, brother or best friend, the CFO must have confirmation of who the new owner is. And that ladies and gentlemen is a firearms registry. C-301 provided for a license validity check. This is logical. Responsible firearms owners do not want to transfer firearms to dangerous or unqualified individuals. The opportunity to confirm this through a license validity check would greatly aid in this. Unlike Bill C-301, S-5 didn’t even begin to address the issue of firearms licensing. The current C68 licensing system was set up to reduce the number of individuals legally qualified to own and purchase firearms in the aid of eliminating the firearms community as a political factor in the firearms debate in Canada. The Firearms

Canadian Firearms Journal

www.nfa.ca

Act’s mandatory licensing would reduce the firearms community’s numbers through bureaucratic harassment and attrition. The firearms community, used to the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) being necessary for purchase but not for ownership, was ill prepared to deal with the mandatory for ownership C68 firearms license. Canadian Firearms Centre public information campaigns in the late 1990’s failed horribly. C-301 proposed ameliorating this by extending the licensing renewal period to 10 years, with a 2 year grace period for renewal. Mandatory firearms licensing for ownership of private property is unacceptable, but at least this proposal would have been a good first step in fixing the broken firearms licensing system. S-5 contains no such proposals, and continues to allow the criminalization of law abiding individuals for paperwork infractions. Under Bill S-5, the Liberalintroduced licensing system in the Firearms Act remains intact. Let your license expire, and you will have your guns confiscated and you will go to jail. The Conservative government may have believed that by re-introducing Bill C-24 as Senate Bill S-5 they were reducing the more controversial aspects of firearms law reform. Quite the opposite. There’s an old saying: “When you try to satisfy everyone, you usually end up satisfying no one”. This certainly holds true with Senate Bill S-5. Very quickly after it’s introduction, Liberal Senators in the Liberal dominated senate promised they would kill Bill S-5. The firearms community, with it’s fledgling support of the private member’s Bill C-301, became confused by the government’s introduction of this senate bill. Far from clarifying matters and creating bipartisan support towards firearms law reform, Bill S-5 became a political Albatross. To add insult to injury, in April the Bloc Quebecois led Liberal and NDP members in voting for a resolution in parliament to support the failed gun registry and demand the government end the continuous firearms amnesties that have indemnified firearms owners caught in the bureaucratic morass that is the Firearms Act. It is now clear that the Bloc Quebecois, Liberal and NDP parties would rather see law-abiding firearms owners charged and guns confiscated than reform the broken firearms laws that have caused an intolerable situation. My predecessor, National Firearms Association President David Tomlinson, was adamant in his pursuit of defeating, dismantling and replacing the Liberal’s Firearms Act, and previous failed firearms laws, as a means of restoring faith, confidence and support of the www.nfa.ca

legislative and legal imperative of ensuring the public safety of all Canadians. This is something all of us have a vested interest in. Unfortunately, in the past the issue of firearms and public safety has been hijacked by a intellectual milieu of highly deluded individuals who have a social agenda of ending the Canadian cultural tradition of firearms ownership. They see the presence of firearms in society as an inherently dangerous and evil manifestation. They know that millions of Canadians own and use firearms, and consider them a vital part of their individual, family and Canadian cultures. They hold this in utter contempt, and seek to force a utopian society of disarmament dependence, centralized control, and a culture of subservience to the state as a replacement for our proud Canadian culture and traditions of individual autonomy, perseverance, and the “can do” attitude that carved a nation out of the harsh northern wilderness of the North American continent. Using “public safety” is just a means to an end. Canadians are practical people. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents got things done by using a rational reasoning, logic, and a belief and acceptance of reality. They established Confederation, fought two world wars, built an economy to rival the best the world had to offer. However, in the last 40 years, a kind of institutionalized political correctness has replaced this in government and bureaucracy. It’s permeated every level of government and the public service. Programs enacted decades ago are forced on us all, whether we need them or not. Bureaucracies such as the Canadian Firearms Centre and law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP seem to operate according to their own agendas, not that of a Government of Canada elected by Canadians. The Conservative government must come to terms with the fact that it will not win support for firearms law reform by operating on the terms of the opposition parties. Opposition back benchers who initially indicated an interest in aiding in the ending of the draconian firearms laws and regulations imposed on their law abiding constituents, quickly deserted them when the opportunity through the adoption of the talking points of the Coalition for Gun Control allowed them to. The Bloc Quebecois, Liberal and NDP parties are not interested in any firearms law reforms. The Conservative government must show leadership on their pledge to finally end this madness. Are they listening?

Canadian Firearms Journal

June / July 2009

by Sean G. Penney, National VP Communications

Vice President’s Column Looking To the Future “I

f a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” - Thomas Jefferson Today, more than ever, our right to own and use firearms is in jeopardy. Rumours amongst the recreational firearms community that the RCMP intended on unilaterally reclassifying almost all semi-automatic “militarystyle” rifles abound, including rifles currently listed as non-restricted! Well before rumours began, we were monitoring three firearms retailers who were importing several new models of “black rifle”, including the long barrel version of the Chinese Type-97A and a short barrel “Krinkov” style VZ-58. The former was deemed non-restricted in the federal Firearms Reference Table, while the latter would be classified as restricted due to barrel length. Upon landing in Canada these legal shipments were impounded and samples of the rifles sent to the RCMP for analysis and review. While original attempt to have the VZ rifles prohibited on the basis of their receivers failed, in the end, 10

June / July 2009

according to the principal importer of the “Krinkov” style VZ-58s, the RCMP ruled that because there was a certain “commonality” of parts with their military-issued fullautomatic cousins, these civilian, semi-automatic rifles are deemed prohibited! Such a ruling flies in the face of common sense and logic, since there are literally dozens of legal models of firearm currently in the hands of deer hunters and target shooters that use and can share parts with their full-auto brethren. None of these rifles have posed a public safety concern in the past, and this example of RCMP “logic” in the application of this finding borders on sophistry. The status of the Chinese Type-97A rifle remains undetermined, and litigation is almost guaranteed in this case, since millions of dollars in merchandise and potential lost sales are involved. However, as long at the RCMP delays their final ruling, the legal importers of these rifles are in limbo, unable to deliver their rifles to waiting customers, and racking up financially ruinous extra costs directly related to the Government’s (in)actions in this case.

Following on the heels of the above two cases was the bizarre and mysterious disappearances of specific Firearms Reference Table numbers assigned to a number of other “black rifles.” Many dealers reported this disappearance and subsequent reappearance of these FRT numbers. The NFA immediately took steps to investigate. Within the RCMP command structure there is an institutionalized fear and distrust of any civilian owned firearms. Combined with the possibility that Bill C-301 would be pass and the long-gun registry would be dismantled, the RCMP feared it would “lose track” of all those deadly “assault rifles” – the same rifles that are currently non-restricted and are owned legally by thousands of Canadian shooters. Tackling the non-existent “assault rifle” issue, however, would make for good press, something which the RCMP desperately needs these days. Sheldon Clare, our Legal Affairs Chair, worked the Hill and met with several of the key “movers & shakers” within Government. Our position was made abundantly clear to Government and our concerns

Canadian Firearms Journal

www.nfa.ca

quickly saw a fire lit under Minister of Public Safety, Peter van Loan and his staff. We’ve since been assured that what transpired had no official standing, the Minister had been completely unaware of the issue, and the Government had no plans to institute further firearms prohibitions. A small win to be sure, but we’ll take it! However, the issue of the Chinese Type-97A and Krinkov VZ-58 remain outstanding. Until we get a positive resolution to these situations, none of us can afford to rest on our laurels. A line in the sand must be drawn and ALL Canadian gun owners must come together and stand united. The apathy and self-interest of gun owners can no longer be tolerated. Do I own either a Chinese Type 97 or VZ-58S? Nope! But that isn’t going to stop me from supporting those who do or the right for every responsible gun owner in Canada to purchase one if they so desire. Ignatieff opposes the elimination of the enormously expensive and fatally flawed long-gun registry, and opposes Bill C-301 because it would mean that “machine guns” would be transported through Canadian neighbourhoods!

future Prime Minister of Canada has of this issue. Gun grabbers are casting a wider net this time, and it is handguns and “semi-automatics” that are on the chopping block. What the Liberals in their ignorance fail to realize and what gun grabbers like Wendy Cukier are fully cognizant of is the fact that “semi-autos” comprise over one quarter of all registered firearms in Canada today! Their definitions of “bad” “assault rifles” such as that used by the Stephane Dion Campaign during the last federal election was so broad that even the venerable bolt action Lee-Enfield carried by millions of Canadian servicemen would’ve been tagged with this label! It is up to us, hunters, target shooters, collectors and competitors to see that we never allow our government to ever put another foot on that slippery slope we know as gun control. We need to start hitting back at the grassroots level. You, the individual gun owner, need to start hitting back, calling out the left-wingers and gun grabbers on their made-up statistics and emotion-based “arguments.” We can’t afford to let media bias and the continuing indoctrination of our citizens, both old and young alike, to continue unopposed.

Guns and gun owners aren’t inherently dangerous or evil. We’re not the demons and monsters that newscasts and editorials make us out to be, and we cannot allow ourselves to be the pawns in some grotesque game of political chess. As noted The National Firearms Association has an writer H.L. active and growing membership of shooters and hunters. If you Mencken once said, would like to reach each and every one of them, advertise in the It should terrify every Canadian gun owner that this is the level of understanding the Official Opposition leader and possible

Canadian Firearms Journal.

Interested?

Call us at (604) 250-7910 or e-mail us at Advertising@CanadianFirearmsJournal.com www.nfa.ca

hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m damned sick of being the “hobgoblin” in this on-going Liberal/ NDP/BQ jihad against rural Canada and honest gun owners, so they can pander to the “delicate sensibilities” of the urban left. Individuals like Toronto Mayor David Miller, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff have deliberately chosen to focus on the issue of “gun control” rather than working toward actual crime control solutions. They deflect all attention away from their de facto support for their “hug-athug” judicial system. They’ve been able to get away with this thus far because of their success in keeping the populace sufficiently alarmed, as Mencken put it, to be, “clamorous to be led to safety”. Just read the letters page in any Canadian newspaper that condemns guns instead of the criminal wielding it! We must start hitting radio call-in shows, writing letters to the editor and sending local TV stations immediate feedback when their air blatantly biased reports that negatively impact gun owners en masse. The same goes for our MP’s, Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan and Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Our voices must be heard! Canada’s National Firearms Association cannot do this alone, we need your help! The ball is in your court, ladies and gentlemen!

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and

Canadian Firearms Journal

June / July 2009

Letters to the LEGAL CORNER Transportation of “In Use” firearms Question: My brother is licensed trapper in Ontario and is having a problem with some police forces who say his guns are not legally stored in his truck. We are curious what he has to do to ensure he is not breaking any laws. If he is out on a trapping call he has rifles with him and this is when he has the problem even when it is the police or the city that has called him in for help! Any advice that we could get would be greatly appreciated. These are rifles (long guns) not hand guns. Sincerely Blaine Mckelvey

Answer: Thanks for your question, Blaine. There are often misunderstandings by both law enforcement officials and firearm users as to what one is allowed to do in regards to transporting firearms. According to the transportation of non-restricted firearms regulations: TRANSPORTATION OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS 10. (1) An Individual may transport a non-restricted firearm only if (a) except in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, it is unloaded; and (b) in the case of a muzzle-loading firearm that is being transported between hunting sites, its firing cap or flint is removed.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an individual may transport a =on-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle only if (a) when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked; and

June / July 2009

(b) when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the non-restricted firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and the vehicle, or the part that contains the non-restricted firearm, is securely locked.

(3) If, in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting, an individual is transporting a non-restricted firearm in an unattended vehicle that is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, and the vehicle or the part of it that contains the non-restricted firearm cannot be securely locked, the individual shall ensure that the non-restricted firearm

(a) is not visible; and (b) is rendered inoperable by a secure locking device, unless the individual reasonably requires the nonrestricted firearm for the control of predators. A problem with law enforcement sometimes arises when the officer confuses the fact that the firearm is in an attended vehicle rather than an unattended one. In an attended vehicle regulations (2) and (3) do not apply; therefore, the firearm may be both unlocked, visible and at hand. As stated in 10 (1) (a) above it must be unloaded except if it is a muzzle loader which must be rendered inoperable by removal of the percussion cap or flint. The problem for firearm users may arise if their firearm is either or both visible and operable in an unattended vehicle. If the firearm is reasonably required for predator control then it does not have to be rendered inoperable or locked, even in an unattended vehicle; however, it must not be visible. I hope that this information clarifies the matter. Sheldon Clare BC Branch President Canada’s National Firearms Association

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Editor

Canadian

Firearms Journal The Official Magazine of the

National Firearms Association

I have long been strongly opposed to Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unfair gun laws. Nothing frustrates me more in this country than the latte drinking urbanites from Toronto and Montreal who think that guns are the source of evil in society.

Editor........................................Editor@CanadianFirearmsJournal.com Christopher di Armani

I grew up in Manitoba and lived in Nova Scotia for a few years. People in these provinces have strong feelings about the rights of gun owners. My fear is that we have become a neurotic society that seeks band-aid solutions rather than finding the root cause of the problem. Why not take the $2 Billion dollars from the gun registry and use that to help the provinces fund after school sporting activities such as hockey or baseball?

Legal Inquiries.................................................................. legal@nfa.ca

In addition, I believe that many urbanites are unaware that legal and regulated hunting is actually environmentally freindly and more humane than the mass produced beef available in chain grocery stores. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s also not clear to me if these gun haters realize that cows on organic farms, in some cases, are actually shot with a rifle.

Advertising...................... Advertising@CanadianFirearmsJournal.com Clive Edwards (604) 250-7910 Accounts / Membership / General Info................. membership@nfa.ca

National Executive National President..........................................................(780) 439-1394 Blair Hagen natpres@nfa.ca National Vice-President Communication Sean Penney

(780) 439-1394 natvpc@nfa.ca

National Vice-President Finance Henry Atkinson

(780) 439-1394 natvpf@nfa.ca

Provincial Contacts British Columbia.............................................................bcpres@nfa.ca Sheldon Clare (250) 563-2804 Alberta.................................................................................info@nfa.ca (780) 439-1394 Saskatchewan.................................................................. skpres@nfa.ca Dan Lupichuk (306) 332-3907 Manitoba..................................................................mvormeng@nfa.ca Mike Vormeng (204) 886-2667

I guess beef just magically appears in their minds.

Ontario............................................................................onpres@nfa.ca Bill Rantz (705) 385-2636

Thank you, A. Smith

Quebec............................................................................pqpres@nfa.ca Phil Simard (514) 365-0685 Vice-President sab@nfa.ca Stephen Buddo (450) 430-0786 Nova Scotia..................................................................... nspres@nfa.ca Dave Udle (902) 567-3600

Questions? Do you have a question? Something you want clarified? Please send us a letter or an e-mail. We would love to hear from you. Letters should be directed to the Editor. Legal and political questions should be directed to the NFA Legal Department. Letters must include the Name, Address, and Phone Number of the sender. P.O. Box 52183 Edmonton, AB Canada T6G 2T5

New Brunswick....................................................................................... Harland Cook (506) 459-7416 Newfoundland.................................................................natvpc@nfa.ca Sean Penney (709) 598-2040 Cathy Keane (709) 368-3920 Publication Sales Agreement 40050578

National Firearms Association Box 52183 Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2T5

Tel: (780) 439-1394 Fax: (780) 439-4091 info@nfa.ca www.nfa.ca

e-mail: info@nfa.ca www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

If it Saves One Child: The Myth and the Reality

n April 14, 2009 armed thieves invaded a jewelry store in Vancouver, BC. The incident began when three men barged into the Atson Jewelry and Gold store on Robson Street near Homer about 10 a.m. One began smashing jewelry cases with a hammer while a second man scooped up the jewelry. They were covered by the third man who had a gun. The store’s owner pulled out his own gun and shot at one of the men, possibly wounding him. All three men then fled the store, running down the street into a waiting car. All three men escaped carrying an undetermined amount of jewelry. The owner told CBC News that he is a hunter and a target shooter who knows how to use a gun. Police confirmed the owner’s guns are legal, but said it’s too early to know if the owner will be charged. On both the CBC website and the Province Newspaper website, where versions of this story were posted, support for the store owner’s use of a firearm under the circumstances was nearly unanimous. I stopped by the store on the afternoon of April 29. It is a new, modern looking establishment across the street from Vancouver’s stunningly impressive library, in an area of upscale coffee bars, restaurants and retailers. The broken windows and jewelry cases had been repaired. No jewelry was on display however. At first I thought the store was vacant. The was a sign on the door asking those who had jewelry repairs or orders to pick up to please ring the door bell. I rang. A conservatively well dressed middle-aged woman peeked out from behind a closed door to the back of the store then buzzed me in. After the door closed behind me the gentleman who fended off the attackers came out to greet me. He was dressed cleanly, 14

June / July 2009

neatly and conservatively. His deportment was dignified, warm and professional. I introduced myself as an NFA field officer, gave him my card (he asked for another to pass on to a relative) and a couple of recent issues of the Canadian Firearms Journal. I showed them a printout of the CBC online article covering his store invasion. The three of us chatted for a while about the usual things shooters talk about to break the ice. The gentleman and his wife struck me as being intelligent, engaging and saltof-the-earth; the kind of people who represent all that is good about Canada; the kind of people who should be role models for us all. Their lives were turned upside down by the events of April 14, yet they stayed on their feet. They did what had to be done – indeed the only thing that could have been done. They are taking precautions in case the invaders return and they are putting their business back in order. While no charges have yet been laid against him for defending himself, our hero is not out of the woods yet. He calmly believes he acted responsibly and trusts that he will be exonerated after all the facts are considered. Given the potential for charges under our ill-conceived firearms laws, however, he understandably declined my invitation to discuss details relating to the events. That the family-owned business came under armed and violent attack is unfortunate. That the store owner rose to the occasion and used equal force to prevail in driving the assailants from his store, possibly saving his life and the lives of any others who might have been potential victims, is commendable.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Par Clive Edwards

L’autodéfense That he had the calmness of mind to exercise his skill at arms during a chaotic and violent attack with a gun pointed at him and without endangering passersby is admirable in the extreme. This man acted heroically. It would be petty and unforgivable if society and more specifically the Vancouver Police were to invalidate his actions in any way, shape or form.

www.nfa.ca

e 14 avril 2009, des voleurs armés ont envahi une bijouterie à Vancouver, en Colombie-Britannique. L’incident a commencé lorsque trois hommes ont fait irruption dans le magasin Atson Jewelry and Gold sur la rue Robson, près de la rue Homer, vers 10 heures. L’un d’eux s’est mis à briser les cases des bijoux avec un marteau et un deuxième ramassait les bijoux. Ils étaient protégés par le troisième qui avait une arme à feu. Le propriétaire du magasin s’est emparé de son arme à feu et a fait feu sur l’un d’eux, le blessant peut-être. Les trois hommes se sont ensuite enfuis dans une voiture. Ils ont pris une valeur indéterminée de bijoux.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

La porte s’est refermée derrière moi et l’homme qui s’était défendu contre les bandits est venu m’accueillir. Il était vêtu proprement et sobrement. Son comportement était digne, chaleureux et professionnel. Je me suis présenté en tant qu’officiel de la NFA, lui ai donné ma carte (il en a demandé une autre pour un parent) et une couple de numéros récents du Canadian Firearms Journal. Je leur ai montré l’imprimé de l’article en ligne de la CBC sur l’infraction à son commerce. Tous les trois nous avons jasé pendant un certain temps des choses habituelles dont les amateurs de tir discutent pour faire connaissance. Mes deux interlocuteurs m’ont impressionné par leur intelligence, leur personnalité attachante et leur esprit pratique, en somme des gens qui représentent ce qu’il y a de bon au Canada et qui devraient être des modèles pour nous tous. Leur vie a été bouleversée par les événements du 14 avril mais ils sont restés les deux pieds sur terre. Ils ont fait ce qu’ils devaient dans les circonstances, en fait la seule chose qui pouvait être faite. Ils prenaient des précautions au cas où les voleurs reviendraient et ils mettent leurs affaires à l’ordre.

Le propriétaire a dit à CBC News qu’il est un chasseur et un tireur à la cible connaissant l’usage des armes à feu. La police a confirmé que les armes du propriétaire sont légales mais a dit qu’il est trop tôt pour savoir si le celui-ci sera accusé. À la fois sur le site Web de Radio-Canada et celui du journal The Province, où des versions de cette affaire ont été publiées, le soutien au propriétaire du magasin pour l’utilisation d’une arme à feu dans les circonstances a été quasi unanime. Je suis allé au magasin dans l’après-midi du 29 avril. C’est un établissement neuf, d’apparence moderne, en face de l’impressionnante bibliothèque de Vancouver, dans un endroit bien coté de cafés, de restaurants et de détaillants. Les vitres fracassées de même que les cases de la bijouterie avaient été réparées. Mais les cases étaient vides. Sur le moment, j’ai cru que le magasin était vacant. Il y avait un écriteau sur la porte demandant à ceux qui avaient des bijoux en réparation ou qui avaient reçu des avis de livraison d’appuyer sur la sonnerie. J’ai sonné. Une femme d’âge moyen et vêtue sobrement regarda de derrière une porte fermée à l’arrière du magasin, puis m’a laissé entrer. 16

June / July 2009

Bien qu’aucune accusation n’ait encore été portée contre lui, notre héros n’est pas encore sorti du pétrin. Avec calme, il estime qu’il a agi de façon responsable et est confiant qu’il sera exonéré quand tous les faits seront pris en compte. Compte tenu de la possibilité d’accusations en vertu de nos lois liberticides sur les armes à feu, il a décliné mon invitation (et je le comprends) de discuter des détails relatifs à ces événements. Qu’une entreprise familiale devienne la cible d’une attaque armée et violente est regrettable. Que le propriétaire du magasin ait réagi de façon conséquente et se soit servi d’une force raisonnable pour faire fuir les agresseurs, et peut-être ainsi sauver sa propre vie et la vie d’autrui qui pourraient avoir été les victimes potentielles, est louable. Qu’il ait eu tant de présence d’esprit grâce à son habileté aux armes dans une situation d’attaque violente et chaotique quand une arme à feu était pointée dans sa direction, sans mettre en danger les passants, est admirable à l’extrême. Cet homme a agi héroïquement. Il serait mesquin et impardonnable si la société, et plus particulièrement la police de Vancouver, devaient condamner son acte, de quelque façon que ce soit.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Book Review by Clive Edwards

Nazi Germany And The Jews 1939-1945: The Years Of Extermination By SAUL FRIEDLANDER, Harper Perennial, 2008 ISBN 978-0-06-093048-6 • Canada $21.50

his Pulitzer Prize winning history of the events described by the title is an impeccably researched and footnoted academic publication. It reads like a novel – a story so outrageous our greatest fiction writers could not dream it up. Professor Friedlander spent a lifetime researching the events, and gives us the mundane details of daily life in all of occupied Europe, within the context of “the big picture”. This is not a work of condemnation and retribution; rather it is an honest presentation and analysis in support of understanding the motivation and the mechanics of genocide. Government and media worked hand in glove to propagandize the population, not only through newspapers, magazines and pamphlets but especially through motion pictures and radio. Next the legal and regulatory groundwork was laid. Careers were frozen; the target group could no longer enjoy promotion at work. Shortly thereafter, it became against the law to employ members of the target group. Driving or riding in private vehicles was prohibited. Since driving was prohibited, private vehicles were forfeited to the state. Public transit became off limits, as did any reason to leave the vicinity of home; cinema, theatre, public events, even most shopping became illegal. The target group was relocated to ghettos where food, water, heat, privacy and living space were severely restricted. Not having sufficient water for basic hygiene or food for adequate health or new and suitable clothing, the ghetto population exhibited “subhuman” demeanor. News reels, motion pictures and photographs in magazines and newspapers showed the lazy, dirty, disgusting denizens of the ghetto. Tour busses drove sightseers to the ghettos to give them an opportunity to see and www.nfa.ca

photograph the vermin that subsisted there. Typewriters were banned. Of course the politically correct were allowed to have them, but would suffer severe consequences if they let the politically incorrect use them. All electrical appliances including radios were banned from use by the politically incorrect. Even musical instruments were confiscated and given to community and youth group bands. Firearms were banned, the exceptions were to police, military and party members. The thugs who precipitated the pogroms and exterminations as “straw men” acting under the authority of “the authorities” had firearms or clubs with nails or agricultural tools. In many cases victims were stomped to death; babies were smashed against trees. In the end, for most of the targeted class, firearms, even when possessed were not used. When the inhabitants of a town or home were taken to the edge of town and shot; when they were herded passively onto boxcar trains that they knew were taking them to their death; when some committed suicide because they knew what was coming – firearms were often found when the now-abandoned houses were searched for valuables by agents of the state. Much like our current laws that legalize state confiscation of assets, the politically incorrect were stripped of their assets by decree. Just as our local

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

police forces benefit financially from civil forfeiture laws, assets looted by decree from the politically incorrect of Europe helped reward those who denounced, arrested and killed them. The remainder went to government coffers to help those less fortunate, such as those whose homes were lost in the bombings, those who were politically connected as well as to help finance the war and “the final solution” to political incorrectness. It was the vast bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, not merely the police and military that carried out the atrocities of WW II. Community policing, the medical establishment, the religious establishment (even the Jewish religious establishment) all advocated compliance with and aided in enforcement of “the law”. The parallels between events in this book and the current global social reengineering are startlingly obvious. We cannot give up the soap box (freedom of speech); we cannot give up the ammo box (armed self defense); those who believe the ballot box alone will preserve our rights, our interests or even our very lives are selling us, our children and the future of humanity for the illusion that faceless bureaucrats are incorruptible and capable of providing for our safety and well being. In a globalist world there will be nowhere to run and no way to tell your story. Friedlander’s excellent work is a stark reminder of this.

June / July 2009

by: Teresa Thompson

Killing You Softly The most dangerous aspect of shooting can’t be controlled by firearm safety or range rules. It’s the deadly toxin slowly poisoning you -- every time you enjoy your hobby.

ecause your body does not require lead -- one of the most toxic metal contaminants -- even tiny amounts can cause all kinds of mental and physical health problems. It is a cumulative poison retained in your central nervous system, bones, brain, hair, and glands -- particularly the filters like liver and kidneys. Its effects are so subtle they often go unnoticed... until it is too late. Lead alters cell membrane permeability and destroys cells. It inhibits molecular components, especially those that are vital for hemoglobin formation, causing anemia. Allowed to accumulate, it can damage kidneys, liver, heart, and nervous system. It also causes reproductive problems in men and women. Lead poisoning may cause days of severe gastrointestinal colic, muscle weakness, and gums may turn blue. Poisoning eventually leads to paralysis of the extremities, blindness, mental disturbances, loss of memory, mental retardation, and insanity. Hmmm, insanity... you may jokingly think that sounds like some shooters you know. Anti-gunners aren’t joking. Using their popular “studies show” line – without mentioning the dubious source -- they say pregnant shooters are poisoning their babies... and children suffering lead poisoning grow into adults who exhibit criminal behaviour. They even claim every shooter is responsible for poisoning society, because we track lead everywhere after we’ve left the range. According to them, our “dismal record of lead contamination and other health matters are due to shooter’s ignorance, bad or indifferent management, and antiquated facilities”. [source: vpc.org] Lead is their next reason for banning all shooting sports and stealing all privately owned firearms.

From Where Lead Comes Cigarette smokers ingest lead with every inhalation. Fruit absorbs lead from lead-soldered cans. Lead and other heavy metals often contaminate Calcium supplements derived from dolomite and bone meal. For decades leaded gasoline polluted our air. 18

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Lead pipes, copper pipe solder, ceramic glazes, insecticides, lead-based paints, and lead-acid batteries are also sources of lead poisoning.

In the Body

And shooters – particularly indoor shooters – inhale lead... not so much from handling lead bullets... more so from breathing spent primer emissions.

About 6 percent of ingested or inhaled lead ends up in blood or soft body tissue, like vital organs... especially the kidneys and brain.

How Lead enters a Shooter’s Body

The human body mistakes lead for calcium, so it presumes deposited lead must be stored in the same place as calcium -- in bone. That’s where the remaining 94 percent of lead contamination goes.

When a primer explodes it ignites the powder in a cartridge. At the same time a cloud of lead particulate is sent into the air. The shooter’s hands, face, and clothing are dusted with minuscule lead pieces.

Lead is absorbed rapidly by tissue and bone.

While a non-jacketed lead bullet traverses a bun barrel at high speed, tiny lead particles are sheared off. Even jacketed ammunition sheds lead from the exposed base.

Absorption levels are referred to as half-life. That means one-half of a given lead dosage received by the body through a single lead exposure, is absorbed and deposited in bone matter, and would still be present in the body after a period of time has elapsed.

As the bullet exits the muzzle, a second cloud of contaminants -- muzzle blast -- emits more toxins into the air. This cloud contains lead fragments, unburnt powder, and burnt powder gasses.

Lead in the bloodstream and in soft body tissue has a halflife of approximately 30-40 days. In other words, half of the amount exposed to is still in soft body tissue 30-40 days later.

A third and yet smaller contamination cloud is generated when a lead bullet strikes a solid object.

In bone lead’s half-life is 20 years. That means one-half of the lead dosage absorbed by the body through only one exposure and deposited in bone matter is present in the body 20 years later.

Inhaling any of these clouds takes lead particles into the lungs, where they are quickly absorbed into blood. Inhaled lead then rides the bloodstream into soft body tissue and bone. Smoking, sweating, and physical activity can accelerate this absorption. Airborne lead is also absorbed through skin pores. If lead particles enter your mouth, they end up in your digestive tract. Handling empty casings can transfer lead to skin or clothing. From there it’s a short trip into your body. Cleaning your gun removes lead from the gun... and transfers it to your hands. Cleaning solvents and gun oil lubricants evaporate your natural skin oils, leaving dry skin and open pores that pass lead easily. www.nfa.ca

Detection A specific urine test reveals the level of heavy metal contamination in your body. Blood tests reveal only the most recent lead exposure. Measured in micrograms of lead per deciliter (mg/dl) of blood, a blood test does not reveal the total amount of body lead. Lead absorption in tissue is measured via red blood cell lead count, which measures lead levels accumulated over the most recent 90 days. Hair analysis accurately indicates accumulated lead levels in the body.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

Prevention Removing lead from a body is difficult... preventing lead from entering your bloodstream is a lot easier. Avoid eating and smoking while shooting. After you’re finished shooting, wash your hands thoroughly before you eat or smoke. Cold water is better, because warm water opens skin pores. To avoid further contamination from lead accumulated on your clothes, when you’ve left the range, wash yourself and your clothes. Even if you shoot only at outdoor ranges, you’re still ingesting lead. Small amounts become big amounts if you do nothing to remove this deadly toxin.

A strong chelating substance, EDTA attracts lead and other heavy metals, allowing them to leave the body. This therapy must be done under the care of a chelating physician. Mercury Amalgam Fillings pose special circumstances. Chelation Therapy must be slightly different if you still have mercury amalgam fillings.

Ion Cleanse Ion Cleansing is by far the easiest treatment. Simply place your bare feet in a warm bath and wait 30 minutes while heavy metals, yeast, lymph mucous, and other toxins are removed from your body through your feet. It’s simultaneously relaxing and refreshing.

AMD Heavy Metal Detox Busy people prefer simple remedies. AMD Heavy Metal Detox is a simple detoxifying method. It contains L-Cysteine, L-Lysine, L-Methionine, Vitamin C, Iodine, Zinc, Manganese, Chromium, Selenium, Chlorophyll, Sodium Alginate, and Apple Pectin – all the necessary chelation ingredients... in correct ratios... in one easy-toremember capsule. For adults: Take with fruit juices, two capsules three times a day, after meals. Continue for six weeks. Stop for two weeks. Continue as needed.

Treatment With treatment, lead is excreted through urine, bile, sweat, hair, and nails. To help your body rid itself of lead, eat large amounts of fibre and supplement with pectin found in apples. Eat seaweed, legumes, beans, eggs, onions, and garlic. Drink steam distilled water, to leach lead and other heavy metals out of your body. Some extreme cases may require intravenous Chelation Therapy with EDTA, (Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid). Chelating (pronounced: kee-lay-ting) is the binding of one substance to another. Generally it is to prepare minerals for human absorption. Chelation Therapy is binding a substance to harmful minerals in the body, for removal. 20

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Teresa Thompson, Dr Ac, RNCP, NHC, CH, CR has been in practice for 20 years using Acupuncture, Biological Terrain, Botanical Medicine, Dietary supplements, Hair Analysis, Homeopathy, Nutritional Counselling, and Ion cleansing. She wants to help fellow shooters avoid the very real danger of lead poisoning. To find an ion cleanse professional in your area, or to order hair analysis or Heavy Metal Detox, email her: DrT@talkwireless.ca

www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

Par Bernard Pelletier

Pour avancer avec le recul! Le Smith & Wesson, modèle 37, en .38 SPL est léger. Il produira un recul de beaucoup supérieur au S&W 686, même en tirant des cartouches contenant des charges de poudre et des projectiles identiques.

The shooting posture plays an essential role to control the recoil. Here, among other things, the back is heavily bent thus making an unstable position. La position de tir joue un rôle essentiel pour maîtriser le recul. Ici, entre autres choses, les reins sont fortement creusés rendant la position instable.

« Ça, c’est un calibre! Y a tout’un recul. C’est un vrai pistolet d’homme ». Je crains que malheureusement certains tireurs pensent encore comme mon interlocuteur. Pour qu’une arme soit « bonne », il faut qu’elle génère du recul. D’où toutes les élucubrations que l’on entend sur la puissance des armes et la magnumania que nous connaissons ces temps-ci. Un phénomène physique La 3e loi de Newton veut que chaque action produise une réaction de force égale et en sens opposé. Le recul en soi est donc tout à fait normal et il nous est possible de le mesurer en mètre/seconde. Le facteur qui entre en jeu est essentiellement la relation entre le poids de l’arme, la masse du projectile et la puissance de la charge. Autrement dit, une balle lourde devant une charge de poudre puissante dans une arme légère générera automatiquement une augmentation du recul réel au moment de la mise à feu. En conséquence, toutes choses étant égales par ailleurs, ces armes super légères chambrées dans des calibres dignes de canons antiaériens produiront un recul plus élevé sur l’épaule du tireur. Conseil pour la chasse : en Amérique du Nord, rares sont les gibiers qui ne puissent pas être proprement abattus par des armes en. 308 Win. et ou en 30-06 Springfield. J’entends déjà les commentaires. « Oui, mais moi je tire mon gibier de très loin et il me faut une grosse Bertha. » C’est possible, mais pour moi qui chasse dans l’est du Canada, les distances dépassent rarement 100 mètres. Je préfère donc utiliser une arme confortable et m’approcher du gibier au plus près. Pour un cerf de Virginie, par exemple, une 270, une 7-08 ou une 308 Win. feront un excellent travail dans la zone vitale; là où tout chasseur respectueux de son gibier devrait tirer. Et, en passant, 22

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

By Bernard Pelletier

Let’s know more about recoil! Here is a much more stable posture for shooting. Voici une position beaucoup plus stable.

Some say : “This is a real man’s gun, with such recoil“. Unfortunately I fear that some shooters still think like my interlocutor. For a firearm to be good, they say it must have a lot of recoil. Hence all the lucubrations we hear about the power of firearms and “magnum-mania”. A physical phenomenon The third law of Newton says that every action produces a reaction of equal force and opposite linear direction. Recoil is quite normal, and we can measure it in meters per second. What comes into play is essentially the relationship between the weight of the firearm, the mass of the projectile and the power of the load. In other words, a heavy bullet powered by a heavy charge in a light firearm will automatically generate a high recoil. Therefore, all other things being equal, super light firearms chambered with heavy loads worthy of anti-aircraft guns will produce far greater recoil on the shoulder. One bit of hunting advice: in North America there are few game animals that cannot be properly killed by .308 Winchester. or 30-06 Springfield. Already, I can hear the comments. “Yes, but I shoot my game far away and I need a Big Bertha. “ It’s possible but for me hunting in Eastern Canada, distances rarely exceed 100 meters. I prefer to use an appropriate rifle and get close as much as possible. For a deer, for example, a 270, a 7-08 or a 308 Win. will do an excellent job at the vital area, where every hunter respectful of his game should aim. Nobody forces us to shoot when we are not certain of a clean kill. A psychological phenomenon But let’s get back to recoil. If it is a physical phenomenon, recoil is also, in part, a psychological feeling. To shooters that I train, I repeat that 90% of recoil is between their two ears. The fear of a blow to the shoulder usually affects the accuracy of the shot. This is well known. Most of the time, especially with handguns, I found that it is the noise. more than the recoil, that intimidates the new shooter. The answer is simple: wear good hearing protectors to reduce decibels. Other factors will affect the felt recoil. Primarily this is the shooter’s posture and the handling of the gun. Is your stance stable? Is your back straight? These two things will make a big difference.

The Smith & Wesson Model 37 in .38 SPL is light. It will produce recoil much greater than the S & W 686, even when firing bullets containing identical loads. www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

la chasse est un sport, personne ne nous oblige à tirer quand la cible n’est pas acceptable. Un phénomène psychologique Mais revenons au recul. S’il s’agit d’un phénomène physique, le recul est aussi une sensation en partie psychologique. Aux tireurs que j’entraîne, je répète que 90 % du recul se situe entre les deux oreilles. La crainte du coup à l’épaule affecte souvent la précision du tireur. C’est connu. La plupart du temps, particulièrement à l’arme de poing, j’ai constaté que c’est le bruit plus que le recul qui intimide le nouveau tireur. La solution est simple : porter des bouchons ou des coquilles ou les deux pour atténuer le nombre de décibels.

amortisseur? La pire chose à faire serait de vous adosser à un arbre ou à un mur. Même chose pour vos bras à l’arme de poing. La solution Enfin, la meilleure façon d’apprendre à maîtrise le recul de votre arme est (et tout le monde sait que nous, tireurs, détestons ça!) de vous entraîner, de vous entraîner et de vous entraîner. C’est au tir que vous allez progressivement découvrir votre propre recette. N’hésitez pas non plus à demander l’aide des instructeurs de votre club.

D’autres facteurs vont jouer un rôle dans le recul ressenti. Ce sont principalement la position et la prise de l’arme. Votre posture de tir est-elle stable? Avez-vous les reins cassés? Tentez-vous de bloquer le recul?

Un dernier conseil. L’entraînement à l’arme à air comprimé ou au calibre .22 est excellent et peu coûteux. Il vous faut cependant être extrêmement attentif à la prise de l’arme. J’ai souvent vu des tireurs développer l’habitude d’épauler de sorte que seule la partie inférieure de la plaque de couche s’appuie sur la clavicule. Je vous laisse imaginer ce qui leur arrive quand il passe au fusil ou à la carabine de gros calibre.

En position debout, par exemple, que ce soit pour la carabine, le fusil ou l’arme de poing votre poids devrait être légèrement déporté vers l’avant. S’il se retrouve sur vos talons, vous serez certainement déséquilibrés. Au fusil est à la carabine, avez-vous bien épaulé votre arme? Laissez-vous votre épaule agir comme un

Je n’ai fait qu’effleurer le sujet, mais en entrainement je vois tellement de gens craindre le recul qu’il me semblait important de tenter d’en démystifier certains aspects. Enfin, j’ai volontairement ignoré les freins de bouche et autres compensateurs, car j’ai préféré centrer mon texte sur le tireur davantage que sur l’arme.

Erreur douloureuse : s’adosser à un poteau pour tirer. Pensez votre corps comme la suspension de votre véhicule. Sans amortisseurs, vous auriez tôt fait de casser les essieux. A painful error : to lean on a post when shooting. Compare your body to the shock absorbers of your vehicle. Without shock absorbers, you would soon break the axles.

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Bien placer la crosse dans la « poche » de l’épaule, en plus d’améliorer la précision, atténue le recul ressenti. Gare à qui placera son arme ainsi quand il utilisera une carabine ou un fusil de gros calibre. The butt plate must be well placed in the “pocket” of the shoulder; in addition to improve accuracy it will reduce the recoil felt. Those who use a high caliber rifle or a shotgun must be careful not to hold their firearm such as the one pictured.

While standing straight, for example, whether you have a rifle, a shotgun or a handgun, your weight should be slightly brought forward. If it’s on your heels, you will be unbalanced. With a rifle or a shotgun, did you shoulder the firearm correctly? Let your shoulders act as a shock absorber. The worst thing to do would be to lean against a tree or a wall. Same applies to your arms with a handgun. The answer Finally, the best way to learn to control the recoil of your firearm is (and everyone knows that we, shooters, hate that!) is to train over and over. It is with practice that you will gradually find your own recipe. Do not hesitate to request help from your club instructor.

Pour déterminer où appuyer la plaque de couche, soulever le coude du bras fort et appuyer avec la main faible. Vous sentirez facilement l’endroit.

One last word of advice: Training with an air gun or a .22 caliber is excellent and inexpensive.

To find out where to hold the butt plate, raise the elbow of your arm and place your hand. You will easily feel the spot.

Finally, I have deliberately ignored some devices to reduce the recoil so as to focus on the person instead of the firearm.

Each one of us is... An ambassador, a teacher, and a mentor. One of the most important functions of the National Firearms Association is making firearms ownership and use relevant to growing numbers of Canadians. To prosper, we must have a steady flow of new shooters and enthusiasts entering our proud firearms heritage. Your membership and your donations to the National Firearms Association are helping us develop the programs Canada needs to make sure our firearms heritage continues to grow.

I have only touched the subject, but in training I see so many people fear recoil that I thought it important to try to demystify some aspects of the subject.

I want to help Make It Happen! Here is my contribution to the

National Firearms Association to help protect my rights to own and use firearms. q $100 q $50 q $25 q $________ q My Cheque or Money Order enclosed q Charge my Visa/MasterCard/AMEX Card #:______________________________________ Expiry: _____________ Signature:_ ______________________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________ City/Town: ________________ Prov:_________ Postal Code: _____________ Ph.:__________________________ Fx.:_______________________________ E-mail: _________________________________________________________ Mail this form to:

National Firearms Association, Box 52183, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2T5

www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by: Kathy Jackson

Talking to Older Kids About Firearms The Four Rules 1. All guns are always loaded. 2. Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. 3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot). 4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

f the question of young children and firearms is problematic, the issues surrounding teenagers and guns are even more thorny. When is a kid old enough to be given the combination to the safe? What should a babysitter do if the youngsters in her care stumble across a gun? How can a family deal with their children’s friends, and with firearms which may, or may not, be accessible to kids in the friends homes?

I?m not going to regale you with tales of the things that can go wrong. We’ve all heard the stories, a thug breaks in while a teenage girl is babysitting, and Bad Things happen because the guns are locked up and she cannot defend herself or the younger kids. Or a teenage girl commits suicide with her parents’ bedside revolver. Or a teenage boy uses a shotgun to successfully defend himself from a home intruder -- then gets arrested for homicide. Or a group of kids, again without adult supervision, starts playing around, and one kid shoots another while showing off with a gun that wasn’t locked away in the safe. There’s no end to the coulda-wouldashoulda’s that follow such tragedies, but the lessons are sometimes contradictory and often confusing.

But let us first talk about the law. There are literally thousands of federal, state, and local laws which regulate the purchase, sale, possession and transportation of firearms in the United States. Many of these regulations impose greater restrictions upon young people. Although parents can generally choose whether to allow their own teenage children to use firearms in controlled settings, there may be a law in your area which overrides parental discretion. Because there are so many jurisdictions with varying legal requirements, there is no way a short article like this can address the legal question adequately. Even if space weren’t a problem, I am not a lawyer and I don’t give legal advice. However, it is not difficult to discover your local laws yourself. Many states and municipalities have placed their laws on the web (see the Legal Resources page for more about that). You can also look for a copy of the laws at your local public library or county courthouse. If all else fails, you can call your local District Attorney for an explanation of the law.

Someone told me, years ago, that guilt is the biggest occupational hazard of being a mom. That sounds about right. No matter what you choose to teach your children about guns, no matter how you choose to deal with the questions that arise as the kids grow up, if something goes wrong, you’ll torment yourself for years wondering what you should have done differently.

When is a young adult old enough to be given access to the family firearms? Absent state law to the contrary, there really is no hard and fast rule. Some young teenagers are already becoming competent, adult human beings, while others seem destined to remain children for a long time to come. Some become mature enough to handle firearms without direct adult supervision by the age of 14 or 15, while others cannot be trusted not to do something foolish until they are legal adults. And sadly, some folks never do learn how to handle the responsibility of a loaded firearm.

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

In many jurisdictions it is legal for you as the parent to allow your teenage children to have access to firearms for the purpose of self defense when you are not home. But should you? Only you and your family can answer that question. www.nfa.ca

Teenagers have often developed an adult ability to reason, but it takes a lot of living to develop of good sense of judgment. Because of this, be very wary of any plan that relies on youngsters to exercise adult discretion. If you do choose to give your kids the combination to the safe, be sure they know the basic laws of self-defense: retreat if you can, hide if you are able, shoot only if you must. And never, ever shoot someone who is running away. (See the articles titled Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy and Legal Myths for more information about when it is legally permissible to use deadly force to defend yourself.) You may think this entire idea is, well, nuts. Why would any sane parent allow an underage minor to have access to a deadly weapon? Two reasons spring quickly to mind.

Rules for Friends’ Houses • If a friend offers to let you look at his parents’ guns, get an adult’s permission first. • If permission is given, follow the Four Rules. If anyone (including the adult) breaks the Four Rules, make an excuse to leave. Don’t stick around and lecture. Just get your personal and very precious body out of the area. • If your friend offers to show you a gun and there isn’t an adult around, deflect him from the idea if you can. Don’t argue with him, don’t confront him, and don’t get excited. Just think of something better to do and suggest it, or if you can’t do that, then try to sound bored when you say, “Maybe later.” • If your friend gets the gun out anyway, make an excuse and get out of there. Don’t confront, don’t argue, don’t preach. Don’t try to talk your friend into putting the gun away. Leave as quickly as possible.

First, many competent adults concede that access to a gun is an important part of their own self-defense plans, especially at home. But a teenager left home alone faces the same risk of home invasion that an adult does, and the teenager is less likely to have other defense skills. Second (and perhaps more important in the long run), the basic goal of parenthood is to work yourself out of a job. As your kids get older, it becomes more and more important that they are equipped to take care of themselves when you are not there to supervise. After all, they will soon be entirely responsible for their own lives.

In my opinion, whether the guns are accessible or not, any child who is left in the house without adults present should be responsible enough to be around a loaded weapon without doing something stupid with it. If the child is not responsible enough to be trusted with every object in the house, he is not responsible enough to be left home alone, no matter where his family’s firearms are stored, and no matter how old he might be. Particularly if there is some issue that would prevent a parent from trusting him with access to a gun (severe depression comes to mind, or anger issues, or a problem with drugs or alcohol), it is not wise to leave him unsupervised. Firearms are not the only dangerous object in anyone’s home. For safety’s sake, I believe any gun which is not under the conscious control of a responsible person should be locked away in a good safe. Even in a home without young children, it isn’t a good idea to leave expensive and dangerous toys lying around where a casual visitor can see, and perhaps steal www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

Conversation Starter • Think about a situation where your teen might have access to guns, whether intentionally or accidentally. Are the guns in your home always locked up? Is the combination to the safe written down where your teenager could find it, or where her friend might find it? Does your child visit friends? houses who might have guns? Does your teenager babysit? Do you ever place a gun in your glove box? and if so, does your teenager ever drive that car? The possibilities will be different for every family. • Consider how you would want your teen to handle the situation. If your daughter babysits, for instance, what could she do if one of the kids found a firearm? How would you want your son to react if a friend brought out a revolver to show him? • Choose a friendly time and place to talk, maybe while you are in the car together, or some other time when there aren’t a lot of distractions. Describe the situation, and then ask what your teen would do. • Listen. Your child may have a solution you haven’t thought of yet. • Ask what-if questions: What if he doesn’t want to put the gun down? What would you do then? What if your sister were there? Would you do anything different? Point out safety concerns, but let your teen find some of the answers for herself. • If your teen is willing, role play some of the possible scenarios. Pretend you’re the best friend who just brought a gun into the room while no one’s parents are there, or the small child who just found his mommy’s gun while your daughter is babysitting. Let your teen practice solving the problem. • Be encouraging. Make sure your teen knows that you trust her and believe she is capable of finding good solutions on her own. Because you won’t be there to solve the problem for her, it is important that she has confidence that she can find a safe solution herself. June / July 2009

them. Nor do you want to risk having your otherwise responsible teen succumb to peer pressure from lessresponsible friends. Not everyone agrees with this. Some families without young children may choose to have their firearms easily accessible whenever someone is home, locking the guns in the safe only when the family leaves the house. “Since my sons became teenagers and responsible gun handlers (and gun owners) I have kept guns throughout the house, including in their bedrooms. To do this, I gave up allowing the boys to have any company over unless Mom or I were at home,” says Scott Gatlin, a lead instructor at Tactical Response in Tennessee. Indeed, teenage friends can be a special problem. As our older boys have headed into the teen years, my husband and I have often discussed “What if?” questions with them. We ask them questions such as, “What would you do if your best friend wanted to get out his parents? gun? What would you say? What would you do? What if he called you a wimp because you told him you didn’t want to fiddle with that gun?” During those conversations, my kids and I realized that the biggest danger they would face from friends would be if the other kid was showing off or had something to prove. So we decided that maybe the best thing to do would be to play it cool. Rather than lecturing the friend about gun safety, the basic message to get across is, “That’s a boring idea. Let’s do something else.” Indeed, one of my kids had an opportunity to put that to the test one day last summer, and it worked like a charm. The other kid decided not to get into his dad’s guns after all, my son told me with some relief. He was proud of handling a difficult situation himself. When my kids were little, I had similar conversations with our regular babysitter, a girl who became like a daughter to me during those years. One day I asked her, “What would you do if you were babysitting somewhere and a three year old came out with his dad’s gun?” She laughed, “You guys lock yours up.” I pointed out that we weren’t the only family she babysat for. Obviously as the responsible person in charge, a babysitter cannot just run away from a situation like that. But what should she do? We decided that maybe the smartest thing would be to calmly but firmly tell the child to put down the gun. Then we talked about what a sitter should do with a loaded gun. She won’t necessarily know how to safely unload that particular firearm, so it may not be a good idea for her to try. But of course she knows the basic safety rules which apply to all guns, keep it pointed in a safe direction, keep your finger off the trigger, so she could safely pick up the unfamiliar gun and put it behind a locked bathroom door. Then she could call the parents to come home and put it away properly. 28

June / July 2009

If talking about gun laws in detail would take hundreds of pages, it would take thousands of pages to discuss every possible situation a teenager might face. The truth is that every family is different, every teenager is different, and every neighborhood is different. You are the one who best knows your children and their friends, but you cannot possibly foresee every situation the kids might face. As parents, I think the best we can hope for is to give our kids some basic blueprints for how to solve such problems themselves. And the best way to do that is to talk to them. One important principle I have taught my older kids is that no one ever outgrows the Four Rules. That means they always need to obey those rules themselves, and that if they ever see anyone, child, teenager, or adult, handling a gun in an unsafe manner, they should leave the area as quickly as possible. The easiest and best way to teach anyone firearms safety is simply to take them to the range. Handling a real gun is perhaps the most convincing way to instill respect for what a gun can do. Kids can be a real joy on the firing line, because their enthusiasm is so contagious. And it is surprising how well even a pre-adolescent can shoot when she has had good instruction. In August of last year, I was with some friends at a GSSF match in Shelton, Washington. Among the crowd was McKenzie Gunns, a 10-year-old girl shooting her very first match. Although she shot her dad’s Glock at the match, young McKenzie has a handgun of her own, a personalized Kahr E9 with purple anodizing and a matching purple belt and holster, which she received for Christmas a couple of years ago. “I’ve been shooting since I was four years old,” McKenzie told me later. “The best part is to be able to shoot better than my dad sometimes.” I was privileged to watch her do so that day in August. After the match, several people were standing around talking when Glock employee Chris

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

Edwards challenged the group to shoot the then-new Glock 37 (.45 GAP) at a steel gong some 200 yards downrange. McKenzie and her father, Heath Gunns, were among those who took up the challenge. Heath fired several rounds without hitting the gong, but McKenzie hit it on her second shot. Her smile lit up the range. McKenzie’s mom, Brady Gunns, talked with me later about the issues surrounding older kids and guns. “It is so different with each and every kid. Some kids just scare me to death, but with McKenzie I just don’t have that same fear. She knows how to handle the guns and she always follows the safety rules. I do think kids have got to have confidence that if they ask [to handle a gun] the answer is yes. They’ve got to know they’ll get to do it if they are willing to follow the rules.” That makes sense to me. A child who knows she can always take the gun to the range and fire it without getting in trouble is going to find it a lot less tempting to break the safety rules. When kids are very small, it makes good sense to keep guns continuously locked up and away from curious little hands. As they grow, it’s a good idea to disarm their curiosity by taking kids to the range and teaching them what a gun can do. And as they hit the teenage years, it is important to talk to kids about firearms safety, and to help them decide what they will do to keep themselves safe when you aren’t around to protect them.

www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by Bruce Gold

Roots of Gun Control:

Pseudo-Science Research and the 43 Times Fallacy Introduction One of the most widely quoted anti-gun statistics is the famous factoid that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder”. This damning statistic underlines the danger inherent in the mere possession of a gun in the home and completely refutes the assertion that guns are effective for self-defence. It comes from a 1986 article in the New England Journal of Medicine “Protection or Peril: An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home” by AL Kellermann, and DT Reay. This article based, on a single study (King County, Washington 1978-1983), is one of the most influential works in the entire gun-control debate and is presented as absolute proof that any positive self-defence benefit that guns may have is overwhelmed by the damage they do, indeed overwhelmed by the ratio of 43:1. (There were 389 gun deaths in a dwelling where the gun was kept; only 9 were self-defence homicides giving the 43:1 ratio) The study is also a textbook example of pseudo-science. This article examines how pseudo-science is made to look like real science. Context: Kellermann begins his article with an impressive set of numbers, (120 million guns in private hands, half of all homes contain one and ¾ of owners keep them “at least partially for self defence”). He notes that there were 3,273 violent deaths (excluding traffic deaths) during the study period. Of these deaths, 743 were shooting deaths, 473 of which took place in a dwelling and 398 took place in a dwelling where the firearm involved was kept. He continues to set the scene by stating that he is studying the “epidemiology of fire-arms related deaths in the home” a statement that seems to imply the existence of an 30

June / July 2009

“epidemic.” (This is also one of the earliest attempts to re-frame gun control as a medical issue rather than a crime issue.) A close examination of the numbers puts the “epidemic” in context. The first point is that firearms deaths are only 22.7% of all violent deaths in the study area. Accordingly, even if our anti-gun policies are 100% effective against gun violence and assuming weapon substitution is impossible; our anti-gun effort will not affect 77.3% of all violent deaths. Any anti-violence policy that focuses exclusively gun deaths or gun violence cannot possible address more than a small part of the problem. Another way to determining the “peril” of gun ownership is to examine how common these fatal shootings are. To do this we must unpack the alarming number of firearms deaths in King County (743). Using Kellermann’s own data we discover that this figure is a six years total (19781983), an average of 124 deaths per year. To assess the level of danger this number needs to be seen in relation to the County’s total population (1,270,000). If we assume the average household is four people and half of them own guns we find that something in the neighbourhood of 160,000 households own guns. These figures (124 out of 160,000) indicate that gun deaths only occur in a tiny percentage of the households with guns, scarcely an “epidemic.” It also presents a statistical problem. If gun ownership is really 43 times more dangerous, how is it that only a tiny proportion of gun owning households are affected? Kellermann also found that there were 75 gun deaths (non-suicide) in households without guns and 65 gun deaths (non-suicide) in households where the involved gun was kept. Since half of all households have guns and the other half doesn’t, why would there be more deaths in non-gun households? More

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

exactly, if the half of all households that are gun owning are 43 times more dangerous why are there more gun deaths in non-owning households? Choosing the Sample The very low percentage of gun owning households with a gun death casts doubt on how typical the households in Kellermann’s study are. If they are not representative of all households, his study loses its predictive power. Instead of producing conclusions that can be extrapolated to all households, the study would only apply to households of a particular type. Kellermann does not explicitly address this critical question. However, his study does contain some intriguing hints as to what type of household is really being examined. He states that after excluding suicides there were 65 deaths involved firearms kept in the home and that 42 (84%) of them involved an “altercation.” One suspects that “altercations” leading to a fatal shooting are not typical of gun owning households, indeed the very low percentage of gun owning household involved in these events confirms that Kellermann’s sample is anything but typical of gun owning households. This rhetorical manoeuvre, of seriously misrepresenting “typical” to reach a pre-determined conclusion is a common characteristic of pseudo-science scholarship. Another problem with Kellermann’s study is his decision to base the study on a “gun death” metric that mixes three very different types of event: suicide, self-defence and accident. In a sense, this can be justified because it is a “gun death” study. However, these are different types of event with very different dynamics. Kellermann’s attempt to link them all to one simple cause, gun ownership, is problematic because they do not share the same causation. Gun ownership as causation also raises another problem. Kellermann simply assumes, with no supporting evidence, that gun ownership leads to violence. The possibility that violence is causing people to acquire guns is simply ignored. Of these three very different types of event, we find that one, suicide, (333 of the 473 gun deaths, 84%) overwhelms all the others. Kellermann presents no evidence to demonstrate that gun owners are more likely to suicide or that this is a characteristic typical of gun owners as a group. Without such a linkage, it is hard to see why suicide should be a specific “risk” of gun ownership. Kellermann recognizes this problem when he admits, “the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear.” He then justifies this admission with pure speculation that most gun suicides are “impulsive” and that

gun suicides have a “high (implied higher) case-fatality rate” to justify the inclusion of suicide as a particular danger of gun ownership. The inclusion of “suicide” in a study whose underlying concern is addressing the utility guns for self-defence is problematic. However, the inclusion of suicide allows Kellermann to inflate his numbers and make a much stronger case for gun control. Choosing the Indicator A critical decision in any research design is the choice of the indicator or metric around which the benefits or lack of benefit can be determined. In this study, Kellermann chooses the metric “shot dead” not only as a metric for suicide or accidental death where they apply but for defensive gun use as well. Kellermann explicitly states, “mortality studies such as ours do not include cases which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use of display of a firearm” one of the things “a complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require.” However, he then goes on to assess “protection or peril” with these self-defence considerations excluded. The greatest problem with Kellermann’s “shot dead” indicator, as a measure of self-defence is how poorly it lines up with the realities of gun use in self-defence. (How well it lines up with the anti-gun rhetoric about gun use is another matter.) Criminologist Gary Kleck has found that only .1% or about one in a thousand instances of selfdefence with a gun result in the death of a criminal. Hence, Kellermann has seriously distorted his findings by chosen a metric that underestimates the value of self-defence firearms by a factor of a 1,000. (1) Characteristics of Pseudo- Science Kellermann’s study is a classic case of pseudo-science research designed to create a pre-determined conclusion. Some of the characteristics typical of this approach are: Use of large and impressive numbers without placing them in their proper context; Conflating and expanding categories to produce the desired numbers; Mis-define what is typical to mis-represent the situation; and Choose indicators that will bias or pre-determine the results. (1) Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.” New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991) also Edgar Suter, “Guns in the Medical Literature-A Failure of Peer Review,” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia 83(3) 1994, pp. 136-37.

Selected Statistics from “Protection or Peril” Number of gun homicides

Number of gun homicides in dwelling

Number of gun homicides in dwelling where gun kept

Number of gun suicides in dwelling

Gun death in dwelling where gun kept

Gun death in dwelling where no gun kept

Accidental gun death in dwelling

Self-defence homicide in dwelling

743

473

398

333

www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by Jess Hardin

Classic Arms: The Winchester Model 1894

“W

e believe that no repeating rifle design ever made will appeal to the eye and understanding of the rifleman as this will,” read Winchester’s announcement for their exciting new Model 1894, amazingly released in the same year as its patent. Indeed, this company’s lever-action designs readily dominated the highly competitive repeatingrifle market up until the 1960’s when bolt-actions finally caught up and then surpassed them and the Model ‘94 – as it’s called – is the single largest selling sporting rifle of all, with over 7,000,000 produced by the time the Winchester factory closed for business in 2006 and its milling and stamping machines finally ground to a halt. Whenever the subject of this iconic arm comes to mind, most of us tend to picture the carbine version first introduced in 1896, featuring a barrel band, short 20” barrel and possibly a distinctive saddle-ring on the left side of a deeply blued receiver. This is partly due to the carbine’s star appearance in multitudes of Western movies and television programs – even in shows that were set in the 1870’s, long before the ‘94 made its glad debut. The carbine was also the most popular variant after World War II, during which time it gained mass popularity as a fast 32

June / July 2009

handling “brush gun” for medium range shots, the first and perhaps most archetypal “deer rifle” in firearms history. For most of it’s first fifty years or production, however, the most popular 94s were full length rifles with barrels that were 26 inches or more, as befitting what was then considered a truly flat-shooting, long-range hunting and defense arm. Its fame was boosted not only by its capacity for dependable repeat shots, excellent handling characteristics and commendable accuracy, but also by the relatively high velocity and increased energy made possible by the then new smokeless powders. Released in 1894 chambered for the black-powder cartridges .32/40 and .38/.55, within a year these rifles were being produced with nickel-steel barrels to accommodate the increased pressures of the smokeless calibers .25-35 and .30 W.C.F. Shooters were awed by its 160 or so grain bullet leaving the muzzle at what seemed like an unbelievable 2400 feet per second, and the thinking of the entire shooting fraternity began to shift as hunters sometimes made quicker kills on large game with their high-speed .30s then did those using much larger but slower .40-65s and .45-70s, and usually far exceeding the knock down power of .54 or .58

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

with a wide array of options including choosing between full length, 3/4 length and short “button” magazines. Straight stocks or pistol-grip stocks. A deeply curved crescent butt plate or gently rounded “shotgun” style. Standard or fancy grained wood, with or without various grades and styles of carving. Myriad front and rear sights combinations including buckhorn, peep and even a 3 leaf folding express sight. Blued receivers, silver or gold plated, or brightly case-colored. Expert engraving with the buyer’s preference in scroll designs and animal figures. Existing examples of this model are among the most highly decorated firearms in the world and were presented to Kings and Queens, but anyone with the money and patience could have shipped to their door their own personally appointed Winchester 1894.

caliber muzzle-loader balls. The .30 caliber “WInchester Center Fire” was praised in the field and in print for it’s ability to make the “really long shots” of 200 yards or more, a cartridge that would become for awhile the best selling of all commercial rounds under the general moniker of .30-30. And thanks to the unprecedented appeal of the Winchester it was most often chambered in, the “Thirty-Thirty” continued to grow in popularity even as later smokeless loads like the .30-40 U.S. (Krag) and .30 U.S. (.30-06) proved faster and more powerful. The 94’s design was the effort of one John Moses Browning, the same genius gunmaker responsible not only for the Winchester 1895 single shot rifle, 1886, 1892 and 1895 lever action repeaters and 1890 slide-action .22 rimfire, but also the Colt 1911 .45 auto pistol and famous Browning machine gun. It’s strength lay in a single massive vertical bolt that locked in front of the hammer, and an internal action much more robust than the 1873 and 1876 lever action Winchesters that preceded his work for the company. As usual he would receive but a single payment for his patents while the corporation made millions of dollars, and it would be his insistence on receiving a royalty on the sales of future designs that put an end to their longtime association before the start of 1896.

‘94s of one configuration or another were photographed in the hands of famous hunters such as President Theodore Roosevelt, the Western novelist Zane Grey and bearstalker Ben Lilly, were beloved by exhibition shooters in the Wild West shows, and are known to have been a favorite of convicted man-killer Tom Horn, black cowhand Nate Love, famed Texas Rangers John Hughes and Frank Hammer, the outlaw Butch Cassidy and conservationist Aldo Leopold. It was carried by Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the frontier, and many crates full were donated to Great Britain as part of the Lend-Lease program, for use by the Home Guard protecting the old island’s factories and ports from Nazi saboteurs. And the ‘94 was the most coveted firearm by the revolutionaries under flamboyant patriot Pancho Villa, Indian-blooded peons bravely facing the belt-fed machine guns of the U.S. Army with their lever actions blazing, in an attack on the U.S. town of Columbus in Spring of 1916. In the defense of life and property, it served ably those who grew to depend on it, and many an injustice was prevented or righted with a quick swing of the 94’s lever and the judicious dropping of its hammer. My own first 1994 was a carbine purchased in 1973, with which I hunted rabbits, terrorized cans, and shot up the black marker silhouettes of bad guys that I drew on old cars in the neighborhood dry-wash. Even after experiencing the

Of the first 300,000 units sold, two out of three were shipped with stylish octagon barrels. Others came from the factory with half-round and half-octagon tubes, in buyer specified lengths from 14” (the so-called “Trapper” models) to 36” or more! In a time when customer satisfaction and product reputation meant more than ease or production or degree of profit, it was possible to order your dream arm www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

joys of rapid firing semi-automatic arms, the sound and feel, romance and history of the ‘94 kept my attention. Over the years I’ve been fortunate to own a number of full length rifles with the sexy octagon barrels, some of which covered food costs at an unfortunate time, others that I sadly chose to trade towards the tricked-out cammo Jeep that ferries in supplies to our isolated homestead. For the purposes of this article, however, I tested a carbine made in 1978 and typical of the common if increasingly expensive Winchesters still found for sale at U.S. gun shows. While the value of most things in this modern age have gone steadily downhill, the value of guns in general – and old ‘94s in particular – have just gone up and up. This is thanks in part to national governments, both the actual and feared regulation of firearms and the largely unrivaled quality, efficiency, history and desirability of the 1894 rifle and carbine. The weight on my friend Marc’s ‘94 is just under 7 pounds, and is only 37.75 inches long overall. Over the course of the afternoon I tried it with a variety of loads from 110 grain handloads to 170 grain flat-nosed factory rounds. Lockup was tight, and as would be expected there were zero failures to feed. Given its crude semi-buckhorn open

June / July 2009

rear sight and over 6 pound trigger pull, I felt satisfied shooting a 1.3 inch, 3 shot 50 yard group from the bench with Winchester 150 grain loads. This is plenty accurate for hunting medium sized game animals out to 100 or even 150 yards, especially using an improvised rest. For even tighter groups one only needs to switch to special loads like the Hornaday LeverEvolution rounds, their soft-tipped spire point bullets boasting superior aerodynamics than flat-nosed bullets without the danger of the pointed rounds end to end in the tubular magazine setting each other off during recoil. With these 125 grain beauties I was able to shrink my best pattern to right at 1 inch diameter, with 2 rounds ripping a single hole. Firing this carbine at depleted propane cylinders as fast as I could work the lever proved the greatest fun of all, transporting me back to an earlier time... not just to my successful hunts with various 1894s over the decades or my teenage plinker’s delight, but to the mythic world of Western heroes and wrongs made right. The ‘94 remains an excellent pick whether for a modern day hunter, homesteader or collector, 115 years old and still ready and able for the good fight.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

by Christopher di Armani

A Line In The Sand?

s you see on the cover, there is a growing movement across Canada. It’s not one any of us could have foreseen, although we certainly should have. After all, the wedge between police and Canada’s firearms community has been widening for quite a long time. That wedge is being pounded deeper and deeper by two groups who really ought to know better.

annually, or they are removed from active duty. If you can’t shoot, you can’t carry a gun. Makes perfect sense.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) and the Canadian Professional Police Association (CPPA) are political lobby groups whose job is to lobby government for bigger police budgets and more police officers. While they claim to represent the views of your average police officer, that’s all it is: a claim.

First, all those people will have to find somewhere else to qualify. Easy enough. There are military bases all across the country, every one of which has a shooting range.

Over and over we hear front-line police officers say they don’t use the registry, they don’t trust the registry, that they’d be stupid to trust such an error-ridden system. The CACP and CPPA tell us how “hits”, as they like to call them, to the gun registry have skyrocketed to 10,000 hits per day. Both organizations continue to flaunt these inflated statistics, despite MP Garry Breitkreuz showing that police systems are automated to query the registry for the most mundane of tasks. Katey Montague even did a video on the subject, which you can find at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2V6Ii6qmEyM So what caused this tide of disgust to overflow normally staid Canadian gun owners and onto Canadian Gun Ranges? The inciting incident appears to be an April 7, 2009 press release from CACP Deputy Director General Steven Chabot, who opened his “press release” with this statement: “For the past forty years the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) has been at the forefront pressing for strong firearms control measures. Canada’s police leaders have adopted twenty-five resolutions on firearms control, including support for the Firearms Act and registration of all firearms, in the interests of public and officer safety.” The remainder of the press release reads as if it was written by Wendy Cukier. At a meeting of the board of directors of one BC gun club, an idea was proposed: Why don’t we simply stop renting our range to any provincial or federal government agency, police force or corrections department? The rationale is simple. Every member of every agency that carries firearms must qualify with those firearms www.nfa.ca

If shooting ranges, which are the private property of non-profit organizations, decide to stop allowing federal employees onto that private land with federally-owned guns, what happens?

Second, gun clubs need to find another way of keeping the doors open. We gun owners have become pretty dependent upon government dollars to keep membership fees low. We may have to pay a realistic rate for our gun clubs, just like we do with our gyms and our cell phones. After all, if this movement catches hold, we will have done one of the few things we can to regain our own self-respect. Sucking on the federal teat isn’t something to be proud of, it’s something we should collectively be ashamed of. Telling these two organizations, the CACP and CPPA, that front-line police officers are no longer welcome on our ranges because of their actions might just get their attention. The BC club that came up with the idea wants to include all provincial police, corrections and sheriffs as well. After all, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia provincial governments are all far too willing to scapegoat all of us, while utterly ignoring violent gang shootings. As we’ve seen over and over again, governments will always blame us, the people who are not the problem, whenever some idiot or gang member shoots someone in broad daylight. They are, it would seem, quite unwilling (or is it incapable?) of holding violent criminals responsible for their actions. If you want more information about the Private Range plan, please visit http://www.diarmani.com, where you can read the proclamation drafted by the BC club and an electronic copy of the sign. That being said, let me make one thing perfectly clear. Here at the National Firearms Association we have always done our best to promote a good working relationship with both police and government, and we will continue to do so. The National Firearms Association does NOT endorse or reject this idea. It was brought to our attention, and we felt that you, our membership, deserved to hear about it.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

By: Branko Diklitch, Introduction by: Gary Kangas

Preserving Our Firearms Heritage The First Chapter In The Book Of Frontier Revelations Dreams Realised

s firearms owner or aficionados preserving our firearms heritage should be part of our lives not a special project, noting vignettes of firearms use from the past or guiding the interested to safe firearms handling techniques are essential to future firearms ownership. Gary & Sybil Kangas have produced Wild West shows, videos and stage productions. Their writing has been published in: Trails End Magazine, Guns & Ammo and the Cowboy Chronicle plus various newspapers and journals. They are international competitors in Cowboy Action Shooting, life members of the Single Action Shooting Society (SASS) and long time members of the National Firearms Association.

In the summer of 1996 I received a call from Branko Diklitch then history major at university, Branko having viewed a television program about the West featuring my pony and myself asked if he and his family could visit. The rest as they say is history. Shooting, collecting, reenacting has become a large component of Branko’s life. I now turn this narrative over to Branko. Though I was born in Europe, I have always believed that a part of my soul belonged to North America. I grew up reading stories of the Klondike by Jack London and tales of the Eastern Woodlands by James Fennimore Cooper. At the time of my birth, Czechoslovakia was run by a bunch of humourless tyrants and life was always defined by what you could not do! This applied in particular to gun ownership. As a kid, my imagination fleshed out the history of North America over and over again. Little did I know I would one day see the West with my own eyes. When I was nine years old my parents made a decision to escape from Czechoslovakia. To a kid my age it was the grand adventure that brought me to the land I so often read about in my childhood. During my teenage years, history was still an interest despite the prerequisite dose of angst. As I went to university history was what I chose to study. My first introduction to the Snider Enfield and collecting firearms happened in my early 20’s. In 1994 I moved to Calgary and joined the 9th Battalion Rifles a commemorative historical unit that tells the story of the Voltigeurs de Quebec a rifle battalion that was called out from Quebec City to guard Calgary during the Riel Rebellion. The group has Snider Enfields they

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

use for display and drill demonstrations. After living in Calgary for only a short while I moved to Vancouver Island where I met Gary Kangas in the summer of 1996. He taught me the basics of shooting which expanded my interest in firearms from just collecting and reenactment to shooting competition. Wasting no time I did not progress from the usual .22 rimfire onwards, but I jumped straight into using the .4440 Winchester Centrefire loaded with black powder as my introductory caliber. From that I went on to the .577 Snider. By November of 1996 I acquired my firearms license and started to collect guns. All the reenactments, shooting competitions and primitive camping that went along with attending the shoots, gave a much better and more realistic sense of history especially when one wakes up in the morning with an inch of ice on the bedroll, before the start of the day. That is how I learned why people dressed while still warm in their bedroll. Reading about events in the safety of home or watching them on television gives a false sense of reality, however when you use the technology of the 19th century in the field and recreate an everyday moment from the past, this gives one a better sense of reality. I did not acquire my first Snider Enfield until 2000. Collecting on the cheap, a habit I am still exhibiting today, I started with cut-down sporters and various wrecks that have seen better days. Thankfully, my early overenthusiastic restoration attempts were visited on these relics. Not having had any mechanical training other than the occasional shop class at school, a whole new set of skills had to be developed. After assembling and disassembling Snider Enfields for many years one gets to the point that every screw is imprinted on the memory until it can be picked out of a pile of junk for sale at any gun show. As the interest increased I learned more and over www.nfa.ca

time acquired representative examples of full stock military models of the Snider Enfield. Along the way I read all the Snider related book and articles I could get my hands on and spent many hours in conversation with various enthusiasts and collectors. The Snider Enfield has a charm that transcends the fact that it is not the prettiest firearm or the most collectable and certainly not the most accurate to shoot. Unlike many other antique firearms there is still a lot of information about the Snider Enfield we do not know. There were many military and commercial variations built and we are still encountering unusual examples of each. The very simple action designed by Jacob Snider and Eugene Schneider was widely used and frequently copied, France, Holland, Russia and Nepal all built their own variations. The story of these models is even less well known than the British made Snider Enfield. Canada was one of the first British Colonies to receive a shipment of Snider Enfields. This was a direct result of the escalating fear of the Fenian Brotherhood south of the border and their intentions of causing trouble in Canada. In 1867 30,000 stands of Snider Enfields were given as loan but eventually ended up as gifts from the British government to the new Dominion of Canada. To fill further demand for Sniders the Canadian government kept on purchasing more from various trade contractors as well as from the British War Department. All told Canada ended up with upwards of 60,000 Sniders in service. Today the price of Sniders has not yet escalated to the level of other antiques. For those that would like to collect guns with known military provenance one can still find examples of Sniders with unit markings of various units that served in the Riel Rebellion. For the economy collector one can own several Sniders with provenance as compared to but one example of a Winchester or Sharps. Once you are under the spell of the Snider Enfield I fear the affliction is incurable. Like all collectors I came to the field a novice and learned along the way. I owe a big debt of gratitude to those that were patient enough to teach me. I fully expect to help and pass on what I learned to other up and coming collectors to help preserve our firearms heritage.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by: Dr. Gary Mauser

Targeting Ammunition

id you know there are four separate international campaigns targeting the manufacture of small arms ammunition (SAA)?

to estimate, but is probably at least 6 billion annually.

Health & safety issues arising from materials used in manufacture, most obviously lead, and noise, both as a cause of damage to hearing and as a nuisance to third parties;

The Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition (AFEMS) is being confronted by serious challenges. In Britain, noise is seen as a growing nuisance problem, far bigger than lead issues at present, although both are increasing. A survey of shooting club noise problems and a study of shotgun cartridge noise levels are both in progress.

Requirements to facilitate the traceability of unfired or fired cartridges and their components; Requirements to facilitate the traceability of the firearm which discharged the cartridge. Requirements to limit the viability of the primer, the propellant or both to a relatively short period, say two to five years. The World Forum is monitoring events and, at the annual meeting of the World Forum this year in Nuremberg, we discussed what is to be done about these concerns. Any one of these campaigns may severely limit the number or types of ammunition available to Canadians.

Health, safety & nuisance:

The proceedings of the 2008 Peregrine Fund Conference are not yet published, but overall the conference amounted to a sustained attack on the use of lead for hunting. The likelihood is that the findings of the conference, quite apart from any adverse media interest that they stir up, will encourage further studies. The present situation within the UN:

as to the magnitude of the problem, capacity-building, international assistance and the development of technical guidelines within the UN, the usual array of UN solutions. For more information, see http://www.un.org/ disarmament/index.shtml. The next big question will be whether SAA will be included within the Arms Trade Treaty. Ammunition is item number 7 on the UN Sub-Committee agenda. Extreme vigilance is important over any use the term ‘military’ to describe the “stockpiles” to be examined and requests that the effort be “comprehensive.” Because many cartridges widely used for civilian purposes are of military origin (e.g. 7.62mm NATO, called the .308 Winchester in its civilian guise) or military cartridges are of civilian origin (e.g. the commercially developed .223 Remington which became the 5.56mm NATO), it is inevitable that “civilian” ammunition is at risk of being included in UN initiatives. The EU is already facing the problem of the adoption of the Protocol which specifically requires marking of ammunition.

The annual production of military SAA is estimated at 10-14 billion rounds (Oxfam 2006 and World Watch 2006), which is a significant reduction from the late 1990s when Russia alone was making c. 5 billion and annual production was estimated at 21 billion. Civilian SAA production is harder

The conclusions of the report on, “Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus,” from the Group of Government Experts on Ammunition fortunately focussed on military SAA, rather than civilian uses. The GGE advised “whole life” stockpile management, the identification of obsolete and surplus stocks, awareness raising

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

The establishment of a system of marking and tracing, even down to the individual round may continue to arise as an aspect of stockpile management. This has been heard from numerous sources including the UN DDA. In www.nfa.ca

passing, it should be noted stockpile safety is actually not an issue at all. Small arms ammunition (i.e. under .50 calibre with non-explosive projectiles and smokeless powder) is not an explosive under current UN “Transportation of Dangerous Goods” categorization. There is already a marking system (the head-stamp on the cartridge case, which identifies manufacturer and calibre, and ‘lot’ numbers on ammunition containers) which is used on virtually all civilian ammunition, and most current production military ammunition. While this information does not provide a unique identifier for the individual round, it does have some audit value, and is a proportional response, given the tiny fraction of a percentage of ammunition that is misused, particularly in crime. We do seem to have won this argument, at least for now. Bullet serialization: SAAMI’s Fact Sheet, updated in September 2008, describes bullet serialization as “the process by which each individual round of ammunition is identified and marked with a laser engraved serial number.” SAAMI views any such programme as a de facto ban, since it would slow the production process, perhaps requiring four weeks instead of one day to produce the same quantity of ammunition, thus creating both a shortage and a substantial price rise to several dollars per cartridge. Costs of installing new plant would be in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. It would not be practicable to exempt law enforcement, so cost increases would result in reduced training and less spent on R&D, putting officers at risk. In California, bullet serialization legislation was voted down because of police pressure. Similar concerns were expressed on behalf of the military. Such legislation has also been defeated in several states in the US, but remains an issue in others. The issue is therefore unlikely to go away. The technology of bullet serialization has not been subject to peer group review or assessed for safety implications. Many, even most, fired bullets would be mangled to the point of obliterating the serial number. Microstamping fired cartridge cases: SAAMI’s Fact Sheet, updated in September 2008, describes microstamping as “a patented process that laser engraves the firearm’s make, model and serial number on the tip of the firing pin so that, in theory, it imprints the information on discharges cartridge cases.” The technology has been peer group reviewed and found to be flawed. It is easy to exchange firing pins, and the information may easily be removed from a firing pin in seconds using common tools without compromising the firearm’s function. Microstamping has however been proposed as a subject for Federal legislation in the US, and is already law in California, coming into effect in January 2010. Again, this issue is likely to remain with us. www.nfa.ca

Primer and/or propellant viability: It appears that this approach to limiting the long-term viability of SAA is unattractive to the military if it compromises, however slightly, the reliability of SAA. It cannot, however, be ruled out as an avenue of research that might be supported and funded by arms control organizations. Conclusion The World Forum continues to monitor innumerable international meetings where decisions are being made to restrict SAA availability. These monitoring efforts require numerous hours on the part of volunteers. Much of this labour goes unrecognized but is very important in maintaining the freedom for Canadians to be able to own firearms and to purchase ammunition. For further reference: Association of European Manufacturers of Sporting Ammunition. www.afems.org Oxfam , .oxfam.org.uk/ SAAMI, http://www.saami.org/ Swiss ‘Small Arms Survey, www.smallarmssurvey.org World Forum for the Future of the Shooting Sports, http:// www.wfsa.net/ World Watch, http://www.worldwatch.org/

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by: David Chappelle

Screw the Farmers – We Hate Guns Coyotes: Pests... or Bambi’s Friends? Hunters Bad – Coyotes Good In the game between urban anti-gunners and rural hunting/ shooting enthusiasts, there’s one small town in which everyone is losing. created in the 1970s. The Region owns and maintains major roads, water and sewer treatment facilities, and landfills. Niagara Region also includes the cities of St. Catharines, Thorold, Niagara Falls, Port Colborne, and Welland; towns of Niagara on the Lake, Pelham, and Fort Erie; and Township of Wainfleet. Locals believe the Regional Waste Landfill on Regional Rd 12 – aka Grimsby Mountain Rd -- is a coyote haven. The facility is only a couple of Kilometers from the Grimsby – West Lincoln border. The Region denies this, because in a search of the property, it’s “expert” was unable to find any coyote dens. As the coyote population increases they venture further from the landfill. That brings them to neighboring farms, where they can smell the blood from freshly birthed calves... or to homes and yards where children play.

nown for its wines, poultry, tourism attractions, and scenery, Niagara is also one of a handful of Canadian locations in which it’s possible to grow fruit commercially. Naturally such a charming place draws settlement. And when rural dwellers meet urban, opinions differ. The town of Grimsby, Ontario is geographically divided by the Niagara Escarpment. North -- below the escarpment and to the shore of Lake Ontario-- are the town, schools, churches, hospital, little suburbs, and a handful of commercial fruit farms.

At 11 pm on February 8, 2009, John and Cathy Shields heard a scuffle outside their front door. They had just let their dog out before going to bed, and thought their 15-pound Jack Russell cross might have come across another animal from the neighboring bush. They were right. Two coyotes were playing tug of war with their dog. “There was blood everywhere,” said Cathy. The coyotes took off when John approached. After much drugs and surgery the dog survived. A few weeks earlier a coyote snatched Glen Bochek’s poodle while both walked at Fifty Point Conservation Area. He chased it, and the coyote eventually gave up. That dog also survived.

South -- on the relatively flat land of the Escarpment top -- the setting is rural.

Meanwhile, folks in town continue to post picture ads seeking their “lost” cats and dogs... wondering where Fluffy and Rover have disappeared to.

To the South and southeast is Township of West Lincoln. To the east is Town of Lincoln.

Hmm... seems like time to call in some coyote hunters...

All are part of Niagara Region, a fourth layer of bureaucracy, below provincial and federal, and above municipal, was 40

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) defines coyotes as predators. Farmers consider coyotes pests. Normally, coyotes avoid humans. As residential development increases however, coyote sightings become common. They routinely walk down rural roads. Residents above the escarpment will tell any who’ll listen that coyotes have become accustomed to humans -- and found a “new” source of prey: livestock and pets.

June / July 2009

Conscientious hunters adhere to rules. In this location, however, conflicting regulations are too numerous and stupid for even the most lawabiding to follow. Grimsby Council had previously approved Sunday gun hunting. Yet for decades it has banned discharging of firearms and non-firearms, including

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

pellet guns and bows – which under federal legislation, are not firearms. Technically it’s illegal for a parent to use an air gun to teach a child firearm safety in a barn or basement. Farmers are prohibited from shooting except with a shotgun loaded with #2 shot or smaller, and not within 150 yards of a building – even when their livestock is under attack. That means to dispose of a skunk in a barn doorway a farmer must walk 150 yards away and shoot back at his barn. The legal circumstances are so confusing Town of Grimsby staff asks hunters and concerned citizens to contact the Ontario MNR for clarification. The Regions proposed conditions would only have allowed professional hunters -- whatever a “professional” hunter is – to shoot coyotes at the Road 12 landfill. It also would have been illegal to face toward Region land when carrying a gun. So if you had to travel towards the Region dump while next to it, you would have had to walk backwards with your gun. Frustrated rural residents asked Grimsby Council to revisit its firearm discharge prohibition. At a special Public Works meeting in September 2008, hunters, sports shooters, and farmers overflowed the Council chambers. Neither Council nor town staff were prepared for the large turnout. Many presentations were made. Only three attendees – none of whom are Grimsby residents -- were against firearm discharges in town limits.

According to one of the three -- Coyote Watch Canada founder Lesley Sampson -- coyotes aren’t the problem. She claims wild dogs abandoned by irresponsible owners are killing livestock and pets. In a letter published by the St. Catharines Standard September 8, 2008, Ms. Sampson wrote, “Coyotes, being omnivores, reserve their energy output for hunting food sources such as rodents, rabbits, and amphibians, and include carrion, fruit and vegetables in their diet.” While she is not convinced there’s been an increase in the coyote population, Ms. Sampson agrees with some hunters who believe that the coyote population thrives when pressured by hunting and trapping. She attributes the increased number of sightings to the shrinking of the coyote territory due to residential development. She maintains there is no relation to the increase of coyote attacks on pets, because vegetarian coyotes would rather eat mice, rabbits, downed fruit and vegetables – which in Niagara could be considered crop destruction. To her, wild dogs are eating domestic cats and dogs.

The first time coyotes severely mauled a grown 400-pound Hereford. Chunks of her hide were missing. The second time coyotes ate pieces of a newborn calf. It died from its wounds. The Cascios fed the mother cow for nine months. The calf’s death means they must wait another year for that cow to deliver a new calf. They can never be appropriately compensated for the loss of time, feed, and veterinary services. And now the remaining cattle are terrified of their dogs. After attacking livestock, it’s not a stretch for coyotes to attack humans. The farm owner next to Cascio’s was attacked by a pack, and was bitten multiple times. Thankfully he survived. During her presentation to Grimsby Council, Julie Cascio presented her neighbor’s emergency triage report detailing the bites. She asked Council to “...let us protect our livestock and ourselves”.

Every year the province of Ontario spends tens of millions of dollars compensating farmers for destroyed livestock. According to Ontario Federation of Agriculture “... losses due to predation exceeded $1million last year.”

A Conservation Officer from MNR also spoke at the town meeting. He said hunting was needed to keep coyotes in check. He also stated that hunting would lower other town costs, such as liability from animal damage, road collisions, etc.

After a lengthy process, a farmer may receive up to $500 per sheep, and $1,000 for cattle. That amount hardly pays for the feed. It doesn’t recognize the lost profit the farmer has no way of recovering.

Council appeared to be swayed by the number of logical arguments challenging existing regulations. Town of Grimsby staff has since prepared a draft firearms discharge bylaw. It still defines firearm to ridiculous extremes -- including air rifles, bows, and crossbows – that are federal jurisdiction.

Nor does it address the costs of veterinary bills, and the months of labor necessary to care for the animals. It’s not like a farmer can ask a friend or neighbor to watch the herd while he takes off to the cottage for a couple of weeks. Farming is a never-ending, thankless job. www.nfa.ca

Twice in 2008 coyotes attacked calves on Mike and Julie Cascio’s farm, which borders the Region landfill.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

The new draft – not passed -prohibits the hunting of pests within 150 meters of a building, and within 50 meters from a public trail or highway. Considering many lots June / July 2009

Most farmers want to be able to shoot coyotes. Even farmers who don’t hunt invite hunters to shoot coyotes. Coyotes are very smart. When a tree falls and takes down a portion of fence, coyotes know they have a safe place to cross a field. When hunters stop chasing a coyote that has crossed a road, coyotes learn.

aren’t 150 meters in length or width, the draft effectively prohibits shooting. By comparison, the provincial MNR prohibits shooting pests within 10 meters of the center of an unfenced right of way... a far more practical regulation. Hunting requires a license and is regulated. Protection of Land/Life is not hunting, and does not require a license. (Section 31 Wildlife Act). If the area has a “No Hunting” bylaw, then you can argue that you are not hunting, you are protecting your property, and ask them to show you the bylaw that says you can’t protect your property. While it’s good that the Grimsby bylaw forbids the discharge of a firearm in the town center – except by law enforcement officers in their duties – it’s too bad it also prohibits discharging firearms on farms above the town. The farming lobby might be expected to trump wild predator lovers. In this case, the president of the provincial lobby is on the hunter’s side. The Regional Council meeting took place during hunting season at 6pm – when many hunters are hunting, and farmers still working. The typeface used by one anti-hunting activist in her letter to Regional Council changed mid-way... at the point she’d inserted text from an internal memo issued by a group in California and posted online. Most of her letter was swiped... the rest she made up. She claimed to have gathered over 200 signatures to her online petition. When shown some signatories were from as far away as Dusseldorf, Germany and that only three were from Grimsby, Regional Council disallowed her petition. The anti-hunting activists have the ear of one Regional Councilor, who has convinced Regional Council to prohibit hunting on Region land. Quietly... two people... living on the other side of the Region... bypassed the wishes of dozens of Grimsby farmers.

June / July 2009

One morning I accompanied some hunters. Several were farmers protecting their land. The dogs chased a coyote, which veered north towards a farm. It seemed the coyote knew the hunters wouldn’t shoot at it near the farm buildings. Fortunately – for the hunters, not the coyote – one hunter with a .223 took the coyote from about 200 meters away, right before it entered a vineyard. Once in the vineyard, it would have been near the buildings... from there across the road into Grimsby... and safety. The landowner rode an ATV out to thank the hunters. In theory, it’s not necessary for hunters to be on the Regional property in question. Once s/he has received word that all personnel have left the dump property for the day, a designated hunter could safely shoot a coyote or wolf from a tree stand on private property bordering the dump. The Certificate of Approval (C of A) granted by Ontario Ministry of Environment mandates the operation of the Region landfill site. Handling of leechate, waste gates, formation of Citizen’s Liaison Committee, and more – including pest control -- are all spelled out in the C of A. As a member of the Citizens’ Liaison Committee for Road 12 Landfill, Ken Durham – a farmer -- recommended Niagara Region erect a 10-foot fence 360 degrees around the landfill, buried 2ft so coyotes couldn’t get past. “We told them: that’s your prerogative, just as much as we don’t want trespassers on our fields. Build a fence around the thing. Do what a lawyer would recommend – perform due diligence -- build a fence eight feet high, buried two feet into the ground.” Region staff responded that a fence solution was too expensive. Regional Council has not yet addressed the recommendation. So coyotes will continue to use the landfill as home base and feeding ground from which they can continue attacking. The tiny upside of the recommendation is that if coyotes kill a human, the Citizens Liaison Committee have covered their butts with their recommendation. And if coyotes ever kill an unfortunate resident, Region bureaucrats will have gotten away with what is essentially murder by pencil pushing. Similar to the murder federal bureaucrats are guilty of, every time a defenseless Canadian dies at the hands of an armed criminal.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

by Jon McCormick

Sheep & Sheepdogs As a ruralist, are you safer than your urban cousin? Or do you just think you are?

acLean’s magazine’s “The Most Dangerous Canadian Cities” 2008 shows is 163 percent above the national crime rate for all crimes. The most dangerous Canadian community with respect to murder is , B.C. at 364 percent above the national rate. , B.C. is first in B&Es at 149 percent followed by at 145. Robbery is prevalent in Saskatoon at 266 percent. Auto theft is highest in with 223 percent and , B.C. at 194. These are not irrelevant statistics. The RCMP’s personnel placement is determined by these figures. So places like and others could see an increase in personnel at the expense of rural detachments. What are ruralists’ options? Being ever vigilant; watching out for each other may be all you have. Or is it? Lt. Col. Dave Grossman of www.killology.com says most people are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who would only hurt one another by accident. Then there are wolves. Wolves feed on sheep. They have a capacity for violence and no feelings for their fellow citizens. They are aggressive sociopaths. And lastly there are sheepdogs. They are warriors. They walk toward gunfire, not away. Sheep generally do not like sheepdogs. They look like a wolf. They have a capacity for violence. They differ from wolves in that they care about others. Sheepdogs disturb sheep. The sheepdog is a constant reminder that there are wolves. Sheep would prefer that sheepdogs didn’t have guns, give traffic tickets, or be airport security armed with an automatic rifle. Most LEOslaw enforcement officers are sheepdogs. Some aren’t. Some don’t like civilian sheepdogs.

Alberta’s Brian Knight is being heralded a sheepdog for his shooting of thieves/wolves as they made off with his ATV. Charges are pending against Knight. What do you think will happen to the thieves? The media neglected to mention in their stories of Knight’s incident that a theft under $5,000.00 gets an honourable mention in police logs; a wink and a nod. Coupled with the hour police response time to Knight’s property, the wrist slapping the culprits will receive and you might understand Knight’s frustration. No criticism of the RCMP, with the lack of funds and personnel that’s what you get. Is organizing your sheepdogs the answer? Is becoming a sheepdog the solution? How do you learn to be a sheepdog? Do what these ranchers did; go to, not from the problem. Shots fired! At recently in rural shots rang out.. Ranchers investigated but found nothing. Black Bear season is April 1 to June 30 but the calibre wasn’t large enough for bear. Shouldn’t be hunting from road anyway. No damage seen. But the area has a number of children who play in the bush. This isn’t an isolated incident. Other communities have had similar occurrences. If you hear shots in your area contact your neighbours and investigate. Be a sheepdog. What are ruralists’ options with decreasing police coverage and the rise in rural thefts? Who are your sheepdogs? Find out and work with them to prevent crime. Jon McCormick is a defensive tactics instructor who can be reached at www.bcinternet.net/jm

“Sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog acknowledges reality,” comments Grossman. After the Can Jet high jacking in recently, most sheep, that is most citizens said, “Thank God I wasn’t on that plane.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “I wish I could have been there, I could have made a difference.” British political writer noted in the seventeen hundreds that, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women) to do nothing.” www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

By Frank Hilliard

Unknown Allies Friends Gun Owners Never Knew they Had

anadian gun owners have been going around for months now looking like they’ve lost the last friend they had in the world. The Conservative Party, which promised to eliminate the Long-gun Registry, instead introduced a bill in the Senate that would metastasize it into 13 registry systems through provincial Chief Firearms Officers. After years of abuse from the Coalition for Gun Control, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Mayor of Toronto and the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, this was the final straw; even the Conservative Party was not to be trusted. As a result, many considered giving up the struggle for legal firearms ownership, concealed carry, and armed self defence. While understandable, I believe this decision may be premature. The firearms community in Canada has several allies it knows almost nothing about; people and politicians who support gun ownership, self defence and concealed carry. The first group I’ll mention is the Christian Heritage Party. With a full slate of policies and twenty years experience in the political arena, the CHP (www.chp.ca ) has grown to be the second largest federal political party in Canada not yet having a member elected to Parliament. The party’s policy on firearms couldn’t be more clear, or more positive:

use firearms within the limits of reasonable law (i.e. providing for registration of concealable weapons), and for purposes of hunting and sportsmanship, and/or defence of family and innocents, and from aggressors intruding onto the defender’s property. We assert that the federal government must not restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms, whether for sporting use or for self-defence. CHP Leader, Jim Hnatiuk, drove home the same points in an open letter to gun owners in April, 2009. “Firearm ownership should be the right of every law abiding Canadian citizen. Many gun owners are now finding out that there is a Canadian federal political party willing to openly fight for the right to own a firearm and to have this embedded into our Constitution. A growing force in Canadian politics, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada is willing to take a stand on behalf of gun owners, gun retailers and recreational shooting ranges.”

I should add one more thing; Hnatiuk is currently the owner of the largest retail gun store in Nova Scotia (www. Hnatiuks.com). The other group is a little more diffuse than the CHP but, in its way, just as important. These are conservative Jews who support a strong and uncompromising defence for both the Jewish community around the world and for the State of Israel. They may be supporters of the Likud Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likud) or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/), but they’re not limited to any particular organization. I became aware of their general line of thinking when I read an article at tolerance.ca by Howard Rotberg, a Canadian lawyer and author of Second Generation Radical: The Struggle against the Second Holocaust (http:// www.howardrotberg.ca/). In it he said what Jews should have learned from the Holocaust was that tolerance and diversity— multiculturalism in other words—are no substitute for justice based on

6.7.7 SELF-DEFENSE AND FIREARMS We affirm that self-defence is a basic human right which must not be abridged. Citizens should be permitted to possess and 44

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

God’s laws. Nowhere do the Ten Commandments or the Seven Noahite laws make ‘tolerance,’ and respect for people who would take away our freedoms, a fundamental value. “We must imbue our children with the understanding that Jewish values and American values, although many times compatible, are not identical ... we must be realistic that acceptance of those promoting appeasement and tolerance of groups seeking to kill Jews is where American values and Jewish values diverge.” As an example of a more militant Jewish position in response to aggression, Rotberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg from his book Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide, who felt empowered when he held his first rifle in the Israel Defence Force. Most of us having lived our lives in the company of quisling Jews who, for reasons inexplicable and bizarre, believed the main lesson of the Shoah (Holocaust) was that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, instead of the actual lesson of the Shoah, which is that it is easy to kill a unilaterally disarmed Jew but much harder to kill one who is pointing a gun in your face. Rotberg concludes with this ringing declaration: This time we shall realize that self-described ‘progressives’ and ‘intellectuals’ who spend their time on rationalizing Islamic violence against Jewish civilians, are not our friends, but our enemies. Accordingly, the centerpiece of Holocaust commemoration should be: This time we shall not qo quietly. Or to put that more bluntly; this time Jews will arm themselves and fight. There is a connection between Rotberg and the Christian Heritage Party. The CHP, like Rotberg’s views on Noahite laws, believes Canada was a nation founded on certain core values, particularly the belief in one God, individual free will and the Ten Commandments, and that these beliefs, www.nfa.ca

customs and laws are worth preserving. Since we’re talking about Judeo-Christian culture here, it’s worth remembering that the right of self-defence in English Common Law and the Canadian Criminal Code comes straight out of the Old Testament, specifically Exodus 22:2 (New American Standard Bible) If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account. This early version of the ‘Castle doctrine’ is repeated in the Talmud, the commentary on Jewish law: If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first. To see how relevant this commandment is in modern life, consider what happened in Langdon, Alberta, January 3, 2008. Two masked intruders broke into a rented rural home, rushed upstairs and attacked Dan Olineck who was asleep with his girlfriend Melanie. Olineck fought back and managed to get the upper hand. The result was that one of the attackers, Lance Norton, died of stab wounds at the foot of the bed. The other, Christopher Joel Hansen, 27, showed up later at the Strathmore hospital for treatment. Police subsequently charged Hansen with breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence while masked. Norton’s sister, Angela Eriksen, 29, was charged with being party to the offence of breaking, entering and committing an indictable offence, as well as being party to an assault. Olineck, who was also slightly injured, was not charged.

are the foundation of our society and are worth preserving. Second; overtly Christian and conservative Jewish political parties believe both nations, and individuals, have the right of self-defence based on the same legal principles springing from the same source. And finally; if Canadian gun owners want to get their rights back, they need to turn to parties and groups that actually believe in the fundamental reason we all own firearms. As a start, I would urge the Canadian Shooting Sports Association and the National Firearms Association of Canada to meet the leadership of the Christian Heritage Party. I would also urge them, and individual wildlife association and gun club officials, to meet members of the conservative Jewish community to discuss issues of mutual interest.

It was a clear case of self-defence as stated in the Bible.

Doing so will move the gun ownership debate away from the indefensible idea that guns are only used for an easily-banned sport and onto the idea that firearms are the modern method of exercising a natural right confirmed by both Judaic and Christian religious law.

I hope I’m making some points here you may not have considered. First; Jewish and Christian laws and customs

We gun owners have friends and allies; we should make an effort to work together for our common good.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

What’s New in Quebec? 46

June / July 2009

espite shy attempts that often failed to give more freedom to Quebecers, the answer to the above comes as no surprise: more and more government and less freedom for Quebecers. Quebec would be in a financial crisis if it were not for federal transfer payments; with already a high unemployment rate and about 10% of the population living on welfare, Quebec has become as “distinct” as its government. This is what we must understand from the inaugural speech of Premier Charest, on March 10, when he told us this is “the opportunity to stand out.” I thought I was hearing the noise of our amphibians that inflate their stomach to be attractive, or the expression of a narcissistic society that is happy to be distinct, at any price, without being better. Through a well orchestrated propaganda campaign Quebecers still suffer the trauma of the Polytechnique massacre; and those that followed (Concordia, Dawson) have only contributed to inflame irrationality. It is in this context that the subsidized movie “Polytechnique” was produced and promoted, of course, by the Bloc Quebecois. At the last provincial election the Action Democratique (ADQ) of Mario Dumont suffered a meltdown. About 700 000 voters abstained, seeing no difference between the ADQ and the Liberal Party. The rural voters disaffection towards the ADQ is in part due to Bill no-9 (“Bill Kimveer Gill”, better known as “Bill Anastasia” in government propaganda). If it had not been for the opposition of shooting clubs, Jean Charest would have required the storage of firearms at shooting clubs. These costs would have been prohibitive for most of them and their number would have shrunk further.

Some aspects of Bill Kimveer Gill I asked the Quebec Shooting Federation the number of their members in 1995 and now. I have not yet received an answer ... Maybe the figures are frightening? Premier Charest has never hidden his goal to ban handguns and even all semi-automatic firearms, except of course for police officers and his bodyguards. This might explain why, with nationalist tears, he is asking that Quebec be responsible for the Firearms Act and its criminal provisions and, of course, with additional funding from the federal government. In his opposition to Bill C-301 (atrophied to Senate Bill S-5), the Minister of Public Security of Quebec, Jacques D. Dupuis, wrote in March to its federal counterpart. The letter was only disclosed to a closed circle and was not published. I was told by the PM office that “the letter sent by Mr. Dupuis is not the subject of an official publication. It was sent to the federal government and private organizations, including some medias, for a limited circulation.” Our rights are discussed in secret. Within this prohibitionist agenda, two things this year:

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

By Yvon Dionne

Quoi de neuf au Québec?

algré des tentatives timides et souvent avortées de donner plus de liberté aux Québécois, la réponse à la question en titre vient sans surprise : toujours plus d’État et moins de liberté pour les Québécois. Le Québec vivrait une crise financière si ce n’était des transferts fédéraux; en plus d’un taux de chômage élevé, environ 10% de la population vivote de l’aide sociale, à l’image de cet État qui « se démarque »... C’est ce qu’il faut comprendre du discours inaugural du premier ministre Charest, le 10 mars, quand il nous disait que c’est «l’occasion de se démarquer». Je croyais alors entendre le bruit de nos batraciens qui se gonflent l’estomac pour se montrer attrayants, ou le reflet d’une société narcissique qui se contente d’être distincte, à n’importe quel prix. Grâce à une propagande bien orchestrée, les Québécois subissent encore le traumatisme de la tuerie de Polytechnique, et celles qui ont suivi (Concordia, Dawson) n’ont fait qu’attiser cette flamme d’irrationalité. C’est dans cette foulée qu’a été produit ce film subventionné «Polytechnique» dont le Bloc québécois fait la promotion. Aux dernières élections provinciales l’Action démocratique (ADQ) de Mario Dumont a subi une déconfiture. Environ 700 000 électeurs se sont abstenus de voter, ne voyant plus de différence entre l’ADQ et le parti libéral. La désaffection des électeurs ruraux vis-à-vis l’ADQ s’explique en partie par son appui à la loi no- 9 (Loi Kimveer Gill, mieux connue sous le nom « Loi Anastasia » dans la propagande gouvernementale). Si ce n’avait été de l’opposition des clubs de tir, Jean Charest aurait exigé l’entreposage des armes aux clubs de tir. Les coûts additionnels auraient été prohibitifs pour la plupart d’entre eux, et leur nombre se serait rétréci davantage.

Quelques aspects de la loi Kimveer Gill J’ai demandé à la Fédération québécoise de Tir (FQT) le nombre de leurs membres en 1995 et maintenant. Je n’ai www.nfa.ca

pas encore reçu de réponse… Peut-être que les chiffres font peur ? Le premier ministre Charest n’a jamais caché son objectif de bannir les armes de poing et même toutes les armes semi-automatiques, -sauf, bien sûr, pour les policiers et ses gardes du corps. C’est pour cette raison, avec des larmoiements nationalistes, qu’il demande que le Québec soit responsable de la Loi sur les armes à feu et de ses dispositions pénales, avec évidemment les fonds venant du fédéral. Dans son opposition au projet de loi C-301 (atrophié pour devenir S-5), le ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec, M. Jacques D. Dupuis, a écrit en mars à son homologue fédéral. Cette lettre a été divulguée en cercle fermé et n’a pas été diffusée. Il m’a été dit du bureau du premier ministre que « la lettre envoyée par monsieur Dupuis ne fait pas l’objet d’une publication officielle. Elle a été envoyée au gouvernement fédéral et à des organismes privés, dont certaines entreprises de communication médiatique, pour une diffusion restreinte. » Nos droits se discutent en cachette. Dans la poussée de ce régime prohibitionniste, deux choses cette année : La Sûreté du Québec (SQ) refusera toute demande de transport si le demandeur ne joint pas une photocopie de sa carte de membre d’un club de tir, signée et en vigueur; Tout propriétaire d’une arme à autorisation restreinte ou prohibée (dont la définition est élastique) devra réussir un cours théorique et pratique, avec examen (dont une séance de tir) d’ici le 1er septembre 2009 . Au moment d’écrire ces lignes le contenu du cours n’est pas encore approuvé par le gouvernement…, même si tous les nouveaux demandeurs de permis d’armes à autorisation restreinte ou d’armes prohibées par le gouvernement doivent le réussir. Le défaut de se soumettre à ces deux obligations conduit, à plus ou moins brève échéance, à la confiscation des armes sans compensation. La deuxième obligation est farfelue et

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

1. The Sûreté du Québec (SQ) will refuse any authorization to transport if the applicant does not provide a photocopy of his membership to a gun club, signed and in force; 2. Any owner of a restricted or prohibited firearm (whose definition is more elastic each day) must pass a theoretical and practical course, including shooting to pass the exam, before September 1, 2009. At time of writing the course content is not yet approved by the government ... even though all new license applicants must pass it. Failure to comply with these two requirements will lead to the confiscation of the owner’s firearms without compensation. The second requirement is crazy and unreasonable since a gun club is safer than taking a walk at night in some areas of our cities, in Montreal for instance. Let us not forget that members of a gun club (membership is mandatory) will have to sign a record of attendance and list all serial and registration numbers of all firearms brought to the club. Therefore, do not bring an unregistered firearm and do not list a false number… Non-attendance at a shooting club will lead to the revocation of your license. Nor should we forget that a mere denunciation, even if the reason is not serious, may have your license revoked. Denunciation has become imperative for health services. A regulation made under Act No. 9 comes against professional secrecy and this applies to all firearms, even if it is an old rifle inherited from a grandfather and that you dare not use for your own safety. Indeed, the Charest government said it allows any health professional (even social workers and marriage and family therapists) to report to the police if they judge someone has a behaviour that might endanger the safety for oneself or for others . The government wanted to make denunciation mandatory in all cases. But the authorization to denounce means that any prosecution for failure to observe professional secrecy is impossible (at least under the laws of Quebec). It has therefore become risky to talk too much to a doctor or a psychologist, and so on. Marital or personal problems should be avoided because the police might pay you a visit.

The economist and writer Pierre Lemieux is now a paper criminal There is a difference between a paper criminal and a real one. The first does no harm to anyone but refuses to obey an abusive legislation (for instance, contrary to morals). Another example, more complex this time would be the case of an individual who, in self defense, injures or kills an attacker. When a police officer shoots at the back of a person who is fleeing and was not armed, he is not charged. But an ordinary citizen in self-defense must prove that its firearms were stored “safely”, that he had a license, and that he took reasonable means to defend himself. Better to use a bow. 48

June / July 2009

Anyway, as I expected, my friend Pierre Lemieux refused, in 1996, in 2001, and again in 2007 to answer the question about his marital history. Trudeau once said that the police has no place in our bedrooms. But in 2007, the firearms police has decided to strike. Pierre was therefore denied the renewal of his license. He produced his opposition via a lawyer within the allowed limit of 30 days. And this year, Pierre must appear at the Court of Mont-Laurier (about 200 km East of Ottawa) on May 26 -27. He will be defended pro bono by firearms lawyer Richard A. Fritze. Whatever the verdict, there will be an appeal either from the government (paid by our taxes) or Pierre Lemieux. Pierre Lemieux has written several books and worked on several web sites, including the Montreal Economic Institute (www.iedm.org) and Liberty in Canada (www. libertyincanada.ca). His latest book, which is a good economics course, entitled “Comprendre l’économie” (“Understanding the Economy”, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2008). His book “Confessions d’un Coureur des bois horsla-loi” is available online at « http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1522/249361 ». There are four other titles available online at the previous link. Pierre Lemieux tells about his adventures with Police Canada at “http://www.pierrelemieux.org/policecanada/ CAFC-cfc.html”. I have at “www.yvondionne.org / Pierre_Lemieux_ donation.htm” a file sent by Mr. Paul Rogan (publisher of Canadian Access to Firearms), which tells how to contribute to a cause which could go to Supreme Court. If I may summarize, see the Canadian Constitution Foundation website at “www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca”: Follow these steps: Go to “Donate to CCF” Go to: “Optional: Designation” Under “Optional Designation”, check under “Property rights research and court cases” the fifth box named “Optional Designation”. All donations in this box are dedicated to the defense of Pierre Lemieux (and you may be more specific, writing your contribution is earmarked for Pierre Lemieux). A receipt for income tax will be issued.

Your Business Card Could Appear Here! Interested?

Call us at (604) 250-7910 or e-mail us at Advertising@CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

abusive puisqu’un club de tir est plus sécuritaire que de se promener le soir dans certains quartiers de nos villes, en particulier à Montréal. N’oublions pas que les membres d’un club de tir (c’est obligatoire) devront signer lors de leur visite au club un «registre de fréquentation» où l’on doit faire la liste des numéros de série et d’enregistrement de toutes les armes apportées. Prière donc de ne pas apporter d’arme non enregistrée ou de ne pas inscrire de faux numéro. La nonfréquentation d’un club de tir peut entraîner la révocation de votre permis. N’oublions pas non plus que sur seule dénonciation, même si la raison n’est pas sérieuse, vous pouvez aussi perdre votre permis. La dénonciation est impérieuse pour les services de santé. Un règlement adopté en vertu de la loi no- 9 transgresse le secret professionnel et ceci s’applique à toutes les armes à feu, même s’il s’agit d’un vieux fusil hérité d’un grand-père et dont vous n’osez plus vous servir par mesure de sécurité. En effet, le gouvernement Charest dit qu’il autorise tout professionnel de la santé (même les travailleurs sociaux et les thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux) à dénoncer pour tout motif raisonnable tout comportement susceptible de compromettre la sécurité pour soi-même ou pour d’autres. Le gouvernement voulait rendre la dénonciation obligatoire dans tous les cas. Mais l’autorisation de dénoncer, inscrite dans la loi, signifie que toute poursuite pour manque au secret professionnel est impossible (du moins en vertu des lois du Québec). L’obligation de dénoncer est restreinte aux cas où il y a infraction (exemple : un blessé par balle qui se fait soigner dans un hôpital du gouvernement). Donc, il devient risqué de parler à un médecin ou psychologue, etc. de problèmes avec son conjoint ou conjointe, ou de problèmes existentiels dans ce monde capoté. La police vous rendra probablement visite. En-dehors du sujet des armes à feu, la bureaucratie québécoise vient de montrer une fois de plus son inefficacité et son masochisme avec le nouveau permis de conduire PLUS, qui va permettre de passer aux États-Unis. Ce permis est associé à plus de formulaires et de procédures que la demande d’un passeport, lequel vous donne accès à tous les pays par tous les moyens de transport.

L’économiste et écrivain Pierre Lemieux devenu un criminel de papier Il y a une différence considérable entre un criminel de papier (« paper criminal », en anglais) et un vrai criminel. Ce dernier fait un tort à une autre personne, le premier ne fait aucun tort à personne mais refuse de se plier à un diktat de l’État. Un autre exemple, plus complexe cette fois, serait le cas d’un individu qui, en légitime défense, blesse ou tue son agresseur; quand un policier le fait il est généralement www.nfa.ca

blanchi, même s’il tire dans le dos d’une personne qui s’enfuit et qui n’est pas armée. Mais un simple individu en état de légitime défense doit prouver que ses armes étaient bien entreposées, qu’il avait les permis, et qu’il a agi selon une défense raisonnable vis-à-vis un autre individu contre lequel il n’y avait d’autre moyen de défense que de se servir d’une arme à feu. Mieux vaut se servir d’un arc. Toujours est-il, je m’y attendais, que mon ami Pierre Lemieux avait refusé en 2001 et de nouveau en 2007 de répondre à la question sur ses antécédents conjugaux. Comme Trudeau disait, la loi n’a rien à faire dans les chambres à coucher. Mais en 2007, la police des armes à feu a décidé de sévir. Il s’est donc vu refuser le renouvellement de son permis. Il a produit via une avocate l’opposition encore permise, en-dedans de 30 jours. Et cette année, Pierre doit comparaître à la Cour de Mont-Laurier (NordOuest du Québec) les 26 et 27 mai. Pierre Lemieux a écrit plusieurs livres et collabore à plusieurs sites, dont celui de l’Institut économique de Montréal (www.iedm.org) et celui de Liberté au Canada (www.liberteaucanada.ca). Son dernier livre, qui est un bon cours d’économie, s’intitule «Comprendre l’économie» (Les Belles Lettres, Paris 2008). Voir son site pour une liste de ses écrits : www.pierrelemieux.org . Son livre «Confessions d’un Coureur des bois hors-la-loi», est disponible au lien http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1522/24936811 . Il y a quatre autres titres disponibles en ligne à l’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. Pierre Lemieux fait l’historique de son aventure avec Police Canada au lien www.pierrelemieux.org/policecanada/cafccfc.html . Il a un bon avocat (Richard A. Fritze). Je mets en ligne sur mon site à www.yvondionne.org/ Pierre_Lemieux_donation.htm un fichier envoyé par M. Paul Rogan, de Canadian Access to Firearms, qui vous dira comment contribuer financièrement à cette cause qui pourrait aller jusqu’en Cour Suprême. Ou si je résume, voir le site de la Canadian Constitution Foundation (www. canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca) : Suivre ces étapes : Allez à : « Donate to CCF » Allez à : « Optional: Designation » Sous « Optional Designation », cochez sous « Property rights research and court cases » la cinquième case intitulée « Optional Designation ». Tous les dons sous cette case sont dédiés au Fonds de défense de Pierre Lemieux. Il y a un reçu pour l’impôt.

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

Smoothbores & Highwaymen:

Part 2

y the end of the Civil War several American manufacturers were already providing breech loading doubles to those companies and gentlemen able to afford their higher than normal sticker prices, including the producer of the gun Billy the Kid used to kill the abusive Deputy Bob Olinger: Eli Whitney. The Boyd and Daniel Wesson were other domestic attempts.... but it was the Parker Brothers of West Meridan, Connecticut that in 1866 began producing the first commercially accepted break open shotguns on this continent. Like similar European models a lifter unlocks the barrels so the breeches 50

June / July 2009

could pivot upwards for reloading, and external “rabbit-ear” hammers drive the firing pins forward into the all-brass centerfire shells. They could be ordered with barrels from two feet to thirty-two inches long, and there $50.00 starting price was below the $75.00 to $350.00 cost of comparable quality English makes such as Greener, Westley Richards, W. & C. Scott and James Purdey. The most famous of all stage and shipping companies, Wells Fargo issued large numbers of short barreled Parkers to it’s detectives and guards, all marked with the “W.F. & Co.” stamp inside the frame (as well as a number of Remington Model 1882’s, and approximately 750 Ithacas).

hammer-gun and the hammerless Model 1883. For as long as there have been guns, shooters have enjoyed lively debates on the advantages or disadvantages of various types, makes, models or calibers. In the 1870’s fans of the venerable Colt sixgun and the competing break-open Smith & Wesson each had their own points to

The esteemed Parker was followed over the course of the next thirty years by the laudable Baker, L. C. Smith, George Fox and LeFever doubles, as well as even less costly models marketed under the American and Crescent names. The Baker, predecessor to the L. C. Smith, even sold a three barrel design featuring a rifled barrel beneath its twin smoothbores. In October of 1873 veteran Remington introduced an “improved” action double, followed by Colt’s release of their Model 1878

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

make. The Smith was considered more accurate and faster to load. The Colt was preferred for its durability, and how quickly it could fill the hand. In my own time dozens of magazine articles promoted the benefits of shooting either a revolver or a semiautomatic pistol, and there was a great deal of fuss over the U. S. Armed Forces trading in the powerful and accurate M-14 rifle for the small caliber M-16. But for some fifty years the biggest debate was between hammer shotguns and the “new” hammerless. Upland game hunters and trap or exhibition shooters liked the speed of hammerless (internal firing pin) models, such as Annie Oakley’s treasured L. C. Smith. But hammer guns continued to be the hands-down favorites of shotgun messengers, bank guards and frontier prison “bulls.” This was partly because they could be kept loaded at all times, with the hammers safely down and the springs relaxed.... and still be fairly rapidly cocked and discharged when need be. Seeing a double with its hammers down, one could assume it was safe to handle, and yet likely loaded and ready. Double guns had and continue to have at least one important advantage over both single shots and “repeating” shotguns: with their two barrels fired by separate triggers (or later, by a single trigger and a selector switch), a hunter can load one side with medium shot for bringing down flying waterfowl, and the other with buckshot or a single “pumpkin-ball” slug in case he happens to run into some bad hombres, or scare up a deer. The notoriously classy Doc Holiday made credible use of an unknown double loaned him by Marshall Virgil Earl, killing “Cowboy” Tom McLaury with it during the gunfight at the O. K. Corral. Oddly enough when Tom kept moving, Doc thought his load of buck had failed to do the trick. He’s is also reputed to have owned a specially chopped down Belgium “Meteor” hammer gun, with an abbreviated pistol-grip stock and barrels sawed off a mere foot ahead of the breech. The latter would have been especially useful swung underneath a poker table and its contested pot, or slung over a shoulder and concealed beneath a black frock coat. Doc’s cohort Wyatt Earp avenged himself on Frank Stillwell, one of his brother’s murderers, using a similar full stocked version with trimmed twenty-four inch barrels.... and perhaps a Stevens with external hammers (serial number 927) when he took out Curly Bill Brocius in 1882. John Wesley Hardin likely killed his second and third victims with a double barrel shotgun (soldiers he believed were out to get him, before opening taking down the remaining two with a revolver. Hardin himself fell to a couple balls from a vengeful gambler in 1872, and he never stopped suffered from complications associated with the www.nfa.ca

wounds. Allied Texas Sherriff John Carnes handed him a muzzle loading smoothbore double after his shooting of lawman Charles Webb but he was unable to carry it far due to a .45 sized hole through his side... and it hung for years on display on the wall of a Comanche drug store. Indeed, twin bores were employed by a wide host of Western characters, gunfighters, outlaws and lawmen alike. These include: Ben Thompson, Texas gambler, noted gunslinger and survivor of over a dozen firefights. Testy cattle barons John Slaughter and Charles Goodnight. James Cook, who ranched a short ways downriver from the land where I reside, during the Apache uprisings of the 1880’s. Buffalo Bill Cody used a plethora of smoothbores in his Wild West Show act, including a 12 gauge Westley Richards. In October, 1873 besotted saloon-keeper Edward “Big Red” Beard unexpectedly fired his handgun through the window of his competitor’s establishment, operated by the appropriately named Rowdy Joe Lowe. Lowe suffered a flesh wound to the neck, but quickly responded to this unprovoked slight by grabbing his signature twin-bore shotgun and blowing the now “bloody” Red away. Double barrel guns were by far the preferred shotguns of the frontier period, but they also had to compete with the much cheaper commercial and military surplus singleshots. At one time or another makers including Maynard, Sharps, Smith, Remington and Stevens offered smoothbore tubes in place of their standard rifled barrels. Bargainbasement muzzleloading shotguns continued to be available to the Western market well into the 1880’s. By that time consumer catalogs were flooded with ads for military single shot rifles that had been converted to smoothbore, especially trapdoor Springfields and the converted British Snyders commonly called “Zulus.”

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

highly prudent, depending on how you look at it) assassin of El Paso gunman John Wesley Hardin, met his maker in that same dusty Texas town courtesy of a Winchester ‘87, in the hands of a pissed-off and purposeful George Scarborough. Most famous of all, was its heroic use by Jeff (Jefferson Davis) Milton during an attempted holdup of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The esteemed lawman and Wells Fargo express guard used his ‘87 (serial number 36549) to put eleven balls through Three Fingered Jack Dunlop and a stray projectile into the leader of the Stilles-Alvord gang, Bravo Yoas. Left for dead, Milton survived in spite of a severed artery in a shattered arm. The designs that would give the double its stiffest competition, and largely replace side-by-sides for a time, were so called “repeaters:” multi-shot single barreled shotguns, whose rounds are fed from a magazine into the chamber by mechanical means. Until the advent of John Browning’s recoil operated Auto-5, this meant “trombone,” “pump,” “slide-action” models requiring a shooter to slide the floating forestock backwards and then forwards again to eject each fired case and load a new round. Both the large magazine capacity and the relative rapidity of fire appealed to waterfowl hunters, and those personality types that have always gravitated to the latest examples of efficacy. And most practically, to armed robbers and officers of the law. The first true repeater, the slide action shotgun was patented in 1863 during the height of the American Civil War by Christopher Spencer, designer and manufacturer of the famous Spencer repeating rifles. Released as the improved Models 1882, 1890 and 1896, it held six rounds of 12 gauge ammo and featured either a thirty or thirty-two inch barrel. Given the occasional unreliability of black-powder shells, a concealed hammer was included to give a shooter a second chance at igniting an uncooperative round. Far more popular was the Winchester Model 1887, designed by Browning, and used to arm the guards of various railroads including the Denver & Rio Grande. The Burgess Model of 1893 differed by featuring a fixed forestock and a sliding pistol grip. The easily concealed and stored folding model was advertised in the company literature as ideal for “police service, express messengers, U. S. marshals, prison and bank guards,” Pat Garrett, the infamous Sheriff who shot down Billy the Kid, packed one along in February of 1908, when he himself was ambushed and shot down. No doubt he should have taken his Burgess with him when he got off his buggy to piss.

The honor for the most popular external-hammer repeating shotgun of all time goes to the perfected slide action Winchester Model 1897. Its reliability and repeat shots continue to make it a favorite among Cowboy Action enthusiasts, although it arguably appeared on the frontier long after the last of the Indian wars, and few saw service either in the hands of Western brigands or those who fought them. In a field where replica handguns and rifles sensibly reign, the hundred year or more old ‘97 continues to engage targets and burn powder. It was this model that did more than any other to push the venerated twin-tubes aside. And yet oddly enough, Winchester entered the smoothbore market in 1879 with the importation of English-made doubles, and it was this same company that initiated the first double barrel shotgun revival with their 1930 introduction of the Model 21. The fact remains that no gun was ever made, rifled or smoothbore, that is better balanced, quicker to the shoulder, or faster to get on target with than a double. And there’s no more appropriate companion for a hunter or re-enactor, an outlaw or lawdog. It is truly the single most important weapon of the Old West.

While never as common as pump or double barrel shotguns, Winchester had at least limited success with their underlever action smoothbore repeaters. No doubt they hoped to capitalize on the extreme popularity of their various lever action rifle models, when they released Browning’s Models 1887 (black powder) and 1901 (proofed for smokeless). In 1896 John Selman, the cowardly (or 52

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

by David Chappelle

Saturday Morning Cadet Shoots

A club with an excellent facility yet few volunteers has discovered how to let young people enjoy shooting sports. The Abbotsford Fish and Game Club (AFGC) operates a very busy facility.

extra $10 up to four kids. We have associate membership as well for $60.”

Located on 20 acres, the current outdoor range has a dozen bays at 100 yards and two trap throwers. There’s also a 3D archery range and a static archery range.

On Saturday mornings -- in an example of an active youth shooting program -- Sea Cadets take a few of the shooting lanes.

The club is undergoing an expansion that will establish three more ranges. The first will be an additional 10-bay, 100-yard range; second will be a pistol/carbine range of approximately 50-75 yards; and lastly another pistol range is to be added. They will also upgrade the existing indoor range by installing a new air system.

The AFGC executive was recently approached about donating some range time to the cadets.

AFGC experienced a sudden and huge growth in membership when the BC CFO forced a club membership requirement for gun owners. Now there are approximately 1,000 members, including family memberships. It appears most new members want memberships simply to be legal, and aren’t much interested in club activities. “Our club would shut down without our on-site caretakers – Dave and Linda Gunn,” said president Nathan Anderson. “They keep the grounds up, ensure repairs are completed, and Linda is always there helping out. Without them our membership would experience a drastic shock in what they take for granted.” Correctional Service Canada “owns” the facility Monday through Friday from 9am -3:30pm. Members can’t shoot during those times. That’s one of the reasons for the outdoor expansion. On the plus side, renting the range keeps membership dues lower. “At our AGM we voted to increase our dues for the first time in a decade,” Nathan said. “We’re still extremely affordable. A single member is $95 all in. Family is only an 54

June / July 2009

“After thinking it over -- for all of two seconds -- we thought it was a great idea,” said Nathan. “Any time we can get youth involved in learning about firearms in a safe manner, and getting them to appreciate it, is a good thing. It’s great that our club can help.” It also helped that the Cadets weren’t asking for volunteers. “They provide their own ROs and safety personnel,” Nathan said. “All we’ve been asked for is the facility.” Last year AFGC ran its first open house to the public, letting guests try shooting and archery. It went over extremely well. “And we’re looking forward to it this year,” said Nathan. “We also have a Monday night .22 club. Three members have taken over running it.” On Saturday mornings the cadets get the first four or five shooting lanes. Typically they shoot earlier than most of members are willing to come out. “I’d like to see our club develop more of these programs in the next year or two,” said Nathan. “My daughter is always asking when she can go to the range. My wife won’t let me take her ‘til she’s six. When she asks again, after her birthday, I want to take her out to a .22 night. It’d be nice if she could learn without all the mistakes I taught myself.”

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

for qualifying. He introduced us to it; then I put on a presentation for the club executive. I asked if there was any chance of us being able to use their range. They wholeheartedly opened their arms and asked, ‘When do you want?’”

Nathan was about 20 years old before he shot a gun. “My Dad had stopped hunting by that point. I asked him if I could take his gun to the range and he said no. I took the FAC course, and got my license. Then he let me, because I had my license. At the range a couple of crotchety old men spent time snickering at me before finally coming over to help me.”

http://www.cadets.forces.gc.ca/seacad/ resources-ressources/phase1/3_e.asp Cadets are only allowed to fire .22 rimfire and .177 air rifles. As they get older, they can do familiarization firing with the Canadian Forces, but that’s only for one-day events.

The cadet program aims to develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship and leadership, promote physical fitness, and to stimulate the interest of youth in the sea, land, and air activities of the Canadian Forces (CF).

“We’re not allowed to fire indoors any more because of the criteria DND has put on us,” Derek said. “Abbotsford Fish and Game has an indoor range they use every week, but we’re not allowed to partake in that as a cadet function.

Age range for cadets is 12-18. Once they get in -- usually at a younger age -- they typically stay until they “age out” at 19. “We meet during school year every Tuesday evening for training... then one or two times per month on weekends for optional activities,” said Derek.

“We use the outdoor range. It’s one of the few well-maintained ranges in the area. We used to use Langley Rod and Gun Club, but moved because they didn’t have one that catered to .22 firing. Neither does Abbotsford, but they have a well-maintained range. Some days others are firing .30-06 next to us. We take certain lanes for our cadets.”

Cadets have a specific training syllabus mandated by Department of

In fact it’s getting harder to find time at the Abbotsford range because so many

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

Derek Bailey is Commanding Officer of Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps #169 Columbia. “One of our Cadet Instructors was a sheriff for the court system,” he said. “He used the Abbotsford range

www.nfa.ca

“In turn we support them by attending their functions – like the annual game supper, when we get to eat bear, deer, and more. It was a great dinner. Amazing.”

National Defense (DND). The major emphasis is on safety, familiarization on the firearms, and shooting practices. DND is putting more emphasis on air rifles... at least for cadets. Every year cadets must shoot air rifles to progress in rank.

groups are trying to get in. Cadets use Saturday mornings, and then only a few lanes. “We have competitions every year,” Derek said. “Most are postal – in which we send away our targets. This year in May we’re participating in the Jock Gall Memorial Invitational Shoot, put on by the Air Cadets in Powell River. It’s been going on for many years and is open to Army, Air, and Sea Cadets. They use the Cadet Lee Enfield #7 in .22; the Daisy 853C single shot air rifle; and the Anschutz or equivalent .22 caliber.” “A lot of the .22 caliber firing is intended for biathlon,” said Derek. “They’re trying to phase them out unless you have a biathlon team. We’ve had teams in the past, but we don’t have one this year. Next year we’re planning on fielding a team. All of training is provided through the Canadian Instructors Cadre or members of the community who help.” Derek recently attended the Whistler biathlon facility that will be used in the 2010 Winter Olympics. Approximately 150 cadets from all three branches—Sea, Army, and Air -- competed at the Zone competition. Winners go on to Provincial, and from there to Nationals. “There’s so much stuff for Cadets to do,” he said. “It’s really an amazing program. It’s a chance for kids from different demographics to do so many things. It’s not like hockey or Scouts -- the Parent’s Committee (PC) raises funds so that we can do it as a team, as long as it fits into the aims of the Cadet movement.”

it. My wife doesn’t hate the organization, but she can be forgiven for sometimes thinking that cadets come before my marriage.” This year is the 50th anniversary of the Abbotsford Sea Cadets. The alumni dinner will be in Fort Langley on June 6th with inspection by a high dignitary. It’s also the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Instructor’s Cadre, which is a reserve component of the CF that teaches youth in cadets. “We’re relatively new to this club -- it was only last year that we moved here,” Derek said. “We’ve got an awesome secretary in the AFGC and she’s helped us out a lot. They’ve been hugely supportive of our organization. They put a link on their site so we can submit what cadets have done, opening another avenue for the community to learn about our program. We get to update our own little web page that’s attached to their page. They let us write stories, post pictures, and others can contact us directly from the Abbotsford site. We’ve been overwhelmed what they’ve done for us; it’s over and above the bounds.” http://abbotsfordfishandgameclub.org

DND funding has been scaled back, and onus put on the PC – individuals with ties to the organization who want to donate their time. “They raise all the funds that the CF doesn’t give us,” said Derek. “For our shooting, for our ranges, extra-curricular activities, and field trips, they give us our housing, our parade every week, the lights, the power, whatever. They’re our main contributor.” Derek was a cadet for four years, then joined the military for seven years, then returned to teach cadets. He has a civilian job. The previous CO is a deputy warden at a corrections facility in BC. A few of the instructors are paramilitary personnel. “Officers of our corps are in Corrections Canada, RCMP, and some join the military. Some of our ex-cadets commanded warships. One is in NATO, another does sea training in Halifax and another is at junior officers training in Esquimalt.” DND pays cadet officers for two and a half days per month. From May 2008 to January 2009, Derek gave 580 hours to cadets. “If you think of it as a chore, you’re not going to do it,” he said. “If you think of it as a passion, then you’ll do 56

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

by Christopher di Armani

I D P A

nternational efensive

istol

ssociation

Provincial Championships

IDPA

is growing in Canada, and in British Columbia and Ontario specifically. This summer both provinces will be hosting their provincial championships, and they will, no doubt, be exciting events. This year the BC Provincials will be hosted by the Terrace Rod and Gun Club (http://www.rodandgun.net) on July 18th, 2009, rain or shine. The event will be limited to the first 100 applicants. All competitors must be IDPA-registered and be classified “Novice” or above by the date of the match. The match fee is $75.00CAN and includes lunch as well as entry into the prize raffle. All competitors are required to fill out and submit a completed registration form. All forms must be signed and submitted no later than June 30, 2009. Cheques and money orders should be made out to the Terrace Rod and Gun Club. The shoot is limited to the first 100 entries, so make sure you get your form in early if you plan to attend.

www.nfa.ca

The entry form for the BC Provincial IDPA Championships is located at: http://www.rodandgun.net/images/ pdf/2009_idpa_application.pdf This is the second time Terrace has hosted the provincial match, and hopes are high that in 2010 the Chilliwack Fish and Game Protective Association (http://chilliwackfishandgame.com) will have their facility ready to host the Provincials. Ontario’s Provincial Championships will be held at the Windsor Action Pistol Club on August 22nd, 2009, and will see shooters competing on eleven different stages. The entry fee prior to July 31st is $75.00. After that date the entry fee rises to $90.00, so if you’re planning on attending, get your entry form in early!

http://www.idpawindsor.com/ PROVINCIAL%20MATCH%20 REGISRTATION.pdf Entrants for both events must be IDPA members, and must have shot a qualifier prior to the match. (A qualifier is a shooting stage designed to correctly assess a shooter’s skill level to enter them into the right category.) To sign up as an IDPA member, please go to http://www.idpa.com/member. asp where you can sign up online, for your convenience.

IDPA Safety Officers will shoot on Friday, August 21st. If you’re an SO and plan on working as such at either of these events, please make sure the match co-ordinators are aware of your intention. The entry form for the IDPA Ontario Provincial Championships is located at:

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by Vin Suprynowicz

Rightwing extremists’ are concerned about ‘restrictions on firearms ownership and use’

ack in March, an unnamed Missouri police officer leaked to the press a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) — part of the law enforcement “fusion” effort now being organized by the Department of Homeland Security around the country — titled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated Feb. 20, 2009. The MIAC report specifically described supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructed the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties. Just a fluke, all taken out of context, apologists explained at the time when the document received any coverage, at all. But now comes a new, April 7 assessment from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” obtained by Reuters and other news media on April 14. Actually, what the document finds is just the opposite of what its overblown title suggests: “The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,” the report admits at the outset. Nonetheless, such characters need to be watched, the boys in Washington now advise. After all, “Rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment,” the report continues.

June / July 2009

Got that? Although your government can’t find any actual EVIDENCE that any “rightwing extremists” are planning any violent or criminal acts, government agents are now advised to keep a close eye on them … just in case. The report warns that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society. Also worth keeping an eye on, the report warns, are “those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” Good heavens! Does anyone still harbor such a dangerous notion, in 21st century America? Why, if folks like Tom Jefferson and James Madison were here today, they’d be … arrested, apparently. “These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual,” DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban insists. Some domestic commentary has been right on target. Constitutional attorney John Whitehead, for instance writes a cogent piece asking “Are we all enemies of the state?” at www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_ id=588 But since it offers the advantage of some geographic perspective, I particularly enjoyed the anaylsis of James Delingpole, blogging at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_ delingpole. “Such is the latest wheeze dreamed up by the Obama administration to distract us from the fact that roughly half America now realises the man’s New Deal II project is a slow-motion car crash from which in four agonised years time the US will be lucky to escape even half-way recognisable,” Mr. Delingpole commented on Wednesday. “Today — Tax Day — many of these ordinary, decent, Obama-fearing folk have gathered at Tea Party events in

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

500 locations across the US to protest against rising taxes and the ever increasing role of Big Government in their lives. “How has the Obama machine responded? Well, funnily enough, in a manner which would surely meet the approval of its Socialist counterparts on this side of the pond: by smearing the the opposition.” The Homeland Security directive is designed “to help police spot the tell-tale signs indicating potentially dangerous right wing extremism,” Mr. Delingpole points out. “They include: Being unimpressed by America’s first ‘AfricanAmerican’ president; Objecting to tax hikes; Disliking big government; Talking concernedly about the state of the economy and job loss, especially in the manufacturing and construction sectors,” (and) “Opposition to abortion, gay marriage and gun control. “No really, I’m not making this up. Here’s a representative paragraph: “Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the

expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. … “Sound familiar?,” Mr. Delingpole asks. “Well it should do to anyone who has watched a TV thriller in the last two decades. Have you noticed how the bad guys in these series hardly ever to belong to any of the terrorist organizations which pose a genuine threat (animal rights; Islamists; etc) but almost invariably to some sinister extreme right terror group we’ve never heard of before? “Leftie screenwriters, bien-pensant ecclesiastical bloggers, ghastly lefties generally, just love the idea that the greatest danger to the world comes from the extreme right. And it just doesn’t. … Right-wing extremism is a mythical left-liberal bogeyman, nothing more,” Mr. Delingpole concludes. “Burgeoning Liberal Fascism, on the other hand: now there’s something we should worry about very much indeed.”

National Firearms Association Membership Application

Name:_____________________________________________________________________________ Address:_ _________________________________________________________________________ City:_ _____________________________________________________________________________ Prov:____________________________________________________P.C.:_____________________ Ph: ( _______ ) ____________________________________________________________________ Fax: ( _______ ) ___________________________________________________________________

Your membership in Canada’s National Firearms Association will help us ensure that our culture and heritage will continue to exist, so we may pass it on to our children. The National Firearms

Association...

Defending the Rights of Canadian Firearms Owners ... locally, federally and internationally. www.nfa.ca

q Individual Regular ($30) q Life Regular ($750) q Individual Senior 65+ ($25) q Life Senior 65+ ($500) q Family ($40) q Send me a Business/Club application (Free) q NFA Liability Insurance: $7.95 / person covered. $5 million coverage.

____________

people covered x $7.95 = $ _______________

Total $______________________ q Cheque or Money Order enclosed q Visa/Mastercard/AMEX Card #:_____________________________________________Expiry:_______________________ Signature:_________________________________________________________________________ Mail to: National Firearms Association Fax to: (780) 439-4091 Box 52183, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2T5

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

by Phil Hewkin

Why

Gun Owners Do Not Like

“Gun Control”

hile reading a blog recently, a journalist did not understand the reason WHY the Canadian gun owning public is discontented

with “registering”. This writer thought he had enough history with rural/outdoor types that he could not perceive what possible exception gun owners would have to the “minor” inconvenience that “registering” oneself, or one’s guns could have; especially when compared to the perceived benefit to the RCMP, for tracking of firearms, and for the “public safety benefits”. Please allow me to provide some insight on this highly contentious issue. It is not singularly the “registry” that is the problem with the requirements of the “Firearms Act”. The “Licensing” component is by far the most glaring. The Firearms Act was written at the request of Jean Chretien’s Liberal government. It was written by Liberal Federal Justice Minister Allen Rock. It was inspired by the “École Polytechnic University shooting December 6/1989. The Law was brought into force, on the Anniversary of the shootings, December 6/1995. The relevance of this is simple. The government directly linked every legit Canadian gun owner with this tragedy, as direct blame was implied. “Gun Control will be implemented”, Raged Ann McClellan who succeeded Allan Rock as Liberal Justice Minister. “Gun Control” WAS implemented. With the force of a Majority Liberal Government, who had a bottomless public purse, and NO conscience whatsoever. The TRUTH and the COST as well as the truth ABOUT the cost were concealed from parliament and from the public. Six Hundred ATI’s (Access To Information) requests from Yorkton/Melville M. P. Garry Breitkreuz failed to extract clear answers. This did NOT tweak the interest of the media in the least. The Licensing deadline for gun owners was January 1, 2001, and EVERY owner of a gun was to have complied, and licensed by this date, or, face criminal prosecution for failure to do so, up to five years incarceration. Failure to inform the Canadian Firearms Center of a “change of address” could net an “offender” up to two years imprisonment; all because of the “perceived threat” that any and all gun owners pose to “public safety”.

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

www.nfa.ca

At this time, there was an estimated 7 million Canadians who own an estimated 3.5 guns apiece (24 million guns). What a terrifying number! And for all one could assume, every single gun owner was teetering on the brink of slipping off the edge of sanity with the resulting body count unimaginable! TERRIFYING! Isn’t that JUST like the media to pump up the hype, create fear, uneasy mistrust? Heck, your own neighbor could “be one”. “IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE”. “We will NOT confiscate their guns, this is ridiculous”, the government told us. Nine years later guns HAVE been confiscated. Restrictions and prohibitions, combined with anti gun hysteria, has resulted in untold numbers of guns being destroyed, all PRIVATE PROPERTY, without due compensation as the Charter describes. Lives have been shattered and assets depleted defending against the nebulous maze of charges that emanate from the “Firearms Act”. Two Billion Three Hundred Million dollars later, gangs shoot up the streets with complete disregard for “public safety”. These criminals neither license nor register their guns. In fact, the Firearms Act exempts criminal persons entirely. This is very, VERY strange.

risk have such a conflicting idea with that of the media and the Government? I find myself feeling disgusted with the deception. I do not like to be manipulated in such a way, and the concept that it was done by those with the BEST intentions cannot dispel the odiousness of the law that has been enacted. The thing is, punishing the innocent is WRONG; it is SICK. Today, complacent gun owners cry out for action from their pro gun organizations, and those who would pose to represent them. It is past time for those who would beg of others to “do something” to finally become motivated and actively involve themselves in resolving this horribly intrusive and prejudiced assault on honest Canadians. There was “gun control” before this botched experiment was initiated, but, you would never know it from the way these more recent laws were forced upon us. The term “public safety” has come to mean outright deception and persecution to me. As a member of society I feel more unsafe now than at any time in my life. When Government can finance and direct public opinion in such a malicious and dishonest manner, how can anyone feel safe?

“Gun Control” was promised to make Canadians “safer”; our streets, our cities, our homes, our very private relationships, SAFER. It was promised to ELIMINATE fear and apprehension. Why, one would be able to walk Young street at three a.m. safely, by god! Now there are demands for MORE RESTRICTIVE gun control, and outright BANS. Since the strategy that could not remedy the “problem” in the first place could not produce positive results, how can it be expected to work NOW? After all, the anti guns crowd is NOT talking about reducing the number of guns that the CRIMINALS own; ONLY the guns of those PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM. These are the facts. Licensing puts an honest Canadian in a “reverse onus” standing with the law. This means that one is “GUILTY until proven innocent”. The great minds and powers that be in Canada want you to believe that ALL gun owners are a potential threat. Yet a GUN RANGE is one of the safest places in CANADA! For a $7.95 annual premium gun owners can buy FIVE MILLION DOLLARS worth of liability insurance. Insurance companies are expert at determining risk and set their rates accordingly. How is it that the insurance companies who make their living off assessing www.nfa.ca

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com

June / July 2009

By Christopher di Armani

Everyone knows that’s ILLEGAL!

few people commented on a picture that ran a few issues ago encouraging new shooters. “On page 51 (Feb/March 09) is a picture of a woman with what appears to be an instructor learning to shoot. What I find very interesting about this photo is the fact that the weapon that she is shooting has a silencer on it. And as any knowledgeable shooter knows, silencers are illegal. Why would you portray a new shooter using an illegal device?“ The picture, shown here again, does indeed display a pistol with a silencer attached to it. “As any knowledgeable shooter knows, silencers are illegal.” To put it bluntly, so what? Silencers, or more correctly, sound mufflers, are mandatory in ranges all over Europe to cut down on noise pollution. But why use a picture with “an illegal device”? Using this picture was done specifically and on purpose. That purpose was to make people question the law. Is the law right or wrong? Is the law good or bad? Does this law bring the administration of justice into disrepute?

So is possessing a firearm without a license, or as Pierre Lemieux would call it, a “permission slip from the almighty state”. Millions of Canadians who are otherwise law-abiding, and even lots of (gasp!) NFA members break one or both of these particular laws daily and think nothing of it. “But a picture of a silencer... that’s just... wrong!” Actually, what’s wrong is a law that makes simple possession of simple tools, be they silencers, rifles, magazines with a capacity larger than the almighty state decrees acceptable, these are the things that are wrong. The picture is “in-your-face” enough to get people thinking, which was the entire point in running it, aside from the obvious message the photograph carried, which was to encourage us all to introduce our love of firearms and shooting to others. We should always question those things that “everyone knows” to

be true. Wendy Cukier and the president of the Canadian Chiefs of Police lie about guns daily. The media laps up their lies willingly. Does that make their lies any more true? I don’t think so. Just because a lie has been told a hundred times, that does not make it the truth. So the next time you look at an image in this magazine (or anywhere else for that matter) and your first instinct is to say “That’s illegal!”, please stop and ask yourself one simple question: WHY is it illegal? Give that question some serious thought. Then let me know what answers you come up with. I guarantee you I’ll be interested in hearing them. Especially if you have a good and valid argument against one of the images I’ve used in this magazine.

All valid questions. Questions each and every one of us should be asking ourselves and our government. “But it’s ILLEGAL!” one person said. So is possessing a firearm without a registration certificate.

June / July 2009

CanadianFirearmsJournal.com