|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
[Prohibited small handguns] [FAC/PAL] [Transfers] [Storage] [OHA-carry permits]
[Self-defense] [Breitkreuz] [ATT for prohibited] [US move, temporary]
[Lending vs. Leasing] [New licenses vs. old] [ATT's for 2000]
[more on licensing] [ranges, clubs]
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:40 PM Subject: "PROHIBITED" SMALL HANDGUNS
>Dear Mr. Tomlinson--A couple of years we took your advice and bought my >wife a $10.00 prohibited firearm hoping she would recieve grandfathering >privliges. We now find out that she will not so now we would like to know >where we go from here. You mentioned it would cost the Government >$3,000.00 to confiscate her gun. Could you please supply us with the >necessary info. on how to proceed. I talked two friends into buying >similar guns and they are willing to stick it to them also. Any info you >can give us on this matter would be very much appreciated.
1. They can do nothing about that firearm until 01 Oct 99, because an amnesty is in force.
2. On 01 Oct 99, it becomes illegal for you to have it, and, if you still possess it, you can be charged with a criminal offence for being in possession of it.
3. Therefore, the NFA is working on an arrangement. Roughly, you will send the firearm to ****** in perfect accordance with the law, shortly before 01 Oct 99.
4. The firearm will be held at ******, and the government will be notified where it is.
5. The firearm will then be seized from ******, and that allows you to file an NFA-designed demand for the return of your property.
6. That generates a court hearing to determine the status of the firearm, including a court order as to whether it is to be forfeited to the government or sold by a "prohibited firearm" dealer on your behalf.
7. That sequence of operations is going to cost far more than the value of the firearm being confiscated, about $3000 per firearm taken.
8. Because you were not in physical possession of the firearm at the time of seizure, you are innocent of any possibility of criminal wrongdoing.
9. Because you were the owner at the time of seizure, and you were the person who demanded its return, the court case will be in reference to your demand, and will have nothing to do with ******, so ****** is also innocent of all criminal wrongdoing.
10. Other than signing the demand and dropping it in the mail, you do not have to do anything about the court hearing. Certainly, you can turn up at it, and even argue your case, if you want to -- but that does not affect the cost for confiscation that the government will have to pay -- court costs, salaries for officials and the judge, documentation, etc., etc. It is also possible that the court will force the government to pay compensation for the firearm -- that is a gray area.
11. In many of these cases, it is going to turn out that the seized firearm is NOT a "prohibited firearm," because it has no barrel or cylinder -- and so has no calibre or barrel length. In many others, it will turn out that the firearm is a "prohibited firearm" -- so these court cases will not be a sham, they will be real, both for that determination and for determination of compensation.
It will be very interesting to see how much money the Liberals are willing to invest in seizing junk.
more...
>Thanks for the quick reply...but since I'm not knowledgable about certain >aspects of this situation (and that's why I'm turning to you), your reply >brings up a few other questions:
>1. What is the Abell precendent? (I can assume the answer, but I'd rather >not assume anything at this stage.)
Abell applied for registration of a full auto just before the deadline, 01 Jan 78. The RCMP sat on it, then told her they could not issue (under the new law). The court ruled that the RCMP had to process it under the OLD law, because she had an "accrued right" to receive the document, having done HER part, and that the RCMP could not goof off and then deny her when there was no fault on HER part. FRAS/CFR were ordered to issue, and did issue.
>2. Does your reply mean that they are using the "current" Firearms Act on a >purchase I made before the law came into effect? (I suspect the answer to >that question is "Yes" but I had to ask)
Yes. And that is illegal.
>3. To whom do I make the demand? There are so many people involved now I >have no idea who is repsonsible for completing the registration.
CFR, Box 8885, OTTAWA ON, K1A 3M8. In writing, double-registered mail. And keep a copy.
>4. If the registration is completed under the "old law", what are the >implications of that? Do I have to rebarrel if I want to keep it?
You are covered by the amnesty, SOR/98-467, dated 16 Sep 98, and can legally possess it, unaltered, until 01 Oct 99. By that time, many things may have changed as a result of NFA court actions.
>There are just so many areas and questions - and I'm no lawyer!
Our government relies on that when bullying you and feeding you false information. That is why you need the NFA.
>Following up Peter's suggestion, I do know a dealer who can sell the gun on >consignment for me. He can also order a new barrel from Bar-Sto for about >$300 CAN. I bought the gun for $450. He says that the old barrel can be >registered to him, but he will turn it over for destruction if he has to pay >the $25 registration fee.
There is no "$25 registration fee" for a barrel, because a barrel is not a firearm. The short barrel is a "prohibited device" when separated from the firearm, but ceases to be a "prohibited device" if installed on another firearm. Such a barrel can be possessed by a dealer with the appropriate licence, or by a gunsmith with the appropriate licence, so the alteration can be made in such a way that the barrel never becomes illegal.
>So, some advice...
>If I do get a new barrel, what's to stop me from ordering or buying a >shorter barrel in the future? Couldn't I go south and just buy a barrel from >S&W?
That would be a criminal offence if you smuggled the barrel into Canada, and it is unlikely that you would be permitted to import it legally. It would also convert your firearm back to "prohibited" status, and make it a crime for you to possess it. And it would be a crime to possess the barrel separately.
>The old barrel has no identification markings (i.e. serial number) on it. >How can it be registered to a dealer who is able to handle prohibited >articles?
It cannot.
Advice to all: If you are charged with any firearms offence under CC s. 91, 92, 93, 94 or 95, REMAIN SILENT. Do NOT answer any questions unless your lawyer tells you to, and do not accept the lawyer's advice until AFTER the lawyer has talked to the NFA at (780)439-1394. We have some NASTY surprises for the government in those areas.
David A Tomlinson National President, NFA
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 1999 2:41 PM Subject: Re: F.A.C.
>Well, I have F.A.C. expiring in 2002 and I also will get P.A.L. one day soon, since I >applied for another F.A.C. last July (still waiting, I had big mouth). Why did I pay for a >new licence (spare) in effect to get rid of one that is still valid? Didn't we >misunderstod the spare F.A.C. somehow.
No, you will NOT get a PAL. You will get something that LOOKS like a PAL, but is actually an FAC that automatically BECAME a PAL [FA s. 120 and CC s. 98] on 01 Dec 98. It will not, in law, force your FAC into expiry, and that FAC is now a licence, having automatically been converted in the same way.
Confusing, isn't it?
David A Tomlinson National President, NFA
From: David A Tomlinson [nfadat@telusplanet.net] Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Bulletin # 29 -- MORE INCOMPETENCE!
>Canadian Firearms@CFC 02/03/99 06:05 PM
>Bulletin No. 29
>Transfers
>Under the Firearms Act, to buy, barter, receive as a gift or >inherit a firearm is considered a transfer.
NFA: Correct. Inheritance is a gift from the dead. The definition cited above may be found at FA s. 21.
>As of December 1, >1998, to acquire or to receive a firearm in a transfer, you must >hold a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) or a new >Possession and Acquisition Licence.
NFA: WRONG. You must have a licence -- but the FAC automatically BECAME a licence on 01 Dec 98 [CC s. 98(2) and 120], and remains one until it expires [FA s. 120(3)(a)]. That subtle distinction is very important because the rules for a licence are very different from the rules for the FAC that it used to be before 01 Dec 98.
> You may acquire any class of >firearm (non-restricted, restricted, prohibited) with an FAC >(although to acquire a prohibited firearm both you and the firearm >must have "grandfathered" status).
NFA: For .25, .32 and under 105mm/4.14" barrel handguns, the law is an unholy mess. The requirement for the firearm to be "grandfathered" comes out of a comment in FA s. 12(6), and does not form part of the DEFINITION of those firearms found at CC s. 84(1) "prohibited firearm" (a). This confusion will be sorted out in the courts by NFA-backed actions before the current "stay" on the situation runs out on 08 Oct 99 -- so SIT on your firearms in this class, and ignore the letters that the CFR is sending out trying to panic you into acting before you have to act, trying to bluff you into destroying, exporting or selling your firearm. WAIT. This mess is going to take TIME to sort out.
> Your Possession and >Acquisition Licence will indicate the class of firearm you are >eligible to acquire.
NFA: Unfortunately, your FAC, which is now a Possession and Acquisition Licence, does NOT. have that information.
> During the transfer process the firearm must >become registered to the new owner. All restricted and prohibited >firearms also must be verified before they are transferred.
Correct. There are also several things that the Chief Firearms Officer must "verify" -- that is, confirm by taking the information under oath -- something that CFOs have NOT been doing, in violation of CC s. 126. This Bulletin does not tell you about those requirements, because they mean that the bureaucrats will have to WORK if you know about them and demand that they do what the law REQUIRES them to do, and we are PAYING them to do.
>In cases where a restricted or prohibited firearm was registered in >the RCMP's old system, and the registration information is >relatively complete, a restricted or prohibited firearm will be >considered already verified by the Registrar.
Verification was added to the process because the registrations in the OLD
system were known to be rotten to the core. The IDEA was to ensure that the
firearms registered in the NEW system are supposed to avoid the OLD system's
habit of registering the same firearm in fifty different ways. The FART CD
ROM was supposed to give ONE way to register every conceivable firearm, so
that the OLD system's big problem ("I know it's IN there, but I can't FIND
it, because no one knows what we CALLED it when we registered it!) would not
continue. In the above paragraph, the CFR is admitting that (a) they cannot
register firearms accurately, (b) they cannot correct that big problem, and
(c) the FART is a FAILURE. They have learned that the FART is riddled with
errors, omissions and duplications. THEY ARE ABANDONING THE FART, and that
statement that the old data will be accepted WITHOUT checking it against the
FART is clear evidence that a key part of the NEW registration system has
COLLAPSED.
>Starting January 1, >2003, all non-restricted firearms (most hunting rifles and >shotguns) must be verified by an approved verifier before >transfer.
>The Transfer Process
>There are two key steps to the transfer process. All transfers >must be authorized by your provincial/territorial Chief Firearms >Officer and the firearm must be registered to the person receiving >the firearm - the new owner. Both steps in the transfer process >are conducted by filling in an application form to transfer and >register firearms to new owners, or by giving the information over >the telephone. You can get transfer forms from some businesses, >by calling the CFC toll-free at 1 800 731-4000, and off the CFC >Web site at www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca. To transfer a firearm over the >telephone, again call the CFC toll-free at 1 800 731-4000. The >client service agent will guide you through the transfer process. >When you acquire a firearm, you must pay a $25 transfer fee (per >firearm) at the time of transfer (if by telephone by Visa or >Mastercard only).
NFA: On the other hand, if you move a firearm by loan, rental or 99-year lease, that is NOT, in LAW, a "transfer." All you have to do is hand over the firearm and YOUR registration certificate to the person who gains possession, and that person only needs a Possession Licence -- NOT a Possession and Acquisition Licence [FA s. 33; rentals and leases are forms of "loan"].
>This fee covers the cost of processing and >issuing a registration certificate to you, the new owner.
The fee does NOT apply when the firearm goes to a new possessor by 99-year loan, rental or 99-year lease. It is still registered in your name, but the new possessor is now the "holder" of the registration certificate with your name on it, and is in legal possession. You are legally no longer the possessor or the holder of that registration certificate.
WHY did this Bulletin not TELL you all that? WHY is it left to the NFA to explain all the nasty bits?
> We realize that some of you have been having difficulty with firearms >transfers over the telephone. This is a new program and we are >experiencing delays as we make every effort to fine-tune our >procedures. Please be patient with us. More information on the >transfer process will follow in future bulletins.
This Bulletin is trying to ignore the problem that the LAW requires that a registration certificate -- NOT a Transfer Authorization Number OR an Authorization to Traneport - "IS ISSUED" before the vendor can give the firearm to the buyer [FA s. 23(d)]. It is also trying to ignore the fact that CC s. 91(1) criminalizes the buyer if he or she takes possession of the firearm before he or she is "the holder of...(b) a registration certificate for the firearm."
NFA RED WARNING: This Bulletin is trying to lure YOU into committing an indictable offence -- violating CC s. 126 if you are the vendor, or violating CC s. 91(1) or (2) if you are the buyer. It does not mention the fact that if you cease to be the OWNER of a firearm by accepting money for it, YOUR registration certifcate for that firearm immediately EXPIRES [FA s. 66], and you are criminalized under CC s. 91(1) if you remain in possession of it -- while your buyer is criminalized if HE takes possession of it before the new registration certificate arrives. Any firearm that you cease to be the owner of has an invisible tag on it -- one that says, "Go to gun jail. Go directly to gun jail." Unfortunately, the lunatics who are running the asylum have not set up any "gun jails."
Oh, what a mess! Someone send Idle Annie an aspirin... Her temple is crumbling.
David A Tomlinson National President, NFA
From: David A Tomlinson [nfadat@telusplanet.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 1999 10:37 AM Subject: REALLY?
>"Keeping a shotgun, even a registered one, in a loaded state is against the >law. The weapon must be stored in a locked safe, with its ammunition in a >separate locked safe."
FALSE.
1. An unrestricted firearm may be STORED anywhere, as long as it is unloaded and has a trigger lock on it. It may be taken OUT of storage for any purpose (e.g., cleaning, home protection or just checking it over) at any time when one is at home. Once OUT of "storage," NO STORAGE RULES APPLY TO IT. It cannot be "stored carelessly" or "stored in violation of a regulation" when it is not BEING stored.
2. While it is an offence to load a firearm anywhere that it cannot lawfully be discharged, one may praise the gods that there is no such place in all of Canada. Where is becomes necessary to discharge a firearm in order to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury of onesself or ones family, that discharge is LAWFUL -- and no criminal charge against the shooter will result in a conviction.
>"Visions of bullet riddled trick-or-treaters, mail deliverers and >door-to-door sales people come to mind. Not to mention we're currently >flooding the neighborhoods with police officers. ...And if a ground swell >of support were to build, for taking the fight to these cowardly invaders, >I'd watch with interest - but would be crazy to encourage it."
This is the usual idiocy of the media; in fact, this is the standard prediction of the media in every case where the use of self-protection by firearm becomes popular. It proves only that the media mavens are extremely bad prophets -- because the prophecy NEVER comes true. Possession of a firearm does NOT turn a sane and sensible citizen into a murdering maniac. Why should it?
David A Tomlinson National President, NFA
From: David A Tomlinson [nfadat@telusplanet.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 11:23 AM Subject: Re: Legal issues: Self defense
>> You stated, and I know that you are a Ph.D. and FAC instructor, >that "the only place you.....can have a loaded firearm......is where you >can legally shoot it."
>> What is the legal rationale for that statement. That is to say; >under which section of what act is there any sort of charge available to >the Crown for simply "unlawfully having a loaded firearm".
CC s. 95 now says, "...every person commits an offence who, in ANY place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm UNLESS the person is the holder of (a) an authorization or licence...AND (b) the registration certificate for the firearm."
If you DO have the licence and registration certificate, that is a defence to the above charge.
March 1998 Firearms Act Regulation 15, on page 95, says, "An individual may load a firearm or handle a loaded firearm ONLY in a place where the firearm may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal bylaws."
Fortunately, there is NO place in Canada where you cannot lawfully discharge a firearm if you need to do that in order to prevent death or serious bodily harm being done to you or to someone under your protection. Therefore, Regulation 15 is apparently null and void.
David A Tomlinson National President, NFA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Larry Whitmore - Ontario Handgun Assoc." <ohahq@river.netrover.com> Subject: Authorizations to Transport Applications
Ontario Handgun Association -------------------------------------------
February 12, 1999
AUTHORIZATIONS TO TRANSPORT (ATT) Feb. 12, 1999
Many of you have had your first look at the application form for the Authorizations to Transport. And what a form they are! All of us will have to fill out this monstrosity in order to continue to transport our restricted firearms. Fortunately, the Ontario government had the foresight to extend the expiry dates on most of our permits to next October in order to sort this mess out. The original intent of the Canadian Firearms Centre was to allow the ATT to be valid for one club only. This meant that if you wanted to travel to any other club, you would have to call the 800 number to obtain another permit (only good for one trip) and list all the guns you would be carrying. This procedure is, of course, absolutely ridiculous and the local Firearms Officers would be swamped with requests. Fortunately for us (Ontario), we have a government who does not dance to the Liberal’s tune and has rejected that process. Their interpretation of the Firearms Act will allow you to have one permit valid for 1 to 3 years which will allow you to transport any firearm registered to you to any range approved by the CFO, much like the old permits. The only exception is you will not be able to cross provincial boundaries without another permit. By the way, Ontario is the only province implementing this policy, although we hear that other provinces may follow the example (much to the distress of Ottawa).
How To Fill Out the ATT Ontario has developed policy for the completion of the applications. There are several areas of the application that you need not fill out in regards to listing the firearms, the times, dates and locations (which will be complete by the CFO). Following are the specific instructions on how to fill out those sections:
- Section B of application is not required - Section C box O - enter name of your home club - Section D will be filled out by the CFO - Section E, box 14 - not required if same as registration address - Section E, box 15 enter the following -“all approved ranges for restricted firearms in Ontario” - Section E, box 16 - not required
Please keep in mind that the ATTs must be forwarded to Orillia by the Club secretary in batches. Do not send the application to Orillia alone as it will not be processed.
IMPORTANT NOTE: According to the provisions of C-68, the CFO cannot issue an ATT unless the applicant is in possession of a valid firearms license (FAC, Possession or Possession/Acquisition). The only exception to this is if an applicant is moving to another residence and does not have a valid license. CFOs across the country have agreed to issue an ATT for moving without a license for now, but this is the only exception.
For those of you who travel to the U.S. for competition, you will have to call (1-800-731-4000) for an ATT for each trip, at least for now. The CFO is developing policy to allow for the issuance of yearly border permits.
Best Regards
Larry Whitmore Executive Manager
Ontario Handgun Association 2055 Dundas Street East, Unit 105 Mississauga, On L4X 2V9 (905) 238 3090 fax (905) 238 5269 <http://www3.sympatico.ca/oha>http://www3.sympatico.ca/oha
From: Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1 [BreitG0@parl.gc.ca] Sent: Friday, February 19, 1999 8:38 PM Subject: "COST-EFFECTIVE ARMS CONTROL: YES"
February 18, 1999
COST-EFFECTIVE ARMS CONTROL: YES By Garry Breitkreuz, MP for Yorkton-Melville (Sask) - February 18, 1999
I would like to thank Le Devoir for giving their readers the opportunity to
learn more about the controversial issue of gun control. ("Arms Control:
Yes" by Pierrette Venne, MP - Le Devoir, Page A10, Saturday, February 6,
1999).
I believe Pierrette Venne and I want the same thing from our gun control laws: to reduce the criminal use of firearms, to improve public safety, and to save lives. Where we disagree is on whether or not Canada's current gun control laws will achieve these objectives. Based on the arguments she presented in her article, she appears to support gun control whether it is effective or not, whether it is needed or not and no matter what the price tag.
Gun control laws come at a cost. The price tag for the new registration system for all rifles and shotguns is already $200 million. You will recall back in 1995 when the Minister of Justice estimated it would cost only $85 million over five years. The Department of Justice has also reported that it will cost $50 - $60 million to operate the system every year. Canadians have to ask themselves the following: Is it worth it? Is it going to produce the results that we expect? Are there alternative crime fighting strategies that would produce even better results?
These questions are never asked by those who subscribe to the view that any and all gun control laws are good laws. This is a mistake, because it means the government is not spending our tax dollars where they would do the most good in our fight against crime, especially firearms crime. The "arms control" at any price crowd will even use flawed logic and distorted statistics to defend their personal views.
For example, no one has ever explained to me how placing a registration form beside my gun is going to stop criminals from using their firearms. Existing gun laws couldn't stop madmen like Mark Lapine, Denis Lortie or Valery Fabrikant and the new firearm registry won't either. Nor can anyone explain how putting a piece of paper beside my gun is going to reduce the smuggling and trafficking of firearms into Canada. Real criminals are already breaking many laws. Breaking one more won't matter to them.
Gun registration just doesn't make sense. Spending hundreds of millions to hire more police officers makes perfect sense. But the government is doing the opposite. Statistics Canada reported last week that in 1975 there were 206 police officers for every 100,000 people in Canada. But by 1998, this had dropped to 181 officers for every 100,000 people. No wonder biker gangs and organized crime operate like they own the place.
Secondly, in 1995 Statistics Canada reported, "Only 2% of violent crime victims encountered firearms. The use of knives or blunt objects during an assault was more likely to result in injury to the victim than when a firearm was present." In 1996, Statistics Canada reported "Of the 6,375 violent offences where firearms were involved, 74.9% involved handguns [mostly unregistered] and only 6.9% involved rifles and shotguns."
So according to Statistics Canada, 98 percent of violent crime victims never encountered firearms and 93% of all firearms crimes involved either handguns (that the law has required to be registered for more than 60 years) or other types of firearms that are totally banned under the Criminal Code. Why then is the government wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to register 20 million legally acquired rifles and shotguns in the country? Why spend scare tax dollars chasing duck hunters instead of criminals?
Well the truth is hard to swallow for the anti-gun crowd. They run heavy on emotion and light on facts. What the government did is ignore honest and verifiable Statistics Canada data and conducted their own survey to manufacture their own statistics in a vain attempt to justify the new firearms registry. Only the Mounties found out about their game and exposed it.
In May of 1995 the Department of Justice published a report called, The Illegal Movement of Firearms in Canada which stated that "rifles and shotguns were involved in 51% of violent firearm crimes, airguns were involved in 19%, and handguns were involved in 17% of violent crimes." As you can see this is almost the exact opposite of the data reported by Statistics Canada. How could this be, you ask?
Even the Commissioner of the RCMP was confused. He wrote the Department of Justice complaining about the way the RCMP's own firearms crime data was misrepresented in the department's study. On July 21, 1997 the Commissioner wrote: "The RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes in 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms." He asked the Department of Justice to correct the data or remove it from circulation.
I met with officials of the Department of Justice who tried to defend their flawed study. What happened was they just counted guns recovered at crime scenes. They counted recovered firearms as "involved in crime" even if they were investigating a stabbing. So much for the integrity of the Minister of Justice and her officials.
In closing, I would like to comment on Madame Venne's statement that the purpose of the firearms registration system is "to develop a safety-centred firearms culture." Well I would like to point out that a "culture of safety" already exists among Canada's 7 million law abiding firearm owners. Did you ever wonder why insurance companies don't ask you if you own a firearm when you apply for life, health and liability insurance. According to the actuaries working for the insurance companies, firearm owners are "not an identifiable risk group." If the experts at identifying risk can't find any empirical evidence to demonstrate that gun owners are a risk to themselves, their families and their neighbours, what evidence is the Liberal government using? Distorted statistics like those in Madame Venne's article, I suspect.
If Madame Venne still thinks that I am practising "classic demagoguery" as she states in her article, then I think it's time for a public debate in her constituency - is she up to the challenge?
From: David A Tomlinson [nfadat@telusplanet.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 1999 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: ATT for Prohibited Firearms
>I own a semi auto AK47, cal 223.(Chinese made Norinco, manufactured as semi
>auto). I am grandfathered to own this type and have it registered etc. I was
>told by the local firearms registrar, when they were running things so to
>speak, that although it was generally a prohibited firearm, it was
>considered a grandfathered restricted firearm to me, and therefore my permit
>to carry would permit me to take it to the local range, for target practice.
>The new ATT, Section C, box O, states that it is valid only for restricted
>firearms and prohibited handguns. Is my AK 47 a restricted firearm, or a
>prohibited firearm.(a prohibited handgun it is not)
It is, currently, a prohibited firearm.
>If it is considered a prohibited firearm, do I need to request an ATT every
>time I wish to take it the range for target practice? If so how far in
>advance may I request this.
Unknown. The legislation apparently intended to make the shooting of any
prohibited firearm other than a .25, .32 or short-barrelled handgun
impossible -- but they changed their minds late, and then changed them back
in some areas. It is a mess.
David A Tomlinson
National President, NFA
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 8:41 AM
Subject: US temp move
>I'm moving to the US (temporarily), so I have some questions
>about what the CFC told me (since their answers arent' worth
>the electronic paper they're not written on):
>They tell me:
>* I can temporarily store my prohibited firearms with someone
> else (who is also grandfathered), without transferring
> ownership. This will protect my grandfathered status (.32 & FN FAL)
The proper way to do this is to LOAN the firearms, complete with
registration certificates, to the person who will store them for you. The
load is not a "transfer" [FA s. 21] but the registration certificate MUST
accompany the firearm [FA s. 33]. You will need an Authorization To
Transport (ATT) in order to get them to their storage location legally. All
documents should be carefully preserved, as you may have to prove the "paper
trail" someday. All documents should be photocopied and stored in at least
three locations for the same reason.
>* I can leave the country with restricted firearms WITHOUT having
> them 'de-registered'
Correct -- via the "loan" route.
>* I can apply for a PAL while I'm living in the US & the references
> may also be US residents.
True. Firearms Regulation 2, "Firearms Licences Regulations," page 1, says
the a CFO can issue a licence to you if "the individual engages in or
poposes to engage in lawful activities in Canada that involve the use of
firearms."
>Also, my FAC doesn't expire for a couple of years, but would it be
>better to apply for a new license now before I leave the country?
Apply now, and it will force your FAC, which automatically becme a licence
on 01 Dec 98, to expire. There are horrid complications each way, but
getting the licence now is probably preferable because the licence SAYS you
are qualified for "prohibited firearms" and the FAC covers them, but does
not SAY so.
David A Tomlinson
National President, NFA
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 9:32 AM
Subject: [alert] LEASING VERSUS LENDING...
> I have a firearms/sporting goods dealer who had planned to get out of the
business until he heard about the leasing program and wants to participate.
I have a copy of the leasing agreement. Is there any other information he
needs?
-------------------------------------------------------
Jean Valin of the CFC is now claiming that the FA does NOT allow renting or
leasing, and Ontario at least is apparently buying his arguments and
threatening to prosecute anyone who rents or leases a firearm.
The intent is, apparently, to stop legal leasing arrangements by harassment
through false court actions, which is despicable. Once we have proved in
court that leasing IS allowed under FA s. 33, which seems fairly certain, it
will be possible to sue the Crown for negligent misrepresentation, negligent
provision of a service, negligent provision of shoddy goods (in the form of
printed instructions contrary to law), and related economic losses. Valin
is leading provincial governments into very dangerous waters.
However, it is unequivocal that FA s. 33 DOES allow lending a firearm, and
sets up specific procedures for lending. If you do not wish to be one of
those fighting in court, you may use this pattern of transaction:
Under FA s. 33, you may lend a firearm AND the registration certificate for
that firearm (which MUST exist and MUST accompany the firearm) to any person
who shows you a licence authorizing him to be in possession of that firearm.
One may or may not wish to formally record the loan on paper, but probably
should in order to deal with the situation when a "peace officer" (such as
the reeve of your village or the mayor of your town) demands, under FA s.
105, that one produce a particular firearm for his examination. It is not
an offence to be unable to produce the firearm when such a demand is made.
The law allows a "peace officer" to DEMAND it, but does not provide any
penalty if the registered owner is unable to produce it.
(Apparently, they were intelligent enough to realize that any penalty for
being unable to produce a demanded firearm would inevitably lead, through a
demand for a firearm that was legally transferred and re-registered to a new
owner years earlier, to the exposure in open court of major defects in our
ill-designed registration system.)
Similarly, a copy of a loan agreement kept WITH the registration certificate
in the lender's name is valuable when establishing, under circumstances
where CC s. 117.11 is involved, that the borrower is temporarily the
"holder" of the registration certificate for the firearm, and is in legal
possession of both firearm and registration certificate.
If the lender chooses to demand from the borrower that the borrower leave a
damage deposit approximately equal to the value of the firearm, that is
lawful and need not be recorded in the agreement to lend the firearm. A
damage deposit is not a leasing fee, and if one chooses not to speak about
it to an inquiring officer, silence is not an offence. Lying can be an
offence, but silence is always legal in situations where one is uncertain as
to what one's rights are, and therefore wishes not to say anything before
making contact with a lawyer who knows firearms law or the NFA.
The loan record can be a simple statement on paper saying,
"We, ________________________ (lender's name) and _____________________
(borrower's name), hereby state that the firearm described on registration
certificate No. _____________ and the registration certificate for it, in
accordance with the provisions of Firearms Act section 33, have been loaned
by the former to the latter. We, the undersigned, have mutually agreed that
the said firearm shall be returned to the lender on _____________ (date) or
as mutually agreed to by the parties to this agreement in the future."
The signatures of both parties and the date of lending should appear below
that statement. Done that way, the date of return is EITHER the date
specified or some other date to be MUTUALLY agreed to at some later date.
The document is not a contract (which requires an exchange of value), but is
desirable as a record of the transaction for the reasons stated elsewhere in
this article.
The loan agreement should be signed by both parties, and should be made in
at least four copies -- one to be kept in a secure place in case a "peace
officer" refuses to return the document after looking at it, and one extra
or photocopy each for the lender and the borrower to show to any "peace
officer" (including a bailiff) who wants to see it. It is sad but true that
such "safety" copies are necessary these days.
The borrower should always keep one copy of the loan agreement with the
registration certificate to show that he is the temporary but legal "holder"
of the registration certificate which is in the lender's name.
In the lending agreement, the firearm should be identified only by the
registration certificate number. Once the firearm has been loaned to the
borrower, his possession of the registration certificate makes him the
"holder" of that registration certificate, although the name and address (if
any) on the certificate are not his name or his address. The combination of
FA s. 33 and 59 and CC s. 91(1) and 92(1) make that very clear.
FA s. 33 sets no conditions about the duration of a firearm loan or the
existence of a damage deposit.
If the firearm is a "restricted" or "prohibited firearm," the borrower may
need an additional Authorization To Transport (ATT) or Authorization To
Carry (ATC) covering his possession of it. He is entitled to such an ATT or
ATC for a firearm not registered to him under, FA s. 59. In FA s. 59, it
clearly says that the holder of an ATT or ATC "need not be the person to
whom the registration certificate for the particular prohibited firearm or
restricted firearm was issued." That was specifically designed to cover
loan situations.
This posting will probably provoke another Valin outburst, claiming that the
above transaction is actually a sale, and therefore contravenes the CC s. 99
to 101 "trafficking" laws. It seems unlikely that any prosecution under
those laws could succceed, as they apply ONLY to transactions "not
authorized...under the Firearms Act." Lending IS specifically authorized
by the Firearms Act, and the agreement spells out the fact that the
transaction is a loan. The entire transaction, if conducted as laid out
above, carefully follows the procedures for a loan authorized by FA s. 33.
Simon says, "They wrote it, and if we have to live with it, so do they. If
it does not mean what they think it was supposed to mean, then it is up to
them to amend the law."
David A Tomlinson
National President, National Firearms Association
Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca
Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 8:31 AM
Subject: CFC BULLETIN No. 38
>Canadian Firearms@CFC >11/14/99 05:12 PM
>Bulletin No. 38
>In a Snapshot
>- Your FAC is replaced if you are issued a new licence
NFA COMMENT: FA s. 120(3)(b) voids all FACs that you hold when a licence is
issued.
>- Every firearm owner needs a still valid FAC or a new licence by
>the end of next year
>- New RCMP Report
>Your FAC and New Licences
>If you currently hold a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate
>(FAC) you don't need to get a new firearms licence until your FAC
>expires. Your FAC allows you to both possess and acquire firearms.
NFA: It does not, however, tell the seller what classes of firearms you are
allowed to acquire.
>If you intend, however, to get a possession-only licence when your
>FAC expires, you might want to apply for this licence before
>December 1, 1999 when the fee increases from $10 to $45.
NFA: If you do that, then you cannot acquire any more firearms -- except by
borrowing them, possibly for a very long time. The law sets no time limit
for the TERM of a loan, but you can ONLY borrow a REGISTERED firearm, and
must borrow the registration certificate with it. Then YOU become the
"holder" of that registration certificate -- in someone else's name --
because that is a specific legal exception to FA s. 62 which says that a
registration certificate is "not transferable."
>When your new licence is issued, however, your FAC will be
>cancelled. You can either hold a valid FAC or a licence, not both.
> If you apply for a possession-only licence, therefore, it will
>mean that you will have a five-year licence to possess, but not
>acquire, firearms. A possession and acquisition licence, on the
>other hand, like your FAC, allows you to both possess and acquire
>firearms.
NFA: Therefore, why PAY them to invalidate your valid FAC which BECAME a
licence on 01 Dec 98?
>You should apply for your licence at least 6 months before your
>FAC is due to expire to ensure that you have your licence by the
>day your FAC expires. For more information on filling out an
>error-free licence application, contact the CFC and ask for our f
>act sheet "The Ten Most Common Errors".
NFA: SIX MONTHS?! As a demonstration of just how incompetent they are, that
demand for a six month lead time would be hard to beat. As the NFA keeps
telling you, C-68 Titanic is sinking -- and this is proof that it JUST DOES
NOT WORK.
>All firearm owners who do not hold a valid FAC, must have a new
>firearms licence by January 1, 2001. Apply well in advance.
>Which Firearms Licence to Get?
>You have the choice of one of the two following licences.
>Possession-Only Licence
>- Allows you to continue to possess firearms you owned on December
>1, 1998, not acquire more.
NFA: Except by borrowing -- a gigantic loophole in their "system."
>- Valid for five years.
>- Allows you to borrow firearms in the same class (non-restricted,
>restricted, prohibited) as the firearm(s) your currently own.
>- Only available to Canadian residents.
>- Cannot apply for this licence after January 1, 2001.
>- You don't need the Canadian Firearms Safety Course.
>Again, the cost for a Possession-Only Licence is going up from $10
>to $45 on December 1, 1999.
>Possession and Acquisition Licence
>- Allows you to possess and acquire firearms.
>- Valid for five years.
>- Is available now and after January 1, 2001.
>- You need to have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course test
>to apply;
>- Cost: $60 for non-restricted firearms, $80 for any combination
>of non-restricted and restricted or prohibited firearms.
>You can't register your firearms without first holding a licence
>or valid FAC. You must register all your firearms by January 1,
>2003. You can mail your licence application and registration
>application together. Your licence application will be processed
>first.
NFA: Hogwash. You were automaticcally granted an invisible "deemed"
registration certificate for every unrestricted firearm you owned on 01 Dec
98. Therefore, every firearm you own legally is already registered.
>Application forms for licences and to register your firearms are
>available at your post office, by calling 1 800 731-4000 or by
>printing them off the CFC Web site at www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca .
>The RCMP Annual Report
>The 1998 RCMP Annual Report is now available. You can view and
>download a copy off the Canadian Firearms Registry Web site at
>www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/cfr.htm .
NFA: Much of the useful information found in earlier editions is no longer
published in this Annual Report, making it considerably less valuable for
researchers.
David A Tomlinson
National President, National Firearms Association
Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca
Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #204
>I need advice on how to fill out an Authorization To Transport. So I can
>travel to the range with my handguns. I am mostly a recreational shooter. I
>note they give several options regarding frequency: one time, daily, weekly
>specify days, monthly or other. I want the most flexibility I can get
>because I have a demanding personal schedule and I often work long hours.
>What can I do? Has anyone else had this probelm? What did you do? Is their a
>best choice that your CFO will approved.
DEMAND -- not request -- that you be issued an ATT which is a RENEWAL of the
one you had last year, with "all the same terms and conditions as those on
the ATT which covered my activities in the year 1999."
Attach a photocopy of your 1998-99 Permit to Carry/ATT.
Most CFOs "extended" the 1998 Permits to Carry, telling everyone that those
Permits to Carry would remain valid throughout 1999.
When they did that, they made a very serious blunder. That could only be
done by recognizing the the 1998 Permit to Carry had been CONVERTED into an
Authorization To Transport (ATT) valid in 1999. Under the law as it stood
in 1999, there was no such document as a Permit to Carry -- those Permits
all died with the law that covered them, on 01 Dec 98. The ONLY way one
could be "extended" into 1999 was by converting it into an ATT.
Therefore, you DID have an ATT covering your activities throughout 1999.
That ATT carried the SAME terms and conditions as your 1998 Permit to Carry.
Under the rules of administrative law, there is a DIFFERENCE between an
application for RENEWAL and an application for ISSUE of an ATT. You have a
RIGHT to RENEWAL -- under the same terms and conditions as last year.
The CFOs are now claiming that their 1999 "Permit to Carry" ATTs cannot be
renewed, because the terms and conditions on them are illegal under the new
law.
Catch-22. If they ISSUED (by "extending") illegal ATTs for 1999, THEY are
criminals, guilty of an indictable offence under CC s. 126. That law says
that anyone who does something forbidden by an Act of Parliament, or
neglects to do something required by an Act, is guilty of an indictable
offence and is liable to two years in prison.
Therefore, APPLY for your RENEWAL -- carefully specifying that it IS a
renewal, and NOT a new issue ATT -- DEMANDING that they renew your ATT with
the SAME terms and conditions as last year.
If they refuse -- or if they issue you a limited ATT with DIFFERENT terms
and conditions -- then they have violated the rules of administrative law.
You may appeal to a provincial court judge.
In court, they must make the argument that last year's ATT was illegal. At
that point, you can demand that they be PROSECUTED under CC s. 126. If you
have a good judge, he may well order prosecution to begin -- and the CFO
will have to defend himself by claiming that what he did for 1999 actually
WAS legal.
Then he is on the hook for perjury -- for lying in the FIRST hearing by
claiming that the 1999 ATTs were illegal, so he could not issue a similar
ATT covering 2000.
Ontario ATTs now specify any registered firearm (even those NOT registered
to the holder) and authorize their transport to any range in Ontario and to
any border-crossing point -- so NO NOT accept their verbal statement that
they terms and conditions YOU would like are "impossible" or "illegal."
Such statements are merely lies, made up by incompetent bureaucrats trying
to justify harassing you.
Simon says, "Hey, if WE have to obey the rules Ottawa sets up, SO DO THEY."
David A Tomlinson
National President, National Firearms Association
Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca
Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@mail.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 1999 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Time table to 2003
>For all of us who are confused about the time table to register
>themselves and their firearms, could someone in the NFA post a detailed
>time table of deadlines that have to be met to comply with this assine
>law. I would like to see a list of dates and actions that have to
>followed by those dates.
1. You have been granted an invisible "deemed" licence that covers ONLY all
firearms possessed on 01 Dec 98, and is valid until 01 Jan 2001, whether you
had a valid FAC on 01 Dec 98 or not.
2. If you acquired a firearm AFTER 01 Dec 98, the invisible "deemed"
licence does NOT cover it, but the visible FAC/licence DOES -- until it expires.
3. Every valid FAC held on 01 Dec 98 became a licence on 01 Dec 98. There
is no such thing as an FAC any more. These FAC/licence documents are valid
until their expiry date.
4. Combining that, if your FAC/licence is valid until some date AFTER 01
Jan 2001, you do not need a new licence until it expires.
5. If your FAC/licence expires BEFORE 01 Jan 2001 AND you have acquired a
firearm AFTER 01 Dec 98, possession of that newly-acquired firearm will
criminalize you INSTANTLY if your FAC/licence expires.
6. If your FAC/licence expires BEFORE 01 Jan 2001 AND you have NOT acquired
a firearm AFTER 01 Dec 98, possession of the invisible "deemed" licence will
cover you until 01 Jan 2001.
7. All green paper registration certificates expire on 31 Dec 2002 [FA s.
127(2)(b)]. The new plastic ones do not.
Is that perfectly clear?
David A Tomlinson
National President, National Firearms Association
Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca
Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1
From: Dave Tomlinson [nfadat@pop.telusplanet.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: A "MUST READ" FOR FERAL MONITORS AND ANNIE!!! Pt.II
>"The Firearms Act requires that I provide you with a valid FAC/PAL and a valid
>membership for an approved club or range when applying for a renewal of my
>ATT...
Er... No, actually. The Firearms Act does NOT require you to have
"membership" in an approved club or range to get an ATT. The March 1998
Regulations do not require that either.
Under the previous Act, a commercial range had to have a shooting club as
part of the operation because only a shooting club could get approval to
operate a shooting range. That allowed the firearms control bureaucrats to
say that they would not issue permits to take guns to shooting ranges if you
were not a club member, because no one but a club member could shoot at a
range! That was never true -- many clubs allowed casual shooters on day
passes at their ranges -- but they used it.
Under today's law, however, approval to operate a shooting range is
available to "any PERSON (individual or corporation -- emphasis added)"
under the terms of Firearms Act section 29.
Therefore, when the CFO's office demanded that I prove membership in a club,
I simply pointed out that membership in a club is no longer required. I can
legally shoot at a purely commercial range without belonging to ANY club.
Mutter, mutter, mutter... He was not happy with me, but what can he do?
Simon says, "It is intelligent to KNOW exactly what the law requires. Only
when you know the law better than they do can you tie theirr tails into
small, painful knots."
David A Tomlinson
National President, National Firearms Association
Ph: (780)439-1394 Fax: (780)439-4091 natpres@nfa.ca
Box 1779, EDMONTON AB, T5J 2P1
Last updated:
Thursday, November 25, 1999 07:21 PM