Sorry JEAN, but IT’S NOT OVER

Jean Chretien’s Liberal colleagues are now desperately attempting child psychology in order to break the morale of the firearms community. Repeated statements by Liberal members "that the debate is over" will not generate capitulation by firearms owners. It’s not over until we say it’s over. The very successful FED UP II Rally provided the impetus for the antis to create yet another spin for the need of the new Firearms Act. The spin to the public is now safety - "gun control" must have been last year’s PR ploy. The government is insisting that firearms are "inherently dangerous" and so require registration for public safety. Does this mean that a firearm plus a piece of paper (registration certificate) is less "inherently dangerous"? The general public is aware that criminals will not register their firearms, now we must explain that registration certificates will NOT decrease accidents, suicides or homicides.

As many are probably aware, the Province of Alberta and the firearms community lost a split 3-2 decision in the Alberta Supreme Court. This case focused on the constitutional right of the federal government to register firearms. It is truly amazing that the Alberta Supreme Court would agree with the Federal Government of the need to register millions of legally owned firearms and override provincial jurisdiction of property. Hopefully, the Province of Alberta and its allies will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. This law must and will be repealed. . The predicted non-compliance rate of 40% will turn ordinary law abiding Canadians into outlaws. How this law can be described as contributing to "peace, order, and good government" is difficult to imagine

Firearms groups across the country were suckered in to fighting "gun control". What fight? We are all in favour of some control. Who among us wishes criminals and mentally unstable individuals to have access to firearms? This control was already provided in the form of Firearms Acquisition Certificates and the accompanying police record checks. Lazy reporting by the media has led the general population into believing that this legislation is needed for the public good. It is up to firearms owners to dispel this myth by winning over one person at a time. However, for faster results and to be more effective, we will have to mount our own (expensive) media campaign.

The current members of the RFOC, together with members of other pro firearms groups, have been doing their best with limited funds. What is needed is for ALL firearms owners to learn how this legislation will impact themselves. We cannot win this fight without public support, and public support will only come after public education. Public education costs money - LOTS of money. Lapsed members are encouraged to rejoin the fight. All members are encouraged to disseminate this newsletter to other firearms owners and entreat them to finance the struggle to educate the general public.

Under the Firearms Act, to transfer means to sell, barter or give away. Starting December 1, 1998, if you are at least 18 years of age, you may acquire (receive in a transfer) non -prohibited ammunition if you hold a valid piece of identification that is issued by a government body and that has your date of birth on it.

Starting January 1, 2001 you will need a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) or a new Firearms Licence to acquire non -prohibited ammunition. Currently, if you are a minor (12 to 17 years old) you need a valid minor’s permit issued under the old Act (C-17) to acquire non-prohibited ammunition. Starting December 1, 1998 you will need either a valid minor’s permit or a new Minor’s Possession Licence to acquire non-prohibited ammunition.

CFC Bulletin # 21

The Canadian Institute for Legislative Action takes great pride in announcing it's appointment to the United Nations / Legislative Sub-Committee of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities. The appointment of CILA, by WFSA President Carlo Peroni, marks the introduction of a key Canadian player to the international stage. Canada has never before been represented to the recreational firearms community of the world and this move represents a great stride forward for Canadians in the struggle against international efforts to eradicate private firearms ownership.

CILA will sit on this Committee with such luminaries as Tanya Metaksa, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA, Nick Alexakos, President of IPSC International, Keith Tidswell of the Sport Shooters Association of Australia and many other respected individuals of the world firearms community. Ms. Metaksa is the Chairperson of the UN/Legislative Committee.

CILA Bulletin # 9

On Monday, April 20th, 1998 at a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice, Peter MacKay, MP asked Justice Minister Anne McLellan about the cost of the firearms registration system. Mr. MacKay asked, "I want to ask you specifically how much money has been spent thus far? What is the projected cost of a system that is anticipated to be up and running by the year 2000?"

On May 15, 1998, the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Denis Desautels, sent Garry Breitkruez M.P., a letter refusing to conduct an audit to answer the question "What Will Bill C-68 Cost Taxpayers?" The Auditor General advised he did not have the authority to look into future government expenditures.

On May 21st in an article by Sean Durkan in the Ottawa Sun ("New gun registry cost shooting up") we get another set of figures: Durkan's article said, "Jean Valin, a spokesman for the new firearms centre, said the estimated one-time cost of setting up the universal registry of all firearms and owners in Canada has climbed from $85 million to $120 million. The $120 million figure does not include operational costs once the registry is up and running. The government is remaining coy about these, though. The total cost of gun control this year will peak at $133.9 million."

During the interview Valin told Durkan that they didn't provide the Standing Committee on Justice with these new figures last month because Members of Parliament didn't ask the right questions.

What could be any clearer than the question Mr. MacKay asked the Minister?

The officials in the Department of Justice will tell a newspaper reporter the costs but not Members of Parliament? Why did the officials mislead Members of the Standing Committee on Justice with their evasive answers? Will the public understand how the department can claim that the total start-up costs will be $120 million, but this fiscal year alone the department will spend $133.9 million? Nor does the explanation in the newspaper clarify if this $133.9 million includes expenditures by the RCMP and other so-called "departmental partners."

There have been many reports of firearms owners being charged with "improper storage" subsequent to reporting a theft of a firearm. Victims of real crime are now being charged with regulatory crime. Will firearms owners who have been victimized by a thief continue to report these crimes if they face the possibility of criminal charges against themselves? The possibility of criminal charges, legal defence fees and confiscation of any remaining firearms may deter many from reporting a firearm theft. How will this possibly lead to a safer society? How many more rules will the government dream up for the ownership of private property? What’s next - safe axe storage?