National Firearms Association preliminary Analysis of Regulations tabled Oct 30, 1997 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 16:38:59 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: NFA comments on the Firearms Act implementation schedule > Following a review of the proposed set of regulations by both > Houses (House of Commons and Senate) the final regulations will be > made as law (expected early 1998) > > Beginning in February 1998, the Canadian Firearms Centre will > start a comprehensive information campaign to inform all target > audiences that starting October 1st, 1998, the new Act comes into > effect. TILT! If C-68 "comes into effect" on 01 Oct 98, how can "regulations" be made under the authority of C-68 BEFORE 01 Oct 98? > [INLINE] On June 1st, 1998, all businesses will start to register the > firearms in their inventory on the registry system. Between June 1st, > 1998 and October 1st, 1998, the Firearms Centre's processing site will > start inputting data and can receive advance information from firearms > businesses that want to record their inventories on the system prior > to the first day of implementation. TILT! How can registration begin before C-68 "comes into effect" on 01 Oct 98? > [INLINE] Firearms owners can, on a voluntary basis over the next 4 > years beginning October 1st, 1998, register the firearms they already > owned. On December 31st, 2002, all firearms must be registered. The new practice of registering only the "frame or receiver" is causing the Liberals severe problems, as it is usually not possible to tell which class a firearm registered that way falls into -- and the rules for transfers are based on which class the firearm falls into. That is a pity -- but our expert assistance in drafting a law that would be workable was firmly rejected by the "experts" in Anne McLellan's Department of Justice. The new practice of registering by filling in all blanks on the Application to Register with "UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN, UNKNOWN..." is also causing the Liberals severe problems. That is not OUR fault. It is simply what the law requires. We have to obey the law -- BUT SO DO THEY, AND THE NFA WILL HOLD THEIR NOSES TO IT. > [INLINE] Registration Fees for any number of firearms you own are on a > sliding scale. > > Registration Fees > October 1st, 1998 > to > September 30th, 1999 > $10.00 Remember: The fee being charged can be changed at any time, without warning, and without Parliament looking at the new fees [FA s. 117(p) and 119(1)]. > October 1st, 1999 > to > June 30th, 2000 > = > $14.00 > > On > or > after July 1 st, 2000 > = > $18.00 Anyone who thinks that the fees above and below are ACTUALLY going to STAY at the levels described above until "July 1 st, 2000" is living in cloud-cuckoo land. > [INLINE] Licencing fees schedules for possession only licences are on > a similar sliding scale. For example: > The possession-only licence (most common type) will cost: > October 1st, 1998 > to > September 30th, 1999 > = > $10.00 > > October 1st, 1999 > to > June 30th, 2000 > = > $45.00 > > On > or > after July 1 st, 2000 > = > $60.00 > By January 1st, 2001, FAC's will cease to be valid. Therefore you have > until December 31st, 2000 to obtain a new licence. An FAC is a record of a contract between the buyer and the government. The government here proposes to abrogate the contract, in direct defiance of the law [FA s. 120(3)(a)]. It also proposes to alter the legislation [FA s. 120(3)(a)] by issuing an Order in Council. The NFA will fight government's attempts to do so. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Is this another demonstration of the arrogance, ignorance and incompetence of Minister of Justice Anne McLellan and her merry bureaucrats? ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:53:45 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: NEW REGULATIONS! WHEE! >Does any of these new laws or changes to the laws affect the NFA policy >of registering all firearms by filling all the blanks with "Unknown"s? Yes, that advice is still valid -- and very important for the personal safety of every firearms owner. Yes, they are trying to address it in the new regulations, which I have just received. The new regulations are, as usual, unworkable. Today I will discuss JUS-97-307-01, "FIREARMS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES REGULATIONS." First, it is quite unclear HOW regulations that are made under the authority of section 117 of the Firearms Act are currently being examined by Committees of Parliament when the Firearms Act is not yet in force -- and is not scheduled to come into force until 01 Oct 98. The cart is leading the horse by about a year. The new regulations order the Registrar [see FA s. 82 and 31] to allot a "firearm identification number" [FIN] to every firearm ENTERING the system. What do they plan to do in order to attach an FIN to firearms ALREADY IN the system? You must attach the FIN "sticky" or engrave or stamp the FIN into the "frame or reciever" "within 30 days after issuance of the certificate." All current "restricted weapons" already HAVE registration certificates. How this new rule applies to them is most unclear. If the firearm (in the opinion of the Registrar) does not have a Serial number good enough to distinguish it from its littermates, he "shall issue" WITH the registration certificate a "sticky" with the FIN on it, and attach a condition to the registration certificate requiring the possessor to make certain that the firearm bears its "sticky" OR the FIN stamped or engraved on the "frame or receiver" -- within 90 days of receiving the registration certificate. We confidently expect that they will have to use the FIN alternative for most military surplus firearms -- in original collector condition, or as sporterized. Very few such firearms have "unique" Serial numbers. They usually have littermates with the same markings. The act does not provide the Registrar with the authority to attach a condition to a registration certificate. It is most unclear as to HOW he could to this. The English and wording of the regulations, as usual, is bad. It says the Registrar "MAY allow" the firearms owner to stamp or engrave the FIN instead of using his delightful little "sticky." Does that mean one must ask permission? Carrying one's hat and firearm all the way to the Registrar's nest in the Maritimes? Or what? Odd -- the last time I checked, there was no visible authority in the Act to issue a regulation requiring the owner to be treated in this abusive way, other than FA s. 117(a), which I suspect is not broad enough to cover this mess. Nor was there any authority to set up an FIN system. There is a bit of a problem with the requirement to attach, engrave or stamp the FIN on the "frame or receiver." Many firearms do not HAVE a "frame or receiver." And some have TWO or more. Neither problem is addressed in these Mickeymouse regulations, although the CFC is aware of them. Or -- it is if it does not throw NFA submissions into the wastebasket without reading them. The FIN must be in plain sight -- unless (range of conditions here). That is going to be tricky on many firearms. The "sticky" problem the NFA Identified for them a long, long time ago - -- that the "sticky" will have to resist attack from the vast array of solvents, preservatives and lubricants used on firearms -- has been neatly solved. Regulation 8 tells the possessor of the firearm that he or she "shall ensure that the sticker...remains attached to the firearm...and that the number remains legible." It goes on to say, "The holder...shall advise the Registrar WITHOUT DELAY if the sticker bearing the [FIN] becomes detached...or is obscured or if the number...becomes illegible." When that happens, "the Registrar SHALL WITHOUT DELAY issue a new sticker...and the holder SHALL ENSURE that the sticker is attached...WITHOUT DELAY on receipt." [Emphasis added in above two paragraphs -- DAT] By putting the responsibility on the head of the firearm's possessor, they seem to have exceeded their authority. It is going to be an interesting period for the courts when they try to ENFORCE this mess. The first problem, of course, is to determine which solvents, preservatives and lubricants cause the "sticky" to fall off, blur, or become illegible. I strongly urge anyone who comes across a "sticky" removing substance to post the information to CFD immediately -- so that we can let everyone know about it. After all, if many people happened to use it -- and their "stickies" fell off, or the numbers blurred or became unreadable -- THINK how many new "stickies" would be demanded of the poor hard-working Registrar! We MUST save him from that peril. Regulation 3 requires the Registrar to "attach a condition" to every registration certificate requiring the holder to "advise the Registrar, within 60 days of the modification, of (a) any modification to the firearm that COULD result in a change of class of the firearm, and (b) any modification to the action, calibre, or barrel length IF it is registered as a frame or receiver, whether or not the modification results in a change of class of the firearm." Note two things: Change it BACK within the 60-day limit, and no notification is required. And you can, if you wish, notify the Registrar IMMEDIATELY. Whee! Are we going to have fun with THAT one! Let's see; my four Browning handguns can be turned into 16 different firearms (4 "restricted firearms" and 12 "prohibited firearms") simply by swapping top halves ( a 10-second operation). I wonder how often I will submit changes? And my two Thompson Center Contenders can be unrestricted rifles, unrestricted shotguns, "restricted firearms", "prohibited firearms..." Regulation 9 then goes on to say that "the Registrar SHALL revoke a registration certificate IF (b) [he] is advised [of a modification under 3(a) or 3(b)]." [Emphasis added -- DAT] That is most interesting. IF you do not notify the Registrar, you contravene the regulation. If you DO, he revokes your registration certificate -- and you are automatically criminalized -- quite possibly, without your knowledge. Quite certainly, looking at the (probably illegal) regulation 10 delivery notice timing, with no chance to stay within the law. And then you are eligible for up to 5 years in prison [C-68's CC s. 91], for having a firearm without a registration certificate for it. Last time I looked, that was a Charter violation. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:55:57 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: WHEE! NEW REGULATIONS! Continued -- 2 Part 2 DOWNLOAD, PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE: Looking at the proposed "firearms registration" regulations, it is apparent that insufficient thought has been given to ENFORCEMENT of those regulations. The only vehicle for enforcement seems to be C-68's Criminal Code section [C-68 CC s.] 86(2), which is a slightly modified copy of the current CC s. 86(3). C-68's CC s. 86(2) says: "Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act..." However, the only authority in C-68 that MIGHT give the Minister authority to issue Order in Council JUS-97-307-01 "FIREARMS REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES REGULATIONS" is FA s. 117(a), not 117(h). Therefore, there seems to be no way that most of the regulations in JUS-97-307-01 can be ENFORCED. Refusing to comply with them does not, at this time, seem to be any form of an offence, so there is no penalty attached to not giving the Minister what she is demanding. Dave Tomlinson, NFA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 10:59:18 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: II -- WHEE! NEW REGULATIONS! (part 1) part 1 Today, we will consider Order in Council JUS-97-439-01, "SHOOTING CLUBS AND SHOOTING RANGES REGULATIONS." A copy of this has been sent to the CFC, and I challenge the CFC to reply to this paper, POINT BY POINT. These regulation are made, apparently, under the authority of Firearms Act section [FA s.] 117(d) and (e), written by the CFC, and approved by Minister of Justice(?) Anne McLellan. These regulations EXEMPT ranges that are "part of the premises of a licensed business" -- ONLY if the range "is used only by owners and employees of the business who hold a licence authorizing the holder to acquire restricted firearms." There is interesting scope in that exemption. Explore it. Similarly, "a shooting range that is used only by public officers...is exempt." If the object of the regulations is in fact, as Minister of Justice Anne McLellan is so fond of saying, "safety" -- then how can those exemptions be justified? Is it RIGHT or FAIR for the Minister to put the employees of a business and public officers at risk -- by NOT making them live up to any safety rules -- merely to show favoritism to people the Liberal Party wants to butter? Taking that in reverse: If the Minister TRUSTS the businesses and police to set their own safety standards and adhere to them, then WHY will she not trust the firearms community to do the same? We have already been doing it for 200 years -- and our record of accidents and injuries is FAR better than either business or police ranges! Regulation 3 requires the name, address, email address, fax number and phone number of "each owner, operator, employee who handles firearms and [each] range safety officer" be on the application for approval of the range. More information for burglars -- this time going to a far less secure file system. The application for approval must include a map of the range and surrounding area that "could be affected," and "the land use of that portion." It must include a copy of "the proposed safety rules." Regulation 3 (2)(c) says it must include "evidence of $2 million of comprehensive BUSINESS liability insurance including errors and omissions insurance with continuous coverage." [Emphasis added -- DAT] "BUSINESS" liability isurance? Hey, McLellan -- look at the law. There is no provision in the law for allowing a BUSINESS to gain approval for a shooting range -- and that is why there are so few commercial ranges. The few commercial ranges that DO exist have to lease the premises and operation to a CLUB. With this one regulation, you have destroyed every shooting club in Canada -- because they are NOT "businesses." They are CLUBS, and cannot have "BUSINESS" insurance. Nor can they convert themselves into "businesses." The law does not allow a business to operate a shooting range. Catch-22! It must also include evidence of compliance with "applicable zoning laws", "copies of an evidence of compliance with, any operating licences required by federal, provincial or municipal laws" and "evidence that the shooting range complies with any federal, provincial or municipal legislation that applies to the establishment and operation of such a facility in regard to environmental protection." That requirement is apparently illegal. The federal government cannot require you to prove to it things that non-federal legislation requires you to prove to some other level of government. That is double-dipping, double jeopardy and dirty pool. It must contain every club officer's and range safety officer's name, address, email address, fax number, phone number, and firearms licence number or date of birth if he or she has none. MORE records in insecure storage. It must include "the articles of incorporation of the club, or other documentation sufficient to demonstrate that IT IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION." [Emphasis added -- DAT] Now go back and re-read my comments on the requirement for "BUSINESS liability insurance." Regulation 5(1)(a)(ii) is a dilly. It requires that the "operator" of a shooting range "promotes the safety of all persons on the shooting range, INCLUDING BY ACCOMODATING ANY ADAPTATION THAT MAY BE APPROPRIATE..." That one sets the scene for a requirement that the range MUST upgrade to a standard under which no bullet fired from the firing point CAN go beyond the range backstop by expensive overhead and side bulletproof baffles. Quebec has already used that type of regulation to close down most of the local ranges in Quebec, and Anne McLellan is here setting the stage to close down most OTHER ranges. Regulation 5(1)(f) requires that "if more than one person is engaged in shooting...a person acts as the range officer." How many clubs can afford to have a range officer doing nothing but officiating every time there are two people at the range? Just two? Yep. If the second person shoots instead of officiating, there is "more than one person engaged in shooting." [cont'd in part 2] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 11:01:42 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: II -- WHEE! NEW REGULATIONS! (part 2) part 2 [cont'd from part 1] Renewal is required every 5 years, and every document required must be submitted at that time, along with "evidence of continuing compliance." That evidence may be demanded by the Chief Firearms Officer "once in a calendar year" or more often if the CFO has received in the preceding 12 months, "a personal injury report...or a change report" or "has reason to believe that the continued operation of the shooting range may endanger the safety of any person." Any change to the range that changes the application data requires the filing of a change report. Regulation 13 says that the "operator of an approved shooting club" (who would THAT be?) "SHALL keep records" on every club member that include the name, address, phone number, membership number, and firearms licence number or date of birth (just how does date of birth form a substitute for a firearms licence?). MORE files in insecure locations! Such records must be kept for 6 years after the person of record dies, or othewise becomes irrelevant to the club. The CFO can demand a report containing any or all of those records at any time, a record of the shooting activities of any member "within the previous five years." The CFO mauy also demand a report of any GUEST's participation in the club's shooting if the guest was licenced to have a "prohibited firearm" [e.g., a .25, .32 or under 4.14"/105mm barrelled handgun." Just how the club is supposed to determine that some casual guest of a member falls into this category and therefore requires that a record of his presence be kept for "six years" -- in some way that makes that record always instantly findable -- is not explained. Regulation 15 makes notice of revocation of the club's approval possible in ways that can create a situation where no one learns of the revocation for months after the revocation has come into effect, and members of the club are unknowingly criminalized by happenings they are completely unaware of. These regulations seem designed to strangle all small clubs that do not have an employee on duty at all times when the shooting range is open. Fortunately, much of this -- again! -- seems to be unenforceable, because the authority to demand compliance is missing or unclear. Again, take note of how this Minister exempted the friends/pets of the Liberal Party -- business ranges (armored car services, etc.) and "public official" (mostly police) ranges. If the intent is "safety", WHY were they exempted? Is "safety" not important for the protection of people on THOSE ranges? Or is McLellan just trying to protect her Liberal Party "pets" from the damaging effects of her regulations? The firearms community gravely suspects that the intent is not "safety." The intent is to strangle the small local clubs, leaving us with no place to shoot. Her exemption of her "pets" goes a long way toward proving that our suspicions are absolutely correct. Bill C-68 gives some power to strangle, but these regulations seem to go far beyond what C-68 authorizes -- much of it moving toward the strangling our small clubs. Our shooting clubs and firearms community members have a fantastically good safety record. The NFA sells $2 million liability to ANY club or individual, ANYWHERE in Canada, using ANY type of small arms for ANY recreational purpose -- for $4.75 per person covered per year. That insurance covers unsupervised hunting, fishing, and shooting at any range in Canada or the continental US. Insurance companies do not care about Liberal Party theories on "safety." They care about FACTS and PROFIT. They make fat profits on NFA liability insurance, because firearms community clubs and member ARE safe. We could not get those cheap rates unless we had long-standing PROOF that our people are SAFE. And we DO have those cheap rates. This clueless Minister of Justice thinks she can do better than we have PROVED we can do -- by bullying us into doing it HER way? No. We reject her arrogance. We proclaim her ignorance and incompetence, and we fight her attacks on the firearms community. The NFA will meet her in court. Take a look at her record on the Canadian Firearms Safety Course [CFSC]. OUR safety courses continue to be safe -- accidents are very nearly unknown. HER CFSC program has had accidental discharge after accidental discharge -- while supposedly using only deactivated or replica firearms and dummy ammunitions. It has had INJURY accidents. The NFA has done what it can to improve the CFSC, but the CFC is miserably SLOW to take ACTION when a correction to CFC procedures, equipment or course material is URGENTLY required for SAFETY. We are being attacked by a Minister who is arrogant, ignorant and incompetent. If she succeeds in taking full control of our shooting ranges, the results will be like the results when she and her predecessor took control of "safety" training -- ACCIDENTS! INJURIES! It is not SAFE to cede control to this Minister. We have to fight this Minister, and PREVENT her from destroying the shooting-range safety that we have all worked so hard and so long to create. She and her bureaucrats are simply NOT COMPETENT to do the job that they are trying to take away from our own people. LOOK at their record with the CFSC! It is HORRIBLE. They created an UNSAFE course, appointed UNSAFE "Master Instructors" and "Instructors," and predictably had an accidental discharge rate FAR higher than any other firearms organization in Canada. They must NOT be allowed control -- because they are UNSAFE. One last point. The new "improved" CFSC is to be written and produced by a contractor. A Western company -- Christie Communications -- bid $572,450 to write and produce that improved CFSC. The Liberals gave the job to the SAME contractor that produced the present gravely defective and unsafe CFSC - -- although that contractor's bid was $900,000, and it had already PROVED its incompetence by producing an UNSAFE course that required revision by the NFA before we could insure instructors teaching it. We could not insure CFSC Instructors who taught the original course -- it was far too dangerous. The stench of corruption overriding SAFETY and overriding the DUTY of the Minister's staff to ensure that our tax dollars are spent wisely and economically is rising into the air. The NFA attacks that corruption. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Any regulation can DEMAND that you do certain things. YOU are the person who needs to LOOK at the penalties -- if any -- that you will be hit with if you do not comply with their demands. The real intent is to strangle the small clubs, and eventually leave only the shooting ranges that are "exempted" -- for NO GOOD REASON -- by this set of regulations. [end part 2 of 2] ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:22:31 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: III REGULATIONS, GUN SHOWS (part 1) Yawn. Schatzi dug me out of bed at 5:30 this morning -- something about a dire need for breakfast -- NOW! So -- as long as I'm up anyway, here is the story on Order in Council [OIC] JUS-97-480-01, "GUN SHOWS REGULATIONS": A "gun show" [GS] is defined as "an event or occasion that includes the display, offering for sale or sale of firearms, whether or not as part of a larger event or occasion, AND that is either a sales gun show [SGS] or a display gun show [DGS]." The class GS is to be divided into "display gun show" [DGS] and "sales gun show" [SGS]. At a DGS, no sales or trades are allowed. An event is an SGS if it includes having firearms present at the show and offered for sale. As usual, those definitions are muddleheaded English, running in circles. Look at them closely, and you will notice that a GS is defined as being either an SGS or a DGS -- while an SGS or a DGS is a particular type of GS! It is not possible to know what an SGS or a DGS are until you know what a GS is, but it is not possible to know what a GS is until you know what an SGS and a DGS are! Catch-22. With definitions that circular, no clarity is possible. For example, you are probably familiar with the habit of antique dealers gathering in malls for a day or weekend of business, and with their habit of having antique buy-sell-trade events in halls. The presence of even ONE firearm at such an event apparently triggers full enforcement of these regulations by turning the event into an SGS under these regulations. Is that intentional? Or just another display of incompetence? Regulation 2 says: "These regulations apply to (a) all sales gun shows; and (b) all display gun shows unless the chief firearms officer of the province...determines that the display gun show (i) is not the primary activity of the event...; and (ii) is held solely for instructional or educational purposes." Regulation 3 says: "No person may sponsor a gun show unless [he] (a) has been approved as the sponsor of the gun show by the chief firearms officer...; and (b) holds a firearms BUSINESS licence that authorizes only the sponsorship of gun shows and, in partidcular, of that gun show." Please note that the word "person" means either an individual (a human being) OR a corporation, such as a business or a club. Under that rule, no INDIVIDUAL who owns a firearm can sponsor a gun show. Firearms Act section [FA s.] 56(2) says clearly, "Only one licence may be issued to any one individual." Therefore, any individual who has a C-68 licence or an FAC that has been "grandfathered" as a C-68 licence cannot get ANOTHER "licence" to sponsor a gun show. The CFC is trying to get around FA s. 56(2) by ignoring it, but that is NOT going to work. FA s. 56(2) does NOT say, "Only one licence OF EACH TYPE can be..." It says "Only one LICENCE can be issued..." It is true that there are several TYPES of C-68 licence, but FA s. 56(2) is absolute. ONE licence per customer, regardless of what types are on offer. If you have a C-68 licence of one type, YOU CANNOT GET ANOTHER OF ANOTHER TYPE. FA s. 56(2) is probably another example of the Department of Justice's notorious lack of even elementary skill at drafting legislation, but -- IT IS THE LAW. If Parliament did not want that effect, Parliament should have amended Bill C-68. The NFA did point out the problem -- but either no one was listening, or the mess that 56(2) creates was intentionally included in the Act. Because of FA s. 56(2), for example, a dealer who is also an IPSC shooter and a full auto firearms collector MUST have all his firearms -- business AND personal -- licenced on ONE very complicated licence, unless he incorporates the business and gets another business licence -- one made out to the corporation. Awkward! Therefore, no corporation that holds a firearms business licence can sponsor a gun show, because that would require issuing a SECOND licence to the corporation. Therefore, only a club can sponsor a gun show -- and then only if the club does not hold any other type of C-68 licence. There is some question as to whether or not a non-profit club can take out a BUSINESS licence without jeapordizing its non-profit status. It may be that NO ONE can "sponsor" a gun show. There is also a question as to whether or not a "business" licence can be issued to a corporation that is NOT a "business" as defined by FA s. 2 "business" -- "means a person who carries on a business [WHY can they not get it through their thick heads that you NEVER use the word you are defining as PART OF THE DEFINITION?] that includes (a) the manufacture, assembly, possession, purchase, sale, importation, exportation, display, repair, restoration, maintenance, storage, alteration, taking in pawn, transportation, shipping, distribution or delivery of firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, prohibited devices, or prohibited ammunition, (b) the possession, purchase or sale of ammunition, or (c) the purchase of cross-bows, and includes a museum." Clearly, a club does NOT fit that definition. Regulation 4(1) says that the chief firearms has the authority to issue the required licence to the sponsor. It requires the "applicant" to submit the application "At least 60 days before a proposed gun show." The application must include: (a) the applicant's name, address, email address, and phone and fax numbers; (b) the show's location; (c) the dates and hours of show operation; (d) whether it is an SGS or a DGS; (e) description of proposed security measures; and (f) a preliminary list of exhibitors, divided into display and sales exhibitors. Regulation 4(2) says that the (nearly impossible) non-firearms-owning "individual" who sponsors a show must also supply evidence of Canadian citizenship or at least permanent residence. A sponsoring (also nearly impossible) non-firearms "business" must supply evidence that it carries on business in Canada. And a club must provide evidence that the majority of its officers are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada. MORE insecure records. [cont'd in part 2] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:24:23 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" Subject: III REGULATIONS, GUN SHOWS (part 2) [cont'd from part 1] Regulation 5 forbids the chief firearms officer to issue a sponsor's licence unless the regulation 4 rules have been satisfied, and security of the building is ensured -- IN THE OPINION OF THE CFO. No objective standards are set to guide the CFO. He is given the power to rule like an absolute dictator -- by whim. The CFO must also determine that the applicant "is eligible...to hold a licence" under FA s. 5, 6 and/or 9. If the applicant already HAS some kind of a licence, however, no sponsoring licence can be issued without contravening FA s. 56(2). Therefore, this check is the FULL check made before issuing a business licence. No wonder they want the application "at least 60 days" early! Regulation 6(a) says that, at least 3 working days before the show, the applicant must supply the CFO with (i) a floor plan of the layout of the show, including names an numbers of each exhibitor's table; and "(ii) the FINAL list of all exhibitors and their addresses [emphasis added -- DAT]." Either they know nothing about how gun shows actually work -- or they intend to competely restructure everything that is now normal regarding gun shows, and make them impossible to hold. The latter seems more likely. Regulation 6(b) requires the applicant to notify the local police of the intention to hold the show, its dates and hours of operation, and location. Regulation 7(a) requires the sponsor to ensure the security of the building "AND OF THE FIREARMS THAT ARE DISPLAYED THERE." 7(b) requires the sponsor to "ensure that the firearms included in the gun show are stored, displayed and handled in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the regulations." Those requirements are clearly an attempt to force the sponsor to act as if the sponsor were a police officer. If a sponsor tries to obey the regulations, the sponsor goes far beyond the powers that the sponsor of a show ACTUALLY has. If the sponsor does NOT act as if he or she is a police officer, that would be a violation of the regulations. Catch-22. Regulation 7(2) requires the sponsor, "during the hours of operation of a gun show" to be "(a) ...present IN PERSON and ON DUTY...or to be represented there by an authorized delegate; and (b) to "ensure that each exhibitor's booth or table meets the requirement of paragraph 10(b)." There is no paragraph 10(b). Regulation 9(a) requires exhibitors to "at all times when...the exhibitor's firearms are present at the gun show's location, ensure the security of his or her table..." That is rather difficult for the exhibitor to ensure once the show closes for the night, because the exhibitor is no longer there. 9(b) requires the exhibitor to ensure constant supervision of his or her table during hours of show operation "by a person who [is 18 or over] and holds a licence to possess firearms." That eliminates anyone who legally owns firearms, but who has not yet gotten a C-68 licence, from supervising a gun show table at any time. In effect, it EXTENDS the C-68 licence, by making it also a licence to supervise a table at a gun show. 9(c) requires the exhibitor to "maintain a record of all transactions entered into at the gun show by the exhibitor in relation to the firearms brought by the exhibitor to the gun show LOCATION [whether displayed or not, brought into the building or not -- DAT], separaate from any records kept in accordance with paragraph 23(c) of the Firearms Licences Regulations." MORE insecure -- and pointless -- records. Regulation 10 deals with the validity and duration of sponsoring licences. Regulation 11 authorizes the CFO to revoke a sponsoring licence ONLY if the sponsor contravenes a regulation or if the show "could endanger the safety of any person." That regulation is illegal, because it contravenes the power vested in the CFO by the Firearms Act. An OIC cannot alter an Act. Regulation 12 says that "for the purpose of paragraph 117(o) of the [Firearms] Act, it is an offence to contravene section (3) or (8) [of OIC JUS-97-480-01]." Regulation 12 is saying that FA s. 117(o) authorizes the creation of new offences for violating new regulations which have been made under s. 117(g). FA s. 117(g) authorizes the making of regulations to "regulate gun shows." It is not clear what charge would be laid for violation of those regulations. Once this set or regulations has been "laid" before each House of Parliament -- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE REGULATIONS EVER ACTUALLY COME INTO FORCE, no CHANGED VERSION of these regulations will ever have to be shown to either House of Parliament before it comes into force [FA s. 119(1)]. >From these regulations, it would appear that the NFA-CFC conference of 23-24 Jun 97 had at least one interesting effect. At that time, the CFC was intending to force every collector at a SGS to get a temporary dealer's licence for the show dates. That was apparently dropped because the NFA pointed out the tax implications. If it had gone ahead, every gun show expense -- tables, hotels, meals, travel, etc., etc. -- would have instantly become tax deductible! It seems possible that requiring the sponsoring club to get a "business licence" will make all of the expenses of every club member attending the show tax deductible. Any good tax experts reading this? Think about it. The ramifications -- if it does -- are rather breathtaking, when one starts thinking about joint action by many clubs. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: Once again, this set of regulations is rich ground for court action. The NFA will be there -- providing legal assistance and expertise -- when the charges start being laid. If you have been charged -- with ANYTHING -- get in touch with the NFA. If you know of anyone who has been charged with a firearms offence -- find that person and tell them to get in touch with the NFA. A lot of this abusive legislation and regulation nonsense CAN be blown out of the water -- in COURT. ------------------------------