Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the June 20th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias by media regarding firearm ownership and the 2nd Amendment. Several issues are coming to a head in the coming weeks and dominate the media's attention.

Long Gun Registry in Canada. While it is well and good that the new party in power there recognizes the boondoggle that the registry has become, their actions to scrap a little bit of it hardly go far enough. In any event, the Tories presented the changes they would like to make but any vote will have to wait until the fall. From the Chronicle Herald:

The Conservative government introduced legislation Monday aimed at keeping its election promise to abolish the federal long-gun registry for rifles and shotguns. But there won’t be time to deal with the bill before Parliament breaks for the summer this week, meaning a vote will be delayed until the fall.

It’s unclear whether the Tories can get a majority of MPs to vote in favour of doing away with the registry. The Liberals and NDP are split, but most favour keeping the registry. The Bloc Quebecois has long been solid in its support for the program.

"We have found out too painfully over the last number of years that the effort of trying to track down every single long gun in Canada has been ineffective, costly and wasteful and has not led to a reduction of crime with guns," said Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

"Duck hunters, farmers and law-abiding gun owners do not pose a threat to Canadians. Criminals do."

And what are those actual changes? From Opinion 250:

Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day presented the legislation saying his government is keeping its promise to scrap the long gun registry " We will focus on effective measures of tackling crime that will protect families and communities,” said Minister Day. “Counting and tracking every long-gun in Canada has been ineffective and costly, and has distressed law-abiding taxpayers who must complete endless amounts of paperwork.”

The proposed legislation will:
*repeal the requirement to register non-restricted long-guns
*require firearms retailers to record all sales transactions of non-restricted firearms.

M.P for Prince George - Peace River, Jay Hill says there will still be a requirement for  those wanting to buy a firearm or own one, to have the proper licensing and go through police background checks and safety training.  There is to be no change to regulations  covering  restricted weapons and handguns.

"There will be some firearms owners who will  want more" says Hill who says Cananda will never go the way of the United States.  Hill says  he thinks the new legislation will gain support from members of the opposition over the summer.  "I think when  M.P's head  home for the summer and if they have outdoorspeople in their consituency, they will see there is support  for this legislation."  He anticipates the  leglislation will be back in September or October for debate and passage.

Two things here. First of all, semi-automatic rifles would still have to be registered. So while your muzzleloader or levergun might be off the hook, your Ruger 10/22 is still considered a "restricted long-gun". [Update: A commenter says all regular long-guns would be exempt from registration -- only fully automatic ones are "restricted".]

Secondly, firearms retailers will still record all transactions. Okay, they have to do that here in the states, too, to comply with BATF regulations but when you get right down to it, isn't that a "registry" in itself? It just won't cost any money or require permission from the Canadian Federal Government.

Okay, three things. The third thing is that someone wanting a simple 30-30 for hunting purposes still has to jump through all the hoops of licensing, police background checks, etc.

Needless to say, even these timid reforms to Canada's firearms laws (if they pass next fall) have the anti-gunners in a lather. Our old friend Wendy Kookiest, er, Cukier, breathlessly issued this press release:

In response to Monday's announcement of the Conservative plan to dismantle Canada's gun control system and abolish the registration of rifle and shotguns, Coalition for Gun Control President Wendy Cukier said the following:

"This move will endanger the security of all. It will make it easier for criminals, cop killers and abusive men to get access to guns. A rifle or a shotgun in the wrong hands kills just as dead as a shotgun.[sic]"

"By eliminating the registration requirement for rifles and shotguns, policemen will not be able to trace back these guns to owners. All illegal guns begin as legal guns. Fighting the illegal gun trade means we need to be able to trace all guns back to their source."

"Half the police officers killed in recent years have been killed by shotgun or rifle. Police officers across the country consult the registry 6,500 times every day."

"Policemen cite numerous examples of how they use the registry to directly protect citizens. The database allows them to remove all the firearms from potentially dangerous situations."

"The latest statistics show that on average 333 fewer Canadians die of firearms each year, compared to 1995. There have also been significant declines in the rates of homicides with rifles and shotguns and murders of women with these firearms."

"The Auditor General has confirmed that the costs are now under control. The costs of the program are $82 million. Registration of rifles and shotguns only costs $10 million every year. At the same time, the proposal to waive or refund renewal fees for 2 million gun owners (at $60 each) could cost Canadians $120 million in lost revenue.

"Many groups, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Professional Police Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, women's, victims and suicide prevention groups across the country also support maintaining the gun registry."

Wow, obviously dropping registration requirements for your bolt-action .22 signals The End Times. Notice how women will suffer more than others if this legislation is passed? Incidentally, claiming that costs are "now under control" at $82 million per year is ridiculous when you consider that the Liberal Party had originally promised that the registry would only cost $2 million dollars total. And now she worries that having to refund renewal fees will cost Canadians -- it didn't bother her what it cost them (and gun owners) in the first place! Hey, what's a billion or two in cost overruns among friends?

*Sigh* Apparently, the COST of doing away with some long-gun registrations is on every anti-gunner's mind. From the Globe and Mail:

The move to eliminate the registry gained momentum when Auditor-General Sheila Fraser said in 2002 that, in its first 10 years, the registry would cost taxpayers $1-billion. That's considerably more than the $2-million the Liberals predicted when they announced it in 1995.

Getting rid of the requirement to register long guns will cut the cost of the gun registry by just $10-million a year -- to $72.3-million from $82.3-million -- because most of the budget, $61-million, is for licensing firearms owners rather than for registering weapons.

In fact, the Conservative moves will make the gun registry more expensive for taxpayers, because they will also stop charging most licence fees, which were to bring in $22.7-million this year.

But that doesn't bother Mr. Day.

"Once a program has been deemed ineffective by the Auditor-General," he said, "there is no good reason to keep it in place just to try and bring revenue in."

There are also the usual quotations from some police chiefs that they have a need to know if there are guns present when they answer a call. They seem to be overlooking the fact that they can still instantly check to see if someone possesses a gun license! They also seem to be ignoring Police Training 101 which says that you should always expect to face an armed suspect.

In the midst of all the hyper-ventilation by gun control proponents, there are actually a few editorials and columns in support of scrapping the registry. Dr. Mike Ackerman opines in Enter Stage Right:

A long time ago the federal government decided that the private ownership and use of firearms by anyone other than a government agent was a "questionable practice" that must be curtailed. Allan Rock, "came to Ottawa in the firm belief that only the police and the military should have firearms". He engineered the current Firearms Act and cynically and shamelessly used the horrible Montreal Massacre to get public support.

We in the responsible firearms community, armed with mountains of high quality research and historical data were labeled as "gun nuts", brushed aside, and ignored when we raised our very legitimate objections to a law that was being sold under false pretenses and would only eliminate our culture of safe and responsible firearms education and use, while not affecting the criminal element in any way...

[...]

All the while this is going on, the gang bangers and other criminals continue their slaughter unaffected by the law, because the government has a policy of minimizing at all costs the jail time to be served by violent felons. Plea-bargaining, early mandatory release, dishonest sentencing, concurrent sentencing, and three-for-one time credits are but a few of the techniques our government uses to guarantee a fresh supply of criminals and victims to keep the wheels of the crime industry - - otherwise known by the misnomer of "justice system" - turning.

[...]

We have had an ongoing slaughter of teenagers and young adults in Toronto and a mass killing of 4 cops in Mayerthorpe and the latest fatal shooting of 25 year old Const. Valerie Gignac in Laval, all by thugs out on the street after decades-long histories of violence and gun prohibitions.

Recently here in Nova Scotia a man who shot a cop with a centerfire rifle had the charge of "attempted murder using a firearm" magically turned into "discharging a firearm with an intent to endanger life".

The result of this legal gobbledygook is that he gets a sentence of eight months (out in six - in direct contravention of the law which stipulates a minimum consecutive sentence of one year for a first time offense involving a firearm - three years for a second offense) while I can go to jail for ten years for the paper crime of not having a stupid registration card for every gun that I legally and harmlessly own.

Read the whole thing. This all highlights what I've been yapping about around here for several years now -- until courts and juries are willing to sentence the mutants of our society to huge, debilitating jail terms, the problem of crime will remain with us. Here in the U.S., and in Canada.

There's more good stuff in an article in the Red Deer Advocate (Alberta):

Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser told the 12 members at the Red Deer meeting that proper research done beforehand would have stopped the introduction of the registry.

Over the last 20 years, he has investigated gun controls in a number of countries including Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Jamaica, and Australia.

“In no place have tighter gun laws reduced violent crime or homicide,” Mauser said.

He found serious crime rates in the U.S. have fallen twice as fast as in Canada — even though law abiding Americans are legally entitled to carry concealed handguns.

Mauser said several reasons are touted for the decrease, including higher arrest rates and longer prison sentences that may act as a deterrent to further crime.

“Putting money into police and prisons would be a better use of money,” he said. “The key thing is to increase the probability of getting caught, convicted and punished.”

Mauser also said a worldwide movement to reduce firearms is not the answer to fighting crime.

“The primary cause for genocide and homicide turns out to be rogue governments and social conditions,” Mauser said.

I included that last part because of the United Nations conference coming up a week from now. More on that later. Note, by the way, that while there has been an "up-tick" in violent crime in the United States last year, it was all directly the result of increased gang activity. See last week's Weekly Check and this USA Today article for more on that.

The best op-ed regarding the Canadian gun registry had to be from Klaus Rohrich in the Canadian Free Press:

Now that the Canadian Gun Registry has been shown for what a fraud it really is, liberals and progressives everywhere are scrambling to find support for keeping it. In Wednesday’s Toronto Star staff reporter Olivia Ward polled nearly every socialist she could find and had to get quotes from a global anti-gun activist in London to make her point.

"Around the world, the prevailing trend is towards tightening national gun legislation." the Star quoted one Anthea Lawson, spokesperson of the International Action Network on Small Arms, an organization that claims to represent 700 member organizations world-wide.

While I tend to believe Ms. Lawson’s claim about gun control being a world-wide trend, given the recent rise in dictatorhips and repressive governments around the globe, I question the assertion that the Canadian Firearms Registry "has produced a dramatic reduction in gun deaths". Where does this woman get her information from--from the planet Mongo? If she had paid attention to what was happening inside her own country, she would know that gun control achieves the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. Britain outlawed private ownership of guns in 1997. As a result gun crime nearly doubled in the years between 1999 and 2003. In December of 2002, the UN surveyed 20 of the world’s leading nations and found that England and Wales had the highest crime rate! Australia has had a similar experience.

But hey, facts have never deterred the Toronto Star from pushing its agenda and so it is that the Star followed up the next day with an editorial excoriating the Prime Minister for offering an amnesty and claiming that the amnesty signaled the end of the registry. The Star went so far as to admit that the Gun Registry was wasteful, what with its 10,000% cost overrun, two sets of books and all.

[...]

But all that aside, there are a lot of reasons why the Canadian Gun Registry should be kept intact. Here are the top 10:

#10 To keep dyslexic bureaucrats employed

#9 The government has too much money

#8 Taxpayers aren’t paying enough money

#7 Show those snotty Conservatives who’s boss

#6 Serve as a template for a future silverware registry...

I'd love to reprint the whole thing but I'd be violating copywrite laws for sure. YOU should read it since it's a perfect example of demolishing the opposition using their own arguments. Kudos to Klaus! And if you noticed, the UN and IANSA have now been mentioned a couple of times. That brings us to...

United Nations Conference on Small Arms Trade. Socialist leaders from around the world as well as hundreds of NGO special interest groups -- mostly groups that hate firearms and gun ownership -- will be meeting in New York City beginning next Wednesday to figure out ways to violate various nation constitutions and to disarm their citizens. From Reuters:

From the steamy jungles of the Democratic Republic of Congo to the dangerous streets of Baghdad and the drug-ruled favelas of Rio de Janeiro, guns acquired illegally spread terror, contribute to poverty and halt development.

Ahead of a United Nations meeting in New York from June 26 - July 7 to discuss this global trade, calls are growing for tighter regulations -- especially on the activities of brokers.

"Arms supply networks are increasingly sub-contracted and increasingly opaque and out of control," small arms trade expert Brian Wood told Reuters.

"Some of the drivers of the international arms trade today are individuals with laptops, mobile phones, air tickets and shell companies. They travel around," he said.

CROSSING THE LEGAL LINE

The International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a group of agencies including Amnesty International and Oxfam, estimates the global gun trade is worth around $4 billion a year, of which up to $1 billion may be illicit.

Prices for guns vary enormously from the $350-$400 per new Kalashnikov with three magazines, quoted as an example by the broker, to anecdotal stories of the same rifles changing hands for a tenth of that price in African war zones.

And if guns are available, they will be used.

"In places like northern Kenya, we are seeing pastoralists using AK-47s to dispute access to the diminishing number of watering holes whereas in the past they might have talked it out or at least used less lethal means," said Anthea Lawson, a spokeswoman for IANSA.

"It used to be said that the main victims of gun violence were women and children. That is not true. It is young men who are both the victims and the perpetrators," she said.

IANSA wants countries to draw up global standards to regulate the international transfer of weapons and gun possession among civilians. It also wants to incorporate armed violence prevention into development projects and funding.

"All guns start as legal weapons ... what happens after that (is) where the trouble begins," said Lawson, adding that 60 percent of guns were in civilian hands.

What is not mentioned is that many of these weapons, legal or not, are in the hands of astoundingly oppressive dictatorships that are using them to slaughter their own people. Notice that IANSA spokesperson Lawson adds that little bit to the end of her complaint, about guns being in "civilian hands". Hmmm... That would be you and me she's griping about. Yet I don't remember ever guarding a watering hole...

Now, IANSA will always claim that they have no interest in "reforming" individual nations' gun laws but as a true friend of gun rights, Joseph P. Tartaro writes in the Hawaii Reporter:

Whatever you call it, the government-sponsored murder of thousands or even millions of people of one color, religion, cultural difference by another group of a different color, religion or cultural difference is the most heinous kind of genocide.

These genocidal horrors take place not because of guns, but because one faction fears or hates another, and the one that contributes the bodies of the dead is the one that cannot defend itself. Study after study has shown that disarming of the people, especially the targets for genocide, is the essential precursor to these mass murders.

The global anti-gunners like the people at Amnesty International, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), Oxfam and their government and philanthropic supporters like to blame such organized mass murder on guns. They sometimes use the terms “small arms” and “light weapons.”

[...]

If it is not clear yet that IANSA and friends mean to disarm individual citizens or every country, the IANSA report [Find it here. -ed.] offers the Australian law as a model of “effective national gun laws.”

Under that standard, every country would have:

* Licensing for all gun ownership, based on a series of criteria, including minimum age, training and “establishing a genuine reason for needing to own a gun;”

* Arbitrary police discretion in the issuance of gun licenses;

* People subject to domestic violence restraining orders against would be subject to compulsory seizure of all firearms;

* All guns must be registered at time of sale or transfer and when the license is renewed;

* A 28-day waiting period to buy any gun;

* The “genuine reason” for having a gun must be proven separately for each gun, “effectively imposing a limit on the number of guns a person can own;”

* Guns cannot be bought or sold privately but only through a licenses dealer of the police;

* Strict requirements on how guns are stored,

And that doesn’t include the restrictions on the types of guns which can be legally possessed.

Isn't it interesting that IANSA would leave the decision to issue these firearm permits to the discretion of many of the very governments and police that are doing the slaughtering! To hell with the victims.

For those of you who say that it can't happen here, in the U.S., I would reply that all you need is a Democratic President and Democrat controled Congress and what's left of our Constitution will be shredded enough to allow the U.N. and IANSA to implement their scheme.

To be sure, the NRA will be in attendance at the conference and so will SAF spokesman Alan Gottleib. From CNS News:

The U.N. conference poses a direct threat to America's constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Gottlieb, who plans to attend the U.N. conference, is urging the U.S. government to reconsider its financial support for the United Nations, given its effort to undermine the Second Amendment.

"Had it not been for our tradition of private firearms ownership, our citizens might still be subjects of the queen," Gottlieb said in a press release.

"Had it not been for America, all of Europe might be speaking German. Were America not the 'great arsenal of democracy' that President Franklin D. Roosevelt described in 1940, the world would be a far different place, and the sanctimonious bureaucrats at the U.N. might instead be working in labor camps."

Gottlieb finds it troubling that as the United States celebrates its 230th birthday, global anti-gunners "want to create a binding international agreement that could supersede our laws and Constitution.

"We have done much for the U.N., and in return, the organization has hosted despots, tyrants and dictators whose record of human rights abuses, aggression and genocide speaks for itself. And now comes an attack on our Constitution, on our national holiday.

"America has always answered the call to help our international friends and neighbors," Gottlieb observed, "but when our very way of life is attacked, maybe it is time to find more worthy endeavors for our material and financial support."

I mentioned last week that the inventor of the AK-47 was aligning himself with groups such as Amnesty International. There's more in yesterday's Times Online:

Now, with his health failing, General Kalashnikov is putting his name to a campaign for tighter controls on the international trade in small arms.

Oxfam, Amnesty International and the International Action Network on Small Arms launched the campaign in 2003 to get an International Arms Trade Treaty adopted at the UN conference, starting next Monday. The treaty, which has the backing of 50 countries, would prohibit the transfer of small arms to governments or armed groups responsible for grave human rights abuses.

General Kalashnikov, who is writing a statement to be presented at the conference, told The Times : “It is imperative to make a decision about introducing strict sanctions on those who violate the terms of such an international agreement.”

James Dyson, of Amnesty International, welcomed General Kalashnikov’s support. “It’s interesting that even someone who has been involved in the manufacture of these weapons is recognising that they are now being used in such an irresponsible fashion. Governments should act now to agree universal principles to regulate this deadly trade.”

...Thereby sealing the fate of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of victims of genocide.

While there are numerous Democrats here in the United States who would gladly go along with anything even remotely resembling gun control, there are a few lone hold-outs...

Montana, here we come... From today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

MISSOULA, Mont. - Gov. Brian Schweitzer won't say exactly how many guns he owns, other than it's "more than I need, but less than I want."

An unabashed shooter, hunter and gun-fancier in a state deeply in touch with its Old West heritage, Schweitzer is a member of the National Rifle Association and was happy to receive the NRA's endorsement for governor in 2004.

He is also a Democrat.

Like many Democrats, especially those beyond the nation's big cities and urban coasts, Schweitzer doesn't see gun ownership as a partisan issue.

"Republicans try to make the case that 'Democrats will take your guns away.' I say, 'Yeah, Democrats like Giuliani, Pataki and Schwarzenegger,' " Schweitzer said, naming prominent Republicans from New York and California.

While leaders in cities such as Philadelphia, faced with a rising number of gun-related slayings and injuries, call for tougher gun laws, their counterparts in more rural states insist that criminals, not guns, are the problem.

[...]

A Democratic presidential candidate with hopes of carrying Montana would have to tap into that independence and speak frankly to the gun issue, Schweitzer said.

"I'd tell him to tell people he respects their Second Amendment rights and maybe talk a little about his own experiences with guns," Schweitzer said. "And it might not be a bad idea to go out to a gravel pit and set up some beer cans and shoot at 'em."

[...]

"People in large urban places have concerns we don't have," the governor said. "In places like Philadelphia, New York, Boston, you have gun issues that are completely alien to us."

State legislator Kevin T. Furey, 23, a Democrat who served with the Army in Iraq, owns a .270 bolt-action hunting rifle and says hunting and guns are ingrained in the state's DNA. So, he said, is opposition to government control.

"A large percentage of people are pro-gun, but a large percentage are also pro-choice," Furey said. "There's an almost libertarian sensibility... that government should stay out of your life.

"When someone sees 'Democrat,' they think 'control.' But when you explain to people that you don't agree with the national Democratic Party on every issue, they're willing to listen."

Furey continued: "Democrats are in power now, and [In Montana -- ed.] we're not raising taxes, we're not taking away guns. I think that's a wake-up call for people. All those scary things they were told were going to happen, didn't."

It's actually much like that here in Vermont although the two main contenders for senator this year, Sanders and Tarrant, are both for gun control.

Top Ten Anti-Gun Senators. Lastly, I'll leave you with a couple of quotations from this post on Human Events Online:

10. Mike DeWine (R.-Ohio)
Consistently the only Republican to speak in favor of anti-2nd Amendment legislation on the Senate floor.

9. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.)
The most vocal opponent on the Senate floor of congressional legislation to prevent lawsuits against firearms manufacturers based on the actions of criminals.

8. John Kerry (D.-Mass.)
Accepted a shotgun as a campaign gift from union officials, even though it would have been banned under a bill he cosponsored.

7. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D.-N.Y.)
Though just in her first term as an elected official, she campaigned for gun control while First Lady, advocating gun owner licensing, handgun registration and the retention by the federal government of records on lawful purchasers of firearms.

6. Frank Lautenberg (D.-N.J.)
Despite government studies showing that fewer than 1% of criminals get their guns from gun shows, Lautenberg sponsored legislation to run gun shows out of business.

5. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.)
Sponsor of the much-vaunted assault-weapon ban of 1994-2004. Despite the ban's having been found to have been misdirected and irrelevant to crime, Feinstein said she wished for a stronger law, one that would say, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn [your firearms] all in." Feinstein carried a handgun for her own protection in California.

Read the whole thing although I'm sure you can guess who the others are.

Time to get this posted. Naturally, I'll be discussing this all, live, on the Cam Edwards - NRA News Show this afternoon. As always, thanks so much for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at June 20, 2006 11:09 AM