Rights and Freedoms Bulletin (ISSN 1923-998X) is a public service of provided by RightsAndFreedoms.org and KM Publishing Inc., P.O. Box 21004, Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A9

Anyone following my writings on personal privacy knows I’m a big fan of keeping my online activity private. It’s not because I “have anything to hide” but because it’s nobody’s business but mine what websites I visit or what terms I search for.If you use Gmail as your primary email service you should already know Google reads and evaluates every single email you send OR receive and tailors ads specifi-cally for you. If Google.com is your primary search engine, then you know the ads you see on the websites you visit are also tailored specifically to search terms you’ve entered in days, weeks and months past.

Facebook does exactly the same thing to its users, whether or not you are logged into Facebook at the time. Every single site you visit is tracked by Facebook. That really ought to make a person sit up and take notice!I recently ran across a new web browser specifically designed to STOP websites and search engines from tracking you. It’s called Epic Browser, and is based on Google Chrome. Before you start laughing, learn more about Epic Browser and see how this browser prevents websites, including search engines, from tracking you online.

Yes, using Epic Browser means some websites won’t work for you. Modifying your web browsing habits will garner you more privacy online, but it does take effort. For example, I use ONLY the Opera browser for accessing Facebook and Twitter. They can’t track what they can’t see. I use Google Chrome for searching the web and Firefox for general browsing, but I am moving away from both of them in favour of Epic Browser because of it’s protection of my web searches.If you are concerned about your privacy online, you may want to check it out too.

Protecting Your Privacy OnlineMeans Surfing The Web A Little Less “Conveniently”

Christopher

Text like this is a link to online content. These links are provided to give you easy access to the original news story or other relevant information.

In This Issue

Ian Thomson Demands Concealed Carry Permit 2NFA Membership List on the Internet -- Personal Privacy is a Corporate Responsibility 3Who Owns Your Home, You or Your Local Electric Utility Company? 4Canadian Constitution Foundation and Bruce and Donna Montague Need Your Help 5High River, AB, Town Hall Meeting on RCMP Breaking into Homes & Seizing Guns 6Wendy Cukier and the Coalition for Gun Control want High River Gun Owners In Jail 7The following is an excerpt of Dennis E. Florian’s excellent

article available at GunOwnersResource.com 9

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

2 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Self DefenseIan Thomson of Port Colbourne, Ontario, Demands Concealed Carry Permit

A Welland, ON man is seeking a rarely issued permit to carry a hand-gun at all times, saying that police cannot protect him.Ian Thomson’s home was fire-bombed by four men in August 2010 and last week the ringleader of the firebombing, Randy Weaver, was released from prison.“I cannot rely on police for any kind of protection,” Thomson told Sun News’ Byline program Monday.Thomson, a former firearms instruc-tor, was prosecuted after the fire-bombing for firing warning shots at his assailants. He was acquitted last January shortly after Weaver was sentenced to prison.Thomson has also received threats from a neighbour who is seen on surveillance tape threatening to shoot him in the leg before yelling, “Come here. I’ll blow your f---ing brain out.”Despite this, Thomson said he won’t be getting special treatment from police.“I was in contact with them last week when I found out that he (Weaver) was released and I was told that I will receive the same level of protection as other citizens in the city of Welland,” Thomson said. “And that doesn’t make me feel comfortable.”Defence attorney and firearms law expert, Ed Burlew, who defended Thomson in court, said that these permits should be easier to obtain.“When you are faced with a person who is a known assailant and are faced with a present threat you have to have the ability to defend yourself,” Burlew said.In order to be granted the permit, Thomson must first convince Ontario chief firearms officer Chris Wyatt that he deserves to submit an application.“They guard those applications,” Burlew told QMI Agency.If Thomson is granted an application he then needs his local police force to agree, essentially admitting that they cannot protect one of their citizens.“I have asked them and I was told that I’m not going to get one,” Thomson said of his conversations with the Niagara police.Queries submitted to Niagara police and Ontario’s chief firearms office were not answered.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

3 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Personal PrivacyNFA Membership List on the Internet -- Personal Privacy is a Corporate Responsibility

Guarding personal information is a corporate responsibility and one that must be taken seriously by both indi-viduals and the companies they do business with. This fiduciary duty was, unfortunately, broken by Canada’s National Firearm Association on their website, NFA.ca.The news broke on the Canadian Gun Nutz forum on September 22, 2013 at 02:23 AM in a post titled “NFA Membership - Full Names visible to public” after the original poster notified the NFA about the security leak on their website.

“I noticed today that full names of people who purchase NFA memberships are visible to the internet public. I don’t want to post the url, but I found it today searching various things. I’ve sent an email to the NFA about it,” wrote CGN user mstoetz1.

The leaked information was removed from the NFA’s website by Sunday morning, although cached copies of the data were still available through Google’s search engine cache if you used certain search terms.CGN user Over_Kill wrote:

NFA and/or their web company need to fix this ASAP. Over 4,600 names on that list with first/last names, contribution amount, and date of contribution. No address information though (and thank good-ness).Just out of curiosity, I picked a unique name at random (something I thought was a rare name), plugged it into Google with the word “guns”, and found a “like” on facebook for a firearms company in Ontario, that lead me to the facebook profile of the person on the list, and his address (town/province only). It was a small town, so a quick trip to canada411.ca with the name and town, got 2 listings for that name in that town with address and phone number.As I said, the NFA list doesn’t contain address or phone number information, but anyone wanting to find that information could do so for at least some portion of the list, and with reasonable accuracy.This obviously was not done on purpose, as no organization willingly posts the names of their members online without first obtaining permission, but it does highlight the necessity for every organization to take privacy seriously, something the NFA, or at least the NFA’s web services provider, did not.

Shawn Bevins, spokesperson for the NFA, wroteThe information has been removed and no information has been compromised, according to our admin log none of this information was downloaded or copied.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bevins is not a security professional, nor does he know much about what an admin log will or will not show. CGN User Alter3D set him straight, however.

Firstly, thank you for your quick action in dealing with this when the problem was brought to light. That’s probably one of the fastest, most professional responses to a security problem that I’ve seen -- and I deal with a lot, since I work in IT.

That said, my IT knowledge also calls “bollocks” on your claim that none of the information was downloaded or copied. Every single person who viewed that list “downloaded” it, even it it stayed in their web browser, so if you’re claiming that no one downloaded it, I can tell you, categorically, that you’re wrong, because at least 4 people in this thread (myself included) have “downloaded” it to view it in their browser. Your “admin logs” would have NO WAY to know if someone copy/pasted it out of their browser and into, say, Excel.

If you mean that people’s personal details like address, credit card info, etc was not compromised is a different issue that I would be willing to believe, but the list as exposed by the OP was definitely down-loaded and could have been easily copied.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

4 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Property RightsWho Owns Your Home, You or Your Local Electric Utility Company?

Let’s start with a quick quiz.Do you think your home is your castle, protected under common law as yours and yours alone?Further, do you think you hold the right to say who enters your property and the terms under which they do?Answer “yes” to both questions? Maybe it’s time to think again.As Ontario householders are finding, utility company Hydro One reserves absolute privilege to enter your private property whenever a representative sees fit.The reason they want access is to install new electronic smart meters, now being rolled out across the province as part of a multi-million dollar program funded by the taxpayers of Ontario.For various legitimate reasons, including health, privacy and safety, many people are opposed to the forced instal-lation of this new wireless metering system. But they’re discovering they have no way of seeking an exemption or opting out.Like Second World War veteran Russell Irwin. The 91-year-old says the company replaced his old meter with a new digital version directly against his wishes and without permission.This is what happened to Irwin.“The Hydro people first came one day and we told them to get out and stay out,” Irwin said. “The next Sunday morning they snuck back in and put the Smart meter in anyway.“They said they’ve got every right to do these things but they should have asked first whether we want the new smart meter or not. The answer would have been obviously no.”Mr. Irwin has since refused to pay any more bills until the old meter is returned and the company offers an apol-ogy.Hydro One’s response has been to inform him to be prepared to have his power cut off by Tuesday.Irwin is ready for a long battle with the utility giant and his personal history reveals why he is determined not to give in. It’s just not in his nature. The former Canadian Grenadier Guard served as a tank driver in the Second World War as a member of the 22nd Canadian Armoured Regiment (CAR), a unit of 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division.He deployed to Normandy in July 1944 and from that time until VE Day on May 8, 1945, was with 22 CAR in battles around the Falaise Pocket in France, in Belgium, the Netherlands and finally across the Rhine.On his return, Irwin continued to serve but in a different capacity. He lived in Toronto, raised a family and dedi-cated 35 years of his life saving others as a firefighter paramedic before retiring to his farm at Orangeville.The last thing he says he wants to do is spend his remaining years fighting the Hydro, but as his son-in-law Dwayne Huxted explains, he has no choice.“Since the installation of the new meter, two of my father-in-law’s computers have stopped working while the Internet has been disconnecting regularly,” Huxted said. “None of that was happening prior.“He also has had a noticeable increase in intensity of ringing in the ears and balance problems, both of which were originally attributed to his war service.”Complaints over the forced installation and impending power cut off have been filed with the Ombudsman, Hydro One and the Ontario Energy Board but to no avail; the utility remains committed to installing the meters over any consumer resistance.

Read the rest of this article online...

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

5 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Civil Asset ForfeitureCanadian Constitution Foundation and Bruce and Donna Montague Need Your Help

The Canadian Constitution Foundation announced on April 17, 2013 that it would provide legal counsel to Bruce and Donna Montague of Dryden, Ontario in their ongoing legal battle against government efforts to seize virtually all of their assets. Their court hearing is now scheduled for November 15, 2013, at Queens’s Park in Toronto. Bruce Montague was a licensed gunsmith and firearms dealer who believed that Canada’s gun licensure laws were unconstitutional. He deliberately allowed his firearms licences to expire in 2003 so that he would be charged with an offence and could challenge the constitutionality of the law in court. However, the Ontario courts rejected his constitutional arguments, and the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear his appeal. As a result, Bruce was convicted of 25 paperwork crimes involving his firearms. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail plus probation, and is now permanently prohibited from possessing firearms. He therefore cannot resume his career as a gunsmith.Donna Montague, Bruce’s wife, likewise let her firearms licence expire and was convicted of a single offence.The federal government has applied under the Criminal Code to force the Montagues to forfeit ownership of all the firearms they own, including Bruce’s business inventory. The value of these assets exceeds $100,000.The Ontario government has also brought a civil action claiming forfeiture of the same firearms plus the Montagues’ home, which contained Bruce’s shop. Ontario alleges the properties are either “proceeds of unlawful activity” or “instruments of unlawful activity” as defined by the Civil Remedies Act of 2001.The Montagues were previously represented by lawyer Doug Christie, who died in March, 2013 of cancer. Karen Selick, litigation director for the CCF, said: “I have been concerned about the Civil Remedies Act here in Ontario ever since it was introduced as a bill in December, 2000. I welcome the opportunity to defend this couple against financial ruin by a rapacious, opportunistic government.”Karen wrote about the Montague case in the Calgary Herald last summer in her article: “Just like Russia, Canada Persecutes Its Protesters.”Karen has also written several newspaper articles opposing the Civil Remedies Act, including these :

� “Ontario Wants to Put a Grab on Property Rights” � “Go Ahead—Make Our Day” � “Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws Punish the Innocent and Corrupt the State”

Karen also appeared as a witness before the Ontario legislature’s Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy in 2001, opposing the passage of the Civil Remedies Act. Here is a transcript of her remarks. In September, 2012, Karen spoke about civil asset forfeiture at an Ottawa conference on property rights. Her talk, “Property Forfeiture - the Trojan Horse of Law Enforcement” can be seen on YouTube.If you would like to help Bruce and Donna, please make a donation to the CCF today. The CCF is a registered charity in Canada and the United States and we issue tax receipts for donations of $25 or more. If you prefer to donate by check, please download the CCF Donation Form and send it in with your donation in support of the Bruce and Donna Montague civil asset forfeiture case.Donations to the Canadian Constitution Foundation of $25 or more are fully tax deductible, meaning it will cost you a fraction of your actual donation in support of this critical case, where our very Rights and Freedoms are under attack. The Canadian Constitution Foundation is fighting for our Rights and Freedoms. Please donate generously!

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

6 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Search and SeizureHigh River, AB, Town Hall Meeting on RCMP Breaking into Homes & Seizing Guns

Danielle Smith is doing a great job of holding Premier Alison Redford to account for her complete lack of leader-ship and willingness to strip Albertans of their Charter Rights and Freedoms. Were it not for the efforts of Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith the issue of High River RCMP’s break & enter and seizure of firearms would go completely unreported.If you would like to watch the entire Town Hall Meeting held by Danielle Smith just follow the links below:Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wacw5rU40Fs Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD7RLmO2MHc Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_BVpugBpfQ Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUyLfFLExno Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5XZYP5-1Ro Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPzP1TOF9A Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43MT1iX9XEU

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

7 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Firearm PoliticsWendy Cukier and the Coalition for Gun Control want High River Gun Owners In Jail

Coalition for Gun Control Letter to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission on the situation in High River, AB

September 11, 2013Mr. Ian McPhail, Q.C. Interim Chair Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP National Intake Office P.O. Box 88689 Surrey, BC V3W 0X1

Dear Interim Chair,On behalf of the more than three hundred organizations that comprise the Coalition for Gun Control, I am writ-ing in regards to the complaint and public interest investigation, announced on July 5, 2013, into the conduct of those RCMP members involved in entering private residences and seizing firearms following flooding in High River, Alberta in June and July 2013.According your announcement of July 5th, you will specifically be investigating:

R whether the RCMP members or other persons appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act involved in entering private residences in High River complied with all appropriate training, policies, procedures, guidelines and statutory requirements;

R whether the RCMP members or other persons appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act involved in seizing firearms from private residences in High River complied with all appropriate training, policies, procedures, guidelines and statutory requirements; and,

R whether the RCMP national, divisional and detachment-level policies, procedures and guidelines relating to such incidents are adequate.

In order to investigate the foregoing, and in particular the applicable “statutory requirements,” it will be critical for you to also consider those statutes and regulations setting forth the obligations of firearms owners to secure their firearms in their residences, and otherwise. In order to investigate RCMP members’ conduct, it is necessary to determine the very laws that the RCMP were seeking to enforce.Unattended and unsecured firearms pose a risk to public safety and to RCMP members. As such, the safe storage of firearms has been a requirement under firearms regulations since 1991. The contravention of these safe-storage regulations under the Firearms Act triggers penalties under the Criminal Code.Specifically, SOR/98-209 on the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regu-lations states:

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if(a) it is unloaded; (b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device, (ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or (iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

8 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

Section 86 of the Criminal Code sets forth the penalties for careless and improper storage of firearms:Careless use of firearm, etc.

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, trans-ports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammuni-tion or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.Contravention of storage regulations, etc.

(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.Punishment(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.Safe storage laws save lives. They have long been a key component in firearms safety in Canada. Public health and security experts maintain that they have contributed to the significant reduction in firearm deaths in Canada, with nearly 400 fewer firearms deaths per year in 2009 (730) compared to 1991 (1,444), when these particular safe storage laws came into effect. Moreover, the majority of police officers killed with firearms have been shot and killed with rifles and shotguns in smaller communities. Safe storage of firearms has implications for officer safety as well as community safety.Furthermore, safe storage is key to deterring gun thefts. The vast majority of Canadian-sourced firearms that reach the hands of criminals in Canada come from the over 3000 guns that are stolen in the country every year.There exists significant confusion amongst firearm owners as to what obligations remain in place, since the elimi-nation of the long-gun registry in 2012, and the many other changes to firearms laws over the past year. This concern has even been raised by the Public Safety Minister’s Firearms Advisory Committee, a group consisting almost exclusively of gun owners advocating for reduced regulations.Accordingly, we feel that it is extremely important that you carefully consider the obligations of firearms owners under Canada’s Firearms Act, the rights of RCMP members, the importance of ensuring public safety and the legal requirements of safe storage. Otherwise, there is a risk of further contributing to confusion on the obliga-tions of guns owners thereby jeopardizing public safety.In addition to addressing the current laws and practices governing the safe storage of firearms, we would also encourage your investigation to consider the application of firearms storage in the context of emergency situa-tions, such as the High River floods.Given the media attention this issue has received to date, it is likely that your ruling will receive significant cover-age. Furthermore, your ruling will not only be a judgement on this case, but will affect how other police forces address unsecured firearms during future emergency situations. Your ruling will impact whether police act in a forthright manner, in the name of public safety, during an emergency situation, or instead deviate from interests of public safety, unsure of what actions are allowed or fearing the consequences of political or public complaint.Finally, in your statement of July 5th, you reference the actions of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) regarding RCMP conduct: “The Prime Minister’s Office equally and publicly expressed concern in respect of the seizures.”

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

9 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

This raises particular concerns for us on whether it is actually appropriate for the Executive, and PMO in particu-lar, under any circumstances, to direct, criticize or intimidate RCMP members, let alone during an emergency situation. Political independence of police is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.As the former Chief Justice of Ontario has put it, “government has the authority to establish policing policy, but not to direct police operations.”[1] The actions of the PMO may have violated this principle, and certainly call into question the independence of the RCMP. The perception that the politically motivated concerns expressed by a PMO spokesperson precipitated your investigation is also cause for concern due to its potential chilling effect on future investigations. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP ought to be seen as politi-cally neutral.For more than 20 years, the Coalition for Gun Control’s supporters, including the Canadian Public Health Asso-ciation, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the YWCA Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, and victims of gun violence, have worked to promote strong and effective gun control.We thank you for your consideration and look forward to seeing your ruling. If possible, we would appreciate being kept informed on your investigation and in contributing our expertise. Please don’t hesitate to contact our office at (416) 604-0209 if you would like to discuss this request further.

Yours truly,

(Original Signed)Wendy CukierPresident, Coalition for Gun Control

The following is an excerpt of an excellent article by Dennis E. Florian available at GunOwnersResource.com:

Up here in Canada, we have this weird little thing called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s kind of like, you know, a law or something. It’s got nifty things in it, like:

¹ Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, like having cops boot in your door without a warrant and steal your stuff.

¹ Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment, like being locked up just because gun grab-bers don’t like you.

¹ Section 11: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. ¹ Section 13: rights against self-incrimination. ¹ Section 15: equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without

discrimination, whether you own guns or not.But in the eyes of Cukier & Co., if you own a gun, you can damn well take your Charter rights and shove them up your arse.Enough of this. The Firearms Act has to go, all of it, now. Not at some vaguely promised distant date; not after the next federal election; but now. Enough with being patient, enough with being nice. The time has come to get off your butts and start leaning on your local MP, hard. Make it plain as day that, unless they get rid of this abomination, it’s going to cost them. The alternative is to make the same mistake that Martin Niemoller did, and sit silently until they finally come for you.And they will.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

10 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Gun TechnologyNew York City wants to Ban 3D-Printed Guns

A new bill to regulate 3D printed guns was introduced by Council Member Lewis Fidler (D-Brooklyn) on June 12. The bill would amend the New York administrative code to make it illegal to use a 3D printer to create any part of a firearm unless the person is a licensed gunsmith. A gunsmith using a 3D printer to print any part of a gun would be required to notify the NYPD and register it within 72 hours.Proposed revisions to the code include language ensuring 3D printed guns fall under the same regulations as other firearms. This includes clarification on systems to feed bullets, requirements for a serial number, and regula-tions against destroying weapons.Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, said in an email inter-view, “Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.” Wilson was referring to Title 1, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and Title 2, the National Firearms Act.Fidler’s representative, Brad Reid, said “Before any bill comes out it has to go through the generals council office of the City Council.” He also noted that since the bill made it past, it shows that it is in line with current laws.A second piece of legislation was also announced June 12 by State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal (D-Manhat-tan), which would make it a felony for anyone to manufacture, sell, or use guns or ammunition magazines made with a 3D printer. Rosenthal’s legislation is still in the Codes Committee.Under federal law, it is legal for individuals to manufacture certain types of firearms as long as the guns are not resold, are not fully automatic, and comply with set limits such as on gun and barrel length.The kicker is that in order for a homemade gun to be legal, the person who builds his or her own gun needs to make at least 20 percent of the receiver, which houses the trigger mechanism and other operating parts of the firearm. The law is in place to prevent people from buying all the gun parts separately, and then putting them together. This is precisely the part of the law that 3D printed guns get around, since the receiver can be printed from a digital file.There are many types of homemade firearms, mainly referred to as “zip guns,” and “pipe guns.” A perusal of the Internet shows homemade firearms built into flashlights, pens, and even made with metal pipes duct-taped onto wooden boards.Ernie Encinas, founder of Coastline Protection and Investigations, a former homicide detective who served in the San Diego Police Department for 31 years, said homemade firearms used to be common, but most criminals these days just turn to the black market for their firearms.“I don’t think it’s going to be that big of a problem, people making their own guns,” he said.“Why would you use a cheap gun when you can get a regular one on a black market?” he said. He added that most of the criminals he has dealt with used guns that were stolen, then resold. “If a bad guy wants a gun he’s gonna get a gun.”Encinas added, however, that gun owners should have record checks and be required to register their weapons—whether purchased or homemade.He noted that registering a firearm will not make it immediately traceable if used in a crime. Ballistics investiga-tors use two forms of information from a firearm to trace weapons used in crimes. The rings inside the barrel are unique to each gun, and the spot where a trigger hits leave unique markings on shell casings.Encinas said police only collect the information if a gun is used in a crime. “If the gun has never been used on anything, then nothing will show.”A representative from a local makerspace that uses 3D printing said it’s unlikely the legislation would affect anyone who uses 3D printers for their regular work. The 3D printers are often used for fabrication and design, in art and prototypes for products.

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

11 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Action AlertThe Following Issue Requires Immediate Action

Wendy Cukier’s Coalition for Gun Control is desperately attempting to salvage the Quebec long gun registry. She’s asked the Supreme Court for permission to intervene on the Province of Quebec’s behalf in support of keep-ing the grossly incorrect database, even though it is unknown if the Supreme Court will hear the case.Horrified that her annual parade of the dead women from 1989’s L’Ecole Polytechnique shooting rampage by Gamil Gharbi hasn’t garnered her more support, she’s also teamed up with a Quebec anti-gun group to pressure Steven Blaney, our new Minister of Public Safety.Complaining that the loss of Quebec’s gun registry will endanger the lives of Quebecers as it has already done in the rest of the country, she is demanding Minister Blaney support her request to transfer the database to Quebec to “maintain security and safety of your fellow citizens.” The lack of shooting deaths since the database was destroyed for the rest of Canada simply proves Cukier is a fraud with an agenda; that the truth doesn’t matter.Despite Windy Wendy’s protestations otherwise, the rest of the nation has not suffered a spike in shooting deaths with the loss of Canada’s useless long gun registry, and it is critical that Public Safety Minister Blaney hear some-thing other than the bleating cries and pathetic mewling of Wendy and her ilk.Please take a few minutes to write a letter to Minister Blaney supporting the Harper government’s decision to scrap the long gun registry and to encourage him to continue fighting Quebec’s quest to keep that database.We’ve already won this legal battle at the Quebec Superior Court level. The Quebec Government now wants to bring the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada. Minister Blaney needs to hear from Canadians who support the scrapping of this database, as it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting Canadians from so-called “gun violence.”There is no such thing as “gun violence.” It’s one in a long line of misnomers used by those who despise guns to tug on the heartstrings of those who haven’t educated themselves on this issue.Do we call it “car violence” when drunk drivers kill people? Or “knife violence” when someone stabs another human being? No, of course not. We hold the individual accountable for their criminal actions, not the piece of private property they used to commit their crime. That’s precisely as it should be. Tracking law-abiding citizens does not promote safety or prevent murderers from committing crimes. Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners are NOT the problem. Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners didn’t kill anyone yesterday. Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners didn’t kill anyone today. Canada’s law-abiding firearm owners are not going to kill anyone tomorrow either. Not even when the law no longer requires us to register our rifles and shotguns. Contact to Minister Blaney using the following information:

The Honourable Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety

House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

You can also contact him by phone or fax at:Phone: (613) 992-7434 Fax: (613) 995-6856

His email addresses are:blanes1b@parl.gc.ca, blanes@parl.gc.ca and ministerpublicsafety@ps-sp.gc.ca

Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

12 Rights and Freedom Bulletin Issue No. 151 Sept 21, 2013 http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Political ActionThe Political Action Wizard Free Senate Edition - Download and Use it Today

On June 23, 2013 I announced that the political action software program I had created for contacting every Senator in Canada was ready for you to download and use. While the reason I created the software is no longer relevant (The Senate repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act on June 28) the Canadian Senate still has a lot of power over the lives of ordinary Canadians. While they did a great thing by finally passing Bill C-304 to repeal Section 13, the very same day they absolutely gutted Bill C-377, a bill that would have forced Canadian labour unions to become more transparent. They did this and got away with it because nobody was watching them and they knew it. The Political Action Wizard Free Senate Edition is a tool for every Canadian to use to write to our Senators and express our views on the legislation before them. As their actions on Bill C-377 proved, we must let our Senators know we’re watching otherwise all kinds of silliness takes place.

http://download.politicalactionsoftware.org/senate-free-edition/