Archive for October, 2010

~~~

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.
– John Diefenbaker (From the Canadian Bill of Rights, July 1, 1960)

~~~

 

 

 

 

~~~

Hey, Chief Blair!  How is that “Project Safe City” working out for you?

Harassed any honest gun owners lately?

~~~

Major News Reports & News Releases

 

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5034&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Saturday, October 23, 2010

 

Robbery (Business) – 53 Division

Three males age 22 years, 27 years and 33 years old, employees for Bollywood and Variety, 25 Overlea Boulevard, report that on October 22, 2010 at approximately 2016 hours, a male suspect wearing a disguise and armed with a handgun entered.  The suspect approached the victims, made a demand for cash and instructed them to lie on the floor.  The victims complied.  The suspect kneeled on one victim’s back and made a demand for his wallet and cellular phone.  The victim handed over his wallet.  The suspect then removed a quantity of cash from the till and cigarettes from the shelves.  The suspect observed a third male victim, made a demand for his cellular phone and he complied.  The suspect then fled the scene in an unknown direction.  No injuries were sustained by the victims.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described person in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect: Male, South Asian, 17-22 years, 5’6”-5’7”, thin build.

65724/86345/00:59

 

Robbery (Swarming) – 23 Division

A 24 year old female reports that on October 22, 2010 at approximately 2120 hours, she was walking in the area of Humber College Boulevard and Westmore Drive, when three male suspects approached.  One of the suspects struck the victim on the head with a handgun, grabbed her cellular phone and fled the scene towards Hwy 27.  The victim was transported to hospital by Toronto Emergency Services where she was treated for minor injuries and released.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1: Male, black, 19-20 years, 5’11”-6’0”, thin build.  Suspect #2:Male, black, 19-20 years, thin build.  Suspect #3:Male, black, 19-20 years, 5’11”, thin build.

9336/86345/02:08


http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5035&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Sunday, October 24, 2010

 

Robbery (Delivery Person) – 42 Division

A 43 year old male employee of Pizza Pizza, 9390 Sheppard Avenue East, reports that on October 24, 2010 at approximately 0230 hours, he was making a delivery in the area of Sewells Road and Morningside Avenue.  The victim was walking to the front door of a residence when he was approached by three male suspects.  One suspect produced a hand gun and removed the delivery order from the victim while the other suspects removed his wallet and cash.  The suspects then removed a debit machine from the victim’s vehicle and fled the scene southbound on Glenheather Terrace.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1:  Male, black, 19-21 years, 5’ – 5’2”, 161 – 165 pounds, short black hair, thin build.  Suspect #2 – #3:  Male, black, 19 – 21 years, 5’ – 5’2”, 161 – 165 pounds, thin build.

10114/87931/07:52

 

Robbery (Business) – 32 Division

Two males, ages 28 years and 26 years, employees of Cash Converters, 508 Lawrence Avenue West, report that on October 24, 2010 at approximately 1300 hours, two male suspects wearing disguises entered the premises.  One of the suspects produced a shotgun, pointed it to the victims and directed them to the back of the store with a third employee.  The suspect ordered one of the victims’ to open the cash register.  The victim complied and the suspect removed a quantity of cash from the till, while the second suspect proceeded to empty the jewellery cases.  The suspects then fled the scene in an unknown direction.  No injuries were sustained by the victims.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1:  Male, 26 to 30 years, 5’10”, 189 to 200 pounds, heavy build.  Suspect #2:  Male, black, 23 to 27 years, 5’9”, 174 pounds, thin build.

8335/86481/18:18


http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5036&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Monday, October 25, 2010

 

Robbery (Mugging) – 11 Division

A 43 year old male reports that on October 24, 2010 at approximately 1855 hours, he was walking through a laneway in the area of Queen Street West and Sourauren Avenue, when two male suspects approached.  One of the suspects produced a handgun and made a demand for cash.  The victim complied.  Both suspects then fled the scene in an easterly direction through the laneway.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1: Male, black, 35 years, 6’0”-6’1”, 180-190 pounds, medium build, long black dreadlocks.  Suspect #2:Male, white, 25 years, 5’6”-5’7”, 140-150 pounds, thin build, short curly blond hair.

8911/86345/02:02

 

Robbery (Home Invasion) – 41 Division

A 32 year old male and two females, ages 51 and 30 years report that on October 24, 2010 at approximately 2300 hours, they were in a dwelling on Bonnechere Crescent when four male suspects, wearing disguises and two armed with handguns, entered the premises through a side door. The 51 year old female victim was in the basement area and was able to make good her escape. Once inside, the suspects threatened the victims and made a demand for cash and jewellery. The suspects then removed a quantity of cash, tied up the two victims and fled the scene in an unknown direction. No injuries were sustained by the victims. Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence. Description of Suspect #1: Male, 5’10”-5’11”, 180 pounds, medium build. Suspect #2: Male, black, 5’10”-5’11”, 160 pounds, slim build.  Suspect #3-#4: Male. NO FURTHER DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE.

9146/88625/07:12

 

Robbery (Business) – 23 Division

A 53 year old male employee of Woodbine Mall, 500 Rexdale Boulevard, reports that on October 25, 2010 at approximately 0202 hours, he was cleaning the floor when he was approached from behind by four male suspects wearing disguises and one armed with a firearm. The suspect ordered the victim to the floor and demanded that he open the Gamespot store with the mall keys. The suspects then removed the keys and attempted to open the store but were unsuccessful. One suspect produced a crowbar and forced the door to the Gamespot store. Once inside, the suspects ransacked the store and removed a quantity of video games. The suspect then fled the scene in an unknown direction. No injuries were sustained by the victims. Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1: Male, black, 25-30 years, 5’5”-6’, 141-180 pounds, thin build. Suspect #2-#3:  Male, black, 25-30 years, 5’5”-6’, 150-180 pounds, thin build. Suspect #4: Male, black, 25-30 years, 5’5”-6’, 141-180 pounds, thin build.

65544/88625/07:58

 

Robbery (Mugging) – 22 Division

Two males, ages 25 years, 24 years and a 17 year old female, report that they were in the area of Lakeshore Boulevard West and 10th Street when they were approached by two male suspects.  One of the suspects produced a handgun, pointed it at the victims and demanded their property, while the second suspect armed with a metal pipe stood watch.  The victims complied.  The suspects fled the scene in an awaiting vehicle driven by another suspect, northbound on 11th Street.  No injuries were sustained by the victims.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1:  Male, white, 6’0” to 6’1”, 169 to 180 pounds, medium build, short dark hair.  Suspect #2:  Male, 5’9” to 6’0”, medium build.  Suspect #3:  Male, NO FURTHER DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE.

10519/86481/18:40

 

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/19892.pdf

Man faces five firearm charges, Sawed−off shotgun seized

Broadcast time: 10:55

Monday, October 25, 2010

31 Division

416−808−3100

On Friday, October 22, 2010, at 10:40 p.m, officers were on patrol in the area of Jane Street/Grandravine Drive area.

It is alleged that:

− officers were investigating an unrelated matter in the area when a man spotted police and discarded a sawed−off shotgun,

− the man ran off but officers arrested him near Grandravine Drive moments later.

Travis Tash, 18, of Toronto, has been charged with:

1. Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm,

2. Possession of a Firearm Knowing its Possession is Unauthorized,

3. Weapons Dangerous,

4. Careless Storage of a Firearm,

5. Firearm Careless Use,

6. Possession of Cocaine.

He appeared in court at Old City Hall on Saturday, October 23, 2010, 10 a.m., room 101.

 

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/19898.pdf

Homicide #51/2010

Broadcast time: 10:59

Monday, October 25, 2010

51 Division

416−808−7400

On Monday, October 25, 2010, at 3:03 a.m., police responded to a radio call for the sound of gunshots in the area of Sackville/Shuter Streets.

Officers arrived and located a man, in his mid−20s, on the sidewalk, on the north side of

Shuter Street, suffering from an obvious gunshot wound.

He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The victim’s identity has not been confirmed. A post−mortem examination will be scheduled for Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

Witnesses have told investigators that a man, wearing a red/white sweatshirt, was seen running southbound from the scene.

Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 416−808−7400, Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416−222−TIPS (8477), online at http://www.222tips.com, text TOR and your message to CRIMES (274637), or Leave A Tip on Facebook.

 

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/19899.pdf

Man faces 15 charges, two loaded handguns seized

Broadcast time: 14:26

Monday, October 25, 2010

TAVIS

416−808−7736

On Sunday, October 24, 2010, the drug squad component of TAVIS received information regarding the alleged sale of drugs in a seniors’ residence.

It is alleged that:

− police attended a seventh−floor apartment at a seniors’ home at 310 Dundas Street East, where a man had reportedly intimidated a 63−year−old resident into allowing him to sell drugs from his residence,

− officers attended the apartment unit and were let in by the resident,

− two women and a man fled the apartment and climbed over the balcony,

− the two women were located in an adjacent apartment and taken into custody,

− the man was located on a sixth−floor balcony.

It is further alleged that:

− the man attempted to break into an apartment on the sixth floor by smashing a window,

− the man, while evading police, discarded two loaded handguns under the bed of a 72−year−old female resident.

Shayne Stuart Brown, 30, Toronto, has been charged with:

1. two counts of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm,

2. two counts of Possession of a Firearm Knowing its Possession is Unauthorized,

3. two counts of Possession of a Prohibited Firearm with Ammunition,

4. two counts of Possession of a Firearm Obtained by the Commission of an Offence,

5. two counts of Possession of a Firearm Contrary to Prohibition Order,

6. Careless Storage Ammunition,

7. Possession of Ammunition Contrary to Prohibition Order,

8. Forcible Entry,

9. Possession for the Purpose Marijuana,

10. Possession of Proceeds of Crime.

TAVIS is a Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services provincially funded initiative dedicated to creating and maintaining sustainable, safe neighbourhoods.


http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5041&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

 

Robbery (Home Invasion) – 42 Division

A 70 year old male reports that on October 27, 2010 at approximately 1220 hours, he was in his home in the area of Old Finch Avenue and Morningside Avenue when his doorbell rang several times. As the victim walked towards his front door, a male suspect kicked the door and forced it open.  The suspect then entered the home, produced a firearm and forced the victim onto the floor.  A second suspect was seen outside the home. Both suspects fled the scene empty handed, in an unknown direction.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1 and #2:  Male, white, 30-40 years, 5’11”-6’, muscular build, blond hair.

9587/89447/19:38

 

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/19916.pdf

Man faces 11 charges in firearm investigation, Handgun seized

Broadcast time: 15:34

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

31 Division

416−808−3100

On Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at approximately 3:45 p.m., police were in the Grandravine Drive/Keele Street area.

It is alleged that:

− the accused was driving a Honda Civic, east on Grandravine Drive, when he turned right onto Keele Street and accelerated quickly,

− officers attempted to catch up to the vehicle, and found it parked in a parking lot of Sheppard Avenue West,

− the accused got out of the car, and the officers approached him,

− a strong smell of marijuana came from the car and the accused was advised he was under arrest for possession of marijuana,

− officers located marijuana, cocaine and a loaded 9 mm handgun inside the car.

Jahmel Jahmari Burke, 22, of Toronto, has been charged with:

1. Possession of Cocaine,

2. Possession for the Purpose Cocaine,

3. Possession of Marijuana (under),

4. Possession of Proceeds of Crime,

5. Possession of a Firearm Contrary to Prohibition Order,

6. Unauthorized Presence of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle,

7. Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm,

8. Possession of a Firearm Knowing its Possession is Unauthorized,

9. Possession of a Restricted Firearm with Ammunition,

10. Careless Storage of a Firearm,

11. Possess Firearm Knowing the Serial Number has been Altered, Defaced or Removed.

He was scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 1000 Finch Avenue West, 10 a.m., room 306.

Anyone with information on the location of an illegal firearm is asked to contact their local police, Crime Stoppers anonymously at 416−222−TIPS (8477), online at www.222tips.com, text TOR and your message to CRIMES (274637), or Leave A Tip on Facebook.


http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5045&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Thursday, October 28, 2010

 

Robbery (Mugging) – 32 Division

A 19 year old male reports that on October 27, 2010 at approximately 2304 hours, he was in the area of Yonge Street and Finch Avenue East when he was approached by a male suspect.  The suspect produced a handgun and made a demand for the victim’s iPhone.  The victim complied.  The suspect fled the scene southbound on Lorraine Drive.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described person in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect: Male, south asian, 25-27 years, 5’5”, stocky build, brown eyes, black hair.

7920/87947/07:11

 

~~~

I’m procrastinating again on those “Recommendations”, but the bafflegab is so thick, it’s hard to cut through it.  Instead, here is a report from the Ombudsman of the CBC…

~~~

In the week leading up to the Day Democracy Died (the vote on Bill C-391), the CBC aired a “news” segment on The National, about the involvement of the NRA in the activities of those who supported the Bill to eliminate the long-gun registry.  They were shocked to discover that the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, and its President Tony Bernardo, has had strong ties to the US lobby group.  They had to dredge up information from 10 years ago in order to “prove” the heinous nature of this association.  Of course, none of this was secret, or deliberately kept hidden, but the CBC did its damnedest to make it seem like this was a huge expose of some sort.

Anyone with half a brain should have come to the conclusion “So what?” when presented with this information.  Not the CBC!  They never let the facts get in the way of promoting leftist ideology whenever they can.  The whole purpose of the piece was to inflame the sensibilities of the anti-gun crowd who are habitues of The Mothercorp, provoking them into taking action against Bill C-391.

There was no “news” here – just blatant partisan politics.

Here is my letter to the CBC’s Ombudsman:

September 14th, 2010.

Re: NRA and the gun registry

September 13, 2010

News > TV Shows > The National

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/The_National/ID=1590902140

I am incensed.  I am outraged.  I am livid.  Words cannot describe just how supremely pissed off I am at the CBC’s “news” story about the “ties” between the NRA and the Conservatives.  This is blatant and egregious anti-gun and anti-conservative propaganda.  Its sole purpose is to drive people to vote against Candice Hoeppner’s Private Member’s Bill C-391.  So what if the NRA is giving “tactical and logistical” support to the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action?  Why is that “news”?  Why is that anybody’s business?  This is not “reporting” news, it is manufacturing the news.

Why isn’t the CBC “reporting” on the incestuous ties between the Coalition for Gun Control and the Liberal Party?  They’ve been in bed together since Chretien came to power.  Why aren’t they “reporting” on the ties between the CFGC and the anti-gun, US Brady Campaign?  Why aren’t they “reporting” on the funding received from anti-gun US billionaire George Soros?  Why aren’t they reporting on the ties with the international anti-gun organization, IANSA?

Why aren’t they “reporting” on the $386,000 grant the CFGC received from the Department of Justice for some “training program” in Quebec, that was never reported on?

Why aren’t they scandalized by the Liberal Party of Canada bringing US Democratic National Committee President Howard Dean to be the keynote speaker at their 2006 convention?

Why aren’t they outraged over US anti-gun “documentary” (and I use the term loosely) filmmaker Michael Moore’s interference with three federal elections?

Why isn’t any of this “newsworthy”?

And now, even though the original “report” stated, but downplayed, the fact that nothing illegal was taking place, and that no money had changed hands, another “reporter”, Margot McDermit, is claiming that “The NRA, in the CBC story last night, apparently has been lobbying for the last decade to get rid of the long gun registry. Not only lobbying, but providing money to lobbying efforts here in Canada to lobby the government to get rid of it.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?category=News&clipid=1591261090

This is an out-and-out LIE!  The NRA’s charter forbids it from giving money to groups outside the US.

Do you honestly believe that your “reporters” should be LYING to the Canadian public?  Is that in your charter somewhere?

This has got to stop!  Do your job and rein these LIARS in.  If you do not, you should be FIRED for being nothing more than a useless, trough-sucking bureaucrat.

Bruce N. Mills

akimoya@yahoo.ca

Hamilton, Ontario

And here’s the Ombudsman’s replies to the complaints:

Review: Report about possible involvement of the National Rifle Association in the debate over the long-gun registry

October 28, 2010

CONCLUSION:

The item was a reasonable summary of the interest that a very important American lobbying group has taken in the Canadian issue. Although we might have wished for more depth and context, the item’s flaws do not move it outside the bounds of CBC policy.

Vince Carlin
CBC Ombudsman

Nice whitewash job there, Vince!  Get any on ya?

If you read through his entire report, you will see that nowhere does he address my complaint that one of his talking heads outright LIED to the Canadian public on a national news show.  You can be certain that I will be taking this oversight up with him, soonest.


~~~

I’m getting a little bogged down with the “Recommendations”, so I thought I’d take a little break and bring you this little tid-bit from the news, instead…

~~~

Statistics Canada’s latest annual Homicide In Canada study has just been released, and the MSM is falling all over itself to proclaim that “firearms homicides are down 12%!”  This just in from the Mop and Pail:

GLOBE AND MAIL – OCTOBER 26, 2010

Shooting homicides dropped in 2009: StatsCan

Ottawa- The Canadian Press – Published Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2010 9:18AM EDT

A new study says there were fewer firearm-related homicides last year.


Police reported 179 of Canada’s 610 homicides were committed with a firearm in 2009; that’s 21 fewer than in 2008.

Statistics Canada says that, while the general homicide rate remained stable, the firearm-related homicide rate dropped 12 per cent, reversing an upward trend recorded between 2002 and 2008. Prior to 2002, rates of firearm homicides had been declining since the mid-1970s. Of the 179 firearm homicides, 112 involved handguns, 29 involved a rifle or shotgun and 14 a sawed-off rifle or shotgun.

Declines were reported in all three categories in 2009. Handguns remained the most common type of firearm involved in homicides in Canada’s major cities. Between 2005 and 2009, police recovered 253 firearms used to commit homicide where the registration status with the Canadian Firearms Registry could be determined. Of these, 31 per cent were registered and 69 per cent were not registered. Of those that were registered, 67 per cent were rifles or shotguns, 22 per cent were handguns and 12 per cent were sawed-off rifles or shotguns.

Also during this five-year period, police were able to determine the ownership of the firearm in 212 homicide incidents. Of these, 49 per cent were owned by the accused, eight per cent by the victim and 43 per cent by someone else. The agency released its general crime statistics in July.

Wow, that Firearms Act and Registry must really be working – right?

Guess again.

Only one newspaper that I have found has reported on this crucial piece of information, which is only the second line in the study; from the Edmonton Journal:

Gun murders down 12 per cent

Plummet in Alberta gang killings responsible for bulk of national decline

By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News October 27, 2010

[…]

While gang-related killings dropped 10 per cent, they still accounted for one in five homicides in 2009. Alberta, which saw 13 gang-related homicides last year, compared to 35 a year earlier, was responsible for the bulk of the drop.

So, this has nothing to do with honest, law-abiding gun owners and their registered firearms.  I suppose the only reason they mention this at all is because it’s “local news”.  Of course overall homicides are not down, and handguns – which have been “tightly regulated” since 1934 – still account for most of the guns used in killings…knives and blunt objects still outstrip guns as the “weapon of choice”.

Here’s the link to Statistics Canada’s site for the study.

Don’t break out the champagne just yet, Wendy…


~~~

There are 3 rather lengthy “Recommendations” at the end of this section, so I think I’ll split this into 2 parts and deal with those seperately tomorrow…

Don’t forget to read along at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

~~~

– 38 –

Finding 5

License screening has been successful in denying licenses to ineligible persons, however improvements in screening applicants is hindered by limited access to information from other agencies and insufficient information about applicant mental health risk factors.

So how, exactly are they measuring this “success”?  I have already shown that these numbers are minuscule compared to the overall number of “FIP hits”, not to mention total license holders…

Was there any follow-up done?  If some of these people are “too dangerous” to be “allowed” to own a gun legally, doesn’t that make them too dangerous to be left loose roaming the streets of our cities?  How many of these people subsequently went out and acquired a gun illegally, and used it to hurt themselves or others?  How many did so with some other object?

“Success” is measured by stopping crimes from happening…

And now they want even more of our personal and private information so they can monitor us more effectively?  Get stuffed!

when this application is assessed by the CFP, special attention is given to those applying for a Prohibited and Restricted Firearm License.

Why?  Are the owners of Prohibited or Restricted firearms more prone to be a danger to themselves and others, than the owners of long-guns?  I sincerely doubt it.  This is just more anti-gun rhetoric, the irrational notion that some guns are “more bad” than others.  This is the divide and conquer tactic, with a little extra harassment thrown in to help “drive out” ownership of these kinds of guns.  All in accordance with the long-term goal of eliminating civilian gun ownership completely.

In order to foster greater successes in promoting public safety through denying or revoking the licenses to ineligible persons, the CFP established an ‘Enhanced Screening’ (ES) unit. This unit conducts a more rigorous screening of applicants, with a focus on those who are deemed to be of high risk in granting a license. The work of the unit consists of calling the firearms licence applicants as well as the two named references with a series of prescribed questions, in order to determine the suitability of the applicant to possess a firearm licence or firearm.

So they aren’t calling everybody’s references?  What about public safety!  This echoes what then-Solicitor General Wayne Easter said in 2003 in response to a question in the House:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/110_2003-06-03/han110_1030-E.htm#SOB-580157

Question No. 227–

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:

With respect to reference and background checks done on each Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) applicant, what is the total number of PAL applications that have been processed since December 1, 1998, and how many of the two references per PAL application were actually called?

Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.):

As of May 10, 2003, the total number of PAL applications that have been processed since December 1, 1998, is 659,083. Reference checks are performed during the course of an investigation, at the discretion of the investigator, based on the issue being assessed. There are no statistics available on how many of the two references per PAL application were actually called.

Why such a slipshod approach to “public safety”?  I mean, if it saves one life, isn’t it worth any cost?  Isn’t this what the anti-gun extremists keep screeching?

Sometimes, the details are in hidden in the footnotes:

These issues on their own do not necessarily disqualify an applicant, however the system in place requests the interviewer’s flag these instances and they are to be forwarded to the applicable CFO[28].

[28] This however is contingent upon the CFO’s first receiving nationally standardized training and policy with regards to their roles and responsibilities under the Firearms Act, as stated in a previous recommendation.

CFOs are still poorly or untrained, after 15 years of this nonsense…

And then we have this little tid-bit:

Because a refusal may have involved an enhanced screening flag, there are no processes in place to state that a refusal was solely based on the enhanced screening intervention.

In other words, they still have no idea how effective the whole CFP is!

– 40 –

An official from the Central Processing Site related (receiving) “countless comments from applicants and references alike have been received by the CPS, thanking them for doing the enhanced screening. Many have commented on how surprised they were that this was actually done. They frequently comment that this provides some much needed credibility in the process”.

Which official?  Why isn’t at least their job title provided?   And how many?  It can’t actually be “countless” – and they are required to keep track of all “contacts” with the public, aren’t they?   Phone calls, emails, letters, etc. – that’s how they evaluate “performance” in most cases, isn’t it?  You’d think they’d have a whole section devoted solely to all the positive feedback they’ve received over the years, wouldn’t you?

Sorry, anonymous sources with vague claims don’t cut it.

What would be even more credible is if they contacted all the reference persons…don’t you think?  This only goes to show that “cost” over-rides “public safety”.

This puts all their claims for this steaming pile of doggie doo into disrepute.

~~~

Read along at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

– 36 –

Finding 4

Safety Training is believed to have resulted in safer handling, storage and use of firearms. The Program recognizes the need to continuously improve the delivery of the program through updating courses and the need to address specific concerns of the firearms community, including First Nations and Inuit populations.

“Believed” is not “proven” – if they had actual proof they would have said so.

– 37 –

A majority of interviewees perceived an improvement in the safe handling, use and storage of firearms attributable to the safety components of the CFP. From a statistical perspective, five of eight jurisdictions have reported that the rate of firearms-related unintentional deaths has declined; and five of thirteen jurisdictions reported a similar decline in firearms-related suicides.[23]

OK, the interviewees “perceived” an “improvement” – on what did they base this “perception”?

[23] With respect to findings for firearms-related unintentional deaths, owing to small sample sizes, five of the less populated jurisdictions were not able to provide statistically significant data; hence, only eight of thirteen jurisdictions were able to report.

And this goes to show what I said before – gun accidents (including accidental deaths) were so minuscule to begin with, they are hardly “statistically significant”; also, although “firearms related suicides” may be down, the total number of suicides has remained the same, and may actually be trending upwards.  Obviously, the focus here should not be on the “means”, but the “cause” of such mental states.

I think this would be a good time to “recap” the basics of this “survey”; from Appendix F, here is the list of the 5 “groups” that were interviewed:

A Senior Managers (i.e.: OIC, CFO, Senior Partners)

B Managers (i.e.: Processing Center): Processing Centre; CFO’s office

C Government Agencies (Police Justice): Police; Government Agencies; Advisory Committee; Safety Instructors; Firearms Officers; Conservation/ Game Officers; Crown; NWEST; Guns & Gangs

D Special Interest: Gun Clubs/ Ranges, Owners; Businesses; Aboriginal; Health; Victims Groups; Education

E Frontline Staff

So, out of all of these “stakeholders”, only those in Groups “C” and “D” have any actual gun owners in them – and even then it’s not clear if these are individual gun owners off the street, or if they are confined to the owners of clubs, ranges and businesses.

Here’s the question they asked, and the results:

(all) 3. Does CFP safety training, contribute to the safe handling, use and storage of firearms?

Using a ten point scale, with 1 representing poor and 10 representing excellent, how would you rate the CFPs safety training, for contributing to the safe handling, use and storage of firearms?

Score……………………..1 to 4   5 & 6   7 to 10

Govt agencies;police…. .3%       6%      90%

Special interest…………..5%      15%     80%

But this is difficult to explain – the only ones who have to take the safety training course are those who opted for the Possession and Acquisition License (800,000); those who opted for the Possession Only License (1 M) were not required to take the course.  So if there is an improvement in “safety”, how can it be attributable to said “training”, when over half of licensed gun owners never took the course?

What would be more indicative would be a study of how many gun accidents there were, and what kind of license the victims had.  This study provides no such information.

And again, if “safety” were the intended objective, why aren’t they requiring age-appropriate safe handling and shooting training in our schools?  Also note that none of these safety courses actually involve any kind of shooting proficiency.

And this only covers licensed individuals – it doesn’t even touch on the kind of ‘safety record” of illegal gun owners…

And said training does not need to be tied to licensing.

Again, they try to fix something that wasn’t broken to begin with…

Interviewees from all of the categories – from CFP officials, to Police Officers, to Firearms Instructors and Gun Club Owners – commented on the ongoing need for, and benefits of, the safety training aspects of the program.

Then why isn’t there any move towards implementing age-appropriate firearms safety and shooting training in our schools?

As a police officer in New Brunswick stated, “ …[just] like for a drivers license, you should have appropriate training before receipt of a license.” This comment reflects, broadly, the overall attitude among those who come into contact with firearms: that personal responsibility for the safe use and handling of firearms rests with individuals; and, public safety is promoted when individuals are trained to properly use and store their firearms.

But, as I said before, the firearms safety courses do NOT involve ANY actual firearms shooting safety training!  A driver’s license test requires that you actually drive a car.  Not to mention that the whole car/gun analogy fails on all counts…

– 38 –

Recommendation 5:

That a process of quality control or auditing be developed to ensure consistent, quality delivery of the safety training courses across the country.

Safety course instructors who were interviewed stated that there are a variety of modifications that could be made to the delivery and/or the content of the safety training courses. Offering recommendations to improve the delivery or content of these courses fell outside of the scope of this evaluation; however, an annex has been included with this study to provide this unsolicited – yet extremely valuable – advice generously supplied with the earnest intention of promoting a safety training program of the highest possible quality.

An anylysis of this information will have to wait for another day…

~~~

– 33 –

Performance

Finding 3:

Inconsistent and contradictory communications/outreach regarding the Canadian Firearms Program has led to confusion and misunderstanding among the general public and public safety officials.

They could have called this entire section “Propaganda”, which is pretty much what it amounts to…

Employees of the CFP have stated in interviews that licensing compliance has been affected by political messages

However, some CFP employees interviewed have the perception that the program does not adequately sell its value to public.

If the CFP is so bloody fantastic, why do they need to “sell” it to the public?

Program strategies include:

– 34 –

marking renewal forms as RCMP mail to better encourage people to open their correspondence and comply;

amending correspondence to make it seem less threatening;

Oh, and like getting a letter from the RCMP isn’t “threatening” – they even say that this is intended to make gun owners “comply”… hypocritical scumbags.

There is a further need to communicate that firearms are an important public safety issue. There is limited understanding and public confusion concerning gun owner obligations, responsibilities and facts surrounding the regulatory aspects of the program. A common misconception is that the Firearms Program is just the “Gun Registry”. This has resulted in a lack of compliance, and at times, hostility toward the program.

No!  Really?

The fact that firearms owners believe that the Firearms program is nothing more than the registry make it difficult for the CFOs to enforce compliance and brings the entire CFP into question.

They say that like it’s a bad thing…

The public safety value of the program must be apparent to the Aboriginal population in order to increase participation.

The reason why people don’t see the “public safety value” in this boondoggle is that they have never really defined what “public safety” is, and have so far been unable to provide any actual proof that the CFP does anything to enhance “public safety” – whatever that is.

Likewise, involvement of youth and schools is seen as a viable method for delivering the messages, especially in the context of safety training.

Can you say “indoctrination”, Comrades?  Knew you could…

There appears to be a generalized resistance among a number of gun owners, who as a vocal minority, feel the long gun registry is a waste of money. Some gun owners sense they became polarized by the public with the implementation of the firearms program.

Could it be because law-abiding gun owners really are being persecuted for crimes they didn’t commit, and most likely never will?  Could it be because the leftist media and anti-gun extremists have consistently portrayed law-abiding gun owners as knuckle dragging Neanderthals, who are just “one pull of the trigger” away from being heinous criminals?

Naaaaaah!

Firearm officers (FO) have expressed reluctance in attending firearm owner meetings as a result of the difficult reception; however, in order to become an effective program, this difficulty needs to be overcome with both firearms owners and the Aboriginal population by FO’s with the right competencies to perform the job.

The Firearms Act tramples on over a dozen of our Charter protected and other rights, for having committed no crime whatsoever.  All that the CFP has done is serve to divide Canadians against each other, particularly between gun owners and the police.  The Firearms Act has diminished considerably the respect for the rule of law in this country.

– 35 –

The CFP needs to interface with and do more research into better understanding the clientele groups that are significantly impacted by firearms i.e Gun clubs, Schools, Victims of Violence, Aboriginal communities, Mental Health community etc. With a better understanding of these environments and their issues, the program can be improved further, gaining the confidence of these important stakeholders and allowing for more effective communications.

[…]

Within law enforcement and the judicial system, many employees do not fully understand firearms laws and regulations, contributing to a lack of enforcement. The inconsistent application and interpretation of the law by judicial and law enforcement partners, contributes to public confusion concerning obligations and responsibilities under the Firearms Act.

[…]

There is a perception among many interviewees (police, judicial and gun owners), that there is minimal understanding by law enforcement and judicial personnel concerning the CFP and firearm-related legislation, which is leading to minimal enforcement of the program[21]. There is little formalized training currently available to general duty police officers or crown prosecutors.

[21] It is worth noting that in nearly all interviews conducted with RCMP officers, the interviewees indicated they were not very well informed about the Firearms Act, the Program, or about changes in regulations surrounding firearms. To this end, the CFP has for instance included a “Special Bulletins for Police” page on its website specifically to inform law enforcement agencies of legislative changes to the relevant legislation.

– 36 –

Recommendation 2:

That the RCMP provide clear and consistent communications to Canadians on firearms and related public safety issues, adapted to the local level and using local mediums. Communications should be robust and targeted to the firearms community, but should also focus on other key stakeholders, including law enforcement, CFO’s and judicial partners, which are impacted by firearms and the CFP

Recommendation 3:

That the RCMP contribute to the development of a training program for justice, police, and CFO’s on the CFP and firearm-related legislation, and assess the impact of privacy issues on the program, all to better promote public safety as the primary mandate. Develop a secure website for police, Justice and CFO’s to stay current with relevant information for investigators and Crown, with reference to: powers of search & seizure; warrants (best practices); MOU’s for Mental Health, etc..

Recommendation 4:

That the RCMP’s website be developed into a more user friendly environment and target the general public, young and old in Canada’s official and predominant indigenous languages regarding firearms. This is particularly relevant for people in isolated communities where the internet is available.

So the bottom line is: after 15 years and $2 BILLION wasted on this pile of garbage, the public and the police are no better informed about how this law works.  How can average, law-abiding gun owning citizens be expected to comply with a law that even the po-leece can’t understand?

~~~

Hey, Chief Blair!  How is that “Project Safe City” working out for you?

Harassed any honest gun owners lately?

~~~

I found a new source of crimes on the TPS website, under “News Releases”; the two sources seem to be mutually exclusive – why, I don’t know…

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/

~~~

Major News Reports & News Releases

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5022&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Friday, October 15, 2010

Robbery (Financial Institution) – 33 Division

Two tellers for the Bank of Montreal, 4797 Leslie Street, report that on October 15, 2010 at approximately 1145 hours three male suspects wearing disguises entered the premises.  Two of the suspects produced guns and one suspect jumped over the counter.  One of the suspects made a demand for cash.  The victims complied.  The suspect removed a quantity of cash from the drawer and discharged the gun at the vault door.  The suspects fled the scene in a vehicle southbound on Nymark Avenue.  No injuries were sustained by the victims.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1-#3: Male, black, 25-30 years.

10473/87947/16:34

~~~

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5023&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Robbery (Swarming) – 42 Division

A 41 year old female, a 74 year old male and a 67 year old female report that on October 15, 2010 at approximately 2158 hours, they were walking in the area of Bamburgh Circle and Warden Avenue when they were approached by four male suspects, one armed with a handgun and three armed with bats. One of the suspects made a demand for cash while the other three suspects stood as lookouts.  The victims did not comply.  The first suspect produced a black handgun and shoved it into the female victim’s ribs.  At that time one of the victims called out for help and was threatened by the suspect with the handgun.  This same suspect then grabbed a purse from one of the female victims. The suspects then fled the scene in an unknown direction.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1:  Male, white, 18 to 21 years old, 5’9” to 5’11”, medium build. Suspects #2 and #3: Male, white, 18 to 21 years old, 5’7” to 5’9”, medium build. Suspect #4: Male, white, 18 to 21 years old, 5’3” to 5’5”, medium build.

8862/88551/04:44

~~~

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5024&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Robbery (Swarming) – 43 Division

Three males, ages 17, 18 & 20 years, report that on October 16, 2010 at approximately 1954 hours, they were walking in the area Morningside Avenue & Military Trail when they were approached from behind by three male suspects, one wearing a disguise.  One suspect produced a handgun and made a demand for the victim’s cash and property.  The suspects then searched the victims and removed their cellular telephones, cash and a wallet.  The suspects forced the victim’s to lie on the ground then fled the scene in an unknown direction.  No injuries were sustained by the victims.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1:  Male, white, 17-24 years, 5’8” – 5’10”, 150-180 pounds, thin build.  Suspect #2:  Male, black, 20-24 years, 5’8” – 5’11, 200 – 220 pounds, brown eyes, medium build.  Suspect #3:  Male, black, 17-24 years, 5’8”-6’, 161 – 180 pounds, brown eyes.

10095/87931/01:15

 

Discharge Firearm Endanger Life – 13 Division

On October 17, 2010 at approximately 0345 hours, police were dispatched to the area of Eglinton Avenue West and Dufferin Street.  A witness reports that there was an altercation between four male parties.  One male produced a handgun and discharged one round into the sky.  All parties fled the scene in an unknown direction.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described person in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect:  Male, black, 5’6”, 185-189 pounds, thin build, black hair.

9078/89447/08:36

 

Oct 17, 2010, 06:38 pm Homicide #50/2010, Ibsa Hassan Ismeil, 29

Homicide #50/2010,
Ibsa Hassan Ismeil, 29

Broadcast time: 18:38
Sunday, October 17, 2010

41 Division
416−808−7400

On Sunday, October 17, 2010 at 1:08 a.m., police responded to a radio call for the sound of gunshots in the area of 65 Firvalley Court.

Officers attended and located a vehicle in a parking lot next to 57 Cataraqui Court. A man was seated inside the vehicle suffering from obvious gunshot wounds to his head.

See previous release.

The victim has been identified as Ibsa Hassan Ismeil, 29, of Toronto.

A post−mortem examination is to be scheduled.

Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 416−808−7400, Crime Stoppers
anonymously at 416−222−TIPS (8477), online at http://www.222tips.com, text TOR and your
message to CRIMES (274637), or Leave A Tip on Facebook.

~~~

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5026&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Monday, October 18, 2010

Robbery (Business) – 33 Division

A 57 year old male owner of Tuck Shop, 29 Valley Woods Road, reports that on October 17, 2010 at approximately 2129 hours, three male suspects, wearing disguises and one armed with a handgun entered the premises and approached the counter.  One of the suspects produced the handgun, pointed it at the victim and made a demand for cash.  The victim complied.  At that time, the second suspect went around the counter and removed a quantity of cigarettes.  The third suspect stood outside the store as a lookout.  One suspect ordered the victim to go outside the premises at gunpoint.  Once there, this same suspect struck the victim about the head causing him to fall to the ground.  The suspects then fled the scene northbound on Valley Woods Road.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence. Description of Suspect #1:  Male, white, 18 to 21 years, medium build. Suspect #2 and #3: Male, white, 18 to 21 years, 5’7”, medium build.

10389/88378/02:10

 

Robbery (Mugging) – 55 Division

A 27 year old male reports that on October 18, 2010 at approximately 1244 hours, he was riding his bicycle in the area of O’Connor Drive and Coxwell Avenue when he was approached by a male suspect.  The suspect produced a gun and made a demand that the victim get off his bicycle.  The victim complied.  A struggle ensued.  The suspect fled the scene with the victim’s bicycle eastbound on O’Connor Drive.  No injuries were sustained by the victim.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described person in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect: Male, white, 24-34 years, 6’0”-6’1”, husky build, blond hair.

9971/87947/17:18

~~~

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5029&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Robbery (Swarming) – 31 Division

A 14 year old male reports that on October 19, 2010 between 1600 hours and 1700 hours, he was in the area of Finch Avenue West and Sentinel Road when his path was blocked by two male suspects on bicycles, while a third make suspect with a bike stood nearby.  The suspects began to search the victim’s pockets and a struggle ensued.  The victim was punched in the face and knocked to the ground. The suspects threatened the victim with a handgun and then removed the victim’s iPod and cellular phone from the victim’s pockets.  The suspects fled the scene in an unknown direction.  Minor injuries were sustained by the victim, but he will seek his own medical attention.  Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect #1: Male, black, 15 to 17 years, 5’6”.  Suspect #2:  Male, black, 15 to 17 years, 5’4” to 5’5”, black hair worn in an afro.  Suspect #3:  Male, black with light complexion, black hair.

9083/89439/14:29

 

Attempt Murder – 14 Division

Two males ages 26 years and 27 years report that on October 20, 2010 at approximately 1315 hours they were in the area of Bloor Street West and Montrose Avenue when a male suspect fired several shots, striking one victim about the head and the second victim about the right arm.  The suspect then fled the scene eastbound on Bloor Street West.  The victims were transported to hospital by Toronto EMS.  One of the victims was treated for his injuries and released and the second victim was admitted.  The condition of the second victim is unknown at this time. Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described person in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspect: Male, 5’6”, thin build. NO FURTHER DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE.

9296/65563/19:24

~~~

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5032&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Robbery (Swarming) – 31 Division

A 24 year old male reports that on October 20, 2010 at approximately 2235 hours, he was walking in the area of Gosford Boulevard and Shoreham Drive when three male suspects approached from behind and surrounded him.  One of the suspects produced a handgun, held it to the victim’s stomach and removed his wallet and two cellular phones from his person.  The suspects then fled the scene on Shoreham Drive towards York Gate Mall.  No injuries were sustained by the victim. Police are requesting the assistance of the public in identifying the following described persons in connection with this offence.  Description of Suspects #1 – #2:  Male, black, 18 – 20 years, thin build.
Suspect: #3: Male, South Asian, 5’6”, thin build, short black hair.

5491/82010/03:11

 

Oct 20, 2010, 04:10 pm Man Faces Seven Charges, Loaded Handgun Seized

Man faces seven charges, Loaded handgun seized

Broadcast time: 16:10
Wednesday, October 20, 2010

32 Division
416−808−3200

On Friday, October 15, 2010, at 4:45 p.m., officers were on patrol on Dorney Court, in the Flemington Road/Varna Drive area.

It is alleged that:

− the officers stopped to talk to two men,
− as the officers approached, one of the men began to run and a loaded .45 calibre handgun fell from under his clothing.

Theilus Chambers, 19, of Toronto, is charged with:

1. Possession of a Restricted Firearm with Ammunition,
2. Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm,
3. Possession of a Firearm knowing its Possession is Unauthorized,
4. Fail to Comply Recognizance,
5. Revocation of Bail,
6. Firearm Careless Use,
7. Carry Concealed Weapon.

He appeared in court on Saturday, October 16, 2010.

~~~

Read along at: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pd-dp/eval/index-eng.htm

– 28 –

Average Daily Queries to the CFRO

Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Individual Name 1,561 1,820 2,397 4,001 4,262 6440 6,722
Address 27 42 1,434 2,268 2,364 2574 2,606
Serial# 128 130 143 187 176 202 271
Other 95 95 117 136 172 197 207
Total 1,811 2,087 4,091 6,592 6,974 9,413 9,806

This table seems to be just stuck in there for “filler” – the “2 ba-zillion checks per day” factoid has been shown to be completely bogus, as well as meaningless.  Most of these “hits” are automatically generated, and the Auditor General said that such figures are “what we call an activity indicator than an indicator of effectiveness.”  In other words, this is nothing more than “bureaucratic busywork”.

A survey of CFRO users showed that 81% of trained police officers supported the statement, “In my experience, CFRO query results have proven beneficial during major operations.”(1) So beneficial, in fact, that RCMP dispatchers, RCMP Operational Communications Centres, Quebec Police agencies, Halifax Regional Police, Halton Regional Police, Canadian Military Police, OPP, Peel Regional Police, Toronto Police Service, West Vancouver Police Department and the Tsuu Tina Police Service have re-designed their Records Management Systems to auto-query CFRO whenever a police officer queries CPIC.(2) Additionally, 513 RCMP detachments and federal units, 579 Canadian municipal police agencies and 88 OPP locations query CFRO yearly.

(1) This is the “survey” from Appendix G; this is their “methodology”:

In early 2007, the Canadian Firearms Program undertook an initiative to assess the usefulness of CFRO to general duty police officers. The purpose was to gain an understanding of how CFRO could be improved to offer greater assistance to the policing community as well as to identify the need for additional training.

The survey was sent to 500 police contacts from a wide variety of agencies, encouraging distribution to as many general duty officers as possible. The CFP received responses between March and July, 2007. During this period, 408 police officers from 56 police departments completed the survey with a functional breakdown as follows; 262 general duty patrol officers, 64 criminal investigators and 82 supervisors. The responses fully reflect the diversity of police departments from large to small, urban to rural, federal, municipal and provincial. The survey consisted of questions focusing on the use of CFRO and the users’ familiarity and training with the system.

This table shows the questions and the responses:

– 29 –

A survey sample size of 408 police officers – that seems rather small.  Out of 500 “police contacts” with “general distribution”, this is all they could come up with.  How many total police officers are there in these 500 agencies?   If every “agency” has a “firearms officer”, this is less than the total number of firearms officers of all agencies.  And just who responded, and more importantly, who didn’t?  Was this survey “anonymous”?  I can imagine that any cop who was against the registry had, not unreasonably, fears of negative repercussions if they spoke out.

Was the survey “scientific”?  That is to say, were the questions designed by bona-fide pollsters?  Were there any “controls” applied to the results?  Is this poll “correct 19 times out of 20”?

Of the total respondents, how many were actually trained?  To what standard?

What constitutes “use”?

What constitutes a “major operation”?

And the anti-gun extremists were complaining that Edmonton Police Service’s Randy Kuntz’s survey of 2,631 peace officers, 92% of whom want the registry scrapped, was “unscientific”…

(2) Yet more evidence of “auto queries” padding the numbers!

Another tid-bit from Appendix G:

[…]

The results of the survey indicate that many officers who use CFRO have never had training in how to use it.

So, after 15 years of this nonsense, the po-leece still don’t know how to use the system? FAIL!

CFP assists law enforcement, the policing community and Crown prosecutors by preparing affidavits that certify licensing or registration information related to individuals or firearms. Typically, affidavit requests are to determine what firearms an individual has registered to them, or to determine if a given firearm is registered. This certification is based on data maintained and controlled by both the CFO and the Registrar.

Number of affidavits produced: Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Affidavits# 1,150 2,260 2,400 3,374 3,606

Well, good for them!  This strikes me as just another “busywork” number – there’s no information on whether a conviction was secured or not – yet more meaningless numeric bafflegab…

In November 2008, Canadian police services and other public agencies started recording their service firearms, and all other firearms recovered, seized, or otherwise in inventory. This will enable users of the firearms registration database to find and track firearms recovered from crime scenes and at the borders, and generally allow for far better firearms intelligence analysis. Preliminary numbers from police agencies show that the majority of firearms seized since November 2008 are non-restricted (79.7%)(1). A search of the registration database showed that 46.5% of non-restricted firearms seized were registered.(2)

(1) Seized how?  How many of these supposed “crime guns” were seized only because of an unrelated non-firearms crime?  We’ve seen the po-leece “pad the numbers” like this before.

(2) So, of these long-guns that were “seized”, less than HALF were registered.  What does that tell you?  Either there is massive non-compliance by gun owners, or criminals don’t register their guns…

– 30 –

The Public Agents Firearms Regulations came into effect on October 31, 2008. These regulations require all police services and all government departments and agencies to report firearms in their possession. As a result, the CFP is able to quantify and track the number of protected firearms within police and other public agencies. Additionally, information related to these firearms is available to police forces across the country to assist in their investigations via a central database.[18]

The initial inventory (23,606 firearms) refers to the number of firearms in police custody accounted for when the Public Agents Firearms Regulations came into effect October 31, 2008. The final inventory data (45,963) was reported August 31, 2009. Increases of 22,357 police-identified firearms have been seen in the 10 months following the program’s implementation.

Why is that?  What has caused this increase?  Does this have anything to do with Chief Bill Blair’s “Project Safe City”, which harasses law-abiding gun owners who have let their Firearms License lapse?  Why is there no breakdown by “agency”, or by Province at the very least?

Again, compared to the total number of firearms legally owned in Canada, these numbers seem pretty infinitesimal.

[46,000 / 7M = .65%]

The Public Agents Firearms Regulations will have a direct impact on enforcement actions within Canada. The Firearms Operations and Enforcement Support Unit of the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program identifies real time, criminal trends and patterns regarding the criminal use of firearms and reports on this directly to front-line enforcement units in order to directly impact ongoing firearms investigations.[19]

[18] Canadian Firearms Program, Strategic Integration and Program Management Services, Report 9500, run 24Sep09

[19] ‘Enforcement Support’ FOES analysts will be able to identify at a glance which firearms are in illegal status in Canada and under what circumstances they were seized. Those firearms will be cross-referenced with trace and occurrence data obtained by NWEST and the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre (CNFTC) and if appropriate will be submitted for tracing, the results of which are forwarded back to the agency of jurisdiction for action. This will be a critical first step in closing the tracing gap in Canada; the ‘Public Agents’ PAFR will allow the ‘Enforcement Support unit’ FOES to accurately report on ALL firearms seized by police and identify their origins. Furthermore, should the origin of a firearm not be traceable, the ‘Enforcement Support unit’ FOES will be in a position to determine the reason and report back to the agency of jurisdiction with recommendations.

What “tracing gap”?  If a firearm is not “traceable”, how can they “determine the reason”?  And how does that help?

In one paragraph – in a footnote – we find three new agencies I’ve never heard of before: FOES, CNFTC and PAFR.  The bureaucracy just keeps growing and growing…all to keep track of law-abiding, gun owning citizens!

– 31 –

Strategic engagement has been the focus for CFP through 2007/2008 and has been led by the Director General. Over 20 in-person presentations to Government and Police officials across the country were conducted, resulting in a wide spread recognition of the Program and thus an increase in the use of the CFRO tool of over 25%.(1) Communication initiatives have been initiated throughout the year to keep clients and the public aware of not only the law, but also the program. Along with the strategic engagement initiative, these communications included pamphlets, mail outs, and manuals, and were a key contributor to meeting this priority.(2)

(1) More “busywork” is still just “busywork”…

(2) I think they mean “propaganda”.

In terms of tracking firearms, the program continues to attract hundreds of thousands of new registrations each year, and enables investigators to trace firearms across every Canadian jurisdiction.

OK, so they’re tracking firearms between legitimate gun owners and businesses – so what?  What is this actually accomplishing, besides nothing?  Criminals don’t register their guns, and they sure don’t call up the CFC to transfer them to other criminals!

The Program not only impacts the 1.9 million Canadians who own firearms, it enhances the safety of all other Canadians who live in the same communities, by promoting safe use and storage of firearms. The requirement that all firearms must be registered and known to authorities supports a climate of individual accountability and public confidence, which in turn goes a long way toward ensuring the 30 million Canadians who do not own firearms to accept the privilege of others to do so.

More like a “climate of fear”, don’t they mean?  And they still have yet to provide anything resembling substantive evidence that this whole thing “works”.

And have you noticed how they keep repeating that gun ownership is a “privilege”?  Another example of the “Big Lie”!

End of Act Three of this dog and pony show…


~~~

– 25 –

Continuous-eligibility screening is one of the most innovative features of the CFP. Rather than just doing background checks at the time of licensing and renewal (as was done under previous legislation), the CFRS is dynamic and continuously updated as new information comes to the attention of the police and courts concerning the behaviour of licence holders. All current holders of firearms licences, POL (Possession Only) and PAL (Possession and Acquisition of further firearms), are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS). CFIS automatically checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to determine whether a licence holder has been the subject of an incident report in CPIC. All matches generate a report entitled Firearms Interest Police (FIP) that is automatically forwarded to the CFO in the relevant province for follow-up. Some of these reports require no further action, but others may lead to review of the individual’s licence and may result in its revocation. . Continuous-eligibility screening reduces the likelihood that an individual who has shown they are a risk to public safety will be permitted to retain possession of firearms.

(1) Again, this only deals with those who already have a license, or have applied for one – you know, the legal ones!

Legitimate gun owners are on permanent parole without having committed any crime. Why is this same level of scrutiny not being applied to actual criminals?

Again, there is nothing here that is preventing actual criminals from going out and illegally obtaining guns with which to commit actual crimes.

Here is some info from MP Garry Breitkreuz, who has done extensive research into the Firearms Act and the CFP:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article168.htm

PROBLEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE CANADIAN FIREARMS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION

(to September 2002 Technical Report) – April 2003

NOTE:  This 58-page CFC Evaluation was obtained by Garry Breitkreuz, MP from the Department of Justice under the authority of the Access to Information Act – Justice Dept. ATIP File: A-2003-0121 dated September 9, 2003.

PROBLEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE “EXECUTIVE SUMMARY”

Page 35: “The Firearms Interest Police (FIP) Database – In essence, continuous eligibility is a major component of the CFP and, likewise, FIP is a major component of continuous eligibility.  There would appear to be several issues that threaten the effectiveness of FIP.  First, policing agencies do not follow consistent procedures for entering FIP data.  Some agencies were reported to be entering data for incidents that were seen as being irrelevant to firearms ownership.  Second, anytime a FIP file is modified in any way by the operating police agency, it generates another or duplicate FIP hit or flag, which may have to be investigated by the CFO.  The net result could be dozens of hits or flags for one individual, which in turn may place a great burden on the CFO office personnel.  The main concern expressed over this issue is that relevant risk data could be overlooked among large amounts of irrelevant/duplicate data.  Third, personal identifying information that is contained in FIP is often inexact (for example, surname and first initial only) and therefore could apply to a number of individuals.  This necessitates detailed follow-up on other police databases, and the CFOs reported some difficulties gaining access to this information.

And Garry found out just how many people are being so scrutinized by the po-leece:

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article464.htm

BREITKREUZ’S ORIGINAL [ATIA] REQUEST DATED MARCH 29, 2004

Please provide copies of the reports showing the current status, cost and effectiveness of the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database.  We are particularly interested in copies of reports documenting:

(2)   Total number of active files or current records pertaining to individuals in the FIP database; and

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE RESPONSE DATED JUNE 11, 2004

Based on the information provided, a search for records was conducted in Ottawa, Ontario.  The answer to your queries is as follows:

2)      We have been informed that the answer to this query is 4,156,497 as of Saturday May 1, 2004.

“4,156,497” individuals who are deemed “potentially dangerous” in the FIP files.  This is TWICE the number of licensed gun owners – why are they keeping track of 2 million non-gun-owning citizens?  Are YOU on this list?

– 26 –

Number of confirmed FIP reports by province

Province/Territory 2007 2007
Newfoundland and Labrador 2,116 Prince Edward Island 278
Nova Scotia 5,588 New Brunswick 3,671
Quebec 37,302 Ontario 19,924
Manitoba 4,348 Saskatchewan 2,877
Alberta 8,766 British Columbia 11,426
Yukon 273 Northwest Territories 216
Nunavut 589 Total 97,374

OK, so what does this really mean?  What does “confirmed” mean? This seems to refer back to this statement:

Continuous eligibility checks identified over 97,000 potential public safety issues (Firearms Interest to Police);

FIP hits led to 466 Licence Refusals and 1701 Licence Revocations;

But there are over 4 million FIP reports – have they all not been “confirmed”?  If not, why are the po-leece hanging on to possibly erroneous data?

97,374/4,156,497 = 2.34% “confirmed” reports

That doesn’t sound like a heck of a lot to me…

Number of license refusals and revocations (by year)

Year Refusals Revocations
2006 424 2093
2007 466 1701
2008 478 1800
2009 148 499

-27-

F10: Total Refusals: 443

F11: Total Revocations: 1,758

There is no year indicated; these numbers don’t seem to jibe with any other numbers provided – where did they come from?  Are the an average, perhaps?  Show your work, please!

This report doesn’t take into account how many of these revocations and refusals may actually have been erroneous, which persons may have been reinstated after a FA appeal hearing…

And note that of all the reasons, only 3% in each case were licenses pulled because of actual firearms-related causes.

– 28 –

A large increase in revocations due to court-ordered firearms prohibitions resulted from an initiative to use CPIC for this data, and ensured that many thousands of individuals with criminal backgrounds, who would have escaped scrutiny under the old manual system, lost their privilege to possess firearms.

How many “thousands”?  As I have shown, such numbers are a minuscule percentage of the total number of both FIP “hits” and the total number of license holders.  And why did “revocations” drop so precipitously in 2009?  Did the criminals finally figure out that they shouldn’t apply for licenses?