RCMP CFP Evaluation – Part 3.2

~~~

– 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?



%d bloggers like this: