Archive for October 27th, 2010

~~~

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.