Archive for the ‘RCMP’ Category

~~~

The final installment on this section of “Recommendations”.

As always, you can read along at:

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

~~~

– 44 –

Recommendation 12:

That the CFP further analyzes domestic violence issues involving firearms. That, simultaneously, the RCMP as an organization develops further police protocols for domestic violence calls during instances involving firearms, and that they consider encouraging other police services, which have not yet done so, to adopt this approach.

Well, if firearms really are involved with that particular instance of domestic violence, then yes, they should be impounded.  I don’t think any reputable gun owner would disagree.  But all too often such claims are made by a vindictive soon to be ex-spouse, who just wants to make trouble for her partner.

It seems to me like they are trying to “trump up” more fallacious reasons in order to remove guns “from circulation”.  As pointed out above, 45% of spousal homicides are committed with something other than a gun, and that alcohol and a history of violence far outweigh the presence of guns in the home:

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/1104216

Combined with alcohol, the risk factor increases. Seventy-five per cent of the perpetrators had a serious drug or alcohol problem. That compares to 42 per cent in Ontario.

An overwhelming factor was a history of violence, which Doherty defined as not just physical, but emotional or sexual as well. Ninety per cent of the cases appeared to have a history of violence – though it wasn’t clear in court documents, she said.

 

  • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

Management supports the recommendation.

  • Current Status

The CFP is conducting research and analysis with respect to domestic violence and firearms. CCAPS is responsible for developing national policy with respect to domestic violence.

  • Responsible

SIPMS

  • Planned Action

As outlined in the “Planned Action” for recommendation #10 of this MAP; ” the CFP will continue to work with CCAPS on policy development” by providing subject matter resources.

  • Diary Date: December 31, 2010

There should be a corollory to the “Follow the money” aphorism: “Follow the bullshit”.  7 “Recommendations” from one “Finding”.  It seems to me that all this is nothing more than an exercise in justifying further incursions upon our rights, by “manufacturing” a problem that just does not exist.

A sample size of 283 abused women, of which only 71 admitted to having guns in the home – a meager number, to be sure.

A study which refers to other studies done by the same author, who is on the payroll of an anti-gun and anti-male group, paid for by the anti-gun establishment at the CFC, which shows a need for more restrictions on gun owners – why am I not surprised?

Out of the total male population, how many are actually abusers?  How many of them are gun owners?  What are the real numbers here?   I bet they will never say, since those kinds of numbers don’t work in their favour…

~~~

Here it is – the long-awaited return of my critical analysis of the RCMP’s “Evaluation” of the Canadian Firearms Program!

The bafflegab was so strong in this section, it almost got the better of me, but I finally managed to beat it into submission.

As always, you can read along at:

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

~~~

Recommendation 11:

That the CFP make better use of CFIS for investigative work and file management. Tracking and retention of historical CFIS information needs to be maintained electronically and better available to CFO’s and Firearm Officer Investigators.

Police and CFO’s require better sensitization to domestic/family violence in circumstances where those committing the act are also firearms owners. Recent Canadian research in one province has shown some possible national implications.[33] The study found that hunting rifles and shotguns are part of the cycle of abuse for many victims of family violence living in rural areas. The researchers learned that there is a very high tolerance level for firearm misuse in rural communities, compared to that in urban communities. Interviews with abused rural women, crisis workers, and police suggest that for some abused women, threats with hunting rifles was a part of the everyday life and that these firearms played a role in creating a climate of control and intimidation. This ranged from dealing with their partner’s frequent threats of suicide, damage to property, or threats to harm her, the children or the pets/farm animals if she should ever leave. Such intimidation increased women’s fears that something deadly could happen. The acceptance of firearms as a normal occurrence in domestic violence incidents often reduced the perceptions of firearms abuse and risks of lethality even among professionals. Several service providers who worked with victims noted that when a client (abused woman) said that there were firearms in the home (hunting rifle or shotgun), it did not cause alarm. Some police in the study (in particular regions) removed firearms in domestic cases, while several officers mentioned that they did not routinely search for and seize firearms in a domestic case. Authority exists in the Criminal Code for police to seize firearms from all alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision may further put onus to police to consider firearms present, even if they are unused, as possible and probable threats to the victim’s safety, and hence fit for removal[34].

[33] Deborah Doherty, Ph.D. and Jennie Hornosty, Ph.D. “Exploring the Links: Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities.” 2008.

From the “Executive Summary” of  the “study”:

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/Exploring the Links Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abu.pdf

“The current study, which was funded by the Canada Firearms Centre,”

Hmmmmm…..

Follow the money:

http://www.unb.ca/fredericton/arts/departments/sociology/awards.html

Co-Principal Investigators Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty received a research grant of $125 000 from the Canada Firearms Centre for their project: Exploring the Links Between Firearms, Family Violence and Animal Abuse in Rural Communities.

Nice work if you can get it…

Here are references to some of the “supporting material” for this study:

“Yet we know from our previous research[1] that the availability of firearms in rural homes is a perceived threat by abused rural women (see Doherty, Hornosty & McCallum, 1997; Hornosty & Doherty, 2004; Doherty & Hornosty, 2004; Hornosty & Doherty, 2003).”

[1] This previous research was conducted by the research team, Family Violence on the Farm and in Rural Communities. The team was comprised of academic researchers, community researchers, a farmwoman, RCMP, and social service providers. The published articles reflect the analysis of Drs Doherty and Hornosty. The “Rural Research Team” is a team of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre on Family Violence Research, established in 1994 to engage in participatory action research to end violence against women.

http://www.albertaspca.org/PDFs/Family Violence_ Firearms_Animal Abuse.pdf

Doherty, D. (2002). Making family violence law information available to people in rural areas: An inventory of promising practices. Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/reports/fv_rural_e.pdf.

Doherty, D. (2006). Domestic homicide in New Brunswick: An overview of some contributing factors. Atlantis, 30 (3), 1-20. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.msvu.ca/atlantis/frame/volumes.htm.

Doherty, D., & Hornosty, J. (2004). Abuse in a rural and farm context. In M. L. Stirling, A. Cameron, N. Nason-Clark, B. Miedema (Eds), Understanding abuse: Partnering for change (pp. 55-81). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Doherty, D., J. Hornosty, & M. McCallum (1997). Barriers to the Use of Support Services by Family Violence Victims in Northumberland County. Family Violence on the Farm and in Rural Communities Research Team. Report submitted to the New Brunswick Department of the Solicitor General, Fredericton.

Isn’t there something a little incestuous about referencing yourself in your own studies?

Further on, we find some “interesting” statistics about firearms ownership and abuse:

With respect to firearms, we learned that:

25% of the women who answered this question had firearms in their household;

– Of these, 72% had long guns. 18%had both long guns and hand guns present;

– Nearly 40% said partners did not have a license to own firearms; 44% of firearms were not registered; 50% were not kept locked, and 11% indicated the guns were kept loaded;

– 66% of the women who indicated there were firearms in their home said knowing about the firearms made them more fearful for their safety and well-being;

– 70% said it had an affect on their decisions to tell others or seek help;

– Women were more likely to express concern for their safety when the firearms were not licensed, registered or locked;

– 83% of the women who knew the guns were loaded were fearful;

– The presence of firearms increased a woman’s fear when her partner used drugs and alcohol or was threatening suicide, or there were concerns that the partner would harm her, the children, family, or property.

From the methodology, we find the following:

The research partners in the study included all the transition houses in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Victim Services in Prince Edward Island, the Chief Firearms Officers in both provinces, Victim Services of the Fredericton City Police and Codiac RCMP in New Brunswick, and the RCMP “J” Division.

And:

Quantitative Data – Survey Participants

The survey questionnaire contained two parts – A and B. Transition house staff and victim services personnel invited abused women to participate and administered the survey. Part A was demographic information such as woman’s age, the community of residence, her employment status, number of children, types of abuse experienced and relationship to the abuser.

Part B asked specific questions that participants answered about the presence and types of firearms, the presence of pets, whether the presence of firearms made her more fearful or made her more reluctant to seek help, and whether her partner had deliberately threatened to harm the pets or farm animals.

In total, we received 391 surveys; 283 women had answered Parts A and B, while 108 surveys contained information only for Part A.

A sample size of 283 abused women, all in abuse shelters, doesn’t strike me as being a terribly representative grouping to me…

From the “statistics” above, 25% of 283 = 71.  That puts all their other percentages into better perspective, doesn’t it?  Gun haters love using percentages, as it obscures the real numbers behind them – in other words, they try to mislead the reader…

Here is an interesting tid-bit from a news article about Dr. Doherty:

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/1104216

Domestic deaths have a number of common links

Published Tuesday June 22nd, 2010

St. John Telegraph-Journal

[…]

Of the 35 cases [since 1989] – 15 of which were murder-suicides – Doherty found that 25 of them were in small towns or rural New Brunswick communities. That compares to 0.9 per cent for Ontario domestic deaths.

Guns have been the weapon of choice. Nineteen of the women were shot, and all but one was with a long gun rifle. “I have a pretty good idea it relates to the fact that this is a hunting province, with more firearms in homes,” Doherty said.

Combined with alcohol, the risk factor increases. Seventy-five per cent of the perpetrators had a serious drug or alcohol problem. That compares to 42 per cent in Ontario.

An overwhelming factor was a history of violence, which Doherty defined as not just physical, but emotional or sexual as well. Ninety per cent of the cases appeared to have a history of violence – though it wasn’t clear in court documents, she said.

Relationships were described as turbulent, stormy with a lot of bickering. Often friends, family or crisis workers knew about the violence, but police were never involved, so reports didn’t make it to court, she said.

[…]

A little light figuring:

35 New Brunswick domestic homicides since 1989: 35 / 20 = 1.75/year

19 of those 35 women were shot to death.

There are some 78,123 [2008] licenced gun owners in New Brunswick, who own some 281,857 [2009] registered firearms; again, we are talking infinitesimal numbers of law-abiding gun owners who are some kind of “problem”.

19/35 * 100 = 55%

While quite high, this also means that almost half of all domestic homicides are committed with something other than a firearm…

So, it would seem to me that there would still be quite a number of domestic homicides even if there weren’t any guns available – addiction and violent behaviour are much more important factors than are guns.

Also, this is a standard anti-gun tacatic of “cherry picking” data: 1989 is 2 years *before* any kind of “strict gun control” laws were put in place (1991), and 6 years before the Firearms Act was passed in 1995.  1989 is, however, the year that Gamil Gharbi perpetrated the “Montreal Masscre”…

Again, from the “Executive Summary”:

Conclusion

The research findings help us to understand better the ways in which firearms may and do serve as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family violence situations. They show that the normalization of firearms in rural homes in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island has lead to the minimization of firearms misuse generally, including desensitization to firearms abuse in instances where women, children and pets/farm animals are the victims. The qualitative findings have complemented and enhanced the quantitative data. We not only know more about the prevalence of firearms in rural homes and their association with various aspects of family violence, we can now situate firearms misuse within the social and culture context that shapes experiences and responses, and as a result, we can offer insights into potential strategies for addressing it.

Decoding this bafflegab, it would seem that by “normalization of firearms”, they mean the day-to-day attitude towards firearms and their acceptance in the general populace,  Of course, to feminazis, there are no “acceptable” uses for guns – their only purpose is to cause harm to women and children..  They seek, therefore, to demonize guns and gun owners, primarily through this process of making mountains out of molehills…

In conclusion, we believe that the study makes a significant contribution to family violence research by demonstrating that cultural factors play a critical role in understanding the nature of, and response to, firearms victimization. The research and findings provide much needed information about the nature of family violence in rural communities and fill a gap in our understanding of how the presence and status of firearms influence women’s decision-making.

Dissemination of the findings will be a critical component of the success of this study.

Of course they do – it’s their bloody study!  Self-important and self-righteous misandrists…

It seems to me that they are intent on manufacturing a problem where one doesn’t actually exist.  Where have we seen that before?

Police protocols could be further developed to set out what happens in instances when firearms are involved in a domestic incidence, and to set out when it would be prudent to seize firearms if there is no record of firearms, no firearms visible, or no mention of firearms in the complaint or during the police presence at the residence. Moreover, the role of spouses/partners during the firearms application process was not well understood, and could be improved[35]. RCMP policy requires updating to reflect recent changes in knowledge about the issue of domestic violence and legislative changes[36]. Under the Firearms Act, the CFO has the authority to review the license and if the situation permits further follow-up, can choose to interview the licensee and/or revoke the license.

OK, let’s set the record straight right off the bat: your average, honest, gun owning citizen is in no way in favour of violence of any kind, spousal or otherwise.  Threatening or intimidating someone with a gun, or any other object – or none at all – is not just wrong, it is a crime.  Of course, if someone threatens another with a gun, then all guns belonging to that person should be taken away, and that person charged accordingly.

The problem is that the “criminal justice” system does not take these kinds of crimes seriously enough.  Part of the problem, as is evidenced by some of these studies, is that those being threatened are not reporting these crimes to the police, sometimes not until it’s too late.

It’s fallacious and just plain useless to focus attention on inanimate objects, when it is the behaviour of individual people that is the real problem.

[35] Doherty et al. 2008, Doherty et al. demonstrated that instead of relying on abused women to report concerns during the application process, it was suggested that when the Firearms Office had cause to investigate an applicant or licensee, that they use this opportunity to ask the partner a series of questions about direct and indirect firearm’s victimization, destruction of property, concerns about suicide and threats to harm pets (which was another finding of the study). This type of important information could also be obtained during an investigation that was triggered for other reasons. Also, the study showed that participants in the study reported that they were generally unaware that there was a toll-free number to report firearms abuse to the Canada Firearms Centre

[36] The RCMP has local policing jurisdiction in thousands of rural and remote communities across Canada, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. The RCMP touches on this in the Operations Manual 2.4. “Violence in Relationships. Section 2.2.7: if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is not in the interests of public safety, including the safety of the individual, determine whether he/she has legal access to firearms or other weapons. If applicable, seize firearms…”

Really, this amounts to nothing more than a “fishing expedition” not to mention a “witch hunt” against gun owners and their guns.  An article by the Family Rights Examiner reported on a US study that found that “Ninety percent of domestic violence education programs lack accuracy”; in the article the author makes these comments:

If you’re wondering how we got here, it has to do with a radical ideology, the lack of oversight, and the creation of myths, hoaxes and lies.  Have you ever read that 95% of domestic violence victims are women?  How about, “Domestic violence is the number one reason women go to the emergency room”?  Do you think that more domestic violence occurs on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year?  None of these statements are true.

Just imagine the distortions that must abound when it comes to firearms information coming from such anti-male and anti-gun organizations that make up the vast majority of the “spousal violence” industry!

  • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

Management supports the recommendation.

  • Current Status

In September 2009 the CFP undertook an Information Management (IM) project whose scope includes a review of all IM practices (operational / administrative) with the goal of introducing consistency and best practices on a national level. An updated Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), as well as a Records Disposition Authority (RDA) through Library & Archives Canada (records retention) are deliverables of the project. The project is targeted to be completed by August 2011.

  • Responsible

    OSSD

    • Planned Action
      • To explore the feasibility for Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS) to be recognized and accepted by the RCMP’s IM Branch as a formalized IM repository for operational investigative actions undertaken by CFP. The implementation of policy, process and support tools that address deficiencies promotes consistency in practice and adheres to the framework (legal, policy) that governs the Program.

    Diary Date: August 31, 2010

    So, the RCMP is touting this initiative based on a “report” that was written by a feminist (read: anti-male, anti-gun), working for an anti-male organization, for – and paid for – an anti-gun organization, which references her own work extensively…what’s wrong with this picture?

    19 female spouses shot to death, over the course of 20 years – that’s almost one per year – long before any kind of “gun control” laws were in place, is not sufficient reason to further restrict our rights.


    ~~~

    Recommendation 5 of 7 for this section of the “evaluation”.  Read along at:

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

    ~~~

    Recommendation 10:

    That the RCMP operational policies about reporting mental health incidents to the CFO be updated and further reference Firearms Interest Police (FIP) reporting.

    They are really harping on this “mental health” thing, aren’t they?  I guess they figure if they through enough bafflegab around, somebody somewhere will fall for it…

    CFP personnel are currently performing online web searches for firearms abuse, particularly with firearm licensees and applicants, and they have had success in identifying applicants of concern.(1) Much of their investigative reporting is done using the Firearms Program CFIS. As a national program application for recording following up investigations, it has an opportunity to be utilized by the CFP in promoting public safety.

    (1) Say what?  Our tax dollars are being spent on petty tyrants to surf the web to spy on gun owners and others?  Just how much “success” have they had?  Just what constitutes “concern”?  Where are the hard and fast results of these endeavours?  All we’ve got is some nebulous assertions on their part…

    Tracking and retention of historical information needs to be available to Firearm Officer Investigators in a timely manner, to enable them to properly conduct investigations. Privacy and information security concerns could be addressed by limiting access to sensitive information, such as that related to mental health which could be shared on a, ‘as required’ basis.

    Just what kind of “historical information” do they have in mind?  Is this like the “permanent record” you hear jokes about?

    – 43 –

    If CFIS were recognized in the Firearms Act as a national electronic system, the RCMP would be in a better position to implement quality standards for usage, storage, retention and continuous evaluation/audit. This would allow the RCMP to promote expectations of operational usage consistently, and to mitigate risks including: information availability to police agencies, cross border sharing of investigative material; and balancing information management with the privacy and safety of Canadians.

    The Privacy Commissioner’s concerns over the existing use and management of law-abiding citizen’s private information by the CFP have been largely ignored.  Now the RCMP want what appears to be “carte blanche” to do whatever the hell they please…

    • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

    Management supports the recommendation.

    • Current Status

    In consultation with CCAPS, FIESD is developing operational policy in regards to firearms. At the same time FIESD are reviewing (again in conjunction with CCAPs) existing RCMP policy on firearms to see what needs to be updated. FIESD is also developing administrative and standard operating procedures for its directorate.

    Linking to this is a national Policy Committee made up of analysts and employees from CFO offices working on developing policies for business licences, shooting clubs and shooting ranges.

    • Responsible
      • LRTSD (Licensing, Registration and Technical Services Directorate)
      • FIESD (Firearms Investigative and Enforcement Services Directorate)
    • Planned Action
      • Prepare a work plan to advance and update CFP operational and administrative policy at the national level (including the reporting of mental health incidents to CFOs and further reference Firearms Interest Police (FIP) reporting).

    Diary Date: March 31, 2010

      • Continue to work with RCMP CCAPS in policy development.

    Diary Date: On-going

      • Review existing standard operational policies across Canada to highlight best practices.

    Diary Date: December 2010

    Is there no limit to how much snooping The State wants to do on honest citizens who, by and large, will never commit any heinous crimes with their guns – or without them, for that matter?

    I’ll bet that the vast majority of gun owners have no idea just how much scrutiny they are put under on a daily basis.


    ~~~

    Recommendation 4 of 7 for this section of the “evaluation”.  Read along at:

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

    ~~~

    Recommendation 9:

    That police officers be made aware of the importance, within their provincial jurisdiction, of reporting subjects with mental health concerns. Reporting correct FIP codes, as they relate to mental health, is important to ensure action is taken by the CFO. Reporting procedures as well can vary by police service, so it is important the CFP provides direction on this issue to ensure national consistency.

    As pointed out in an earlier post, after 15 years of this crap, the police still aren’t properly trained!  The old saying applies:  Garbage In, Garbage Out…

    • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

    Management supports the recommendation.

    • Current Status

    In 2008 the CFP drafted new requirements and improved functionality for Firearms Interest Police (FIP) reporting addressed to all police agencies. New requirements included a revised Uniform Crime Reporting II (UCR II) code list that generates FIPs containing a total of 564 codes agreed upon by the Chief Firearms Officers (CFOs) in December 2006; for an increase of 252 codes from the previous list.(1) In addition to the UCR II codes a suggested list of codes for Criminal Code sections not presently being flagged from police agencies Records Management Systems was also provided including s. 117, s. 111 and s. 810

    (1) They want to double the number of codes that trigger an FIP entry!  They already have (at least) 4 million FIP entries on individuals – how many more entries will this generate?

    • Responsible
    • LRTSD (Licensing, Registration and Technical Services Directorate)
    • SIPMS (Strategic Integration and Program Management Services Directorate)
    • DG of the CFP (Director General)
    • Planned Action
      • In partnership with RCMP CCAPS review revised FIP list to ensure it includes FIP codes related to mental health and consult with CFOs if revision is necessary. Along with the CFP, CCAPS and National Police Services (NPS) are the two other directorates responsible for FIP program delivery; CCAPS for FIP data control, NPS for system support.
      • (CCAPS – Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services)

    Diary Date: March 31, 2010

    • Include a reporting structure on the National Firearms Strategy currently being developed by the CACP Firearms Sub-committee which is co-chaired by the DG of the CFP.(2)

    Diary Date: August 31, 2010

    (2) The Canadian Associations of Chiefs of Police are one of the 4 most anti-gun and anti-rights organizations in Canada – and they are the ones who get to decide our fates for us.  How convenient for them that the Director General of the Canadian Firearms Program sits on the CACP Firearms Sub-committee – how does that work, exactly?


    ~~~

    Recommendation 3 of 7 for this section of the “evaluation”.  Read along at:

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

    ~~~

    – 42 –

    Recommendation 8:

    That the CFP examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process. Accordingly, the privacy issues surrounding mental health needs to be addressed further. As an innovative practice, the province of Québec has ‘health providers’ reporting clients with mental health concerns. Their progress should be reviewed to determine applicability and public safety impacts in other provinces.

    Great – yet even more State intrusion on our privacy. Does anyone remember the HRDC’s “Longitudinal Files” scandal that was touted by Lieberal Cabinet Minister Jane Stewart? This is 10 times worse – but since it only affects those evil gun owners, it’s OK. It’s for “public safety” after all!

    “Innovative practice” my ass! They’ve used the coercive power of the State to force various public servants to spy on us, and snitch on our behaviour if they consider it “suspicious”…

    One problem identified in this area is with respect to an inconsistent use of Uniform Crime Reporting codes (UCR2) when police respond to calls that involve an individual with mental health issues. Often police respond to these incidents, which are more commonly coded as “Assistance to the General Public”, a UCR2 code that will not trigger the necessary Firearms Interest Police or FIP flag, needed to raise the attention of the provincial CFO. In the case of a properly coded “Mental Health” instances, if the subject is a firearms license holder, their license will be temporarily suspended so the Firearm Officer can do the appropriate follow-up with the licensee(1). If there are risk concerns, the licensee can be requested to provide documentation from the licensees’ physician to confirm the subject is not of risk to himself or others, with due respect to privacy rights(2). One possible solution is to amend the RCMP policy with respect to reporting mental health incidents to the CFO, to encourage officers to make FIP entries using the proper UCR code.[32]

    [32] RCMP Operations Manual 19.7. Mentally Ill Persons/Prisoners “1. If a person, including a prisoner in RCMP custody, exhibits symptoms of a mental disorder and is endangering him/herself or others, consider immediately escorting them to a medically trained professional… 2. A mentally disturbed person will be incarcerated separately from other prisoners.” There is no further reference to pursuing firearms related checks or making a FIP entry. There is also no apparent referencing to FIP in the Operations Manual.

    (1) To the best of my knowledge, there is no mechanism under the law, either the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code, to “suspend” a license. There is either “revoke/refuse” or “allow”. I don’t know how they would go about doing this – other than by making stuff up as they go along…

    (2) This is known as “reverse onus” – otherwise called “guilty until you prove yourself innocent”…

    I don’t think that anybody is against keeping dangerous people from having guns, but is this really the way to go?

    From page 23:

    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;

    From my analysis in a previous post:

    466/97,000 = 0.5% of licensees who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

    1701/97,000 = 1.8% of license applications that come under FIP scrutiny are refused

    97,000/1.8M = 5% of legitimate gun owners come under FIP scrutiny

    466/1.8M = 0.03% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their licenses revoked

    1701/1.8M = 0.09% of legitimate gun owners who come under FIP scrutiny have their license applications refused

    When you calculate this against some 4 million FIP entries, you get to see just how minuscule the numbers are for refusals and revocations, overall…

    When you realize that “mental health” (which would include “potential risk to self or others”) is at most 11% of revocations/refusals, it becomes apparent that all this concern over lawful gun owners going squirrelly with their guns, while somewhat on the noble side, it is misplaced.

    • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

    Management supports the recommendation.

    • Current Status

    There is currently no formal process in place to examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process.

    As addressed in the “Planned Action” of recommendation #17 of this MAP: The DG of the CFP “will maintain existing relationships and explore partnerships with the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Police Boards.”(3)

    (3) Three of the most anti-gun organizations in Canada, making decisions on our behalf, behind closed doors.

    • Responsible

    LRTSD (Licensing, Registration and Technical Services Directorate)

    • Planned Action

    o In consultation with legal, examine the feasibility of incorporating other agency databanks and applicant mental health risk factors into the decision making process.

    Diary Date: March 31, 2010

    o Review Québec legislation and processes to determine applicability and public safety impacts in other provinces.

    Diary Date: March 31, 2010

    o In addition to this, the CFP will seek an expert opinion from the Canadian Medical Association and research any other national / provincial organizations that could be of value.

    Diary Date: March 31, 2010

    All of these reviews seem to have been completed by March 31st. I wonder what they concluded…


    ~~~

    Recommendation 2 of 7 for this section of the “evaluation”.  Read along at:

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

    ~~~

    Recommendation 7:

    That the CFP work in collaboration with public safety partners to consider the merits of a five (5) year Firearm License renewal process

    Notably, the province of Québec has experienced significant success in having ‘health service providers’ report clients with mental health concerns. Their progress should be reviewed to determine the need to further the program in other provinces.

    Yeah – under penalty of the law!

    On Sept 1, 2008 Québec’s gun control legislation, Bill 9, came into force. The legislation is dubbed Anastasia’s Law in memory of 18 year old Anastasia DeSousa, who was killed during the Sept 2006 Dawson College shooting. The law bans the possession of firearms in schools and daycare centres, and on public and school transportation. Under the new rules, teachers, gun club owners, and public transit and health-care workers are also required to report suspicious behaviour relating to firearms, even if it contradicts doctor-patient or any other confidentiality.[30]

    [30] The Canadian Press, Monday, September 1, 2008, new Quebec gun legislation, Anastasia’s Law, now in effect

    Here we see the start of the creation of the “snitch society”: gun owners are to be “reported on” by a bevy of public servants and others – in fact, required by law to do so! Failure to do so can result in a fine from $500 to $5,000.  One also wonders about civil liability for not reporting some nutbar who then goes on to shoot someone…

    Anastasia’s Law” (English version)

    Gun owners are not only being treated like criminals, they are being treated like potential psychopaths as well.  Who gets to define what “suspicious” means?  What happens when (not if) some law-abiding gun owner gets snitched on?  Are SWAT teams and high-risk takedowns to be the norm?

    – 41 –

    Health services are provincially regulated and would need to be approached one province at a time. This has been problematic in light of the privacy issues surrounding mental health, which also needs to be further addressed. An example of the types of existing unresolved mental health issues is represented by the Ontario Medical Association(OMA). [31]

    [31] 2003 Ontario Medical Association, summary of health legislation, concerning Firearms Office Authorization for Release of Medical Information Form: http://www.oma.org/phealth/hpolrep/03hpr.htm

    Those pesky rights, eh?

    Prior to 2003, the OMA Forms Committee initiated discussions with the Chief Firearms Office to review and revise the process of information collection from physicians whose patients were identified as potentially “high risk” for possession of a firearm. While the content of the form was successfully revised, the process for obtaining the firearms licence remains an issue. The process for obtaining a Firearms licence involves:

    Completion of an application form by the applicant, which is then reviewed by officials in Miramichi, New Brunswick

    Most of the patients referred to physicians for an opinion will be high-risk patients whose problems are clearly identified either through the applicant screening process or reference interviews.

    The physician’s report is very often used as a stop mechanism, thus preventing high-risk individuals from obtaining a firearms licence. Not only does government place physicians in a difficult position by requesting confidential and potentially damaging information on their patients, but government also refuses to pay for the form, leaving physicians to collect fees for their services from patients – and possibly placing physician safety in jeopardy.

    The OMA is seeking timely resolution to this matter, and is prepared to resume negotiations. Physicians are requested not to complete the “Firearms Office Authorization for Release of Medical Information Form” until further notice.

    Did you know that such a Form existed?  What are the physician’s responsibilities in letting a patient know that they are submitting such a form to the CFP?  I guess when they get sent the bill for this gross intrusion on their privacy.

    Considering almost three-quarters (3/4) of the firearm deaths across Canada are attributable to suicide(1), there is little progress being made in developing better links with the mental health community as far as reporting obligations(2). The exception being with the province of Québec, as mentioned above, where more workable arrangements have been made with the mental health services to report on persons of risk. British Columbia has also made some progress, albeit it is regionally-specific only. Although health care is under provincial jurisdiction, the RCMP is the provincial police service in all but two provinces, so this could be approached in a comprehensive nationally-coordinated manner. As further support, a national mechanism has recently been created- the National Mental Health Commission- through which the issue of mental health and firearms can be further pursued. Nevertheless, the concern about privacy rights of the individual has hindered any progress made toward accommodating both the issues of privacy and public safety(3). Some CFOs have limited cooperation with ‘mental health facilities’, however this is sporadic and uncoordinated.

    There seems to be a lack of outreach on behalf of health and police throughout most of Canada. The CFP as a whole are not actively pursuing mental health–specific initiatives.

    (1) But, as I have pointed out before, only 20% of all suicides are by the use of firearms.  What about the other 80%?  Do their lives mean so little?  And while firearms suicides may be dropping, the overall number of suicides has remained the same, and may actually be trending upwards.  This indicates that those intent on taking their own lives are simply substituting other means when firearms are not available to them.

    And again, what about those who don’t have guns?  Why are gun owners being singled out for “special treatment”?  Is there some kind of proof that owning a gun means a greater “public safety” risk than, say, owning a car?

    (2) But what about real help for those with mental health issues?  It could be argued that hunting and shooting can be therapeutic for those under stress, as it takes their mind off their problems and focuses on the here-and-now.  How much more stress would it place on an individual to be the subject of a police investigation, and have their personal privacy invaded, and their personal property confiscated?  What might have been done to help all these people with the $2 BILLION that has been squandered on this boondoggle.

    (3) Once more, the rights of gun owners must take a back seat to some nebulous ideological concept of “public safety”.

    From the RCMP’s Program Management Action Plan:

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/respon-eng.htm

    • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

    Management supports the recommendation.

    • Current Status

    The Review of Firearms Licensing Renewal Report prepared by Kelly Sears Consulting Group (March 31, 2009) is an RCMP CFP sponsored report that recommends continuation of the current 5 year licensing regime. It also demonstrates that the CFP is on side with its international counterparts in the United Kingdom and Australia.(4)

    The CFP is currently monitoring compliance rates and analysing trends through the ‘In-Sites II’ business intelligence system.(5)

    • Responsible

    SIPMS (Strategic Integration and Program Management Services Directorate)

    • Planned Action

    Continue to monitor compliance rates.

    • Diary Date: On-going

    (4) Again, this RCMP sponsored and funded “study” of mostly RCMP employees is “supported” by RCMP management…I’m shocked!

    (5) I wonder how much setting up this “system” cost us.  They don’t seem to provide any of this “analysis” for us plebes to look at.

     


    ~~~

    Back to the grindstone…

    ~~~

    My critique of the RCMP’s “Canadian Firearms Program Evaluation, Final Approved Report, February 2010”

    Follow along at:

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

    ~~~

    Recommendation 6:

    That the enhanced screening process continues as it is a useful tool for Firearm Investigators in developing their investigations to determine whether the restricted and prohibited firearm license applicants should be allowed to possess firearms. This process could be further utilized for the non-restricted license applicants on a random basis to ensure that these standards are maintained to a high standard.

    But to screen ALL long-gun applicants would be too costly, wouldn’t it?  This puts the lie to the anti-gun extremist’s cries of “if it saves only one life!” and the whole “public safety” nonsense, now doesn’t it?

    And what about all of those people who don’t own guns?  Do they just get a free pass, to wander around loose – even though they may actually present a danger to themselves or others?

    In the screening process to obtain a firearms license, a couple of simple ‘Yes or No’ questions are asked to inquire after the mental and emotional health of the applicant. The purpose of these questions is to deny a license to applicants who may be at a high risk of misusing a firearm to the detriment of public safety, as well as the personal safety of the applicant. These screening questions are deemed necessary as across Canada, almost three-quarters of firearm deaths are attributable to suicide. However, this raises the issue of continuous eligibility and license screening, as an individual’s mental health can deteriorate from the time that they were initially granted a firearms license, thereby becoming a potential risk, over time, to personal and / or public safety.

    But I thought that “continuous screening” was the be-all and the end-all when it comes to catching people who are a danger to others or themselves!  Actual licensing should almost be perfunctory in nature.

    Are there any studies that show that gun owners pose a greater risk than the general public to cause harm to themselves or others?  What about the 80% of other people who kill themselves through means other than guns?  Don’t their lives matter?  What about the 66% of people who use something other than guns to kill others?

    Indeed, why not “continuously screen” ALL Canadians – after all, if it saves only one life…

    This is another reason for considering continuation of the license renewal process. There are differing opinions on the need for a license renewal process, be it every five (5) years or a lifetime[29]. Some would argue that with the ‘continuous eligibility’ process in place, concerns of criminal activity are adequately covered. However it has been noted by CFP personnel that by not renewing licences you lose an opportunity to review (potentially) significant changes in a persons life, which could put them at greater risk to themselves or others (i.e. job loss, depression, mental health, changes in marital status and domestic issues etc.)

    Is there some kind of proof that these “significant changes” actually relate to murders or suicides?  How many people go through such changes without killing someone or themselves (or both?)  And how many of those who do use some other means than guns to effect their intentions?  We know that knives and blunt objects account for 66% of most murders –  and people employ means other than guns 80% of the time to commit suicide.

    Again, it seems to be a case of trying to fix something that isn’t broken…and blaming guns and gun owners for it.

    Of course, they could simply just pass a law to require gun owners to report such life changes to the State, when and as they happen – public safety is a priority, after all!

    [29] Kelly Sears. “Review of Firearms Licensing Renewal”, 2009. Report submitted to the CFP(1). The vast majority of interviewees from the CFP supported the five year renewal process, a few supported a ten year renewal, and none supported the lifetime license option.(2)

    As well, it was shown through a comparative analysis that the five year license renewal is similar to the UK and Australia; New Zealand formerly permitted lifetime licensing but that has since changed to 10 year license renewal.(3)

    (1) From the RCMP website:

    http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/respon-eng.htm

    The Review of Firearms Licensing Renewal Report prepared by Kelly Sears Consulting Group (March 31, 2009) is an RCMP CFP sponsored report that recommends continuation of the current 5 year licensing regime. It also demonstrates that the CFP is on side with its international counterparts in the United Kingdom and Australia.

    (2) So, an RCMP/CFP sponsored survey of CFP employees shows what they want it to show – more regulation and intrusion, rather than less…

    Of course, this report doesn’t seem to be available online.

    (3)Yeah, so?  What’s your point?  I never could understand the mentality behind this particular argument – I stopped using it when I was 10.   This is the “everybody else is doing it” argument.  Well, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you do that, too?

    I just found some additional information on these “Recommendations” at the RCMP’s website, “Program Management Action Plan” http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/respon-eng.htm

    • Management Supports Recommendation (Yes or No)

    Management supports the first part of the recommendation and will consider expansion of enhanced screening process upon further research.

    • Current Status

    The CFP’s Central Processing Site (CPS) current process includes interviews with applicants and references of clients requesting Restricted and Prohibited license privileges (Possession Acquisition Licenses and New Possession Only Licenses) for all provinces except Quebec, as they have taken ownership of this activity for their province.

    Applicants requesting non-restricted licence privileges are not part of the Enhanced Screening mandate at this time.

    • Responsible

    Central Processing Site (CPS)

    • Planned Action
      • The CFP will explore the benefits and required resources of implementing a similar process for the applicants for non-restricted firearm privileges and seek the subsequent approval through RCMP channels.

    Diary Date: April 30, 2010

    Since the “Diary Date” on this is April 30, one wonders just what, exactly, the Nabobs at the RCMP actually decided about this…

    And don’t forget – this whole “survey” was conducted by the RCMP’s National Program Evaluation Service (NPES), and those “surveyed” were mostly Government/RCMP bureaucrats.  So, a bunch of anti-gun evaluators survey a bunch of anti-gun bureaucrats, and the anti-gun RCMP management falls all over itself to agree with the findings – qu’elle surprise!


    ~~~

    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?