|
|
WFSA Articles |
|
World
Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities |
- Small Arms Documentary (11 March 2009)
- U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels (11 March 2009)
- UK Firearm Laws (2 November 2004)
- UK Firearm Law Overhaul (14 May 2004)
- Antidotes for Anti's (2 April 2004)
- UN Security Council - small arms in Africa (25 March 2004)
- Firearms registry on firing line
- Big game + big bucks = big conservation
- Brazil Adopts Strict Gun Controls
- The people have spoken – the bastards. The UK controversy
- UN Secretary General's latest Report on Small Arms
- Canadian Registry problems again
- Police blast Canadian firearm register
Small
arms documentary
27 February 2009 04:38
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g8zzUyBDf5QqEut4L1ZcdK6F5gfw
Google news 3/26/08
Kiefer Sutherland narrates TV documentary about international
gun trade
When Shelley Saywell was planning her documentary about guns,
the authoritative voice of Kiefer Sutherland — TV's freedom-fighting
vigilante, Jack Bauer - kept resonating in her head. "I kept hearing
Kiefer's voice for some reason," says the Toronto-born filmmaker.
The "24" star was in Africa last summer shooting
"24: Redemption," the two-hour TV movie that aired in November, when
he was contacted by Saywell to narrate "Running Guns: A Journey Into the
Small Arms Trade." The 70-minute documentary airs Sunday at 7:30 p.m. ET on
History Television. The Emmy-winning filmmaker's previous documentaries have
included "Crimes of Honour," "Kim's Story: The Road From
Vietnam" and "A Child's Century of War," which was short-listed
for an Academy Award.
Saywell often uses her own voice to narrate her films, which
lately have taken place in the world's deadliest war zones. "It's hard to write in the third person when you've been
to these places," she says. Because "Running Guns" was more of an investigative
piece, however, she felt she needed a "weightier" voice.
Sutherland - whose series, "24," is sometimes
accused of running up body counts as it dramatizes international terrorism - was
closer to Saywell's story and more in tune with her cause than she even knew.
The actor was on location in Africa, shooting scenes dealing with an
out-of-control gun culture and exploitation of child soldiers. Although the
demands on his time are intense (Sutherland is also an executive producer on the
series), he agreed to narrate the project if it could be arranged over the
phone.
"I've never done that before, but he was such a busy guy
and it took weeks to get him," says Saywell. "He has a big
heart." Sutherland's narration throws out some shocking statistics:
there is one gun for every 10 people on earth; eight million small arms are
manufactured yearly; and every year enough bullets are made to kill every human
twice.
Saywell has seen first-hand how small arms have ravaged parts
of the world. "I've been making films in conflict zones for years,"
she says, "and one film often leads to another." She and her small
crew have even been held up at gunpoint - twice in Bosnia. "We were swarmed
and forced out of the car with all these people screaming at us and guns going
off in the air," she says. "I was just thinking of two things - let's
get out of here alive and please let me keep my tapes." Fortunately,
the attackers were only after the crew's flak jackets, helmets and other
protective gear. A few days after one attack, however, she learned some other
journalists had been killed in a similar encounter.
As dangerous as it is to cover these conflicts, Saywell
says the difference is "we leave. These people are living in this unsafe,
hideous environment all their lives."
The one common denominator in her previous war zone films
seemed to be the proliferation of small weapons. Saywell began investigating the
small arms industry and discovered that the Russian made AK-47 assault rifles
and other guns turned against the civilian population in Bosnia - and which were
supposed to be destroyed in a peace treaty - have been recycled to other
fractured areas of the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq.
The documentary shows Saywell and her crew confronting small
arms marketers at a glitzy trade show, where guns are sold like cars or
refrigerators in one of the least regulated trades in the world. Ninety five
exhibitors from 45 countries are shown at one European trade show. The film
suggests that the illicit small arms trade generates an estimated $4 billion a
year.
Saywell was able to sweet-talk some of the key players
into on-camera accounts of their deadly business. "We don't look like a big NBC camera crew,"
she says. "That really serves us well."
U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for
Mexican Cartels
by James T. McKinley
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26borders.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
PHOENIX: The Mexican agents who moved in on a safe house full of drug dealers last May were not prepared for the fire power that greeted them. When the shooting was over, eight agents were dead. Among the guns the police recovered was an assault rifle traced back across the border to a dingy gun store here called X-Caliber Guns.
Now, the owner, George Iknadosian, will go on trial on charges he sold hundreds of weapons, mostly AK-47 rifles, to smugglers, knowing they would send them to a drug cartel in the western state of Sinaloa. The guns helped fuel the gang warfare in which more than 6,000 Mexicans died last year.
Mexican authorities have long complained that American gun dealers are arming the cartels. This case is the most prominent prosecution of an American gun dealer since the United States promised Mexico two years ago it would clamp down on the smuggling of weapons across the border. It also offers a rare glimpse of how weapons delivered to American gun dealers are being moved into Mexico and wielded in horrific crimes.
“We had a direct pipeline from Iknadosian to the Sinaloa cartel,” said Thomas G. Mangan, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix.
Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
The ease with which Mr. Iknadosian and two other men transported weapons to Mexico over a two-year period illustrates just how difficult it is to stop the illicit trade, law enforcement officials here say.
Over the two years leading up to his arrest last May, he sold more than 700 weapons of the kind currently sought by drug dealers in Mexico, including 515 AK-47 rifles and one .50 caliber rifle that can penetrate an engine block or bulletproof glass, the A.T.F. said.
Officials say weapons from George Iknadosian’s store in Phoenix ended up in the hands of a cartel that included Alfredo Beltrán Leyva, right. Based on the store’s records and the statements of some defendants, investigators estimate at least 600 of those weapons were smuggled to Mexico. So far, the Mexican authorities have seized seven of the Kalashnikov-style rifles from gunmen for the Beltrán Leyva cartel who had battled with the police.
The store was also said to be the source for a Colt .38-caliber pistol stuck in the belt of a reputed drug kingpin, Alfredo Beltrán Leyva, when he was arrested a year ago in the Sinaloan town of Culiacán. Also linked to the store was a diamond-studded handgun carried by another reputed mobster, Hugo David Castro, known as El Once, who was arrested in November on charges he took part in killing a state police chief in Sonora.
According to reports by A.T.F. investigators, Mr. Iknadosian sold more than 60 assault rifles in late 2007 and early 2008 to straw buyers working for two brothers — Hugo Miguel Gamez, 26, and Cesar Bojorguez Gamez, 27 — who then smuggled them into Mexico.
The brothers instructed the buyers to show up at X-Caliber Guns and to tell Mr. Iknadosian they were there to pick up guns for “Cesar” or “C,” the A.T.F. said. Mr. Iknadosian then helped the buyers fill out the required federal form, called the F.B.I. to check their records and handed over the rifles. The straw buyers would then meet one of the brothers to deliver the merchandise. They were paid $100 a gun.
The Gamez brothers have pleaded guilty to a count of attempted fraud. Seven of the buyers arrested last May have pleaded guilty to lesser charges and have agreed to testify against Mr. Iknadosian, prosecutors said.
In one transaction, Mr. Iknadosian gave advice about how to buy weapons and smuggle them to a person who turned out to be an informant who was recording him, according to a transcript. He told the informant to break the sales up into batches and never to carry more than two weapons in a car.
“If you got pulled over, two is no biggie,” Mr. Iknadosian is quoted as saying in the transcript. “Four is a question. Fifteen is, ‘What are you doing?’ ”
The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks going south across their border.
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.
Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, often secreting them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here say. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.
“We can move against the most outrageous purveyors of arms to Mexico, but the characteristic of the arms trade is it’s a ‘parade of ants’ — it’s not any one big dealer, it’s lots of individuals,” said Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, who is prosecuting Mr. Iknadosian. “That makes it very hard to detect because it’s often below the radar.”
The Mexican government began to clamp down on drug cartels in late 2006, unleashing a war that daily deposits dozens of bodies — often gruesomely tortured — on Mexico’s streets. President Felipe Calderón has characterized the stream of smuggled weapons as one of the most significant threats to security in his country. The Mexican authorities say they seized 20,000 weapons from drug gangs in 2008, the majority bought in the United States.
The authorities in the United States say they do not know how many firearms are transported across the border each year, in part because the federal government does not track gun sales and traces only weapons used in crimes. But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico.
Mr. Iknadosian is accused of being one of those dealers. So brazen was his operation that the smugglers paid him in advance for the guns and the straw buyers merely filled out the required paperwork and carried the weapons off, according to A.T.F. investigative reports. The agency said Mr. Iknadosian also sold several guns to undercover agents who had explicitly informed him that they intended to resell them in Mexico.
Mr. Iknadosian, 47, will face trial on March 3 on charges including fraud, conspiracy and assisting a criminal syndicate. His lawyer, Thomas M. Baker, declined to comment on the charges, but said Mr. Iknadosian maintained his innocence. No one answered the telephone at Mr. Iknadosian’s home in Glendale, Ariz.
A native of Egypt who spent much of his life in California, Mr. Iknadosian moved his gun-selling operation to Arizona in 2004, because the gun laws were more lenient, prosecutors said.
Where
I come from, our homes are still our castles
By Joyce Lee Malcolm
If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night
you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law
insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas,
thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them
to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately
denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of
legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained"
legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your
home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and,
indeed, his castle.
But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect
themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on
home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a
break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the
police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder.
Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be
sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud
The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.
Happily for us Americans, English common law prevails in the
US; our homes are still our castles. Californians, for example, are entitled to
use force to protect themselves and their property. Legislation in Oklahoma
which allowed the home-owner to use force no matter how slight the threat has
reduced burglary by nearly half since it was passed 15 years ago. What British
police condemn as "vigilante" behaviour has produced an American
burglary rate less than half the English rate. And, while 53 per cent of English
burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13 per cent do in America, where
burglars admit to fearing armed home-owners more than the police. Violent crime
in the US is at a 30-year low.
Whatever became of the Englishman's castle? He did not lose
the right and means to protect himself at once. It was teased away over the
course of some 80 years by governments claiming to be fighting crime, but
actually fearful of revolution and disorder. When the policy began, crime was
rare. For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining
rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no
restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population
of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London,
then the largest city in the world.
The practical removal of the right to self defence began with
Britain's 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned
firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather than
concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers. Anyone wanting
to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief
certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason
to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the police, was
gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it should never
be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or
person". Since these guidelines were classified until 1989, there was no
opportunity for public debate.
Self defence within the home was also progressively
legislated against. The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in
a public place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an
offensive purpose "without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any
item carried for defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon.
Police were given broad power to stop and search anyone.
Individuals found with offensive weapons were guilty until
proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard legal textbook explains
that "any article is capable of being an offensive weapon". The public
were told that society would protect them and their neighbours. If they saw
someone being attacked they were to walk on by, and leave it to the
professionals.
Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal
law, approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional
standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed
"reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to
defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the
requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be
"reasonable" is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast
doubt on whether it still forms part of the law". Another legal scholar
found it "unthinkable" that "Parliament should inadvertently have
swept aside the ancient privilege of selfdefence. Had such a move been debated
it is unlikely that members would have sanctioned it." She was confident
that Parliament would quickly set things right: "In view of the inadequacy
of existing law there is some urgency here." That plea was written 30 years
ago, and the situation is infinitely more urgent now.
At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility
for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders.
Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half
of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be
protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing
one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to
other burglars. "It cannot possibly be suggested," the government
lawyers argued, "that members of the public cease to be so whilst
committing criminal offences" adding, "society can not possibly
condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".
Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police
presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously
enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying
for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper.
This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for
both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed
England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years
after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was
forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only
outlaws have handguns.
In recent years governments have even felt it necessary to
prevent the public from defending themselves with imitation weapons. In 1994 an
English home-owner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had
broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived,
they arrested the home-owner for using an imitation gun to threaten or
intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman
fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her,
she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing
Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
The impact on law-abiding citizens has been stark. With no
way to protect themselves, millions of Britons live in fear. Elderly people are
afraid to go out and afraid to stay in. Self defence, wrote William Blackstone,
the 18th-century jurist, is a "natural right that no government can deprive
people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of
need". This Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force,
but can only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self
defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to defend
themselves.
Joyce Lee Malcolm is Professor of History at Bentley College, Massachusetts, and Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. Her book, Guns and Violence - the English Experience, is published by Harvard University Press.
Blunkett
backs call for 'right to fight back' against burglars
By Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
David Blunkett has given his backing to The Sunday
Telegraph's campaign to change the law to give homeowners more rights to protect
themselves against burglars. The Home Secretary said yesterday that he was
"deeply sympathetic" to those who thought the law should do everything
possible to help householders against intruders - and signalled that government
action was likely.
David Blunkett: said last week that law should be
'rebalanced'
Ministers are said to have an "open mind" about changing the current
law, which allows homeowners to use "reasonable force" to protect
themselves. What this term means is unclear, and many people who have defended
themselves against intruders have faced criminal charges.
Mr Blunkett's comments follow backing for this newspaper's
campaign from David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, who said last week that
the law should be "rebalanced" in favour of householders and against
burglars. The Home Secretary's intervention is also further clear evidence that
the Government will do all it can to hammer home the message in the run-up to
the general election that it is "tough on crime".
Any government action specifically aimed at tightening the
law is likely to have to wait until after the election - expected next year -
although Labour is expected to promise a review in its manifesto.
The Sunday Telegraph launched the campaign last weekend
following the fatal stabbing of Robert Symons, a London teacher, during a
burglary at his home.
Mr Blunkett said last night: "I am deeply sympathetic to
those who feel the law should do everything possible to protect householders.
That's why I changed the law last year to prevent homeowners being sued by
intruders who injure themselves while breaking in. What's lacking is a clear
alternative to the definition of 'reasonable force', which has thankfully been
interpreted by the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary in favour of
householders just in the last few weeks."
"If David Davis and the Tory Party have a better
alternative, they have not provided it yet." He added: "What anyone
advocating change must prevent is murder, under the guise of reasonable force,
which no civilised society would want, especially given that our law already
allows 'self-defence' as a complete defence against a murder charge."
One of Mr Blunkett's senior officials said: "If there is
a better way of defining the law we are certainly not going to have a closed
mind to it."
Mr Davis said last night: "What is required is a review
of how the current law operates. David Blunkett hasn't done that yet."
Blunkett orders overhaul of outdated firearm laws
By Sophie Goodchild
and Francis Elliott
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=519443
The Independent
9 May 2004
The Government will
attempt to tackle Britain's gun culture with plans to be unveiled this week for
an overhaul of outdated firearms laws. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, will
publish a consultation document which is expected to lead to tougher
restrictions on the sale and manufacture of replica firearms as well as new age
limits on gun ownership, especially for airguns, starter pistols and shotguns.
The consultation follows lobbying by the police and anti-gun campaigners who say
Britain's gun laws are confused, out of date and in desperate need of reform.
Of
particular concern are replica firearms which are popular with gun collectors
and can be bought legally but are being converted by criminals into lethal
weapons to fire live ammunition. Police
say that the greatest increase in gun crime is linked to a rise in the use of
imitation weapons and converted airguns. In London alone, at least 70 per cent
of weapons now seized by officers are converted replicas.
Last
November, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gun Crime published a report
calling for a complete ban on the import, sale and manufacture of replica
firearms. There
has also been a rise in attacks on people involving airguns. Last week, a
firefighter was shot in the face by an airgun pellet as he drove a 24-ton fire
truck along a street in Dumfries, Scotland.
Ministers
have already brought in some measures to curb gun crime in Britain. Last month,
new anti-social behaviour laws came into effect which included a new
imprisonable offence of carrying a replica gun in public. The legal age for
owning an airgun has also been raised from 14 to 17 and it is now an offence to
buy a weapon for someone under 17. But the ban on underage ownership only
applies to Brocock-style airguns, which operate using a gas cartridge, and not
to all types of airguns.
A
Home Office source confirmed that the consultation document would cover all
aspects of gun-control legislation. "We will be seeking people's views on
all aspects of firearm legislation. We are looking at the whole issue, although
replica and imitation firearms are of particular concern," the source
added.
Anti-gun
groups have welcomed the planned reforms, which are the first major overhaul of
firearms laws since 1997, when the Government introduced a ban on handguns after
16 schoolchildren and their teacher were killed at Dunblane primary school in
Scotland.
The
Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tighter arms control, said Britain
lagged behind other countries because it did not have a universal age limit on
people buying guns. "In our increasingly violent world we need to ...
tighten up on our gun laws," said Gill Marshall-Andrews, chairwoman of the
GCN. "The world-wide pressures are for ... an increase in global gun
violence."
But
any restrictions on gun ownership are expected to face fierce opposition from
the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which represents gun
enthusiasts.
Being a victim of 'animal rightists' is no fun; but to win the battle for hunting, get the law on your side, be creative and have some fun By James A. Swan, Ph.D.
http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/1773602.html
From ESPN Online April 2004
Recently
I attended the "The Price We Pay" conference in Washington, D.C.,
produced by the National Animal Interest Alliance. The
purpose of the program was to spotlight the monumental damage that has been done
by animal rights "humaniacs" to law-abiding, researchers, educators,
sportsmen, wildlife managers, restaurateurs, rodeos, circuses and breeders who
treat animals in a humane and compassionate way.
Since
1986, the Environmental Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front have pulled
off more than 10,000 incidents resulting in more than $100 million in damage.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the millions that have
been spent on legal fees, the countless costs when hunts like Ontario's spring
bear hunt get canceled, the pain and suffering of victims of attacks and
threats, the loss of cultural identity and livelihood by native hunters,
nuisance animal attacks, harassed workers at circuses, zoos and rodeos,
increased costs for security and even the starvation of native peoples when
legal hunting is outlawed.
I'm
sure that you are aware that there were extra security precautions for the 2002
Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Did you realize that the most security was
needed to protect the rodeo, which was part of the Arts and Culture Festival.
The reason was that animal rightists attacked the rodeo with an international
assault of letter writing, a billboard campaign, celebrity spokespeople (Scott
Hamilton and others) and protests, including one man who chained himself to the
doors of the International Olympic Committee headquarters in protest of the
rodeo. More than 300 law
enforcement officers were called to action to protect the rodeo at the Games.
Bob Costas, why didn't you report that?
Not
surprisingly, the FBI has declared eco-terrorism the No. 1 domestic terrorism
priority, according to Michael Gallagher, the head of the FBI's Domestic
Terrorism Operations Unit in Washington, D.C.
The
good news
Fortunately, some good things are being done about this international issue on
many fronts. In 2003, for example, the FBI established a special task force to
unite all efforts to combat domestic terrorism.
The Internal Revenue Service is investigating People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for donations made to individuals and groups associated with terrorist activities. If you'd like to find out more about what is being done to combat this group of grandstanding hate-slingers, check out the Web site of the Center for Consumer Freedom and their related Web sites - www.animalscam.com and www.activistcash.com/
These
programs target the specific groups, document what their leaders are saying and
reveal how these so-called charitable organizations have spent the millions they
raise by stereotyping, stigmatizing and propagandizing people.
You
also may know that fur farmers, tanneries and department stores that sell fur
have received threats and been targets of arson, bombs, fires and animal
releases. And don't forget the folks who wear fur in public and have had their
clothes sprayed with paint and have been assailed with threats and insults.
The
fur-farming industry has stood its ground, and it's paying off. It has created a
version of the "Neighborhood Watch" crime-fighting strategy of
residential areas that trains people to network, develop close ties with law
enforcement and prepare and plan to prevent attacks. And it's working! Fur sales
have gone up 40 percent since 1998, despite the fact that animal-rights groups
are raising in excess of $100 million a year to put them out of business.
In
Great Britain, where the Blair administration came to power with an agenda to
ban hunting, the Countryside Alliance has not only blunted the anti-hunting
forces, it has demonstrated enormous grass-roots support. In 2002, it organized
the Liberty and Livelihood March on London that attracted 407,000 marchers to
stand up for the rights of people who live close to the land. It was the largest
peacetime march in England since WWII.
In
addition, Countryside Alliance held a vigil on Parliament Square, lit 7,000
beacons across the United Kingdom and conducted 15 rallies and six marches that
collectively have involved more than a million people.
When
your back is against the wall, people do fight back.
The
Countryside Alliance has said to the government that if hunting were curtailed,
civil disobedience would follow. As
a guide for Countryside Alliance members who may want to commit civil
disobedience in support of rural lifestyles, the Alliance has said that it would
only support people:
1.) When the only law they break is the unjust hunting law itself (not being
reckless or lawless).
2.) If they submit to trial and punishment for their alleged civil disobedience,
and not try to escape capture.
3.) When their issues create no inconvenience to the general public.
In
addition, the Alliance also has found occasion to use the power of "the
naked truth" to win the media war, according to Simon Hart, chief executive
of the Countryside Alliance. On
one occasion, when the Alliance wanted to draw attention to a petition they were
going to deliver to Parliament, an attractive young female foxhunter delivered
the document to parliament on horseback while topless. Simon
says that they got a full-page coverage in The Sun, which reaches 10 million
people. In addition, the young woman sold her story to the British Press, which
made her enough money to pay off her college loans.
Humor
often is one of the most potent weapons for the truth.
The
eccentric magician-comedians Penn and Teller are taking on the animal-rights
crowd. Be sure to watch their show April 1 at 10 p.m. on Showtime. It will be
re-aired April 8 at 10:30 p.m.
The
lesson that seems to emerge from all this is, simply put, "success is the
best revenge."
James
Swan - who has appeared in more than a dozen feature films, including
"Murder in the First" and "Star Trek: First Contact," as
well as the television series "Nash Bridges," "Midnight
Caller" and "Modern Marvels" - is the author of the book "In
Defense of Hunting."
_____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
UN SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSES SMALL ARMS IN AFRICA
25/03/2004
Press Release /8037
Security Council 4933rd Meeting (AM)*
SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR REGIONAL APPROACH IN WEST AFRICA TO ADDRESS SUCH CROSS-BORDER ISSUES AS CHILD SOLDIERS, MERCENARIES, SMALL ARMS
The Security Council this morning, emphasizing the importance of addressing continuing destabilizing factors in West Africa through a
regional framework, called on States in the region to take a number of measures to address such cross-border issues as child soldiers,
mercenaries and illegal arms trafficking....
Presenting his report, the first devoted specifically to cross-border problems in the subregion, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged a
coordinated approach to tackling the problems in West Africa and called his recommendations practical. They had been grouped not in order
of priority, but rather broad thematic headings such as security sector reform, disarmament, extortion,
"naming and shaming" and the proliferation of small arms. They were not a
"shopping list" for donors, but rather a call to action, he stressed.
"The overarching theme is that, if we want the region's problems to be dealt with in an effective and sustainable manner, these
recommendations cannot be carried out solely on a country-by-country basis", he stated. Their implementation required a multifaceted,
regional approach. At the same time, certain issues such as small-arms
proliferation, natural resources exploitation and the use of child soldiers and mercenaries, had a particularly strong bearing on security and stability, without which no other progress would be possible....
Nana Adkufo-Addo, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ghana and Chairman of the Mediation and Security Council of the Economic Community of
West African States (ECOWAS), said the security situation in West Africa today engendered cautious optimism, while also justifying
concern.
In adopting the "Declaration on a subregional approach to peace and security" at a meeting in Abuja on 28 May 2003, he said ECOWAS
leaders had reaffirmed their determination to strengthen peace and stability in West Africa, as well as the importance of a concerted regional
approach. They also adopted several key instruments to govern their conduct, such as the light weapons moratorium and a code of conduct
for its implementation, as well as a protocol relating to the mechanism for conflict prevention, management, resolution, peacekeeping and
security.
Also, to combat the illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons, referred to as
"the real weapons of mass destruction", several speakers encouraged West African leaders to consider transforming the Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small
Arms, set to expire later this year, into a legally-binding instrument.
The meeting, which began at 10:12 a.m., adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met this morning to hold a public meeting on West Africa, for which it had before it the
Secretary-General's report on ways to combat subregional and cross-border problems in West
Africa (document S/2004/200).
According to the report, the increasing use and proliferation of mercenaries, child soldiers and
small arms account for much of the instability in the West African subregion.
The recommendations laid out in the present report are grouped under the following 12 broad headings: improving United Nations
harmonization; ratification and observance of existing conventions; collaboration in the Mano River Union area; strengthening the ECOWAS
secretariat; strengthening and implementing the ECOWAS Moratorium; supporting national commissions; disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration programmes; security sector reform; reducing extortion at roadblocks within and between countries;
strengthening civil society participation and awareness-raising; "naming and shaming"; and small arms exporters and private security companies.
Statements
MOHAMED IBN CHAMBAS, Executive Secretary of ECOWAS.
He said West African leaders had renewed their commitment to the Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms
and tasked the ECOWAS secretariat to take the necessary measures for the full implementation of the plan of
action. In line with that, the secretariat, together with Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom convened a conference in Abuja on
"Combating Small Arms Brokering and Trafficking" from 22 to 24 March to explore appropriate strategies to address the dangers posed by the illicit trade
in small arms that had become West Africa's "weapons of mass destruction". What was now required was the political will of West
African leaders and the support of the international community to transform the moratorium into a convention, in order to make headway in
combating that scourge.
RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said: With the support of the international community, ECOWAS had a fundamental role to play in
strengthening the 1998 moratorium on small arms in the region. He also welcomed the
Secretary-General's recommendation for a meeting of defence ministers later this year, which should count on the full involvement of the African Union.
ANA MAR�A MENENDEZ (Spain) said: As for the issue of small arms and light weapons, she supported the
Secretary-General's recommendation that ECOWAS member States consider the possibility of adopting a
legally-binding instrument before the expiration of the moratorium later this year. Also, the establishment of a regional ECOWAS
registry, a ban on the activities of mercenaries and the establishment of national commissions to carry out the moratorium were relevant recommendations that warranted serious study.....
GUNTER PLEUGER (Germany) Regarding illegal arms trafficking, he supported stricter national controls of arms exports and increased
transparency in that area, including compliance with arms embargoes imposed by the Council, as well as regional embargoes. The governments
of small-arms-exporting countries should require their companies to better mark those weapons. He called on all countries concerned to further
strengthen and implement the moratorium, due to expire in October, and transform it into a legally-binding instrument. In resolution 1467 (2003),
the Council had called on ECOWAS member States to consider the establishment of a regional register of small arms and light weapons. As
a first step, member States might focus on records of light weapons, with a view to expanding the register to small arms at a later stage.
ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said: In that regard, he said he fully agreed with the suggestion of his German colleague
that small arms were the real weapons of mass destruction in the subregion and in Africa, in general.
Serious consideration should be given to strengthening existing mechanisms, such as the small-arms moratorium and the Mano River Union peace initiative.
(Emphasis added.)
* The 4932nd Meeting was closed.
______________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
PUBLICATION: The Daily News (Halifax)
DATE: 2004.02.25
BYLINE: Martin, Don
Firearms registry on firing
line
Grits quietly planning to move controversial
registry from Criminal Code to Firearms Act
As an opening shot of pre-election damage control, it's low-calibre ammunition.
But a plan up for discussion at the inner cabinet in the next week or so puts
that crime-busting joke of a billion-dollar federal firearms registry into full
legal farce.
Sources confirm the feds will decriminalize the firearms registry before the
election. It will remove fail-to-register violations from the federal Criminal
Code and place them under the kinder, gentler Firearms Act. It is not expected
to encounter serious objections from Prime Minister Paul Martin's top ministers.
It means duck hunters, gun collectors and self-governed natives would no longer
risk a criminal record if convicted of possessing an unregistered rifle or face
the theoretical, but very unlikely, spectre of a jail sentence for
non-compliance. In lieu of a court date, they'd get a ticket, with a modest fine
attached.
But even that slap on the wrist for registry-resistant gun owners might not
exist for long. Enforcing the Firearms Act is a provincial responsibility. And
eight of the 10 provinces - Quebec and Prince Edward Island being the lone
federal toadies - will not prosecute registry violations. That means a gun
registry that doesn't actually work will no longer be backed by force of law in
provinces with three-quarters of the Canadian population.
In short, the registry and the law become even more asinine, if that's possible.
Tinkering explored
While other registry tinkering is being explored in the extensive and intensive
registry review by Civil Preparedness Minister Albina Guarnieri, who will
address a convention of hunters and anglers tomorrow in Toronto,
decriminalization will be the main push to ease public angst at former prime
minister Jean Chretien's firearms folly. Sources say the package - including fee
reductions and tighter gun-storage requirements - could end up before Parliament
as a free vote before the expected election call in April.
But what Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz calls a tiny step in the right
direction is the only action Canadians can expect to rein in the out-of-control,
auditor general-condemned registry. While costs have continued to escalate far
above budget and police-verified examples of the registry actually preventing or
circumventing gun-toting crime simply do not exist, the Liberals cannot abandon
the registry entirely because, inexplicably, it still has strong support in
their political strongholds.
Western officials tell me the Toronto and Quebec caucuses stand as a single bloc
behind the registry, refusing to even consider scrubbing or watering down the
concept. Martin admitted as much last week. While refusing to confirm
decriminalization was being planned - I'm not going to scoop what Albina's going
to do or not do - the prime minister admits the issue triggers stark regional
polarizations.
There's no doubt this is a western issue, but also a very big issue in rural
Ontario, rural Quebec and rural Atlantic Canada, he said in an interview.
The importance of gun control ... may be felt very strongly, but it's also felt
very strongly on the other side.
Problematic West
Particularly problematic for Martin is the West, where he has pledged to make
Liberal electoral gains a legacy accomplishment. For westerners, the gun
registry has longer legs then even the Quebec sponsorship scam as proof their
tax dollars by the billions are being put to death on Parliament Hill.
Little wonder. The registry continues to backfire on the balance sheet. Direct
costs and related expenses have soared $30 million over budget for this fiscal
year. And there's still that nagging $300-million contract from a private
consortium to run the registry through 2008. Keeping it around flunks every one
of Martin's litmus tests for continued program spending, starting with its
inability to deliver efficiency, affordability or value for money.
But after so much money has been squandered, it cannot be easily trashed
politically. Besides, those who somehow believe a billion dollars will be saved
for better purposes by the registry's elimination simply do not understand the
concept. It's already gone. Down the drain. In a giant sucking sound. Lost
forever.
Meanwhile, long-necked gun crime continues a drop that started a decade before
the registry was put in place, while crimes involving handguns, which have been
registered for a fraction of the cost since 1934, escalates.
Firing squad
So bring on decriminalization, if only to save western ministers Anne McLellan
and Ralph Goodale from an electoral firing squad, while eliminating the risk of
innocent hunters and collectors with criminal records. After all, once law
enforcement refuses to prosecute Canada's armed resistance, the obvious becomes
official: The federal gun registry is just shooting blanks.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/swan/swan200401300950.asp
January 30, 2004, 9:50 a.m.
Field
Financials
Big game + big bucks = big conservation.
By James A. Swan
About 14 million people a year buy hunting licenses in the U.S. That's less than
30 years ago, but if you add to that people who own lifetime licenses and youth
hunters under 17 who don't need to buy licenses in some states (as they are
accompanied by adults), there are close to 19 million hunters in the U.S. each
year. If you add in those who don't hunt each year but still consider themselves
active, the total number of hunters is closer to 24 million.
But the untold story is that the culture of hunting is changing. There are fewer
small-game hunters today than 30 or 40 years ago, but according to Conservation
Force, the number of big-game hunters is growing exponentially. In l955 there
were 1,579,704 big-game hunters in the US. Forty-one years later, in l996, there
were 11,288,000 — a 615 percent increase.
Part of the reason big-game hunting is on the rise is that the numbers of
white-tail deer, elk, and wild turkey are exploding in the U.S. In addition,
more and more women are taking up hunting. Ironically, during the last decade,
the number of people who say they took trips to watch wildlife for recreation
decreased by 10 million.
And these big-game hunters are increasingly from the big-pocket set. The New
York Times recently reported that the number of hunters with household incomes
of $100,000 or more increased more than 25 percent, to 1.3 million, between 1991
and 2001 (taking into account inflation and population increases).
Which brings us to the bottom line: The rise of big-game hunting means that
hunters are pumping a lot more money into the economy. According to Southwick
Associates, big-game hunters contributed more than $60 billion to the nation's
economy in l996.
Hunting big game is expensive, but people who have money seem to relish the
enjoyment that comes from harvesting wild meat and bringing it to the table.
That's why big-game hunting organizations — like Safari Club International,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep,
Dallas Safari Club, and the National Wild Turkey Federation — are holding very
successful, multi-million dollar fundraisers that attract high memberships.
At the recent Safari Club International Hunter's Convention in Reno, more than
$6 million in auction items were donated and gobbled up by an enthusiastic
crowd. According to the newsletter African Indaba, African outfitters donated
close to $1 million in hunts to SCI this year. Already in 2004, African
outfitters have donated nearly $2.5 million to all American hunting
organizations.
And what happens to the big bucks collected?
In contrast to animal rights groups, who spend nearly all of their income on
fund-raising appeals and media sensationalism, and environmental groups who
spend on legal battles with federal, state, and local agencies, hunting
organizations put the majority of their income into wildlife conservation.
Take, for example, Safari Club International. In the past year, SFI and its
chapters have funded museum and zoo exhibits, nature centers, state and federal
wildlife agency research and law enforcement, the building of thousands of
nesting boxes for birds and bats, the donation of thousands of meals of wild
game, free medical services to the needy in many parts of the world,
wildlife-agency needs in foreign countries (including planes to patrol for
poachers), teacher training and youth education programs, stuffed animals for
blind children ("Sensory Safaris"), purchasing and management of hundreds of
thousands of acres for wildlife habitat, and the teaching of prison inmates on
how to raise pheasants and other game birds for stocking.
Despite what the antis rant or the liberal press writes about hunters and
hunting, today's highly active hunting "organizations" are, in reality, service
clubs. Frankly, modern wildlife conservation could not exist without them.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
Brazil Adopts Strict Gun Controls
to Try to Curb Murders
The New York Times
Foreign Desk; 3
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/21/international/americas/21BRAZ.html
January 21, 2004
Byline: LARRY ROHTER
SAO PAULO, Brazil -- No country in the world has a higher rate of homicide by
firearms than Brazil, and the toll is highest in large cities like this one. But
now, in what gun control advocates describe as a bold but risky social
experiment, Brazil has virtually outlawed the possession of handguns.
Since just before Christmas, no one in this nation of 175 million except police
officers, soldiers and prison and security guards has been authorized to carry a
pistol.
The sale and trade of weapons has been similarly limited: the illegal purchase,
possession or furnishing of arms has become a criminal offence with no bail and
long prison sentences. Gun owners are being told that most of them will have to
hand over their weapons within six months.
"This is an expression of the unanimous will of society to cut the spiral of
violence that unsettles us and embarrasses us before humanity," President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva said when he signed the bill. Noting that a homicide occurs
in Brazil every 12 minutes, he added that "this statute is certainly not the
solution to everything, but it is an exceptional step forward."
No one knows how many guns are circulating in this vast nation, which is larger
than the 48 contiguous states of the United States and shares a similar history
of cowboys and explorers pushing, often violently, to open a rugged frontier.
About two million guns are legally registered, but government officials estimate
that the number of unregistered weapons may run as high as 20 million, including
those of poor peasants who hunt out of necessity.
Under the legislation, no one who is under 25 or has been convicted of a drug or
alcohol offence is permitted to own a gun. To acquire a weapon, an applicant
must submit a statement of need -- the rural hunters, for example, can qualify,
but the standard of need is much stricter in cities.
The applicant must also prove that he or she has no criminal record and is
gainfully employed and then register the weapon with a new centralized federal
data bank after paying a $350 annual tax.
But the law also contains an unusual feature that worries gun advocates in a
country where people talk routinely about ambitious laws that are passed but
"don't catch on" because of a lack of enforcement. A national referendum has
been scheduled for October 2005, in which voters will be asked whether they want
the gun sale restrictions to continue or be revoked.
"This is an act of cowardice by the governing class, which ought to at least be
willing to take the political risks involved," said Oscar Vilhena, board
chairman of the Latin American Institute for Crime Prevention here.
"They can't offer security to the people," he said, "so by asking a terrorized
populace to vote in favour of this, they have assured that if things don't work
out, they are not the losers."
Originally introduced in 1999, the legislation had to overcome tenacious
resistance from the military and a gun lobby generous with campaign donations.
The main cartridge manufacturer, for instance, opposed the bill because it
contained a provision requiring that lot numbers be stamped on all bullets sold
to the police and the military so that their origins could be traced.
"This was an important amendment that makes it possible to trace the diversion
of military and police stocks," said Rubem Cesar Fernandes, the co-chairman of
Viva Rio, a civic organization concerned with urban violence that worked in
favour of the legislation. "You see an enormous quantity of material diverted
from these institutions and private security firms to Paraguay, and then brought
back into the country illegally."
Many of the guns used to commit crimes are, in fact, police or military weapons
that have been stolen by or, more often, sold to criminal groups.
There is also a booming traffic in weapons seized by police officers, so the law
calls for the destruction within 48 hours of all guns confiscated by the police
that are not needed as evidence.
More than 40,000 people are murdered annually in Brazil, about 90 percent of
them with firearms, the highest rate in the world among more than 60 countries
studied by the United Nations.
About a quarter of the killings occur in this state of 38 million, which
includes Brazil's largest city as well as extensive ranch and farming areas
where gun ownership is traditional.
"The majority of those who kill are not criminals, but ordinary people with guns
who get into arguments about banal things, like traffic disputes or arguments in
a bar," said Jose Vicente da Silva, a former secretary of public security for
the state of Sao Paulo. "Obviously this law is not going to deter the
professional criminal, but it can be a valuable tool to substantially reduce the
murder rate."
Supporters of the legislation are calling on the federal government to make more
money available for complementary measures that will help toughen the law.
"It doesn't make any sense for the population to be disarmed if the bandits have
easy access to weapons," Geraldo Alckmin, the governor of Sao Paulo State,
argued in an interview with O Globo, a major daily.
"The contraband of arms is disgraceful," Mr. Alckmin added. "It is essential
that there be a border police and an effective combating of that contraband,
because the ease with which criminals have access to weapons is enormous."
Legislators have given the Justice Ministry until the end of March to draw up
regulations to enforce the new law. But already some problems have emerged, most
notably as the result of a provision that forbids municipal civil guards, a sort
of police auxiliary, in cities with less than 250,000 people from carrying
weapons.
"Criminals aren't stupid," said Luiz Tortorello, the mayor of Sao Caetano, a Sao
Paulo suburb with 146,000 people that is completely surrounded by other cities
that are above the cut-off line. "They are going to look at the situation and
realize that they can operate here with alacrity."
In one widely publicized case, a bank clerk from an interior state who was on
vacation in Rio de Janeiro was arrested there when he drew his gun and fired it
in the air to scare off what he thought were three criminals intent on robbing
him.
The would-be assailants fled, the gun owner has been fined and criticism of what
are seen as unfair features of the new law have grown in the news media.
"For this law to have the greatest impact, it must be accompanied by an intense
publicity campaign in favour of disarming and alerting people that possession of
a gun leads to imprisonment," said Mr. da Silva, now a researcher on public
security issues at the Fernand Braudel Institute here.
But so far, he added, that has not happened.
Photos: On Copacabana beach in Rio de Janeiro, a man passed a sculpture
installation calling for "Brazil Without Arms." Activists in Sao Paulo lighted
candles in front of the Catedral da Se in memory of victims of gun violence.
(Photo by Reuters); (Photo by Associated Press)
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
Notes: The UK
controversy over a proposed home defense law continues. MP Stephen Pound
now says that it was "American gun nuts" that hijacked the original poll in
which BBC listeners selected a home defense law as one they wanted introduced -
BBC denies it.
Below is the actual transcript of what Pound said. This is the first time
this has been published, so please feel free to circulate it. I am also
including the "American gun nut" article and two others.
This material should be an excellent start for any articles, media pieces or
speeches you might want to do.
___________________________________________________________________________
“The people have spoken – the bastards”
BBC Radio 4 – transcript of interview with British MP Stephen Pound
January 1, 2004
Listeners were invited in a BBC Radio 4 competition to put forward their choice
for a new law on any subject, to be introduced in Parliament (In the UK these
are known as “Private Member’s Bills). The competition would be won by the
proposed law with the largest number of proponents.
Interviewer: As you may have heard earlier we have a winner in our Listeners’
Law competition and it’s a proposal to authorize homeowners to use any means to
defend their homes from intruders. What happens now? Throughout this lawmaking
experiment we’ve had the help of the MP Stephen Pound and he’s on the line now.
Stephen Pound, what’s going to happen to our Listeners’ Law next?
Pound: Well, I have to say that my enthusiasm for direct democracy is slightly
tempered.
Interviewer: Why do you say that?
Pound: Well, to be perfectly honest, this is a difficult result. I can’t
remember who it was who said: “The people have spoken – the bastards” (laughs)……
What I’ll be doing is emailing the twenty people who’ve drawn ballots for the
Private Member’s bill and saying to them would you be interested in taking this
bill forward? Equally, the one that came second, which I think is an excellent
proposal, the idea for an opt-out for organ transplants, I’ve actually spoken to
(the Secretary of State for Health) John Reid about. He’s quite interested in
actually picking this one up as well. We could get a (inaudible)… At the moment
it depends whether some MP is willing to take it forward. Interestingly, as you
heard earlier on it’s quite likely that this bill is unworkable. Any bill which
endorses the slaughter of sixteen-year-old kids with (inaudible) … pump-action
shotguns –
Interviewer (interrupting): – Yeah, but hang on a minute, hang on a minute,
let’s not give up hope on our Listeners’ Law yet. I mean it could, could it not,
capture the imagination of the House? – in the sense that it’s now clear that a
great many people in the United Kingdom want something to be done about the
rights of home owners in their own homes when they face intruders.
Pound: That’s absolutely right: they want something to be done… Whether that
something is to give carte blanche for people to slaughter anybody who –
Interviewer (interrupts): Well, okay, maybe we’ve got to fine tune it.
Pound: Exactly. Exactly. So this is going to be a wonderful exercise in real
participative democracy. People are going to say that we’ve got this one-line
bill that somebody can come up with, and it would make it wonderful if we did
this – and then people are going to think well, maybe actually it’s not that
easy. I think it’s we win on that basis.
Interviewer: You don’t think we should call it Schwarzenegger’s Law… sort of
call it the Make My Day Bill…?
Pound: (Laughs) Nothing would surprise me after the result of this poll, I can
tell you that. Absolutely nothing. They’re all good ideas. I mean, at the end of
the day it’s an extraordinary exercise…This is a one-off and I don’t think we’ve
seen the end of it. I rather think this has got legs and will be looking to
carry on further. Let’s not perhaps think that because the Radio Four listener
could come up with the one-liner, The Tony Martin Memorial Bill, that’s going to
alter the (inaudible). I’m hoping somebody will take it up so we can ventilate
this and talk about it, because quite clearly people out there are worried and
no government worth its salt ignores that sort of (inaudible).
Interviewer: Excellent. Hang on to that very positive thought, Stephen Pound.
Thanks very much.
_____________________________________________________
MP's debate call on 'defending homes'
Newsquest Media Group Newspapers (UK)
January 9, 2004
EAST Lancashire Tory MP Nigel Evans has called for a Commons debate on
strengthening the right of people to defend themselves when their homes are
broken into following the Tony Martin case.
Mr Martin was jailed for shooting and killing one burglar and injuring another
after they burgled his remote Norfolk farmhouse.
Labour MP Stephen Pound is currently considering whether to introduce a Private
Members' Bill on the issue after listeners to BBC Radio Four's Today programme
voted for him to do so in a poll.
Yesterday Ribble Valley MP Mr Evans raised the issue in the Chamber of the House
of Commons with the Leader of the House, Peter Hain. He said: "If if a Ribble
Valley farmers finds an intruder with a gun trying to raid his premises he
should allowed to use his shotgun to defend himself."
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.
_________________________________________________________________________
21,500 reasons why we need a Tony Martin law: Readers give massive
backing
to MoS campaign for the right to defend homes against
burglars.
So, what are you going todo about it Mr Blunkett?
The Mail on Sunday (UK)
Page: 38
January 11, 2004
Byline: BERNARD GINNS
THE Mail on Sunday has received a huge response to its campaign to give
people greater rights to defend their families and property against
burglars.
More than 21,500 readers are demanding a Tony Martin law named after the
Norfolk farmer jailed for shooting dead a teenage burglar to end the
prosecution of householders who use force against intruders.
Last weekend, we invited readers to respond to an appeal by Robin Baker
White, a former High Sheriff of Kent, to ask Home Secretary David Blunkett
to introduce legislation to allow people to defend their families and
property.
And there has been a huge response to our Police Watch campaign, which
invited readers to tell us about police who have refused to tackle criminals
while persecuting their victims.
We took three sacks of readers' response coupons to the Home Office
where a spokesman said: 'We recognise the concerns of Mail on Sunday readers
and thank them for sending their views.' We began the Police Watch campaign
by highlighting the cases of two victims of crime who saw the law turn
against them.
Mr Baker White had his gun confiscated by police after he fired a shot
to scare off burglars. The defenceless 71-year-old was coshed over the head
when criminals returned to his Canterbury home.
Pharmacist Brian Conn was warned by the Metropolitan Police for
breaching data protection laws after he used shop records to identify the
thug who beat him unconscious at work.
Our campaign brought sackfuls of mail and phone calls from readers
telling shocking stories of how victims of crime ended up on the wrong side
of the law.
Yesterday, a Tory MP said he would try to force Parliament to back calls
for a Tony Martin law by using a little-known procedure a Back of the Chair
Bill.
North Thanet MP Roger Gale said: 'The objective is not a vigilante Bill
or an encouragement for the public to take the law into their own hands but
an attempt to tip the balance of the law back in favour of the victim rather
than the criminal.
'Legislation must be ruled by common sense. If a 12-year-old kicks a
football into a garden, we cannot allow someone to blast him with a
shotgun.'
The Law Commission, the independent body set up to review law and
recommend reform, acknowledged yesterday that some changes may be necessary.
Chairman Roger Toulson told Radio 4's Today programme: 'We are looking
at two broader aspects of the law of selfdefence. One is whether if a person
kills using excessive force in self-defence they should have a partial
defence, reducing what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter. We are
also looking more generally at the law of self-defence.'
A Tony Martin law emerged as the top choice in a listeners' poll on the
Today programme to find which single change people most wanted to see on the
statute book. Andrew Moffat, one of the listeners who suggested the idea,
yesterday urged MPs of all parties to take notice of the huge public desire
for the law.
He has asked lawyer Francis Benyon, a former Parliamentary draughtsman,
to come up with workable legislation under the title of the Home Defence
Bill.
Speaking on yesterday's Today programme, Mr Moffat said: 'The idea is to
remove the anomaly whereby if a householder is burgled and if he has a go
and confronts the burglar, the presumption of guilt is against him whereas
it should be against the criminal.
'It's self-defence and if he kills the burglar it's too bad. We want a
legal system that protects the victim and not the criminal. Either the
Government recognises that there's very serious ill- feeling among the
population of this country or it regards the public with contempt.'
In response to Mail on Sunday readers, the Home Office said people were
entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property or
their family under the law as it stands.
It added: 'In applying the "reasonable force" test, the jury (or the
magistrates) look at all the circumstances.
'But the law does not allow an act of retaliation. Punishment of
criminals is rightly a matter for the courts. It is not for the victims,
vigilantes or anyone else to take the law into their own hands.'
Caption: NOW READ THIS: REPORTER BERNARD GINNS, RIGHT, HANDS READERS'
DEMANDS TO HOME OFFICE OFFICIAL JOHN TOKER
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
Please find link
here to the UN Secretary General's latest Report
to the Security Council on small arms. This is a very important document and
reflects increasing involvement of the SC with the issue. The report should be
read in its entirety. Here are some areas you might want to pay particular
attention to:
Paragraph 4 - This notes UN General Assembly resolution 58/241 which starts the
process of negotiating an instrument on marking and tracing. I have mentioned
this frequently. The first meeting of this group will be February 3-4, 2004, in
New York.
Paragraph 5 - This discusses a new study on the Interpol Weapons and Explosives
Tracking System (IWETS). We have not seen the study yet, but there seems to be
more and more emphasis on this.
Paragraph 9 - This discusses the "small arms advisory service.." which
apparently will be a permanent part of the UN Department for Disarmament
Affairs. The significance of this is the further institutionalization of the
small arms effort at the UN.
Paragraph 10 - This mentions "modalities of support for the establishment of the
service." This means there are ongoing talks on how to finance this permanent UN
body.
Paragraph 12 - This notes the new effort on brokering. There will be a report
ready for the 59th session f the UN General Assembly which will be in October
2004.
Paragraphs 37, 40 and 45 - These discuss efforts on the end use issue. Look for
more of this.
Paragraph 51 - This mentions the broadening of the Economic Community of Western
African States (ECOWAS) arms moratorium to include "registers..(of) national
inventories of small arms.." This could be a precedent for other registration
efforts.
Paragraph 55 - This notes the "voluntary" expansion of the UN Register of
Conventional Arms to small arms. This was a little noticed, but very important
occurrence.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
Ottawa committed to gun control,
Martin says
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
National News; A4
January 4, 2004
Byline: KIM LUNMAN
Ottawa ONT - Prime Minister Paul Martin says it's "just common sense" to review
the Liberal government's controversial gun registry, estimated to cost taxpayers
$1-billion - 500 times more than its original price tag.
"We are committed to gun control and we are committed to the registration of
weapons," he told reporters in Ottawa yesterday.
"At the same time . . . common sense simply dictates there have been a number of
problems and that these problems have got to be looked at and have to be dealt
with."
The national firearms registry is one of the biggest political hangovers Mr.
Martin has inherited from his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, as he prepares to go
to a spring election.
Mr. Martin, who announced that Parliament will resume on Feb. 2, said the latest
review of the gun registry is necessary.
"Unfortunately that billion dollars has been spent and I've already said I've
found that unacceptable." The review was announced as the government, which Mr.
Martin says is "cash constrained," looks for ways to trim the fat.
Three studies have already been done on the cost-effectiveness of the registry,
including a report by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser in December of 2002 that
lambasted the program for its "astronomical overruns."
The report projected the program would cost taxpayers $1-billion by 2005. When
registry was introduced in 1995, Canadians were told it would cost $2-million
after the fees from licences and registration were recovered.
The program is plagued with problems. Eight of the 10 provinces are not
complying with the law, refusing to charge or prosecute anyone who does not
register their firearms. Only one person has been convicted under the
legislation, and an estimated one million guns remain unregistered.
Canadian Alliance Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz, a critic of the firearms
registry, said it's ridiculous for the government to review the program for a
fourth time. There were two government studies after the Auditor-General's
report, he said.
NDP Leader Jack Layton said the government does not need another study to
improve the system. "We're saying, 'Get this sorted out,' " Mr. Layton said.
"The Auditor-General has laid out what needs to be done. Just get that done."
Liberal MP Albina Guarnieri, Minister of State for Civil Preparedness, is
conducting the latest review.
When asked whether one of the options includes scrapping the gun registry, she
replied: "All options are on the table. We have to measure results against the
costs. Are we spending the money wisely and are we getting our money's worth. .
. ? We're looking for ways to improve the program."
But Liberal MP Paul Steckle, who represents a rural Ontario riding and will be
involved in the review, told reporters that getting rid of the program might be
the best solution. "I don't see why not. To say it was a waste of money,
perhaps. We look at a billion dollars but do we continue to fuel the fire and to
continue to throw more money at it when it doesn't work?"
But Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control said a new review will merely
rekindle a debate that Canadians have already had. She said the national
firearms registry has been effective in reducing gun-related injuries and
deaths, and any move to abolish the program would be irresponsible.
Mr. Martin promised an "ambitious agenda" and said he will reintroduce
legislation including a bill allowing the export of generic medication to poor
countries to fight killer diseases, another bill to create an ethics
commissioner, and a third to create a new electoral map.
Illustration
c.2004 Dow Jones Reuters Business Interactive LLC (trading as Factiva).
All rights reserved.
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
PUBLICATION: Calgary
Herald
DATE: 2004.01.05
BYLINE: Mario Toneguzzi
SOURCE: Calgary Herald
Police union blasts gun registry: Koenig urges government to scrap program
The union head of Calgary's front-line police officers is calling for the
federal government to scrap the billion-dollar gun registry because it has been
a colossal failure in reducing violent crime in the country.
Al Koenig, president of the Calgary Police Association, said the vast amount of
money spent on the firearms program could have been much better put to use for
front-line police officers in Canada.
He said the program has had no effect on crime or acted in any way as a
deterrent. "Our position on this is very firm," said Koenig. "We do not support
it, and we will be fighting against it. "The police and the public are still at
risk. . . . Despite the money spent, it should be scrapped."
Last week, new federal Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan said the goal of the
program is to protect Canadians from violence without unnecessary spending. She
has launched a cabinet-level review of the gun registry to try to make it more
effective and cost-efficient.
In November, federal government figures showed that the firearms registry could
top the $1-billion mark a year earlier than originally forecast. The most recent
government estimates showed the total program cost will rise to $814 million by
March.
Last year, federal officials estimated the total cost of the registry, which was
originally budgeted at $2 million, would hit $1 billion sometime in 2005.
Jim Hinter, president of the National Firearms Association, said "police, the
firearms community and the Canadian public are coming to the same conclusion:
this is a joke."
"It's not doing anything to reduce crime," added Hinter. "We're seeing increased
home invasions and increased gang violence across the country. . . . This
(legislation) has nothing to do with crime and that was what the legislation was
sold to the public as."
For instance, in Toronto, of the 65 homicides committed during 2003, guns were
used in 31 of them, or 48 per cent.
Hinter said there have been "very minimal charges" across the country as a
result of the legislation that was "supposed to make society safer."
"If they (federal government) can prove it reduces violence in the country, they
would have the absolute support of the firearms community," said Hinter.
Don Stewart, spokesman for the Calgary Police Service, said that to the best of
the force's knowledge, there have been no charges laid this past year by police
specifically related to the new gun legislation.
Mahfooz Kanwar, a criminologist and sociologist with Mount Royal College, said
the legislation will certainly have an impact on crime, especially murder. "Any
control on guns can help," said Kanwar. "I know people say guns don't kill
people, people kill people. But a gun does kill someone. . . . Fortunately, our
culture is not a gun culture like the Americans. Our culture is peaceful. "Even
if you trace one criminal because of the registry, it's worth it."
David Austin, spokesman for the Canada Firearms Centre, said about one million
guns remain unregistered in the country. He said the firearms program now has
data on almost seven million guns in Canada.
Austin said police forces in Canada lay charges on a regular basis as a result
of the program and it is effective because it keeps guns away from people who
could be a danger to themselves and to others. "A goal of Canada's gun control
program is to prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from
accessing firearms," states the Canada Firearms Centre website.
"This is done in large part by registering firearms and issuing licences to
their owners, who play a fundamental role in the success of the firearms
program. Licensing works to ensure that high-risk individuals do not have access
to firearms while registration encourages responsible firearm ownership,
provides critical information to police investigations and helps curb illegal
gun trading."
As of Dec. 6, the centre said it had 1.6 million firearm owners with at least
one registration certificate and 6.8 million firearms registered nationally.
toneguzzi@theherald.canwest.com
____________________________________________________________________
World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities
