Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Mountie-killer's guns not registered, inquiry hears

Gee like who would have thunk, crimmanls ignoring laws......


Last Updated: January 18, 2011 4:48pm


EDMONTON — Notorious cop killer James Roszko was prohibited from owning guns when he fatally shot four Mounties, a fatality inquiry heard Tuesday.

And of the eight guns Roszko acquired, none were owned legally, the inquiry also heard.

"I think it's fair to say James Roszko had a wanton disregard for any (firearm) legislation," said RCMP Sgt. Dale Baumgartner, a gun-tracing expert.

Roszko had been under a court-ordered weapons prohibition when he fatally shot four Mounties on his Mayerthorpe property March 3, 2005.

Of the eight guns found on Roszko's property following the murders, three turned out to be stolen, while a fourth was smuggled into the country from the U.S.

Two others were either restricted or prohibited. None of the guns were registered.

article

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Confiscation has always been a Liberal goal

Update
The NRA advises they have been aware of this document for a long time, they have never been able to verify it completely so they have not used it. So you can’t really include it yet with other Liberal underhanded undertakings like, Adscam, Gun registry costs, etc, etc. nevertheless I hold that the main thrust of the document is true and fits the activities of the Liberal connected politicians, police forces and the Canadian Firearms Officers.




The more I know the more I despise the Liberal party. As an institution it needs to destroyed and the ground it was on needs to plowed and salted so it never springs forth again. Perhaps then a party might then form that has elements of honour and truth as it key virtues.
This document makes it clear why the registry is so important to them. Without it two things will happen, or more to the point two things won’t happen. First the world will not end, murders will not skyrocket, police and law abiding citizens will go about their daily lives just as before. At some point people will realize they have been fed lies about the value of the registry and they will be anger at it’s supporters and authors. What little trust they have for them will be wiped out and desire to believe their gun control claims will be nil.
2nd and more important, is that the goal of disarming Canadians will be set back generations, because fundamental that is the one and only purpose of the registry. Look at every instances of the setup of a firearm registry and you will see that it has been used for confiscation purposes or attempts have been made to do so.
Read this document, give it to all of your firearm owning friends, post it at gun ranges, make it clear to everyone who thinks this does not effect them, that it does. Yes you the duck hunter, target shooter are in their sights and have always been.



The Liberals have claimed confiscation of firearms was never their goal, but this document released in a Freedom of Information request shows that it was exactly their intent Read the rest of this disgusting piece at the Don't tread on me blog.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Recovered stolen guns

A very good friend of mine who was in the process of tranfering a shotgun to me, an over and under Marlin model 90, in 16 ga, was informed by the registrar person that it had been reported as a stolen gun several years before, registered in his name some 6 years,at that time? he was paid a visit by the police, who took the firearm away, he purchased it originally from a dealer,depite many inquiries over the years, he has never been contacted again, or found out what the final disposition of the matter was??
And the beat go's on! regards Bully

From a CGN thread on the previous post

If a stolen gun fell in the forest, would the gun registry hear?

MONTREAL—Vito Anobile snips the gray hairs of a long-time client and shakes his head. “It’s crazy,” the affable east-end Montreal barber says, scissors and comb balancing in each of his thrown-up hands. “Really crazy.”

What has Anobile, an avid hunter, both frustrated and mystified are the recent actions of Canada’s controversial gun registry.

The $70 million firearms program, (cough* 2 billion, cough*) including the gun registry, is supposed to protect the public by preventing the misuse of guns and controlling just who can get them and own them.

But the 68-year-old Anobile has a story that seems to call all of that into question.

His frustration has been building ever since last summer when the registry sent him a notice that someone was trying to register a shotgun. Anobile’s shotgun.

The only problem? It had been stolen 11 years before.

To make matters worse, despite Anobile’s repeated attempts to tell the registry the gun was stolen property, no one seemed to listen or understand.

The agency, for which the RCMP has responsibility, even assumed he had applied to transfer the weapon to the new owner.

“How could I transfer a stolen gun I don’t have, to someone I don’t know?” Anobile asks.

And for that matter, “How can a gun be registered 11 years after it was stolen?”

As all this was happening, the Conservative government, no fan of the long-gun registry, was making its most serious attempt yet to shut it down. Among the reasons? The government said it was simply ineffective.

And as hints of an election campaign grow, the registry is sure to be a major issue. After losing a razor-thin vote on the matter last September, the Conservatives are still vowing to scrap it.

“This is just one of many examples of how inaccurate and ineffective the long-gun registry continues to be,” said Candice Hoeppner, the Manitoba Tory MP whose anti-registry bill died in that vote, in an email to the Star.

Meanwhile, the RCMP released an evaluation last fall strongly supporting the registry. It said the registry protects officers by signalling the presence of guns in a dwelling, for instance. And it aids in many types of investigations. Police now heavily consult the registry.

Doctors and police chiefs point out that long-gun homicides are decreasing in Canada. (Handgun homicides, however, are on the rise.)

The story of Anobile’s gun begins on a frigid Sunday in November 1999. He returns from a hunting trip, leaving all his hunting gear, including his shotgun, a Beretta A-M-301 12-gauge, in his car. It’s a decision he’ll come to regret.

The next day, he visits his ailing 98-year-old father in Montreal’s Santa Cabrini hospital. When he returns to the parking lot, however, his Chevy Lumina is gone.

He reports the theft to the police. Three or four days later, he remembers, the police call to say the Lumina had been recovered. It had been used, they say, in a robbery at an east-end brasserie, and abandoned.

There’s no sign of the gun.

Eventually, Anobile’s insurance company replaces the gun with a new Beretta. And he hears nothing more on the subject.

Until last June.

The old gun resurfaces in a letter from the Canadian Firearms Registry, saying it had received a registration demand for the A-M-301. There’s no mention it had been stolen.

Anobile calls the registry. “They ask me if I sold the gun. I tell them, ‘No! It was stolen!’ ” They promise to open a file and investigate.

Then, in July, another letter. The exact same letter as in June. As if the previous communication never happened.

“I laughed because it was like they’re imbeciles,” Anobile says.

Then, in August, another letter. This time more specific, saying it has processed his application to transfer the gun to the new owner, who, an employee tells Anobile, lives in Brossard, a Montreal suburb.

Only he made no such application. “How could I have?” Anobile says. “It’s impossible.”

Reached by phone, an agent from the registry told the Star he had no idea where the gun has been all these years, or how it got in the hands of the new owner.

He also said that the police have decided to “overlook” the fact that it was stolen because the new owner appeared to have acquired it “in good faith.”

(So can I re-register a stolen car?)

An RCMP spokesperson said this type of situation “is quite common.”
“People who have their firearm stolen, and are compensated for the firearm through insurance, lose legal ownership of the firearm at that moment,” Sgt. Greg Cox wrote in an email.

“If the firearm is recovered, oftentimes the insurance company may take possession of the firearm and put it up for sale on consignment with a firearms dealer.”

So why the notices to Anobile? Why the assumption he had applied to transfer the firearm? And why didn’t the registry seem to know it was stolen?
We don’t know, because the RCMP refused to discuss Anobile’s case, for privacy reasons.

When it comes to stolen weapons, the RCMP argues the registry can help police find a stolen firearm’s rightful owner if it’s recovered.

For Anobile, it’s all very unnerving. “Did it kill 50 people in the last decade that we don’t know?”

“Something’s not working right,” he reasons. “For me (the registry) has been useless. It is there to create jobs, nothing more.”

“We are obliged to follow the law, but it’s not worth very much.”

The gun registry has been plagued by controversy ever since it was made into law by the government of then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in 1995.

There was severe criticism over cost overruns in the early years. And Canada’s auditor general in 2006 questioned how the registry is actually improving public safety.

The registry is only a small part of the firearms program, making up 1.6 to 4.8 per cent of overall costs, or about $2.5 million, according to a 2009 analysis for the RCMP. Don't bet on these figures, previous documents place it at around 79 million a year.

courtsey of the Toronto Star