Breached by unknown hackers over 300 times, Grossly incomplete and severely flawed error-riddled registry
By Don Klein
Canada Free Press Online
The figure being bandied about in the media is that police are now up to 11,000 “uses” of the registry per DAY, (not year.) This is a phony, contrived figure by creating a computer generated “hit” for every conceivable clerical use of police computers, from traffic tickets to minor misdemeanor records, even jaywalking or someone calling police about a noisy party next door, which automatically generates an address check through the porous CFC database. As well, every legal sale of a firearm either by a retailer or person to person, generates up to five or more hits on the registry.Police have admitted it has been breached by unknown hackers over 300 times. CPIC (Canadian Police Information Center) has been admittedly breached some 1,400 times up to 1995. How many times has it been accessed by the tens of thousands who have unrestricted access to it? Are they all honest? If you google “police officer charged”, you will get over eight million responses! Does this make you feel more secure? Thefts of gun collections, and responsibly owned firearms, previously very privately held, have increased exponentially since theregistry came into being. Law abiding people were forced under threat of jail to have them and their most private information, filed in the “shopping list for criminals.”
Few hits are actual “firearms” inquiries especially since front line police would be very unwise to even think of relying on it.
We were recently target shooting with some very senior police officers and their young sons. They tell us they do not rely on theregistry. Ever. All front line police know that to rely on the grossly incomplete and severely flawed error-riddled registry would be suicidal. (See “What Police have said about the Registry” on Garry Breitkreuz’s site or this link directly to the large number of real police comments http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/policequotes.htm) Worse than that, REAL criminals are REMOVED from the registry when convicted, so the very ones that do pose a real danger to anyone, especially police, are PROTECTED by the C-68 “Home Invasions Made Safer” law. EVERY call must be treated as “possibly or likely weapons present.” That means ANY weapons, not just guns. A query with a response of “no guns present” would give police a false sense of security. Does anyone really believe that criminals line up to register their smuggled, knock off, or stolen guns?
The police chiefs are badly undermining their credibility by supporting the useless and dangerous registry.
All of our continued efforts though, appear to be moot. The Conservatives seem to have no desire to improve the horrible mess they are now contributing to, by undermining Garry Breitkreuz and not pointing out the blatant falsehoods being disseminated by their own and opposition members. Breitkreuz’s proposed C-301 was sensible, in no way compromised any perceived “public safety,” but still did not remove the criminal stigmatization of normal, law abiding, traditional firearms owners by retaining the C-68 licensing system which is the real danger to honest people. In his 2002 election campaign, Stephen Harper had this to say:
Stephen Harper on Bill C-68 January 2002: “There has been some confusion as to my position on gun control. I would like to make it clear that I would repeal the Liberal’s gun registry . I personally have always opposed Bill C-68 and the Liberal approach to gun control. – 60 per cent of respondents in my riding opposed the Bill. I therefore voted against Bill C-68 in the final vote in the House of Commons.
“I was and still am in total agreement with the statement made in the House of Commons by former Reform Leader Preston Manning on June, 13, 1995: “Bill C-68, if passed into law, will not be a good law. It will be a bad law, a blight on the legislative record of the government, a law that fails the three great tests of constitutionality, of effectiveness and of democratic consent of the governed. What should be the fate of a bad law? It should be repealed…” C-68 has proven to be a bad law and has created a bureaucratic nightmare for both gun owners and the government.
“As Leader of the Official Opposition I will use all the powers afforded to me as Leader and continue our party’s fight to repeal Bill C-68 and replace it with a firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.”
We intend to hold him to his promise now that we have made him Prime Minister. After all, C-68 has made “paper criminals” of the majority of his supporters, those being the honest and law abiding firearms owners who participate in all the shooting sports, including hunting and collecting activities. We are not, and never have been a problem. The fact that we can obtain liability insurance for all firearms activities in the amount of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS for less than $10.00 PER YEAR shows that we are the safest activity in Canada. Actuarially, we do not even “register” and insurance companies make money because there are so very few incidents in spite of the millions who own and use firearms responsibly and always have.
The Conservatives themselves killed this C-301 sensible amendment to the draconian Liberal “Firearms Act.” It was a blatant betrayal of 13 years of important and dedicated work by Breitkreuz and his staff.
By severely dividing their own caucus, and allowing the Bloc and NDP to effectively dictate terms in the House as well as the MSM, the PMO appears now to be anti lawful firearms owners – his party’s largest bloc of voters. They have now publicly implied (“We think licensing serves a valid social policy purpose,” said Vic Toews – “Personal firearm permit to stand” By PAUL TURENNE, Winnipeg Sun) that they support C-68 licensing. The now defunct PMO’s proposed Senate Bill S-5, would have actually created a far more dangerous, demeaning, and cumbersome system, which by massively adding bureaucracy and oppression to the C-68 mess, would have undoubtedly exponentially increased administration costs and be a worse burden on traditional firearms owners by a factor of five to ten times, as well as a huge continuing drain on all taxpayers with absolutely no useful return.
Sadly, the FAC system prior to C-68 that was in place and administered by the local RCMP and City Police forces, was far more effective in screening lawful firearms owners since these forces had local knowledge of the people applying for the FAC. Therefore we were already licensed when C-68 was implemented. But we were not made into instant “paper criminals” which was the only thing accomplished by the over two billion dollars and climbing, that was wasted on the C-68 system. It does absolutely nothing to prevent criminal use of guns as Toronto and other cities have so convincingly demonstrated. It is not the people – farmers, collectors, sportsmen and women, and other traditional firearms owners attacked by C-68, who are committing crimes. The current C-68 gun laws have made the streets and homes more dangerous, by protecting the privacy and rights of REAL criminals who of course, by law, are NOT in theregistry.
The very people who are the only ones targeted by the gun registry are by definition, law abiding. Since criminals are by law automatically not required to be in the registry and need not report address changes or activities, the only people protected are those very criminals who do not line up to register their stolen, smuggled, or knock off firearms.
As contributing members and life long supporters of honest Conservative principles, and having worked hard to help them succeed in electing members through emails, monetary contributions, campaigning and other means, we feel badly let down. The promise was “to repeal C-68” because it is “bad law.” It was and is. They seem to have abandoned that logical promise. I sincerely hope we are wrong. But we must be shown to be wrong. Meanwhile, we are anxiously waiting.
Passage of Candace Hoepner’s private members Bill C-391 will be a small step in the right direction, but is only a small part of the real battle to eliminate the dangerous and oppressive C-68 Firearms Act.