From: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon@citenet.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:30:16 +0800
To: "Donna Ferolie, Canadian Institute for Legislative Action" <Martin.P@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: financial analysis of Canadian gun controll bill ( C-68 )
Message-ID: <199809210324.XAA00921@cti06.citenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Excerpt from:
Cdn-Firearms Digest  Sunday, September 20 1998  Volume 02 : Number 597

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 05:33:19 -0600
From: Jean Hogue <jean_hogue@sympatico.ca>
Subject: 360 Millions For What?

1. 360 Millions For What ?

background: the CFC finally spit out the revised estimate of
registration until the end year 2002:
        120 millions in set up costs
        240 millions for operation (60 M per year for 4 years). 

- ------

Reference:    canadian firearms digest v. 2 # 595
        Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:26:57 -0600
        From: David A Tomlinson <nfadat@telusplanet.net>
        Subject: BOY ARE THEY GONNA BOMB...

> If, however, it is an unrestricted rifle or shotgun, then it will NOT have
> to be "verified" -- no matter how many times it is transferred and
> re-registered -- until 01 Jan 2003.


Let me see if I can get this straight now:

- -- a) re-arrangement of the data set:

In order to justify the National Firearms Registry (and the whole CFC
existence), the Canadian Firearms Centre came out with its own
statistics, having rejected the actual firearms crime figures from both
the RCMP and Statistics Canada.

The CFC's point what to "prove" that the "problem" firearms were not the
legally registered restricted firearms (these were so easy to ban
outright) but the unrestricted  rifles and shotguns.

- -- b) verification: flavor of the day

First, the CFC came out with the dumb "fill-it-in-yourself" postcard,
guaranteed to collect essentially trash and hopelessely corrupt the
entire National Firearms Registry.

Second, the CFC announced that after the registration deadline (Dec. 31,
2002), all the 7 million records would be examined to weed out the
trash. An impossible task.  Hercules did not pussyfoot around with a
shovel in Augias' stables. It means that the registration work would
have to be redone entirely and taking a corrupt database as the only
source of information. At the end of 2002, the National Firearms
Registry would be a collection of trash with absolutely no legal value.

The importance of "legal value" ? Let's see ... "A Ruger Mini-14 ? No, I
surrendered that newly banned gun years ago. Your records must be wrong.
No, I did not keep the stinking receit. I don't have to prove I'm
innocent, you have to prove I'm guilty. Get lost !" What they goonna do
? Break down the door at 03:00 with machine guns ?

Third, the CFC announced it would do verification on the fly. Stuck with
sky-rocketing costs, the best it could come up with was to recruit
6,000, then 3,000 unpaid volunteers --  a few weeks before the law is to
take effect on Oct. 1, 1998. Each of them would have to proceed with an
average number of 2,300 verifications within a 4-year time frame to
ensure the protection of 7 miilion firearm registration records against
corruption.

Fourth, DAT's posting now clarifes that verification only applies to
restricted firearms. This coincides with the last few days left before
Oct. 1st and a seeming conclusion that the CFC failed to find in time
3,000 persons dumb enough to come mow their lawn for free.

- -- end result :

    - the CFC's own self-serving estimates of 7 million firearms
      (a case has been made of an actual number of 20 millions)

    - registered restricted firearms records with the gov.: 1 million

    ---> rifles/shotguns outnumber restricted guns by 6:1

1. 86 % of registration applications (rifles and shotguns) will be
exempt from verification. Brilliant ! A few days before the Oct. 1st
deadline, we are now back at square two: 6 million trash records, to be
verified "maniana". (Spanish for either really "tomorrow" or "in the
fullness of time", the audience must judge which applies). 

2. The remaining 14 % (handguns and other restricteds) already on file
were ALREADY verified and need to verified AGAIN (but rifles and
shotguns only need to be registered ONCE ever - right !).

3. The principle of the day is that the firearms allegedly most often
used in domestic violence do not need no stinking verification but the
considerably smaller stock of restricted firearms already verified must
be verified.

Conclusion:

For 360 millions, we will end up with a National Firearms Registry with
absolutely no legal value.

In 2003, a new round of hundreds of millions will be required again to
magically clean up an entirely corrupt Registry. No deadline set. Hey
CFC, please don't say it. I do not want to be told again that the enire
after-the-fact verification program will only cost 85 millions.

It really is not that complicated. Either the registration applications
need to be verified or they don't. A rifle/shotgun owner is just as
liable as a handgun owner to make a mistake when describing a firearm on
a registration form.

Arguing that the type of firearm changes the requirement is essentially
negociating on the principle. (Clinton: oral sex does not count as a
sexual relationship).

The sort of people who have not figured out yet that a principle is
somehting that is not open to negociation and compromise are the sort of
people who have no principles.

So, in the end, the registration process will have worthless data on the
unrestricted firearms -- allegedly the ones most often used in crime and
the emphasis on accurate registration will be placed on the other,
considerably smaller lot, of firearms.

Odd, I thought this is what the government has been doing since 1934.
And failed ever since.

Do not pass go, do not collect $ 200, lose a turn and go back to square
0.

    IS THIS WHAT WE GET FOR 360 MILLIONS ?

And Allan Rock, who brought us C-68, now does not have money to
compensate hep-C victims.

- ---------------

2.    Question to the CFC: When are you going to disclose your revised fees
?

Announced roughly within the same time frame as the 85 million dollar
cost for the entire 7-year gun registry (starting from 1995 until the
end of 2002).

The following base figures are those of the CFC:

    registration fee: $ 10 initially for "up to 10 firearms", increasing to
$ 18.
    possession permit: $ 10 initially, increasing to $ 60 near the end.
    number of gun owners: 3 millions
    number of firearms: 7 millions
    proportion of gun owners enticed into early compliance by low initial
fee: 30%
    average number of firearms per gun owner: 2.3 (less than 10)

    First 30 %: 900,000 gun owners, 2.1 million guns:         18 M$
            0.9 million permits x $ 10/permit = 9 M$
            0.9 million registrations x $ 10  = 9 M$

    Last 70 % : 2.1 million gun owners, 4.9 million guns:            164 M$
            2.1 million permits x $ 60/permit = 126 M$
            2.1 million registrations x $ 18  =  38 M$

    Total tax grab by Dec. 31st, 2002                182 M $
                                    -------

Note that the number of registration applications is equal to the number
of gun permit applications because we are allowed "up to 10 firearms"
for the same fee.

Now, the following secnarios to consider are :

1- the bureaucrats really believed the 85 million figure  -- and they
were going to bilk gun owners out of an extra 100 million dollars right
from the start, more than twice what they actually "needed";

2- the bureaucrats have known for a long time that the fee schedule they
published covers only half of the actual costs of 360 millions. Just as
they stalled and stonewalled and denied for as long as possible the true
extent of their spendings, they are also stalling and stonewalling on
the real fees they will have to charge to cover their lavish lifestyle.

I doubt very much scenario 1 is true -- the bureaucrats could not be so
naive, the Surete du Quebec itself will set up a staff of up 200 at the
cost of 40 millions, close to half the 85 million total. Scenario 2
shows we cannot believe Ottawa's fee structure anymore than we can
believe its total cost estimates nor its crime statistics.

In a nutshell:
- - The bureaucrats could not do it for 85 mmillions.
- - The bureaucrats cannot do it for 360 millions. (at that point, only
gone through the motions, unvalidated registry).
- ---> The fees cannot remain at the original level promised at the
beginning.

------------------------------







Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. Physics, Montreal, Canada
  DePompadour, Socit d'Importation Lte
     Limoges fine porcelain and french crystal
  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
     Instrumentation & control, LabView programming
PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C