Battle Flags, Etc.

Australia's Gun Ban and Confiscation. Clinton's Dream for America?
UN (United Nations) blue and white helmet targeted by rifle scope crosshairs.
We've all heard the various different rumors about the gun confiscations in Australia. I wanted more details than what I had heard to date, so I went and did some net surfing to see what I could find on the subject. I found a very interesting website maintained by the Department of Justice for the Australian state of Victoria. One of the pages on their website gave a series of frequently asked questions on the subject of firearms "reform", Australian style. The URL for that particular page is:

I have taken the liberty of including a de-html-ed version of those FAQ with this message. However, for those who are curious, the entire thing can be summed up in a nutshell. While there are still some firearms that will be legal to possess after the ban goes into effect on September 30, 1997, the government will reserve the right to dictate to the citizens of Australia how they can exercise their *privilege* of firearms ownership. While it isn't explicitly stated below, I think it rather obvious from the tone of the entire piece that the Australian government will probably feel free to do whatever it wants to in order to ensure that the ban is enforced after the amnesty has run out.

Therefore, while massive firearms *seizures* don't seem to have started yet in Australia, I think it is only a question of time until they do. And that time is likely to be shortly after September 30, 1977.

- Mike/North Central Florida Regional Militia


Dept. of Justice : Firearm Reform

Frequently Asked Questions

Firearm Reform and Compensation Project

Q. The New Legislation - What does it mean for your license?

A new Firearms Act will be introduced in the Spring session of State Parliament to cover new licensing arrangements and detail penalties associated with the ownership and use of prohibited firearms.

Q. Why are guns being banned?

All firearms are not being banned. Following the tragedy at Port Arthur and a meeting of all State and Territory Police Ministers, a decision was made to ban semi-automatic and pump action firearms and implement a buy back scheme to encourage the surrender of the newly banned firearms. This action was taken in response to massive community outcry to remove the risk of tragedies such as Port Arthur happening again and the risk of firearms in the community.

Q. Which firearms are being banned?

Semi-automatic centre fire rifles designed or adapted for military purposes;

Non-military style semi-automatic centre fire rifles;

Semi-automatic rim fire rifles;

Semi-automatic shotguns; and

Pump action shotguns.

Q. Will it only be illegal to use or also to own these banned guns?

New Victorian firearm regulations which came into effect on 1 October, 1996 make it illegal to use the newly banned firearms. However, it will not become illegal to own them until after the completion of the amnesty on the 30 September, 1997. During the amnesty, firearms owners can receive compensation under the buy back scheme for surrendering their illegal firearms.

Q. What will happen after 30 September 1997?

A new Firearms Act will be introduced in the 1996 Spring session of Parliament which will cover new licensing arrangements and detail penalties associated with the ownership and use of illegalfirearms. After 30 September 1997, it will become a serious offence to own or use one of the banned firearms and you may be fined if in possession of one.

Q. How are these firearms being collected?

A general amnesty commenced on 2 July 1996 to give firearm owners time to voluntarily surrender their soon to be prohibited firearms without fear of reprisal or fines and receive compensation for the surrender.

Four metropolitan Firearm Collection Centres opened on 15 August at Box Hill, Dandenong, Heidelberg and Sunshine.

Regional Firearm Collection Centres will operate in Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Sale, Hamilton and Shepparton until the end of the amnesty on 30 September 1997.

These permanent Firearm Collection Centres will also be supported by four travelling collection centres that will visit more than 30 regional towns over seven months.

Q. Who will be collecting and destroying surrendered firearms?

The Firearm Reform and Compensation Project, within the Department of Justice, is managing the compensation program for the Victorian Government. To ensure the integrity of the collection and disposal of surrendered firearms, Chubb Security has been contracted to provide security on-site at the collection centres, disable firearms, remove the firearms to a secure storage facility and then destroy them by crushing.

Q. How will people be compensated?

A cheque for the predetermined amount for each specific firearm will be handed to firearm owners immediately they surrender their firearm at a Collection Centre. Compensation amounts are listed in the Firearm Identification and Compensation Manual which is available for perusal at police stations, Collection Centres and gun dealers.

Q. How long will compensation be available?

Compensation will be paid for banned firearms in Victoria up until the end of the amnesty - that is 30 September 1997.

Q. Who is paying for the compensation, collection and destruction?

The Commonwealth Government is paying for the buy back through the increased Medicare levy. The Victorian Government is paying for the community education campaign to encourage participation in the amnesty and the collection and destruction of prohibited firearms in Victoria.

Q. Who sets the compensation rate?

National compensation rates, based on 1 March selling prices, were prepared by the Commonwealth Government and released by the Commonwealth Attorney - General on 5 August 1996.

Q. Who will be able to have guns?

Anyone who has a genuine reason may own a firearm. For example, members of a recognised sporting shooters club, recreational shooters/hunters with permission from a landholder, primary producers and security employees, bona fide collectors - that is, those with a demonstrated need will still be able to own firearms, but not those that are now banned.

Q. Will farmers be able to keep their guns?

Farmers with a genuine need for category B and C firearms will be able to own these firearms - their choice, however, will be limited. To use category C firearms, farmers will need to satisfy the licensing authority that the use of the firearm pertains to their occupation, cannot be achieved by some other means and that the need cannot be satisfied by a firearm classified as category A. Category C licence holders will only be allowed to own a maximum of one rifle and one shotgun of category C type.

Q. What are the new firearm categories?

Licence Category A

air rifles;

rim fire rifles (excluding self-loading); and

single and double barrel shotguns.

Licence Category B

muzzle-loading firearms;

single shot, double barrel and repeating centre fire rifles; and

break action shotgun/rifle combinations.

Licence Category C (Prohibited except for occupation purpose)

semi-automatic rim fire rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds;

semi-automatic shotguns with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds; and

pump action shotguns with a magazine capacity not greater than five rounds.

Licence Category D (Prohibited except for official purposes)

self loading centre fire rifles designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm which substantially duplicates those rifles in design, function or appearance; non-military style self-loading centre fire rifles with either an integral or detachable magazine;

self loading shotguns with either an integral or detachable magazine and pump action shotguns with a capacity of more than five rounds; and self loading rim fire rifles with a magazine capacity greater than ten rounds.

Licence Category H

all handguns, including air pistols.

Q. Crimping was an alternative to outright bans, what is it?

Crimping is the process of modifying the magazine so that it only holds 2 rounds of ammunition.

Q. Why was crimping not implemented?

A meeting of all State and Territory Police Ministers agreed that crimping is not absolutely irreversible.

Q. Aren't these laws merely penalising those many law abiding, responsible people who have had guns for years just because of a few unbalanced elements in the community?

Most people do not need semi-automatic firearms. The Government's intention is to remove from the community firearms capable of causing mass destruction and mass injury or death. People wishing to own a firearm may still do so, their choice, however, will be limited.

Q. But surely people have the right to own firearms?

There is no right enshrined in the Australian constitution to carry arms nor does Australia have a Bill of Rights similar to the United States of America. Having a firearms licence is a privilege just as a driver licence is and there are responsibilities attached to that privilege.

Q. Changing the law isnt going to stop someone hell bent on killing, is it?

No. But it will reduce the risk of that person legally obtaining a semi-automatic or continuous fire firearm and therefore reduce the possibility of firearm massacres. The new laws will also create a social environment in which violence becomes less and less acceptable - at all levels.

Q. What level of community support is there for the changes?

Research results show that more than 60 percent of Australians support firearm reform and the banning of these firearms.

From: Mike Johnson[]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 1997 1:56 AM
Subject: piml] MJN: Guns in Australia

Home Ordering Email Articles Waco pics

Australia's Gun Ban and Confiscation. Clinton's Dream for America?
Australia and Britian show Americans how to ban guns.
Canada's New Gun Control Law: Much more than mere gun control
Brazilian military checkpoints search individuals and vehicles for ...guns

Battle Flags, Etc.

Australia and Britian show Americans how to ban guns.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaw governments will have guns."
The Brits and Aussies are about to prove it again.

UN (United Nations) blue and white helmet targeted by rifle scope crosshairs.

The Electronic Telegraph
Wednesday 16 October 1996

Semi-automatic pistols to be banned
By Philip Johnston and George Jones

THE possession of semi-automatic pistols is to be banned, it emerged last night on the eve of publication of Lord Cullen's report into the Dunblane massacre.

The Labour Party and several Tory MPs came out in favour of banning all handguns. Ministers will not support a total ban as they believe target shooting with single shot .22 weapons - a recognised Olympic sport - should be preserved.

But they have been persuaded by public opposition to the ownership of rapid-fire, large calibre pistols of the sort used by Thomas Hamilton to kill 16 children and their teacher at Dunblane last March.

Michael Howard, Home Secretary, will announce the new gun controls today. The measures, drawn up by a Cabinet committee chaired by John Major, will include a complete ban on keeping handguns at home and tighter licensing and certification requirements.

Lord Cullen is expected to stop short of an outright ban and recommend that owners should be required to keep their weapons securely at approved gun clubs. But Ministers were worried that such a compromise would fail to satisfy the Dunblane campaigners and could be defeated in the Commons. It could also leave Michael Forsyth, the Scottish Secretary, and MP for Stirling, which includes Dublane, exposed to criticism in Scotland. The Cabinet has therefore decided to go further than Cullen and ban the possession of large calibre, semi-automatic weapons.

Government sources said today's announcement would be a "substantive and considered" response to Lord Cullen's report, which was presented to Ministers on Monday. Legislation to implement the new controls will be included in the Queen's Speech next Wednesday opening the new session of Parliament and is expected to be law by the new year.

Ministers are known to be concerned that Labour will seek to gain political advantage by coming out in favour of a ban on all handguns - including .22 single shot pistols. Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Labour's home affairs spokesman, and George Robertson, Labour's Scottish spokesman, last night decided they would propose a complete ban.

The ban on semi-automatic weapons will be highly controversial and cause a huge upheaval for gun enthusiasts and firearms dealers

This is a hardening of Labour's previous position which allowed for a exception for single-shot handguns under .22 calibre held in secure gun clubs.

The Labour leadership has decided there are no longer any grounds on which the possession of handguns can be justified. It also wants the age limit on owning shotguns raised from 14 to 18. Such a ban would effectively end handgun target shooting as a sport in this country.

There are an estimated 200,000 legally-held handguns in circulation owned by more than 55,000 people. Less than five per cent are single-shot pistols. Labour sources said they were prepared to accept such a consequence.

Fully automatic weapons have been banned in this country since 1936 and possession of most types of semi-automatic rifle was prohibited after the Hungerford massacre in 1987. However, semi-automatic pistols may be possessed on a firearms certificate.

The ban on semi-automatic weapons will be highly controversial and cause a huge upheaval for gun enthusiasts and firearms dealers. It could also result in huge compensation claims.

In the summer, the Tory-dominated Commons home affairs committee came down against any ban and also claimed a prohibition on multi-shot handguns would "not make a mass killing any less likely".

But its report provoked public outrage, a respose which convinced Ministers that the Government would have to take action.

The political difficulties facing Mr Major were evident when two Conservative MPs joined calls for a ban. Hugh Dykes and Robert Hughes signed a cross-party Commons motion demanding the move "in the interest of public safety".

A ban on private ownership of handguns is the minimum demand of some of the bereaved Dunblane parents. The shooting lobby yesterday staged a rearguard defence of its position amid clear signs that tougher restrictions are inevitable.

Guy Savage, of the Shooters' Rights Association said the problem lay not with gun ownership but the people using them.

But Ann Pearston of the anti-handgun Snowdrop group repeated her demand for a total ban, accusing the shooting lobby of "selfishness and arrogance".

(c) Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1996.


John W. Wells

Home Ordering Email Articles Waco pics

Australia's Gun Ban and Confiscation. Clinton's Dream for America?
Australia and Britian show Americans how to ban guns.
Canada's New Gun Control Law: Much more than mere gun control
Brazilian military checkpoints search individuals and vehicles for ...guns

Battle Flags, Etc.

Canada's New Gun Control Law:
Much more than mere gun control
UN (United Nations) blue and white helmet targeted by rifle scope crosshairs.
Rock's firearms bill tramples centuries-old freedoms for everyone, not just gun owners

"In English common law the principle that anything not prohibited is permissible has existed since time out of mind," says Calgarian Ronald Cantlie, an expert on jurisprudence - the study of the origins

and philosophy of law - who has been a lawyer in both England and Canada. "Whatever you were up to was taken to be innocent unless you were known to be breaking the law."

The only period when this fundamental freedom was suspended, Mr. Cantlie explains, was from 1653 to 1658, when the Puritan Oliver Cromwell, having executed the king in 1649, ruled Britain as lord protector. During those five years, agents of the state were free to enter private homes at any time to check for sinful, as well as illegal behaviour. Attendance at church was mandatory and the joyful celebration of Christmas outlawed. Cromwell and his parliamentarians passed dozens of laws that made criminals of ordinary citizens. "That period ought to serve warning that even when the best people start a revolution they never can guess where it will end," Mr. Cantlie says.

Now there are fears that a second Protectorate is on the horizon, this time in Canada. Mr. Cantlie and others are worried that Justice Minister Allan Rock's gun control law, Bill C-68, which the Liberals forced through on second reading two weeks ago, will undermine at least four basic liberties that residents of common law countries such as Canada have enjoyed for 800 years or more.

Legal experts and gun owners charge that among other things, the Firearms Act will allow police to search private homes without a warrant. It will suspend citizens' right to refuse to co-operate with police and may force them to self-incriminate or face jail for failing to do so. It allows for the confiscation of private property by the state without compensation. And it creates a "reverse onus" on those accused of offences under several of its sections; in other words, it requires those charged to prove their innocence, rather than assuming they are innocent until proven guilty.

Until last month, most criticism of Bill C-68 had focused on two issues: the ineffectiveness of universal gun registration as a means of crime control and the high cost of registering Canada's six million to 18 million handguns, shotguns and rifles. Most analysts figure that registering all the country's firearms will cost about $500 million over the next five years, to say nothing of the large numbers of police officers registration will take off the street to do paperwork. Mr. Rock insists the tab will be just $85 million and that no police manpower will be diverted.

But John Hardy, legal counsel for the Saskatchewan Responsible Firearms Owners, says more and more people are now reading the bill, and have found that its provisions go well beyond establishing a national firearms registry. "This bill gives police the broadest range of powers found in any Canadian legislation," he says. "[It] encroaches so much more on individual rights than any previous law that the whole concept of personal rights and liberties is endangered."

The contentious sections are 99 through 102, which cover "inspection." They empower police to enter businesses and homes without a warrant, for the purpose of insuring compliance with registration and storage laws. Section 99, for example, says "a police officer may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place in which the police officer believes on reasonable grounds there is a firearm, [or] prohibited weapon..." It even allows for unwarranted searches of homes suspected of containing ammunition or any record of a gun or ammunition purchase.

It also authorizes police to "examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the officer finds and take samples of it," disposing of those samples "in any manner that he or she considers appropriate." Police do not have to return property seized, even if it turns out to be legal.

On first blush, the wording of section 100 seems innocuous. It says simply that citizens must "give the police officer all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to carry out the inspection ... and provide the police officer with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act." However, Mr. Hardy points out that this provision, in effect, removes the protection from unreasonable search and seizure that homes have traditionally enjoyed and that is (at least in theory) guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Until C-68 passes, home owners have the right to refuse to let police officers search their property without a warrant, unless the lawmen have good reason to believe a crime is in progress. Otherwise, before the search occurs the home owner may go to court where a judge can decide whether it is reasonable. After C-68 becomes law, citizens must first allow a search or face arrest. They may challenge it only after the fact.

Sections 100 and 102 have the combined effect of removing the common law protection against self-incrimination. Section 102, which Mr. Hardy calls the "big stick" of the Firearms Act, reads, "every person who ... does not comply with section 100 is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years." Thus a home owner who has not double- locked his shotgun as the law demands must lead the policeman at his door to the offending weapon, thereby incriminating himself.

Mr. Hardy concedes that section 101 states, "a police officer may not enter a dwelling-house except with the consent of the occupantor under a warrant." Yet it then says a police officer may apply to a judge for a warrant on the grounds "that entry to the dwelling-house has been refused."

"This law represents a complete erosion of individual privacy," Mr. Hardy continues. To be subject to inspection, a home owner need not own guns, just be suspected of possessing documents pertaining to firearms registration or be guilty of refusing police entry without a warrant. "If this law is upheld by the courts it could become a precedent allowing agents of the state to 'inspect' for compliance in any number of areas," he says. "I could see social services, for instance, gaining the right to enter anybody's home to see how they are treating their children."

Christopher Manfredi, professor of political science at McGill University in Montreal and author of the book _Judicial Power and the Charter_, is concerned that Bill C-68 hastens Canada's drift towards collective security at the expense of individual liberty. "To infringe on individual rights in the name of a social good," he explains, "you have to be able to show compelling evidence that there will be benefits. Gun control does not meet that standard."

Furthermore, he scoffs at comparisons between registering guns and registering cars. "We don't register cars to reduce accidents," he says. But more importantly, ownership of an unregistered automobile is not a crime as long as the car is not driven on the streets. Mr. Rock's new law makes a criminal act out of possession of an unregistered firearm. Moreover, he adds, criminalizing passive behaviour and ownership of property may mean Canada is sliding into despotism. "If the government can successfully trample on personal rights behind the smoke screens of gun control and, presumably, crime control, this enhances the power of the government to do the same thing in other areas," he says. "Anyone concerned with personal liberty should be bothered by this law."

Returning to the common law notion that anything not illegal is considered legal, Mr. Hardy adds that should the government get away with setting the dangerous precedents contained in C-68, "this could eventually allow the government, in the name of public safety, or environmental controls, or whatever, to criminalize everything in the country."

He points out that the legislation even amends the Criminal Code to give each provincial or local firearms officer the power to prohibit someone from owning guns because he "cohabits with, or is an associate of" someone already prohibited from owning guns. "This is a direct assault on the Charter of Rights protection of freedom of association. There seems to be an assumption on the part of the government that firearms owners are all unstable people just waiting for a chance to break the law."

What upsets Mr. Cantlie the most is that the freedoms threatened by C-68 are mostly hundreds of years old, and were often hard- won. Protection from unwarranted search and seizure, for example, was first codified in the Magna Carta, the foundation for limitation of the crown's power, in 1215.

The presumption of innocence, according to Mr. Cantlie, also goes back at least as far. "Prior to that time most questions of guilt were settled through trial by ordeal," he explains. "If you were suspected of a crime you would be thrown into a pond. If you floated, you were innocent." This, though, was a pre-Christian practice that the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 forbade priests from endorsing, effectively ending it. At about this time it was established that a defendant should not be thrown in prison until proven guilty.

The right to avoid self-incrimination was widely recognized by at least 1686. That year James II charged seven bishops with sedition. One of them is recorded as saying, "I never thought the day would come when I would claim the right to remain silent, but I'm claiming it now." This, asserts Mr. Cantlie, shows that the principle was already well established in common law. The idea that silence proved guilt died with the abolition of the Star Chamber trials in 1641.

Compensation for confiscation of property, another right undermined by Bill C-68, also has a long history. "Confiscation of property couldn't be done except for defence purposes," says Mr. Cantlie. "And there was always an obligation to pay for the property taken."

The origin of the right to refuse co-operation to the police is murkier. When most sheriffs were volunteers, judges expected citizens to help them. But this expectation was limited mostly to assisting with the arrest of suspects. As more and more police officers became full-time professionals, the right to refuse to go along with their investigations evolved, as did the obligation not to obstruct them, Mr. Cantlie says.

Just when the common law forbade courts from judging any one guilty by association is also unclear. "Conspiracy and being an accessory to a crime have always themselves been crimes," says Mr. Cantlie. "But in ordinary times English law has never sought to implicate anyone not actually involved with the crime."

Reform Party Leader Preston Manning shares gun owners' concerns that C-68 goes too far. "This point hasn't been stressed enough," he says. "Since it looks like the Liberals will ram this bill through, I hope one of the provinces will challenge it in court."

Jack Ramsay, Reform's gun control critic, is even more emphatic about the threat posed by Mr. Rock's law. "When this bill passes," he says, "our freedoms are gone."

However, Mr. Ramsay is convinced that gun owners take their rights seriously, and rather than give them up without a fight, will disobey what they believe to be an unjust law. "Mr. Rock is being absolutely unreasonable and irresponsible when he moves in this fashion to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens," he says. "If [the government] will seize guns, which in themselves are personal property, what will stop them in future from seizing anything they want?"

Mr. Ramsay also points out that the economic consequences of the government's anti-gun bill are starting to manifest themselves. "American hunters are promising to keep the millions of dollars they have previously spent annually on hunting trips to Canada at home," he reports. "They won't register their guns at the border because their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. They don't want Canadian bureaucrats sharing registration information with their American counterparts."

Mr. Rock and his officials deny their bill constitutes a threat to Canadians' freedom. Jim Hayes, co-ordinator of the Justice Department's firearms control task group, says, "It's not our intention to let the police get out of control. Firearms officers need freedom to act in situations of imminent danger, such as domestic violence cases. But afterwards they will have to go before a judge to justify their actions."

Asked whether Bill C-68 represents a trend toward the criminalization of property ownership, Mr. Hayes replies, "No, the legislation does not lead in that direction." He adds, "The minister has a different perception, and besides, every property owner in the country is already affected by the Criminal Code." He also insists most of the provisions of Bill C-68 were proposed by gun clubs worried about people taking out bogus memberships just so they could qualify to buy restricted weapons.

Reform MP Bob Mills says Mr. Hayes' denials are dishonest. A federal Justice Department official told him that "An unidentified enforcement agency would be sent from house to house if necessary to implement the gun registration system." And a senior federal bureaucrat, who insisted on remaining anonymous, explains that "The government does not use the terms 'search and seizure'. They call it an 'inspection power'." In this way they hope to get around the Charter. "But what they are proposing is quite wide. They are going to have to clean up that part of the act or it won't pass constitutional muster."

"To say that the Justice Department consulted with gun clubs is baloney," says Jim Schille, co-chairman of the Saskatchewan Responsible Firearms Owners. "Mr. Rock came to Saskatchewan in 1994, but when he met with us he asked no questions and took no notes. Nor did anyone with him do so."

Mr. Schille reports that at the time Mr. Rock revealed himself to be ignorant of existing gun control laws. "We told him that judges don't like to be constricted by mandatory sentencing laws so they routinely deal them away," says Mr. Schille. Mr. Rock denied that happened, but his bureaucrats were later forced to admit it was true. "I can't believe a man who used to be a trial lawyer could know so little about basic criminal law," he says.

Paul Steckle is convinced Mr. Rock doesn't know much about politics, either. Mr. Steckle is one of the three Liberal MPs thrown off standing legislative committees because they voted against Bill C-68 on second reading. "Mr. Rock is not being sensitive to Canadians," he says. "Sure, people want safer streets, but they don't want their freedoms trampled on either. We didn't campaign on this at all. There was nothing in the Red Book about warrantless searches and seizures. There was nothing in there about criminalizing every gun owner in Canada. And there was nothing about confiscation."

Within the first 10 hours after he was exiled from his committees, Mr. Steckle says, "I had over 100 phone calls. They came from every province except Newfoundland. Every one of them supported the stand I took. It's a shame that so many voters remain unrepresented by their government."

It is difficult for Mr. Steckle to fathom why Mr. Rock is pushing so hard to pass a bill so detested by such a huge block of committed voters. He thinks the minister's efforts will prove the first step toward a decline in the Liberals' unprecedented popularity. He also postulates that Mr. Rock may be captive to a registration-crazed bureaucracy.

Reformer Ramsay believes there is a third, more important reason for the government's haste in putting C-68 into law: it is worried that if the legislation does not pass before summer, Liberal backbenchers will be convinced to oppose it when they get back home.

Shafer Parker, Jr.

This and many other articles may be obtained from the CDN website at You will find information there on getting on their internet mailing list.

Although this article is history, it exemplyfies the attitude of the liberal social engineers. We have many of these types in this country both in private organizations like HCI and its many offshoots and in our Federal Government. We here in the U.S. may be faced with this type of infringements at the hand of the Terrorism Bill now before congress. We must be vigilant in our efforts to stop these types of legislative measures. We all know by now that Canadians are now faced with the REALITY of C-68.

As most of us know, our liberties are in grave danger and many draconian measures are already being taken upon the people.


Following is the entire text of the article "Much more than mere gun control" which was published in the April 24, 1995 issues of Western Report. This is posted with the full permission of Western Report who provided a text version of this article stating "We are granting you permission to distribute the story in its complete unaltered form with proper credit to Alberta/Western Report.

You may distibute this article in any way; FAX it to your MP. Be sure to give the credit. You could email a thank-you to Alberta Report at (Alberta Report)

Bob Bryce

Home Ordering Email Articles Waco pics

Battle Flags, Etc.

Brazilian military moves into slum to abate crime,
use checkpoints to search individuals and vehicles
for drugs, money, and guns, and lack of ID.

20 Nov 94.

UN (United Nations) blue and white helmet targeted by rifle scope crosshairs.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuter) - Brazilian army soldiers took up positions around five shantytowns in Rio Friday in the latest stage of a military-led crackdown on drug crime in the city, a military spokesman said.

``There is in effect a checking of people and of vehicles ... `` said Col. Ivan Cardoso, a spokesman for the Eastern Military Command, which is co-ordinating the three-week crackdown.

Two army patrols entered the Dona Martha shantytown in southern Rio to briefly search for drugs and arms before setting up a checkpoint at the entrance to the steep hillside slum, local reporters said.

No shots were fired and seven people were arrested for not carrying identification, they said.

Brazilian President Itamar Franco ordered the military to crackdown on crime in Rio Oct. 31 in response to the power of drug gangs and police corruption. Since then, the military presence in the city has been limited to a few patrols and helicopters flying on reconnaissance missions over the city's shantytowns.

Army units have set up roadblocks on highways leading to the city. Soldiers were reported to have seized a shipment of dynamite early Friday although army spokesman Cardoso said he could not confirm the report.

Military sets up checkpoints to find anything illegal

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuter) - Brazilian army soldiers prepared to spend a second night Sunday occupying one of Rio de Janeiro's crime-ridden shantytowns in a three-week military crackdown on drug-related crime.

In this city known for Samba and sun, soldiers were shown on local television lying flat on the ground, holding guns and with faces painted in battlefield green.

They crouched behind sandbag shelters, but it was unclear if for protection from snipers or from heavy rains that have been falling in recent days.

The soldiers, flanked by helicopters and tanks, moved into two Rio shantytowns Saturday as part of a crackdown on crime announced by President Itamar Franco on Oct.31.

The measure was noticeably low-key until Friday afternoon, when soliders set up temporary checkpoints at the entrance of five Rio slums.

After seizing drugs, firearms and money found in an abandoned shack, the soldiers withdrew from one of the slums Sunday afternoon.

Illegal drugs and crime are the best excuse yet for confiscating guns and money from civilians

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- The samba came back to Mangueira Hill on Monday as more than 1,000 army troops retreated from a hillside slum after a two-day anti-drug mission.

An army raid Saturday on the Mangueira slum, well known for its carnival champion Samba school, forced the cancellation of the traditional Saturday night rehearsal.

Of 128 people detained by troops, 18 were arrested for drug possession. The army also confiscated 1,400 small packages of cocaine and marijuana, a few weapons and about $8,000 in cash.

Army spokesman Col. Ivan Cardozo said that major drug traffickers had apparently fled the slum since the armed forces took over Rio law enforcement three weeks ago.

President Itamar Franco put the army in charge of Operation Rio to answer public anger over increasing crime, much of it drug-related.

Previous Articles Next Articles

Home Ordering Email Articles Waco pics

Australia's Gun Ban and Confiscation. Clinton's Dream for America?
Australia and Britian show Americans how to ban guns.
Canada's New Gun Control Law: Much more than mere gun control
Brazilian military checkpoints search individuals and vehicles for ...guns