Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Southwestern British Columbia
    Posts
    216

    Research Help Needed!!

    Does anyone have any information on the "daily" CPIC check we gun owners go through everyday. I've been told that by the CFP and read the info on the website but I'm looking for more information. Does anyone have anything else???

    Thanks.
    Rod Giltaca, PAL Instructor
    Civil Advantage Firearms Training

  2. #2
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    It's called the "continuous eligibility program".

    There are at least two sources of data
    a) weapons prohibition orders.
    b) Firearms Interest Police (FIP).

    Courts enter weapons prohibition orders, and they're checked against the PAL list, and anyone who's on both is discovered, and local police are notified and they promptly run out and collect the PAL card. According to Ed Burlew, Canadian police are extremely good at this -- on the order of 100% of PAL cards are seized. If you see someone with a PAL card, and it was ever valid (not fake), you can rest comfortably that there hasn't been a weapons prohibition order against this person.

    The FIP is entered by local police throughout Canada. Networking every police station in Canada to do this cost a hundred million dollars or so -- and wasn't in the original plans or estimates for the Canadian Firearms Program. It was created when there was a famicide involving a woman who refused to issue a complaint against her husband although there had been several domestic assault investigations by police, who subsequently applied for and got a PAL. I assume bureaucrats decided on their own that they needed such a system -- but I have no proof of that.

    Since the FIP isn't organized by PAL #s, every day (possibly several times a day) the list of PALers names is compared against the new entries in the FIP database looking for PALers names amongst the many names that are there (mostly non PALers), be they suspect, victim, witness, or bystander interviewed on the street; corresponding local police reports are then read by Canadian Firearms Centre staff to decide if this is grounds for a PAL revocation. If so, they send the local police out to get the PAL card.

    I note that some places suggest that police enter data directly into FIP, whereas elsewhere I saw an early database schema definition for the FIP and it was incredibly small mostly a few pointers to other records implying the data is actually entered into normal CPIC or paper records rather than actually in FIP.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 11-09-2014 at 09:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    Continuous-eligibility screening

    All current holders of firearms licences, POL and PAL, are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System (CFIS). CFIS automatically checks with the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) every day to determine whether a licence holder has been the subject of an incident report in CPIC. All matches generate a report entitled Firearms — Interest Police (FIP), that is automatically forwarded to the CFO in the relevant province for follow-up. Some of these reports require no further action, but some lead to review of the individual’s licence and may result in the revocation of the firearms licence. Continuous-eligibility screening reduces the likelihood that an individual who has shown they are a risk to public safety will be permitted to retain possession of firearms.

    The following Figure (8) shows the number of confirmed FIP reports by province.

    Province/Territory 2007

    Newfoundland and Labrador 2,116
    Prince Edward Island 278
    Nova Scotia 5,588
    New Brunswick 3,671
    Quebec 37,302
    Ontario 19,924
    Manitoba 4,348
    Saskatchewan 2,877
    Alberta 8,766
    British Columbia 11,426
    Yukon 273
    Northwest Territories 216
    Nunavut 589
    Total 97,374

    -- Commissioner of Firearms 2007 Report

  4. #4
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    The daily CPIC run has parameters built into it with concerns regarding your PAL, RPAL.
    They are looking for anything under the Firearms Act that would allow revocation of the PAL or RPAL.
    Not all charges fall under this.
    If you have an argument with someone and the Police attend the scene, no charges are laid, but a report goes in.
    You just generated a FIP for the next day and depending on the circumstances you may be called in to explain.
    If you got charged with stealing a candy bar at the local store, a FIP would be generated on CPIC the next day, but since it does not directly relate to the Firearms Act and your PAL or RPAL, there would be no hit under those parameters.
    Thats the way it was explained to me by the Halton Police Service when I had a Firearms Business Permit.
    The parameters change as the Firearms Act changes.
    I am not qouting exact parameters here, just the example that I was told.
    Remember they are not running a CPIC check for Vulnerable Records Check.
    That theft charge as quoted above (candy bar-theft under) would score a hit on the Vulnerable Records Check but not the Firearms Act.
    -- cigar_man;33852

    Then we come to the CPIC database which records all convictions and the probation and prohibition orders associated with sentencing.
    These orders are archived in Canada. In fact the court is under an obligation to sen each such order to the CFO and the registrar of firearms, in any event there are police investigation programs run daily on these data bases to find out oif a licensed person has had an order against him or her.
    There is also the FIP database. That is Firearms Interest Police. That is a police tool on CPIC. No judge has the power to alter such an entry. It creates a flag on the registrars data base and the CFO database. There are no several hundred thousand Canadians on that database. A person is on the data base if found guilty of a gun related or violent crime. As well sometimes the victim of a violent or gun related crime is entered. If you think you are on that improperly you can write tot he chief of police in the area and ask to be removed, this has been successful.
    -- sweetheart;10438156

  5. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    One other factor dramatically altered the project’s scope. A shooting spree in 1996 in British Columbia highlighted an obvious flaw in the planned licensing and registry system. In that instance, the killer applied for a license to purchase a gun and was approved, even though his estranged wife had complained to police several times that he had threatened to kill her. Because the man had not been convicted, the incidents were not recorded in the national police database, the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC).
    The government then decided to include all violent incidents reported to police, whether they resulted in a criminal conviction or not, as grounds for further reviewing a license application. This involved tapping into the computer records of every police agency in the country and having information on any reported threats, domestic violence or related incidents pushed out to a new central database, the Firearm Interest Police System (FIPS). This database in turn would be integrated with CPIC and the new firearm registry in Ottawa.
    Instead of a simple database where citizens registered their firearms, the scope of the initiative had been expanded to that of a large computer networking project.
    -- MEL DUVALL, "Armed Robbery ... A national computerized firearm registry in Canada was supposed to cost taxpayers $2 million. Instead, it has held them up for more than $1 billion"

  6. #6
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    Licences are checked for eligibility on an ongoing basis in different ways:
    - As soon as a new violent incident is logged in FIP, the system automatically searches existing licence holders in the CFRS for a match and alerts the CFO of this development. This could result in a licence being revoked.
    - Court records of relevance to section 5 of the Firearms Act (i.e. prohibition orders) are manually fed into CFRS on a daily basis by CFRO staff. This information is not only used to flag existing licence holders, but also serves as another primary eligibility check on new applicants coming into the system.
    - Also, the CFRS maintains other key information used in the ongoing eligibility screening process such as firearms events and spousal notification tables.

    -- Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. "Review of the personal information handling practices of the Canadian Firearms Program", August 29, 2001

    [note: courts weren't notifying the CFO's about ALL prohibition orders at the time -- and years later the process was changed because PALs were issued or not revoked with people who had prohibition orders.]

  7. #7
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    Continuous Eligibility Screening of Firearms Licence Holders

    All firearms licences are recorded in the Canadian Firearms Information System. If a licensed individual
    is the subject of a police report involving violence that is recorded on the Canadian Police Information
    Centre (CPIC), an interface between CPIC and the CFP database ensures that a report is automatically
    sent to the Chief Firearms Officer of their province or territory for further review and investigation.

    Table 11: Firearms Interest Police (FIP) Events
    Province/TerritoryProviTerritory rearms Interest PNFIPs
    Newfoundland and Labrador 3,076
    Prince Edward Island 297
    Nova Scotia 4,806
    New Brunswick 4,152
    Quebec 31,808
    Ontario 39,834
    Manitoba 9,471
    Saskatchewan 6,856
    Alberta 4,484
    British Columbia 15,266
    Yukon 695
    Northwest Territories 81
    Nunavut 0
    Total 120,826

    -- Commissioner of Firearms 2012 Report

  8. #8
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    privacy, parking tickets
    JUNE 6, 2005 –TO IRČNE ARSENEAU, DIRECTOR, COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS FROM AND KEN McCARTHY, REGISTRAR OF FIREARMS FROM PIERRE RIOPEL, FIP COORDINATOR:
    “I have followed up on the Ontario Stats and the reason why the CFRO query stats have gone up so dramatically is as follows:
    Toronto Metro Telecommunications had requested a change in their Intergraph Dispatch System that would auto query all address responses that was returned from their records management system. The requested change was never fully researched and for some reason was implemented as an emergency maintenance issue. Toronto Metro Technical Security Branch was contacted and they stated they are going to remove this feature ASAP. The address query responses from CFRO are not being passed on to anyone. There is a privacy issue about this type of query. Note that the CFRO auto query of addresses is based on any valid address query response returned through their Intergraph System query.
    This means that if a parking ticket had a valid address and was returned the Intergraph system, it would generate a CFRO address query.
    There is nothing here and the Ontario stats should return to normal (4,000 to 5,000) queries per week in CFRO once the auto query through Intergraph is removed.”
    hxxp://www.cdnshootingsports.org/police_use_of_registry_exaggerated.html

  9. #9
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165
    April 5, 1996 - In Vernon, BC Rajwar Gakhal and 8 members of her family are murdered by her estranged husband, who then commits suicide. Chahal, 30, locked in a bitter divorce fight with Rajwar, obtained two guns -- despite allegations of domestic violence. Rajwar had told the RCMP about Chahal's threats against her after the couple's nine-month arranged marriage failed but, in fear of retribution, she asked police not to press charges. RCMP said Chahal's gun permit was approved because he had no criminal record.

    The Coalition For Gun Control raised a number of questions about the way in which the RCMP processed the murderer's gun application. An inquest and inquiry are called. That one case dramatically altered the Canadian Firearms Program's scope, because it highlighted a flaw in the planned licensing and registry system.

    The Canadian Firearms Program then decided to include all violent incidents reported to police, whether they resulted in a criminal conviction or not, as grounds for further reviewing a license application (as well as adding spousal permission to applications and renewals, and references, and telephone interviews). This involved tapping into the computer records of every police agency in the country and having information on any reported threats, domestic violence or related incidents
    pushed out to a new central database, the Firearm Interest Police System (FIPS). This database in turn would be integrated with CPIC and the new firearm registry in Ottawa. Instead of a simple database where citizens registered their firearms, the scope of the initiative had been expanded to that of a large computer networking project. According to the Justice Department, that cost $60.9-million for network communications and some advertising, not including software, training, or ongoing federal and municipal costs.

    ================

    Quote Originally Posted by Sporto100 View Post
    The very fact they cross reference us law abiding licensed gun holders every day against newly laid criminal charges
    The bar is lower than that.
    If your name appears in FIP (Firearms Interest Police database) that day, then you get checked.
    FIP gets new charges, but also accusations and complaints without charge. That was the intent of why it was set up.
    FIP also gets witnesses to crimes, and people interviewed by front line police who were not witnesses [occasionally?], even victims of crimes, as discovered by a FOI (freedom of information) request by an MP years ago.
    FIP contains unsubstantiated and derogatory information, unproven charges or allegations, hearsay, records that are older than 5 years, incidents and charges that have been cleared or acquitted, duplicate entries as well as information about witnesses, victims of crime and various other associated subjects. People are unaware that they are being flagged in FIP as possible risks to public safety. Also, inaccurate information on FIP that has already been the subject of a previous investigation and cleared, is used over and over. [I understand they're trying to not put in witnesses and victims, an ongoing effort]

    FIP, and the networking it required to get over 900 law enforcement agencies across Canada connected, was part of the reason for the billion dollar boondoggle. What's not included in the costs are the compliance effort required by local front line officers, and the programming effort at the 900+ law enforcement agencies to attempt to create these FIP entries using an automated extract program (which is part of the reason that garbage ends up in the database).

    " RCMP and Surete du Quebec sources verify that there is a 50% error rate in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database."
    -- http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/CPA01.htm

    The FIP was never mentioned or envisioned during the creation of the Firearms Act.
    It was created because of one incident:

    In 1996, Mark Chahal shot and killed his estranged wife and her family in Vernon, British Columbia, and then committed suicide. An inquest into the murders revealed that, in the months leading up to the shootings, Mr. Chahal had applied for and received a Firearms Acquisition Certificate. He then applied for and received a permit to purchase a semi-automatic handgun, which he registered for target practice. Days before the shooting, Chahal purchased a 10-round magazine for one of his handguns and practised shooting at his gun club several days later.

    Throughout this period, Chahal dealt with several different police forces. Since the information was not centrally registered, no pattern could be detected. This information is now maintained in a central database, thereby providing police with a new opportunity to monitor and assess individual situations for increasing risk of harm.

    -- hxxp://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/annexb.html
    FIP was created due to:
    a) the broad wording of section 55 of the Firearms Act relating to the "collection of any information reasonably regarded as relevant to determining eligibility";
    b) an interpretation of section 5 which reads "5. (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition."

    ===================

    The inquest heard that Mitchell was granted a firearms licence even though a background check showed police complaints had been lodged against him for uttering threats and being involved in a verbal altercation.
    Terry Hamilton, chief firearms officer for B.C. and Yukon, testified that since Mitchell was never charged, her office approved his licence application.
    "Bad temper is not sufficient grounds to deny somebody a firearms licence,” she said.
    A firearms officer has the power to revoke a person’s gun licence if public safety is threatened.
    Hamilton said the rifle was returned to Mitchell upon advice from Victoria police. Other Victoria officers are expected to testify later at the inquest.
    Lawyers at the inquest suggested that the Office of the Chief Firearms Officer should have dug deeper into Mitchell’s mental- health history before issuing him a gun licence.
    Hamilton said the office relies on applicants to disclose whether they have a history of mental health or suicide issues, and that firearms employees do not have access to medical records. As a result of Mitchell’s death, her office hopes to make changes regarding disclosure of mental illnesses.
    -- 2013/11/12, re Angus Mitchell , hxxp://www.timescolonist.com/city-police-raised-red-flag-on-victoria-man-before-he-killed-two-people-inquest-hears-1.694567

    Back in 2006 was another one that comes to mind. The Newfoundland RCMP gave a gun back to Shawn Skinner, who committed murder/suicide.

    The irony is that the first time this happened after the Canadian Firearms Program was started up, something very similar happened. A factor that dramatically altered the Canadian Firearms Program's scope and costs was when a shooting spree in 1996 in British Columbia highlighted an obvious flaw in the planned licensing and registry system. In that instance, the killer applied for a license to purchase a gun and was approved, even though his estranged wife had complained to police several times that he had threatened to kill her. Because the man had not been convicted, the incidents were not recorded in the national police database, the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). The Canadian Firearms Program then decided to include all violent incidents reported to police, whether they resulted in a criminal conviction or not, as grounds for further reviewing a license application. This involved tapping into the computer records of every police agency in the country and having information on any reported threats, domestic violence or related incidents pushed out to a new central database, the Firearm Interest Police System (FIP). This database in turn would be integrated with CPIC and the new firearm registry in Ottawa. Instead of a simple database where citizens registered their firearms, the scope of the initiative had been expanded to that of a large computer networking project. It ended up adding somewhere in the $400 million to half a billion dollar range to the cost of the project just from the federal taxpayer's budget, and more if you include all the time municipal and provincial police now spend entering the data additionally into FIP. The 1996 case was Mark Vijay Chahal. Family and friends of the victims told newspapers that had the police refused to give the killer a gun licence after his wife filed a complaint against him, the tragedy might have been averted. But the police said they would have been powerless to deny the firearms certificates anyway because the wife Rajwar had asked them not to conduct an investigation into the case because there were no witnesses to the abuse she had suffered and because she feared a probe could aggravate the situation.

  10. #10
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    66,165

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 2 New Innovative research polls
    By soulchaser in forum 2015 Pre/Post Election Debate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-26-2015, 04:43 PM
  2. Forum research at it again: NDP lead by 11
    By soulchaser in forum Non Firearms Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-04-2015, 08:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •