From - Mon Nov 15 11:08:42 1999 Received: from broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [198.169.128.1]) by skatter.USask.Ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA21643; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:14:34 -0600 (CST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA00428; Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:05:25 -0600 Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:05:25 -0600 Message-Id: <199911141305.HAA00428@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> X-Authentication-Warning: broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: majordomo set sender to owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca using -f From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #202 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, November 14 1999 Volume 03 : Number 202 In this issue: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #197 Traveling With Guns Re: Stupid SBHG qn Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #198 Re: Chris's possession application - questions to refuse Fwd: Question for my MP Gag Law Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #200 Paranoia, Gun Control and Logic: Are they Mutually Exclusive? One more Letter... RE: Public Relations Feedback ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:14:04 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #197 > Re Libby's Unlicenced Firearm (Alex, BC). My understanding is that you can > import an unrestricted firearm to Canada from anywhere, go to Customs, > declare it, show your licence, pay the duty, and GST, of course, and take it > home. Libby would have until 2003 to register it. Right now it does not have > to be registered at all. Doesn't matter if she brings it in or gets it > mailed in. > Mike Bonner ================== Under current law, ALL firearms must be registered, when you bring them into the country, indeed, any acquisition of a firearm, from outside or inside the country must be registered. I think the previous posters were saying, about the border entry, that Customs is legally obligated, NOT to communicate with the police. It is therefore a flaw in the system, whereby you can enter the country with any firearm, and since Customs is obliged to keep silent, you have the gun in the country, and the authorities are not aware of it. You are still legally obligated to register it, but since they don't know you have it, then you must decide if you will obey the law. In other words, you are supposed to register any firearm, but if you don't, nobody will know anyway. Personally, I recall entering the country on a Sunday, at the Blue Water Bridge, in Sarnia, Ontario, with a Dan Wesson .445 SuperMag revolver. They made a big deal about calling Metro Toronto Firearms Registration and having me explain to him about the paperwork, while Firearms was listening on the phone. They didn't put me on the phone. They just held it up to receive my explanation. I knew that Firearms was closed at the time, so it was a farce. I wish I had known about their obligation to silence, at that time. By the time this BS was going on, I was getting rather unpleasant with them. I was getting pretty frustrated. If I had known about their obligation to silence, I would have rubbed their noses in it, and been more unpleasant. While I'm on the subject, I would like to know which sections of the Customs Act apply in that situation. Who can tell me? Perhaps Peter Kearns, if you're reading this? I did get a copy of the Customs Act, but it is rather lengthy and I don't see an index. Bye. Al. "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war.) Appius Claudius (the Blind), Roman Senate, 281 BC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:43 -0600 From: Marc Sauve Subject: Traveling With Guns > I would not try to put gun into safe or office unless I knew hotel was gun friendly. Don't do it anyway. It isn't an option. Unless the business has a firearms license, everybody involved could be heading for deep s**t. "The road to ruination is paved with good intentions." Ciao Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:59 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Stupid SBHG qn Not a stupid question at all. In fact, quite interesting. I have seen gun mag articles where they remove the barrel from a revolver and shoot it. It knocks the bullet velocity down a fair amount, but not as much as you would think. Some old revolvers, in the 19th century were sold without barrels, like the combination revolver/knuckle-duster/knife. How about a .44 Mag with no barrel? That would have some muzzle blast, wouldn't it? I used to own an American Arms .44 Mag, 2-shot derringer. That was by far the most ignorant thing I have ever fired. A friend fired it, in front of his fiancee, and the gun rotated sharply in his hand, jamming the hammer into the web of his hand. She was real impressed. One fellow was bandaging him, while I cleaned off the blood and skin from the gun. Hey, that stainless steel really is corrosion proof. Blood just wipes right off. Try that with a blued gun. Blood is normally like acid on a blued surface. Bye. Al. "I drank what?!?" - Socrates ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:34 -0600 From: "Calvin Martin, QC" Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #198 At 07:23 AM 11/12/1999 -0600, you wrote: > > When a police force defies court rulings, fascism has come fully out of the > > closet. The recent refusals by police in Kamloops to abide by court > orders to > > return property, as well as another case on Vancouver Island where police > > have refused to obey a Supreme Court Order to return firearms, does indeed > > clearly establish "the line". How many more cases like this are out > there? I > >Perhaps one of the lawyers who follow this list can explain how the police are >getting away with this. I don't recall judges as being particularly >tolerant of >those who decided that they could simply ignore an order from their court. > >I know that if I were still doing the police thing, it would take a lot of >convincing from somebody with considerable authority before I would be the one >to say "no" to an order from QB or higher, telling me to release anything held >under my authority. > >I'm missing something here, I guess, but why wouldn't counsel for these guys >have pursued these orders further once police refused to comply with what the >order directed? Seems to me that being arrested and tossed in jail for >contempt >would be the next logical step - the court does it fairly often to media types >who refuse to comply with an order to turn over some sort of evidence or >other. > >Any explanation that I can understand? You can bring a motion to bring those cops before the judge who made the order with a supporting affidavit to explain the circumstances. The cops involved should be served with those papers. The judge will deal with them appropriately. Calvin Martin, QC, 600 Church Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 2E7 Tel 416 922-5854 Fax 416 944-0285 Email dvc14@fox.nstn.ca Home Page http://fox.nstn.ca/~dvc14/law.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:56 -0600 From: "Alan Harper" Subject: Re: Chris's possession application - questions to refuse > My advice is not to get a possession licence, but rather a possession & > acquisition licence. Even then, wait 'til the very last day you can > legally apply. Then see how you feel. :) The only reason I've applied is > that the police tell me that they won't return my firearms until I obtain > an FPAL. So I applied for an FPAL, but in my application I refused to list > my conjugal partners and live-in partners. For good measure, I also refused > to answer the "failure at work or school" question as per the Hudson case. > In all cases, I simply wrote "REFUSED" in big letters over the > question/page of concern. The names, addresses and telephone numbers of my > conjugal partners are a personal and private matter - firearm bureacrats > don't need to know these things and inded they should not know in a society > in which privacy is respected. I'll let the list know whether my > application is approved or denied. Another interesting tidbit here is that > I'm an executor of an estate involving fir! > earms, so I don't need an approval in order to legally take possession of > the estate firearms. > > Cheers, > Brian ==================== Good for you, Brian. Don't take any crap from them. It's a good thing you didn't wait to apply. Sounds like they will keep you waiting for a while. Privacy respected in this country? I don't think so. The concept gets lip service, but little else. I think anyone who owns a firearm should get the PAL. Get the license and have it. You never know when you'll need it. I know a fellow who leaned his .375 rifle up against the garage wall and then backed his pickup into it, breaking the stock. He was almost in tears about it. I'll look forward to your update on the digest. Bye. Al. "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war.) Appius Claudius (the Blind), Roman Senate, 281 BC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:47 -0600 From: "Tom Zinck" Subject: Fwd: Question for my MP Here is a response I finally received from my MP, David Pratt. My response to follow soon. - -Tom >From: "Pratt, David - Riding 1" >To: "'tom_zinck2@hotmail.com'" >Subject: Question for my MP >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:42:00 -0500 > >Dear Mr. Zinck: > >Thank you for your email of November 3. I wish to reiterate that your >emails of June 15 & 23 were never received by my office. Perhaps this >could >have been because the address was incorrect or because they were sent >during >the period when my office was in the midst of changing service providers? >We did have problems getting our former provider to forward messages. In >any event, I understand my assistant apologized to you on my behalf. > >In the substance of the issue, I believe that the government's actions have >been appropriate. While there may have been some additional costs to the >Firearms Registration System, I believe that Canadians are prepared to pay >this price for a safer society. By the way, I have not "failed" to listen >to you in this regard, as your email states. Rather, I am expressing >support for the government's actions which have widespread support among >Canadians. > >David Pratt, M.P. >Nepean-Carleton ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:52 -0600 From: "Jim Hinter" Subject: Gag Law The Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Firearms Association will be making presentations to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Bill C-2 the Canada Election Act on Monday 15 November 99. The NFA Presentation will be made by Jim Hinter, NFA Co-ordinator. It is interesting that each of these groups will be similar in their opposition the the third party spending limits proposed in this legislation. Here is an article on this issue from our December POINTBLANK. Imagine, if you can, a country where a person is convicted of a crime and heavily fined for expressing his opinion - without a trial! Sounds like one of those third world dictatorships where free speech and democracy are outlawed, doesn't it? Keep reading? Mr. Garry Nixon isn't a firearm owner, at least as far as the NFA knows. Mr. Nixon is an accountant living in British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Nixon spent $6,300 of his own money to pay for radio and newspaper advertising critical of the BC government during the last provincial election. He was then deemed guilty of violating British Columbia's "gag law" and fined $13,000 - without a trial. The kind of law Mr. Nixon was convicted of breaking, a gag law, is legislation enacted, usually, for the "purpose" of keeping powerful groups and wealthy individuals from using their money to influence the results of elections. They are always proposed and enacted by political Parties - probably because no one else wants them, or feels any need for them. These laws have been fought and defeated in the courts successfully, but the politicians keep enacting more of them. Right now, the federal Liberal government is bringing forward Bill C-2, with proposed changes to the Elections Act - a new federal gag law. Under this proposal, the opportunity for individuals, or organizations, to say anything to the public is gone - illegal during an election campaign. The limit on spending that this legislation would impose is a cap of $150,000 during an election campaign. This might sound like a lot of money, and it is. However, given the size of Canada and the high cost of broadcast advertising, printing and distribution, it would prevent groups (other than a political party!) from getting facts out to Canadians. The only beneficiaries of "gag laws" are politicians who prefer not to have their actions or motivations questioned. Have you heard a clamour from anyone other than a politician for a "gag law?" The National Firearms Association is opposed to such undemocratic, anti-free-speech legislation. We understand that the federal Liberals feel that only they know what is best for Canadians - and we believe that they are usually wrong. In a democracy, and in politics, it is important to keep in mind that listening is a skill, which is vital to success for our leaders. Leadership demands that a leader must make tough choices occasionally. Most citizens understand that. Enacting legislation that restricts the free expression of ideas only demonstrates fear of ideas that might be contrary to one's own ideas. Was it not Joseph Stalin who is reputed to have said, "I won't let them have ideas, why would I let them have guns?" Surely, this type of thinking would never be acceptable in Canada! Our politicians - Jean Chretien, Allan Rock, Anne McLellan, and the other Liberals - appear to be demonstrating with their firearm legislation and now this "gag law" that free expression of ideas should not be allowed in Canada. "O Canada, the true north strong and free" The text of the complete NFA Presentation will be made available on Tuesday. For more information, contact Jim Hinter at (403) 714-9071 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:14:08 -0600 From: Alex Subject: Re: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #200 Mike, let me first say, that I dislike these new laws as much as any one here. However, since Libby posted this on an open list, I feel it would be a good idea to correct misinformation. All firearms purchased after DEC 1-98 must be registered at the time of sale, if you bring in a new firearm from outside Canada you will have to inform your CPFO first. Alex, BC. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:13:39 -0600 From: Grayson Penney Subject: Paranoia, Gun Control and Logic: Are they Mutually Exclusive? To Kimberly and all Concerned Citizens: Since Kimberly asked, I felt it necessary to give her a comprehensive response. I know my post is a long one, and I apologize in advance. Here goes: I, like most responsible hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts, support reasonable and effective legislation in order to make our community a safer place and hopefully avoid such terrible tragedies as the recent Columbine school shooting in CO or here in Canada, the shootings in Taber, AB and Ottawa, ON. As most participants in this forum know, gun bans and the prohibition of firearms, will do nothing to prevent such tragedies from happening again. Please look to the examples of Great Britain and Australia for similar cases here. In both countries, near universal firearms bans were legislated in response to several shooting incidents perpetrated by disturbed individuals. Several years later, the incidence of violent crime and assault have exploded. In one particular part of Australia, armed robbery has increased by over 300% of the pre-ban figures. Today, average citizens of Great Britain are more likely to be victims of violent crime than their counterparts in America! Its obvious from this evidence that gun bans don't work. What they do accomplish is make things better for violent criminals, while inexcusably preventing honest citizens from participating in wholesome sport and self protection. They do make for good press though, and both the print and video media have made fortunes off of the recent tragedies such as Columbine. While I don't pretend to have all the answers, I do know that gun bans don't work. Education does. Here in Canada, our National Firearms Association has produced a viable alternative to ill conceived and unworkable legislation like our new Firearms Act entitled, "The Practical Firearms Control System". Rather than wasting scarce public funds on the pointless task of banning firearms and national registries, the PFCS concentrates on the individual gun owner. The system ensures that the individual is competent and responsible enough to possess firearms and had demonstrated sufficient knowledge to safely possess and use firearms. The PFCS, however, cannot guarantee that future tragedies like Taber or Columbine will not happen again. Nothing can. These acts were perpetrated by disturbed individuals that had placed themselves and their actions outside the norms of our society and above our laws in order to take the lives of innocent people. These were the acts of madmen and no law can prevent such tragedy. However, consider the hypothetical alternative of having an armed and trained individual, perhaps a teacher or custodian who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. It took the police in Columbine hours to clear the school. In Montreal, at L'ecole Polytechnique, again, the police did not enter the university for well over an hour, allowing the murder of innocent people to continue without interruption. Presented with an opportunity to not only protect his/her own life, but the lives of fellow classmates and students, what sane, reasoned person wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to stop the killing before it started. This situation isn't that far fetched, as it happened not that long ago in the United States, when a vice principal managed to stop a deranged student on a shooting rampage using his personal firearm, retrieved from his car in the school parking lot. Considering the firepower wielded by the would-be killer, who knows how many others would've been killed if not for the quick action of an underpaid, under appreciated and supremely brave teacher? Yet, if such groups as Handgun Control Inc., in the U.S. and Wendy Cukier's Coalition for gun control here in Canada had their way, only the killer would've been armed. Killers, as criminals, do not obey the law. They have placed themselves above it, and as such can and do obtain firearms and other dangerous weapons from illegal and criminal sources. So, I ask, does it make sense to punish the law abiding hunters and recreational shooters of our countries for the relatively isolated acts of a few deranged individuals and professional criminals, or rather, look for real answers? I am concerned that my government may be buying into the anti-gun hypocrisy promulgated by well meaning but sadly misled individuals and supported whole heartedly by the organized criminal element in Canada. Recent posts on this forum used the word "paranoid" in their subject heading, suggesting that our government has a hidden agenda that will ultimately see the confiscation of all firearms. While I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories thrown around on many of the firearms related chat and news groups, I am struck by something my father once told me. "Sean," he said, "remember, even paranoids have enemies." I continue to reserve judgment in this case. In the meantime, I urge you all to keep an open mind and think for yourself. Sean G. Penney Proud Member of the NFA KIMBERLY WAGNER wrote: > Do you like guns what do you think we should do about all the killing > that is going on? > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:05:20 -0600 From: "Randy Nelson" Subject: One more Letter... Souce: Edmonton Sun, Letters to the Editor Date : Saturday, Nov 13/99 NETTING A huge cache of illegal guns, bombs and bazookas in Alberta this week, the RCMP provided the public with yet another textbook example of why Ottawa's flimsy firearms registry has failed. Of what possible value is the error-plagued registry in potentially deadly situations like this? How did the Liberals' botched registry assist the heroic officer involved? Did the worthless gun registry make Alberta a safer place to live? Anne McLellan, you've fleeced us for hundreds of millions of dollars, yet you stand without a single, unambiguous, occurrence of success for your vulgar registry. Instead, Canada is now faced with a burgeoning illegal arms trade that includes bazookas! Scrap the misdirected Firearms Act in favour of effective gun and crime control. Randy Nelson (You just blew up the Liberals' phoney law.) (Editor's comment) "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 07:05:17 -0600 From: "Jean-Francois Avon" Subject: RE: Public Relations Feedback Thanks for your prompt reply. While your intentions are in appearances quite laudable, you forgot to consider the terrible unintended consequences that will come as a consequence of giving such a "blank check" moral sanction to whomever might prey on it as an excuse to execute private goals. The old saying "there are many ways to skin a cat" always apply. There are plenty of laws that already makes it a crime to commit all sorts of violent actions, regardless of the choosen tool of coercion. Let me explain the danger of laws specifically aimed at firearms: 1) it removes the presumption of innocence simply based upon ownership of an inanimate object. 1-A) By doing so, it declares it rightfull for a govt to consider it's citizens guilty upon proved innocent. By doing this, it grants a moral sanction to any wannabe tyrant that would find a morally laudable pretext to abuse it's population. 1-B) also, it removes the concept of personnal responsibility from human volition and puts it into the mere factual realm (possession of a given item turns you helplesslessly into an evil entity). 2) it violates the concept of property rights. Property rights are only a derivative of the right to life. If you have a right to life, then, you must have a right to the product of your life, i.e. you must respect property rights as a full equivalent at the right to life. Note here that the "right to life" is not a blank check that permits claiming the life of others but rather, simply the right not to be deprived of one's life, i.e. the right to be left alone (as in "laissez-faire"). A negation of property rights is nothing but a disguized negation of the right to live an uncoerced life. Negating property rights is fully equivalent to condoning slavery. 3) historically, the vast majority of abuses on population by their govts were made possible by "laudable legislation" that ignored the unintended consequences (which tyrants knows very well but deny the existence to their grave) For instance, the German gun control laws were enacted by the "liberal" Weimar Republic government that preceded Hitler, and were a strong aid to his coming to power -- because they disarmed Hitler's opponents, and Hitler's adherents ignored them -- as criminals have always ignored gun control laws. Disarming the public is a frequent first step toward dictatorships and genocides. Once the disarming is complete, the public is helpless against those who have the guns. You pretend that you do not want to disarm the public, but you must realize that the legislations that are "demanded" grant the moral and legal sanction for the govt to do so. This is EXACTLY what happened in Germany, and it would be very naive, in the light of 4000 years of recorded history, where this phenomenon happened in virtually every instances, that it would not eventually happen here. Thoses who do not study history are condemned to re-live it. Firearms are NOT a big cause of human drama. Alternate tools exist that will substitute themselves to guns if ever guns gets banned. The percentage of HONEST LAW_ABIDING people in any country truly dying from firearms ASSAULTS is incredibly small when compared to other causes. Intra-gangs murders are just part of a dangerous business and should NOT be included since other means would be used anyway if firearms were not available. Ditto for suicide, as well demonstrated by the historical ban of carbon monoxyde gas, which had NO long term effect on suicide rates (within three years, suicide rate came back to the same level). So, notwithstanding your "laudable" goals, you 1) attack the tool rather than the true cause of violence (I predict a resurgeance of savage pipe bomb attacks if ever gun control increases) 2) pander to ideas that are very dangerous if we are to maintain a freedom oriented society; the wannaby tyrants must love you... In the meantime, I will put efforts on a rational boycott of your products. No big TV, no sensationnal stuff, just very strong word of mouth, for one reason-able mind to another reason-able mind. This post DOES reach several thousand people worldwide, mostly in the US of A, Kanada, New-Zealand and Australia. It reaches the recreational firearms community (7 millions in the Komradship of Kanada and no doubt several hundred millions over the ex-British countries), it also reach the free speech community, the economic libertarian community and the privacy/encryption technique community. Reason will prevail. Ciao Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. (Physics) Toiling slave of the KolleKtive Komradship of Kanada On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 19:31:55 -0800, levistrauss@levi.com wrote: >Dear Jean-Francois: > >Thank you for taking the time to write us. Customer feedback >is very important to us and we appreciate your taking the time >to express your opinions about this issue. > >PAX is a non-profit, anti-violence organization which strives >to reach youth all over the country by making a difference >and attaining a society free of gun violence. > >Levi Strauss & Co. supports PAX's goal to bring all Americans >together to support common sense solutions to the gun violence >epidemic. PAX does not seek to ban firearms. It only seeks >to end firearm violence through measures which the majority >of Americans, including gun owners, can support. > >Levi Strauss & Co. believes that all students should have an >opportunity to learn in a safe environment free of violence and >by supporting PAX and their petition, we hope to help put an >end to gun violence in our schools. > >Your views have been registered and we appreciate your taking >the time to write and express your thoughts about this important >issue. > >Sincerely, > >Nathan >Levi Strauss & Co >natkur1539229 > >--------------------< you wrote >-------------------- >FirstName: Jean-Francois >LastName: Avon >Email: jf_avon@citenet.net > >Comments: Your "anti-firearm violence" campaign is an >abomination. Violence is independent of the tools used and a result >of a state of mind, itself most of the time the result of a given set of >basic philosophical premises. > >By promoting the idea that guns are intrinsically evil, you promote >the disarmament of the individuals. > >Armed individuals are the ultimate insurance against the population >being abused by their "governments", those that were granted by the >same population the monopoly on the use of force. > >Historically, governments killed more people than all combined >crimes. They induced the killing of people by creating business >made dangerous because they made the business illegal (drug traffic, >sex workers, and other victimless "crimes" occuring between >consenting individuals) and by the direct coercion on their >population (conscription, war, etc). > >On top of that, the "wealth redistribution schemes" of our highly >socialistic govts also violated the sovereignty of the individual that >slows down the improvement of the standard of living (quality of >life). > >THe present "population disarmament" movements around the world >seems to be led by a group (of which the UN is part) that look >forward to turn the population of the planet into a huge servile herd >of cattle. > >Your pushing of their agenda is enough for freedom-loving >responsible individuals to engage into an campaign to boycott your >product as long as you'll push this enslaving agenda. > >We'll take action. You won't see us doing spectacular actions, you >won't see us vandalize your business in front of news cameras, you >won't see us "demand" (i.e. grant a moral sanction to the legal users >of coercion for the violating of individual rights) publicly that >"something gets done". We will simply slow down your business by >the use of the free market, by the use of Reason, by convincing >people on a one to one basis. As any sales professionnal knows, >quiet word of mouth by credible people is the strongest, most >powerfull publicity. We'll make good use of that. > >It is ironical that Levi Strauss, which was born out of the gold rush, >an emblem of the expression of Liberty, courage, entrepreneurship >and pursuit of happiness, now turns itself to promoting the antithesis >of all that. > >No regards at all. > >Jean-Francois Avon >toiling slave within the Kollektive Komradship of Kanada > >Cc (will reach at the very least 5000 people around the world) > >Sporting Shooters Association of Australia >Canadian Firearms Digest (National Firearms Association, a >Kanadian association) >National Rifle Association (a Yankee association) >Neil King list (New Zealand) >Cypherpunks (around the world) >Quackgrass (Kanada) >Laissez-Faire City TImes (international) >Quebecois Libre (Kanada) >Patriots on Guard (Kanada) >Canada Protest Page (Kanada) >Freedom Party of Ontario (Kanada) >Paul Richard Offshore financial newsletter (international) >Montreal's Economic Institute (Kanada) >various private mailing lists (international) >personnal contacts (around the world) > ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #202 **********************************