From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca on behalf of Cdn-Firearms Digest [owner-cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca] Sent: Tuesday, 29 May, 2001 05:45 To: cdn-firearms-digest@broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #793 Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, May 29 2001 Volume 03 : Number 793 In this issue: Problem with website? Police officers oppose easing marijuana law Re: put your money where your mouth is Re: Convicted officer gets probation Fw: Canada Census Re: Breast Cancer Fundraiser RCMP Commisioners appontment Re digest V3 #789 Canada Census Re: In view of the events in Oldham this last weekend.... Re: RCMP COMMISSIONER DEFENDS GUN REGISTRY good letter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:53:49 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Problem with website? I have Garry Breitkreuz's web page bookmarked as www.garry-breitkreuz.com, which now seems to go to something called "The Gunslinger Zone" (it appears to be quite broken). I did a Google search and came up with www.garrybreitkreuz.com, and when I try to go there, I get an error message. Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Bruce Hamilton, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:53:56 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Police officers oppose easing marijuana law http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010528/5064717.html Police officers oppose easing marijuana law Simple possession of 'gateway drug' should remain a crime, association argues Janice Tibbetts The Ottawa Citizen **** I know this isn't terribly gun related, but it is "freedom" related, and also relates to the recent "politicization" of various police forces and organizations. 'The police association, in a written brief to be presented to the committee, decries the "weakening perceptions of risk of harm in drug use and the weakening moral disapproval of drug use." ' Is anyone else alarmed by this statement? Since when did the police become arbiters of our moral conscience? In the interest of rebutting, can someone give me the dollar figure that was promised to the CPA as an "inducement" to approve of C68? A link to any articles or news releases about this amount, and what it will be used for would be appreciated. Bruce Hamilton, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:53:43 -0600 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Re: put your money where your mouth is - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chicoine" <701506@ican.net> Sent: 23 May, 2001 16:17 Subject: Re: put your money where your mouth is > In the question of what legal actions the NFA has begun a fundamental error > exists. The obvious answer is none. The question should be what legal > actions has the NFA given any money to ? Part of our problem is that the number of highly active members is still relatively small, although growing. The legal fund relies on donations, and I suspect that donors are in the minority. I don't know where Dave's expert-witness travel funds come from, but one trip at NFA expense could account for a goodly amount of donation. Also, those highly active members are pretty busy being active. Reporting back takes even more time and effort. While all of us would like to know everything that is going on, the priority of effort should be, must be, the fight itself. All are volunteers, with family and careers competing for a finite amount of time and money. > In what way have these particular cases come to merit this financial > support, are they precedent setting ? Convictions for "unsafe storage" are virtually impossible to get, if the defence lawyer has the NFA's package of precedents. Court cases last a long time. Years in many cases. The new law has only been in effect for a couple of years and the police, CFC, and justice minister are all still baffled. The charges will start to be laid soon enough. Also, there was little point attempting to set precedents during the few years leading up to the coming in to force of C-68. Destroying the old laws would have been a waste of money and effort. Similarly, there was little sense in wasting those precious resources during the last constitutional challenge as there was a chance that we could have won. There are many styles of warfare, from the handful of guerrillas ambushing here and there, picking off a few of the enemy at a time and fading into the jungle with minimal casualties and expenditure of ammunition, mass bayonet charges through the wire and shell craters into the waiting machine guns, all the way up to carpet bombing. Yes, there may be up to seven million firearms owners in Canada, but we've established pretty definitely that they're not voting correctly, if at all, and certainly not contributing much to the struggle - except, of course, their tax dollars to the other side. We don't have the resources to engage in carpet bombing and we can't afford the losses accruing from the bayonet charge. That pretty much leaves the guerrilla campaign. It takes much longer - decades, for the real thing - but when it's all you can do then it's the smartest way by far. Economy of effort. > How much money is in the Dealer's challenge fund on this day ? To this I > expect no answer and rightfully so, but if its a hockeysoc full, what are > you saving it for ? This challenge could take years to grind through the system, costing money all of the way. Don't expect immediate, or even quick results. > As far as those "somebodies" getting arrested, I expect LUFA is or will be > loaded with them. Maybe. > The precedent set there benefits all of us so a few NFA bucks directed in > some of those directions will be both cost effective and demonstrate economy > of effort. The us and them in this scrap is not the NFA and say LUFA, it is > the combined population of the greater RFC and the federal government. Yes, and the NFA has provided assistance to many non-members. > >DAT has pointed out before that NFA support attracts government attention, > >which frequently causes government influence to be brought to bear on the > >outcome of the trial. > > again, true, perhaps, but this should not be an excuse for inaction. And I do not believe that we have been inactive. A handful of volunteers operating on a limited donation-dependant budget can only achieve so much in a given period of time. I believe that this small but dedicated bunch has achieved far more than many give them credit for. You may not have seen (yet) many positive results of their efforts, but you most likely would have seen many more negative effects were it not for them. Patience and perseverence. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:53:36 -0600 From: "Mark L Horstead" Subject: Re: Convicted officer gets probation - ----- Original Message ----- From: "alypen" Sent: 27 May, 2001 03:03 Subject: Re: Convicted officer gets probation > Things are not likely to get better soon. > In Quebec, the six shot, 357 magnum has been deemed inadequate for > the job at hand.Thousands of police are now being issued seventeen (17) > shot automatic pistols. > What kind of wars are these people planning for? Very few police _ever_ use their sidearm, but when they do it's usually in defence of their life or somebody else's life. Increasingly, police are being outgunned by the bad guys. The ability to put more rounds downrange before reloading and the ability to reload in a fraction of the time that it takes to reload a revolver has been a factor in a few police shoot-outs. A small number of cops have been shot while reloading their revolvers in the US, but I am not aware of any in Canada - yet. It is immoral to expect somebody to put their life at risk for the public good without giving them the best tools for the job. What surprises me is not that Quebec cops are being issued these things, but that it took so long. > Also, while the older revolvers were fairly idiot proof-only the > occasional suspect got shot accidentally, the automatics are notoriously > tricky. No, they're not. And modern semi-automatics have more safety features built-in. Accidents occur when poorly-trained and/or poorly motivated people do stupid things with their finger on the trigger, especially when the adrenalin is a tad higher than normal. > Accidental shootings will escalate. Not due to issuing semi-automatics they won't. C-68 aside, and my own cynical and suspicious tendencies aside, I am still a supporter of the police in general. They have an often dirty, frustrating and thankless job to do and the occasional free doughnut from Tim Horton's doesn't make up for that. That being said, I'm not likely to invite one that I don't know into my house on any official business and I know full well that that profession has its share of below-average, average, and above-average members and complete recta just like any other. But let's be realistic here. Mark ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 15:32:49 -0600 From: "Bert van Ingen" Subject: Fw: Canada Census - -----Original Message----- From: Bert van Ingen To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Date: Sunday, May 13, 2001 12:04 PM Subject: Canada Census Anyone got an opinion on what to do with the census forms that arrived at my door this week? Years ago I would have done my civic duty and filled them in. Now, after finding out about jane stewart's 35 million secretly catalogued citizens at HRDC and other Big Brother databases such as the CFC I am loathe to reveal anything that might assist the government's social engineering motives. Bert van Ingen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:41:54 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: Breast Cancer Fundraiser "Henry S.F. Nachaj" wrote: > Le Club de la Roue du Roy in Hemmingford Quebec, is having a FUN SHOOT > Sporting event for the Montreal Breast Cancer Foundation. The event can > be shot St. June 2 or Sunday June 3. Have you contacted any of the media to attend? It might be a nice venue to showcase the good works that gun owners do. Bruce Hamilton, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:42:01 -0600 From: "howard" Subject: RCMP Commisioners appontment I am not surprised to see the new RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli defending the gun registry and wanting handguns banned. The evening prior to the announcement his appointment the Prime Ministers wife phoned him for a social chat and spoke in Italian to him for 20 minutes or so. This was when he still didn't know he had been selected. Goes to show you the influence the Prime Ministers wife has and the level of corruption that exists with the PM. The message to Mr Zaccardelli is obvious, He is the stooge of the PM and his appointment and job depends upon that relationship. Expect to see more of the Commissioner laying the groundwork for the PM's political agenda. Remember that the position of RCMP Commisioner also comes with the position of Deputy Minister. As a Deputy Minister he reports to a Minister who reports to the PM. This is why there will never be any wrong doing found on the part of the PM in the Shawinigate affair and why the RCMP always takes the fall for the PM. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:41:41 -0600 From: "Paul Chicoine" <701506@ican.net> Subject: Re digest V3 #789 tom zinck wrote Did you talk to the manager at SIR ? I humbly suggest you go directly to the source (in person, phone call, etc) FIRST, and then if you get answered you don't like, post it to the digest or ask for help. I have done lots of business with SIR, and I plan on continuing. Where would we be without our firearm retailers ? ******* I think Tom went to the manager of Le Baron in Ottawa, asked the question. He was told the police asked them to request additional identification. Tom did not post this to the digest. I am not sure who he could ask for help. What does this imply for his like or dislike of the answer he received? I don't understand your comment. The situation at SIR has been cleared up as witnessed by other postings to the digest. Jim Hinter is very correct to state that they cannot help retailers who do not request assistance and a letter had been sent to retailers with an offer of assistance. How long ago was that ? The landscape has changed. If the problem if focused to indivdual retailers then write em again. Perhaps they need indivudial attention for individual problems, think of it as a service. Where would we be without the retailers? Up the creek. Where would the retailers be without us, at the bottom of the creek. The retailer is caught in the middle. The question is if all retailers in a given region are asked to enforce the same requirements. If so, then the retailer may be the wrong person to be questioning. If not, try to find out why. If some are refusing , then you decide who to favour with your business. This is a message that is quickly understood before any lasting commercial harm is done. Its a haggle, just ask to match the deal with the retailer across town. Its not a witch hunt, its competition; retailers understand this. While your at it, ask your retailer if he would be interested to showcase some copies of Point Blank on the counter. This, by the way, is not an argument. Its kicking around a bag full of policy until something fits. __________ Paul Chicoine (DSS) 0x3B0DB246 *Illegitimi non Carborundum* Non Assumsit Contract, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice ________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:42:09 -0600 From: "Bert van Ingen" Subject: Canada Census Anyone got an opinion on what to do with the census forms that arrived = at my door this week? Years ago I would have done my civic duty and = filled them in. Now, after finding out about jane stewart's 35 million = secretly catalogued citizens at HRDC and other Big Brother databases = such as the CFC I am loathe to reveal anything that might assist the = government's social engineering motives. Bert van Ingen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:41:48 -0600 From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: In view of the events in Oldham this last weekend.... > "David M" wrote: >....I thought it might be worthwhile if we were to remind ourselves of > one of the most important speeches in the English language by "The > Greatest Prime Minister Britain never had, " Enoch Powell. > DM I don't think that we are doing ourselves any favours by circulating speeches from suspected racists and nazis. Bruce Hamilton, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:41:35 -0600 From: "Brad Thorarinson" Subject: Re: RCMP COMMISSIONER DEFENDS GUN REGISTRY > PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald ... > Mountie defends gun registry > The commissioner of the RCMP defended the federal government's gun-control > legislation Sunday to a mixed crowd of municipal politicians attending a > conference here, saying he thinks handguns should be outlawed. > > ``I don't believe a handgun should be in the hands of anybody,'' said > Giuliano Zaccardelli, to about 150 mayors, councillors and reeves at the > Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference. So start by giving yours up, Mr. Police guy. I don't believe anybody should be poor, but all the wishing in the world won't make my pipe dream come true either. Given that guns, like rocks, sticks and drugs will always be around, perhaps you should be asking what practical ways exist for minimizing the harm done by them. Is it just me, or is the quality of argument from political toadies really going to pot the last few years? Brad ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 05:45:11 -0600 From: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca (Michael Ackermann) Subject: good letter Article - http://worldnetdaily.com/frame/direct.asp?SITE=www.dispatch.com/news/news01/may0 1/709757.html Response: to: Lornet Turnbull, Dispatch Staff Reporter re: Columbus Dispatch, Saturday, May 26, 2001 If Ohio had passed 'CCW' sooner, they'd have one more taxpayer; I'm a physician, moved to Indiana, after getting a pharmacy degree in Ohio. After marrying in Ohio, and my wife with a good position teaching ballet there, and myself accepted to my choice of two medical schools there, I assumed I'd be a permanent Ohioan. Ohio's ridiculous gun laws changed all that. After witnessing an armed robbery where the pharmacist gave an unopened bottle of Dilaudid to the investigating officer 'as evidence' (which was interesting as it had been in the narcotics safe the whole time, and not touched by the robber), I asked what was going on. Turns out the officer was aware that that pharmacist did carry a handgun, after a previous experience experiencing a multiple-assailant-rape after an armed robbery. I could not believe that in Ohio business owners, women, or for that matter, just 'ordinary people' were prohibited from protecting themselves against assault. At the time, Ohio and Indiana armed robbery rates were nearly identical, but the fatality rate and rape rate during those robberies (usually done just at closing time) was fourfold greater in Ohio. No wonder; Hoosier pharmacists could be (and often are) legally armed. Upon investigating, I found that the intent of the law NOT having 'permits' was to avoid the classic "Irish-catholic cop denies permits to blacks, jews" problems that had plagued New York after the infamous Sullivan law, and the post-Civil-war denial of firearms to blacks by the original "Saturday Night Special" laws. It has only been recently that power-hungry appointees (big city mayoral appointee police chiefs with little or no actual experience as street cops) misused the law's wording to eliminate the rights of women, minorities, business owners, and everyone else who didn't give an on-the-spot reason (or bottle of Dilaudid?) to exercise their right to self-protection; if one has to go to court repeatedly and spend thousands of dollars to 'affirmatively defend' carrying a firearm for protection, no matter how legitimate their need, the right becomes 'infringed' to the max. The final straw for us was when my wife was followed home and a knife-wielding assailant blocked her in in a dark parking lot, and came at her. My handgun was in the car (which I began carrying after a professor/pharmacist in our college was gunned down for not filling a forged prescription, by a convict out on early parole), because my wife was going to pick me up at work (at my VA hospital job federal law prohibited any firearms, and at least we had a rent-a-cop there) and we were going camping and target shooting in Indiana for the weekend. She defended herself (by just pointing the gun at the attempted rapist, who suddenly decided he was just kidding, and didn't really mean he was going to 'f**k and slice her' like he had just indicated), and called the police. They weren't interested in his description, or even in the fact that she managed to see and remember all but the last digit of his license plate number - all they wanted to do was inform her that she could go to jail 'for a long time' for even having had that handgun in her car; she had the distinct feeling that they were about to propose a 'deal' (i.e. sex, cash, 'donate' the gun to the officers, etc.) of some sort when I walked in the door, and the conversational tone got more formal, a report was filed, and we belatedly left for our weekend vacation on my parent's farm. After speaking with some of my relatives from Indiana (a nurse, a real-estate agent, a physician, and two teachers), who had CCW permits, and thus didn't have to 'prove' to each police officer they met that they should be allowed to carry, she realized that Indiana just might be a better place to live. Good luck over there, but I don't think that your elitist Ohio legislators will ever grasp the fact that ALL human life is precious, and worth protecting, even if you are not a politician with bodyguards. They won't acknowledge the clear facts which show that CCW laws lead to reduced deaths, or for that matter, that the Ninth, Tenth, and I believe Fourteenth amendments to our Constitution clearly affirm that the Second Amendment prohibits any level of government from infringing on the right to keep AND BEAR arms. The 20th Century showed that worldwide, a citizen's risk of murder was about five to seven times greater at the hands of their own police and military, than from a criminal (the U.S. has had conspicuously few 'genocidal' deaths precisely because our citizens have 'easy access' to firearms of significant defensive potency), so even if such things as CCW or ownership of so-called 'assault weapons' did result in higher crime rates, they would likely still pose an overall protective benefit in protecting long-term social stability. (See R.J. Rummel, "Death by Government" ISBN 1-56000-145-3, and J. Simkin, "Lethal Laws" ISBN 0-9642304-0-2 for discussion of modern genocides and the clear contemporary relevance of the Second Amendment.) Since the CCW laws clearly don't increase crime rates, there is simply no other reason to support gun control laws other than to give selected and uninformed individuals some 'warm fuzzies' - hardly worth the sacrifice of innocent lives. The reality, as scores of criminologic, historic, and legal experts have found, is that easy access and widespread anonymous ownership of politically potent firearms (https://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl/Articles/aw.htm) may sound scary to the urban uninitiated whose world-view is formed by the Rosie show, and a few Miami-Vice reruns, but the end result is safer streets and increased social stability. (Witness the rather safe 1950's, when teenagers could legally purchase high-capacity, semiautomatic 'assault-weapons' by mail order catalog (!), and rural hardware stores sold dynamite [for blowing up tree stumps on farms] to anyone over 18 who signed a log sheet. Long guns in schools were commonplace, whether for practice on school rifle teams, ROTC, or in rural areas, just to go squirrel hunting right after school. Most boys in rural areas had a single shot rifle or shotgun at home they could use with parental supervision around age 6 or 8, without supervision after a couple years, and got their first semiautomatic rifle (the Mossberg was the classic) around age 12. School shootings were simply unheard of.) Only when those rights are infringed, and we emphasize 'zero-tolerance' for 'symbols of violence' (yet don't really punish actual violence) do the criminals (and eventually, the tyrants) gain enough of an upper hand to do serious harm. We're now beginning to see that in our urban 'gun controlling' areas, and we'd better learn from that and quit enacting useless and counterproductive 'feel-good' laws. Even Liberal criminologists like Don Kates, who personally dislike firearms, have published scathing exposés of 'gun control' - citing distortion and overt fabrication of 'facts' that gun-control zealots use to support their cause - http://www.2ndlawlib.com/journals/tennmed.html. This has extended to the medical literature in a (frighteningly successful) effort to convince physicians to support gun control as a 'public health' matter http://rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html?suter#first_hit - even though criminologic studies clearly show CCW to be a net positive for the public health, and one that saves not only lives, but the all-important 'public health dollars' - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/63perilo.htm. Unfortunately, most of the mainstream news media has gotten in the mode of putting out quick stories, with little depth, that follow 'formula' and stereotype, with little exploration of the actual players in the debate, their motives, or the validity of the information they cite. (For instance, few journalists would guess that the NRA was cited by Congressional Digest in the 1970's as one of the two 'most consistently truthful' lobbying organizations, alongside the American Library Association.) You might be interested to realize that the dreaded 'gun lobby' has often supported gun control to appear 'reasonable.' In the case of the NRA, to attempt to appear 'reasonable' to a misinformed public, they've compromised repeatedly on issues serious scholars have advised against, such as finally supporting the Brady Bill (which did NOT affect suicide rates but did show a tiny shift away from guns and to other methods for older males, and DID result in a few more stalked women being killed [the only group of people affected, as they purchase guns legally, and generally don't own any to use in the interim, and have a very acute need for one], and most importantly, allowed [despite language and promises to the contrary] allowed a federal registration to take place behind the scenes, setting the stage for confiscation [the precedents in New York and California show this is not an unreasonable fear]). In the case of gun manufacturers, they often support new gun control laws; they use them as methods to get ahead of the competition. When imported guns of better quality and lower price threatened profits, Smith & Wesson urged congress to pass 'Saturday Night Special' legislation in the 1970's, and helped assure the wording would knock out their competitors. Ruger's guns weren't selling in the 1980's since their competitors had higher capacities, so Ruger lobbied for the passage of size limitations on magazines, again to stifle their competitors. Colt helped demonize 'assault weapons' (which are almost never used in crime, but just look 'scary') in the 1990's in the hopes of keeping military contracts by being politically correct, and of course Smith & Wesson recently supported more gun controls in an effort to be excluded from frivolous suits, lured by dollar-seeking mayor's promises of lucrative police contracts recently lost to their competitor Glock. I hope journalists will come to realize that this issue isn't as simplistic as 'balancing firearms hobbies against public safety' and that MANY of us who oppose gun laws do so because we've studied the issue, and are convinced that gun control LAWS are far more dangerous to a society than guns themselves could ever be. In fact, my fellow members of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws are among many physicians who feel the NRA and 'sporting' gun owners have missed the mark - they only seem to care about gun laws which might keep them out of the deer stand. They didn't oppose the Brady law with much vigor, because they as a group already have firearms, and don't mind waiting a few days when purchasing another; they are largely oblivious to the subtle but great danger of creating a behind-the-scenes registration database. Their 'from my cold dead fingers' mindset is dramatic, but many of us would rather stabilize society by preventing registration, than by having some armed confrontation at the point of confiscation. Meanwhile, 3 million or so NRA members mostly just want to protect their hobbies, and be 'reasonable,' and misinformed AMA members have the arrogance to insist that because they are physicians and know more than everyone else, gun owners should heed the doctors' advice to 'compromise' when it comes to firearms laws. I wonder what most physicians would say if the NRA began agitating for prohibition of 'statin' drugs due to hepatic toxicity - perhaps that they are out of their area of expertise...? The irony is that as physicians, we should all know - "When lives are at stake, you don't compromise..." and since in parts of the world where civilian gun ownership is tightly controlled, nearly 5,000 innocent people are murdered every day by their own police and military, we pampered U.S. citizens need to think twice before allowing zealot politicians to enact useless and dangerous new gun laws. Criminologists who support CCW may not have the emotional appeal, media attractiveness, or financial backing of the "million soccer-moms," but ultimately, the FIRST 'million mom march' is why we need to oppose even 'reasonable compromises' like gun registration, or 'closing the gun show loophole'...(...have you seen this picture...?...it says it all...!) http://guntruths.com/Resource/Posters/1st_million_mom_march.htm. Sorry to dissertate, but this is a vitally important issue, and a pivotal one as we are poised to allow federal gun registration (via 'closing the gun show loophole') to solve an imagined 'crisis' - violent crimes are declining (even school shootings), gun accidents are declining, and suicides remain as always, proportional mostly to age demographics and economic conditions. Please check out our website for more information, including thoroughly-referenced studies from the medical, legal, and criminologic literature - https://www.keepandbeararms.com/dsgl/links.htm. Sincerely, Andrew Johnstone, RPh/MD ...a former Ohio residen - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) President, St. Mary's Shooters Association Box 3, RR 1, Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca Hope for the best, Plan for the worst ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V3 #793 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:acardin33@home.com List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca FAQ list: http://www.magma.ca/~asd/cfd-faq1.html and http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/ CFDigest Archives: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/ or put the next command in an e-mail message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca get cdn-firearms-digest v03.n198 end (198 is the digest issue number and 03 is the volume) To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next five lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-alert unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".) If you find this service valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the freenet we use: Saskatoon Free-Net Assoc., 1702 20th St. West, Saskatoon SK S7M OZ9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ National Firearms Association (N.F.A.) Box 4384, Station C Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 640-1144 mailto:nfainfo@nfa.ca Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ DONATIONS GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED! Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/MasterCard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $25; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are regular issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $5,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $3 per member ($45 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $5,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it not altered in any way.