From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #561 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Sender: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Errors-To: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, October 10 2003 Volume 06 : Number 561 In this issue: Court told teen killer still angry and violent Fw: Liberal priorities all wrong Biometric train leaves station LIBERAL BILLION-DOLLAR GUN REGISTRY MISSES REAL TARGET Suicide experts are trying to discover why Canadians are so Going to court is not 'subversive' Police officers become targets for speeding cars Tally wont add up RE: BC Firearms License Re: BC Firearms License ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:35:47 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Court told teen killer still angry and violent PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2003.10.10 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A3 BYLINE: James McCarten SOURCE: The Canadian Press DATELINE: COBOURG, Ont. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Court told teen killer still angry and violent - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= COBOURG, Ont. - The youth convicted in the shooting death of an Alberta high school student in 1999 must undergo another psychiatric assessment, a judge ordered after listening to stark warnings the teen would likely resort to violence again if released. Handcuffed and clad in a prison-issue sweatsuit, the teen hung his head as the staff psychologist at the Brookside Youth Centre warned Thursday against granting his freedom. "In my opinion, the risk (of re-offending) is extremely high," Dr. John Satterberg said. Satterberg painted a chilling portrait of the youth's state of mind, now and on the day he used a sawed-off .22-calibre rifle to kill Jason Lang, 17, in the hallway of W. R. Myers high school in Taber. Another boy was wounded in the shooting. The youth, now 18, remains obsessed with violence in movies and video games, plagued by hallucinations and feels little remorse, Satterberg said. A report dated last month described the youth as a believer in the afterlife who hopes to be reincarnated as "a super-powerful, fire-breathing creature that destroys everything in its path," Satterberg said. The report described the youth as "driven by a powerful, compelling desire for revenge, stating, 'I wanted them to feel my pain.' " Several sheets of paper bearing profane, violence-laced poetry, were confiscated from the youth's room at Brookside during a search in November 2002. The sheets bore chilling messages like "massacre the moron masses," "rot in hell, hate you all." The teen, 14 at the time of the shooting, pleaded guilty to murder and attempted murder and was sentenced to three years in a youth jail. He is due to be released in November, but by law, his case must first be reviewed by a high court judge. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:37:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Hill" Subject: Fw: Liberal priorities all wrong Submitted to numerous papers Jum Hill Fletchers Lake, NS - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Hill" To: "The Editor Ottawa Citizen" Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:22 AM Subject: Liberal priorities all wrong > Liberal priorities- > > Protect at all costs - > > War Criminals > > Convicted Sex Offenders > > War criminals have right to privacy we should not know they are living in > our area and police should not really bother them due to higher priorities. > Sex offenders have the same right and also the right not to have their DNA > collected. > > There is no urgency to establish a DNA data bank, as this will be > discriminatory in nature by targeting those who have committed heinous > crimes. > > The higher priorities for the Liberals include a National ID card for all > law abiding citizens so their movements can be tracked at all times and the > continuation of the firearms registry which only provides a list of > addresses where the Liberals can go to seize firearms from law abiding > citizens. Criminals never have nor will they ever bother to abide by this > law. > > The National ID card has been estimated at 7 billion dollars, and we all > know how accurate their estimates are. Alan Rock sneered at the rather > accurate prediction of over a billion dollars estimated the firearm registry > at 2 million dollars by Gary Mauser, a university professor in BC. He also > ignored the findings of his own committee sent to New Zealand who were > advised that NZ's own plan had ballooned to a half billion dollars and was > nowhere near as ambitious as the Canadian one. > > It is clear that this government has no interest in the law-abiding segment > of the Canadian public. One only has to look at all the criminal > investigations and scandals plaguing the Liberals to see where they draw > their inspiration. > > > > Jim Hill, RCMP ret. > Fletchers Lake, NS ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:37:37 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: Biometric train leaves station Minsiter Denis (I want a new card) Coderre says that the biometric train has left the station. What denis does not understand is that train journey can be frought with peril...Trains derail, wheel bearing heat up, wheels fall off. Because Denis says we are going to get one does not mean that all canadians will get one. Millions will simply say no. No government can force people to do something like this unless they are prepared to risk their very political fortunes on doing such an act. Denis coderre forgets that there is an election comming up, and he may get his choo choo trainmed biometric ass voted out. The debate is not over, the train has not left the station, and we the people drive the train, while we tell the political hacks what to do. You are our employees...you listen to us. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:38:07 -0600 (CST) From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Majordomo User) Subject: LIBERAL BILLION-DOLLAR GUN REGISTRY MISSES REAL TARGET October 9, 2003 - LIBERAL BILLION-DOLLAR GUN REGISTRY MISSES REAL TARGET http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/questions/oct-9-2003.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:11:09 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Suicide experts are trying to discover why Canadians are so PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen DATE: 2003.10.10 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: A12 BYLINE: Ian MacLeod and Andrew Duffy SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Yvonne Berg, The Ottawa Citizen / Dr. Paul Links onthe Bloor Street viaduct in Toronto where a suicide barrier has been constructed after more than 400 fatal jumps.; Photo: Psychologist Dr. Antoon Leenaars, a leading expert on suicide, says Canadians are killing themselves unnecessarily, due in part to poor funding for research into the uniquely Canadian aspects of our suicide epidemic.; Photo: Robert Sorbo, The Associated Press / Health officials braced for copycat suicides after Seattle rock musician and cult figure Kurt Cobain, took his life in 1994. They didn't happen. NOTE: Ran with fact box "If you need help", which has beenappended to the story. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Into the troubled mind: Suicide experts are trying to discover why Canadians are so self-destructive - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= We kill ourselves more often than Americans, the British and much of the rest of the world. About 3,600 Canadians died by suicide in 2000. That's 11.5 deaths per 100,000 people, compared to 10.7 and 10.1 for the United States and the United Kingdom. The world rate is 14.5. Globally, Canada was 26th in a World Health Organization ranking of the highest suicide rates among 82 countries, though experts warn some nations under-report suicide. We fared better among 22 industrialized nations, ranking a middling 13th, after Australia and ahead of Ireland. - - - - Domestically, our suicide rate is about 50- per-cent higher today than in the 1960s, a phenomenon afflicting other countries as well. Still, by any measure, suicide in Canada is a "really major public health problem," says Dr. Richard Briere, assistant director of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. "It's important to do something about this." As the country's principal health research agency, the institutes of health research along with Health Canada this year brought together leading Canadian suicide researchers, who have long complained about a lack of government support and the absence of a national suicide prevention strategy. The meeting produced a proposed suicide research agenda -- federal funding has yet to be committed -- and hope for a fresh start in understanding why Canadians are so self-destructive. Here and elsewhere, new theories and methods to predict and prevent suicides are being explored. They include a controversial study questioning the longheld belief that media coverage of suicides can cause suicide contagion. In fact, the study found increased exposure to certain coverage of suicides -- not less -- may actually stop people from killing themselves. In another effort, the language of suicide notes has been deciphered into a clinical guide to help doctors gauge when individuals already identified as potentially suicidal are moving closer to that edge. There is an urgent need too, to collect much more information about the traits and patterns of suicide in Canada, says Dr. Antoon Leenaars, a Windsor psychologist and past-president of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention. "We end up with more people dying because we don't understand the unique Canadian phenomenon and government essentially hasn't cared," he says. That scarcity of Canadian research forces a reliance on U.S. suicide studies. But "there are different attitudes (here), especially among young people. Canadians see suicide as more normal." The latest figures rank suicide as the No. 1 cause of death among Canadian men, 25 to 39, and No. 2 among teenage boys, 15 to 24. In the U.S., it ranks second and third, respectively. "Young people see suicide as a better way of solving problems than their American counterparts. Why? We don't know. We need to find out. People are dying needlessly." Suicide also ranks third, after cancer and heart disease, in potential years of life lost for Canadian men. For women, it is fourth, after cancer, heart disease and traffic accidents. There are no national figures on health care and lost productivity costs, but a 1996 New Brunswick study estimated the average at $850,000 per suicide, including direct costs for health care services, autopsies, funerals and police investigations and indirect costs from lost productivity and earnings. 'Very big impact' Meantime, attempted suicides and intentional self-injuries accounted for 22,887 hospitalizations in 1998-99. The average stay was 7.1 days, or 162,498 days for the year. "It has a very big impact," says Dr. Paul Links, deputy chief of psychiatry at St. Michael's Hospital Mental Health Service in Toronto. "Suicide attempts predict future attempts and they all involve the police, the ambulance, the retention in emergency, maybe a hospitalization. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:11:39 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Going to court is not 'subversive' Compare and contrast the arguments given here with the gun control situation. http://www.nationalpost.com/utilities/story.html?id=72B33AA2-614F-438A-8EE6-5A3FBE16752E Going to court is not 'subversive' Claire Hoy National Post Friday, October 10, 2003 For a man who has gained considerable fame and fortune fighting both government and court decisions, celebrity civil rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has an odd idea about justice. Writing in the National Post this week, Mr. Ruby launched a full-frontal attack against the Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario and the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family for being "sore losers" because they dared ask the Supreme Court of Canada to allow them to appeal an Ontario court decision last June allowing same-sex couples to marry. On Wednesday, without offering a reason, the Supreme potentates denied their request, hardly surprising, since this was the court which originally ignored the wishes of our elected representatives and "read in" -- legalese for "invented" -- homosexual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the federal Liberals won't appeal the Ontario court edict, the groups had asked for legal status, arguing that since they had intervenor status in the previous cases, they should be able to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court. This is separate from Ottawa's referral of its draft bill legalizing same-sex marriages, a move the Liberals hope will make their law bulletproof from further legal challenges if, as expected, the activist Supremes say it is constitutional. There is nothing unusual in any of this judicial wrangling. Indeed, Mr. Ruby has spent much of his long career in the courts representing his favourite issues and clients, the same thing he condemns the faith-based groups for doing. This is what lawyers do. Yet Mr. Ruby writes they "should not now be allowed to subvert both the legal and political processes by hijacking the Supreme Court reference in order to undermine a legitimate government policy decision, just because they disagree with it." Let's be clear. On the one hand, it is legitimate for Mr. Ruby and his fellow travellers to use both the political system and the courts to change laws that they disagree with, but no such privileges should be given to those people who disagree with decisions that he likes. How is it "subverting" the process to ask the Supreme Court to allow an appeal of a lower court decision? After all, the reason the hyper-activist Ontario court could throw out centuries of both court and political opinion on marriage in the first place is because many people, Mr. Ruby included, disagreed with the traditional marriage definition and wanted it changed. If that is good for them, why is not equally good for those who disagree? The authors of the Charter -- who, unlike judges, were actually elected to represent the public --pointedly excluded homosexual "rights" from the Charter. It was the courts, in their infinite wisdom, not to mention their small "l" liberal bias, who imposed their own views on the country on this issue. Yet Mr. Ruby seems to be telling Post readers there is just one legitimate side to any argument -- his side, apparently -- and those who disagree, and go to court to fight it, are not only wrong, but are subverting truth, justice and the Canadian way. Mr. Ruby chastises them for knocking judicial activism, then turning around and asking the court "to override a policy choice which was made by the federal Cabinet and is now supported by a free vote in the House of Commons." He's comparing apples and oranges. It is perfectly legitimate to lament judicial activism -- just as Mr. Ruby celebrates it -- without forfeiting your right to present your case in court. Mr. Ruby argues that because Parliament recently supported same-sex marriage in a "free" vote, those "sore losers" should go away. But that parliamentary vote was not on a government bill, duly debated in committee and the Commons. It was a straw poll on a non-binding Alliance resolution to retain the traditional definition of marriage, the exact definition the Liberal government promised to uphold. And it wasn't really a "free vote." MPs were freed, but Cabinet ministers weren't. Had they been, the Alliance motion would have been carried. Mr. Ruby writes that because these faith-based groups participated before the lower courts and a parliamentary committee, they have no business pursuing the matter, an odd position for an activist like Mr. Ruby. Had some of the groups he has represented adopted that attitude, same-sex marriage would not even be on the radar screen today. For Mr. Ruby, it's outrageous that the only reason these groups went to court was because "they don't like the outcome of the political process." Imagine. But isn't that what distinguishes democracy from any other system -- that you do have the right to openly disagree with your rulers? Unless, of course, you believe this right only applies to those who hold the "correct" views. © Copyright 2003 National Post ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:12:41 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Police officers become targets for speeding cars PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina) DATE: 2003.10.10 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: D12 SOURCE: Canadian Press DATELINE: EDMONTON - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Police officers become targets for speeding cars - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= EDMONTON (CP) -- Drugs may be behind growing violence against police officers who have had to dodge vehicles aimed at them six times in the last month, suggests the city's police chief. "(Suspects) are often very hyped-up and they take very aggressive measures to try and escape, including trying to hurt the police officer," Bob Wasylyshen said Thursday. "We're very well aware of the fact that ... drugs or weapons are related. There's some compelling reason they're trying to escape." Two RCMP officers from detachments just south of Edmonton are recovering from broken bones after being hit by one of their own cruisers that was stolen from them when they pulled over a camper van Monday. Early Wednesday, an Edmonton officer was forced to leap out of the way when a speeding vehicle he was trying to stop took a run at him. "We are currently looking at changing our training, given this latest phenomenon of criminals using their vehicles to drive at police officers," said Wasylyshen. "We never anticipated those dangers to the extent they have been occurring lately." One of the changes being undertaken is how officers approach vehicles they've stopped. They will also try to change their routine to become less predictable, said Wasylyshen. The copycat factor is part of the problem, said Wasylyshen. "Once one of these criminal types takes a run at a police officer with a car, all of a sudden others think that's a good idea as well." The literal run on Edmonton police officers began Sept. 8 when a stolen truck rammed two police cruisers. Ten days later, an officer was knocked to the ground when he tried to get out of a cruiser that was rammed by a stolen van. On Sept. 26, a break-and-enter suspect allegedly tried to hit an officer with a stolen car. The officer felt it necessary to fire three shots at the suspect. Arrests were made in all cases, said a police spokesman. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:50:01 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: Tally wont add up The Canadian Firearms Centre won't come clean on the total cost of the gun registry until next fall, says its commissioner, Bill Baker. Baker told a Commons committee yesterday that he's still tallying up the costs, pointing out that the cash flows in from many departments and some paper trails have disappeared. "There were some limitations for going back in time because not all the records were kept," Baker said. "I think we're making good progress in achieving the objectives." PAPER TRAILS HAVE DISAPPEARED? wow another Liberal government boondoggle. where did the billion dolars come from and where did it go. Lost paper trail. Should be the Royal Canadian Liberal Police looking into this boondoggle. How many millions will be made to turn to vapour because of missing paper trail. Hoiw many computer disks will be wiped, or stolen. Conspiracy buffs could have a field day with this, but the problem is, there is no conspioracy, it is actually happening. It will take a year not to get the full costs out, but to hide , destroy, mislead or otherwise make embarrassing costs turn to vapour. man are we stupid to accpet this ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:52:14 -0600 (CST) From: "RFOCBC" Subject: RE: BC Firearms License O.K. I give up. I'll provide the information to correct the B.S. that passes for intelligence on the Digest. In a letter to RFOCBC, dated January 3, 2001, from Geoff Swannell, Head, Legislation and Regulation Unit, Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks he states: "The exact wording of the amendment to section 4(2) of the B.C. Firearm and Hunting Licence Regulation, BC Reg 8/99 is provided below. 4(2) A person who carries a firearm and who holds and produces to an officer on request, a valid licence issued to him or her under the Firearms Act (Canada) to possess a firearm, is exempt from the requirement to hold a firearm licence under section 11(1)(a)(iii) of the Wildlife Act for that firearm." Moving sequentially through the chatter we find that B. Farion is incorrect with his assertion that one "must have it or a valid hunting licence". Next Bruce demands to know "Why hasn't BCWF or RFOCBC done anything about this?" Firstly, I don't believe that neither BCWF nor RFOCBC needs to answer to Bruce Mills. Secondly, Bruce phrases the question as if he knows that no BC organization "did anything about it". Actually RFOCBC, BCWF and BC NFA were all involved with discussion with the province to eliminate the requirement for a "second" licence. RFOCBC led the way on this issue. Thirdly, there are many things that we just can't seem to do anything about. The Firearms Act comes to mind. (Maybe we should just get out of the way and let Bruce "do something about it".) Next item. Bruce's search engine just doesn't go far enough to pull up an O.I.C. that amends the Wildlife Act. I guess if Bruce's computer doesn't give him the answer then it just doesn't exist. BTW what was that about "can't have been terribly effective"? Next Mark Horstead. If you are talking about being curt, I suggest that you go back to the beginning and read Bruce's first question/assertion. And your correct Bruce, I don't like you. And then along comes Paul Chicoine, again with the idea that RFOCBC owes something to whoever shows up. I'm sorry to disappoint you all but I don't think I was put on the planet to inform every Tom, Dick and Paul about things they haven't heard about. But I do love to share, Bruce. For a measly $20.00 per year you can become a member and we'll fill you in on many things that we do. Not all the things. Some we keep secret. Finally to Boris Gimbarzevsky. Check the September 2000 issue of our newsletter for the article on the BC Firearms Licence. Note that it was published fully four months prior to its non-requirement. Virtually all of BC's gun clubs were informed of this development but, as usual, firearms laws seemed to remain at the bottom of the priority list and the information was not, in most cases, passed along to club members. There, now is everybody happy that I have pissed away my time on this? I'll wait for the apologies to start pouring in. Kevin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca [mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca]On Behalf Of Bruce Mills Sent: October 9, 2003 12:44 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Re: BC Firearms License RFOCBC wrote: > > Do your own homework, oh ye who thinks he knows everything. The law still exists, so you can't have been terribly effective at whatever it was you think you've done... And I don't think I know everything. And you're still anonymous. Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:17:17 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Re: BC Firearms License RFOCBC wrote: > O.K. I give up. I'll provide the information to correct the B.S. that > passes for intelligence on the Digest. How kind of you to deign to answer our miserably unimportant questions. > In a letter to RFOCBC, dated January 3, 2001, from Geoff Swannell, Head, > Legislation and Regulation Unit, Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks he > states: > > "The exact wording of the amendment to section 4(2) of the B.C. Firearm and > Hunting Licence Regulation, BC Reg 8/99 is provided below. > > 4(2) A person who carries a firearm and who holds and produces to an officer > on request, a valid licence issued to him or her under the Firearms Act > (Canada) to possess a firearm, is exempt from the requirement to hold a > firearm licence under section 11(1)(a)(iii) of the Wildlife Act for that > firearm." And no doubt you personally were instrumental in forcing the BC government to make this amendment? And how did your attempts to get the requirement for such a license repealed completely work out? > Moving sequentially through the chatter we find that B. Farion is incorrect > with his assertion that one "must have it or a valid hunting licence". And here is exactly what Kevin the Most High thinks of the efforts we put into this forum - "chatter". I think we were better off before Kev graced us with his presence. > Next Bruce demands to know "Why hasn't BCWF or RFOCBC done anything about > this?" Firstly, I don't believe that neither BCWF nor RFOCBC needs to > answer to Bruce Mills. I'm sorry that a public organization like the RFOCBC feels put upon by questions from the public in a public forum. Have you been taking Jim Hinter lessons? > Secondly, Bruce phrases the question as if he knows > that no BC organization "did anything about it". You are inferring quite a bit from something that I did not intend to imply. > Actually RFOCBC, BCWF and > BC NFA were all involved with discussion with the province to eliminate the > requirement for a "second" licence. RFOCBC led the way on this issue. You'd never know that from any information that you've provide to the rest of us here. I see you've managed to get the requirement repealed completely - oh, that's right, you didn't! > Thirdly, there are many things that we just can't seem to do anything about. > The Firearms Act comes to mind. (Maybe we should just get out of the way > and let Bruce "do something about it".) I think I've been doing quite a bit, and making that known to all and sundry who care to ask. I just can't fathom the attitude that you take that prevents you from sharing your efforts with everyone else. > Next item. Bruce's search engine just doesn't go far enough to pull up an > O.I.C. that amends the Wildlife Act. I guess if Bruce's computer doesn't > give him the answer then it just doesn't exist. BTW what was that about > "can't have been terribly effective"? As a matter of fact, I didn't even conduct a search - I relied on the information that other people kindly provided that this law still seems to be on the books. Since it hasn't been repealed, I can only conclude that you haven't been very effective in achieving that end. > Next Mark Horstead. If you are talking about being curt, I suggest that you > go back to the beginning and read Bruce's first question/assertion. It was a question - what did you want, an engraved invitation, or perhaps some flowers? > And your correct Bruce, I don't like you. Well, at least you're willing to be forthcoming on that score. > And then along comes Paul Chicoine, again with the idea that RFOCBC owes > something to whoever shows up. I'm sorry to disappoint you all but I don't > think I was put on the planet to inform every Tom, Dick and Paul about > things they haven't heard about. What about your fellow firearms rights activists, regardless of their name? > But I do love to share, Bruce. For a measly $20.00 per year you can become > a member and we'll fill you in on many things that we do. Not all the > things. Some we keep secret. Ah, just like the NFA - if you're not a member, we don't get to hear about what you do, right? If *every* firearms rights organization thought like that, none of us would have any of our guns left. It's time to crawl out of your cave, Kevin, and join the rest of us. > There, now is everybody happy that I have pissed away my time on this? Gee, we're sorry that we and our questions are so inconsequential to such a great and important man as yourself. We peons will just go away now and leave Your Highness to work Your magic. All Hail the Great and Mighty Kevin Staines! Grovel in His Awesome and Puissant Presence! > I'll wait for the apologies to start pouring in. > Kevin With a 'tude like that, I wouldn't be holding my breath if I were you... Yours in Liberty, Bruce Hamilton Ontario ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #561 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:akimoya@cogeco.ca 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 v04.n192 end (192 is the digest issue number and 04 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., P.O. Box 1342, Saskatoon SK S7K 3N9 Phone: (306) 382-7070 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ 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.