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 #573 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 Tuesday, October 14 2003 Volume 06 : Number 573 In this issue: Hunting for a charter challenge, prosecutors and persecutors Rifle Ranges .40-60 Maynard CFDv6n572 Re: Registration Papers Informants point finger at police 'Suicide by cop' Analysts: Gun Control a Non-Issue in 2004 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos Gun control centre spending slashed: Declined by $58M after Fraser's Editorial: ID cards not the answer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:00:21 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Hunting for a charter challenge, prosecutors and persecutors The Honorable Wayne Easter, P.C., MP Solicitor General of Canada House of Commons Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Easter.W@parl.gc.ca Monday, October 13, 2003 Dear Mr. Easter, Formal Notice: Hunting with an unregistered firearm and without a firearms possession license We hereby officially inform you that a member of CUFOA will again be in the field hunting game birds with an unregistered firearm and without a firearms possession license this Thursday, 16 October 2003. We take this action deliberately. We are intentionally contravening the Firearms Act of 1995, purposefully being in open, public noncompliance. The Firearms Act destroys our Canadian heritage and culture. This unjust law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically our rights to privacy, security of person, presumption of innocence, association, representation, mobility, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. We will never submit to this unjust law. We will never surrender our Liberty to a law which is based upon a lie; a law which can never deliver the false promise of increased security. We demand the opportunity to have this unjust law declared unconstitutional in court; to have a full public discussion of all the relevant issues. I will be hunting on public Nova Scotia land, property # 911073 located two kilometers past Lorne on the Trafalgar Road outside of Stellarton, Nova Scotia, . I will hunt on this site from 11 a.m. until noon. We will fax a copy of this notice of our plans to the RCMP detachment in Stellarton, Nova Scotia and to the Department of Natural Resources Office in MacLellan's Brook, Pictou County, Nova Scotia. The DNR is being notified to determine if the province is acting in collusion with the federal government against the expressed intention not to do so. As we take this action knowingly a charge under 91(1) of the criminal code does not apply. If charged under the criminal code section 92(1) knowingly being in possession the matter will apparently not go forward in the courts. The criminal code is the responsibility of the provinces and Nova Scotia has said they will not prosecute. If you wish to proceed with charges a charge under section 112 of the Firearms Act will be required to bypass the provinces. If charges under 91(1) or 92(1) proceed this province is culpable in the persecution of hunters and has no basis to claim otherwise. Nova Scotia's recently passed right to hunt legislation would also prove to be meaningless if the province allows the tools necessary to exercise the right to be legislated out of existence. As the provinces have the ability to refer this matter to the Supreme Court we question why we find ourselves in the position of having to do so. Also the federal government plans to refer same sex marriage legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its charter status. What manor of citizens are we that we do not warrant the same consideration given the obvious charter deficiencies of the Firearms Act If you use section 117.03 to steal my property and leave me with little legal recourse you will only clarify that this law is designed to confiscate firearms as we have contended all along. Section 117.03 has no other purpose.You have said in past that this law is not aimed at legitimate hunters. Your actions will speak louder than your words. I have Cc'd this letter to the Heritage Minister to determine if she is going to stand by idly while our heritage is systematically destroyed. I will be hunting with an unregistered Top Plain, American Gun Corporation ,12 gauge single shot shotgun, the serial number appears to be 399987. I possess no license. I have never registered any of my firearms with the Canadian Firearms Center. As we have consistently demonstrated in our previous twenty-three public non-compliance actions all across Canada, everything we do will be peaceful and non-violent. Mr. Easter, your government has wasted enough time and money on this futile exercise. Demonstrate your common sense. Protect our Canadian heritage of responsible firearms ownership and use. Repeal this useless, unjust, unconstitutional law. Sincerely, Al Muir Canadian Unregistered Firearms Owners Association Al Muir 1-902-752-7877 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:00:28 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: Rifle Ranges At the P&D grand re-opening this weekend, I picked up a map to the Genesee Range. Before I drive out to check it out, is anyone familiar with it? Comments? I hope to shoot pistol, rifle and shotgun there (or somewhere). Hey Rick; Isn't one jumper in a family enough? Is there a quota? How many jumpers in your family? I used to use my jump pay to fund my mess dinners. I almost broke even. Ah! the joys of youth. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:01:04 -0600 (CST) From: "Tom Falls" Subject: .40-60 Maynard CFDv6n572 It sounds like a good project, Rick. Questions: 1. What re-loading manuals/handouts/software/whatever has the loading data for this cartridge? 2. Where do we get the bbls? 3. Does the LE magazine hold ten .40-60 rounds? Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:13:08 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Szpajcher" Subject: Re: Registration Papers Richard - Does the sun rise in the East? You are not alone. I re-registered my restricted firearms, in August, 2002, and recently got _1_ new registration, with several left to go. Jim Szpajcher St. Paul, AB > Hi All: > Registered my guns back in December 2002. > I have not received the paper work yet. > Is anyone else having the same problem ? > > Richard C Turner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:13:35 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Informants point finger at police http://www.canada.com/montreal/news/story.asp?id=A3FDD170-1658-4C46-81AC-4F193A2AAC3F Informants point finger at police Allege illegal tactics by handlers. Demand public inquiry, independent body similar to U.S. witness protection program CATHERINE SOLYOM The Gazette Monday, October 13, 2003 Uttering death threats, forcible confinement, incitement to perjury - are serious allegations, especially when they are levelled against police officers. In statements addressed to the Sûreté du Québec and the Quebec public security minister, two police informants claim their handlers used illegal tactics against them, before and after they testified. Denis Bouthillette testified against other members of the Pelletier Clan, implicated in the attempted murder of Hells Angels kingpin Maurice (Mom) Boucher outside a restaurant on Ste. Catherine St. He served eight years in jail, but claims promises made by the police in return for his testimony have not been fulfilled. He has still not been given a new identity, he said. On Friday, he filed a complaint against his SQ handler, whom he said threatened to kill him. A spokesperson for the SQ, Jason Gauthier, said the department of internal investigations is verifying the allegations, but no officers have been suspended. Meanwhile, Normand Brisebois, a former member of the Dark Circle (associated with the Rock Machine), has said he was forced to perjure himself, so that his associates would be convicted for attempted murder, instead of a lesser charge of conspiracy to commit murder in an incident outside the Laval penitentiary. He also accused the SQ of releasing his photo to the media to force him to testify (and into the witness-protection program) and of other abuses once he was in it. Both informants are part of a chorus calling for a public inquiry into how they are treated, and what they say is rampant corruption and abuse. They also want an independent body looking after them, similar to the U.S. witness protection service, so they would no longer be at the police and prosecutors' mercy. "Is it possible that each of the special witnesses reveals troubling incidents and that none of them are telling the truth?" Brisebois wrote to Public Security Minister Jacques Chagnon. A spokesperson for Chagnon said yesterday a working group will be convened over the next few weeks to see how the informant system can be reformed. Public inquiries cost too much and take too long, Sébastien Lachaine said. The Poitras commission, which looked into allegations of coverups and threats in the SQ, for example, cost $23 million, and took two to three years, he said. "We don't think a public inquiry is appropriate for informants, but a working group that will take two or three months could be more effective." Former informant Jim Boivin, who has also launched a $1.8-million lawsuit against the government for making him serve a murder sentence when he was promised probation for his testimony, says a working group is not enough. "They had a working group about 10 years ago, but they only followed the recommendations that suited them," Boivin said, adding he had at least eight informants willing to testify before a public inquiry. "In the interest of justice we have to allow them to speak." Boivin says until there's a public inquiry, allegations will continue to surface and discredit the whole justice system. And police informants are more important than people imagine, he continued - at least three informants are expected to testify in the megatrial of 16 Bandidos, he said, which begins tomorrow in Laval. csolyom@thegazette.canwest.com © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:14:18 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Hill" Subject: 'Suicide by cop' - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:07:59 -0600 (CST) From: Larry James Fillo Subject: Suicide by Cop, Digest #570 What are the implications of officer's Parent's Phd Thesis showing most people being shot to death by police are suicidal. Assisiting a person to commit suicide is still a criminal offence? Oh well, it may be difficult to prove. It does seem difficult to argue for police having guns if they are mostly using them to assist suicides. *SNIP* This would make a good letter to the editor - Send it in to as many papers as you can making reference to the story which was carried nationally. Jim Hill Fletchers Lake, NS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:17:32 -0600 (CST) From: "Jim Pook" Subject: Analysts: Gun Control a Non-Issue in 2004 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99939,00.html Analysts: Gun Control a Non-Issue in 2004 Tuesday, October 14, 2003 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos WASHINGTON — Though a spate of gun violence has torn through schools and offices of late, hardly a word has been spoken on the campaign trail, angry moms are not marching and few lawmakers are waving their fists, leaving some to conclude that gun control is no longer a vital political issue. Gun control advocates (search) blame a lack of media interest and an aggressive pro-gun lobby on the inattention to gun violence. “The modus operandi of the gun lobby is to keep the discussion down,” said Eric Howard, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence (search). But supporters of gun rights (search) say pro-gun control Democrats have learned the hard way that a majority of Americans think current laws are strict enough. “The Democrats have decided that the stove is still hot and they don’t want to get burned again,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America (search). “Whatever the rhetoric had been it hasn’t been matched with what happened at the polling booth.” Despite more than a half-dozen shootings between Sept. 25 and Oct. 6 in or around schools across the country -- a record that should have sent the media in a tailspin, say critics -- press accounts have not been used to resurrect the flagging issue of gun control. And though Democrats have engaged in three nationally televised primary debates so far, little or no discussion has been made of where the candidates stand on the issue. If anything, the Democratic debate in Baltimore, Md., on Sept. 9 featured a brief tussle over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search)’s support of states’ rights on the issue. He has been a long defender of hunters in his home state. “I would like to see the candidates talk about it more,” said Howard, who added that he is hopeful that the candidates will be forced to talk about it when they meet in Detroit on Oct. 26 for the second Congressional Black Caucus Institute-sponsored debate. That debate will air live on Fox News Channel. Political experts say that tough gun control stances have done little to help out candidates in the last four years, including Vice President Al Gore (search), who lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Groups like the National Rifle Association (search) have also been quite successful in turning out voters to the polls. “I think there is a general feeling among many folks that this was a loser for Democrats in 2000, that it put up an impenetrable electoral wall around the South that Al Gore couldn’t penetrate,” said one source close to one of the Democratic primary campaigns. “Most of the top-tier Democrats, with the exception of Howard Dean, are in the same place on gun control, but none of them are going to make it a main issue,” he added. David Kopel, a gun rights advocate and fellow at the Colorado-based Independence Institute (search), said the candidates are merely taking a cue from voters. “I think Americans are solidifying an attitude that has been there all along -- an attitude that is uncongenial to lots more gun control,” he said. Much to the chagrin of gun control lobbyists on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, current politics have not played well in their favor. They cite support by Democrats of a bill that would render gun manufacturers immune to lawsuits -- a cornerstone of their efforts to impose non-legislative controls on the gun industry in the last few years. “It is a misuse of the civil justice system to try and punish honest, law-abiding people for illegal acts committed by others without their knowledge or involvement,” Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., a frequent critic of lax gun laws, said in September. He has joined nine Senate Democrats in supporting the bill. “The only thing that will set the industry straight is with lawsuits,” Howard said. The Brady Campaign has argued that the bill -- which has alread y passed in the House -- would protect dealers like Bulls Eye Shooter Supply (search), which claimed it lost the Bushmaster (search) allegedly used last year by Washington, D.C.-area sniper defendants John Allen Muhammad (search) and Lee Boyd Malvo (search). Since 1998, 33 municipalities, counties and states have attempted to sue gun manufacturers, accusing them for putting specially marketed “crime guns” on the market. Many of those suits have been tossed out of court, and none have resulted in any manufacturer or dealer paying any damages. Another blow to the gun control lobby came Oct. 2 when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (search) released a review of 51 published studies about the effectiveness of state gun control laws. The CDC report found “insufficient evidence” that increased gun control lowers crime rates. This has made it very difficult for groups like the Brady Campaign, which enjoyed tremendous media exposure during the Clinton administration -- culminating in the anti-gun Million Mom March (search) in May 1999, to gain traction. “We had a domestic news blackout since the spring because of the war, but that’s not the only reason for this,” said Howard. “A lot of this stuff isn’ t easily put into 30-second sound bites.” Howard and others expect the discourse to heat up in the months preceding the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban (search) in September 2004. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., has already introduced a reauthorization bill with tougher restrictions. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has introduced her own version in the Senate. “People understand that assault weapons do not belong on the street,” said McCarthy spokesman Scott Rowson. “No matter Democrat or Republican, there is deep and broad support against assault weapons in the public.” Gun rights activists say if gun control were to become an issue in the 2004 election, it will be over the assault weapons ban reauthorization. Republican sources say debate is already emerging among the GOP rank-and-file in the House whether to fight it, and talk has centered around whether gun advocates will be inclined to go all out for President Bush if he signs a new ban. “If it gets to the president’s desk, and he signs it, [that] would be a campaign issue like you wouldn’t believe,” said Pratt. “It would put gun owners in a real foul mood.” The Associated Press contributed to this report. - - 30 - Jim Pook Jim's Fishing Charters Box 326 Tahsis, BC V0P 1X0 www.jimsfishing.com jim@tahsisbc.com 1(888) 617-FISH (3474) Toll Free (250) 934-7665 Local ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:20:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Gun control centre spending slashed: Declined by $58M after Fraser's NOTE: Versions of this story also appeared in: The Ottawa Citizen, The Calgary Herald, The Vancouver Province PUBLICATION: National Post DATE: 2003.10.14 EDITION: National SECTION: Canada PAGE: A8 BYLINE: Tim Naumetz SOURCE: CanWest News Service DATELINE: OTTAWA - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= Gun control centre spending slashed: Declined by $58M after Fraser's report - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= OTTAWA - The Canada Firearms Centre sharply cut travel, contract services, advertising and other costs to hold its spending at $78-million for the last fiscal year compared with $136-million the previous year. The belt-tightening followed a huge public outcry after Sheila Fraser, the Auditor-General, issued a scathing report last December revealing the gun registry and licensing system was expected to cost a total of $1-billion by 2005. Despite the fiscal prudence, however, Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz predicts the firearms centre is poised to go on another spending spree following its decision to carry forward $10-million worth of the savings for new spending in the current fiscal year. Mr. Breitkreuz, who obtained the expenditure statement under the Access to Information Act, said he was puzzled by the dramatic spending cuts, since Ms. Fraser did not release her report until eight months into the 2002-03 fiscal year. Shortly after the Auditor-General's report, Martin Cauchon, the Justice Minister, then in charge of the program, froze discretionary spending and ordered the firearms centre to carry on with only essential services until the government could work out a plan in response to Ms. Fraser's findings. Mr. Breitkreuz said the government might be attempting to hide some of the spending in other departments. "The whole thing defies explanation. Last year should have been their busiest year; it should have been the year they spent the most money." "For them to say they only spent that much, I think they're hiding something." David Austin, a spokesman for the firearms centre, said the expenditure report reflects the effect of Mr. Cauchon's order to limit spending and cut costs. "The administrative restraints were put on in December," Mr. Austin said. "Travel [for example] didn't happen." As of last December, the government was expecting to spend $113-million on the gun program for the 2002-03 fiscal year, which means the savings in response to Ms. Fraser's report were dramatic. For the current fiscal year, the government is again forecasting expenditures of $113-million, including the $10-million it has carried forward from estimates that were approved by Parliament for last year. Once $15-million in savings are counted against expenditures, the net cost of the program was nearly $63-million for the 2002-03 fiscal year. Total net cost from 1995 to the end of the 2002-03 fiscal year was $692-million, averaging less than $100-million annually over the seven-year period. Savings last year were most dramatic in contract services, which dropped to a total of $15-million from $30-million the previous year. Despite the need to keep gun owners aware of the Jan.1 deadline for registration, the firearms centre spent only $211,000 on advertising compared to $6-million the previous year. The centre cut spending on travel in half, from $2-million to $1-million, while the cost of salaries plunged to $16-million from $25-million. Mr. Breitkreuz argues the $10- million the government has carried forward for this year, money not spent from estimates approved for last year, actually is new spending for the program. - ------------------------------------------ GUN REGISTRY EXPENDITURES FOR 2002-2003? TOTAL SPENDING APPROVED BY PARLIAMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 $35.8 MILLION (from Main Estimates) + $59 MILLION (Supp. B Estimates) = $94.8 MILLION JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO BREITKREUZ ATI REQUEST DATED: October 1, 2003 CANADIAN FIREARMS PROGRAM - TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES 2002-2003 = $78,258,623 TOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES 1995-96 to 2002-03 = $766,526,433 Note #1: Still doesn't include Firearms Program Expenditures incurred by other Departments and Agencies as recommended by the Auditor General http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article154.htm Note #2: Does not include "Major Additional Costs" as recommended by the Auditor General; namely, Enforcement Costs and Compliance Costs. ENFORCING THE FIREARMS ACT COULD EASILY COST ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS! http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns81.htm COMPLIANCE COSTS PUT GUN REGISTRY PRICE TAG UP AT LEAST ANOTHER QUARTER BILLION http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns88.htm (1) Original 2002-2003 Estimates3D $113.5 Million http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20022003/jus-jus/jus0203rpp02_e.asp (2) BUT: Treasury Board stated: ONLY $35.8 million were actually voted for in the Main Estimates vote in June of 2002. (Saskatoon Star Phonenix article - February 20, 2003 ) (3) Then the government asked for $72 million in the Supplementary A Estimates (2002-2003) October 31, 2002 that the government claimed was part of the original $113.5 million figure from the Main Estimates. (4) Then the government withdrew the $72 million from the Supplementary A Estimates on December, 5, 2003 (5) Then the Justice Minister Cauchon said he was operating on a "cash management" basis. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/questions/dec-12-2002b.htm (6) Then the government asked for (and got approval for) $59 million more in the Supplementary B Estimates at the end of March 2003. Note: The Liberals on the Justice Committee voted against calling the Justice Minister to explain all of the above and his plans for future spending on the program. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns80.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:22:26 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Editorial: ID cards not the answer PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina) DATE: 2003.10.14 EDITION: Final SECTION: Viewpoints PAGE: B11 SOURCE: The Leader-Post - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ID cards not the answer - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= IN BRIEF: There is good reason to be concerned about recent proposals in Canada for a mandatory national ID card. - - - - Over the last two decades, ease of travel and immigration have helped "shrink" our world. But there has been a price to pay -- the ever-growing ability of terrorists to strike anywhere. As far back as the 1980s, there existed concern in North America about the difficulties police and immigration authorities faced in confirming the identities of individuals. Critics contrasted Canada and the U.S. with Western Europe, where identification cards are widespread and unquestioningly accepted. But for Canada, the concept faded away -- until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Now, the federal government is talking about ID cards that could contain "biometric" data: digitized information like photos, fingerprints and perhaps even retinal scans that could be confirmed against original entries in a central database. For a number of reasons, we are concerned about such a proposal. To begin with, nothing is foolproof. Criminals and terrorists are frighteningly clever and there is no guarantee they will not be able to eventually produce convincing fakes. Another issue is the federal government's disquieting ability to botch programs involving personal data, typified by its gun registry. It was originally expected to have a "net cost" of $2 million (that is, a $121 million cost against revenue from fees of $119 million.) The last time we checked, its cost was estimated at somewhere over $1 billion, with police -- originally among its biggest proponents -- decidedly unenthusiastic about its usefulness. That raises another issue: its value. "The fundamental question of why do we need a national ID card is yet to be answered," said Joe Fontana, chair of the Commons' immigration committee. "So far the people who have come forward to talk to the committee have indicated that they don't believe that we do need one." As well, a recent federal report estimated the cost of mandatory ID cards at $7 billion. Assuming the apparently inevitable cost overruns, we worry about a "real" pricetag that will suck money from security measures that have proven their value, like RCMP and CSIS investigators. We are also shocked by the federal government's failure to oversee distribution of its existing social insurance numbers, with millions more issued than there are individuals and with several government computers recently swiped from a federal office. The biggest objection to mandatory government ID cards, though, remains the thorny questions of personal privacy. Leaving aside the matter of how ID cards might help in the detection and tracking of terrorists, there is a matter of what the government would do with the data it would collect. Human beings are fallible: confidential medical records end up in dumpsters and on movie sets. The leaking of police data to private investigators was a major issue in Saskatchewan only a year ago and there were rumours about provincial databases being used to track down deadbeat spouses or to check out the marital status and sexual diseases of prospective dates. We are not confident at all about the federal government's ability to apply adequate security to a new, bigger database. The only good news on this issue has been signs that Immigration Minister Denis Coderre is weakening in his commitment to a mandatory national ID card. Rather than introducing a new ID card, he is now instead mentioning upgrading the quality of existing documents, particularly the Canadian passport that has long been the subject of much skepticism in intelligence and security circles for Ottawa's willingness to hand out passports on the flimsiest of guarantees. An upgraded Canadian passport, perhaps with biometric data, could be compatible with the U.S. government's plans to bolster security at its border points through the use of scanners for "reading" foreigners passports. A passport is essentially a voluntary tool. You get one because you need to travel and implicitly submit to some scrutiny in order to get one. Many people would be willing to pay a premium for one with state-of-the-art security measures. It is not hard to foresee a world in which those who can afford enhanced passports zip through immigration screening while those who can't or won't shell out a special fee wait in far longer lines. Maybe that's not the perfect solution to security concerns, but it seems preferable to the federal government collecting data on all Canadians. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #573 ********************************** 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.