From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #216 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, July 12 2005 Volume 08 : Number 216 In this issue: Column: The law is the law, except in labour disputes Polar bear hunt quota reported Editorial: Bear danger part of Canmore growth Debate rages over elimination of bear hunt Fears over assault weapons are full of holes Re: supporting the Conservatives More laws for england Cadman and cojones Re: supporting the Conservatives Re: Rick Lowe's Expansion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:52:06 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Column: The law is the law, except in labour disputes PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun DATE: 2005.07.12 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial PAGE: A11 BYLINE: Phil Hochstein SOURCE: Special to the Sun - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- The law is the law, except in labour disputes - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Brake lines being cut. A man dragged from his vehicle and beaten with shovels. Threatening phone calls in the middle of the night. Independent contractors' access to worksites blocked. A truck riddled with bullets. These scenes would fit well in a Quentin Tarantino film, but they all happened in the past few weeks during the trucking strikes against the construction industry and ports in Vancouver. Certainly, one of the most disturbing aspects of this situation is that our police forces seem to have turned a blind eye to this intimidation and violence. Most of the time, we can trust that Canada is a country built on the rule of law. However, when serious acts of violence are allowed to go unpunished, it shakes our confidence in the foundations of our judicial system and weakens the fabric of our society. A failure to respond appropriately to the use of violence simply encourages those who would resort to it. If violence becomes an effective tool in winning disputes of any sort, its use will escalate. We have seen this in the trucking dispute in which tactics used to intimidate dumptruck operators are now being used to control container truck operators. Why is it that when street violence occurs within the context of a labour dispute, police show an alarming reluctance to enforce the law? Police forces should not jump in too soon or anticipate violence when it has not occurred. It is important that people be able to air their differences during a labour dispute. But surely, once the line of civilized debate has been crossed, and views are being expressed with violence and physical intimidation, the citizens of B.C. have a right to expect the police to uphold the law. This is especially true when members of the public unwittingly get caught up in the fray. One of the justifications heard for lack of police involvement in some disputes is that it may escalate already volatile situations. However, during Stanley Cup riots, anti-globalization protests, and even the fireworks festival, police did not hesitate to make it known through the media and by their presence that lawbreaking would not be tolerated. Why should labour disputes be treated differently? Police forces in B.C. need to make it clear that there is no carte blanche to break the law for any side of any cause. Lawbreakers should be treated for what they are, even in the heat of a labour dispute. Like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, I have the utmost respect for the police, particularly the "blue line" of men and women who serve to protect us. But the police need clear instructions to enforce the law consistently. When there is uncertain direction from above, or a practice of non-enforcement, we cannot blame these police officers. We can, however, demand better from those who call the shots. One of the first orders of business for our new solicitor-general should be to formally review policing policies for addressing illegal activities, including violence, intimidation and harassment, during labour disputes. Philip Hochstein is the executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:52:20 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Polar bear hunt quota reported PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star DATE: 2005.07.12 EDITION: ONT SECTION: News PAGE: A15 SOURCE: Canadian Press DATELINE: IQALUIT, Nunavut - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Polar bear hunt quota reported - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Greenland is moving to enact its first-ever quotas for hunting polar bears after international criticism of its unregulated hunt, CBC reports. Although Nunavut hunters operate under strict quotas, hunters from Greenland who prey on some of the same populations have been able to shoot the bears with little regulation. Nunavut recently increased its polar bear quotas, bringing international criticism. At a meeting in Edmonton last February, Canadian experts learned that Greenlanders had been taking many more bears off the east coast of Baffin Island than previously thought. In May, Nunavut officials persuaded their counterparts in Greenland to begin negotiations on managing shared polar bear populations together. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:52:33 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Editorial: Bear danger part of Canmore growth PUBLICATION: Edmonton Journal DATE: 2005.07.12 EDITION: Final SECTION: Opinion PAGE: A14 SOURCE: The Edmonton Journal - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Bear danger part of Canmore growth - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- How hot is the real estate market in Canmore? The average price of a condo is now $400,000. A duplex unit in the exclusive Three Sisters Mountain Village east of the town runs up to $900,000. As the many Edmontonians who own Canmore condos will tell you, the natural attractions there are unbeatable, with Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country a short hop away, plus hiking and skiing trails in the Canmore area itself. The problem is, that same land along the Bow River is critical to wildlife, which use the slopes beside the river to travel between Kananaskis and the national park. The Alberta government has long had a dual plan for the area around Canmore, as indeed it has for Kananaskis itself -- to allow human use and development, while protecting the natural beauty and wildlife. That is always a tall order, and it will only become harder as the years go on. Human-wildlife conflict in the Bow Valley Corridor is already evident, as in the sad death last month of jogger Isabelle Dube in a grizzly attack. After the Dube attack, the government permanently closed several popular nature trails contained in more than 1,100 hectares of two provincial parks near Canmore. The restricted areas are part of wildlife corridors being designated along the Bow Valley as a way of allowing wild animals to get around. The move has received a mixed reception. Many hikers and cyclists feel the government is targeting their trails but ignoring the ongoing development boom which is the real threat to wildlife. Some animal lovers feel the wildlife corridors are so incomplete and inadequate they won't do the job. Still, it's commendable that the government is trying to give wildlife a bit of space, and appears prepared to place further restrictions, if they're needed. Undoubtedly they will be, as the Three Sisters and SilverTip developments, both nestled right next to wildlife corridors, continue to expand. University of Alberta biologist Cheryl Chetkiewicz is studying how bears use the land around Canmore. What she's finding is that bears aren't staying inside the 300-metre-wide wildlife corridors to avoid noisy human habitation. "It's been very depressing," she told a reporter last month. If bears don't stick to their assigned wildlife corridors, and if human use around those corridors continues to build, her depression will be justified. We may end up with wildlife corridors that are only suitable for deer and elk, not for carnivores like grizzlies. Despite the danger it can present, the grizzly has long had a special place in the hearts of Albertans. It represents the untameable wild thing that bows to no human being. As human-wildlife conflict intensifies in coming years in the Canmore area, that sentimental attachment will be tested. How much are people willing to give up to allow the grizzly the room it needs to move through the Bow Valley? This much we should expect, and demand: that our government be vigilant and effective on behalf of wildlife in that critical area part of the province. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:52:53 -0600 (CST) From: Breitkreuz@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca, Garry - Assistant 1 Subject: Debate rages over elimination of bear hunt PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald DATE: 2005.07.07 EDITION: Final SECTION: City & Region PAGE: B4 BYLINE: Cathy Ellis SOURCE: For The Calgary Herald ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Herald Archive, Craig Douce, Rocky Mountain Outlook /Current estimates put the population of grizzly bears in Alberta at about 700, including roughly 350 considered mature adults. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Ten grizzlies killed in spring shootings: Debate rages over elimination of bear hunt - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- Ten grizzly bears were shot and killed during the controversial spring hunt in Alberta. Six of the grizzlies killed in the April 1 to May 31 hunt were males and four were females. That compares to six grizzlies killed in the 2004 spring hunt and 18 the year before. The province finally released the numbers this week. Environmental groups continue to oppose the hunt, arguing grizzly bears are being used as a "pawn of politics," especially given the government's own scientists support for suspension of the hunt. "It's not as bad as some previous years, but it's still 10 bears out of a pretty small population, so that's a big concern," said Nigel Douglas, conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. "Suspending the hunt is the one simple area where we can just reduce human-caused mortality with a stroke and it's ludicrous that we haven't had the guts to do that yet." Officials with the Alberta Fish and Game Association say this spring's harvest of 10 bears shows hunters are not having a major impact on the population. "The hunt is still viable. People are going out there, but there's not a huge amount of bears being taken by the hunt," said association president Randy Collins. "People are concerned that maybe the grizzly bear hunt is one of the things affecting grizzly bear populations, but there are lots of bears." Collins said the association opposes any moves to eliminate the hunt, adding it would like to see some of the more recent hunting restrictions removed. "We were looking at, and I know there are people down in the south, that would like to see some areas in the south opened up again," he said. Current estimates put the population of grizzly bears in Alberta at about 700 individuals, including roughly 350 considered mature adults. The Alberta government's own grizzly bear recovery team, including scientists, has recommended the grizzly bear hunt be suspended. In addition, the province's endangered species conservation committee recommended the grizzly be listed as threatened, which would bring about an automatic suspension of the hunt. But, this year, the government still allowed hunting from April 1 to May 15 in most regions, although some regions in the far north were open until May 31. There was no hunting allowed south of the Trans-Canada Highway or in the Willmore area north of Jasper. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development officials say 73 licences were allocated in the random draw, which is a reduction of 44 per cent since 2002. Seventy of the 73 licences were actually purchased. Dave Ealey, spokesman for the department, said the province closely monitors and regulates the hunt with new restrictions. "We have not allowed any hunting for the last three years south of Canmore in areas that we'd seen mortality happening from other sources -- vehicle accidents, livestock depredation," he said. "Those sorts of levels of mortality outside of the regulated hunt indicated we needed to do something to minimize overall mortalities in those areas." Douglas said the wilderness association will continue to push for the suspension of the hunt for 2006. "It really does shame Alberta nationally and internationally," he said. Cathy Ellis is a reporter for the Rocky Mountain Outlook ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:57:44 -0600 (CST) From: Rory-Linda Jordan Subject: Fears over assault weapons are full of holes Well, we knew that, but when will the gun 'control' extremists (Wendykins and Anniekins ilk) figure it out? So big on quoting rigged polls and false stats, yet they can't read the real numbers right in front of them. Linda - ------------------------------------------------ o The media hype over assault weapons simply does not reflect the facts, says John Lott, Jr... AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE/FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/DALLAS MORNING NEWS - ------------------------------------------------ FEARS OVER ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE FULL OF HOLES - ------------------------------------------------ Gun control advocates predicted that last year's end to the federal assault weapons ban would bring a surge in gun crimes and police killings. But murder rates have actually fallen since then, says John R. Lott Jr. of the American Enterprise Institute. According to the FBI, 2004 crime statistics reveal: o Nationwide, murders fell by 3.6 percent, the first drop since 1999; the decline continued even after the assault weapons ban expired. o States with their own assault weapons bans in place experienced smaller drops in murder rates of about 2.4 percent, while murder rates in states without assault weapons bans dropped by 4 percent. o Furthermore, overall violent crime dropped last year. Additionally, no study exists that proves the effectiveness of assault weapons bans, says Lott. A study by the Department of Justice during the Clinton years concluded that the effect of an assault weapons ban was "uncertain." Yet two weeks after the ban expired last September, 560 stories turned up on the Internet about the dangers of letting the ban expire. Ironically, only one story surfaced about last year's declining crime rates. The media hype over assault weapons simply does not reflect the facts, says Lott. Source: John R. Lott, Jr., "The Irony: Gun Ban Ends, Crime Drops," Dallas Morning News, July 11, 2005; and "Uniform Crime Reports, January -- December 2004," Federal Bureau of Investigation. For text: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/bi/gold_print.cgi. For FBI statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/04prelim.pdf For more on Self Defense and Gun Control: http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/ - ---------------------------------------- National Center For Policy Analysis DAILY POLICY DIGEST - Tuesday, July 12, 2005 http://www.ncpa.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:05:03 -0600 (CST) From: "jim davies" Subject: Re: supporting the Conservatives The Lieberals can be found morally bankrupt time after time at no cost but the Conservatives, by merely being found [or charged] to be less than perfect are the greater evil...a typical example being the Grewal situation. Absorbing and reflecting the media spin against the Conservatives is surely a form of Stockholm Syndrome and proof that Canadians, for whatever reason, will always continue to support the Lieberals, either actively at the polls or passively on the sidelines via a whisper campaign. > > "Last night during supper, I received a phone call soliciting a donation for > the Conservatives. I was not receptive. I am not keen on supporting a bunch > of maroons who prove themselves incompetent again and again in the House." > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > If you do not support the Conservatives who are against the Firearms Act and > for our property rights as written in their policy statements, what > political party do you suggest firearms owners support and why? > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:42:10 -0600 (CST) From: "ross" Subject: More laws for england Tony balir said he will enact more laws to fight terror. This is just what these muslim fanatic want. They want us to be so restricted in what we can and cant do that we will beg them to set us free. You dont need more laws, you need only enforece the ones already on the book. But hey its cool to bring iu new tougher anti terror laws which bring mroe sweeping powers to the police, MI whatever with the result that the mpeople lose theiur rights because of it. The brits may soldier on in the face of adversity, but never in the history of the brittish empire have so many of their civil liberties and rights been removed, abridged or outright snuffed out under the guise of security, peace, order and good governmance. well they let it happen so they could get some security...now they found out exactly what they got...nothing. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:42:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Cadman and cojones The late Chuck Cadman MP had the cojones to vote as his constituents wished; something rare for a politician and almost unheard of in Canadian politics. He didn't bow to outside pressures from Conservative cronies to vote the party line. The Conservatives blew a substantial lead in the polls by their ineptitude and the usual screw ups by MPs. Do I have any high hopes for these guys forming a governemnt that will last longer than Jo(k)e Clark's? Yeah, right..... As to Ahenakew having "cojones" and being an advocate of "free speech" over a recipient of the Order of Canada, gimme a break! We fought a war against other anti-semites who he lauds for their actions. You might recall that. TB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:43:03 -0600 (CST) From: Rory-Linda Jordan Subject: Re: supporting the Conservatives Todd B. wrote: "Last night during supper, I received a phone call soliciting a donation for the Conservatives. I was not receptive. I am not keen on supporting a bunch of maroons who prove themselves incompetent again and again in the House." - -- Joe G. responded with: "If you do not support the Conservatives who are against the Firearms Act and for our property rights as written in their policy statements, what political party do you suggest firearms owners support and why?" - -- My response: Both opinions here are valid and valuable. NFA was WRONG years ago when they convinced the RFC to put all their eggs in ONE political basket. Yes, support for a party that will restore property rights where they belong and that will enact "reasonable and responsible" legislation of firearms is important. But it is not wise to put your blinkers on to avoid the full picture and greater implications. I still recall from organizing the BC Fed Up rally telling others that there were huge groups of people that would NOT vote Conservative no matter what (including a vast majority of First Nations people). AND that we needed to stay "unassociated" with any specific party so that we could infiltrate and influence ALL parties. Firearms are not an issue for one specific political group. Although one specific political group may have policies that are in our interests, it does not necessarily mean that they will ever have the wherewithall to bring their policies into being. Having said that, I must repeat yet again that it is a wiser course to remain unaffilitated and focus our action towards ALL political parties, whenever and wherever we can, even if it's only influencing one MP at a time. Did no one ever stop and think that by putting support behind the Conservatives that the Libs just dug their heels in further? Not necessarily to fight "US" (ie: the RFC) but to fight the 'Conservatives'? The fight for firearms owners will continue no matter WHICH political party is in power. I hope no one is foolish enough to believe that it will end the moment Conservatives take the lead in power, because it will not. We will still need to maintain vigilance to ensure that 'reasonable and responsible' legislation is actually enacted. By lobbying ALL parties, even if it's only changing the mind of one MP at a time, we stand a far greater chance of success. I said this years ago, and argued with NFA over this years ago. Is it really any wonder that by supporting the Conservatives alone (and 'flaunting' it) that we have seen NO change to the legislation? Take the 'facts' as we know them to your local Liberal or NDP MP, and try to convince them to a "reasonable and responsible" version of firearms legislation. If you can't convince even the ONE MP in your own riding, then what hope do you possibly have of influencing an ENTIRE House of Commons? Even if the Conservatives did luck out and get in, there would still remain a phenominal amount of work to be done. There is still NO legislation prepared and waiting to be presented and voted on. And even if there were, each person in the House of Commons has a vote, and must be influenced. The RFC is a huge voting block, yet we have foolishly allowed ourselves to be tied to the apron strings of one party, when we should be influencing ALL parties. Same-sex marriage is an issue that affects all parties, all Canadians, whether you agree with it or not. SO ARE FIREARMS. How "quickly" did we see the issue of SSM advance, and how LONG have the RFC been fighting for their issue? Take the focus off the political party, and start influencing ALL parties. Leave our members free to support anyone they feel they can influence, and stop promoting that sense of disillusion and failure when one single party loses yet again. Just my two sense.... (or maybe is this deja vu of what I said 7-years ago, like the 7-year itch or something? Gosh, is it REALLY 7 years? And what have we accomplished in that time?) Linda ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:43:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: Rick Lowe's Expansion > Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:22:24 -0600 (CST) > From: "Robert S. Sciuk" > > Subject: Rick Lowe's Expansion -- Nota Bene: > > Dear Moderator, > > I have taken verbatim Mr. Lowe's "expansion" of his thoughts, and reposted > it in its entirety under a different subject line than "re: rights", as it > will be lost in the thread.> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 19:34:30 -0600 (CST) > From: Rick Lowe > > Subject: Re: Rights I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell of the SCC recognizing > a right to keep and bear arms or finding the Firearms Act to be > unconstitutional. For my part we are agreed on this point as I have previous stated the same position on a number of occasions on this forum. > The attempt should still be made of course, but I think it's a lost > battle. The most important point and one that should have lead to the absence of most of the criticism that has occurred to this point > Constitutional amendments: adding property rights, keep and bear arms, > etc. There doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement from any source > that our constitutional amending formula makes changing our Constitution > almost impossible.> Therefore, I think the only realistic hope is > legislative change. Which > means firearms-friendly governments. Which means you need those kinds > of politicians to win enough votes to take office. Agreed again. > All of which means the critical key to change is winning voters over, > one way or another, until you have enough to get the right government > and proper legislation. If you don't agree with that, you may as well > not bother reading any further. As I have already said accomplishing this has nothing to do with the Firearms Act. The Conservatives are not losing elections based on their position on the Firearms Act > > So with that in mind, first thing: aim, factors, courses, plan. > So what's your objective?> Start with the "easy" one: getting rid of the > Firearms Act and returning > to the previous state of affairs. As previously stated by the majority of those of us this post is directed at on this list, a repel of the Firearms Act is sufficient for our purposes. Any suggestion otherwise is fanning a division that is not there on our part. In the case of the OFAH and other organizations a simple repeal of the registration provisions will signal an end of hostilities. The result is that your arguments are somewhat disingenuous in this regard. It would appear that the OFAH, COHA etc. and others could be forgiven for not calling for the repeal of the entire act. I don't think you'll find many > firearms owners who disagree with that. As stated above you are entirely incorrect in this regard. > With that in mind, you have to be prepared to NOT talk about "keep and > bear arms", concealed carry permits, and all the rest of it. It is painfully obvious that you are not present when the media is available at events they can be drawn to as this type of dialogue does not occur or is insignificant in nature when it does. Where it does occur for the most part is on this very limited circulation forum > Second, don't forget that over half the voters you need to get the > government you want are women. Women don't view the world the same way > as men (duh!), and they don't like anything they see as a possible > threat to their homes or their children. You can tell them they don't > really know where the threat to their security is - but if you don't win > them over, your cause is toast. That's a fact. As previously stated the firearms issue is not at present a limiting factor on Conservative support. You need to look elsewhere for the reasons. What follows below, is so limited in use by those in this group that you aim your points at, that it is hardly worth mentioning. > > Third, don't be scary. You have absolutely every right to be > politically correct and dress and talk pretty much any way you want to. > But if you think signature lines and T-shirts like "I want to be the > first on my block with a confirmed kill", or "Sniper; don't run away, > you'll only die tired", or raving about tyranny, "Kanuckistan", etc > reassure non gun owners into voting in a government that is supportive > of what you want, you are sadly mistaken. > > I don't wear cam when I'm not actually out hunting - it is stupid to get > cam contaminated with more human odors than necessary to begin with. I > don't wear "death or glory" T-shirts. I don't rave about tyrants, the > New World Order, imminent genocide, etc. I try to appear as somebody > non firearms voters find trustworthy and somebody they would like to > have as a neighbor. I try to use rational about the Firearms Act which > appeals to what concerns THEM. I work very hard to appear to them as > somebody they can't imagine why the government would want to apply > something like the Firearms Act to. Remember: piss them off, scare them > off - they sure as hell aren't going to support your politics, > particularly when it involves what scares them. > > Fourth, support law enforcement. Always. Neither I nor no one else on this list should ever concede to the rightness of such a statement. It is offensive to make such a statement. When individual police > officers or individual police agency policies cross the line and/or are > abusive (and of course it happens), then go after THOSE exceptions, not > police in general. And do it politely, not in a fit of rage and anger. Exactly as we already do. But as you can see from the point above we will not and should not consent to ALWAYS blindly supporting the police. Taking them to task on this forum over certain issues hardly constitutes serious abuse particularly when those criticisms are in the main confined to this forum > Fifth, get your provincial sportsmens' associations in line. As a BC > resident and former regional firearms chair of the BC Wildlife > Federation, I can tell you the BCWF is absolutely useless when it comes > to firearms legislation. Despite a mission statement to protect > firearms owners and activities, the BCWF and their Firearms Committee do > absolutely nothing > > Nada. Zip. They don't want to get involved. They didn't help Brian > Ward, they called the changes to the reloading regs "fear mongering", > they haven't said a word about the changes to permitting, etc. And > members aren't holding them to account. I doubt other provinces are any > different. Incidentally, the chair of the useless, toothless, silent, > BCWF Firearms Committee is Gary Mauser... Again we are in agreement. Particularly if you add the point above where the OFAH is mentioned. But I must point out again that you appear to be contradicting yourself when these two sections of comment are considered as a whole. In review I am not certain what all the discussion in this thread is all about as it seems simply to be re walking old ground that has been covered many times. Please forgive me if I find nothing new in it but that is the case. Al ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V8 #216 ********************************** 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.