From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #317 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 Monday, March 12 2007 Volume 10 : Number 317 In this issue: Huge cash cow for Jim Flaherty and the CPC - Not a gun story Three Options Re: can they be trusted MPs reading list for C-21? I still say the RFC lost a voice on the Hill Test Re: MPs reading list for C-21? New Short Term Moderator [none] [none] [none] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:29:51 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: Huge cash cow for Jim Flaherty and the CPC - Not a gun story I can't understand how our previous Conservative gov't in Ontario didn't pick-up on this. We got the Red Tape Reduction Commission which was tasked to strike down meddlesome gov't regulations that stopped people from doing all kinds of nasty things, the way they wanted to do them, when they wanted to do them. We got megatonnes of rotting paper sludge piled all over the province and and endless supply of Tronna sewage sludge on farmers fields. This could have saved on law enforcement, the cost of correction facilitates and we could have spent the cash on 'real' training programs for instead of schools for crime. We would have 'unemployed' thousands of criminals; would they have looked for a 'real' job? And we would have had a huge source of additional gov't revenue. Maybe our gov't could finally settle First Nation land claims and such. How about public shooting ranges across the Nation like folks have down East? (Maybe Harper could put the money towards the fiscal imbalance and we'd have the cash for these useful facilities in Upper Canada). Maybe they could build a waste incinerator upwind of Tronna. > Taxing And Regulating Cannabis Could Yield $14 Billion In Annual > Savings And Revenue, Study Says > > June 2, 2005 - Boston, MA, USA > > Boston, MA: Enforcing state and federal marijuana laws costs taxpayers > an estimated $7.7 billion annually, according to a report released > this week by visiting Harvard University economics professor, Jeffrey > Miron, and endorsed by more than 500 economists. > > The report, entitled "Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition > in the United States," estimates that legalizing marijuana would save > state and local governments $5.3 billion annually, while saving the > federal government $2.4 billion. A previous analysis > of marijuana arrest > expenditures published by the NORML Foundation in March estimated that > enforcing marijuana prohibition, primarily at the state level, costs > approximately $7.6 billion per year. > > Miron's report also estimates that legalizing cannabis would yield > $6.2 billion in annual revenue if it were taxed at rates comparable to > those imposed upon alcohol and tobacco. > > "We ... urge the country to commence an open and honest debate about > marijuana prohibition," states an open letter accompanying the report, > signed by over 500 economists, including Stanford University's Milton > Friedman. "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which > marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. At a > minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show > that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to > taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences > that result from marijuana prohibition." > > A previous survey > published in the April 2004 issue of the journal Econ Journal Watch > found that most US economists believe that current drug prohibition > strategies are ineffective and favor liberalizing American drug policies. > > Full text of the report, "Budgetary Implications of Marijuana > Prohibition in the United States," is available online at: > http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html > > updated: Jun 02, 2005 > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:42:12 -0300 From: "M.J. Ackermann, MD" Subject: Three Options Garry, I have read the Legislative Options paper at http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2007_new/147.doc and I will try to answer your questions. I realize there are political realities to deal with but still I personally share the view that in a free country anyone who wants should be able to have a firearm without any requirement for authorization by the State. It should be the State that is required to show cause why a given citizen should not have a firearm. In other words, no license should be required, just a clean criminal record. The "reverse onus" that currently exists flies in the face of the English Common Law roots of our whole system of criminal law in that it requires the accused to prove innocence rather than requiring the State to prove guilt. This simply should not be. If the CPC were to create the "Prohibited List" we are all familiar with from our discussions, then "allow" any citizen who was not on the list to freely exercise the choice of whether-or-not they wished to own guns, that would satisfy the lawful firearms community while at the same time giving the cops the tool they need to go after the bad guys. This tool would actually be of some use, unlike the useless and invasive Registry. As you know violence is violence, and injuring or killing someone with a bat is not less violent than causing the same level of injury with a gun. There need be NO special provisions for "gun violence" as long as all violence is severely prosecuted and punished rather than plea bargained and paroled away. Anyone who lawfully has a gun should be able to transport and use that gun without special permission or authorization because the law must presume they are safe and of sound character because they have never been shown by their actions to be otherwise. In other words, ATTs must go. Small guns, short guns, weak guns, who cares? It is the user that decides what good or harm comes from the uses or abuses s/he puts the gun to. Why should I be considered safe to own a .308 rifle (powerful) but not a .25 cal pistol (puny)? It makes NO sense! Therefore the three classes should also go. The Right to Life is only meaningful when each and every lawful individual has the absolute right to immediately defend her life using the training and tools she needs, rather than waiting helplessly for minutes to hours while under attack for those with that training and equipment to show up. Therefore armed self defense should not be denied to those who want it. This whole issue is getting lost in the political BS, to the detriment of all concerned, gun owners and non-owners alike. The answer to your first question is "None of the above". What needs to be done is a complete rewrite of the Firearms Act along rational lines, as many of us have been saying for a long time. As for the second question, the antis will never be happy no matter how strict the gun laws, unless and until only agents of the State can have guns. I think most gun owners would be able to accept the FAC type certificate along with the Prohibited List. That means simple possession would never be a crime, nor even a regulatory offense. Finally, the third question. As you know, private members bills rarely get off the ground and functional firearms laws will not get passed in a minority situation. It may be best to drop the issue until the CPC has a strong majority and then go for the jugular with a completely new Firearms Act. If the CPC really wanted to reduce violence, it would act immediately to end the criminalization of what is really a medical and social issue - namely drug abuse. Just think about how many competing liquor suppliers get into violent turf wars today compared to during Prohibition. We have ignored history, and we are repeating it. But that is a topic for another discussion. As I have said MANY times before, the CPC should concern itself with effectively leading this country rather than trying to appease the urban left. Truly lead with foresight, hindsight, strength and vision, and the votes will take care of themselves. As you know these are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the official views of any organization or group to which I belong. Once again I would like to thank you and Dennis for your unswerving dedication to Truth and Reason in this issue. Without you I firmly believe Canada would be much worse off than it is now. You are unsung heroes. - -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd. Sherbrooke, NS Canada B0J 3C0 902-522-2172 My email: mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:22:42 -0700 From: "Al Muir" Subject: Re: can they be trusted > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 08:38:21 -0500 > From: "ross" > Subject: CPC can they be trusted > > Given BIll c-21, the firearms advisory group, promises made by CPC , > promises clearly not kept nor about to be kept. It would behoove firearms > owners to make sure Stephen Harper and his betrayers and liars be kept > to > a minority position. I could not agree more. C-21 is unacceptable. They are unable to inact C-21 in their current position. If they receive more seats they might. Al Support criminal control, not placebo gun control ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:51:20 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: MPs reading list for C-21? From the Parl of Can web site on C-21: Bill C-21 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted) Reading List * Canadians defy stereotype and break gun-control rules. Emhofer, Ken. Christian Science Monitor. 35:7. Jan. 15, 2003. * Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control?. Moorhouse, John C. and Brent Wanner. CATO journal. 26:103-24. Winter 2006. * Firearms possession by 'non-state actors': the question of sovereignty. Kopel, David B., Gallant, Paul and Joanne D. Eisen. Texas review of law & politics. 8:373-436. Spring 2004. * Gun control: placing costs in context. Boyd, Neil. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:473-8. Oct. 2003. * Long gun registration: a poorly aimed longshot. Stenning, Philip C. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:479-488. Oct. 2003. * Straight shooting on gun control. Kohn, Abigail A. Reason. 37:20-5. May 2005. * The federal gun registry: an urgent need for independent, non-partisan research. Gabor, Thomas. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:489-98. Oct. 2003. * Universal firearm registration in Canada: three perspectives. Gabor, Thomas. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:465-71. Oct. 2003. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:06:22 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: I still say the RFC lost a voice on the Hill I had reported: >> Subject: Steckle steps down >> >> The RFC loses a voice on The Hill. >> >> Longtime Grit MP Steckle to step down >> London Free Press; 2007 03 08 >> By CHIP MARTIN, SUN MEDIA >> >> (liberally sniped) >> >> Veteran Liberal MP Paul Steckle is stepping down. > > Al added: >Good news Lee. We got rid of one more of our "friends" that would have >voted for C-21 and lifetime licenses > Don't know were Paul Steckle was on C-21. But I can assure all that I've had frequent contact with him since 1995 - and unlike many other 'convenient issue' politicians, Steckle has been a veritable 'bull dog' on firearm owner's rights. Straight as an arrow!! You may recall he livened things up last December with his infamous very unLiberal Xmas card. He and his wife, sons and wives and grandchildren wearing camo, some on ATVs and armed in a cornfield. Is there vote at First Reading? First Reading was June 19, 2007. I tried to check to see how Steckle, and others, had actually voted. (I know he voted against Inky Marks Hunting Heritage bill due to its intrusion into provincial jurisdiction - as did most CPC MPs. Pity Inky refused to take it back into committee to fix the darned thing). An old school chap who was dearly loved by the social conservatives, Liberal AND Conservative. By the way, the Parl web site lists which gov't bills are on the docket. How come C-21 was not shown; has it been, at least temporarily, buried? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:49:19 -0600 From: "Howard R. Hamilton" Subject: Test This is a test ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:28:33 -0500 From: 10x <10x@telus.net> Subject: Re: MPs reading list for C-21? At 08:51 PM 3/11/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > From the Parl of Can web site on C-21: > >Bill C-21 An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act >(non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted) > >Reading List > > * Canadians defy stereotype and break gun-control rules. Emhofer, >Ken. Christian Science Monitor. 35:7. Jan. 15, 2003. > * Does gun control reduce crime or does crime increase gun control?. >Moorhouse, John C. and Brent Wanner. CATO journal. 26:103-24. Winter 2006. > * Firearms possession by 'non-state actors': the question of >sovereignty. Kopel, David B., Gallant, Paul and Joanne D. Eisen. Texas >review of law & politics. 8:373-436. Spring 2004. > * Gun control: placing costs in context. Boyd, Neil. Canadian >journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:473-8. Oct. 2003. > * Long gun registration: a poorly aimed longshot. Stenning, Philip >C. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. 45:479-488. Oct. >2003. > * Straight shooting on gun control. Kohn, Abigail A. Reason. >37:20-5. May 2005. > * The federal gun registry: an urgent need for independent, >non-partisan research. Gabor, Thomas. Canadian journal of criminology & >criminal justice. 45:489-98. Oct. 2003. > * Universal firearm registration in Canada: three perspectives. >Gabor, Thomas. Canadian journal of criminology & criminal justice. >45:465-71. Oct. 2003. Mr. Gabor is an expert on being partisan. Garry Kleck has show Mr. Gabors research to be very biased towards the current system of gun control in Canada, yet when the references Mr. Gabor lists as supporting the legislation are checked - low and behold none do. Mr. Gabor is anti gun the point of publishing misleading conclussions about what works and what does not. Any work published by Mr. Gabor has to be checked for it's accuracy and whether or not it refects reality. He has lost his credibility years ago. Mr. Kleck details the falsehoods propogated by Mr. Gabor. Mr Neil Boyd is also vehemently anti gun, blameing firearms for the actions of criminals. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:59:59 -0600 (CST) From: BUZ@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: New Short Term Moderator I would like to thank Dave Jordan for stepping up to be the moderator for a while. I have other things keeping me busy right now that preclude my being able to do the moderating for the next while. Again, a big thanks to Dave for stepping up and doing the job for a while. BUZ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:42:54 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: [none] Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ' Can Firearms Digest' Subject: Give Zac a one-way ticket to Syria Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/contentfilter http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by Amtelecom X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/ClamAV http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > > Thousands spent to prep Zaccardelli: TheStar.com - News - Thousands > spent to prep Zaccardelli: CP > Communications firm helped ready top Mountie for Arar hearings > Jim Bronskill; CP; March 11, 2007 > > OTTAWA – The RCMP paid a communications consultant almost $25,000 in > taxpayers' money to help Giuliano Zaccardelli prepare for > parliamentary hearings that ultimately led to the commissioner's > resignation. > > Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show the Mounties hired > Ottawa firm McLoughlin Media at a cost of more than $400 an hour in > advance of Zaccardelli's ill-fated autumn testimony on the Arar > inquiry report. > > After spending more than two years looking into the case, Justice > Dennis O'Connor concluded in a hefty Sept. 18 report that erroneous > information the RCMP passed to the United States – painting Arar as an > Islamic extremist – very likely led to the Ottawa engineer's deportation. > > The Mounties remained silent on the damning report until 10 days later > when Zaccardelli indicated in testimony to the Commons public safety > committee he knew of the mistake shortly after Arar was sent to Syria. > > But in December, Zaccardelli told the same committee he was wrong in > his original explanation – that in fact he didn't know until years > later the national police force had incorrectly labelled Arar a > terrorist. The government accepted the commissioner's resignation the > next day amid questions about his competence. > > The $24,645 contract with McLoughlin Media required the firm to > provide 36 hours of work in the five days ending with Zaccardelli's > first committee appearance on Sept. 28. Another 26 hours were expected > from Oct. 6 to 31, says the agreement, which was obtained under the > Access to Information Act > > Company president Barry McLoughlin worked with Corrigan and his RCMP > team of communication specialists – attending several meetings, > developing briefing materials, helping Zaccardelli prepare his opening > statement, and anticipating questions MPs might ask the commissioner. > [If Zac had any 'honour' he'd pay the taxpayers back. 36 hours of prep work and $25,000 to simply tell the truth? Talk about 'weasel' words]. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:42:54 -0500 From: Lee Jasper Subject: [none] > Thousands spent to prep Zaccardelli: TheStar.com - News - Thousands > spent to prep Zaccardelli: CP > Communications firm helped ready top Mountie for Arar hearings Sender: owner-cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Precedence: normal Reply-To: cdn-firearms@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca > Jim Bronskill; CP; March 11, 2007 > > OTTAWA – The RCMP paid a communications consultant almost $25,000 in > taxpayers' money to help Giuliano Zaccardelli prepare for > parliamentary hearings that ultimately led to the commissioner's > resignation. > > Documents obtained by The Canadian Press show the Mounties hired > Ottawa firm McLoughlin Media at a cost of more than $400 an hour in > advance of Zaccardelli's ill-fated autumn testimony on the Arar > inquiry report. > > After spending more than two years looking into the case, Justice > Dennis O'Connor concluded in a hefty Sept. 18 report that erroneous > information the RCMP passed to the United States – painting Arar as an > Islamic extremist – very likely led to the Ottawa engineer's deportation. > > The Mounties remained silent on the damning report until 10 days later > when Zaccardelli indicated in testimony to the Commons public safety > committee he knew of the mistake shortly after Arar was sent to Syria. > > But in December, Zaccardelli told the same committee he was wrong in > his original explanation – that in fact he didn't know until years > later the national police force had incorrectly labelled Arar a > terrorist. The government accepted the commissioner's resignation the > next day amid questions about his competence. > > The $24,645 contract with McLoughlin Media required the firm to > provide 36 hours of work in the five days ending with Zaccardelli's > first committee appearance on Sept. 28. Another 26 hours were expected > from Oct. 6 to 31, says the agreement, which was obtained under the > Access to Information Act > > Company president Barry McLoughlin worked with Corrigan and his RCMP > team of communication specialists – attending several meetings, > developing briefing materials, helping Zaccardelli prepare his opening > statement, and anticipating questions MPs might ask the commissioner. > [If Zac had any 'honour' he'd pay the taxpayers back. 36 hours of prep work and $25,000 to simply tell the truth? Talk about 'weasel' words]. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:04:06 -0400 From: News@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: [none] PUBLICATION: The Washington Post=20 DATE: 2007.03.11=20 SECTION: Metro=20 PAGE: C01=20 BYLINE: Elissa Silverman and Allison Klein=20 WORD COUNT: 1048=20 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- Plaintiffs Reflect on Gun Ruling; Residents Suing D.C. Explain Motivation - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -------- George Lyon says he wants a gun in his home because it's his constitutional right. Tom Palmer says he used a gun to ward off a beating. And Gillian St. Lawrence says her shotgun is useless because it has to be unloaded and have its trigger locked.=20 They are among the six city residents who successfully challenged the District's long-standing gun law, winning a major ruling Friday in a case that could reach the Supreme Court. The three men and three women share a strong desire to keep guns legally in their homes in what they say is a violent city.=20 "We live in a society where having a handgun at home can be the difference between life and death," Palmer said.=20 D.C. officials contend that easing the gun ban will put citizens at an even higher risk of crime and say they will appeal the decision. An appeal would be likely to delay any change to the law. Officials maintain that the gun law is just as important as when it was enacted 31 years ago. Even with a ban, guns are used in more than 80 percent of the city's homicides, and police are struggling to get them out of the hands of criminals: More than 2,600 were seized last year.=20 Alan Gura, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said the residents who brought the suit are just like many District residents who want to feel safe and secure in their homes. They believe the Second Amendment gives them the right to possess a gun for that purpose.=20 "These are just six average, normal people who come from all walks of life," Gura said. "They just want to have their rights respected by the city."=20 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in their favor Friday with a 2 to 1 vote that found the Second Amendment gives them the right to have handguns in their homes. It was the first major blow to the District's law, which bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976. The court also struck down a provision requiring registered guns, including shotguns, to be disassembled or bound with trigger locks.=20 The case drew formidable lineups on both sides, with the National Rifle Association and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filing court papers. The ruling marked the first time that a federal appeals court has overturned a gun control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a person the right to possess a firearm.=20 Gura declined to say how he assembled the plaintiffs, who came to the case with different backgrounds and motivations.=20 Some of the plaintiffs grew up with guns in and around their homes and belong to the National Rifle Association. A few are involved with libertarian organizations, including the Cato Institute, which provided legal assistance in the lawsuit.=20 Lyon, 52, of Adams Morgan, said he kept a pistol in his home when he lived in Virginia and still owns several firearms, which he keeps outside of the city. He moved to the District in 1984.=20 "Guns are a tool, and they have a use. The use is protection and security," said Lyon, who practices communications law at a firm in Tysons Corner. "The District of Columbia's laws prevent that."=20 Palmer, 50, said that his gun rescued him 25 years ago when he was approached by a group of men in San Jose. Palmer, who is gay, said he believed the men were targeting him because of his sexual orientation. He said he and a friend started to run away, but then he took action.=20 "I turned around and showed them the business side of my gun and told them if they took another step, I'd shoot," he said, adding that that ended the confrontation.=20 Palmer moved to the District in 1975 and lives in the U Street NW corridor, where police have struggled lately to curb assaults and other crimes. He said he considers it a fairly safe neighborhood, although his home was broken into once. He works as director of educational programs for the Cato Institute and travels to war-torn countries including Iraq. He keeps a shotgun and several pistols stored in Colorado and Virginia. Guns have been used in his family for generations. "My mother always had two, and she kept one under her bed," Palmer said.=20 St. Lawrence, 28, said that crime is on the rise in her Georgetown neighborhood and that criminals don't worry about violating the District's gun ban. "We have no way to defend ourselves," she said.=20 A mortgage broker who was raised in a military family, St. Lawrence owns a shotgun, which she bought in Virginia. She said it sat at the store for two years while she went through the city's lengthy permit process. Abiding by District law, she said she keeps it unloaded and bound by a trigger lock in her home.=20 When she learned about the lawsuit through the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group, she said she was happy to join. "We have a Second Amendment; we should be able to rely on it," she said.=20 The court ruling hinged on the Second Amendment, which states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."=20 The District said the amendment applies solely to militias -- a position endorsed in the past by all but one of the nation's federal appeals courts. But the D.C. appeals panel said it covered individual rights of people who own guns for other purposes, such as hunting or self-defense. The Supreme Court has not taken up the issue since 1939.=20 Plaintiff Shelly Parker said in the lawsuit that she wanted a gun to ward off drug dealers in Northeast Washington. Tracey Ambeau also said she wanted a gun for self-defense for her home in Northwest. Neither could be reached for comment.=20 Dick Heller, 65, said he became involved in the firearms debate in 1997 after he read a news story about a burglary in the District in which the homeowner shot the intruder -- and the homeowner was charged with a crime.=20 "That's what made us really livid," said Heller, who lives with his wife in Capitol Hill. "After that, I knew we had to be proactive."=20 Heller's decision to join the lawsuit proved fortuitous for the pro-gun contingent. The appeals court ruled that he was the only plaintiff with legal standing because he attempted to register a handgun in the District and was turned away.=20 When the suit was filed in 2003, Heller worked as a special police officer providing security at a federal court building near Union Station. He said he found it insulting that he could not bring his gun home.=20 ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V10 #317 *********************************** 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 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.