Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, November 13 2009 Volume 13 : Number 550 In this issue: Ottawa Citizen Column: Denying the obvious by John Robson Column: Gun registry didn't make Canada a safer place to live by. Editorial: It's time to shelve the long-gun registry Montreal Gazette - Letter - Bill kills registry, not gun controls Fw: Rule Britannia Fw: Ralph Peters about Ft -Hood---A must read ONTARIO: Urban growth key reason for hunting hardships ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, November 13, 2009 10:24 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Ottawa Citizen Column: Denying the obvious by John Robson OTTAWA CITIZEN - NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Denying the obvious BY JOHN ROBSON http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/Denying+obvious/2217723/story.html As soon as Major Nidal Hasan finished shooting down American soldiers while shouting "Allahu akbar!", we were warned not to jump to conclusions -- by people who promptly jumped to a series of silly and irresponsible ones. First, many journalists leapt for the "mad vet" stereotype, portraying Maj. Hasan as just one more sad character who snapped under the intolerable strain of military life. The underlying, and insulting, assumption seemed to be that if you were not necessarily insane to want to be a soldier, you probably would be by the time you'd done it. I pity those who suffer some version of what a less euphemistic age called "shell shock." But to suggest that violent mental illness is more common among those who have worn a uniform is untrue, which surely makes it an unsuitable tool of analysis for sophisticated observers. A second, related snap conclusion was that even if Maj. Hasan gave a deeply convincing impression of a jihadi, it would be hasty and intolerant to read anything of significance into it. On Remembrance Day The Globe and Mail said, "Whether Major Hasan was motivated by extremist Islamic calls to jihad or broke under the stress of attempting to reconcile his faith with orders to go to war in a Muslim country remains unknown." OK, I'll bite. How do we tell when a guy slaughtering infidels yelling "Allahu akbar!" is a real jihadi and when he just broke under stress? I doubt the bien-pensant would call all jihadis deranged; it might seem culturally insensitive. Do only domestic cases automatically qualify, to forestall any discussion of fifth columns? Let's at least ask. We cannot avoid these hard questions by euphemistic references to "Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim opposed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ..." as though he had a policy disagreement that got out of hand. This is a man who publicly recommended kuffars be beheaded, then have boiling oil poured down their throats (an impulse to desecrate corpses that is, I might add, profoundly morally disturbed and surprisingly widespread among Taliban types). Nor can it all be swept under the rug by blaming our bigotry. The deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council quickly complained that "anytime anyone with an Arabic name is linked to a crime, people immediately draw the conclusion that it was based on his faith." But it wasn't his name, it was the boiling oil/"Allahu akbar" business and his online radicalism. To immediately suggest otherwise was as insulting to Americans as it was incompatible with the facts. Many jumped to another conclusion that, while superficially sensitive, was profoundly hostile and troubling. Under the simpering headline "Was killer a victim?", for instance, Saturday's Globe called Maj. Hasan a "man under intense stress and torn by irreconcilable loyalties." But let us not swallow that "irreconcilable" untasted. It may be poison. The real cause for concern here is not Maj. Hasan's claim to put his loyalty to God ahead of his loyalty to his country. Any sincere Christian or Jew must also, surely, put the Supreme Being ahead of the elected one. But Judaism and especially Christianity assign to government subordinate but legitimate secular duties that confer dignity on the state, and command the allegiance of believers within limits. Islam does not. Islam, not just Islamism, firmly rejects the separation of church and state and therefore the whole concept of "nations." It aspires to unite the whole "ummah" or community of all believers under one government that will impose Godliness in every detail of life from dress to foreign policy to architecture. But if the result is "irreconcilable loyalties" for Muslims in non-Islamic states it has ominous implications. We need to discuss this proposition, not endorse or reject it unthinkingly. We need to know what they're saying about it in North American mosques. And we cannot evade it by jumping to the conclusion that the whole episode was psychological. Ideas matter, and Maj. Hasan held wicked ones. Who else does? On Sunday, U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said: "What happened at Fort Hood is a tragedy. It would be a greater tragedy if diversity became a casualty." But this massacre was not a "tragedy." It was mass murder and treason. And diversity ceases to be a virtue well before the bit where boiling oil goes down the bleeding stump of my infidel neck. The day after the shooting, President Barack Obama said "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." OK. But as the facts come in, let's make sure our conclusions fit them. "Different strokes for different folks" clearly does not qualify given what we've already learned. Anyone who jumps to it and hangs on regardless is a dangerous idiot. John Robson's column appears weekly. http://www.thejohnrobson.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, November 13, 2009 10:27 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Column: Gun registry didn't make Canada a safer place to live by. KINGSTON WHIG STANDARD - NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Gun registry didn't make Canada a safer place to live By PETER WORTHINGTON http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2173954 Now that MPs have voted 164-137 to repeal the registry of long guns and shotguns, several realities stand out in the whole emotional question of gun registry. For starters, gun registration has cut down on neither crime nor gun violence -- and forget the support given the program by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Try asking individual cops, and you get a different, non-political answer. The idea that police rely on the registry in the detection of crime, makes no sense. When you get down to it, no one has an accurate idea of how many guns there are in Canada, or who owns them. Officially, three million Canadians own seven million guns. (The Toronto Star's editorial board thinks two million are gun owners). Two or three million gun owners in a population of 33 million? Who is kidding whom? In the mid-1970s, when gun registration was barely hinted at and Canada's population was under 25 million, it was estimated that seven million Canadians owned 21 million firearms. How come such a discrepancy, when our population has grown by 25% from those days? The answer is that there are literally millions of unregistered hunting rifles and shotguns out there that Canadians haven't registered and aren't declaring -- and aren't using to commit crimes. If you accept this -- and how can you not, if you check the record -- gun registry is little but an expensive, unnecessary, largely useless waste of time? Bureaucratic boondoggle aptly describes the program. The Toronto Star editorially supports gun registration, arguing that the Conservatives "have no valid reason to kill off Canada's rifle and shotgun registry . . . ." On the contrary, there is no valid reason to keep it -- especially when most Canadians are probably ignoring the law. Besides, as a Private Members Bill -- C-139, courtesy of Tory MP Candice Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar) -- it became easier for party leaders to okay a free vote. Something of a mercy killing of gun registry. Repealing the registry has no effect on hand gun registration and control, which has been in effect since 1934. Hand guns are still the weapon of choice for crime and murder. The repeal applies only to shotguns and rifles -- bolt action or semi-automatic. It does not apply to assault weapons, machine guns, grenades and fully automatic rifles -- all unnecessary and for the most part illegal. We are not the U. S., where 50% of the population own an estimated 270 million firearms -- 90 guns for every 100 people. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, November 13, 2009 10:34 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Editorial: It's time to shelve the long-gun registry NEWSDURHAMREGION.COM - NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Editorial: It's time to shelve the long-gun registry Law has proved too costly and hasn't been effective http://newsdurhamregion.com/opinion/editorials/article/139924 Coming as it does close to the 20th anniversary of the infamous Montreal Massacre, the private member's bill to kill the long-gun registry is sure to cause controversy and consternation. But does it make good sense? Long a thorn in the side for Conservative politicians who have decried it as a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and an example of big government's invasion into the lives of law-abiding citizens, they now have a chance to overturn the legislation. And with victories in last Monday's byelections to go with sympathetic rural NDPers and Liberals, there should easily be 155 votes in the House of Commons when the bill hits third reading to make it official. The Senate, provided it doesn't want to cause a complete crisis, will then give its assent to the bill. Borne out of the Dec. 6, 1989 shotgun slaying of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, the long gun registry was finally passed by the Liberal government in 1995. But there were problems with implementation, with the computer system used to license gun owners and with accounting for spending on the program. What was originally supposed to cost $2 million spiralled out of control and eventually hit taxpayers to the tune of over $1 billion, according to the auditor general. The high cost and intrusiveness of the legislation has become a sore point with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his MPs, especially those serving in rural ridings. Since mandatory gun registration took effect on Jan. 1, 2003, the number of homicide victims nationwide has ranged from a low of 161 in 2003 to a high of 222 in 2005. In 2008, the number of those killed by firearm in this country was 200, up from 188 in 2007, down from 190 in 2006. The numbers show little significant difference either way. Critics of gun-control registration argue the criminals who commit homicide don't bother to register their guns and have no intention of ever using them legally. They further argue the only answer for such individuals is heavy punishment through strict enforcement of existing laws, tougher sentencing, more police on the streets and beefed up enforcement. And, they say, without wasting money on a long-gun registry which hasn't reduced the number of homicides in Canada, they'll be able to pay for all the measures they want to take. It seems the critics have a point. The registry is too costly and it hasn't been able to put a significant dent in illegal gun crime. At the same time, it has made legitimate, law-abiding gun owners feel as though they have to jump through hoops for the privilege of owning a firearm. It's time to scrap a law that isn't doing the job and focus on legislation that targets the criminals who harm the innocents among us. - -- Metroland Durham Region Media Group - ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL POST - NOVEMBER 12, 2009 Chris Selley: A very inconvenient poll on the long gun registry http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/12/chris-selley-a-very-inconvenient-poll-on-the-long-gun-registry.aspx Well, so much for the "scrapping the long gun registry is an appalling slap in the face of Canadian public opinion" narrative. A Canadian Press/Harris Decima poll released today finds 46% of Canadians believe abolishing the long gun registry is a good idea, while 41% think it's a bad idea. Sub-populations amongst which more people would prefer to scrap the registry than keep it include NDP voters, Green Party voters, Ontarians, and women. Ouch! The populists-of-convenience who embraced/twisted the hell out of that three-year-old Ipsos poll showing two-thirds of us would prefer to have some kind of gun registration process have a convenient fallback, of course: They may just say Conservative misinformation has warped Canadians' fragile little minds all out of kilter on the matter. Popular opinion only matters when it's been warped in the right direction, in other words. More likely, I suspect, is that they'll just act like this poll doesn't exist. I own no guns. I've never fired a gun, and have no particular desire to. Honestly, I have no horse in this race. I'm interested only in logical public policy. So I'll ask again: Can anyone out there point to a single case that's been cracked, or crime prevented, thanks to the current long gun registry, and that couldn't have been cracked/prevented just as easily by consulting a registry of people carrying gun licences? National Post cselley@nationalpost.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:00:20 -0800 (PST) From: Bruce Mills Subject: Montreal Gazette - Letter - Bill kills registry, not gun controls http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/letters/Bill+kills+registry+controls/2217423/story.html Bill kills registry, not gun controls The Gazette November 13, 2009 4:07 AM Re: Trust the police" (Letters, Nov. 10). Heidi Rathjen, a founding member of the Coalition for Gun Control, seems surprisingly confused about two facts. First, Bill C-391 is not going to repeal Canada's gun-control laws in their entirety, only the long-gun registry. The licensing system, including mandatory safety training, written exams, safe handling tests, background checks, spousal notification, and daily criminal checks once a licence is issued, remain in place. Only the ineffective and wasteful long registry will be repealed. Second, she claims that gun deaths have been declining since 1991; they have actually been falling since the mid-1970s, so the decline can't be attributed to the Firearms Act. Finally, one can only assume that Rathjen is referring to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police's recent endorsement of the registry. This becomes rather suspect in light of the fact that the CACPs ethics adviser resigned this spring over a series of large donations from corporate entities, including one from CGI, a major registry contractor. Rod Elliott Green Valley =A9 Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette =0A=0A=0A ____________________________________________________________= ______=0ABe smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk em= ail the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and sw= itch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:33:21 -0800 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Fw: Rule Britannia Subject: "Land of Hope and Glory .... Mother of the Free ...." Here is the end result of stupid, politically correct gun laws, written for emotional and political reasons, rather than being based on common sense and reality. Good old "gun free" Britain. As Charles Dickens once wrote: The law is an ass. Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun Surrey Mirror November 12, 2009 http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty". Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday - after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year. The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five years imprisonment for handing in the weapon. In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested. "I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets." The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden. In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges. "I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him. "At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall." Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells. Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours. He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms". Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?" To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so." Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge - therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant. Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added. But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun. He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle. "You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park. "Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?" Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11. Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge. "The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:37:30 -0800 From: "Todd Birch" Subject: Fw: Ralph Peters about Ft -Hood---A must read Subject: FW: Ralph Peters about Ft -Hood---A must read Fort Hood's 9/11 Islamist terror strikes US again Last Updated: 2:50 PM, November 6, 2009 Posted: 1:36 PM, November 6, 2009 Ralph Peters On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam. What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting. This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period. When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit - well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist." But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld. And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America-haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism." And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops - despite their crocodile tears. Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan planned this terrorist attack and executed it in cold blood. The resulting massacre was the first tragedy. The second was that he wasn't killed on the spot. Hasan survived. Now the rest of us will have to foot his massive medical bills. Activist lawyers will get involved, claiming "harassment" drove him temporarily insane. There'll be no end of trial delays. At best, taxpayer dollars will fund his prison lifestyle for decades to come, since our politically correct Army leadership wouldn't dare pursue or carry out the death penalty. Maj. Hasan will be a hero to Islamist terrorists abroad and their sympathizers here. While US Muslim organizations decry his acts publicly, Hasan will be praised privately. And he'll have the last laugh. But Hasan isn't the sole guilty party. The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood. Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command, either at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or at Ft. Hood, had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor. Had Hasan been a Lutheran or a Methodist, he would've been gone with the simoon. But officers fear charges of discrimination when faced with misconduct among protected minorities. Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don't roll in this maggot's chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption. There's another important issue, too. How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on? For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty. The chain of command protected a budding terrorist who was waving one red flag after another. Because it was safer for careers than doing something about him. Get ready for the apologias. We've already heard from the terrorist's family that "he's a good American." In their world, maybe he is. But when do we, the American public, knock off the PC nonsense? A disgruntled Muslim soldier murdered his officers way back in 2003, in Kuwait, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Recently? An American mullah shoots it out with the feds in Detroit. A Muslim fanatic attacks an Arkansas recruiting station. A Muslim media owner, after playing the peace card, beheads his wife. A Muslim father runs over his daughter because she's becoming too Westernized. Muslim terrorist wannabes are busted again and again. And we're assured that "Islam's a religion of peace." I guarantee you that the Obama administration's non-response to the Ft. Hood attack will mock the memory of our dead. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, November 13, 2009 11:40 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: ONTARIO: Urban growth key reason for hunting hardships YORKREGION.COM - NOVEMBER 13, 2009 Urban growth key reason for hunting hardships Tough to find hunting spots by Michael Hayakawa http://www.yorkregion.com/article/99402 What's the toughest thing about hunting in York Region? "I always tell hunters down here the hardest part about hunting in southern Ontario ... is hunting for a place to go hunting," outdoor enthusiast and writer Wil Wegman said. "In York Region, almost everything is private. ... Unless you know someone with huntable land who will allow you to hunt ... you're out of luck." Public hunting opportunities are limited, Ron Allen, Ministry of Natural Resources acting York-Durham supervisor from the Aurora District office, said. The main factor is urban growth, he said. No doubt, the urbanization of York Region has resulted in a loss of hunting opportunities. New homes and people are moving into what were once rural areas and there's been an increase in infrastructure such as Hwys. 404 and 407, he said. With growth, many municipalities banned shooting for safety reasons. As a hunter for 38 years, Rob Hare, 53, feels such bylaws should be enforced. The Keswick resident is president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the oldest and largest non-profit, non-government fish and wildlife conservation organization in Canada, representing more than 100,000 members, subscribers and supporters. There are even archery-only hunting zones in Hare's hometown on Lake Simcoe. What he doesn't like are bylaws that are enacted as knee-jerk reactions. "Many of the municipal bureaucrats who write these bylaws are not hunters and do not understand hunting and the rules and regulations that govern it," he said. "I'm very thankful of the farmers who allow me to hunt on their land. At the end of every season, I give the farmer a gift certificate for a dinner out." Transplants from urban centres present another issue; erecting no-hunting signs on their rural spreads. "A number of these baby boomers have not been exposed to hunting, but bring with them the big-city stigmatism that someone who possesses a gun is dangerous," Mr. Hare said. "Quite frankly, it scares the hell out of them and they don't want anyone with a gun on their property. Many do not understand rules and regulations that govern hunters and gun owners. Many don't understand guns or ballistics." During last year's controlled deer hunt, Hare experienced it first-hand on a farm in Georgina. "I had written permission from the land owner to be there and was hunting at least 1,000 metres from the closest structure," he said. "A resident from an adjacent farm complained to the landowner about my hunting. They were concerned I would shoot their horses. If the concerned resident had been aware of the rules and regulations that govern hunting and safe gun handling, their concerns would have been addressed." Owners who ban hunting can see their properties become safe havens for wildlife, which can then feed on area crops and livestock. "(You) only have to check with (your) local municipality to see the number of claims by legitimate farmers for compensation for losses to wildlife is increasing dramatically," Mr. Hare said. Data from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs revealed, through the first 10 months of the 2009-10 fiscal year in York Region, the number of livestock injured or killed by animal predation, including wolves and coyotes was 212. Under the wolf/coyote predation program, total payments issued to livestock poultry owners was $21,517. That figure is up from 2008-09 when 130 livestock were injured or killed and farmers were paid $16,773. Wildlife damage in Ontario annually costs farmers about $41 million a, a Guelph researcher said. In some circumstances though, Hare says hunters must shoulder the blame for creating the current dilemma they face. "Like all parts of society, there are, unfortunately, some (bad) hunters and their actions reflect poorly on all hunters. I wish we could find a way to weed those individuals out," Mr. Hare said. While public hunting areas in York Region are scarce, some opportunities do exist. The ministry points to the Holland Marsh provincial wildlife areas as well as some sections of the York Regional Forest in Georgina. "It's proof the forests can be multiused with all users working co-operatively for the good of the forest," Mr. Hare said. For those wishing to check on hunting opportunities in other York Regional Forest tracts, call the region at 905-895-1231 or log on to: http://www.york.ca/Departments/Transportation+and+Works/Forestry/forest_ Hunters should also contact the local municipal office to check on firearm discharge bylaws. The ministry has instituted regulations to sustain hunting, including a fall turkey hunt in 2008. As well, deer archery hunters in an area of East Gwillimbury and Georgina (Unit 78B) can purchase two additional tags for bucks or does. For the controlled deer gun hunt in the same area, hunters can participate in two controlled hunts, one during the first week of November and the other during the first week of December. Hunters aren't dangerous, Mr Hare said. Many are active in conservation-related projects. Be Prepared . Take caution when entering the woods during hunting season. . The Ministry of Natural Resources says by law, all licenced hunters, including archery hunters, hunting during gun season for deer, must wear solid hunter orange clothing above the waist and on the head. . They recommend hikers and birdwaters wear orange, too, and be careful at dawn or dusk, when colours such as red and green appear brown. . As well, avoid wearing white, especially white mittens or hats as they can resemble a deer's tail through the trees. . If going in the woods with a pet, such as a dog, ensure the animal wears a bright coloured blanket or sweater. . Horseback riders should avoid known hunting areas, especially at dawn or dusk. . As well, they should don a hunter orange vest or jacket and bright coloured helmet cover. . A bright rump sheet should also be placed on your horse. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #550 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator's email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)