Cdn-Firearms Digest Saturday, June 5 2010 Volume 13 : Number 893 In this issue: nothing more intimate than a cold handshake CPC continue to assail gun registry, as liberals promise change Truths About the Oil Spill *NFR* Re: Re:Urgent Alert-C-391 Police arrest flight attendant after gun found in her purse Re: BCWF to seek audit of spending of fish and hunting fees Just.M: Forcing bilingualism on Supreme Court would be damaging Which news service does Wendy use?? WPG FREE PRESS: A suggestion for the chiefs: "get on the ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 15:55:18 -0400 From: Bill Subject: nothing more intimate than a cold handshake "enigma1" Wrote: "But what might one expect from a man who thinks it proper that a father greet his very young son with nothing more intimate than a cold handshake." Come-on!!!! He did that, because his son did not want to be hugged and kissed on National television, embarrassing him in front of all his friends, nor would you at that age! What Harper did, was show respect for his Son's feelings. Unfortunately, he didn't know that 'some' would sadly and politically, twist that into falsely showing him as cold and unfeeling.. Bill.. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:58:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Bruce Mills Subject: CPC continue to assail gun registry, as liberals promise change http://www.enfieldweeklypress.com/stories.asp?id=3D3567 Conservative continue to assail gun registry, as liberals promise change EAST HANTS/MUSQUOIDOBOIT VALLEY: Conservative MP Scott Armstrong presented an anti-long gun registry petition in the House of Commons last week, drawing new attention to a private member=E2=80=99s bill that aims to dismantle what the Liberals are referring to as gun control. The petition had 3,000 signatures and came after Armstrong mailed it out to 250 addresses in Nova Scotia. Armstrong, who came to office in a 2009 Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley by-election, has been vocal about abolishing the long gun registry. "The vast majority of those signatures come from our riding," said Armstrong. "It was such a pivotal issue in the by-election campaign." A few weeks ago, Armstrong wrapped up a speaking tour of Maritime Conservative associations. During the tour, he laid out his vision for a rural surge of Conservatism, one powerful enough to carry Prime Minister Stephen Harper's party into majority government. A key part of that strategy, he said, is speaking out on the long gun registry, as are jobs and law and order. Armstrong's political neighbour, Liberal Kings-Hants MP Scott Brison, has waded into war of rhetoric, providing The Weekly Press with letters of support addressed to him by Christopher McNeil, president of the Nova Scotia Chiefs of Police Association. "The national firearms registry is extremely useful to police," the letter reads. Brison has also curried the support of the Truro and New Glasgow police forces. The RCMP in Enfield also supports the registry and spoke out against Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's private member's bill when it passed first reading last November. The Liberal Party accuses the Conservatives of suppressing police support for the registry. "If the Conservatives talk about law and order, how can you talk about law and order and not respect that?" Brison said. Brison said the Liberals have taken steps to reduce the reviled entanglement of red tape associated with the gun registry. The party is promising to eliminate fees, reduce criminality and streamline forms. The Conservatives, meanwhile, maintain that the registry is a financial burden, and that it wrongly targets farmers and hunters. Hoeppner's bill will soon get third reading. Ignatieff, who had allowed Liberals to vote their conscious for the previous two readings, may enforce party discipline in the hopes of squashing the bill. "Hopefully some of the opposition members will support it," Armstrong said. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:01:50 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Truths About the Oil Spill *NFR* http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37306 Truths About the Oil Spill by Martha Zoller 06/04/2010 There are some truths about the Gulf oil spill that must be considered when addressing this calamity. While there is no doubt the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill is a major disaster, it should not mean the end of off-shore drilling. And the slowness of the government response is a disaster of epic proportions. First, where to drill. President Obama says we are drilling so far out to sea because the close-in resources have been tapped. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are drilling so far out because of the short sightedness of politicians, including Republicans like Florida Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. These Republicans caved to bad information about drilling off their states' coasts. They wanted to be liked by environmentalists. With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats and environmentalists to derail our energy independence? We are drilling in deep water, where it's extremely risky, because in the safer places to drill, such as ANWR, closer to shore along the coast and much of the vast expanses of federal lands in the West, the federal government has placed restrictions preventing energy development. The BP/Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill isn't a reflection of not enough regulation. We have 300 pages of regulation. It is a reflection of unenforced regulation. The people put in charge of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service were academics appointed by the Obama Administration with little to no experience in the real world. And where is President Obama, other than his "Clinton walking the beach picking up a rock" moment last weekend. He seems unconcerned with the whole thing. Mr. Cool doesn't have the answers. And if anyone believes one of the first daughters asked Daddy, "Did you plug the hole, yet?" as he shaved, I've got some barrier islands in Louisiana I could sell you. This oil spill should not be a condemnation of "Drill Here, Drill Now." This disaster supports "Drill Here, Drill Now." It is safer to drill off shore in shallow waters and on land in the U.S. than to buy oil from foreign sources and have it shipped to us. I talked to a very high ranking congressman and he said, "How do we advocate 'Drill Here, Drill Now' now?" It's easy, be armed with the facts. Stand up and don't let the emotion lead the debate. Meanwhile, the federal response to the spill has been nothing short of abysmal. In the five states impacted immediately (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida), we've seen executives at work. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has shown he is a can-do executive while the feds are doing little but getting in the way. Jindal talks of "useless meetings" lacking action. The Obama Administration seems to be hung up on having the "best minds" looking at this but they can't give Gov. Jindal an answer on the best option: dredging sand and making a barrier to keep the oil away from the coast. He asked for that weeks ago and has gotten only limited approval. Limited approval? This is not a limited disaster. It shouldn't take the Army Corps of Engineers weeks to approve the sand berms, they should have gotten the equipment to the coast right away. We can't change what's happened but we can act now. Work with Jindal in the lead; don't have more meetings with the likes of the Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. There will be a time for "useless meetings," as Gov. Jindal said. Now is the time for action. But before White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel gets us all riding bicycles to work, let's look at the real truth about this spill. Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist, author of Climate Confusion and research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, took a historical look at the oil spills in the world. Spencer is the "official climatologist of The Rush Limbaugh Program," but most importantly, his research at UAB Huntsville is not funded by corporations. Spencer took into consideration what BP says they were pumping daily from the well, which was 15,000 barrels a day and the actual numbers on the historical spills. The largest oil spill, deliberately set in 1991 by Iraqi forces, was an estimated 500 million gallons. The second largest spill occurs every year in leakage from tankers and ships, estimated at 250 million gallons a year. The third largest was the only other spill from a rig-in Mexico in 1979 (IXTOC)-at less than 150 million gallons. Exxon Valdez was way down the list at less than 50 million gallons. BP/Deepwater Horizon is also less than 50 million gallons but still gushing. We are a long way from the worst spill in history and it's clear that most spills occur from shipping oil, not drilling it. Granted, if we don't get that thing tapped, it could be worse, but we are not there yet. It's been said, "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Let's use it to our advantage for a change. Lets use this to educate about the facts of drilling. I know with the 24/7 "spillcam" going all the time, "Drill Here, Drill Now" advocates think they can't talk about drilling, but this is the perfect moment. Spread the facts and don't stop telling them. Drilling for oil in America is safe. Let's fix this and then move close to shore and on land and "Drill Here, Drill Now." Ms. Zoller is a political analyst and conservative talk show host for WXKT FM 103.7 in Gainesville, Georgia and syndicated on The Georgia News Network. She is one of the Talkers Magazine "Heavy Hundred" Talk Shows in America. She can be seen regularly on cable news. She is the author of "Indivisible: Uniting Values for a Divided America." You may contact her through www.marthazoller.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 02:38:20 -0300 From: Al Muir Subject: Re: Re:Urgent Alert-C-391 So it is YOUR contention that instead of our situation improving after C-391 it will get worse. Given your viewpoint is opposite to what most gunowner groups (and members of this forum) pretend will happen next are you therefore not as "divisive"? When you make up your mind on the direction we are going in let us know please. I have retained the same position as ALL the other gun owners did at the Fed Ups. They have created the divisions by stumbling backwards when push came to shove. You suggest that to not 'exacerbate and expedite that end" that is is better to die a death of a thousand cuts rather than stand up and face that end. Crawling got us here, I respectfully suggest that to die standing up is preferable. Al > Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 00:53:19 -0400 > From: "enigma1" > Subject: Re: Re:Urgent Alert - C-391 > > To: Al and any like-minded firearm owner. > > The future of firearm ownership in Canada is bleak. I have predicted that > over the next decade or so, various governments will undoubtedly fall prey > to the urges of political expediency in order to garner urban votes by > visiting more and more draconian limitations on lawful firearm ownership. > > That said, it is also my profound opinion that individuals such as > yourself, by your contributions to the divisiveness within the firearm > community will only serve to exacerbate and expedite that end. > > United we stand......divided we fall. When will we ever learn? > > > - ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Al Muir" > To: > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:32 PM > Subject: Re:Urgent Alert - C-391 > >>> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:43:23 -0400 >>> From: "Larry Whitmore" >>> Subject: Urgent Alert - C-391 >>> >>> June 2, 2010 >>> >>> URGENT COMMUNICATION TO ALL CSSA MEMBERS >>> >>> Your action needed immediately! >>> >>> Dear Member, >>> >>> Liberal M.P. Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering) has presented a motion to >>> return Private Members' Bill C-391 to the House of Commons with a >>> recommendation to reject the legislation that would scrap the long-gun >>> registry. >>> >> >> Ok. I will write the NDP members you provided asking them to reject C- >> 391. >> >> Al ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:00:37 -0600 From: Joe Gingrich Subject: Police arrest flight attendant after gun found in her purse http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/04/police-arrest-flight-attendant-gun-purse-indiana-international-airport/ Police arrest flight attendant after gun found in her purse at Indiana International Airport Published June 04, 2010 Associated Press INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - An airport official says a flight attendant who was carrying a handgun in her purse has been arrested at Indianapolis International Airport. Airport spokesman Corey Wilson says the gun was discovered as the woman passed through a security checkpoint about 6 a.m. Friday. The Delta flight to Atlanta on which she was due to be a crew member took off without her. Wilson says the woman is being held on preliminary misdemeanor charges of carrying a handgun without a permit and entering a controlled area with a weapon. Marion County Jail spokesman Julio Fernandez identified the woman as 39-year-old Amber Robillard and said she was being held pending a court appearance. It wasn't clear whether she had an attorney. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - An airport official says a flight attendant who was carrying a handgun in her purse has been arrested at Indianapolis International Airport. Airport spokesman Corey Wilson says the gun was discovered as the woman passed through a security checkpoint about 6 a.m. Friday. The Delta flight to Atlanta on which she was due to be a crew member took off without her. Wilson says the woman is being held on preliminary misdemeanor charges of carrying a handgun without a permit and entering a controlled area with a weapon. He did not name the woman. Wilson says the evidence will be turned over to prosecutors who will determine whether to file formal charges. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 09:03:08 -0400 From: "mred" Subject: Re: BCWF to seek audit of spending of fish and hunting fees - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" To: "OUTDOORS CAUCUS ASSOCIATION" Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 7:49 AM Subject: BCWF to seek audit of spending of fish and hunting fees > GLOBE AND MAIL - MAY 31, 2010 > Erosion of environmental monitoring leads Wildlife Federation to seek > audit of spending > > Group concerned 'money is going into general revenues and not into fish > and wildlife management' Its the same all across Canada. In Michigan I know for one, all license revenues are dedicated BY LAW to conservation , not so here ;all license fees, users fees, etc go into a general fund to be distributed as the government in power sees fit. ed/on ------------------------------ Date: Sat, June 5, 2010 8:56 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: Just.M: Forcing bilingualism on Supreme Court would be damaging CALGARY HERALD - JUNE 5, 2010 Forcing bilingualism on Supreme Court would be damaging BY ALISON REDFORD, Q.C., ALBERTA JUSTICE MINISTER http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Forcing+bilingualism+Supreme+Court+would+damaging/3115657/story.html A bill currently before Canada's Senate represents a serious risk to the interests of western Canadians, to the proper function of the Supreme Court, and to the integrity of the justice system. Recently I wrote the federal minister of Justice about Bill C 232, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. Introduced as a private member's bill by an NDP Member of Parliament from New Brunswick, C 232 would require all Supreme Court justices in Canada to be bilingual. I wrote the federal minister in the hope that there is still time to revisit the bill's wisdom before it leaves the Senate and is proclaimed into law. As a country with two official languages, French and English, it makes sense that Canada's central institutions be able to function in both languages. This is a policy that Alberta respects. However, Bill C 232 introduces a new concept of bilingualism in Canada and our courts. Historically, bilingualism has meant that Canadians have the right, in designated areas, to receive services from federal institutions in either English or French. But there's a world of difference to move from requiring institutions to provide services in both languages, to requiring that all members of the institution be fluently bilingual. I appreciate the symbolic importance of the Supreme Court. Having fluently bilingual justices on the court is an important reflection of Canada's linguistic reality and is an objective that Alberta supports. But in addition to being an important symbolic institution, the Supreme Court is first and foremost the highest appeal court in the country. That means the overriding considerations in the selection of judges should be legal competence and individual merit. Legal competence, not proficiency in both languages should be the determining factor. Barring unilingual Canadians from becoming Supreme Court Justices is wrong. Our particular concern in Western Canada is the risk that establishing an inflexible linguistic requirement will for all practical purposes prevent the vast majority of the current legal bar in the west from being considered for selection to serve on the Supreme Court. In that respect, it's worth noting that while the requirement of three Justices drawn from the Quebec bar is a statutory requirement, the geographic allocation of the rest of the court -- two seats for Western Canada, three for Ontario and one for Atlantic Canada -- is a constitutional convention. By excluding from consideration for the Supreme Court most of the best legal minds in Western Canada, pursuing this kind of linguistic perfection poses the serious risk of entrenching a permanent geographic imbalance on the Court. Alberta is currently examining whether C 232's linguistic requirements would actually even be constitutional. Under the Constitution of Canada, changes to the composition of the Supreme Court require the approval of both Parliament and the provinces. In the end, perhaps the most serious risk C 232 poses is to the confidence Canadians can place in their justice system. Part of the Supreme Court's legitimacy comes from its ability to be representative of all regions of the country. Anything that threatens its representative nature threatens the trust Canadians can place in their Supreme Court, and their justice system. Canadians need to know their court reflects their interests, concerns, and their diversity. C 232 threatens that fundamental premise. Changes as profound as those Bill C 232 proposes should only be done with the support of a genuine consensus of Canadians. I think it's clear that such a consensus doesn't exist today. I'll be writing separately to the federal opposition party leaders to express Alberta's position regarding this legislation. I encourage all Albertans to write or contact their Member of Parliament and Senators to express their concern over this serious risk to Canada's justice system. Alison Redford, Q.C., is Alberta's Minister of Justice and Attorney General. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 11:04:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Rob Sciuk Subject: Which news service does Wendy use?? Anyone know which news service that Wendy issues her "statistics" on? Is it a paid service?? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, June 5, 2010 9:41 am From: "Dennis & Hazel Young" Subject: WPG FREE PRESS: A suggestion for the chiefs: "get on the ... ... right side of the barricades." Winnipeg Free Press - June 6, 2010 Uphold the laws, chiefs, except maybe for one http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/uphold-the-laws-chiefs-except-maybe-for-one-95678029.html AN elderly man living with his wife noticed two burglars trying to break into his garage. He phoned 911 to report it and was told to lock his doors and stay inside because there were no police cars available. Two minutes later, he phoned 911 again and told the operator not to worry, that he had shot the two intruders. Within minutes, the street was full of police cruisers and his yard was crawling with cops. The police captured the burglars -- they had not been shot -- and berated the man for making such a false report. "Well," he replied, "at least it helped you find some available cruisers." This is probably an urban myth but it shows how our relationship with the police is uniquely complicated. We depend on them but we are not always sure that we can count on them. But Canadians are lucky. Look around the world at all the various trouble spots, the major conflicts and the little tinpot tyrannies with their horrible little civil wars and try to find one, outside of Israel, perhaps, in which, if you were to be arrested, you would not prefer to be held by the army rather the police. Just think of Afghanistan, if you want an example close to home, and you just know, screamingly well, that you'd rather be in the custody of the Canadian army rather than in an Afghan prison. Ramparts magazine, that old left-wing harpy magazine from my youth, once ran an article suggesting why this might be so. The police, it said, are the least revolutionary of all institutions in any state. They rarely switch sides during a revolution, but will continue to serve in a new government when the revolution is successful. This can be looked upon as a good thing -- the police should be servants of the law, not the minions of the government -- although Ramparts did not think it was good. Its point was that the police are inherently totalitarian. In a place like Canada, that's patent nonsense, but it might help explain how Canada's police chiefs can continue to support the long-gun registry even though they must know that it does no good. Yes, it is the law, but it is a law that only serves to supply busy-work for the police and most working police officers appear to realize that. So here's a suggestion for the chiefs -- for once in your administrative careers, be revolutionaries. Tell Parliament you would rather have a few more good cops than a pointlessly expensive long-gun registry. For once, get on the right side of the barricades. - ---------------------------------------- Winnipeg Free Press - June 5, 2010 Ten reasons gun registry must go by Robert D. Sopuck http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/other/ten-reasons-gun-registry-must- go-95678199.html Bill C-391 is designed to eliminate the ineffective and expensive long gun registry. And of the many witnesses supporting Bill C-391, few are as credible as Gary Mauser, a Professor Emeritus in criminology from Simon Fraser University who recently made a presentation before the House of Commons Public Safety Committee. Mauser's presentation had one simple goal: to "show how claims made by the opponents of Bill C-391 are blatantly false or misleading" as outlined below. Mauser's entire presentation and supporting data, is on the website of the National Firearms Association, www.nfa.ca Claim No. 1: Access to a gun increases the risk of murder. False: Canadian gun owners are less likely than other Canadians to commit homicide. Claim No. 2: Rifles and shotguns are the weapons most likely to be used in domestic homicides. False: The problem is the murder of family members, not the means of killing. Rifles and shotguns are not the weapons most likely to be used in domestic homicides. Knives are. Claim No. 3: Spousal murders with guns have fallen threefold since the law passed, while spousal murders without guns have remained the same. False: Spousal murders have slowly been declining since the mid-1970s. There is no empirical support for the claim that the long-gun registry has reduced spousal murders. The long-gun registry was not begun until 2001. Claim No. 4: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun violence. False: The rate of homicides committed with a firearm generally declined from the mid-1970s to 2002. This steady, long-term decline has been driven by economic and demographic changes. However, the use of firearms in homicide has increased since 2002. Claim No. 5: Firearms stolen from legal owners are a significant source of crime guns. Registration is essential to prevent dangerous individuals from getting guns. False: All studies of crime guns agree that stolen registered firearms are infrequently involved. It is the criminal record check, which is part of licensing, and certainly not registration, that stops criminals from getting guns legally. Bill C-391 will not change the current provisions for obtaining a firearms licence. Registration simply refers to the firearm, not the owner. Claim No. 6: Firearms pose more problems in smaller cities where there are more gun owners. False: Homicide is a particularly acute problem in large cities where ironically there are fewer legal gun owners. Claim No. 7: The registry is an essential tool for police when taking preventative action and when enforcing prohibition orders to remove firearms from dangerous individuals. False: The long-gun registry does not contain information on a gun's location. The registry only contains descriptive information about the registered guns. In approaching dangerous situations, the police must assume there is a weapon. Claim No. 8: The gun registry is consulted by police 10,000 times a day and provides important information. False: Almost all of the "inquiries" are routinely generated by traffic stops or firearm sales and are not specifically requested, nor do police often find them useful. Almost all of these inquiries involve licensing, not the long-gun registry. Claim No. 9: Polls show Canadians believe the gun registry should not be dismantled. False: Two recent polls show that the public does not support the long-gun registry. This is consistent with at least 11 earlier polls, all of which have clearly demonstrated that the Canadian public has no faith in the long-gun registry or its ability to increase public safety. Claim No. 10: Stronger gun laws have helped reduce gun-related death, injury, violence and suicide. False. No properly designed study has been able to show that gun laws have been responsible for reducing criminal violence rates or suicide rates in any country in the world. In sum, the test of any governmental program should be whether it meets its goals. In this case, the long-gun registry has failed. sopuckrd@xplornet.com - --------------------------------------------- NATIONAL POST - JUNE 4, 2010 NDP controls gun registry's fate Adam McDowell, National Post, with files from the Winnipeg Free Press and Canwest News Service http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/controls+registry+fate/3115269/story .html The Conservatives will call upon the help of a dozen NDP MPs to reform the federal gun registry, as the House of Commons prepares to vote next week on a bill that would wipe hunting firearms from the database. Opposition members of the public safety committee, including the lone NDP member, Vancouver's Don Davies, voted on Thursday to suspend ongoing hearings on Bill C-391. The private member's bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner and supported by the entire Tory caucus, would alter existing legislation so that Canadians with gun licences would no longer have to register their hunting rifles and other non-restricted firearms with the RCMP-administered Canadian Firearms Centre. Handguns and other restricted firearms would continue to be registered. If the NDP MPs who previously supported the bill don't change their vote, it will likely become law. Yesterday, Liberal public safety critic Mark Holland called on NDP leader Jack Layton to persuade his caucus to vote to keep the registry in place. "It's all about whether Jack Layton can get the support we need to save this registry," Mr. Holland said. "I think he's in huge trouble if he doesn't." The Bloc Quebecois is expected to vote en masse against the bill. The Liberals were allowed to vote with their conscience at the bill's second reading last fall, and eight Liberals voted in favour of it. Since then, Liberal MPs have been ordered by leader Michael Ignatieff to vote against C-391. That leaves the NDP to cast the deciding votes. Twelve of the party's 36 MPs voted in favour of Ms. Hoeppner's bill on second reading. Combined with the Conservative vote, that gave the bill a lifeline and pushed it through the committee stage. The NDP has never outright required MPs to vote along party lines on a private member's bill, and that policy will stand. "Our position hasn't changed. We don't whip with private member's bills," said NDP spokesman Rick Boychuk yesterday. New Democrat MP Joe Comartin acknowledged there is intense negotiating behind the scenes and said some New Democrats who supported Ms. Hoeppner last November are considering switching sides, because they are coming around to the position that the registry saves lives. However, they are conflicted because some promised their constituents they would vote to eliminate the database, Mr. Comartin said. Ms. Hoeppner agrees the NDP is the key to her bill's survival. "The only way it won't be killed is if I get some NDP support," she said on Thursday. Ms. Hoeppner acknowledged she launched the bill as a private member as a tactical measure: It has a better chance of passing because of free votes allowed on private member's bills. The Liberals contend C-391 is a government bill masquerading as a private member's bill, because Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to eliminate the gun registry. Mr. Comartin said only a couple of New Democrats have shut the door on changing their votes, "because they sincerely believe the gun registry is useless." Manitoba New Democrat Jim Maloway said yesterday he has opposed the registry through five elections as a provincial or federal candidate. "I haven't changed my mind on this issue for 15 years, so I don't think 15 days is going to do much one way or the other," said Mr. Maloway, the only NDP opponent available for comment yesterday. amcdowell@nationalpost.com ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V13 #893 *********************************** 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".)