From: owner-can-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #772 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 Thursday, December 25 2003 Volume 06 : Number 772 In this issue: Family held hostage during two Money Mart heists: China boosts property rights Cop's gun goes off; suspect injured COST & EFFECTIVENESS OF BOATING RESTRICTION REGULATIONS? Raffle Re: CFD 10th Anniversary idea 001 "Merry Christmas to All.." Re: [chat] Edmonton Centre One More Time.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:22:24 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: Family held hostage during two Money Mart heists: PUBLICATION: National Post DATE: 2003.12.24 EDITION: National SECTION: News PAGE: A2 BYLINE: Elaine Marshall and Shawne McKeown, with files from GusKim, Global News SOURCE: National Post, with files from Global News and The CanadianPress ILLUSTRATION: Black & White Photo: Glenn Lowson, National Post / ThisMoney Mart on Queen Street East and one on the Danforth were robbed in a double heist. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Family held hostage during two Money Mart heists: Mother and daughter worked at different branches - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Four bandits kidnapped a family and held them hostage during a well-planned raid on two Toronto Money Marts. They held four adults and two children hostage at a family home overnight. In the morning, they took two of the hostages -- a mother and daughter, both Money Mart employees -- to two of the company's branches. The robbers then reportedly waited until Brinks employees came by and dropped off money. Police refused to confirm reports that $50,000 had been stolen. Police said at 10 p.m. on Monday, the bandits, armed with at least one handgun, forced their way into the 32-year-old daughter's home, taking her, her husband and their baby hostage. The three were then forced to drive their own vehicle to her 49-year-old mother's residence. The bandits forced their way into the mother's home, taking her hostage along with one other adult and a child. The six were held hostage over- night in the mother's east Toronto home. The next morning, some of the bandits took the mother and daughter, in their own vehicle, to the two targeted Money Mart locations. The remaining robbers stayed at the home. The daughter worked at the Money Mart at 722 Queen St. E. and the mother at the 2575 Danforth branch. Robberies then occurred at both locations. Police could not confirm which location was hit first, but did say that after the robberies the women were left at one of the locations. When the ordeal was over, the bandits fled in the family's SUV, a 2003 black Ford Escape. Sergeant John McDonald of the holdup squad said police could not release a description of the bandits and said the victims were not injured but were shaken up by the experience. "The investigation's only started and the people are obviously traumatized," Sgt. McDonald said. "Obviously, we'd still like to recover the vehicle, which is very important to us." Money Mart could not be contacted for comment, but issued a news release yesterday afternoon. "At this time, we are most concerned about the safety and well-being of our staff and their families," stated the release issued by Money Mart's head office in Victoria, B.C. Jan Joyce, the mother's next-door neighbour, said she "didn't hear a thing." Ms. Joyce described the family, whom she has known for six years, as kind. "We've been here since '97 and I've never known better people," Ms. Joyce said. "They are very kind and they would never do anything wrong." Nettu Singh, owner of the Broadview Bakery and Delicatessen, located two doors east of the Queen Street East Money Mart, said this robbery has made her uneasy. "I will be scared today," Ms. Singh said. Ms. Singh said she knew the employees of the Money Mart, as she often went there to get change for her store. "They're very nice girls and I feel sorry for them," she said. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:24:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: China boosts property rights PUBLICATION GLOBE AND MAIL DATE: WED DEC.24,2003 PAGE: B6 BYLINE: CHARLES HUTZLER CLASS: Report on Business S EDITION: Metro DATELINE: Beijing C - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- China boosts property rights - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- While highly anticipated amendments to China's constitution boost the legal standing of private property, they fall short of according it equal treatment with state-owned property -- a gap that highlights how controversial private wealth remains for the Communist Party. The package of proposed amendments, which members of the national legislature's top committee began discussing yesterday, promises to give private property the strongest legal footing in more than a half-century of Communist rule. The centrepiece proposal significantly elevates the status of private property, revising the current constitution to say: "Citizens' lawful private property is inviolable." The proposal also commits the state to protecting private wealth and the right of people to inherit it. Though the changes are substantial and offer encouragement to the once politically suspect private sector, the language used in the amendments indicates private property isn't being given parity with state property. The constitution accords state ownership a dominant role in the economy. The amendments don't alter an article declaring public property to be not only inviolable, but also sacred. The differing treatment shows what a lightning-rod issue personal wealth remains in China 25 years after the Communist Party began dismantling the command economy in favour of free markets. Though the private sector accounts for much of the growth and job creation in the rapidly expanding economy, the notion of private wealth strikes a sensitive chord in the once officially egalitarian society, especially among some party members. In drafting the proposed amendments, suggestions by more liberal-minded party officials and scholars to make private property, like public property, "sacred and inviolable" met determined resistance from conservatives. "That word 'sacred' is very important, and we cannot agree that it be applied to private property," said Yang Fan, an economist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Mr. Yang, along with other conservative academics, has written essays criticizing economic overhauls they see as contributing to yawning income disparities and castigating the party for ignoring its traditional base of urban workers and farmers. The conservative criticisms are often echoed by poorer Chinese and allege much personal wealth has been amassed in corrupt dealings between officials and entrepreneurs. "Many people have gotten rich in irregular ways -- abusing power, stealing, cheating," Mr. Yang said. It would thus be wrong, he said, to confer inviolable legal protections on this wealth. This controversy, however, isn't likely to come up in the discussions this week by National People Congress's executive, or standing, committee. The proposed amendments -- introduced to the standing committee Monday and printed in official newspapers yesterday -- are compromises worked out behind the scenes by the party's national and provincial elite during the past two months and thus represent a mainstream consensus. "It's not the best result. But it's the best under the circumstances," a legal adviser to the congress said. Standing-committee members may tinker with some wordings, the adviser said, but aren't expected to substantially alter the measures. The full congress, whose delegates are overwhelmingly party members, is expected to adopt the amendments at its March annual session. Many of the amendments to the 1982 constitution are meant to bolster China's transition to a market economy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:06:56 -0600 (CST) From: paul chicoine Subject: Cop's gun goes off; suspect injured http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=250378B1-7ADF-4F B7-A1BE-C74358F97B62 NEWS STORY Cop's gun goes off; suspect injured Accidental shooting revives safety issue LEVON SEVUNTS The Gazette Wednesday, December 24, 2003 (P99 Quick Action Semi-Automatic) Montreal police are investigating how an officer accidentally fired his gun while arresting a car-theft suspect in the east end early yesterday. The suspect wasn't injured by the gunshot but suffered minor head injuries, apparently when the window of the stolen minivan shattered, said Constable Olivier Lapointe, a Montreal police spokesperson. The police officer sprained his wrist, Lapointe said. The officer was armed with the new semi-automatic 9-millimetre Walther P99 Quick Action pistol. Peter Yeomans, the city's executive committee member responsible for public safety, said he was baffled by the mishap and promised to get to the bottom of it within days. "We'd want to know whether something has to be changed in the manner in which (the gun) is used - what could have caused this particular incident, what happened in the manipulation of the firearm that brought this about," Yeomans said. Police investigators were trying to determine how the officer managed to accidentally fire his weapon, Lapointe said. "What happened (yesterday) is exceptionally rare." The suspect had escaped from a drug rehabilitation centre and was under the influence of drugs at the time of the arrest, Lapointe said. Police hope he eventually will be able to shed some light on what happened, he added. Police nabbed the suspect after a slow chase through the Plateau Mont Royal district that finished in a paper recycling company's yard on Gascon Ave., north of Rachel St. Police refused to discuss the circumstances of the arrest, saying they were part of the investigation. As well, Lapointe refused to divulge the name of the officer or how many years he or she has been on the force. Montreal police started switching to the Walther P99 QA from their old .357-calibre revolvers in April 2002. That was after Quebec's Public Security Department recommended police forces switch to 9-millimetre handguns. Each of Montreal's roughly 4,000 police officers receives two days of training on firing and safe handling of the weapons, and must pass an exam before being allowed to use the new gun, Lapointe said. The force was one of the last in North America to switch from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. The new pistols, which hold 16 rounds, became mandatory in Ontario after the killing in 1993 of a Sudbury police officer, gunned down while reloading his six-round revolver. The pistol was selected after 13 models of handguns were tested. Officers liked the lightweight gun - it's only 800 grams when loaded, compared with 1,600 grams for their old revolver. But while police officers and gun experts have praised the weapon as one of the safest on the market, the Walther P99 has also attracted controversy. The pistol doesn't have a manual safety catch, a standard feature on most firearms that locks the loaded firearm to prevent accidental shooting. That is one of the greatest advantages of the Walther P99 compared with many other semi-automatic handguns, as it is ready to fire as soon as the magazine is inserted, experts say. To compensate for the lack of a safety catch, gun designers made the trigger much harder to pull. At least 8.5 pounds of pressure must be applied to the trigger - more than conventional semi-automatic handguns with a safety catch require, but less than the 12 pounds needed to fire the .357 revolver. The head of a police watchdog group said last year it was "completely irresponsible" of police to change to a gun requiring less pressure to fire. "They have two coroners' inquests that told them that's a problem," Yves Manseau, co-ordinator of Mouvement Action Justice, said in an interview with The Gazette in March 2002. In 1987, police Constable Allan Gosset fatally shot Anthony Griffin, an unarmed teenager, with his Smith & Wesson .38-calibre handgun. Gosset said the shooting occurred when his single-action .38 went off accidentally after being inadvertently cocked. Three years later, the Montreal Urban Community police department spent $1 million to upgrade patrol officers' weapons to the .357. The new sidearms were double-action, so the trigger had to be pulled all the way back to fire. Yet in 1995, Martin Suazo, a shoplifting suspect who was on his knees and about to be handcuffed, was shot to death by an MUC police officer. The officer is said to have ignored a department directive to keep his index finger on the gun's trigger guard rather than the trigger itself. "There's a safety procedure, that you should never have a finger on the trigger unless in you're a very high-risk situation," Manseau said last year. But an added safety measure is the pressure required to pull the trigger, he said. "Twelve pounds is harder to shoot. So there's less chance there will be accidental (firing). It's unacceptable to switch guns to one that requires less pressure than 12 pounds." There were also concerns only two days of training with the new gun were not enough to undo the shooting habits of veteran police officers used to the heavier trigger on the .357. lsevunts@ thegazette.canwest.com - - - - The Montreal Police Department's Revolver: P99 Quick Action Semi-Automatic Trigger data Trigger pull Trigger travel Position 1: Double action, decocked 40 N/4,000 g 14 mm Position 1: Single action, before first 20 N/2,000 g 14 mm shot, manually cocked Position 2: Single action, following 20 N/2,000 g 5 mm first shot, auto cocked Technical data Calibre 9 mm Dimensions Length 180 mm Height 135 mm Width 29 mm Barrel length 102 mm Sight radius 150 mm Magazine capacity 16 rounds SOURCE: www.carl-walther.info ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:09:38 -0600 (CST) From: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" Subject: COST & EFFECTIVENESS OF BOATING RESTRICTION REGULATIONS? GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW THE COST OR EFFECTIVENESS OF BOATING RESTRICTION REGULATIONS? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided the following information in response to an Access to Information Act request submitted by Garry Breitkreuz, MP who was asked for this information by one of his constituents. October 30, 2003 This letter is in response to your request under the Access to Information Act for: With respect to the Boating Restriction Regulations, please provide copies of reports showing: (1) Statistical evidence (i.e. annual boating deaths since 1972) demonstrating the need for these regulations; (2) Total cost to fully implement these regulations; (3) Annual estimates for maintaining and enforcing these regulations for each of the next ten years; (4) Total number of person years committed to implementation and maintenance of these regulations; and (5) Statistical reports demonstrating the improvements made in boating safety as a direct result of implementation of these regulations. The following information was provided by the Office of Boating Safety, Canadian Coast Guard: CCG Headquarters There is little documentation available to answer these questions. I have provided the best info available below: With respect to the Boating Restriction Regulations, please provide copies of reports showing: QUESTION (1) Statistical evidence (i.e. annual boating deaths since 1972) demonstrating the need for these regulations; RESPONSE: The Canadian Coast Guard does not keep such statistical evidence. It relies on information gathered by the Canadian Red Cross. Annual incident reports are available at the following site: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=3D000360&tid=3D001 QUESTION (2) Total cost to fully implement these regulations; RESPONSE: The only cost to the Canadian Coast Guard is approximately one full time person at headquarters and the equivalent of one other person year distributed across the country plus costs of publishing amendments in the Canada Gazette Part I and Part II every year. That cost varies substantially depending on the number of amendments in a particular year. Each page published in the Canada Gazette costs approximately $250 so total costs can range from $2000 to $1000, depending on the year. QUESTION (3) Annual estimates for maintaining and enforcing these regulations for each of the next ten years; RESPONSE: There is no cost to the Canadian Coast Guard for enforcing. Enforcement is carried out by police forces and other persons appointed by the Minister. Persons appointed by the Minister can include municipal inspectors, park wardens, etc. In the Pacific region, DFO fishery officers have recently been appointed to enforce these regulations. However, this is done on an opportunity basis during the course of their normal duties and costs to enforce the Boating Restrictions Regulations are not tracked. QUESTION (4) Total number of person years committed to implementation and maintenance of these regulations; and RESPONSE: Approximately 2 person years within the Canadian Coast Guard as indicated in (2) above. Mr. Dave Luck of our Legislative and Regulatory Affairs may be able to provide information on the costs of his time and those of others up the line involved in the regulatory process in relation to the Boating Restriction Regulations. QUESTION (5) Statistical reports demonstrating the improvements made in boating safety as a direct result of implementation of these regulations. RESPONSE: There are no such statistical reports. While the number of deaths has been on the decrease over the past years, overall improvements in boating safety are likely attributable to various initiatives such as restrictions, boater education, operator competency requirements as well as new requirements in other regulations such as the careless operation provisions of the Small Vessel Regulations. Yours sincerely. Gary Lacy, Director, Access to Information and Privacy Department of Fisheries and Oceans 200 Kent Street Ottawa, Canada K1A 0E6 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMEMBER HOW THE AUDITOR GENERAL CRITICIZED THE CANADIAN FIREARMS PROGRAM FOR NOT CALCULATING ALL THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS AND ALL THE "MAJOR ADDITIONAL COSTS". http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html 10.29 Further, in its Regulatory Impact Analysis Statements the Department of Justice did not provide Parliament with an estimate of all the major additional costs that would be incurred. This disclosure was required by the government's regulatory policy. The costs incurred by the provincial and territorial agencies in enforcing the legislation were not reported. In addition, costs that were incurred by firearms owners, firearms clubs, manufacturers, sellers, and importers and exporters of firearms, in their efforts to comply with the legislation were not reported. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:10:20 -0600 (CST) From: "mac mcbride" Subject: Raffle The tenth anniversary raffle idea sounds good to me. Put me down for five tickets. No need to spend any of the incoming money until after the draw date. Make a list of three or four firearms, then let the winner choose the prize. Best include a water pistol in the prize list. Who knows, the winner may have no more room in the gun safe. Mac ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 17:12:28 -0600 (CST) From: Alfred Hovdestad Subject: Re: CFD 10th Anniversary idea 001 Count me in! I'll take 5 tickets. Alfred On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, paul chicoine wrote: > CFD 10th Anniversary idea 001. > > How about a 10th Anniversary raffle? > > Ticket price to be reasonable, say $10. The profits, less the cost of a > fine bottle of Chivas to moderators past and present, to go as a > donation to the free net which has hosted the digest for so long. > __________ > Paul Chicoine > Non Assumsit Contract : All Rights Reserved : Without Prejudice ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:10:00 -0600 (CST) From: tcbfalls@canada.com Subject: "Merry Christmas to All.." I am on duty as of 10 a.m., so Liza, William and I will wish you a Merry Christmas now, "..and to All a Good Night!" Tom Falls ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:12:02 -0600 (CST) From: Gordon Hitchen Subject: Re: [chat] Edmonton Centre By all means get this form dowmloaded and sent contributions to Laurie Hawn asap. for a 2003 tax deduction. Those of us within commuting distance of the riding must also offer our selves as volunteers to do whatever we are capable of. If our party is to win anything it must be Annie's seat! Please show your early support for this now! Gordon At 11:28 PM 12/24/2003 -0800, you wrote: > Yup, it's OK by me. The more folks we can get informed the better our > chances of success. mike > >> It belongs to mike of course Bruce but I wouldn't hesitate to post it far >> and wide. >> >>> Permission to copy this info to other forums? Newsgroups, bulletin >>> boards, mailing lists? >>> >>>Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:13:36 -0600 (CST) From: Bob Subject: One More Time.... 40 Reasons for gun control 1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns. 2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. 3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." 4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991. 5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid. 6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals. 7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you. 8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet. 9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125). 10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery. 11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise. 12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. 13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia. 14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state. 15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution. 16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them. 17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons. 18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings. 19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity. 20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy. 21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20. 22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears." 23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed. 24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows. 25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves. 26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon." 27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. 28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights. 29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands. 30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution. 31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit. 32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition. 33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too. 34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain. 35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection. 36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun. 37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not. 38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good. 39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon. 40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands. Triad Productions-Fantalla(tm)~EZine~Para-Novel WWW>>> http://triad.virtualave.net/index.htm offnet>>> http://triad.virtualave.net/contact.html ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V6 #772 ********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: mailto:moderator@hitchen.org 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.