Cdn-Firearms-Digest Back Issue Vol. 01, No. 937
Skeeter Abell-Smith
= = To send me (ab133) e-mail you must replace "nospam" with "sfn". = =
Please note that back-issues from the cdn-firearms-digest mailing list are
not posted until at least _three_ months old. The date below is when the
digest was originally sent out to subscribers.
Digest back-issues are available from the Cdn-Firearms web/FTP site
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Digests/
after they are roughly _one_ month old.
To receive digests when originally issued, subscribe to the digest and
alert lists by leaving the "Subject:" line blank and e-mailing the
following 4 lines of text to "majo...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca":
subscribe cdn-firearms-digest
subscribe cdn-firearms-alert
subscribe cdn-firearms-chat
end
(You should be able to just reply to this message and cut all text but
the above 4 lines.)
========================================================================
Cdn-Firearms Digest Friday, August 8 1997 Volume 01 : Number 937
In this issue:
Re: Short Home Defence Shotguns
re:Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" (Part 1 of 2)
re:Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" (Part 2 of 2)
re:The Firearms Act versus the justice system
"Hot" Military Loads
Re: UWO Gun Club
re:Charter of Rights violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 20:31:12 -0600
From: "Marcel" <a065...@colba.net>
Subject: Re: Short Home Defence Shotguns
The rugged Model 1201 FP RIOT from Beretta
12 Gauge,18" Barrel,6.3 lbs., inertia operated,3" chamber and more...
A lot of a shotgun for the money.
Marcl
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:30:17 -0600
From: "Barry Glasgow" <gla...@nortel.ca>
Subject: re:Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" (Part 1 of 2)
In message "Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections"", you write:
>
>Dear Mr. Glasgow:
>
>The goal of the inspections under the Firearms Act is not in
>fact to search for Criminal Code offences, but rather for
>regulatory purposes. These provisions form part of the
>Firearms Act and not the Criminal Code.
My misuse of the correct terminolgy does not detract from
the fact that the inspections are an attempt to discover
offenses that will result criminal convictions.
I again ask you to direct me to any other legislation or regulation
that allows for warrantless searches when no crime is reasonably
suspected. This cannot be done under the Tax Act nor, I suspect,
in whatever Act pertains to narcotics.
The closest analogy that comes to mind are Revenue Canada audits
that are used to determine if the Tax Act is being obeyed but even
these are typically triggered by questionable tax filing practices.
These also do not involve dwelling searches and people have the
option of complying outside the privacy of their home.
>
>I am not certain of your source for stating that "We have seen
>cases already where unnamed "informants" have justified raids
>on gun owners". Perhaps you could provide me with some of
>those cases so that I may make some comment.
The OPP in Orangeville, Ont. mistakenly raided the home of
Richard Motyka in February of last year. They were acting on
a tip that a murder suspect was hiding there.
The couple was dragged from their bed at gunpoint, bound and
forced to lie on the floor while police searched their home.
Motyka's 70-year-old father was cuffed and thrown to the floor.
Rather than apologize for unnecessarily terorizing the family,
the OPP threatened to charge Motyka with unsafe storage of
a rifle they found as well as a small amount of marijuana
found in their daughter's belongings if they pursued the matter.
I didn't know murder suspects can hide in dresser drawers.
A similar incident happened in Surrey, BC a month earlier
and several such occurances have been reported in Ontario
around that time. Although some did not specifically target
gun owners all were based on misinformation given by informants
and, in each case, innocent people were terrorized and unecessarily
exposed to potentially lethal conditions.
I have attached a report on the most odious of these cases that
specifically targetted a gun owner and where the full potential
for police abuse becomes apparent.
One cannot help but expect that the new powers afforded by C-68
will escalate these occurances.
>
>I certainly agree with you that legal gun ownership is not , in
>and of itself, a precursor to criminal activity. However, the
>goal of gun control is to limit access to firearms and to make
>their acquisition more difficult for those who wish to use them
>for criminal purposes.
I'm not sure what you mean by "limit access to firearms".
We see this quite frequently in Justice Department propaganda
but, at the same time, they boast how these controls will pose
no inconvenience for gun owners.
I don't see how registration or periodic inspections limit
my access to firearms and I sure as hell know that it does
nothing to limit criminal access to firearms (as our 60 year
registration of handguns has proven).
>The Firearms Act has built in
>provisions to assist in preventing skimming from shipments
>arriving to the country so as to limit access to illegally
>obtained firearms.
We are well aware of the government's inability to control
its border. I am curious how you think that anything in
the Firearms Act resolves that sorry state of affairs.
>In addition, a public safety check is to be
>performed on every person obtaining a licence to either acquire
>or possess firearms. This will be renewed every five years.
>The goal there is to insure that access to firearms is not
>granted to persons who for whatever reason pose a danger to
>themselves or others.
The assumption here being that such a person
- - will not commit an act of violence in between checks
- - would be unable to aquire an illegal gun
- - would not choose some alternative form of violence
I'm not arguing against licensing as there is some worth to it.
I'm questioning the government's position that it is of significant
value in preventing murder and suicide - especially considering
the enormous costs involved. I don't expect you to agree with me
on that point since these policies have created employment for
you and all the other lawyers at the CFC.
Regards,
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ont.
(Continued in Part 2 of 2)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:30:17 -0600
From: "Barry Glasgow" <gla...@nortel.ca>
Subject: re:Gun collections vis-a-vis "inspections" (Part 2 of 2)
From: Dave Tomlinson, NFA-- This material is NOT authenticated. As you
will see below, cases like this can become difficult to authenticate.
If it is true, it is appalling--and it deserves investigation to find
out if it IS true. Please pass it to your MP, and demand answers.
On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, Dave Tomlinson received:
>You may recall this case which I related to you by fax this past week.
>I will pass on to you, what I have been told by Mr. *******, as best I
>remember. Please do not refer to me in any of your comments or contacts
>with the authorities.
>
>1) Last Sunday at 4AM the Vidal family home experienced a raid by the
>OPP TRU Team (SWAT) as well as regular officers.
>
>The front door to the dwelling was broken in and armed (guns drawn)
>police officers swarmed into the house and went at once to the upper
>floor which is the location of the bedrooms.
>
>The police ordered everybody from the beds. "Hands raised and face the
>wall" were the orders of the day. The police refused permission to let
>the people dress themselves, refused to have the lights on, but rather
>continued to issue stern orders to the terrified occupants of the
>bedroom, which included a four year old child who had a weapon pointed
>at him because of his sudden movement in the darkened room.
>
>2) The police searched the house and found 20 firearms, safely
>stored. Although the warrant covered ONLY the house they ransacked the
>out-buildings and garage.
>
>3) At one stage of the search Mr Vidal informed the police that the
>part of the house which they wanted to enter was in fact rented to his
>daughter-in-law they ignored him and kicked in the door, then pulled
>more terrified people from their beds.
>
>4) By the end of the raid the police informed Mr Vidal that they were
>acting on a tip from an informant who stated that Mr Vidal had stolen
>weapons in his collection.
If that is correct, it is appalling. The police apparently thought they
were dealing wiith a firearms collector--and behaved as though any
firearms collector is a murderer. -- Dave Tomlinson
>5) When the police left they had seized 19 of the firearms found,
>leaving an antique flintlock behind, they also seized Mr Vidal's cell
>phone saying that it was reported stolen in Winnipeg (How do you put a
>stolen phone on the air ??)
>
>6) The following day Mr Vidal's lawyer was advised that the guns were
>in fact quite o.k. and they would give them back except that Mr Vidal's
>FAC had lapsed and they could not return them to him, even though other
>members of the household have valid FACs...
>
>7) A couple of days later the police informed Mr Vidal's lawyer that he
>could tell his client to come to detachment and collect his cell
>phone. When he arrived he was held for more than 1-1/2 hours as they
>tried to question him.
>
>8) Early in the week. I suggested to Mr. Vidal that he contact Dave
>Tomlinson at the NFA, and a friend of mine, Mr. Charlie Greenwell, a
>reporter with the CTV station (CJOH) in Ottawa. He did so, and agreed
>to an interview with Mr. Greenwell the next day.
>From Dave Tomlinson:
Mr. Vidal did get in touch with me. I provided him with chapter and
verse from the Criminal Code. The police were wrong to refuse to return
his firearms; no FAC is necessary when firearms are being RETURNED TO
THEIR LAWFUL OWNER by the police.
He described how his firearms were stored to me. The storage methods
used, as described, were absolutely correct and as required by the
storage regulations. I faxed a copy of the storage regulations to his
lawyer. His firearms are all unrestricted rifles and shotguns.
>9) On Thursday Mr Vidal was on his way home with another person in his
>car. Suddenly two police cars cut him off on the lonely country road.
>Four officers immediately charged at his car, guns at the ready. They
>demanded to search his car. He questioned their authority to do so.
>"We can do it the easy way or the hard way" came the reply, so he
>agreed to the search.
>
>10) Once the search was completed (nothing found) one of the officers
>told Mr Vidal to get in the cruiser. He refused, another officer
>grabbed his arm and "escorted" him to the car. The officer immediately
>related to Mr Vidal how P...-off he was, "You think youre pretty smart
>contacting the NFA and Charlie Greenwell, they have been calling the
>detachment, we will get you for this" came the warning.
>
>11) When Mr Vidal later called the detachment to complain about the
>treatment he was simply told that everything was correctly done-- he
>had agreed to the search. He was also told by the Sergeant that if he
>wanted his guns back quickly all he had to do is help them catch a
>local fellow who is "known" to be dealing in stolen guns...
If that is true, it is a new low. Illegally refusing to return property
unless the owner agrees to become an unpaid employee of the police is
illegal, and dangerous for the person being coerced. -- Dave Tomlinson
>12) This man has now canceled his interview with the TV station, won't
>talk to any media people. Simply put he is completely terrified of
>what these people may do to him or his family.
Do we want to live in that kind of a police state? -- Dave Tomlinson
>13) Mr Vidal works out of his home because his wife is on a permanent
>disability pension.
>
>14) The detachment of the OPP in question is in Winchester Ontario.
>This very same detachment has recently been involved in several serious
>matters which are either before the courts or have been thrown out of
>court.
>
>Once again, I am ONLY relating what I was told and cannot vouch for the
>truth of any of the above, however Mr *********** was convinced...
(Reason deleted by Dave Tomlinson because it could lead to further
abuses: It identifies two individuals and describes how they got the
above information. I do NOT have permission to identify them, and they
also are afraid. It was convincing enough to presuade me to publish
this.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:30:24 -0600
From: "Barry Glasgow" <gla...@nortel.ca>
Subject: re:The Firearms Act versus the justice system
In message "The Firearms Act versus the justice system",
'Canadian...@justice.x400.gc.ca' writes:
>
>Dear Mr. Glasgow:
>
>Thank you for your comments with respect to my response to you.
>
>As my role here is an informational one, I am not prepared to
>argue with you how policy on firearms is driven,
I realize the potential for conflict with your department's policies
but the CFC must realize that one cannot argue the merits or flaws
in these regulations while ignoring the motivating factors behind them.
If you were to provide the same service for Revenue Canada and they
enacted legislation that was generally viewed by taxpayers as flawed,
excessive and pointless, you would be hard-pressed to provide
information without getting into discussions on policy.
The problem we have here is that the Justice Department enacted
all this stuff with little or no consultation with the affected
people and then dismissed or ignored criticisms out of hand.
You are, unfortunately, providing the only appearance of consultation
your department has given to gun owners since this started.
>nor can I make
>any comment with respect to the decisions made by particular
>police officers. I would however, be interested in knowing the
>source for your comments with respect to your contention that
>firearm offences almost never result in convictions. I am also
>uncertain of your basis for saying that most judges do not
>favour mandatory minimums.
As has been pointed out, judges and prosecuters do not like
having their hands tied by mandatory sentences.
>
>I would certainly be interested in your sources if they are
>available in order to further my own knowledge on firearms
>issues.
Mr. Tomlinson has pointed you to WD1994-20e that reports on the
lack of application of this area of the criminal code.
Having had a lengthy phone conversation with Chris Ram who
attempted to convince me of the error of my anti-C68 thinking,
I have come to realize that the current Justice Department
administration is not at all interested in studies and documents
that cast doubt on their policies.
Accepting a 1991 phone survey estimate of 6 million privately
owned firearms while hiding the 1976 estimate of 18 million
from the same department and a 1992 estimate of 21 million
from the United Nations is an example that comes to mind.
Another DoJ report that your superiors would rather not advertise
has been attached to this e-mail.
By William C. Bartlett, it is titled
ARGUMENTS AGAINST FURTHER GUN CONTROL MEASURES AT THIS TIME.
[snip. Moderator: This 35 page document can be found on the Canadian
Firearms home page at:
http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/
(Look under "Information ... about Canadian Government")
It is a very worthwhile piece of work, but longer than two or three
Canadian Firearms Digests put together, so I had to snip it. HTB]
>
>I thank you again.
>
No problem.
Regards,
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ont.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:37:57 -0600
From: sanf...@cadvision.com (Ralph Sanford)
Subject: "Hot" Military Loads
>From: Hugh Jenkins <hjen...@bconnex.net>
>Subject: RE: Rifles
>Canadian military 9mm X 125gr ball is very hot indeed. I believe out of
>a BHP it will achieve close to 1400fps
>At 09:17 PM 8/6/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Marauder (D. Kratky) [mara...@headwaters.com] sez:
>>>
>>>> I've fired military/civy 9MM, .30-06, .308, and 8mm... Always seemed to
>>>> me the guns cycled alot harder/faster with the military ammo. (Is
>>>> military 9MM not +P+ to cycle sub guns reliably as well??)
>>>
>>>
>>>Back in my militia days, when we in the 28 MP Platoon in Ottawa
>>>used C1 SMG's, there was only one type of box of 9mm ammo.
>>>We used it in both our Hi-Powers and the C1 SMG's.
>>>
>>>Some people have suggested that there is "hot" carbine 9mm ammo,
>>>however the only thing I ever saw in the CAF Reserves was the single
>>>plain cardboard box which contained 64 rounds of 9mm hardball.
>>>
>>>Fred
It is unlikely that any modern armed forces would have two different
loadings for the 9mm round. Primarily from a logistics point of view.
But also because there are not generally not enough 9mm firearms issued
and used to justify the aggravation of two separate loadings. My point
being that the SMG is expected to be used as a fighting weapon and fires a
large quantity of ammo; the pistol is issued as a backup/defensive weapon
would seldom be used. So the logistics people could optimize the 9mm ammo
for the SMG and expect a slightly shorter life span from the pistols.
BTW my experience is that a commercial Hi-Power will last 10,000 - 20,000
rounds when firing 9mm NATO equivalent ball (one IPSC season), S&W alloy
frames last about 8,000 - 10,000 rounds.
Does the Canadian Army use 2 different loadings for the 9mm? Not in my
experience. Whenever I requested 9mm ammo my choices were 9mm ball,
period. Whether the practice was SMG or pistol the ammo was the same.
How hot is NATO 9 mm ball? Having chronographed various (1950's - 1980's)
loads of NATO 9mm out of a 5 inch barrel the velocities varied from
1239-1287 fps, the projectile weights varied from 114-115 gr. (not the 124
gr that is widely reported). For comparison commercial 115 gr. Winchester
1237-1256, American Eagle 1189-1216 and UMC 1126-1163 fps.
Out of a 10 inch barrel (SMG) the NATO ball was 1347-1369 fps. The
Winchester 1322, American Eagle 1247 and UMC 1219 fps.
I think the above shows that NATO/military loads are somewhat faster than
commercial loads but probably not excessively. Of course my samples just
measured velocities not pressures so whether the military loads were
"hotter" from a pressure point of view is still not answered.
Military Rifle Calibers though can be argued to be "hot loads" at the time
of issue. Around the turn of the century when smokeless powders and
firearms were being developed each new loading was hotter than the
previous as firearms and powder manufacturing techniques improved. Each
new cartridge/firearm that was adopted was essentially state of the art,
at that time. By the mid 1950's the smaller 7.62 mm (308) was adopted to
replace the larger 30-06 round as powder developments allowed the 7.62 mm
round to have the same ballistics as the older round. At that time the
7.62 was a "hot" round.
Forty years later the NATO spec 7.62 round is not particularly hot
compared to commercially available ammo. NATO ball ammo (146-147 gr
projectile) through an FN measured velocities of 2660-2733 fps (European
and Canadian ammo). Commercial ammo (150 gr FMJ) Winchester 2704-2826,
American Eagle 2759-2835 and UMC 2775 fps. As you can see the modern
commercial ammo shoots a slightly heavier bullet at a slightly higher
velocity than military ball.
A discussion of whether ammo is "hot or "+P" would need to first define
what is hot and whose specifications are normal. For example, commercial
9mm would meet SAAMI specs while military 9mm would meet NATO specs.
These specifications are different. If you are involved with the military
then the firearms and ammo would all meet NATO spec and that spec would be
the norm. If however you were to fire NATO 9mm out of a WWI era Mauser
then the NATO 9mm would be a "hot" load. Fire the same NATO 9mm out of a
modern SIG or Glock and the ammo would be perfectly acceptable.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Sanford - If your government does not trust you,
sanf...@cadvision.com - should you trust your government?
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:38:03 -0600
From: grif...@comnet.ca
Subject: Re: UWO Gun Club
** Reply to note from John Fowler <jfo...@magmacom.com> Thu, 7 Aug 1997
19:08:53 -0600
>
> I wrote, as requested here, to protest the closing of the gun club. The
> answer claimed the closing was because of cut-backs and budget reductions,
> and all clubs were suffering.
>
> I suggested the club might well succeed on a cost-recovery plan. What
think?
>
>
I think it might make for some good fun if a club in London could be
persuaded to donate some range time. I can't see what else they'd need. If
it didn't save the club at least we'd get to watch some wild backpedalling.
Gerald Griffith
" The easiest thing in the world to
achieve is the effective disapproval of
any sort of uncritically vested authority. "
< Alexander King >
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 06:38:00 -0600
From: "Barry Glasgow" <gla...@nortel.ca>
Subject: re:Charter of Rights violations
In message "Charter of Rights violations", you write:
>
>Dear Mr. Glasgow:
>
>Thank you for your latest comments forwarded to me for reply.
>
>These inevitably bring me back to the topic of inspections and
>a point worthy of clarification. First of all, people's homes
>cannot be subject to invasive wholesale inspection. Inspectors
>will only be permitted in those areas where firearms or records
>are kept.
That boils down to one room where I keep my guns, another where
my books and computer are kept and yet another where my ammunition,
reloading equipment and records are kept.
I am quite sure that the warrant they get when I refuse to submit
to their "casual" search will cover anything and everything.
I won't bother explaining why I would refuse to allow a stranger
to come poking around the rooms in my house to see if I've run
afoul of the government's convoluted and twisted regulations.
>
>I am concerned as well with your portrait of firearms laws as
>"draconian, convoluted, and wasteful feel-good regulations".
>Although you may not agree with some aspects of the Firearms
>Act or the regulations, I would not characterize safe storage
>laws as draconian.
Excuse me, but I view jail time for forgetting to install a trigger
lock on a rifle as draconian. This makes about as much sense
as jailing someone for not locking the gate to their pool.
As an adult without children in the house, I find it insulting that
my personal safety practices are dictated (under threat of jail)
by government.
There are many other things in the house that are more dangerous
than firearms and we don't create all sorts of regulations
regarding their storage and operation. That's where common sense
usually comes in.
The only people who support such measures are typically those
who are not familiar with firearms or are deathly afraid of them.
A fellow shooter told me of a woman who revealed after visiting
his place that if she had known that there were guns in the house,
she would not have gone inside. There are such people responsible
for our current set of firearms regulations.
>Let's remember that children have recently been killed
>as a result of firearms unsafely stored by their parents.
Please do not insult me with tactics I would normally expect
from Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control.
One can pass off almost any stupid legislation so long as
it is "for the sake of the children".
We've pretty well seen enough weeping mothers paraded around
by the Coalition and Allan Rock.
Resorting to emotion as opposed to fact is a sure sign
that ones's point is lacking substance.
Let's have a look at the facts here;
(from Causes of Death 1994, Statistics Canada)
Accidental poisoning : 868
Drowning/suffocation/choking : 729
Surgical/medical misadventures: 212
Fatal Gun Accidents : 38
Now, I don't have Canadian data that will tell us what percentage
of children are involved but I would expect that it's higher in
the poisoning category than in the gun category since gun accidents
usually involve drunk hunters and poisoning frequently involve
toddlers getting into the kitchen cupboard.
The one bit of data on children that I have is American;
(1988, children under 5 - consider the higher level of handgun onwership)
drowned in pool: 381
drowned in tub : 375
poisoning: 55
electrocution: 21
while driving !: 9
with handgun : 5
If parents in BC allow such a child to die in a pool, drink Drano or
climb out an open window, you can be guaranteed that we will not
hear about it here in Ottawa. When a child is killed by a gun, you
can rest assured that it will make the CTV National News.
Same goes for regulations. When the couple on the Quebec side had
their second child die in their pool, no one was screaming for them
to be jailed and I have yet to hear anything of stricter pool
regulations or periodic inspection of privately owned pools.
The reason for this disparity is quite simple - it has become
fashionable to vilify gun ownership and to over-represent the
negative impact guns have in society.
That is why draconian restrictions and regulations on their use
is so darn acceptable to most Canadians.
"Just don't meddle with our pools, ATV's and household chemicals, eh ?"
Regards,
Barry Glasgow
Woodlawn, Ont.
------------------------------
End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #937
**********************************
List Submissions: cdn-firea...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Mailing List Commands: majo...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
List owner's e-mail address: ab...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Moderator's e-mail address: *(varies from time to time)*
Web Site: http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/homepage.html
FTP Site: ftp://teapot.usask.ca/pub/cdn-firearms/
Digest Back-issues: visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above),
use FTP (ftp teapot.usask.ca and cd pub/cdn-firearms), or
send the following command to majo...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca:
get cdn-firearms-digest v02.n006
end
(Where 02 is the volume and 006 is the issue number.)
Only subscribers can get back issues from Majordomo.
To subscribe, leave the Subject: line blank and e-mail the
next 4 lines to majo...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca:
subscribe cdn-firearms-digest
subscribe cdn-firearms-alert
subscribe cdn-firearms-chat
end
(To unsubscribe, use "unsubscribe" instead of "subscribe".)
These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made
possible by the efforts of countless volunteers.
If you find this service valuable, please consider a
donation to the Saskatoon Free-Net Association
Box 339 RPO University
Saskatoon SK S7N 4J8
modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701
Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/
and/or the National Firearms Association
Headquarters Membership and publication
Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C
Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2
ph.: (403) 439-1394 ph.: (403) 640-1110
fax: (403) 439-4091 fax: (403) 640-1144
e-mail: nfa...@telusplanet.net Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/
Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by
sending postdated cheques, or your Visa/Mastercard number and
expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the
amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount.
Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time.
N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $20;
individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are eleven
issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, and Canadian
Outdoor Publications magazines like Hunting and Shooting.
Add just $4.75 per person for $2,000,000 insurance!
Clubs: get associate memberships for just $2 per member
($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for
$2,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each!
Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest.
You can find the above issue and hundreds of other digests at:
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Digests/
Digest back-issues are available from the Cdn-Firearms web/FTP site
after they are roughly one month old. The above digest was about
three months old at the time of posting.
--
= = = To send me e-mail you must replace "nospam" with "sfn". = = =
The above opinions may differ from those of others. Take no offense.
Check out the Canadian Firearms Home Page:
http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/homepage.html