Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Are You On A Watch List?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 08 March 2005 - 03:22 PM

March 8, 2005
Terror Suspects Buying Firearms, U.S. Report Finds
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, March 7 - Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation "could better manage" its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

At least 44 times from February 2004 to June, people whom the F.B.I. regards as known or suspected members of terrorist groups sought permission to buy or carry a gun, the investigation found.

In all but nine cases, the F.B.I. or state authorities who handled the requests allowed the applications to proceed because a check of the would-be buyer found no automatic disqualification like being a felon, an illegal immigrant or someone deemed "mentally defective," the report found.

In the four months after the formal study ended, the authorities received an additional 14 gun applications from terror suspects, and all but 2 of those were cleared to proceed, the investigation found. In all, officials approved 47 of 58 gun applications from terror suspects over a nine-month period last year, it found.

The gun buyers came up as positive matches on a classified internal F.B.I. watch list that includes thousands of terrorist suspects, many of whom are being monitored, trailed or sought for questioning as part of terrorism investigations into Islamic-based, militia-style and other groups, official said. G.A.O. investigators were not given access to the identities of the gun buyers because of those investigations.

The report is to be released on Tuesday, and an advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who requested the study, plans to introduce legislation to address the problem in part by requiring federal officials to keep records of gun purchases by terror suspects for a minimum of 10 years. Such records must now be destroyed within 24 hours as a result of a change ordered by Congress last year. Mr. Lautenberg maintains that the new policy has hindered terrorism investigations by eliminating the paper trail on gun purchases.

"Destroying these records in 24 hours is senseless and will only help terrorists cover their tracks," Mr. Lautenberg said Monday. "It's an absurd policy."

He blamed what he called the Bush administration's "twisted allegiances" to the National Rifle Association for the situation.

The N.R.A. and gun rights supporters in Congress have fought - successfully, for the most part - to limit the use of the F.B.I.'s national gun-buying database as a tool for law enforcement investigators, saying the database would amount to an illegal registry of gun owners nationwide.

The legal debate over how gun records are used became particularly contentious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, had blocked the F.B.I. from using the gun-buying records to match against some 1,200 suspects who were detained as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. Mr. Ashcroft maintained that using the records in a criminal investigation would violate the federal law that created the system for instant background gun checks, but Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the issue said they saw no such prohibition.

In response to the report, Mr. Lautenberg also plans to ask Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to assess whether people listed on the F.B.I.'s terror watch list should be automatically barred from buying a gun. Such a policy would require a change in federal law.

F.B.I. officials acknowledge shortcomings in the current approach to using gun-buying records in terror cases, but they say they are somewhat constrained by gun laws as established by Congress and interpreted by the Justice Department.

"We're in a tough position," said an F.B.I. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been formally released. "Obviously, we want to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but we also have to be mindful of privacy and civil rights concerns, and we can't do anything beyond what the law allows us to do."

After initial reluctance from Mr. Ashcroft over Second Amendment concerns, the Justice Department changed its policy in February 2004 to allow the F.B.I. to do more cross-checking between gun-buying records and terrorist intelligence.

Under the new policy, millions of gun applications are run against the F.B.I.'s internal terrorist watch list, and if there is a match, bureau field agents or other counterterrorism personnel are to be contacted to determine whether they have any information about the terror suspect.

In some cases, the extra review allowed the F.B.I. to block a gun purchase by a suspected terrorist that might otherwise have proceeded because of a lag time in putting information into the database, the accountability office's report said.

In one instance last year, follow-up information provided by F.B.I. field agents revealed that someone on a terror watch list was deemed "mentally defective," even though that information had not yet made its way into the gun database. In a second case, field agents disclosed that an applicant was in the country illegally. Both applications were denied.

Even so, the report concluded that the Justice Department should clarify what information could and could not be shared between gun-buying administrators and terrorism investigators. It also concluded that the F.B.I. should keep closer track of the performance of state officials who handle gun background checks in lieu of the F.B.I.

"Given that these background checks involve known or suspected terrorists who could pose homeland security risks," the report said, "more frequent F.B.I. oversight or centralized management would help ensure that suspected terrorists who have disqualifying factors do not obtain firearms in violation of the law."


  • 0

#2 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 08 March 2005 - 05:04 PM

More government equals less freedom and no increase in safety. Just ask the families of the four young R.C.M.P. officers killed in Alberta, Canada on March 3, 2005. ohmy.gif unsure.gif While there on a pot farm raid, they were killed by the farmer, who then killed himself. It is the worst death toll for the R.C.M.P. since 1885 and the Northwest Rebellion. Did Canada's gun registration do any good? Plants (Cannabis, Opium, Coca, etc.) should not be criminalized. They were created by God. How does it look when we try to make something He created illegal? blink.gif cool.gif

http://www.mytelus.c...geID=ab_archive

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/4317341.stm

user posted image
  • 0

#3 junglewalk

junglewalk

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:by Ft.Knox,Ky.
  • Interests:The 98k rifle, MP-40 & 44; the Thompson.......reloading, HO scale military miniatures.......

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:26 PM

ohmy.gif What the hell is the problem ? Have atf say 'no' to any suspected terrorist when the instant check is taking place; I witness all the time, guys on the range being put off by the instant check, for things that happened 30 years ago, that were b.s. !. mad.gif ......Take the freakin fanatical mussie list, give it to the atf chicks to look over when instant check call comes in, and say 'no' to the bastard. Then give the suspected terrorist the FBIs phone number to call to be picked up.... smile.gif ..No need to keep a record, like that pric, Lautenberg wants........simple.........like the jungle walk.......jw
  • 0

#4 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:46 PM

It occurs to me that you could be on a terrorist suspect list, without ever breaking the law. Does anyone have the criteria that puts a person on the list? For example, your roommate at college has terrorist ties, does that put you on the list too, even though you know nothing of his activities. I would hate to see gun ownership denied to someone in that situation. Well, maybe homeland security has stronger criteria than that.
  • 0

#5 Sig

Sig

    Respected Member and Board Benefactor

  • Moderator
  • 1634 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 March 2005 - 05:19 AM

The scary part is what knee jerk legislation will be introduced to counter this. Of course the NRA is already being portrayed in a negative light as defending terriorists (which is anything but the truth) by the liberal media this morning.
Think about this slowly do you want our government denying even more freedoms based now just on suspicions?
Frankly this is call your congresscritter and senator stuff.
  • 0

#6 TSMG28

TSMG28

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 09 March 2005 - 01:30 PM

Phil,

Once again, I find us in violent agreement (as the phrase goes). Unless someone has been adjudicated as a felon, mental defective, etc., there should be no denial. The list of situations which disqualify a person from gun ownership are specific, whether you agree with them or not. Suspicion is not a rationale for restricting constitutional rights. There are certainly times when most of us would like to act on our suspicions to protect another, but the rule of law needs to stand.

Think back to the good old McCarthy days when even the hint of a "communist" connection destroyed many lives. Your reference to the Japanese-American interment is indeed a good case in point.

I don't have the background in government service that you do, but even as an "outsider" I can see the disaster posed by the proposed legislation.

Yes, please fellow Thompson enthusiasts, don't support this idea in any way!

Roger


  • 0

#7 koldt

koldt

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 09 March 2005 - 02:05 PM

Walter63, sorry, they did not attend there to execute a warrant for the grow operation. They initially were there to investigate and conduct a search warrant for a vehicle "chop shop"... The grow was found upon initial attendance and other members went back and later returned with another warrant for the dope.

Either way, they were there to conduct legitimate police investigative activities... There are a number of root causes that result in these types of incidents and obviously I do not have the answers. However, to try and equate that these four members of the Mounted Police were murdered as a result of one of God's plants is a bit of a miscarriage.

Trying to trivalize the reason for arrest or search is often done erroneously by liberals both in your country and mine. Similar to the standard 3 strikes argument in that the one fellow was imprisoned for "simply stealing a pizza". No, the reason the guy went to jail was, he broke the law and was convicted for the third time.

Sorry for the rant, but I have a funeral to go to tomorrow, for four.
  • 0

#8 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 04:25 PM

QUOTE (koldt @ Mar 9 2005, 02:05 PM)
Walter63, sorry, they did not attend there to execute a warrant for the grow operation. They initially were there to investigate and conduct a search warrant for a vehicle "chop shop"... The grow was found upon initial attendance and other members went back and later returned with another warrant for the dope.

Either way, they were there to conduct legitimate police investigative activities... There are a number of root causes that result in these types of incidents and obviously I do not have the answers. However, to try and equate that these four members of the Mounted Police were murdered as a result of one of God's plants is a bit of a miscarriage.

Trying to trivalize the reason for arrest or search is often done erroneously by liberals both in your country and mine. Similar to the standard 3 strikes argument in that the one fellow was imprisoned for "simply stealing a pizza". No, the reason the guy went to jail was, he broke the law and was convicted for the third time.

Sorry for the rant, but I have a funeral to go to tomorrow, for four.

Koldt, you completely misunderstand my post. First off, I am no freakin' liberal. Second, I, in no way, whatsoever, sought to denigrate the memory of those four RCMP officers. I applaud their dedicated service to their country. What happened to them was an unmitigated tragedy, caused by big government 'solutions' to problems which exist only in the minds of a few deranged bureaucrats. If I did not live thousands of miles away, I would be at their funerals too (what a cheap shot). What I condemn is big-government's so-called "solutions" to society's "problems!" The folly of the Canadian and American government's efforts to make illegal (and eradicate) a plant which God created for man's benefit is profound. Whithout a single doubt, those four RCMP officers would still be alive today, if they were not on a pot raid, as shown in the two articles in my original post, they were properly armed (all were only armed with pistols), they had proper body armor (they all had soft body armor) and had they not assumed the owner was not home (they were all young and relatively inexperienced). Three were in their twenties and the fourth was in his early thirties.
sad.gif The American experiment in "prohibition of alcohol" (in the 1920's) should have been some indication that it is pure stupidity for men to attempt to make illegal, something which people will have, get and not give up. It is the same today with firearms, marijuana, cocaine, and opiates. ohmy.gif Big government "solutions" are the problem, whether we are speaking of firearms, drugs, or terrorism!! If anything, my conservative, anti big-government zeal was somewhat restrained, I think. blink.gif cool.gif Regards, Walter

P.S. For a province which is thought to be the most like the United States, Alberta doesn't seem that way to me. Canada's gun registration program utterly failed to protect those four dedicated, young RCMP officers. Registration and prohibition do not work. When the hell will people learn that criminals not only ignore such niceties (as the law), but actually profit from them? Oh, by the way Koldt, the pot farmer who despatched the young RCMP officers is not in jail, because he killed himself in the same metal grow shed that he killed the four young officers in. :-(
  • 0

#9 Bisley45

Bisley45

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois ( Gun Owner's Hell )
  • Interests:Thompsons, 1911's, Collect & Shoot Colt Pistols and Revolvers, American Civil War, anything that shoots

Posted 09 March 2005 - 04:48 PM

List, hell in five minutes the goverment could put you on a list as a dangerous subversive for owning a semi auto .22 target pistol. let alone a semi or FA Thompson. The NRA is doing right and some people are too stupid to appreciate or protect their rights.

BB
  • 0

#10 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 05:32 PM

Here is the latest article online from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada's official government news organization. According to them, the RCMP officers had obtained a warrant for the illegal items, including the pot plants, in the farmer's Quonset (shed), and were in the process of disposing of the objects (evidence) when they were killed.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...cmp/ambush.html

The following photos are from Tuesday's funeral (3/8/05) for the youngest RCMP officer, Const. Peter Schiemann. His father is the officiating Lutheran minister and is seen outside the church with his family.
user posted image

user posted image

user posted image
  • 0

#11 koldt

koldt

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 09 March 2005 - 06:47 PM

Walter, trust me on this, I'm not trying to get into a heated argument, but a couple of things for discussion. The members on scene also had a Rem 870 and a Win mdl 70 rifle with them. Maybe they were young, but they probably had better tactical training than the majority of older members (nature of the beast). Obviously they wouldn't have the "moxie" but there were a lot of things wrong with the whole scenerio...

When I was referring to the pizza guy and 3 strikes law, I was using it as a metaphor, it's only in the US. We don't have that law.
I am fully aware that the culprit commited suicide. dry.gif

QUOTE
Whithout a single doubt, those four RCMP officers would still be alive today, if they were not on a pot raid, as shown in the two articles in my original post, they were


Sorry, I have to strongly disagree with you on this point. What I was getting at previously was the fact that it does not matter what the law is. If you are breaking it you are commiting a criminal act. Also to reiterate, the police were there as a result of stolen vehicles.... And it doesn't matter, they were there for a ligitimate investigation. Sorry, and I hate druggies anyway..

A madman bent on commiting suicide, or willing to die, can not be dealt with in a tradition manner. Same as any terrorist.

Also sorry, your equation and/or criticism of Alberta is kind of out in left field. Our gun laws are all federally legislated basically the same as in the US, with minor administrative points dealt with locally.

Edited by koldt, 09 March 2005 - 10:05 PM.

  • 0

#12 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 09 March 2005 - 10:09 PM

Koldt, I wish you wouldn't redact, nor take my statements out of context. In every article I have read concerning this incident, it was written that the "Mounties" were only armed with pistols and "soft" body armor, while the perp. was armed with a "high powered rifle," illegally, of course, despite Canada's over $1 billion Gun Registry. Perhaps, you could be so kind as to provide a link to an article which states, unequivocally, that these officers had, in their possession, the Rem 879 and the Win. mdl 70 rifle. I don't dispute this criminal's lack of moral character. My issue is with the law (legal mindset) which, not only does not work, but actually encourages enterprising and violent criminals, like this Mr.Roszko, by artificially creating an extreme profit motive. Is it not strange that we never had violent drug criminals, until some overzealous politicians (in the 1930's) decided that Cocaine, opiates and Marijuana were "dangerous?" Marijuana was sold by the pound, over the counter, in American drug stores, Cocaine was in Coca-Cola, and Winston Churchill was known to use Heroin cough drops before these laws were agreed to by America, Canada, and Britain. There were no significant problems before the American prohibition of alcohol. After America's experiment in alcohol prohibition failed, Al Capone, Arthur Fliegenheimer, et al. went out of business. The U.S. government bureaucracy machine, however, needed to find something to replace alcohol prohibition, in order to foster and expand "big government." So, the big government liberal scumbag democraps decided they needed to label something else as evil, illegal and "dangerous to America-something to be eradicated!" I think most reasonable people will agree that far more people were killed in the crossfire between rival illegal alcohol distributors than were killed by the drug itself. The same can be said about God's plants, which these "big government liberals" have arrogantly labeled as "illegal" and "dangerous." These plants have never harmed a single person. People who misuse and/or refine these plants into more powerful drugs are the problem, just as those who misuse firearms are the problem. The plants and guns never were, are not now, nor will they ever be, the primary problem, in and of themselves. It is despicable, idiotic, greedy, immoral freaks who are the problem. This brings me to my final point. There is no reasoning with those set upon a criminal or terroristic path. They must be eliminated, and God does know his own. I don't use, nor do I advocate the use of, "presently illegal drugs," but I do advocate the legalization of these medicinal plants, and the drugs derived from them. That, and only that, will end the present cycle of drug related violence. Those who would use firearms and/or drugs irresponsibly will always be with us. Should the moral, law-abiding, and peaceable populace be deprived of the inherent benefits of firearms and drugs, due to the indiscretions of a few "bad apples?" Hell no!! These "bad apples" should be used for target practice, along with the "evil pumpkins!!!" biggrin.gif blink.gif cool.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#13 koldt

koldt

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:50 PM

Well, I'm not here to get into the "great benifits of drug use" debate. If you think that legalizing the present illegal drugs will prevent any occurence such as this, get out of la la land. Drugs are not the issue here, criminality is. If all these drugs were free and state sanctioned, do you think criminals, terrorists and madmen will quit? Your own words of
QUOTE
but actually encourages enterprising and violent criminals
agrees that bad guys do bad things. If not drugs, it will be something else.

I am only clarifying the misconceptions and incomplete information provided to the users of this board about the incident in Mayerthorp..


  • 0

#14 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 12:38 AM

QUOTE (Walter63a @ Mar 9 2005, 10:09 PM)
In every article I have read concerning this incident, it was written that the "Mounties" were only armed with pistols and "soft" body armor, while the perp. was armed with a "high powered rifle," illegally, of course, despite Canada's over $1 billion Gun Registry.  I don't dispute this criminal's lack of moral character.  My issue is with the law (legal mindset) which, not only does not work, but actually encourages enterprising and violent criminals, like this Mr.Roszko, by artificially creating an extreme profit motive.  Is it not strange that we never had violent drug criminals, until some overzealous politicians (in the 1930's) decided that Cocaine, opiates and Marijuana were "dangerous?"  Marijuana was sold by the pound, over the counter, in American drug stores, Cocaine was in Coca-Cola, and Winston Churchill was known to use Heroin cough drops before these laws were agreed to by America, Canada, and Britain.  There were no significant problems before the American prohibition of alcohol. After America's experiment in alcohol prohibition failed, Al Capone, Arthur Fliegenheimer, et al. went out of business.  The U.S. government bureaucracy machine, however, needed to find something to replace alcohol prohibition, in order to foster and expand "big government."  So, the big government liberal scumbag democraps decided they needed to label something else as evil, illegal and "dangerous to America-something to be eradicated!"  I think most reasonable people will agree that far more people were killed in the crossfire between rival illegal alcohol distributors than were killed by the drug itself.   These plants have never harmed a single person. People who misuse and/or refine these plants into more powerful drugs are the problem, just as those who misuse firearms are the problem.  The plants and guns never were, are not now, nor will they ever be, the primary problem, in and of themselves.  It is despicable, idiotic, greedy, immoral freaks who are the problem.  There is no reasoning with those set upon a criminal or terroristic path.  They must be eliminated, and God does know his own.  I don't use, nor do I advocate the use of, "presently illegal drugs," but I do advocate the legalization of these medicinal plants, and the drugs derived from them.  That, and only that, will end the present cycle of drug related violence.  Those who would use firearms and/or drugs irresponsibly will always be with us.  Should the moral, law-abiding, and peaceable populace be deprived of the inherent benefits of firearms and drugs, due to the indiscretions of a few "bad apples?"  Hell no!!  These "bad apples" should be used for target practice, along with the "evil pumpkins!!!" biggrin.gif  blink.gif  cool.gif   Regards, Walter

Koldt, this is a shorter version of my last post, from which you quote out of context, again. You also fail to provide sources for your contentions. Freedom! Freedom from idiotic government bureaucracy, unnecessary regulation, and peering into matters which are none of 'their' concern!! Freedom is the name of the game!!! cool.gif

But, then, some people feel safer with the "government" watching after them and their every move!
user posted image
  • 0

#15 koldt

koldt

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 10 March 2005 - 03:43 AM

Walter, biggrin.gif sorry dude, you have lost me blink.gif . And with that, I'm done.
  • 0

#16 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 10 March 2005 - 04:32 AM

It must be one of those cultural things. blink.gif
Americans are freedom loving 'cowboys.'
Canadians are subjects of the Queen of England.
Maybe we just want free and safe drugs like all of you have in the 'Great White North.' rolleyes.gif
If our government would just legalize what was legal until about 1938.
Oh well, take one of these and call me in the morning.


http://www.jibjab.co..._play_full.html cool.gif

Oops! On second thought Merk, Eli Lily, etc., and their government thugs, are probably after me now. Free and safe drugs! Outrageous!! It must be Oswald! We'll take care of it boss!!! Ruby, take care of it; I can't stand his singing. Right boss! laugh.gif
user posted image
  • 0

#17 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 11 March 2005 - 03:40 PM

Here's the latest concerning Canada's 'war on drugs'! laugh.gif They have a new Federal Government 'program' to distribute free heroin to 470 drug addicts (starting in Vancouver, later in Toronto and Montreal) for $8 million of their taxpayer's hard earned dollars!! blink.gif The Canadian approach is all wrong. What else can one expect from a nation run by big city, big government liberals! All governments (American, Canadian, British, Australian, New Zealander, etc) should take 10 giant steps back from the so-called 'drug problem' and let the free market take care of the problem. Let people grow their own cannabis, coca, and opium poppies (free of government influence), for individual use (consumption). If such individual, small-scale farmers decide they wish to sell their wares, the government can then step in to license, regulate and/or tax that commerce. Then all will live happily ever after, even 'Tiny Tim.' laugh.gif Regards, Walter

Check it out at Fox News below.

http://www.foxnews.c...,150076,00.html

P.S. All you west coast American heroin addicts can now go to Vancouver for your free dope (on the Canadian taxpayer's dime), woo hoo!!! biggrin.gif Actually, it probably is limited to Canadian dopers and their 'significant others'! Hee Hee :-)
  • 0