[Vision2020] NRA: Women's Best Friend

[Paul Rumelhart]

It also feeds the "gun is evil" trope.  Did he remember to bury it in salt?

If this guy didn't have a gun, do you think it would have been any less dangerous for her if he had grabbed a hunting knife or a baseball bat or if he had just grabbed the nearest heavy blunt object he could reach?  The problem isn't the gun, it's the out-of-control ex-husband who is irrationally angry.  I don't know what you do about that.  And that's the problem.  Banning guns is a Simple Solution (tm).  It doesn't affect the real problem.  That would require asking serious questions about what you can do when you think someone is prone to violence when they haven't done anything violent yet.  Do you lock him away for making the threat?  How do you determine what is an actionable threat and what is just words spouted in anger?  Is there some minimum of evidence needed, or can anyone lock up any significant other with just a quick phone call?

Paul




________________________________
 From: Warren Hayman <whayman at roadrunner.com>
To: Janesta <janesta at gmail.com>; Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> 
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NRA: Women's Best Friend
 

 
A cop burying possible evidence, as in a gun? Sorry, and I'm not. This 
constitutes travesty. I'm glad your friend is okay, but no... Wrong. Immediately 
so.
 
Warren Hayman
 
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Janesta 
>To: Art Deco 
>Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 3:01 
PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NRA: Women's  Best Friend
>
>I once knew a woman in Moscow... Thirty-nine years ago, she  married her first husband. Thirty-seven years ago, they separated. One night,  gun in hand, he broke down her front door.. Between the time he started  pounding on the door, and the time it broke down, the police were called.  After a few hours of talking, the man finally gave up his gun. An officer for  the MPD took the husband's gun, and it was never seen again.. A year later,  the woman asked the officer what he did with the gun. The officer replied he  buried it in his back yard, deep enough no one would ever find it. Knowing  protective orders are about as good as the paper they are written on, to this  day, she is very thankful to the officer. 
>
>Janesta
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>>>>________________________________
>> 
>>March 17, 2013
>>Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns
>>By MICHAEL LUO
>>Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former  husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a  temporary order for protection. 
>>Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth  and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put  a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block  letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared.” 
>>The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of  his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it  did not require him to do was surrender his guns. 
>>About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying  in wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two  children in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several  months before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her  chest. He directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill  her. 
>>“I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in  a statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going  to die!” 
>>Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it  under a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life and  quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs with  their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering,  hysterical, on the floor. 
>>For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented.  Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order  would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case  in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the  influence of the National Rifle Association and its allies. 
>>Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter  laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a  grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand  is more often than not holding a gun. 
>>In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear  arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life. 
>>In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other  gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of  firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as  a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything  less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A.  lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance  of court orders.” 
>>That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in  Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are  included in gun control legislation being debated in several states. 
>>Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil  protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if,  for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health. But  records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a  useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics,  of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights. 
>>By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times  identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to  recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted murder  and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade, women were  shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection orders. In at  least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the person being  protected but someone else. There were dozens of gun-related assaults like  the one Ms. Holten endured. 
>>The analysis — which crosschecked protective orders against arrest and  conviction data, along with fatality lists compiled by the Washington State Coalition  Against Domestic Violence — represents at best a partial accounting of  such situations because of limitations in the data. The databases were  missing some orders that have expired or been terminated. They also did not  flag the use of firearms in specific crimes, so identifying cases required  combing through court records. 
>>Washington’s criminal statutes, however, contain a number of gun-specific  charges, like unlawful possession of a firearm and aiming or discharging  one, offering another window into the problem. Last year, The Times found,  more than 50 people facing protection orders issued since 2011 were arrested  on one of these gun charges. 
>>In some instances, of course, laws mandating the surrender of firearms  might have done nothing to prevent an attack. Sometimes the gun used was not  the one cited in the petition. In other cases, no mention of guns was ever  made. But in many cases, upon close scrutiny, stricter laws governing  protective orders and firearms might very well have made a difference. 
>>The Times also looked at several other states without surrender laws. In  Minnesota, more than 30 people facing active protection orders were  convicted of some type of assault with a dangerous weapon over the last  three years, court records show. 
>>And in Oklahoma, The Times found the case of Barbara Diane Dye. 
>>Ms. Dye, 40, obtained an emergency order of protection in July 2010, on  the same day she filed for divorce from her husband, Raymond Dye, a  firefighter. Ms. Dye, who worked as a personal trainer at a gym the couple  owned, explained in her petition that since telling her husband she wanted a  divorce because of his infidelity, he had repeatedly threatened to kill her.  She wrote that she feared he would “have a violent reaction when he receives  divorce papers.” 
>>When asked if there were weapons on the premises, she wrote, “Yes.” In  fact, Mr. Dye possessed an arsenal of weapons, which Ms. Dye and her family  would later beg the local police to help them deal with, to no avail. 
>>After obtaining the court order, which was good until a hearing about a  lengthier order three weeks later, Ms. Dye went into hiding in Texas but  returned to Oklahoma to attend divorce proceedings. Two weeks after  obtaining the initial order, she was in a bank parking lot in the city of  Elgin when her husband pulled up in his truck, blocking her in. 
>>Witnesses later told the police that Mr. Dye, 42, tried to drag her into  his truck. When she fought back, Mr. Dye brandished a .357 revolver and shot  her in the leg. She fell to the ground. Mr. Dye fired several more shots  into her, saying, “I love you, I love you,” according to the police report.  He then shot himself in the chest with a different gun, a .45-caliber  semiautomatic pistol, and collapsed, dead, onto his wife. 
>>“We kept telling them, ‘He’s got all of these  weapons,’ ” said Ms. Dye’s mother, Barbara Burk, a local official  who has fought unsuccessfully in Oklahoma for a measure that would give  judges issuing protective orders the power to order sheriffs to confiscate  weapons and hold them for a “cooling off” period. “Is there nothing you can  do?” 
>>Legislative Landscape 
>>Intimate partner homicides account for nearly half the women killed every  year, according to federal statistics. More than half of these women are  killed with a firearm. And a significant percentage were likely to have  obtained protection orders against their eventual killers. (A 2001  study, published in Criminal Justice Review, of women slain by intimate  partners in 10 cities put that number at one in five.) 
>>It was in recognition of these converging realities that Congress  included a provision in the 1994 crime  bill, over the objections of the N.R.A., that barred most people subject  to full protective orders filed by intimate partners from purchasing or  possessing firearms. In a nod to the concerns of the gun lobby, the statute  excluded most people under temporary orders, on the ground that they had not  yet had the opportunity to contest the accusations in court. 
>>The statute, though, is rarely enforced. In 2012, prosecutors nationwide  filed fewer than 50 such cases, according to a Times analysis of records  from the Transactional Records  Access Clearinghouse, a research center at Syracuse University that  collects federal government data. 
>>It has, therefore, largely fallen to a state-by-state patchwork of laws  to regulate this issue — or not. 
>>A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the  surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The  strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it  mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New  York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is  required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is  mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has  had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other states,  like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do prohibit gun  possession by certain people subject to protective orders. 
>>Although enforcement remains an issue, researchers say these laws have  made a difference. One study, published in 2010 in the journal Injury  Prevention, found a 19 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides. 
>>Washington State has seen several efforts to enact firearm surrender  laws. In 2004, Representative Ruth Kagi, a Democrat, introduced a bill  mandating the surrender of firearms with temporary protective orders. But  after strong opposition from the N.R.A., the bill failed to make it out of  committee. The N.R.A.’s lobbyist in the state, Brian Judy, testified that  the measure granted “extraordinarily broad authority to strip firearms  rights.” 
>>Gun-rights groups stress that the subjects of temporary orders have not  even had the chance to be heard in court, and that many temporary orders do  not become full injunctions. Advocates for domestic violence victims counter  that the most dangerous moment is when such orders are first issued, and  that the surrender of weapons at this stage may be only temporary. 
>>Nevertheless, in 2010, they decided to lower their ambitions and backed a  proposal in the Washington Legislature requiring surrender only after a full  protective order was issued, restraining threatening conduct against family  members or children of family members. The measure also would have made it a  felony to possess a firearm while subject to such an order. 
>>Once again, the N.R.A. and its allies strenuously objected. The group  sent out a legislative alert to its members, who besieged legislators. A  veteran gun-rights lobbyist flew in from Florida to meet with Representative  Roger Goodman, a Democrat who had introduced the measure. 
>>Mr. Judy, the state N.R.A. lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Goodman  that his organization considered the current Washington law “already bad on  this subject.” He added, “It is the N.R.A.’s position that any crime that is  serious enough to cause an individual to lose a fundamental constitutional  right should be classified as a felony.” 
>>Ultimately, lawmakers stripped the gun measure out of a broader package  of domestic violence legislation. 
>>Lessons of History 
>>This year, the issue is pending once again in the Washington Legislature,  part of a number of gun-related proposals introduced after the Newtown  shooting. The proposed legislation, further narrowed in an attempt to placate the  N.R.A., seeks to mirror the language of the federal prohibition, which bars  most people under full protective orders from buying or owning weapons. But  in an e-mail to House Judiciary Committee members considering the measure,  Mr. Judy wrote that the federal law “does not provide adequate protection”  and argued that individual firearm rights were more broadly protected in  Washington’s State Constitution than in the Second Amendment. 
>>The bill seemed on the verge of being scuttled as the N.R.A. pushed to  amend it in a way that supporters argued would render it meaningless, but  House Democrats managed to close ranks and pass it. It faces a much steeper  climb in the Republican-controlled State Senate, where the N.R.A. wields  greater influence. 
>>The issue has also gained traction in Colorado — a traditional power base  for the gun lobby but also the state where 12 people were shot to death and  58 were wounded at a movie theater in July. A measure that would require the surrender of firearms in  protection-order cases is part of a gun-control package passed by the State  Senate last week, though not a single Republican voted for it. 
>>And in Congress, Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California,  introduced a bill last week that would expand the federal prohibition  to include temporary orders and current or former “dating partners.” 
>>Even so, across the country, any suggestion of a broad shift must be  tempered by history. 
>>In the mid-1990s, Wisconsin became one of the first states to require the  surrender of firearms with full protective orders. But in 2010, seeking to  strengthen enforcement, advocates for domestic violence victims pushed for  the statewide adoption of procedures that had been successful in a few  counties. Among a host of provisions, people subject to protective orders  would have been required to list their firearms and surrender them to the  county sheriff or a third party within 48 hours. 
>>The N.R.A. mobilized, calling the measure “a blatant violation of  Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights” in an alert to its members. Jordan  Austin, an N.R.A. lobbyist, expanded in his testimony on the bill before an  Assembly committee: “Once a person has an injunction issued against him, he  is already a prohibited person. He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be  forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that  would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.” 
>>The bill died in the State Senate. 
>>In Virginia, the gun lobby has repeatedly stymied efforts to make it  illegal for people subject to court injunctions to possess firearms.  (Currently, they are barred only from buying and transporting firearms.) 
>>“There’s often recognition that firearms and domestic violence is a  lethal combination, but it’s followed quickly with concerns about taking  away an individual’s right to possess a firearm,” said Kristine Hall, the  policy director for the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance. 
>>The lack of a state surrender law helps explain what happened when  Deborah Wigg, a 39-year-old accountant in Virginia Beach, obtained a  protective order in April 2011 against her husband, Robert Wigg, whom she  was in the process of divorcing. In her petition, she described a violent  encounter in which Mr. Wigg grabbed her by her hair, threw her down, ripped  out a door and threw it at her. He was arrested and charged with assault.  She also made clear in the petition that her husband owned a 9-millimeter  semiautomatic handgun. 
>>She eventually won a full protective order, but Mr. Wigg kept his gun,  which he used in his business installing and servicing A.T.M.’s. 
>>Ms. Wigg and her co-workers at an accounting firm openly fretted about  the weapon. She agreed that every morning she would call Marty Ridout, a  partner at the firm, so he could make sure she was safe. 
>>On the morning of Nov. 8, 2011, Ms. Wigg left Mr. Ridout a voice mail  message saying everything was fine. 
>>Around 11 p.m. that night, however, Mr. Wigg, 43, showed up at his wife’s home and began ringing the  doorbell and pounding on the door. Ms. Wigg called her parents. Her mother,  Adele Brown, told her to hang up and call 911. 
>>But as Ms. Brown and her husband, who lived about a half-mile away, were  heading over, Mr. Wigg smashed through the door and into the house. The  Browns arrived to find a neighbor bent over their daughter’s bleeding form,  screaming, “Debbie, don’t leave me!” 
>>“When we got to her, those beautiful blue eyes were already set,” Ms.  Brown said. 
>>Ms. Wigg died of a single shot to the head. 
>>After shooting his wife, Mr. Wigg drove to the Browns’, apparently to  kill them as well. He killed himself in their front yard. 
>>“It astounds me,” Mr. Ridout said. “I cannot believe we have a society  where a person has physically abused another person and been charged with  assaulting her and that they don’t automatically take away his weapon.” 
>>A System That’s Working 
>>One state with strict laws in this arena is California, where anyone  served with a temporary protective order has 24 hours to turn over any  weapons to local law enforcement or sell them to a licensed gun dealer. 
>>Enforcement, however, has been inconsistent. So in 2006, the state set up  pilot programs to increase enforcement in San Mateo County, just outside San  Francisco, and Butte County, a largely rural area north of Sacramento. The  programs’ money dried up in 2010 with the state’s fiscal woes, but San Mateo  sought other financing because it believed that its program was saving  lives. 
>>“We have not had a firearm-related domestic violence homicide in the last  three years,” said Sgt. Linda Gibbons, who oversees the program as the head  of the major crimes unit in the county sheriff’s office. 
>>Last year alone, the program took in 324 firearms through seizure or  surrender from 81 people, out of more than 800 protective orders it  reviewed. 
>>Every morning, Detective John Kovach, who handles a range of domestic  violence investigations, reviews a stack of protective orders filed the day  before — generally 15 to 20 a day — looking for any mention of firearms. 
>>Usually, a handful of orders a day will contain some reference to guns,  which Detective Kovach follows up on. He sometimes contacts the person  protected by the order to find out more. He also checks various law  enforcement databases, including one available in California that tracks  handgun purchases. 
>>He goes out once or twice a week and serves the restraining orders  himself. Usually, he says, he tries to collect firearms immediately,  employing a well-honed sales pitch about helping the person comply with the  law. If he believes beforehand that the person might not be cooperative, he  will sometimes request a search warrant. 
>>“My experience is the quicker you act, the more successful you’re going  to be,” he said. 
>>Notably, given the gun lobby’s objections to seizing guns after just a  temporary order, Detective Kovach said he had handled only one or two  restraining orders involving firearms in the last year that were eventually  dropped after the court hearing. 
>>In a typical case, a 19-year-old woman from Redwood City filed for a  restraining order against her husband in December, explaining that he had  become increasingly abusive and that she had recently moved out. She checked  off a box on the form saying he had used firearms to threaten her and, on a  confidential “weapons possession data sheet” provided as a part of the San  Mateo program, indicated that he owned an assault rifle and a handgun. 
>>The detective picked up her order the following morning and, with a  colleague, arranged to meet that day. She told them that after an argument a  year earlier, her husband had threatened to kill himself, sending her in a  text message a picture of himself holding an assault rifle to his head. More  recently, he had warned that if she started dating, he would shoot the man,  her and then himself. 
>>Detective Kovach quickly secured a search warrant. He and several other  detectives staked out the man’s home and served him with the protective  order while he was walking his dog. In their search, they turned up seven  guns, including two AR-15 assault rifles. 
>>“Every murder, when you look at it, there are always points where law  enforcement could have made a difference,” the detective said. “I don’t ever  want to be that guy who goes to sleep knowing he hasn’t done everything to  protect the public.” 
>>Deadly Consequences 
>>In Washington State, The Times’s analysis highlighted danger at play when  there is no broad mandatory firearm surrender law. 
>>Under current law, judges issuing protective orders are required to order  the surrender of firearms only in very specific situations, like a  determination by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person has used  the weapon in a felony or has committed another offense that by law would  disqualify him from having a firearm. Otherwise, judges have the discretion  to issue a surrender order under a variety of circumstances, including a  finding that there is a threat of “irreparable injury.” (There is also a  court form specifically requesting the surrender of firearms, but advocates  say it is rarely used because few victims of domestic violence know about  it.) 
>>All five of the Washington cases identified by The Times in which the  woman who obtained the protective order was later killed were  murder-suicides. In three cases, the woman wrote in her petition that her  husband or ex-boyfriend possessed firearms. In none of the cases did the  judges issue surrender orders. 
>>In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order would have  prevented the deaths. Even so, those cases can show the existing system’s  weakness in the face of obvious peril. 
>>Melissa Batten, a 36-year-old software developer for Xbox, secured a  temporary protective order in July 2008, describing a series of episodes in  which her estranged husband harassed her and also broke into her workplace  in Redmond. She said he also pointed a loaded gun at her in an argument and  then put it to his head, threatening to kill himself. 
>>It fell to a mutual friend, however, not the courts or law enforcement,  to deal with the gun. He persuaded the husband, Robert Batten, to sell his  .22-caliber handgun back to the dealer, according to a police report. But  Mr. Batten later bought two more guns, a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver  and a 9-millimeter Taurus semiautomatic, according to the police. It is not  clear exactly when he bought them, but the police found evidence that he  went to a gun show a few days after being served with the protective order.  (In some states, the existence of the order would have barred him from  buying guns.) 
>>Mr. Batten shot his wife eight times in the parking lot outside her home  before shooting himself, killing them both. 
>>Ms. Batten’s case made headlines. Then there are the more routine episodes  that unfold outside the public eye. 
>>Julie Lohrengel obtained a temporary order for protection against her  estranged husband, Shawn Lohrengel, in August 2010, detailing several  encounters, including one in which he had shaken her and grabbed her by the  throat. She checked off the box in the petition that indicated he possessed  firearms. 
>>The court commissioner did not order Mr. Lohrengel to surrender his guns.  Several weeks later, Ms. Lohrengel and a friend, with Ms. Lohrengel’s two  children in the back seat, drove up to her home in Centralia but stopped  when they saw Mr. Lohrengel’s truck parked outside the garage. As they  started backing out of the driveway, between five and eight gunshots rang  out, but no one was wounded. When the police arrived, Mr. Lohrengel ran out  onto the front porch with a rifle, as if looking for someone, the police  report said. He eventually pleaded guilty to aiming and discharging a  firearm and reckless endangerment. 
>>Sometimes, the person who takes out a protective order is not the one  ultimately victimized. 
>>James Anthony Mills, 17, pleaded guilty last year to second-degree murder  for firing two shots that killed Adrian Wilson, 16, at a  birthday barbecue in Auburn, Wash. Less than a year before, an ex-girlfriend  of Mr. Mills’s had obtained an order for protection against him. She  explained in her petition that Mr. Mills had threatened her with a gun  during an argument. Nothing was done about the weapon. 
>>Even in cases where there was evidence that someone subject to a civil  order for protection possessed a gun in violation of state and federal law,  no move was made to remove it. 
>>Dennis Pirone was arrested in Seattle in July 2009 and charged with  harassing his ex-girlfriend Jody Mayes. A criminal no-contact order was  issued, requiring him to surrender his firearms. He filled out a form  declaring that he had none. He was arrested again a few weeks later for  violating the no-contact order. Once again, after being ordered to surrender  firearms, he declared that he did not have any. 
>>That December, Ms. Mayes sought a protective order, writing in her  petition that Mr. Pirone had bought a gun even though “he is a convicted  felon and is not supposed to have it in his own words.” 
>>Two months later, Mr. Pirone flew into a rage at another woman, a  roommate, after she refused his sexual advances. He came back with a small  silver handgun, told the woman, “I will kill you,” and pointed the gun at  her before firing a shot into an old sofa, according to a Seattle police  report. The police later found two .22-caliber semiautomatic handguns in the  house. 
>>More than a year after her ordeal in Spokane, Stephanie Holten still  cannot understand why the judge did nothing about her former husband’s guns. 
>>“I do believe in the Second Amendment,” she said, “but at  the same time, public safety has to be paramount.” 
>>Ms. Holten, 39, who is still seeing a counselor about the episode, said  her mind relentlessly replays the scene of her on her knees, looking down  the barrel of a loaded gun. In the recording of her 911 call, she can be  heard sobbing and begging Mr. Holten to leave. He can be heard responding,  between expletives, that she is going to die. 
>>Mr. Holten — who later pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault  and was sentenced to more than six years in prison — ordered her upstairs to  her bedroom, forcing her to show him that she still had their wedding photos  and other mementos. He then offered her a deal: he would put the gun down if  she promised to drop the protection order, give him custody of their son and  not call the police. When she tearfully assented, Mr. Holten placed his  9-millimeter carbine — the same weapon Ms. Holten believes she saw at his  home a month earlier and cited in her court petition — in a hallway closet.  That was when they both heard a male voice say “Police Department.” 
>>Her legs buckled, and she crumpled to the ground. 
>>“I wish in my case he had to surrender everything,” she said. “If the  cops had been able to take the firearms out of that household when they  served him, I think it would have averted the entire thing.” 
>>Griff Palmer contributed reporting. Kristen Millares Young and Jack  Styczynski contributed research.
>>
>>-- 
>>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>=======================================================
>> List 
    services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the 
    communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>          
         http://www.fsr.net
>>          
    mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>=======================================================
>>
>
>________________________________
> =======================================================
> List 
  services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the 
  communities of the Palouse since 
  1994.
>               
  http://www.fsr.net
>          
  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130318/ce05b809/attachment-0001.html>