Posted on 07/30/2011 6:11:45 AM PDT by marktwain
A United States resident crossing into Canada has found out a broken rifle is not just a broken rifle when it's accompanied by 166 other undeclared and prohibited firearm parts.
Brian Joseph Maack was charged with smuggling and possession of prohibited devices after a July 18 vehicle search at the Pacific Highway border crossing produced 151 high capacity ammunition magazines, a silencer and 14 other various parts of weapons.
According to a press release issued by the Canadian Border Services Agency, Maack was pulled aside for inspection after he declared he was in possession of a broken gun.
Last week, two other U.S. residents found out their weapons were not welcome in Canada.
Border services allege Herbert Enrique Soto failed to disclose the .40 calibre and two .357 calibre handguns that were in his personal belongings when he was crossing into Abbotsford on July 18. He was charged the next day with ten counts including making false statements and possession of prohibited firearms.
On July 20, another U.S. resident was turned back at the Pacific Highway crossing after officers found an undeclared shotgun in his trunk.
Travelers are required to declare all firearms and weapons in their possession when they enter Canada.
You have lots of rights if coming INTO this country, especially from the south!
I am a minister in the International Hoplology Society....these are not firearms, but religious symbols!
And my lone boycott of leftist canada continues...
Yep, shrill headline alert ... hardly a “gunrunner” and definitely not fast and furious.
Sorry for what I presume to be a naive question. Though, am keen to understand.
(Broadly, I understand the “right” to carry arms is the 2nd amendment in the US constitution (Bill of Rights), to protect yourself ?)
But, what does that *exactly* mean, since, and nowadays? Does it mean that every & each US citizen, in the US, can carry a gun & *shoot it out* when necessary with another citizen, or a non-citizen, before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?
To an outsider, it may sound like the “wild wild West”..
Last trip to Canada was my last, ever.
Crossed at Niagara Falls to show my wife the Falls.
I guess being from NC set off a trigger that I might be smuggling cigarettes.
Anyway they searched the car and luggage thoroughly.
I just sat there biting my tongue.
I was stewing the couple hours we were looking at the Falls. Absolutely ruined the experience.
Couldn’t get out of Canada fast enough.
You got it right! In proven practice having oneself armed makes it unnecessary for “shoot out” because the outlaws are pretty confident they will not be the only one armed. Most of the time the crooks are not looking for a gun battle with the possibility of losing a life that is very dear to them.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That has been interpreted to mean several things. Anywhere from avg. citizen to National Guard.
Most of the States have a similar clause in their Constitution.
Generally the States require background checks and then fingerprint you. After laying down anywhere from $50-250 you can receive a ‘concealed carry permit’.
There are restrictions as to where you can carry and cannot carry. It varies from State to State.
In general, no Federal or State bldgs., businesses that post No Firearms signs, no bars, no felons, etc. Some States allow some or part of those or even more restrictions.
Of course, about 99% (or More) of the shootings do not involve someone legally carrying a firearm.
Guess more Freepers will chime in.
Here’s a summary of Canadian gun laws for travellers.
http://panda.com/canadaguns/
Prohibited firearms, devices, and weapons include:
silencers
large capacity magazines for a semi-automatic center-fire firearm.
What constitutes “large capacity” varies; as a general rule, the maximum capacity is 5 rounds for long guns, 10 rounds for handguns “commonly found in Canada”, and 5 rounds for handguns “not commonly found in Canada.” Magazines for rimfire cartridges, the 8-round clips used in the M1 Garand, and 10 round Lee Enfield rifle magazines are exempted by name from this prohibition.
It is not as simple as it should be, because the people in power, as with most people in power throughout the world, do not like the idea of people that they wish to control being armed. So, for about the last 80 years, the waters have been muddied by a concerted effort to eliminate the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms by those who desire to increase the power of the government in the United States. This has not been done in a forthright fashion, but by deviously attempting to change the clear meaning of words and phrases.
It is obvious that you can read English, and that the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms is fairly clear to you. Recent United States Supreme Court cases have started to restore the Constitutional right to its previous understanding, so the exact legal ramifications of the Supreme Court decisions are in a state of rapid change.
The court has ruled that legal residents of the United States have a right to have loaded guns that are commonly available, including pistols, readily available for self defense in the home. There are court cases in the works to clarify that this right extends to outside the home as well.
Because of our federal system, most of the states are ahead of the Supreme Court on this issue. In most of the States, people can easily and legally carry weapons openly and concealed for their own defense, but there are a few states that severely restrict that right, most egregiously Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. As you may have guessed, these states are those that have the most burdensome state governments that are the most restrictive in many other areas as well.
While having a significant proportion of the population carrying weapons for defense does not seem to significantly affect crime rates, the preponderance of the evidence shows that it reduces violent crime against individuals by some amount.
In the United States, you have the right to defend yourself and others against unlawful attack. In most cases where firearms are used to defend people, the mere presence of the firearm is enough to defuse the situation and prevent the attack. Most defenses are against a criminal armed with something other than a firearm, so "shootouts" are rare. Criminals are forbidden by law from possessing firearms. Most criminal acts are committed by a small group of irresponsible males who have a long history of violence and criminal acts. Most people carrying firearms for defensive purposes are successful, responsible older men and women.
Well said, better than my retort.
Once when crossing into Canada, I was asked if I had any firearms, to which I replied no. I was then asked if I owned any, to which I replied "not in Canada, no". She then said "sir, do you OWN any firearms?". I said "I'm an American, I own LOTS of them". They spent half an hour stripping my car down.
I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.
Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain.
"Justify their actions in court, if caught" seems to imply that people who defend themselves would attempt to evade the police. This is exactly opposite to the American experience, where non criminals involved in a deadly force incident nearly always immediate call police. In fact, in a large number of the cases, the police have already been called and are on their way when the individual is forced to use a firearm to defend themselves or others.
It is true, that when the mere presence of the firearm defuses the situation, the criminal runs away, and no shots are fired, many citizens do not bother to report the situation to the police.
In the United States, there is a saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
Did the FBI give him the money to buy the guns? Or do they only do that for Mexican gangs?
We have not yet uncovered a link to Canadian "gunwalking", but I would not be surprised to find one.
No amount of corruption in the FBI surprises me.
"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?"
I would like to have some insight into your thinking. The above wording is particularly alien to me.
Nearly all crimes of violence occur "before the cops arrive", so using it as a qualifier makes no sense to me. Please explain. _________________________________________
"before the cops arrive, and then justify their actions in court, if caught?" - It means that in most western countries, self-defense & self-protection are Not denied, when attacked.
But, in most Western countries, the "right" to take the law into their hands by being armed is not a given.
IOW, in most western countries, unlike the US, it is not pre-empted that people should have the "right" to own guns to possibly defend or protect themselves in the case of an attack. Nor, more specifically, to own & use guns as a deterrent against potential criminals.
>>I am a minister in the International Hoplology Society....these are not firearms, but religious symbols!<<
Big laugh out loud. Now there’s a line I’ve never heard before.
Send that off to Dave Cordea and ask him to publish it. I like it!
One of the great injustices in America is that the Constitutions, both federal and state, are frequently ignored; this is especially evident in regards to firearms.
Consider the prohibition on felons, more properly called ex-felons, even though they have served their sentence they do not have their full rights restored (such as voting and firearm ownership).
But the injustices are even more grotesque, the gun-control law has been amended so that people with restraining-orders for [allegations of] domestic violence are prohibited people; this is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment which holds that “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law [...]” and in this case the due process being violated is either the 6th or 7th Amendment.
In American jurisprudence there are two types of law, criminal and common (aka civil), the 6th Amendment holds that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right [...] to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” and if the matter be civil then the 7th Amendment says “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved [...]” and in either case there is no defense against the restraining order allowed so any such person has their right to keep and bear arms stripped away by fiat.
And in the case of States, many of them have completely different wording with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Consider New Mexico’s Constitution says:
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
Yet, despite this there are state statutes which do exactly that; in particular one prohibits firearms on university grounds, this means that it is depriving all students who are citizens and live in on-campus housing of the rights to both keep and bear arms, a direct contradiction. Also, though there is no actual law regarding it, the (state, county, municipal) courts have ‘rules’ prohibiting firearms therein, which violates both sentences in New Mexico’s constitution in the case of county and municipal courts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.