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.
Thanks. Based on your post & marktwains #30, it seems that gun laws, the constitution & related details are not as simple as I thought or some non-Americans may think.
The original intent was both for citizens personal protection and a citizens protection from a tyrannical government wishing to deny their God given rights.
In the criminal context, how would protection of oneself be consider outside the law with any common sense when the inability for timely response by law enforcement protection is impossible? America has it right, or maybe better put “had it right” and is attempting to put it right again.
In my initial post #25 I said: “But, what does that *exactly* mean, since, and nowadays?” So, I don’t think I am “mis-understanding the Founding Fathers intent and purpose in the 2nd Amendment. Nor that “The original intent was both for citizens personal protection and a citizens protection from a tyrannical government wishing to deny their God given rights.”
Also, there is a difference between self-defense/self-protection Vs. owning & using guns as *deterrent*, per my post #37.
Actually, my original post #25 was not meant as a criticism, but to understand relevant details & specifics. Not only in relation to laws & constitution of the US, but also culturally & socially.
Sadly, it's just the opposite; it is very simple: following the Constitutions would eliminate a LOT of the government's power, so they have a vested interest in 'complicating' the matters.
As several have noted, the Second Amendment states perfectly clearly the purpose it was included "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"... how could a state be free if it is governed by tyrants? It cannot.
This is why there are such a proliferation of often contradictory laws; as Ayn Rand noted in the novel Atlas Shrugged:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted1 - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
1 -- [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.]
So, who is/are "they" ? A constitution is also a piece of paper. It is the application & practice of what is stipulated, to which I was also referring, that counts.
My back-woods perspective tells me that those other governments (including our’s) could care less if their citizens have adequate personal protection so long as the citizens are not able to threaten the government by being armed.
Your statement “there is a difference between self-defense/self-protection Vs. owning & using guns as *deterrent*, per my post #37.” defies common sense as many conservative Americans know it. Deterrent is the same as protection and an adequate “deterrent” generally prevents the need to use one’s self defense.
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.
The right to be armed was considered a part of the right of Englishmen until after the first world war. It was gradually whittled away, in part by secret policy decisions by the government, in the U.K. over the next 70 years. An excellent history of this has been produced by Professor Joyce Lee Malcom in her seminal work: To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Interestingly enough, it was not done as a means of decreasing crime, but because the authorities were worried about opposition to the government.
When Englishmen still possessed the right of arms, crime was considerably lower than it is today.
It seems rather strange that it is legal to defend oneself against attack, but not legal to have the means to effectively defend oneself.
The deterrence factor is taken for granted in the United States, not just against criminals, but against the government itself and foreign invaders.
You probably know that the event which precipitated hostilities in the American revolution was the government attempting to disarm some of the citizens at Lexington and Concord.
So, who is/are "they" ? A constitution is also a piece of paper. It is the application & practice of what is stipulated, to which I was also referring, that counts.
It seems clear to me that "they" are those in the government who benefit from expanding government power at the expense of the people. In nearly all the world, there is a clear distinction between the government and the people. It is a core belief in the American system, that government derives its power from the people. The structure of the Constitution was designed to limit government power. Part of this structure is to preserve centers of power in the states and the people in order to counterbalance power in the federal government.
Since about 1900, there has been a movement called "progressivism" in the United State, which considers the Constitution to be outmoded, and which works to take away power from the people, move it to local, state and federal governments, and ultimately to make state and local governments subservient to the federal government and under its control.
People have been propagandized with the idea that the government has the best interest of the people at heart, that it is kind, benevolent, dispassionate, and evenhanded. In fact, governments are composed of individuals like the rest of the population, and those individuals commonly look out for their interests ahead of the rest of the population. In most of the world, this is abundantly clear. Zimbabwe is one of the most clear examples.
Fortunately for Canada, you have one of the best governments on the planet. Even it is not immune to people in the government using government power and resources for their own advantage.
I'm aware of that history. Particularly since I actually lived & studied in the UK & have family from my father's side who are both in the UK & Republic of Ireland (not Northern Ireland).
When Englishmen still possessed the right of arms, crime was considerably lower than it is today.
I guess we have to look at changes over that period of 70 yrs you mention; though, overall, I tend to disagree. I personally lived in the UK over 2 decades ago. Crimes compared to the US or even the European continent were much lower back then in the UK. (Even at the height of IRA's violent activities in London in the 70s & 80s - but that was a distinct & separate issue.).
In the UK, at the time, there often seemed to be a distinction when, for example, travelling from Western Europe to the UK, and seeing Bobbies w/out guns walking main streets & elsewhere in London, or even immigration officers at ports & airports not even wearing a "police" uniform, let alone guns. Overall, it was Quite safe. It is a culture & social development, not gun laws or enacting laws to bear arms or not - that's my take on it.
'Course matters have changed dramatically in the last couple of decades. Mostly, I believe due to immigration from elsewhere.
Rhetorical question.
I guess being from an Irish background, it means I do read English too. Even American English ;-)
Have a good day.
I should have made that clear. It is what Joyce Lee Malcolm says as well. The point is that eliminating the right to arms was *not* in response to crime, nor was the right to arms responsible for crime.
Sorry if I mislabled you as a Canadian.
Sounds reasonable.
Sorry if I mislabled you as a Canadian.
No problem. I've quite a few Canadian friends & acquaintances.
Prolly a 2 liter Pepsi bottle....and it had a hole in one end....oh, wait...
Our statists have taught them well:
"A pig is a rat is a dog is a boy" -- Ingrid Newkirk
"A shoestring is for legal purposes a machine gun" -- ATF
"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is'....is." -- X42
It is possible, though she was an attractive female.
Guns and any part there of are a big no no in Canada
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.