CBSA confiscates 65 prohibited pistols in Toronto

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
106
Points
780
dapaterson said:
After nineteen months in custody, despite not being convicted of anything, she was permitted to post bail - nineteen months in custody despite having no priors.

Not quite the "criminals running rampant" story the Sun (or its readers (note to self: Never read the comments)) would like to project.
Maybe it was to keep her alive?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
154
Points
680
Jarnhamar said:
I don't think they would have enough pressure inside the cylinder and barrel to build up the pressure. You'd need to machine a new cylinder and barrel.

You could actually take a box of 9mm hollow-point bullets, drop them in a camp fire and stand 4 feet away. It'll be loud but if you get hit with a bullet it's probably not even going to break skin.

Here's an article on convertibility. Note that the only Kimar mentioned is not convertible because it's manufactured from a zinc-alloy.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/G-Issue-briefs/SAS-IB10-From-Replica-to-Real.pdf

:cheers:
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
196
Points
680
FJAG said:
Here's an article on convertibility. Note that the only Kimar mentioned is not convertible because it's manufactured from a zinc-alloy.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/G-Issue-briefs/SAS-IB10-From-Replica-to-Real.pdf

:cheers:

Damn, thanks for digging that up. Reading that article I still find it really surprising. The starter pistols that I've seen that aren't cheap plastic have been really weak metal and would still blow apart. Cylinders too dinky and barrels would need drilled out (or heavily modified). Reading the article and conclusion I guess a lot depends on the material and model.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
FJAG said:
I really have no idea as to whether or not this thing is convertible to becoming capable of firing live rounds but that's always one thing that seems to crank the RCMP's gourd.

These $42 USD "firearms" can still be used to threaten or intimidate.  Using a firearm in the commission of an offence,  even a replica or imitation one, ist verboten (CCC s 85).  They may even be able to fire a live round.... once... and that may be enough.

FJAG said:
Someone there needs a warm hug and a pat on their tummy (right after a smack upside the head).

That doesn't only apply to the CBSA.
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
130
Haggis said:
These $42 USD "firearms" can still be used to threaten or intimidate.  Using a firearm in the commission of an offence,  even a replica or imitation one, ist verboten (CCC s 85).  They may even be able to fire a live round.... once... and that may be enough.

Committing an offense is in an of itself, already illegal.
I'm going to go out on a limb with the thought that criminals might not care about the nuance of committing an offense while they're illegally committing an offense.

A black wooden carving could be used into an imitation firearm and likewise used to intimidate.
Given some effort in carving they also might be able to fire a live round once.
I hope you're not suggesting we similarly celebrate a CBSA seizure of softwood lumber and black paint. 

Concretely, as a taxpayer I would prefer that our law enforcement focus on things that are *standalone* crimes of a significant nature.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
Brashendeavours said:
Concretely, as a taxpayer I would prefer that our law enforcement focus on things that are *standalone* crimes of a significant nature.

You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.

What would you liked to have seen them do?
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
273
Points
830
Not issue a press release.  Doing their job at the established level and seizing $3k of contraband...

If you want to issue a press release, try cleaning up organized crime ground side at one of Canada's major airports.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
dapaterson said:
Not issue a press release.

What I should have more clearly asked was "What would you have liked to have seen the BSOs do?" in response to brashendaevours.



 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
68
Points
530
Haggis said:
You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.

What would you liked to have seen them do?

Same as dapaterson. The CBSA was within their rights (and duties) to seize this shipment. The press release, however, is overwrought and makes it sound as if a shipment of nuclear weapons was intercepted and almost misrepresents what occurred (you have filled in the blanks that many of, who are pretty expert in firearms knowledge in our own right, could not figure out on our own based only on the infirmation in the press release). Would it have killed the CBSA to either not issue a press release in this case or to be more truthful and state that they intercepted a shipment of starter pistols that were illegally modified?  I don’t blame the line CBSA agent- they do not write press releases.
 

Rocky Mountains

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Haggis said:
these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.

Shoot somebody with a .22 short in an oversized bore and they will likely give you a thrashing like you never had before.  Is there an under 500fps defence available here?  Note that such a pistol is only prohibited by having a short barrel, not because it is painted black.  I own one such pistol and I can sell it to anyone else owning a gun in the class or give it to a kid, grandfathering them as an owner of a gun in the class.  This class of prohibited is particularly stupid and most of the guns are 100 years old.  It is almost as stupid as the .32 and .25 prohibited class.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
SeaKingTacco said:
The press release, however, is overwrought and makes it sound as if a shipment of nuclear weapons was intercepted and almost misrepresents what occurred (you have filled in the blanks that many of, who are pretty expert in firearms knowledge in our own right, could not figure out on our own based only on the infirmation in the press release). Would it have killed the CBSA to either not issue a press release in this case or to be more truthful and state that they intercepted a shipment of starter pistols that were illegally modified?

As I said earlier, on a normal day, this is a good seizure.  I see no problem with publicizing it.  I'm not defending the press release, per se, however, i agree the wording could've been much better.

When I was at NDHQ, I had a draft Briefing Note I'd written returned to me by a senior officer with the direction of "I want it to say this", when "this" was a clear misrepresentation meant to fulfill a particular agenda. 

Remember the anti-gun government we are ruled by today and the climate of gun fear they perpetuate.  That may have help craft the wording of the press release particularly if the Minister's office was involved. Everybody has a boss, even a CBSA Director.

Rocky Mountains said:
Shoot somebody with a .22 short in an oversized bore and they will likely give you a thrashing like you never had before.  Is there an under 500fps defence available here?  Note that such a pistol is only prohibited by having a short barrel, not because it is painted black.  I own one such pistol and I can sell it to anyone else owning a gun in the class or give it to a kid, grandfathering them as an owner of a gun in the class.  This class of prohibited is particularly stupid and most of the guns are 100 years old.  It is almost as stupid as the .32 and .25 prohibited class.

No argument here.  But for the BSOs staring at a box of revolvers who has only the FRT entry to determine their legality, they have to follow the FRT and let the appeals process and/or the courts sort it out later.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
196
Points
680
We're these pistols actually modified to shoot bullets when they were confiscated?
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
Jarnhamar said:
We're these pistols actually modified to shoot bullets when they were confiscated?
The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
154
Points
680
Haggis said:
The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.

You see now, THAT's the type of information that would be of some value to the reader of this type of notice.

I just used my GCKey to look at the FRT and then found I had to jump through another hoop to sign up for access to the FRT. I said screw it. I still have no idea what the FRT says with respect to this item. The website strikes me as more a Police investigative tool to track who accesses the system for information than a system to distribute information to the public.

A month ago I was a staunch supporter of the RCMP and reasonable gun control measures. Thanks to JT and the bureaucracy behind all of this I'm starting to become as paranoid as some of the folks that actually own these types of firearms.

:coffee:
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
26
Points
430
FJAG said:
A month ago I was a staunch supporter of the RCMP and reasonable gun control measures. Thanks to JT and the bureaucracy behind all of this I'm starting to become as paranoid as some of the folks that actually own these types of firearms.

:coffee:

You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
72
Points
530
FJAG said:
I just used my GCKey to look at the FRT and then found I had to jump through another hoop to sign up for access to the FRT. I said screw it. I still have no idea what the FRT says with respect to this item. The website strikes me as more a Police investigative tool to track who accesses the system for information than a system to distribute information to the public.

You can download a publicly available FRT in PDF (it's about 170 MB) from the RCMP website.  It's about three weeks out-of-date, so I wouldn't trust it to determine if the gun you want to take shooting this afternoon was deemed prohibited this morning.

CloudCover said:
You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.

Some have suspected that the detail of the recent ban was fueled, in part by trolling online forums to see what inventive ways owners had found to work around the expected restrictions (i.e. banning AR uppers).  Our "Gun Porn" thread would be one target and i suspect "The Great Gun Control Debate" would be another.
 

Eaglelord17

Full Member
Reaction score
38
Points
330
Haggis said:
You can download a publicly available FRT in PDF (it's about 170 MB) from the RCMP website.  It's about three weeks out-of-date, so I wouldn't trust it to determine if the gun you want to take shooting this afternoon was deemed prohibited this morning.

Some have suspected that the detail of the recent ban was fueled, in part by trolling online forums to see what inventive ways owners had found to work around the expected restrictions (i.e. banning AR uppers).  Our "Gun Porn" thread would be one target and i suspect "The Great Gun Control Debate" would be another.

They don't need to troll around forums. The RCMP firearms lab is full of very knowledgeable and competent people, I know someone who works there and I almost got a job there myself (turned it down for a better paying job were I want to live). Most (all?) firearms lab people are gun nuts, its basically a requirement for the job otherwise you wouldn't be able to gain the knowledge required to become a subject matter expert in the first place as it isn't like you can really go to school for it.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
196
Points
680
I'm torn between getting probably $600 for my $2500 AR or destroying it which I believe I'm legally allowed to do and don't see anything about having to prove its destroyed.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
154
Points
680
CloudCover said:
You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.

Nothing like that really. I actually just renewed my Firearms licence and all my perfectly inoffensive firearms were registered under the old regime.

I'm just frustrated with what I see as a terribly unfair piece of executive action that has the potential to turn thousands of perfectly law abiding citizens into criminals for no demonstrable crime prevention purpose. I'm not even sure it's a vote getter in the GTA. Even that hotbed of sideways thought is smart enough to see through this. This is all so unnecessary and on top of everything else it's going to cost the average taxpayer money to satisfy JT's little vanity project.

:brickwall:
 
Top