This is a very lengthy article describing how the FBI does a firearms trace and their associated problems in doing so. The article is opinionated(anti-NRA and Anti-gun) but it's the most comprehensive description of the process I've ever seen. This information is detailed and probably NOT of interest to all the members here.

IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS DON'T BOTHER READING IT!
Jim

http://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns

Note no where in the article is it really mentioned why the law is what it is. Lack of trust.

That there is no database, because the liberal left have repeatedly demonstrated that any promises of that the database will not ever be used to confiscate guns cannot be trusted. Were I to believe we could trust it would not be used, I would be happy to support a computerized database. Unfortunately I cannot.

I could diagram out the promises made by the left not kept in short order, flat out lies, deliberate selective enforcement, and finally regular violation of the law as shown both in rulings by the supreme court and more in press reports. If anything the growth is dishonesty is accelerating.

It is sad to say while I remain disappointed in both political parties, I believe the left despite the supposedly termed "liberal" are in fact an even greater threat to actual liberty.

The article might spend more energy about how to restore actual faith and confidence in the promises and honesty of politicians and government workers.

Recommended reading, if for no other reason definitive proof that for all government yapping about reining in guns it will never happen. Same for building a wall. Illusions. A dishonest strategy. Americans love their guns, drugs and cheap labour. Politicians pretend to be committed to keeping them out. Huge amounts of money continue to flow into Mexico. There's no quelling the American appetite for narcotics. Presidents provide an illusion of legality and security to walls and immigration that cannot succeed. Thanks, Jim.

King, I firmly believe that if they could alter the laws they will try. The criminals will ignore the laws as they do now, but good people will be for ed by the values leftists don't have to comply

You may be right that they will not achieve it, but it will only be because people like many who populate this board fight without pause.

I wish intelligent compromise and reasoned actions could be taken, but I return to my earlier post, the left cannot be trusted. Further it has no honor, they will lie, they will go back on their word, they will not faithfully enforce laws. It is sad for me to know we have come to this, but there it is.

The wall may be an illusion, but so is the current administration's adherence to their sworn duty to adhere to the law, much less enforce it properly.

The current immigration system was created by the Unions and Democrats during the Roosevelt administration though amended remains essentially a lottery and luck of relations already here, because of the failure of trust in DC and trust in America for the DC establishment. A point system managed system to the economic benefit of our country similar to Australia, New Zealand, and your country. We cannot get there as long as the left continues identity politics and immigration as a vote getting issue and screams of racism.

The left has created an intellectually dishonest set of talking points which only serves to spark the unreasoned emotional reaction manifested in Trump rhetoric.

Should the US not get a handle on this problem which must include significantly increased security, deportation for many if not most, and no citizenship for those whose arrivals were oillegal, then it is only a matter of time until we are swamped. Then again the socialist party, who survives through identity politics wants that to happen.

A mine field would be cheaper than a wall, anyway.



Best,
Ted

If the Federal Government were serious about enforcing the laws on the books, there would be no holdup with respect to processing appeals of NICS denials (a part part of our law practice). The failure to timely process NICS appeals has been an abject disaster and a de fact denial of Second Amendment rights to innocent Americans. When the executive branch gets serious about enforcing and managing the laws already on the books, then we can take the government's constant demands for new laws seriously. Until then, the argument for new laws lacks any indicia of credibility.

Is this a bad time to ask if hill's severe brain injury will cause her to forget her commitment to making the industry liable for the illegal use of their products? Not likely, eh? Ooops, sorry about that, you were just equivocating about how trampling on a Constitutional Right and campaigning are exactly the same. Hmmm, of the two, which one's the illusion?

They may not be able to "rein in all the guns" for all practical purposes, but they certainly can pass laws that make life miserable for otherwise law abiding citizens. Look at the disaster that happened in New York with the implementation of the Orwellian-named "SAFE" Act. Since 2013, people lost entire retirement accounts worth in collections of antique firearms over bogus legal disputes.

How did people lose their collections to the government, were they not able to remove them from NY?

I understand they may have lost their right to own it instate, but how did the law take their collection before they could legally dispose of it.

So, after 48 years can we now state that GCA of 68 is a failure? It has cost precious tax money, and civil liberties, to produce a system that fails to prevent or predict the violent crimes it was supposed to do. All government has ever done is to demand more concessions on civil rights to make an inoperable system worse. Its time to cut our loss and put GCA right next to the Volstead Act in the vault of useless laws.

When I started driving to and from Alaska, we'd see big signs in northern British Columbia and the Yukon that just said "80% non-compliance"!!

That's a very good question. I can give you a generic example that repeats itself constantly in New York. First, let me give you some background information. In New York State, a person subject to an "Order of Protection" (also known as "restraining orders" in other states - New York distinguishes between the two because a restraining order has an entirely different meaning in the context of civil litigation) may have their guns seized. Sometimes, police agencies seize weapons subject to low-grade arrests (such seizures may or may not be legal depending on the facts but that is immaterial to the instant discussion).

Innocent people may be subject to an order of protection even if they have not been convicted of a crime. Neighbors call the cops on other neighbors that they are involved in a property line disagreement with. Or for some other non-criminal, non-threatening nonsense. It is the policy of many District Attorneys' offices to automatically request the Order of Protection on all harassment cases. Some judges will rubber stamp the Order of Protection without a thorough inquiry of whether it is actually warranted. So, a neighbor dispute where the defendant may actually be the harassed person can (and has) resulted in his/her entire firearms collection being seized due to an order of protection.

Once the collection of firearms is turned over to the police agency charged with storing the firearms during the pendency of the Order of Protection. "Well", you might argue, "it's an inconvenience to be sure, but if a person commit no crime, the guns should simply be returned to their owner when the case is dismissed, right?"

Wrong.

Thanks to Aloi v. Aloi[i][/i], 10 A.D.3d 655 (2004), the Town & City Justice Courts (where these misdemeanors arise) do not have the authority to issue an Order returning the seized firearms. Instead, the innocent party must initiate an Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court (trial courts, to be sure, not the highest court of appeal) in the district where the seizing court issued the initial Order of Protection. This costs a lot of money : $305 for the filing fees (Index No. + Request for Judicial Intervention) and attorneys' fees to write the Order to Show Cause, Verified Petition, and run the hearing (believe me, it's a lot of work and not inexpensive). If the innocent party fails to obtain the Order directing the police department to release the guns, the guns may sit in the station house or end up destroyed.

If the judge refuses to grant the Petition, the innocent party's only recourse is to commence an appeal to the appropriate department of the Appellate Division (there are four; jurisdiction is dependent on geographic locale). Appeals are labor intensive for any law firm, and the administrative costs alone (transcript, printing, service) are significant. You may or may not be entitled to have your case heard at the Court of Appeals in the even you lose at the Appellate Division.

That's one (of many) ways an innocent party can lose their collection to the government. If you or anyone else is interested, I would be happy to answer further questions about the firearms law debacle in New York, to the extent that I can (obviously I cannot discuss specific cases or disclose confidential client information).

Quote:
"If the Federal Government were serious about enforcing the laws on the books, there would be no holdup with respect to processing appeals of NICS denials (a part part of our law practice). The failure to timely process NICS appeals has been an abject disaster and a de fact denial of Second Amendment rights to innocent Americans. When the executive branch gets serious about enforcing and managing the laws already on the books, then we can take the government's constant demands for new laws seriously. Until then, the argument for new laws lacks any indicia of credibility."

Everyone got an answer to that question from Joe Biden the current VP. When asked he stated that the Federal government doesn't have the personnel resources to go after those that lie when filling out a 4473.
His solution? why more comprehensive gun laws of course. This inane response is understandable when you understand that the Libtard/socialist goal is to set up a universal registration system which would eventually result in total firearms confiscation. That's the real reason why they don't care about prosecuting 4473 violators.

And BTW: Correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't the Canadian Government spend billions of dollars in an attempt to set up a universal firearms registration system? And didn't they ultimately decide it was useless and a waste of money and cancel it?
Jim

Haynes vs. the U.S.

That was the Supreme Court case that ruled that criminals cannot be compelled to register their guns because it would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment Right to not incriminate themselves.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

That's right. Under any government gun registration scheme, law abiding citizens would be compelled to register their guns, but felons would not.

Not surprisingly, King Brown is once again doing his LULLING of U.S. gun owners by falsely proclaiming that "reining in guns will never happen." He knows this is a lie because the Liberal Left Democrats King supports and defends never stop trying. As old colonel correctly states, the left simply cannot be trusted, and in my opinion, King Brown himself is proof of that statement. King is drawn to these matters because Gun Control is part of his agenda and the agenda of the Left:







All this from a guy who repeatedly claims to be pro-gun, and this is but a small fraction of his anti-gun, anti 2nd Amendment, and anti-NRA rhetoric.

Canada recently passed a law scrapping the Canadian Long Gun Registry. You can bet that King Brown did nothing to assist the Canadian gun owners who successfully fought to end that part of gun registration in Canada. Unfortunately, Quebec has refused to comply with the law and destroy their database. But nobody with any brains at all would ever expect that those records would all be destroyed. Not in an age when immensely large data storage has gotten so cheap and easy.

I don't know how you would rank Canada within right and left categories. We just sent packing a conservative federal government for its autocratic governance. Two of my conservative waterfowling and fishing buddies put 2 X 3 signs on their lawns saying "I am a conservative but Harper has to go."

I believe no government can be trusted to do what it promises, even as a sacred trust, and despite that Canada has come to a reasonable public accommodation with its gun laws.There are indications of making handgun restrictions less onerous and currently a small petition of 25,000 signatures has asked to lift restrictions on AR15s.

Other than that, Canadian gunners have more freedom than the US regulatory rigamarole. I haven't heard a moan or cry (other than the above) since we got rid of the long gun registry. I have no use for an AR15, consider them ugly, and believe those who want them should organize as long gunners did to get public support for their mission.

PS--I've said here several times the only organization American shooters can trust to represent their interests is the NRA. Party affiliation is a crap shoot. A single person whose positions change daily has just taken over a national political party in his name to do as he wishes as president. With respect, Colonel, making lefties scapegoats isn't it. NRA is the only trustworthy player. .

The ATF does the firearms tracing not the FBI. FBI runs the NICS system.

The only thing I found interesting was how often the author mentioned that nothing was computerized but they are now converting 4473, which use to be micro filmed, into PDFs. That must be some trick without a computer. Searching those PDFs without a computer must be darn near impossible.

King, exactly what are you referring to " Other than that, Canadian gunners have more freedom than the US regulatory rigamarole ". The only federal law that effects me when buying a gun from a dealer is two sheets of paper. When buying privately there is nothing if it's a long gun, and my CPL takes care of pistol purchases. Thankfully I don't live in a state with state laws restricting conceal carry. My daughter, wife, and myself all carry everyday. That statement you made that I referred to - it's almost funny how you have to get your little " dig " into the USA. Then you try to give everyone half baked excuses for your statements. They don't cut it - everyone knows you're a liberal Winnie.

Rights are not contingent on your consumer tastes.



It is true that both Democrats and Republicans have sold out gun owners at some level or another, at least in New York State. The putrid piece of legislation called "The SAFE Act" could not have been passed without Dean Skelos betraying his voters and voting against Second Amendment Rights. (In case you don't keep up with New York Politics, Dean Skelos is the now-convicted felon who acted as NYS Senate President; Democrat Sheldon Silver is the other now-convicted felon who acted as Democratic Assembly Majority Leader and also instrumental in passing the SAFE Act.)

It is not true that the NRA is the only organization gun owners can trust to represent their interests. The NRA is the most visible and powerful organization, but its primary focus is on lobbying in Washington. D.C. There are other great organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America. At the moment, the biggest impediments to gun rights are found in the states, and there are many great organizations dedicated to protecting Second Amendment rights at the state level. For example, we have the Shooter's Committee on Political Education ("S.C.O.P.E.") in New York. Ultimately, the protection of every right comes to We, the People to demand better from our government and exercise our other fundamental right to vote.

I can buy a gun without a sheet of paper. anywhere in Canada, no FFLs etc. No 20,000 gun laws cited by another member, just a federal one, no squabbling about enforcements night and day in thousands of constituencies over Second Amendment interpretations, no nastiness and alienation over gun laws.

My family has no need to carry for personal safety. It doesn't live in a slaughterhouse. I am a liberal in ascendency in every modern country including the US. We're blessed to have US as neighbour, most powerful and influential in the world, still surpassingly great while recovering from a nervous breakdown.

With all due respect, why are you neglecting to tell forum members about the Possession and Acquisition License you are required to hold before purchasing a firearm?

"Other then that Mrs Lincoln how was the play ?"

Agree 100% Paul !
King knows well how gun owners here would not stand for the restrictive gun laws those Subject's in Canada have to deal with due to the "lullers" like King !
Your correct no one on here believes his lies no matter how many times he regurgitates them year after year!

In the end he is just some progressive clown in a foreign land watching a liberal world order dream circling the bowl here and other countries,has no clue and NO SAY.

I didn't feel a need for PAL mention because I was responding to the aforementioned "two pieces of paper." To sell a firearm legally all I need to know is that the owner has a PAL, no exchange or signing of papers of any kind. Canada does not have a database other than citizens who have taken a safety course. Canada doesn't know if I have a gun or how many. PAL permits buying and selling firearms to those who have shown they can use them safely. A national consensus of reasonable accommodation is preferable to Canada than an enduring, tiresome and never-ending national debate about regulations and constitutional rights.

yea and he also "forgot"(aka lies about) this;

" A registration certificate, required for restricted and prohibited firearms, identifies a firearm and links the firearm to its owner to provide a means of tracking the firearm.

Q3. What are the different classes of firearms?

A3. There are three classes of firearms: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited.

Non-restricted firearms are ordinary rifles and shotguns, other than those referred to below.

Restricted firearms include:

handguns that are not prohibited;
semi-automatic, centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a barrel shorter than 470 mm;
rifles and shotguns that can be fired when their overall length has been reduced by folding, telescoping or other means to less than 660 mm; and
firearms restricted by Criminal Code Regulations.

Prohibited firearms include:

handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less and handguns that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition, except for a few specific ones used in International Shooting Union competitions;

and this:


. What is the maximum number of cartridges that a firearm magazine can legally hold?

A7. As set out in Criminal Code Regulations, some large-capacity magazines are prohibited regardless of the class of firearm to which the magazines are attached. As a general rule, the maximum magazine capacity is:

5 cartridges for most magazines designed for a semi-automatic centre-fire long gun; or
10 cartridges for most handgun magazines

A large-capacity magazine is not prohibited if it has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more than the number of cartridges allowed by law. Acceptable ways to alter a magazine are set out in the regulations.

If the issue is whether Canadian gun laws are the most draconian in the world, we really have no disagreement there - they are far from the worst in the world. If the issue is whether the long gun registry has been eliminated, again, there is no debate about that.

But respectfully, I am simply asking you a basic "yes" or "no" question: May a Canadian citizen purchase a firearm without a PAL?

Your message points to another angle to strengthening public support for our shooting activities: trust no organization. You've mentioned other worthy organizations than NRA that concern themselves with our interests. The NRA and our comparatively minuscule National Firearms Association are needed national voices, all equally trustworthy as representing our particular interests.

What I learned from the campaign to rid Canada of its long gun registry---which may be unprecedented anywhere in turning back federal firearms legislation---is that our National Firearms Association of extremely limited financial and organizational resources made a quietly strategic appeal to Reason over the widest public fronts, an appeal to responsible citizenship more than a need of those who wanted to preserve their traditional pursuits.

I have to declare an interest here as president of the most powerful and influential and fastest growing private woodlot owner organization in Canada, and possibly anywhere. Our organization went down the wrong path several times during 50 years I've been a founder, evangelist and leader. Loyal to its membership always but responding democratically the wrong way by not seeing a bigger picture.

It's absolutely critical to support and contribute to "our" organizations national, state and provincial---and the local level particularly because that's where we're judged by all the other publics, of which there are more of them than us. Canada, not the NFA by itself, overturned the registry when its citizens saw it as inimical to its public interests, wasteful and diminishing Canadian values. A cocky, divisive them-and-us will get us nowhere.

No---and for the perfectly good reason citizens from coast to coast to coast voted for it in a federal election: peace, order and good government. It shows, doesn't it?

If an attorney gave the convoluted misinformation about purchasing a firearm like you have given, their license to practice law could (should) be suspended and they may or may not face civil and criminal penalties.

See: http://globalnews.ca/news/1378685/firearms-in-canada-how-is-someone-able-to-get-a-gun/

and:

http://www.howtogetagun.ca

and also:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/information/lic-per-eng.htm

Without question, Canadian gun owners have to cut through more bureaucratic red tape to purchase a firearm than their American neighbors. Period, end of discussion.

No. Why aren't your people trusted to own any firearm other than full auto? Are conceal carry permits issued ? We have a 2nd Amendment for good reasons - to keep the government in it's place and to overthrow it if necessary. Smokeshot, I don't know what a " Possession and Acquisition License " is. Please explain.

Dave, Canadians voted for and accommodate the consequences of these regulations, such as they are, as preferable to the egregious and agreed sham of the subject of this thread. I feel no infringements on my shooting activities nor a need to carry in public places for my safety.

Like a Trojan Horse, or more accurately, a snake in the grass, King Brown continues to dishonestly portray himself as something he is not.

Once again, King is pretending to be pro-gun... even though he has consistently supported and defended those Liberal Left Democrats who are most responsible for 20,000 plus gun control laws and constant assaults upon our 2nd Amendment;



Of course, it's only natural for King to neglect to mention that a PAL is necessary to purchase a firearm in Canada, and that many firearms which are perfectly legal here are absolutely prohibited in Canada (except in some Democrat controlled enclaves). Just ask King to go out and try to legally buy something as simple as a .25 or .32 caliber handgun. King knows he can't, yet he will continue to lie and tell you that Canada's restrictions are less than ours. Dishonest omissions of critical facts come as naturally to King as breathing.

Here's King, in his own words, once again denigrating the NRA and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the words of the 2nd Amendment:



Here's more from the dishonest guy who is now here attempting to portray himself as a supporter of the NRA:






Here's a direct quote from King Brown in answer to me shortly after the Newtown shootings in 2013. It is not possible to use the "QUOTE" function since the thread was locked. King was actually counseling us to give in to Obama and the anti-gun Democrats as he was also criticizing the NRA for Wayne LaPierre's comments:


(Quote: King Brown)

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind."

There is a reason we are taught even as children to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. King Brown's posts here in this thread illustrate exactly why it is my opinion that he is the single most dishonest person to post on this forum.

It is not wrong to have a divisive "us and them" attitude when you are dealing with people like King. They do us much more harm than good.

King,
I could care less what "you",especially being "progressive" liberal who is NOT an American, feels infringes on your shooting actives in Canada.

I, like every American on here, have no interest in being subjected your draconian gun laws of Canada and will not allow OUR country to end up with those same restrictive laws here in America !

Once again King, NO ONE here is buying the BS your selling.

Always interesting King. I'd like to invoke your new favorite word, trustworthy, and my hope that you really 'feel' this way.

Are you advocating that all laws and regulations that infringe on 'shooting activities', for everyone, are a-okay based on your feelings? How are you able justify your feelings, when you can clearly see the pain and suffering caused to citizens that're less affluent?

Canadians (as with most Commonwealth nations) long ago stopped recognizing the common law right to keep and bear arms that was embodied in the writings of William Blackstone (perhaps another thread should be created for that purpose).

Canadians must pass a test and obtain a license before they may legally purchase firearms.

He certainly seems to be doing that. In all of his posts, I cannot find a single policy-based argument to support his vaguely expressed feelings.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I've taken a position that an ecumenical model has proven more efficacious in forwarding our interests than fighting from a weakening base of more them than us. Affluent or otherwise has nothing to do with it. The Canadian fraternity sacrificed nothing in rolling back the registry. I've seen no "pain or suffering" under our reformed system and no wins in the US. Self-defeating chest-beating didn't enter into it. Proof of the pudding is in the eating. No arguments are needed, policy-based, personal or otherwise.

More dishonest blather from King... no surprise there!

King dishonestly states that he sees no wins on the gun control front in the U.S. He must be forgetting the humiliating defeat Obama and the anti-gun Democrats suffered in 2013. He must be forgetting the Firearms Owners Protection Act which overruled no fewer than six anti-gun Supreme Court decisions and about one-third of the hundreds of lower court rulings interpreting the 1968 Gun Control Act. He must be forgetting that there were only 8 Shall Issue Concealed Carry States in 1986 and there are 39 now, with some form of CC now legal in all 50 states.

Of course, I'm sure he'd like us to forget the passage of laws to protect firearms sellers and manufacturers from frivolous and financially damaging lawsuit... which Hillary Clinton wishes to reinstate. And King still hasn't accepted the crushing defeat of the anti-gunners in the 2008 Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. King still insists that the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a recent perversion of what he thinks the 2nd Amendment actually says. Here he is dishonestly claiming that Conservative Constitutional scholar Mark Levin does not believe in the IRKBA:



Notice that King never fails to neglect to mention that Justice John Paul Stevens was one of Nixon's great disappointments when he turned into a flaming Liberal. Another one of those little omissions of facts that King is so good at.

The Canadian Fraternity spent years and large amounts of time and money in rolling back the Canadian Long Gun Registry. King wouldn't know anything about that because he has done absolutely nothing to promote gun rights in Canada. He is too busy here attempting to LULL U.S. Gun Owners into complacency and advancing his Liberal Left anti-gun agenda. No matter what King may say or think, you cannot honestly consider yourself pro-gun when you support and defend the extreme anti-gun politicians who work tirelessly to infringe upon our rights.

I saw the pictures you were able to share. Can you really 'feel' the way a person of colour, a woman, or a person of lower economic class DOES feel. Isn't it possible that others may have an argument based on the entitlement of feelings?

I will leave it to others to question the voracity of your other claims in the post. But implying the US is a slaughterhouse is beyond the pale.

False!

Unless you consider hand guns, and other restricted and prohibited forearms as per Canadian government regulations since 1935, not, in fact, guns.

What I'm "selling" is fact that democratic countries choose how they want to live and be governed. You have yours and I have mine. Americans chose consciously a dysfunctional government that the electorate now abhors and consequently chosen arguably the two most unpopular nominees in its history to be president. According to polls, the universally repugnant campaign will produce nothing or worse for your shooting fraternity. Canadian gun laws may be an improvement.

Nothing like completely misrepresenting the results of our last election. If two "Conservative" supporters had those signs on their lawns, then two things are likely. Either they were easily misled by the incredible bias of the MSM for the previous 4 years or, in classic Maritime Canadian fashion, their incomes depend on being on the right side of the election. Graft, government subsidies and porkbarreling are the major industries out your way.

For veracity, James, I qualified it, I think, as "a comparative slaughterhouse." How otherwise, among modern, industrialized countries?

Join the Canadian Gunnutz forums, 150,000 member strong and you will hear all sorts of moaning and crying about the current state of affairs.

And the idea that things are going to get better is just laughable. The new Liberal government has turned over the decision making process for what long arms should be prohibited or restricted to the RCMP. Things will not be getting better!!

The Atlantic region is all those things, James, except the scandals and public largesse that get national attention always come from west of here.

They'll have to come up with more than a puny 25,000 names in a national petition to lift restrictions on AR15s in today's public consciousness, James.

Hell, I led a provincial campaign in a province of less than a million to stop casinos, including 50,000-name petition (and support of every Baptist congregation) and I might as well have been spitting in the wind.

For all the RCMP problems, I'd put more trust in it than any political party, even if it is commissioned to enforce and not make the laws. Don't see appreciable public blowback there.

King Brown has been corrected countless times about his dishonest and deliberate misrepresentations of Canadian Firearms laws, the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and murder rates in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. Yet he always returns with more of the same bullshit.

At some point, serial dishonesty becomes pathological... a mental illness. There is no sense in debating it. You simply illuminate it and understand who you are dealing with. King Brown is no friend to U.S. gun owners, and no army has won a war by allowing the enemy to permeate their ranks.

Ken61 recognized the Soviet inspired tactics used by King here awhile back:



The real King Brown is the Troll who repeatedly posts things like this, while neglecting to mention that Infringements upon our Gun Rights almost always come directly from the Liberal Left anti-gunners he supports:



King even twists reason when he found a perverted excuse for Obama to violate his Oath of Office:



King even expects you to believe his dishonest crap when he is confronted about it in his own words!



But King DID NOT refer to the U.S. as a "comparative slaughterhouse as he claims. James had it 100% correct:



Veracity from King Brown??? That's simply hilarious at this point. And apparently impossible too.

Dishonesty is not civility. King Brown is not our friend. King is the perfect example of why we could never trust the Left with a Gun Registration database.

You are quite right King. 25,000 names isn't nearly sufficient. But what do you expect when public opinion of what constitutes an assault weapon, what an AR actually is, has been so shaped by massive public misinformation from media who either didn't give a shit about accuracy or purposely mislead the public to further their own agenda.

It's kinda like the RCMP and other forces displaying the "haul" of illegal "sniper" rifles when they bust someone for having hunting rifles but no PAL.

It's called disinformation and the left, as well as totalitarian forces of any ilk, have it down to a science.

Well, I'll grant you that Quebec is west of you, but there is no shortage of scandalous government graft and waste in your neck of the woods. The difference between Atlantic Canada and Quebec with points FURTHER west in Canada, is that the rest of the country (Manitoba excepted) typically contributes more to the economy and governments than they take.

Atlantic Canada would be dead in the water without the employment provided by different levels of government. It is THE industry.

"Hell, I led a provincial campaign in a province of less than a million to stop casinos, including 50,000-name petition (and support of every Baptist congregation) and I might as well have been spitting in the wind. "

Guess the casino folks weren't impressed by your mad forestry skills. I know where the Catholics stood. We love our Bingo!

______________________________
All this talk of pudding and barrels of pork is making me hungry.

Here's King on 1/29/2015 in Misfires, "DISARM THE FEDS" thread, post #392094, telling us about what a violent slaughterhouse Canada has become in recent years:



This is precisely why King was so happy that Misfires was suspended. He thinks the words he posted there are gone. They aren't. As I said earlier, immense data storage has gotten extremely cheap, and I saved virtually all of it for times like this. Note that King has been adamant that Dave W. should never reinstate the Misfires forum, but that he has absolutely no problem with posting non-doublegun crap here as long as he thinks he can advance his Liberal Left agenda.

Hypocrisy ain't civility either.

Well, King...it seems it's not just the casino folks who are unimpressed with you!


_________________________
Funky Cold Czarnina.

Oh, dear. Not wanting to rush to judgement or impute motives, Smokeshot says I'm a liar, possibly senile, ignorant of basic law but now there's a legal professional to hold me to account (as if we didn't have knowledgeable, erudite and forthright ones here for years). Welcome aboard!

Yes, lonesome, but a distinguishing mark of this international forum is that members have always pushed nasty to the margins. I'll survive.

No nastiness here. You deliberately and knowingly stated that a person could purchase gun in Canada without a license. If anyone in Canada actually listened to you, you should be liable.

Was that Trump U. a law school?


_________________________
Might have one of its graduates here...

You tell 'em King! What's this 'I' stuff? We, the left, haven't run into a fact yet that can't be overcome. Hey, I like that subtle victim angle, familiar strategy. How do you do one of those thumbs up things?

Smokeshot, I was responding to a member who said he only had to sign a couple papers to buy a firearm (or something similar). I believe I replied that there was no signing or exchange of papers to buy a firearm in Canada. All a buyer or seller had to know is whether the buyer or seller had a PAL license issued after a safety course. I could sell a shotgun to James in Ontario over the phone; no fuss, no FFl, no cross border, no paper. I know he has a PAL because he wouldn't possess and acquire firearms without one. He could also sell or give away all his guns tomorrow with none showing up on databases anywhere. Liable? How long have you been a legal professional?

I'd show you how to a T, craig, except it would be teasingly cynical, not fair, to a valued member who lost his Party.

Smokeshot, I'm the "James" King refers to and we are old friends on this board who hold remarkably differing views, except we like each other.

Every once in a while, King will make an assertion about the legality of this or that in relation to guns up here in the Great White North and just as often, I find myself compelled to clarify his misinformation and obfuscation.

So while it's true we don't need to bother with an equivalent of the FFL, we all need to be licensed gun owners, a privilege earned at our government's discretion, as long as we are talking about non prohibited or restricted long guns.

As soon as the subject becomes our "restricted and prohibited" weapons, which include all hand guns and most scary black gun types, our laws and regs are rather draconian and have been since 1935.

And, James: misinformation and obfuscation in the above, please.

Restricted and prohibited---handguns and AR15s---were covered, with Dave's generous assistance.

There's less regulatory rigamarole in Canada.

James, thank you for your timely and concise explanation of the situation across the border. The licensing situation was what I had been getting at. I don't believe King would have exposed himself to serious legal liability by transferring a firearm to an unlicensed party within Canada.

I mean no disrespect towards King, but to be clear, in the vast majority of the United States, private transactions need to 4473 paperwork to transfer a firearm in the same manner which King described. The 4473 is only required at the initial point of sale from an FFL. (New York now in fact requires an FFL for every private gun transfer. I doubt that Canadians - even King - would be happy with New York gun laws.)

Seems like our thread is drawing a lot of traffic tonight.

Found it! It was misfiled under, I'm with her. Often said to be equivalent, there's a clear distinction. Now, has anyone seen bill and that new intern? They're supposed to be playing hide the secret files.

James, Smokeshot won't believe me because he says I'm a liar and ignorant of the law. It would be helpful if someone explained to him the legal consequences of providing a gun to a person who does not have a PAL. I believe he now understands I would not be liable if someone acted on what I said earlier of an different circumstance. And on the net, zilch! (I taught liability, libel and slander to newsrooms and at university.)

See the above post.

You are deliberately misquoting me or you're nuts.

It begs the question. Why wasn't truth and honesty taught?

craigd:
And so the King
Is once again my guest
And why is this?
Was smokeshot unimpressed?

King:
I look for truth
And find that I get damned

craigd:
What is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?

__________________________
What's the buzz?
(It kinda works...after a few beers anyways...)

Yeah, sure you did King. That's about as believable as your "Award Winning Wine" which, as it turns out, was actually produced by someone else.



So tell us, why are you misquoting Smokeshot? It certainly didn't take him long to realize the sort of person you are. And why won't you tell us whether or not you can go out and legally purchase a .25 or .32 caliber handgun with your PAL? Those who want to know the truth about the subject can click this link since they won't be getting the truth from you:

http://www.gunownersresource.com/faq/what-guns-are-banned-in-canada/

Do you seriously think that illegal trafficking in guns would cease if we had PAL's instead of FFL's and Form 4473's? And what would it matter to you anyway if you sold a gun to someone without a PAL? Aren't you above the law, like Hillary Clinton? Do you remember when you called me a liar for reminding everyone that you illegally transported a handgun in your airplane and even illegally crossed the U.S. border with it several times? You repeated that lie until I used a direct QUOTE by you to prove that it was actually you who was lying to us. Again. This is from your Misfires post #360486 on 3/10/2014 concerning the legality of pistol usage in Canada:

Originally Posted By: King Brown

Carry is mostly prohibited but the Mounties told me when I bought my first one 60-odd years ago that I'd never have any trouble anywhere if I used common sense, not do something foolish with people around. Used it in our wide open spaces and forgot to remove it several times crossing the border in my aircraft.

Do you remember what Canvasback had to say about your illegal transport of handguns in Canada... and apparently even across the border?



But even more precious was how you went on and on for several days calling me a liar and dishonestly claiming that the gun that I told about you illegally transporting in your plane was a Savage Model 24 .22/20 ga.



And one would think by now that you'd know James (canvasback) isn't going to let you get away with your frequent misinformation and sins of omission concerning Canadian firearms laws. In all of the many times he has corrected you, you have never been able to refute him:



What an utter fraud! Do you think that endlessly repeating bullshit will make it become true?

Poor Smokeshot, relatively new to this site, probably thought he was participating in a Double Gun forum. But he has actually stumbled into the King-Zone, more bizarre than the Twilight Zone, where truth and reality are suspended and staunch supporters of anti-gunnners claim to be pro-gun.



Ummmmm, in this case Smokeshot, in Re: King Brown... the correct answer would be "All of the above!"

Lonesome, we didn't lay a paw on bingo. It was the biggest-ever public campaign here. We had all the churches on our side against casinos, including the Roman Catholic archbishop and two bishops. I mentioned the Baptists because it was the first time they became actively involved together in a controversial public issue. Nothing wrong with bingo!

Gee King, with you leading the campaign to stop casino gambling in Nova Scotia, how is it possible that your side lost?

Wait, I know... the same way the American gun owners and the NRA would have lost if they simply conceded ground to Obama and the anti-gunners had they followed your idiotic advice.

Do you remember this sage advice you gave us King?








Except that Ft. Hood was a Gun Free Zone thanks to Liberal Left Democrats! After Maj, Nidal Hasan killed 13 soldiers and wounded 30 more in an Islamic terror attack, he was finally subdued with... a gun.

And here's a quote by King Brown copied and pasted verbatim from his post # 308159 on 1/8/13 where he lambasted the NRA and suggested that they should consider the massive gun control Obama was attempting to shove down our throats as he exploited a tragedy to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights:

(Quote: King Brown)

"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind."

"Lying Crooked King"

My PM box here has several inquires about King Brown,all say the same thing,who is this guy and is he crazy ?

Nope,King Brown has been lying and BS on here for years,Keith,CB,Craig,Jim and I have been having the same battles over and over again with "Lying Crooked King",who has this delusional view that his "new job" (his words) is to try and tamp down-by whatever lies and BS he can come up with,anything that is against the Progressive march to a world order posted on here. That,like King BS on here is thankfully failed and,like his boy Oabama,now circling the drain for the final flush !

Lying Crooked King Brown the laughing stock of liberalism !

At least it would be legit. if he was a U S Citizen. He not and IMO has no right to complain about our laws anymore then I have a right to complain about Canadian Laws.
He would do us all a favor if he'd Just Shut the Hell up! He's been on my ignore list for quite some time which ought to tell you how much I value his "opinion"!
Jim

Any possibility you guys are whistling past the cemetery? May I anticipate your smiles come November? You're presiding gleefully and consciously over the wrecking of a great Party. Even the Kochs are spending solely to hold the Senate.

Its shame he ruined what was a good thread-not surprising thou Jim, and it just proves Old Colonel post that the left can NOT be trusted,like King, to keep the names of gun owners.

Thank Goodness we are not registered gun owners like in Canada and are able to protect ourselves here in America the way we want, not how Lying Crooked King thinks we should !

How are we "presiding over the wrecking of a great Party" King?

Could it be that we support the pro-2nd Amendment candidate, and you are hoping and praying to your atheist gods that the avowed anti-gunner Hillary Clinton wins?

And why are you once again attempting to change the subject? Most somewhat normal people, when confronted with their dishonesty, either fade away or apologize and take their lumps. Others, do like Alvin Linden did, and have an extreme meltdown, and then return later under a new screen name. In his case, he returned posing as a 19 year old girl named Halleye, with the screen name of gunluvr. Here's that self-described 19 year old girl back in May of 2015 in a Memorial Day thread in Misfires telling us about enjoying his/her wife's coffee and being a combat veteran:




See King. That should make you feel better knowing you aren't the only sick puppy posting crap here and pretending to be something that you are not. Once you start telling lies, it gets awful hard to keep those stories straight. Do you recall actually admitting that you lie to advance your Liberal Left ideas King? I do, from your Misfires post #389019 on 1/2/2015:



You can't make this shit up. I come here first for the double gun knowledge. But it is also like getting free admission to a freak show too!

This was a useful thread to discuss the American federal gun tracing system, and it almost developed into a useful discussion about American federal and state gun laws. The Canadian system has nothing to do with the topic. There is, of course, nothing wrong with a Canadian making comments about American law, but it is ethically wrong to make deliberate and knowing misstatements about the law.

Let's sum this up :

Canada: Purchasers are required to obtain a license, known as a Possession and Acquisition license (hereinafter "PAL") to purchase firearms in Canada.

United States: Federal law does not require purchasers to obtain a license to acquire or possess a firearm. Under federal law, a person must fill out a simple 4473 background check form if the transaction is going through an FFL. Otherwise, federal law does not require a license nor a background check for private transfers.

State laws on firearms purchase vary, but most do not require a license or background check to purchase a firearm. There are, however, some notable exception such as New York (requires a license to purchase a handgun; all firearms transactions must go through an FFL for a background check).

By definition, the Canadian firearms licensing system requires more bureaucracy than the United States system. Case closed

/KingBrown discussion

Dave, Canada does not have a registry, data base of registered gun owners. Canada feels no need of guns for personal safety, as the US does. If it did, it would have them, from laws made in legislatures as expressions of the will of the people. Our laws are as citizens make them, same as yours. Except Americans debate tirelessly the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Discussion of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not a debate. It is a full scale frontal assault on our National heritage by people who do not value America and would prefer to turn it into something else...Geo

You are hopelessly full of misrepresentations about Canadian law. Canada abandoned its long gun registry, appropriately. Canada still maintains a registry for restricted and prohibited firearms. See: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm



You don't speak for a nation of people. Many Canadians around this area would vehemently disagree with you.

Correct. The debate regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment was effectively settled at the time of the Heller decision. Heller is good law and along with McDonald currently being used effectively in dispositive trial court motions throughout the country. It is going to take a lot more than a Clinton presidency to reverse Heller.

Smoke, you seem like a pretty smart guy. However we disagree on what a Clinton Presidency would do to American gun rights. ALL it will take is a Clinton election to undo Heller and McDonald. The Supreme Court is the most important issue in this election. The next president will appoint at least two and maybe three new Justices. Hillary's appointments will be disastrous. I'm voting Trump and win or lose, at least I will cancel someone else's vote...Geo

No, of course I do not trust him, but he's the only choice for gun owners this time.

I think it's just about feelings.

Please do not misunderstand me. I think Clinton would be horrible for gun rights. She has no business receiving the vote of a person to whom the Second Amendment is dear, which includes me. I was speaking strictly from a legal perspective.

I said that she will not likely be able to reverseHeller. I never said she couldn't effectively erode Heller. Reversing a precedent is a herculean effort that can take lifetimes. Since the government cannot simply bring a case to the Supreme Court, the only method by which the precedent could be reversed is if a draconian handgun (it would have to be handgun, or very common weapon like a pump action shotgun) ban were passed. The law would have to survive trial court and intermediate appellate review, and then the Supreme Court would have to vote to reverse the precedent. It's unlikely. Some of the Justices who dissented from Heller recently voted unanimously to uphold the decision in Caetano.

Erosion is a separate issue altogether. Unlike reversal, Clinton could erode the Second Amendment right by signing laws into effect that violate what is outside the core of the right (the Court said the core is the right to possess commonly owned weapons, for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense, within the home). That could mean doing a lot of things that violate the Second Amendment without abolishing its core.

That's the distinction I'm talking about.

Federal legislation comprises all gun laws in Canada---in effect, one law---not a member-cited 20,000 laws in the United States depending on Second Amendment interpretations by myriad jurisdictions.

Canadians considering buying firearms/ammunition are required to pass a safety course. The federal government makes a background check and finding clean issues a Possession and Acquisition License.

Having a PAL is a no-fuss convenience for purchasing, buying or selling, gun owner or not. A granddaughter has PAL so I can pass on firearms to her in my will. She has no interest in using one now. She is not a registered gun owner.

Canada has no rigamarole over buying or selling at gun shows, from one to another, crossing state lines, shipping, FFLs, uncertainty of legality in myriad jurisdictions. What I do is my business, none else. No sham FBI tracing centre.

As most Canadians, I don't fear government confiscating my firearms. Under our parliamentary system, when they cross the line into unwarranted authoritarianism we always throw them out, as we did the registry and government with it.

But she does have a PAL. If you and your family were situated in the United States, you would be able to will your guns to your granddaughter without any license required. (And if you really wanted to be smart with the estate planning, you would gift her the firearms before you passed away. Of course, that cannot always be planned precisely.)



Canada did a good job with ending the long gun registry. Would you agree that the handgun registry should be ended as well?

Geo, the portents of Clinton are all you say and worse, looking at it solely from gun rights. Her win would settle gun control once and for all time. Making it more precarious is being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. You know what Clinton will do but the newcomer owing no one . . .? I hate the notion of any electorate voting from fear, either way. Have faith and pursue.

No. The handgun fraternity is making nibbling inroads toward lifting restrictions and for now I'd like to see how that goes before agitating for an ending. The handgun registry and restrictions have been here for 80-some years. General public sentiment against firearms of any kind has reached a point that there are police call-outs weekly because of toy replicas in public places. Hunters are often so intimidated that they hustle from their transportation into the woods, not wanting to be as much as seen with uncased long guns. Lots of hunting, great opportunities, but responsible and discreet is observed. (I attend my gun club range with my Ruger .22, have another on my property.)

Dishonest misrepresentations are King Brown's favorite method of debate and discussion Smokeshot. It's nothing new to those of us who have been subjected to his Liberal Left anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric for years. Here's a link to a nearly 10 year old Thread where King Brown was still questioning the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms component of the 2nd Amendment. He still hasn't accepted the 2008 Heller or McDonald decisions, and still insists that the 2nd was intended by the Framers to only protect a collective right. But he calls himself pro-gun. What a fraud.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

You are quite correct that Canada has a Registry of Restricted and Prohibited firearms. There was a National Long Gun Registry that was imposed in spite of the will of the people. It was the eventual will of the people that got it repealed, but as I stated earlier, Quebec still refuses to comply with the law and has not destroyed the records. So no matter what King Brown says, the Long Gun Registry still exists, even though it isn't 100% up to date. And what we see here on a regular basis, thanks to King Brown's behavior, is that Liberals simply cannot be trusted with any Registry. Since the entire registry could probably be stored on a couple hundred dollars worth of multi-terrabyte hard drive, you can bet that records that were ordered to be destroyed have been saved.

What you won't see is King Brown lobbying and fighting to make Quebec comply with the law. King is much too busy right here attempting to undermine our own 2nd Amendment. We cannot stop him from doing that. But we sure as hell can make certain that everyone here understands what he is doing, and that he is no friend to U.S. gun owners. Thanks for taking the time to point out his serial dishonesty. But don't make the mistake of thinking you can engage him in honest debate. When he provides "facts or figures", I have learned that it is always best to check them out before accepting them as true. More often than not, they are dishonest Liberal Left talking points and pure propaganda. Of course, I am ready, willing, and able to prove that statement.

No surprise that King does not wish to see an end to Canada's Handgun Registry. To date, he has never once said that he is even happy that Canadian gunners were able to get the Long Gun Registry repealed. He certainly had nothing to do with it or we'd never hear the end of it from the Great Bloviator.

King Brown describing himself as pro-gun is about as dishonest as David Duke describing himself as a Black Lives Matter spokesman.

You may not fear it. Most Canadian's may not fear it (as they don't own firearms). But most firearms owners do fear it. Why? Two reasons.

First our sham Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has allowed our Supreme Court, nine appointed people, to overrule our elected Parliament, says nothing about property rights. That wasn't an oversight, it was deliberate.

Second, the RCMP, the organization that decides what is prohibited and what is restricted, has numerous times, arbitrarily and with no public consultation, ruled previously legal firearms to be prohibited. And those who bought and owned perfectly legal guns, then had to turn them in. No compensation.

[quote=James M]This is a very lengthy article describing how the FBI does a firearms trace and their associated problems in doing so. The article is opinionated(anti-NRA and Anti-gun) but it's the most comprehensive description of the process I've ever seen. This information is detailed and probably NOT of interest to all the members here.

IF YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS DON'T BOTHER READING IT!
Jim


I would not bother reading this. Don't worry the Empire will crumble economically well before the guns are registered and taken away from you.

King claimed to have once owned a full-auto Sten. So what did he tell us he did when government regulations became too onerous? Did he utilize his wondrous lobbying and organizing skills to reverse the encroachment or to elect a more Gun Friendly Parliament???

No. He caved like a tent in a tornado and got rid of it. That is, if the story about actually owning a Sten was true in the first place. He claims he sold it to someone in the U.S. That's quite interesting considering the troubles Canadians have simply moving unrestricted double guns back and forth across the border. It leaves me wondering how a Sten that wasn't registered under the NFA of 1934 was legally transferred into the U.S. and sold here.

Here's yet another place where King admitted to illegally transporting a pistol around Canada for decades, and once again admitting to crossing into the U.S. with one stashed in his plane.



With his penchant for violating Canadian Firearms laws, it's no wonder he isn't in favor of lifting restrictions on handguns.

I hate to be a stickler for accuracy (no I don't. LOL) But almost all the issues that arise moving unrestricted (As per Canadian regs)guns and their parts across our borders, have their origins in US regulations. It is US Customs and ATF that make things hard. Not Canada.

All true, James. Way of the world. You left out all the secret surveillance and Canadians, like the Americans with their Patriot Act, didn't say boo.

Durn King. Are using gun control to campaign for the evangelical vote. Being an amateur stickler, sorta like cback, how can a progressive settle anything once and for all?

edit to add: boo

Gentlemen (on all sides of this thread),

I find this thread to be an inspiration. I have a great idea. Is there a way that I can send a PM to more than one person at a single time?

Ain't that the truth.

James, I didn't take Geo's earlier reference to a direct frontal attack on traditional gun rights as much another skirmish of us and them, or as something particularly partisan on the part of "progressives." His was a declarative warning that in the current cultural climate of fear and increasingly severe security measures, incipient racial disorder affecting administration of justice, eight years of Clinton/Court hegemony would settle the struggle, as I said, once and for all time. Shooters will keep their guns. How they use them will be unrecognizable from what it is today, with majority public consent.

Sure smoke, just add the recipients you want to the PM. Just a thought; do you know anything about or are you interested in doubleguns or are you just here for the deep political discussions?...Geo

King, are you sure I said all that? I thought I just said to vote for the NRA candidate...Geo

Interested in double guns, came here for information about double guns, and stumbled across some bizarre remarks from our Canadian friend.

That's what I took from your words---this is Clinton/Court crunch time, chilluns---and I added a few words because of the usual response of stirringr entrails, poking fingers when the enemy is us, societies mesmerized by Bambi.

I'm not sure, without scrolling back, if you advocated voting for the NRA candidate. You said what you were going to do and you didn't trust either one of them. It's not your nature to do thinking for others.

I'll take your word for that James, but it still doesn't answer the question about the legality of an international transfer of a full-auto Prohibited firearm from Canada and then being sold in the U.S. when that full-auto firearm had not been registered as required by U.S. law under the NFA of 1934. Sounds fishy at best.

While looking for information about transferring an unrestricted gun into Canada from the U.S., I did find this interesting article titled "Under the gun: The burden of being a gun owner in Canada"

https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-blogs/un...10-f8d99d4e9f54

I'm hoping that you'll have time to read it and tell us if the information in it is accurate. It is a bit dated being from 2011, and the Long Gun Registry was obviously still active then, but I wondered if the rest of the rigamarole is actually true. If it is anything close to being that way for Canadian gun owners, I'd have to say King is even more full of shit than I thought pertaining to his notion that Canada's gun laws are less cumbersome than those we have. I'd ask him for his take on its' accuracy, but (a), he pretends to ignore me, and (b) I wouldn't trust him to be truthful about it. Thanks,

Keith, read the article and yes, with the exception of the stuff about the long gun registry, it's accurate.

Each province has a Chief Firearms Officer, a person (with full staff) responsible for the execution of the bureaucratic bullshit. Chris Wyatt was anything but reasonable. Fought hard against any liberalization of regs and used every means at his disposal to make things difficult. These people are seconded to the Office of the CFO from major police forces....the RCMP or OPP. Make no mistake, as senior officers of those forces, they are philisophically against guns in private hands.

I have described ATT's (Authorization to Transport) here before. To pretend, as King does on occasion, that the requirements of US law regarding intra-state sale and shipment of firearms, are more onerous that Canadian regs is just not accurate. And it's so much not accurate that anyone even somewhat familiar with the laws could not be making a mistake.

With the exception of exporting firearms, ammo and firearms parts, it is abundantly clear the US is substantially less burdened by criminal law that regulates the ownership, storage, handling, use and sale of firearms.

I know something about unregistered firearms that should have been part of the original registration of "restricteds" in the 1930's. ANYTHING to do with them is illegal. Included possessing, touching, looking at, selling or crossing a border.

There is a bit of a mantra up here the bureaucrats and leftists like to hit us over the head with, and it's not used just in relation to guns. " It's a priviledge, not a right". It serves to emphasis, in a threatening way, the power of the government and the little protection we have from its whims.

You are at the right place to learn a few things about doubleguns. You might not be going to get much politics though. I can't believe this thread is still up???...Geo

On the border thing.

As an example, I can't travel to the US and bring back a flat of RST shells that aren't available here. I can't bring back even one shell. Not because Canada......our laws allow us to bring back 5000 rounds anytime we are down there.

It is the ATF on behalf of the US government that restricts the exports, under any circumstance, to those who are licensed, and have paid the appropriate fees. To the point of tracking licence plates of Canadians attending US gun shows and stopping those visitors just before they get to the border.

For those of us who like visiting your fair country, the risks are just way too great to justify the rewards of skirting those regs. I'd like to continue being able to visit. Not be banned for life.

George, we're just getting warmed up! I didn't even know the thread was here until around post 50. Haha!

James, US gun stores complain they can't send us as much as a peep sight although our esteemed John Mann sold me a mint SW, marked "shotgun" on the box and sent it fedex to my door, no questions asked, while US closing border. Our Joe Salter in Sydney has been trafficking militaria and guns, including full autos, for decades through his US operations in New England and, I believe, sometimes in Florida. I know of several Schmeissers, Stens and Tommyguns that went south. US Customs doesn't fool around. I saw a twin aircraft confiscated in Buffalo for not declaring a 40-ouncer of overproof rum bought in St. Miquelon.

Keep using words like "trafficking" and "full auto". Sooner or later, someone will investigate you and perhaps the entire message board.

ELEVEN pages of this shit?

Twelve. Twelve pages, actually. Leave it to you to screw that up.




Best,
Ted

King, as should be obvious, a country's laws and regs do not remain static. Whether the transaction you and John engaged in was legal in both countries depends entirely on when it was transacted. You conveniently left that salient detail out.

I suppose the Sydney fellow you refer to could quite possibly have an entirely legal gun business based in the US. I don't know what his legal status is in either country.....again, too few details to make a judgement.

Hardly good examples to bolster your premise of the easy movement of firearms between countries. At least that sure seems like what your premise is. Perhaps you might be a little more strIghtforward and desist in non sequiturs for a while.

RCMP wouldn't raise an eyebrow, Smoke. Check OED, the most authoritative dictionary. Joe Salter has been legally and successfully trafficking both ways across border for 50 years. A legal professional's job is to keep us out of trouble. You're finding trouble where it isn't.

Smokeshot, glad you joined us.

LD, did you make some kind of bet with jOe on who can be the biggest nattering nabob of negativity?

James, I said when "the border was closing." Google Joe, a good guy, a lawyer, advertising in both countries for as long as I can remember. I said he was in business in New England and Florida as well as here. "Quite possibly" he was doing so suggests you didn't read it. My premise was more freedom gun trading in Canada. Cross border banter came north later, which you clarified. Ask for help any time.

(Did you get your boy back? My only hope is interested great grandson, age seven, adopted from South Korea at six months, hell for leather around guns.

OK 12

Closing? Closed? There is a difference and I'd just say it wasn't clear. Regardless, and assuming it was all done legally (the Mann transaction) it doesn't change my point....now and for the last 15 or so years, the US makes cross border transactions of non restricted long guns, their parts and ammo, very difficult.

Examples for previously legal transactions are somewhat meaningless. I also used to drive across the border at Emerson to go pheasant hunting in North and South Dakota:
"Where you all going?"
"South Dakota"
"What will you be doing?"
"Hunting pheasant."
"Got any guns?"
"Yup"
"Have a great time!"

But it wasn't particularly germane to this discussion.

The boy started back at school this morning. Very happily. His mom and I have ultimately reached a very co-operative and fair co-parenting agreement and arrangement, in theory and practice. All's good on that front. Gordon excels and his mom and I bask in the reflected glory.

Haha!

Last Dollar could always be counted on to whine, b*tch, piss, and moan whenever any topic pertaining to gun rights has been posted. But when he made posts pertaining to gun rights, it was perfectly OK.

Why, I recall the time he pitched a b*tch and had one of his hissy-fits about a thread Jim started, and succeeded in getting it moved to Misfires. Then he went to Misfires and complained about the discussion there. Wait, it gets even better. A few days later, he started a new thread in the main double gun forum entitled "Banned" that included a picture of a baseball bat with a tactical grip and sights. Dave Weber locked Last Dollars "Banned" thread which was posted on 1/9/2013. It should be obvious by now that Last Dollar is totally against any gun rights discussion that is unflattering to the Liberal Left... which, by the way... is where 99% of the infringements upon our 2nd Amendment rights originate.

I don't know who slapped an estrogen patch on Last Dollars fat ass, but someone needs to tell him he acts like a bitchy old woman. What a total douche-bag!

James, thanks for your reply about the article "Under the gun: The burden of being a gun owner in Canada" that I posted the link to last night. I was all but certain that the line of B.S. that King Brown was feeding us about gun ownership in Canada was just more of his usual dishonest LULLING. He is consistent, if nothing else.

It just further illustrates that those on the Left are inherently untrustworthy. Fake civility will only get you so far when you can't seem to tell the truth. And allowing people who think like King to have a gun registration database is about as smart as putting a gun in your mouth.

I totally agree with you that there are ridiculous regulations and impediments to gun ownership and shooting on our side of the border as well. Pretty sad that because of Obama, we can now export things to Iran, a known sponsor of Islamic terrorism, yet we can't ship a flat of RST's to you in Canada. This is the type of sickness we who care about gun rights are always attempting to fix, but we sure as hell won't see it happen if Hillary Clinton has her way.

That's great news about family. Invitation stands here. With sufficient heads-up, we can put you up in our cottage named Bowie House, supposedly birthplace of legendary Col. Jim Bowie according to local historical society but no, strongly circumstantially attached to his brother who came to Canada after the Revolution. Just saying as bait for Gordon!

Thank you for your input, Keith, you liberal faggot...posing as a conservative so that once you get Hillary elected you can "come out" and get a cushy job . Likely cleaning toilets somewhere......or as you seem to prefer, douche bags....

13 pages now, of Keith kissing King Browns ass...

Just a couple more examples of the immature Last Dollar once again attempting to disrupt a gun rights discussion in the hopes of getting it deleted.

It's what he does.

The GQ article says the ATF "got permission" to scan the 4437s into computer pdf files. Then those pdf files are searched by a trace technician, viewing them on a computer screen. With the advent of artificial intelligence there is no doubt an AI computer can or will be able to learn to read those pdf images to search for the subject gun's 4437. So there will be/is a database. If I am right the conversion to pdf files violates the 1986 law.

I wonder who Charlie "got permission" from?

Reposting this for accuracy in relation to Mike's post from Amarillo (nice if you to join us Mike). Where there is a way, you can bet the progressives have the will.

If Clinton is elected she's just say screw the laws and I'm going to do exactly what I want. The precedent has been set by Obama and without Congress or the Supreme Court to stop her she'll get her way. The 2nd Amendment will no longer be an individual right but a privilege which with the advent of universal background checks and mandatory registration will evolved into confiscation. IMO: Within 20 years firearms ownership will be a rare privilege available to only a very few.
Jim

Jim I think you are being overly pessimistic. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant.

James:
47% of our citizens pay no income tax and many are on the government dole. The women voters, single moms in particular, think H Clinton is a goddess. The Blacks here haven't yet figured out that the worse thing that ever happened to them was Obama and with Clinton they're looking at 4 more years of the same. The Hispanics don't like Trumps plan for deporting sizable numbers of them.
This is one Hell of a voting bloc for responsible Americans to overcome.
Our ace in the hole is the blue collar typically union guy who usually votes democrat but is smart enough to see what the out come will be if the democrats win in November. That was how Reagan got elected with their support. Hopefully it will happen again.
Jim

Jim, in a typical capitalistic democratic country with a graduated income tax, the bottom 50% of earners make so little, and contribute so little to the tax base as to be next to meaningless from a government revenue standpoint.

They shouldn't pay income tax.

And please don't confuse who I'm talking about with those on the dole. I'm talking about low income earners.

They should pay no income tax.

The tax system should be vastly simpler, so that millions and millions of lawyers, accountants and IRS people need to use their considerable intellect in more useful ways.

The income tax system should NOT be an instrument of effecting government policy.

Simply not paying income tax is not a good measure of what you are trying to allude to.

A more useful number is who depends on the government for the majority of their monthly income. BTW, that would include ALL civil servants, at every layer of government. Probably a more scary number.

Sorry cback, 'they' should all pay income tax. Sure, maybe a token amount, but it should be highlighted on their pay stub, and it should be subject to changing, based on policy. Those who aren't invested in the process, don't value product, at all.

James here's exactly what I said:
"47% of our citizens pay no income tax and many are on the government dole."
I clumped then into one group. My point is that someone who pays no tax could care less about how much the others pay and are primarily interested in the "free" benefits they will receive.The Lowest tax rate(10%) in our Country is for those earning between $0 and $9075. If you work at all you'll likely ending up owing some income tax.
Never having been in this bracket; I have no idea what they really end up paying but with deductions it's probably close to nothing.
I have been in favor of a flat tax with a one page instruction form for years but there's too many people making too much money off the complexity of out taxing system for this to realistically fly.
Jim

I'm
With you on the flat tax thing Jim. Craig, I hear what your saying, just think the benefits would outweigh that negative. One benefit should be a reduction of "benefits".

I agree completely with craigd here. Those with no skin in the game usually have no regard or respect for where the largess from those who carry most or all of the burden comes from. It's little different than the behavior of a teenager who wastes gasoline, food, utilities, etc., until they have to start paying for it.

When I went to a Donald Trump rally back in March of this year, I was talking to a black guy who had brought his daughter to hear Trump speak. One of the things he said that really struck me was that he said really understood why "you guys support Trump." I asked what he meant, and he went on to say that he meant meant white middle class people who were most likely to be working and paying to support all of the Welfare programs. I was very surprised to hear that, and more surprised to see that he wasn't happy with the status quo. He not only understood the anger and frustration with the direction the country was taking, but he was there to support Trump because he felt that he would do more to lift the whole nation. There's a certain dignity in working, producing, and contributing versus just taking, and I could see that this particular black guy knew that and wasn't happy that his people had been steered in the opposite direction.

If the comfortable weren't pushing it so hard I'd be less dubious. Look who bought into lower taxes for business and the rich and now are holding dirty end of the stick.

More Liberal Left Socialist B.S., and ignorant of the facts to boot!

Our Corporations in the U.S. pay the highest corporate tax rate in the entire developed world, and it has been causing them to flee to other more friendly countries and to be less likely to invest in new facilities here in the U,S.

No poor man ever gave me a job.

Reagan proved that lowering taxes was a great stimulus for the economy, and even Bill Clinton benefited mightily from mostly staying the course (along with gutting military spending as Obama is doing now... someone will have to pay the piper and rebuild that, and when they do, Liberal Democrats will point the finger of blame at them for increasing spending... just as they did to Bush.)

The rich who appear to be paying lower tax rates now have far fewer deductions than way back when the highest income tax rate was near 90% but deductions and exemptions allowed many rich people and companies to pay nothing or virtually nothing. The effective tax rates on the rich are quite a bit higher now than when King Brown was a young Socialist.

The people getting the short end of the stick are those who are unemployed due to insane trade deals, unfettered illegal immigration (which also drives down wages), and ta-da... ObamaCare, which is drastically increasing the cost of hiring new workers and keeping the present ones.

Insane trade deals.

Let's look at NAFTA.

I live 30 min from a large GM plant. The discussion is on right now on whether to shutter it permanently. Why? Labour rates.

Doing this on my phone but last week I was looking at a chart of automotive factory average labour rates around the world. In constant currencies ( and I'm doing this from memory) the US and Canada were on either side of $20 per hour. Mexico was $3 per hour.

Now, I'm a big fan of free trade. But it doesn't work when one side has labour costs 1/7th of the other side. There needs to have been some kind of cost of living adjustment worked into the deal, not unfettered completely free trade.

That's why both our countries have lost jobs. These deals are inherently unfair.

The Canada / US deal was relatively fair. Including Mexico on the same terms was asinine.

When Canada's comfortably wealthy lowered its corporate tax rate a few short years ago, did Canada loose any corporate tax revenue? Have all social justice programs intended to elevate Canadians out of poverty continued uninterrupted? Is the Canadian tentacle of the clin'on foundation set up to take advantage of Canada's corporate welfare black eye on an otherwise fair and just nation? Will you lobby your colleagues to band together and pressure the foundation to get a little control over their 'administrative' costs? Awe, you know I'm just kidding, please continue as the new business friendly, wink corporate ceo job killing tax haven, Canada.

craig, as I said, I'd be less dubious about a flat tax if the comfortable weren't pushing it so hard. The rich and influential look after their interests first as the rest of us watch their sectors stagnating and social welfare lengthening. Public investment in commercial and military research and development rises in Canada while productivity falls and business lines its pockets.

The US Department of Defense--- funded by American taxpayers---will continue to be the global technology developer, as it was in the 20th century i.e. the Internet, fibre optics, transistors, micro chips, smaller and smaller digital computers, advanced materials. Fortunes abound but increasingly the middle class lives on crumbs from the outstretched hand of charity.

All reflected in the phenomenal and unprecedented attractions of Bernie and Donald and a country with the least popular presidential nominees in its history. And, what kind of a flat tax is critical. There are several. Anyone selling flat tax because it's simple makes me wary.

King, you say that like there is something wrong with the rich looking after there own interests. We all do. Even the crackhead welfare bums. Best ad they can figure it out.

The issue is not that they look out for themselves but in doing so do they take unfair advantage of others. While not all, there are many on the welfare rolls how are only looking out for themselves and doing the best they can to take advantage of others. Are you outraged by them as you are by the rich? You should be because the behaviour is the same. Are you outraged by yourself?

What the selfish rich do that the selfish poor don't, is to pay for the selfish poor.

Keeping in mind, I don't think we were 'discussing' a flat tax, can you explain the first thought to me? If what you say is true, 'social welfare lengthening' must be in the interest of rich folks. Who's paying for the 'lengthening'? Aren't those the folks that hill-n-bern say are an endless deep pocket. Here's a thought, if the slimy rich are taxed at a flat, there's your word, hundred percent, is it enough? No fair going off on tangents, is it enough?

I'm with you, or is it her? I'd be less dubious about the equivocation of unpopularity, if uncomfortable progressives didn't push so hard. Don't lower the gender barrier smashing secretary of the off shore tax shelter, to the same level as the next President of the good ole US of A.

Don't know how flat tax got in there, either, craig, but it's the way of the forum, sometimes entertaining and informative and sometimes aggravating. Flat tax, FBI centre, guns---yes, gun control---are also extraneous to consequences of the US election and its effect on US leadership in the world. On the other question: yes, I'm enraged by inequality, widening of the gap, trashing of the middle class carrying America's load.

What has the attention of the world is the question of how the electorate can change from dysfunctional to responsible government without a well balanced diet of truthful information other publics have grown to expect. From the current Economist: "Politicians have always lied on occasion, but the nature of their mendacity is changing. Donald Trump is the leading exponent of an approach that relies on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. We examine the causes and consequences of this new style of politics."

This isn't true King, or you'd be even more enraged by the Clinton's enriching themselves on the backs of some of the poorest of the poor in Haiti after the 2010 earthquakes. You'll never say a word about it because advancing Socialism and gun control is more important to you.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...nton-foundation

A lecture from you on the importance of electorates having truthful information is a joke. We all wonder when you plan to practice what you preach?

You mean lying crooked King is once again making up whatever he wants to further his progressive new world order-thats in his own words "new job" ?


Lying crooked King,has now sunk lower then ever on here, as the polls show,again his words the "unelectable" make America Great candidate back up on top !
Go look at the 2nd Amendment thread Keith,he is now praising Cuomo !For some guy who wanted to get rid of missfire he sure likes to post the politic's on this board !