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.
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.)
