Firestar .45: Story of a Gun

[iverglas]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/

On April 7, 1997, the Arrowhead Pawn Shop in Jonesboro, Georgia took possession, from a gun distributor, of a Firestar, a .45 calibre Spanish-made handgun. Arrowhead owner, Arthur Banks, put the steel-framed semi-automatic pistol in the glass showcase at the back of the store. It was known on the street as a little “pocket rocket”, for its compact size and power. The asking price was $600.

... That same year that the Firestar .45 arrived at the Arrowhead Pawn Shop and ended up in Christonia Woods’ possession, 2,000 kilometres away in Jamaica, the James family welcomed the birth of a baby boy, called Michael.

... By October 2002, the James family, including Michael, his older brother and two sisters, were all together living in Mississauga <Ontario, western outskirts of Toronto>. Michael’s older brother had stashed the Firestar .45 in a dresser drawer in his bedroom, a room he shared with Michael. The little boy was warned by his brother never to go into that drawer.

... The drawer that Michael had been warned never to go into proved to be too much of a temptation to the two children. The gun, the Firestar .45 that had begun its journey in Jonesboro, Georgia was taken out of the drawer. The children argued about whether or not it was real. The safety catch was off. Michael’s playmate’s little hands wrapped around the sensitive trigger of the semi-automatic pistol. And at 2:20 p.m. a bullet hit Michael in the face. By 3:15 p.m., he was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Months later, the Firestar .45 was destroyed by Peel Regional Police, reduced to the molten metal from which it was first made.

What happens in between can be read at the site. The program airs here in Canada on Friday night.

There's an "RSS" link at the site and I believe the program will eventually be available on line.



A related CBC radio piece from 2004:

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/staring/

... In light of this, CBC Radio News has undertaken a sweeping investigation into the proliferation of gun violence on the streets of Canada's largest city, in the hopes of uncovering where the guns are coming from, how they get here and who is selling them.

... CBC Radio reporters Geoff Ellwand and Derek Stoffel travelled to a gun show in Ohio, a state that boasts some of the loosest gun laws in America, to explore the marketplace for guns.

They discovered a legal loophole that allowed Ohio residents to re-sell a host of powerful firearms with no questions asked.

These weapons, often bought in bulk, then slip into Canada inside tractor-trailers, the interior panels of cars and simply inside luggage.

... By exploring the legal and cultural issues that contribute to the spread of illegal guns on our streets and communities, Staring Down The Barrel hopes to provoke possible solutions to the problem.

I imagine that anyone actually interested in the issues will want to read and listen.

[krispos42]

1. Interesting story

It is surprising that they were able to track the gun's movements over so many miles and years.

[iverglas]

4. tracking

Presumably there was a record of the original sale, and that plus the reports from the people involved along the way allowed it to be reconstructed.

This is a very plain demonstration of how a mere record of sale does absolutely nothing to PREVENT harm.

If there had been licensing and registration, then even if the drug dealer in question had been able to acquire the firearm legally before he was first convicted, he would not have found it easy to retain it.

When he was convicted, he would have become ineligible to possess a firearm (in the US; here, he would have been made subject to a firearms prohibition order).

Then the licensing and registration system would have been queried to find out what his situtaion is.

His licence would have been revoked, so he could not legally buy more firearms (it's impossible to slip through the cracks when there is a positive requirement, a licence, and not just a negative requirement, having a search turn up no impediment).

He would have been required to surrender the firearms registered in his name, and enforcement action would have been taken if he didn't.

No human system is perfect, but that one is a damned sight better than the other one.

[gorfle]

6. Questions.

This is a very plain demonstration of how a mere record of sale does absolutely nothing to PREVENT harm.

I don't see how anyone could think that a record of a sale could prevent anything.

If there had been licensing and registration, then even if the drug dealer in question had been able to acquire the firearm legally before he was first convicted, he would not have found it easy to retain it.

Did the original buyer have a criminal record? If so, NICS would have also prevented him from acquiring the firearm. However, he purchased his firearm in 1997, and NICS did not go into effect until 1998.

I'm not sure how licensing and registration makes it difficult to illegally retain a firearm though.

When he was convicted, he would have become ineligible to possess a firearm (in the US; here, he would have been made subject to a firearms prohibition order).

Yup.

His licence would have been revoked, so he could not legally buy more firearms (it's impossible to slip through the cracks when there is a positive requirement, a licence, and not just a negative requirement, having a search turn up no impediment).

Just like under NICS here...

He would have been required to surrender the firearms registered in his name, and enforcement action would have been taken if he didn't.

Just like here.

[iverglas]

9. funny questions

This is a very plain demonstration of how a mere record of sale does absolutely nothing to PREVENT harm.
I don't see how anyone could think that a record of a sale could prevent anything.

I didn't see anybody saying that anyone did think such a thing.

What I did think was that preventing harm was a shared goal, and is in fact the goal of things like the NICS system.

The fact is that in Canada, if someone purchases a firearm legally and *then* becomes ineligible to possess it, the record of the purchase is used to identify and remove the firearm.

The fact is that in the US, if someone purchases a firearm legally and the firearm is used to kill someone, the record of the purchase can be used to find out who it once belonged to.

I'll bet you can see the difference.


If there had been licensing and registration, then even if the drug dealer in question had been able to acquire the firearm legally before he was first convicted, he would not have found it easy to retain it.
Did the original buyer have a criminal record? If so, NICS would have also prevented him from acquiring the firearm. However, he purchased his firearm in 1997, and NICS did not go into effect until 1998.

Well, it really was right there in the article; the time frame is not in issue, because he would have been eligible to purchase even if NICS had been in operation.

Christonia Woods was a small-time drug dealer in Clayton County, Georgia who felt his job required him to carry some protection. ...

... Woods met his friend, Shannon Wilson at their local hang out, Applebee’s, on September 21, 1999. Wilson convinced Woods to remove the gun from his car where he usually kept the Firestar.

“I told him if you get caught with it now and you have a felony and even though it was legal at the time you purchased it they're gonna hold you accountable for having that gun because you're a convicted felon now. You will do five years plus whatever they stopped you for, they're gonna get you for that. So it's five years plus.”

Kinda cute, eh? Leave your gun home when you go out 'cause it's five years if you're caught. If he'd been planning on actually *using* the gun, if he'd thought he might need it -- I mean, why else would he have it? -- I wonder how much of a deterrent that was gonna be.

Anyhow. No. He did not have a criminal record when he bought the gun.

This is a hypothetical situation I have raised many times. Nobody is born with a criminal record.


His licence would have been revoked, so he could not legally buy more firearms (it's impossible to slip through the cracks when there is a positive requirement, a licence, and not just a negative requirement, having a search turn up no impediment).
Just like under NICS here...

No, not remotely like under NICS there. Excellent job of missing the point.

A licence is either/or. Either you have one or you don't. If it's revoked, you don't have it. You cannot legally purchase a firearm without it. If a firearms prohibition order is imposed at sentencing, it is put into the system and the licence is revoked. Canada-wide.

Given how many ineligible people we know try to purchase firearms in the US -- don't we constantly hear about purchases denied because of negative NICS responses / lies on forms? -- do we seriously believe that no ineligible people ever succeed in doing it?

There are other aspects as well. It's not quite so easy to engage in straw purchases here. It's not easy at all, in fact. A convicted offender's girlfriend might have a clean record and thus be able to merrily buy him all the guns he wanted in the US, but under the Canadian system she would have to have her own firearms licence and her purchases would be registered in her name. And at least some women who are stupid enough to facilitate straw purchases in the US would be a little less willing to do it if those factors applied.


He would have been required to surrender the firearms registered in his name, and enforcement action would have been taken if he didn't.
Just like here.

Really. I see. Because there, there is a registry with a record of all the firearms he is in legal possession of. Have I got that right?

"Just like here". Feel free to try again.

[gorfle]

13. funny answers, too.

This is a very plain demonstration of how a mere record of sale does absolutely nothing to PREVENT harm.

I didn't see anybody saying that anyone did think such a thing.

Then why would you emphasize, in capital letters, that it does not, in fact, do such a thing?

The fact is that in Canada, if someone purchases a firearm legally and *then* becomes ineligible to possess it, the record of the purchase is used to identify and remove the firearm.

The fact is that in the US, if someone purchases a firearm legally and the firearm is used to kill someone, the record of the purchase can be used to find out who it once belonged to.

I'll bet you can see the difference.

Indeed. Your system allows the government to confiscate the legally owned firearms of people who commit serious crimes. In our system, the government doesn't know who owns firearms, so we simply prohibit further purchases by such people through FFL dealers.

The problem with your system is that Canadian government has a shopping list to confiscate privately owned firearms any time they feel like it. This is too dangerous to tolerate.

Well, it really was right there in the article; the time frame is not in issue, because he would have been eligible to purchase even if NICS had been in operation.

Then there was no legal reason as a result of due process to deny the fellow his Constitutional right to bear arms.

Kinda cute, eh? Leave your gun home when you go out 'cause it's five years if you're caught. If he'd been planning on actually *using* the gun, if he'd thought he might need it -- I mean, why else would he have it? -- I wonder how much of a deterrent that was gonna be.

Well that was my thought as well. It's pretty dumb to buy a firearm for protection if you aren't going to carry it for protection. Obviously the guy was more afraid of jail time because of using a firearm during the commission of a crime than he was afraid of needing protection. Turns out he made a poor choice.

Anyhow. No. He did not have a criminal record when he bought the gun.

Then there was no reason to deny him his Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is a hypothetical situation I have raised many times. Nobody is born with a criminal record.

And this is why everyone here is born with the Constitutional right to bear arms.

No, not remotely like under NICS there. Excellent job of missing the point.

I work with what I've got to work with, such that it is.

A licence is either/or. Either you have one or you don't. If it's revoked, you don't have it. You cannot legally purchase a firearm without it. If a firearms prohibition order is imposed at sentencing, it is put into the system and the licence is revoked. Canada-wide.

And yet this did nothing to prevent a legally purchased firearm in the United States from ending up illegally in Canada. Obviously your licensing requirement was little deterrent for owning an unlicensed firearm.

Given how many ineligible people we know try to purchase firearms in the US -- don't we constantly hear about purchases denied because of negative NICS responses / lies on forms? -- do we seriously believe that no ineligible people ever succeed in doing it?

Do we seriously believe that no ineligible people get firearm licenses in Canada?

I think NICS is every bit as good as your system at weeding out criminals from purchasing firearms through FFL dealers. I think we ran some numbers on this once before and found that the percentage of people caught by the system were about the same.

There are other aspects as well. It's not quite so easy to engage in straw purchases here. It's not easy at all, in fact. A convicted offender's girlfriend might have a clean record and thus be able to merrily buy him all the guns he wanted in the US, but under the Canadian system she would have to have her own firearms licence and her purchases would be registered in her name. And at least some women who are stupid enough to facilitate straw purchases in the US would be a little less willing to do it if those factors applied.

I don't see how this would be much of a deterrent to straw purchases. It would be a trivial thing for someone in Canada to get a firearm license, buy firearms, grind off the serial numbers, and then merrily sell all the guns they want to whomever they want. Unless someone had reason to come checking up on her firearm collection, no one would know that she no longer had them, and they could not be traced back to her.

Really. I see. Because there, there is a registry with a record of all the firearms he is in legal possession of. Have I got that right?

"Just like here". Feel free to try again.

People who commit felonies here and are no longer eligible to own firearms are required to divest themselves of them, or they will be breaking the law.

True, the government can't come check up on them to see if they are in compliance, but if someone is willing to break the law concerning illegal firearm ownership that's not going to stop them. It didn't stop the drug dealer in Canada.

[iverglas]

18. such a flood of bullshit

And yet this did nothing to prevent a legally purchased firearm in the United States from ending up illegally in Canada. Obviously your licensing requirement was little deterrent for owning an unlicensed firearm.

Firearms are not licensed. They're inanimate objects, remember?

People are licensed.

But you're right. The fact that people in Canada must be licensed to possess a firearm did not prevent a US citizen from smuggling a firearm into Canada.

It also didn't prevent my cat from peeing on the rug last night.

And the law against shoplifting undoubtedly didn't prevent several people from stealing things from the corner 7-11 today.

The licensing requirement is not intended exclusively or even primarily as a DETERRENT TO ILLEGAL POSSESSION. If this wasn't clear to you from everything you've read already, I really don't know what more I can do to help you.


Do we seriously believe that no ineligible people get firearm licenses in Canada?

Can ya name one?

I can, actually. Kimveer Gill. Except, well, no, he wasn't ineligible, because there was nothing in his background to suggest that it was not in the interests of anyone for him to have firearms.

A a priori ineligible person, in Canada (other than, say, a 10-year-old), is a person against whom a firearms prohibition order has been made.

Other than that, no one is eligible or ineligible by any automatic criterion or set of criteria.

One more time:

Firearms Act
AUTHORIZED POSSESSION
Eligibility to Hold Licences
General Rules

Public safety

5. (1) A person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm, a cross-bow, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, ammunition or prohibited ammunition.

(2) In determining whether a person is eligible to hold a licence under subsection (1), a chief firearms officer or, on a reference under section 74, a provincial court judge shall have regard to whether the person, within the previous five years,

(a) has been convicted or discharged under section 730 of the Criminal Code of

(i) an offence in the commission of which violence against another person was used, threatened or attempted,
(ii) an offence under this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code, <i.e. a violation of firearms law>
(iii) an offence under section 264 of the Criminal Code (criminal harassment), or
(iv) an offence relating to the contravention of subsection 5(1) or (2), 6(1) or (2) or 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;

(b) has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

(c) has a history of behaviour that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person.

"Have regard to". Not refuse a licence to.

6. (1) A person is eligible to hold a licence only if the person is not prohibited by a prohibition order from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition.

(2) Subsection (1) is subject to any order made under section 113 of the Criminal Code (lifting of prohibition order for sustenance or employment).

I don't see how this would be much of a deterrent to straw purchases. It would be a trivial thing for someone in Canada to get a firearm license, buy firearms, grind off the serial numbers, and then merrily sell all the guns they want to whomever they want.

I suppose you might actually believe this.

Yes, of course, it would be a fairly trivial matter for, say, me to do this. I'd be eligible for a licence. I could buy a couple of hunting rifles. I could grind the numbers off and sell them on.

And then I could try to buy a couple more. And then the Firearms Registry would notice that I bought two hunting rifles last week, and I'm buying two more this week. And the Firearms Registry would then, or very soon, pump out a little report to be read by my local firearms officer, suggesting that s/he might want to take a look at my hunting practices. It looks like I might be dropping my guns in the river a little too often.

Oh, of course, if we're talking handguns -- the criminal's choice -- I'd be getting looked at considerably more closely, first when I applied for the restricted firearm or collector's licence, and then when I started registering firearms in volume.

But sure, you might actually believe that.

"Merrily sell all the guns they want to whomever they want." What the christ did you think the Firearms Registry would be doing while this went on?? You've missed all the chatter about how one of its purposes is precisely to detect trafficking??



People who commit felonies here and are no longer eligible to own firearms are required to divest themselves of them, or they will be breaking the law.

True, the government can't come check up on them to see if they are in compliance, but if someone is willing to break the law concerning illegal firearm ownership that's not going to stop them. It didn't stop the drug dealer in Canada.

Ah, it's time for the dog's breakfast, I see.

Tru, the government can't come check up on them to see whether they are in compliance. Huh. What a tiny, minor difference. An offender in Canada will have his/her legally owned firearms removed if s/he does not divest of them legally and immediately. An offender in the US is on the honour system. Well, how much better that must obviously work!

"It" didn't stop the drug dealer in Canada. What "it"? What drug dealer? The one from the US? What isn't "it" going to stop them from doing? What are you talking about?



Here. A little light reading for you.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/bulletins/police/bulletin3_e.asp

[gorfle]

23. Replies.

And then I could try to buy a couple more. And then the Firearms Registry would notice that I bought two hunting rifles last week, and I'm buying two more this week. And the Firearms Registry would then, or very soon, pump out a little report to be read by my local firearms officer, suggesting that s/he might want to take a look at my hunting practices. It looks like I might be dropping my guns in the river a little too often.

So you're saying that if you buy too many firearms, you'll get a visit from the firearm police in your country?

People actually come and check up on people who collect firearms to see if they still own them?

Goddamn, that's exactly the kind of intrusiveness I don't want.

The bottom line is this, Iverglas. I'm never going to support anything that compromises anonymous firearm ownership in this country. I don't trust a government with a shopping list of all firearms and who owns them. This just makes confiscation way too easy.

I could, barely, support a national firearms license as a requirement for owning firearms, provided that once I've acquired one, I can concealed carry, since that is the situation we have today in most places where you undergo a background check for firearms use.

But I will never, not ever, present a list of my firearms to any governmental agency.

If you would like to discuss other proposals for keeping firearms out of the hands of ineligible people I'm all ears, but registration of firearms is off the table.

[rdenney]

34. "Honor" system here in the US is a joke. Prohibited persons often move or store their illegal guns..

elsewhere, instead of our laws allowing the police to come into their homes, with or without a warrant, and seize their illegal weapons, after a domestic violence or other prohibited condition prevents them from owning a firearm of any kind.

Many women are dead here, after being shot to death be their ex-husbands, who had not had their weapons forcibly removed from their possession, by the police.

[Turbo Teg]

44. What's a joke

is the fact that the police can confiscate any weapons without any type of due process because someones girlfriend gets pissed and calls the police and says he beat her.

[krispos42]

28. The record of sale and/or registration has been about finding the owner

That seems to be the general idea. If a gun is found it is traced to the owner and presumed murderer. Or at least so the cops know where to start their investigation from.

In this particular case, I think the end result of the licencing and registration program you outline above would be that a different gun would have wound up going to Canada and in the hands of that teen, "holding" it for his crimnal buddy.

The difficulty I see is that explaining how this will benefit us "in the long term" becomes impossible to substantiate as the future political and economic enviroment have far larger roles in crime trends. So saying that in 30 years things will be better because of Gun Control Measure X is ultimately problematic and subject to interpretation.

For example, after the 1968 Gun Control Act, homicides and crime went up. Yet saying it was a success or failure is no easy task because of the other factors.

However, your outline above has given me a thought that I have not seen expressed on this forum before.

Regarding your "positive requirement" statement above, there is no reason that such information could not automatically be attached to a driver's license or state-issued ID when it is issued, just like organ donor status.

One corner of the license could be marked "LOF" for "legal to own firearms", and if you for some reason lose this right from, say, criminal conviction or mental illness, the police or the judge could simply whip out a pair of scissors and snip off the corner, immediatley de-authorizing the holder from buying or posessing guns.

This would also stop private-transfer sales to criminals. Several people here have talked before about how when performing a private transaction there is no real way to know if the buyer was legal. Well, now you just have to check the license. If that corner is missing, you don't sell the gun!

If your prohibition against owning guns was removed, you would simply apply for a new, updated license, and you would be issued one with that LOF corner present.

And if it was never overturned, your subsequent license renewals would be given to you (here in Minnesota they are mailed) with that corner missing.

[maxidivine]

29. Brilliant! It would not restrict anyone,

It would probably not be super helpful to police since they would already know if an individual who was searched for whatever reason and happened to have a gun on them was prohibited, however, it would allow individuals selling a firearm to see if the person attempting to buy it from them was indeed prohibited. Most private sales (all that I have been involved in except one) the seller and buyer like to check out each other's licenses, just cause it's good form to at least vaguely remember who you sold to. Something simple like a missing mark from a license would be quick and un intrusive, and since it would not be a mark of who owns guns, just who is legally eligible, it would not lead to registration. I think that most all shooters would find this an acceptable measure, far more acceptable than some that have been proposed, and most would probably also agree that it would be a good thing. As long as it remained a mark that everyone got, and was not restricted to people who actually do own guns, it would not be invasive.

[iverglas]

30. okay, my quibble

I'm in a rush, so have to be brief.

This sort of thing would never fly anywhere there is decent privacy legislation.

One's firearm-eligible status is not the business of people with an interest in one's driving-eligible status.

Up here, no one is allowed to request a social insurance number (same as social security number) for identification purposes in private transactions. And even though health insurance cards are really great-looking photo ID, they may not be requested or used for that purpose either.

So putting info on a piece of ID that is personal and irrelevant to the puropse for which the ID is issued would be a huge privacy violation, under the rules I live with and definitely approve.

That's not germane to the meat of your proposal, of course, it's just an objection to the mechanics of it.

Why not just a separate piece of plastic?

[maxidivine]

31. We do have state ID cards that function the same as a DL

And could use the same template, but the biggest draw to using the license is that almost everybody gets one, so it would not indicate who owns firearms, and would protect the privacy of everyone more than having a separate ID card that nobody who doesn't own firearms would care to go get. If you didn't need it for anything, would you bother getting a copy of it? That would indicate that a card holder does indeed either own or plan on owning firearms, unless it were mandatory for everyone to have at all times. I don't like that idea at all, for pretty obvious reasons of how wrong it could go.

[iverglas]

32. solution

put it in the data strip. Ta da. And anyone needing to read the data strip for one purpose would not have a reader to get the data that's there for another purpose.

If you didn't need it for anything, would you bother getting a copy of it?

But that's the whole point. If you don't need a firearms licence, why would you want info about your firearms-eligibility being displayed to anyone who doesn't have a need to know?

Nobody here seems to be at all interested in the privacy of people who do NOT want to have firearms, as far as I can tell.

If I have been an in-patient in a mental health facility, and am not eligible for firearms possession, and do not want to possess a firearm, why should I have to carry around a card that tells the world and its dog that I may not possess a firearm when all I want to do is drive a car?

It's the same principle as my objection (were I affected by it) to the present NICS system. Why should my personal medical info be stored in a database that has nothing to do with me or my health care, when I do NOT want to own a firearm?

Seriously. You people really just appear to have no regard for anyone else's privacy interests.\

[rdenney]

35. When you are dealing with US Gun Fanatics all you have to remember is this:

After dealing with the US gun madness all of my life you really have to live here to understand the Gun Culture that has existed ever since our little debacle with King George III, bypassing the enumerations in the 2nd Amendment like the gun-nuts do:

Here is a Typical American "Gun-Nuts'" way of thought, after many, many years of studying them:

"I have and want my guns; I have _EVERY RIGHT_ to own firearms and I don't care one bit about YOUR rights as long as I have mine. *I* have to do whatever I have to do to obtain a gun(s), and thats just fine with me, even if I have to perjure myself on the application form to obtain a firearm".

"I shouldnt have to sign a stupid form anyway. This is America where we are BORN with guns in our hands"

"I will _NOT_ join up with the militia (the Armed forces, such as the National Guard) per the 2nd amendment, if I don't want to, but I have to protect myself from all those *OTHER* gun-nuts (usually these are referred to as "criminals", even though that fact is that many "law-abiding, gun packing citizens shoot and kill each other on a routine basis) and I will totally ignore the "militia" system and fire at whatever scares me to death (which is just about anything you can name)".

Be very glad that you reside in Canada, where some semblance of sanity still remains.

[maxidivine]

39. Armed Forces are not militia denney

Since they are a Federalized organization. Way to show off how little you know about the organizations that give up so much to keep you safe.

[rdenney]

42. Yes, I know that the National Guard was federalized in 1903, which is why they are in Iraq

instead of here taking care of Ohio and Illinois. I also know that since there in no longer ANY unorganized militia, that you gun-nuts have NO individual rights to own a weapon of mass murder.

You have to take things in context.

During the Revolutionary war, yes civilians with guns existed, but by the time of the War of 1812, they were so unreliable and floundering on the rocks with weapons that were often rusted and unkept that while Washington burned, only the regular army was able to serve of any defense against the invasion.

The Brits were COUNTING on that fact that we had an unreliable "militia" defense, so they successfully invaded the US capitol and burned it down. Thats what military intelligence is there for, is it not?

The Civil War was a turning point when the militia were _not_ used at all and the draft began,
putting *trained* military forces, not individual gun-nuts like the so-called militia, as the head of any military warfare.

In 1903 the militia was done away with for good, and along with it, the qualifications to own a firearm by belonging to any such unstable, untrained cowardly idiots, like the so-called "militia".

And that, my friend, is why YOU don't have any right to own a gun, due to the disbanding of all militia since then.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You're going to have to cite where

the Unorganized Militia was disbanded.

Because you're wrong. It's sexist, and could use revision or updating, but it's still very much a part of US Code.

[gorfle]

50. Some factual points...

instead of here taking care of Ohio and Illinois. I also know that since there in no longer ANY unorganized militia, that you gun-nuts have NO individual rights to own a weapon of mass murder.

You have to take things in context.

During the Revolutionary war, yes civilians with guns existed, but by the time of the War of 1812, they were so unreliable and floundering on the rocks with weapons that were often rusted and unkept that while Washington burned, only the regular army was able to serve of any defense against the invasion.

The Brits were COUNTING on that fact that we had an unreliable "militia" defense, so they successfully invaded the US capitol and burned it down. Thats what military intelligence is there for, is it not?

The Civil War was a turning point when the militia were _not_ used at all and the draft began,
putting *trained* military forces, not individual gun-nuts like the so-called militia, as the head of any military warfare.

In 1903 the militia was done away with for good, and along with it, the qualifications to own a firearm by belonging to any such unstable, untrained cowardly idiots, like the so-called "militia".

And that, my friend, is why YOU don't have any right to own a gun, due to the disbanding of all militia since then.

First of all, the Dick Act of 1903 did not get rid of the militia. It federalized the Organized militia, but also created the Unorganized Militia - all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the Organized militia. This means all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the National Guard.

Secondly, the quality of the civilian fighting force is not at issue, though it was what ultimately spurred us to adopt a standing army. The intent of the founding fathers was to have a decentralized military force so that the central government could not impose a tyranny through force of arms. Even though their vision of having no standing army did not work out in the best security interests of the United States, their vision of The People being able to resist tyranny still needs to be maintained to secure the interests of The People. In other words, though The People may make a poor fighting force, they still need to be armed in order to have a final recourse against tyranny. You may be surprised, as the British were in Colonial America, and how the Americans are in Iraq and Afghanistan, at just how effective "unstable, untrained cowardly idiots" can be at defending their homes.

Thirdly, very soon the Supreme Court is very likely going to affirm that the right to bear arms is an individual right and not linked to collective militia service anyway.

[maxidivine]

38. In the data strip would make it impossible

for people who are selling their firearms personally to see at a glance if the person wanting to buy from them is prohibited or not. You say that it would be an infringement on people who do not want to own a gun, yet your only alternative to that would be to make it infringement paradise against people who DO want to own a gun. Non gun ownership is not a constitutionally protected state of being, and neither is driving. If someone doesn't want to own a gun in the first place, what do they care if they have a small marking on their ID or not? The marking would not show why, just that they couldn't. And mental health privacy issues is not an issue, since the only mental health issues that affect gun ownership eligibility are mental health issues which result in you being adjudicated a danger to yourself and others, so that information, while technically "private", is certainly in a private seller's (and everyone who knows the individual) best interest to be readily visible.

[iverglas]

40. I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it

But then, after years around here, I'd believe it. Piggish self-centredness, par for the course.

If someone doesn't want to own a gun in the first place, what do they care if they have a small marking on their ID or not?

Let's check up on the ballot you cast in the next election, and record the candidate you supported on your driver's licence. Why would you care if the world and its dog knew your business every time you wrote a cheque?

"What do they care?" Like I say, I wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it ...


And mental health privacy issues is not an issue, since the only mental health issues that affect gun ownership eligibility are mental health issues which result in you being adjudicated a danger to yourself and others, so that information, while technically "private", is certainly in a private seller's (and everyone who knows the individual) best interest to be readily visible.

Then tatoo it on the person's forehead. It's hardly readily visible when it's just a little code in the corner of a driver's licence now, is it?


Back to my actual suggestion, which is actually a good suggestion.

Data strips can include a huge range of information. They can be made so that only certain readers will read certain information. Firearms eligibility could be one of those pieces of information. Readers that could read that particular information could be tightly controlled.

Hell, readers could be set up in gummint offices. Or shopping malls. Or gunne shoppes. Or shows. People wanting to engage in private firearms transactions would go there, the purchaser would swipe his/her card and enter a PIN number, and authorization would be given or denied, in the form of a printout that would contain no identifying information unless authorization were given, that the seller would retain in records.


editing just to change that last bit -- probably best (from the paranoid gunhead point of view) if

(a) a denial of authorization simply results in a "no printout" response

(b) a grant of authorization results in a printout with a date/time stamp and confirmation of the grant of authorization

-- I gather the NICS system can't retain info about the request for a search, but I'm not clear about what the dealer does. Retains the form, right? With things like name and address etc.? I'd be concerned about private parties (not subject to the requirements of a dealer licence, which presumably include not disclosing personal info) having info of that nature, myself.

Not sure how this works with private transfers in Canada. They have to be registered, but what info of the buyer's the seller has access to, I dunno.

[krispos42]

33. A driver's license is government-issued ID

I was speaking generically in my above post. The vast majority of Americans use, as a government-issued ID card, a driver's license. Now you don't need to have a driver's license to have a gov't-issued ID card, but most people do.

When I'm at the store and I'm asked for an ID when writing a check or using a credit card, I pull out my driver's license. It's not about the "motor vehicle operator's license" part, it's about using the "gov't-issued ID" part. Wal-Mart does not care whether I walk or drive out of the parking lot, but they do care about fraud.

If I have to actually go out and get a separate piece of plastic by paying extra money and filling out an extra form, it goes into a government database that basically is a list of gun owners simply because very few people are going to go through the trouble unless they're going to buy a gun! Which is a privacy issue to some even if there is no requirement for gun registration.

I have to present a gov't issued ID card when I buy a firearm from a dealer. I've been through it four times, all of them in the Brady Bill-era, so I speak from experience. And while I don't mind going through the NICS check, it would be easier if it was just attached to my gov't-issued ID card.

Also, I mentioned previously, it would close off the private-sales gap in the law that is commonly but erroniously called the "gun-show loophole".



But I do see your point. Lack of LOF on the ID card would indicate a limited number of situations to anybody that saw it. Resident alien, convicted violent offender, convicted domestic offender, restraining order, or involuntary committment for mental illness are the first ones that pop into my head.

Hmph, hmph, hmph.

But the only people that would see it are government officials and store cashiers. It's not like it's stapled to your forehead or something.

Shit. It closes the private-sales gap in the law. It's minimally intrusive. But might give away too much information for some.

Hmmm... this might need to be discussed in an entirely new thread.

[gorfle]

5. Not surprising at all.

It is surprising that they were able to track the gun's movements over so many miles and years.

Not surprising at all, really, especially today. The chain of custody tracking and paperwork from manufacturer to FFL to customer is very meticulous. Failure to comply with the paperwork means being put out of business, so the paperwork is usually very well kept. In this case the original purchaser was involved in crime, which left a record of his demise and provided leads about the firearm's probable chain of custody.

Aside from this, manufacturers often keep detailed records for years. I recently sent off to Smith and Wesson for a Letter of Authenticity for a small .32 revolver that belonged to my great grandfather. Smith and Wesson was able to tell me it was delivered to Hackett Hardware Store in St. Paul, MN, on July of 1902. This is about the time my great grandfather was building a house there in St. Paul. Though I have many family heirlooms in my firearm collection, this is the oldest - 106 years.

[iverglas]

10. what are you talking about?

There's someting under discussion here. It's a series of events, outlined at the website I linked to.

Not surprising at all, really, especially today. The chain of custody tracking and paperwork from manufacturer to FFL to customer is very meticulous. Failure to comply with the paperwork means being put out of business, so the paperwork is usually very well kept. In this case the original purchaser was involved in crime, which left a record of his demise and provided leads about the firearm's probable chain of custody.

You didn't read any of it, did you?

The original purchaser was involved in crime, and is dead.

The firearm passed from his cold dead hands to someone else's, thought to be his mother's.

From there it wound its way to a bigger time criminal. That one smuggled it into Canada, where he wanted to store it so he'd have access to it there when he crossed the border on business, without having to take it back and forth with him each time.

(Now, if it had been vice versa, the question wouldn't really have arisen. He would have just picked up a new one in whatever state he happened to be doing business in when he got there. Supply is somewhat tighter in Canada, you see.)

In Canada, he paid a kid to hold the gun for him when he was not in the country. That kid's little brother got hold of it.

See how there's no paper trail there at all after the first sale? Only actual police work was able to put the trail mostly together, because of the particular facts of the particular case.

The record of the original sale of the firearm actually performed no function in this investigation, because there was a break in the chain of possession after that.

IT DIDN'T MATTER who the original purchaser was, because he was DEAD long before the firearm was used to kill the kid.

Interesting, though ... when the original purchaser died, I wonder what efforts were made to recover the firearm? I wonder how far wrong I'd be if I said NONE? Not far, I think. Right on the mark, I think. Because the only place the firearm is connected with that person is in a record that is used *only* for tracing the purchase if the firearm is involved in a crime or other act of violence, or suspected of being in the possession of someone illegally. Only post facto. NOT proactively, to remove it when it is no longer in the purchaser's legal possession.


So what your point was, I'm not knowing.

[maxidivine]

27. I take it you are against inheritance?

Since you are so quick to fault the U.S. for not "recovering" a deceased individual's personal property. Did it occur to you that firearms are not borrowed from the government? That the government can't promenade around taking things without reimbursement without a pretty significant reason?

[maxidivine]

2. Sad story

Hardly call a Firestar a pocket gun though. Unfortunate that the big brother didn't have the sense to get himself a lockbox for it. Really an incredibly sad story, I wonder what the cultural solution would be for a situation like this? It sounds callous but the only real solution may be to chalk it up to a tragic accident, sometimes young people die before their time, while this was an unfortunate example of that it doesn't really sound like there is anything that could have been done outside of better parenting. Not sure I want any government legislating parenting any more than is absolutely neccessary.

[iverglas]

3. alrighty then ...

typos fixed


Is one to think you actually read the story?

Btw, you can hover your mouse over names along the way and read more about them. Also, there seems to be a rather obvious "watch video" thingy that I somehow missed. I'm going to wait til Friday to watch it at home.

The gun was first bought by a drug dealer -- one who just didn't happen to have been convicted yet. He was later, before he was killed.

Nothing at all could have been done to stop a drug dealer from buying a firearm. Noooo. Requiring that people have licences in order to purchase firearms, that wouldn't have deterred a drug dealer. Nope, he would've just filed his forms and his references, and taken his course, and got his licence, because nobody would have suspected he might be getting up to no good with his gun. No, not at all.

Then, of course, if he'd had to register his firearm when he bought it -- well of course, no problem, he would have put himself on record as owning this particular gun. What drug dealer wouldn't?

That's where it could have been prevented. Right there.

Then there were the guys with guns who killed him, the night he left his own gun at home. I wonder what might have been done to stop them from getting guns? Hmmm.

There's a gap in the story. It seems likely that the dead drug dealer's mother sold the gun illegally for the money she needed.

Well, yup, there's not much that's going to deter drug dealers and their friends and family from selling firearms to other criminals.

That's kinda why it's kinda important to stop drug dealers and suchlike people from getting firearms in the first place.

Seems to me like a just slightly better plan than moaning about how teenagers being used as "gun lockers" for career criminals in need of a place to store their weapons don't use lock boxes.

Because, like, the problem here really wasn't the death of one child.

The problem was the fucking gun, and how it came to be possessed and used by criminals.

And the answer to that puzzling little question is pretty bloodly plain.

Because the rules in the US that supposedly prevent it from happening are a laughable sham.

[gorfle]

7. On buying guns.

Nothing at all could have been done to stop a drug dealer from buying a firearm. Noooo. Requiring that people have licences in order to purchase firearms, that wouldn't have deterred a drug dealer. Nope, he would've just filed his forms and his references, and taken his course, and got his licence, because nobody would have suspected he might be getting up to no good with his gun. No, not at all.

In your country do they deny licenses to people on the mere suspicion that they might be up to no good? I could see denying licenses to people who have been convicted of some crime, but just because some functionary thinks they are shady? So much for due process I guess.

Then, of course, if he'd had to register his firearm when he bought it -- well of course, no problem, he would have put himself on record as owning this particular gun. What drug dealer wouldn't?

He was on record as owning that particular gun the moment he chose to buy one from an FFL dealer.

Then there were the guys with guns who killed him, the night he left his own gun at home. I wonder what might have been done to stop them from getting guns? Hmmm.

Maybe a NICS background check?

There's a gap in the story. It seems likely that the dead drug dealer's mother sold the gun illegally for the money she needed.

How do we know she sold it illegally?

Well, yup, there's not much that's going to deter drug dealers and their friends and family from selling firearms to other criminals.

And that's true no matter what laws you pass.

That's kinda why it's kinda important to stop drug dealers and suchlike people from getting firearms in the first place.

Which is why we have NICS when buying firearms from dealers. Of course thugs could always buy from individuals to circumvent the law, but then, such thugs would be unlikely to comply with acquiring gun licenses and registrations, either.

Seems to me like a just slightly better plan than moaning about how teenagers being used as "gun lockers" for career criminals in need of a place to store their weapons don't use lock boxes.

Only when you're interested in putting the onus of firearm responsibility on people other than where it belongs.

Because the rules in the US that supposedly prevent it from happening are a laughable sham.

I think NICS does an adequate job of screening out the criminal element from buying firearms through FFL dealers.

How do you control person-to-person firearm transfers in Canada?

[iverglas]

11. so it's time for me to offer the two-hour course in firearms licensing in Canada again

or ... not. I think not.

There is ample information available to you about how the licensing scheme works, both as provided repeatedly by me at this site and at Cdn government websites, gun club websites, and others, including decisions of courts on applications for review of decisions both granting and denying licenses. Feel free to peruse any or all of them.

Meanwhile, we'll just disregard everything you said on that point for the ignorant noise it was.

Oh, but you could try addressing what I did say.

Know of many drug dealers who are going to go and take the NRA firearms course and then apply for a licence, complete with the personal references and spousal signature required?

Oh, but then there's the big thing. Drug dealers like handguns. For that, they have to undergo further investigation as "collectors", or be accepted as members of approved gun clubs -- in a sane society, that is.


He was on record as owning that particular gun the moment he chose to buy one from an FFL dealer.

For the love of fuck, does someone think this line of repeated bullshit is going to accomplish something?

He was on record as having BOUGHT that particular gun. There is no law where he was that says he can't sell it through a classified ad. In this case, HE did not commit any crimes using the firearm -- that we know of. Obviously, he did; it was an enforcement tool for his drug trade activities. But there was no reason to be tracing the firearm to him. HE was irrelevant.


Well, yup, there's not much that's going to deter drug dealers and their friends and family from selling firearms to other criminals.
And that's true no matter what laws you pass.

You're really bent on looking thick as two planks, aren't you?

Now if you can only tell us which cloud the firearms in question drop from ...


Of course thugs could always buy from individuals to circumvent the law,

No shit, Mr. Holmes.

but then, such thugs would be unlikely to comply with acquiring gun licenses and registrations, either.

But then, nobody said they would. Thick as three planks, maybe?

No gun licence, where they gonna buy the gun?

From somebody else with no gun licence? who got it from? Which cloud up above was that, then?


Seems to me like a just slightly better plan than moaning about how teenagers being used as "gun lockers" for career criminals in need of a place to store their weapons don't use lock boxes.
Only when you're interested in putting the onus of firearm responsibility on people other than where it belongs.

And that would only be said by someone who didn't give a flying fuck about dead children.

There really is a dead child in this story. Look really hard, and you'll see him.


How do you control person-to-person firearm transfers in Canada?

By making as sure as you can that people likely to transfer firearms to criminals are not authorized to possess firearms in the first place, and that every person in legal possession of a firearm knows exactly what will happen to him/her if s/he transfers it to someone not authorized to possess it and is caught. Which, if the firearm is ever traced for any reason, s/he will be.

There really just is not a significant problem here with legal owner to criminal transfers. That little Firearms Registry problem, remember?

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/f-11.6/

21. For the purposes of sections 22 to 32, “transfer” means sell, barter or give.

23. (1) A person may transfer a firearm if, at the time of the transfer,

(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;

(b) the person has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;

(c) the person informs the Registrar of the transfer;

(d) if the person is an individual and the firearm is a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, the individual informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;

(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and

(f) the prescribed conditions are complied with.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/

Criminal Code
PART III: FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
Trafficking Offences

99. (1) Every person commits an offence who

(a) manufactures or transfers, whether or not for consideration, or

(b) offers to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) in respect of

a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person* is not authorized to do so under the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under any Act of Parliament.

<This can be slightly difficult to follow for someone not used to inclusive language in legislation: "the person" here is the person doing the manufacturing or transferring, i.e. a person who is not authorized to make the transfer.>

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year.

101. (1) Every person commits an offence who transfers a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, any ammunition or any prohibited ammunition to any person otherwise than under the authority of the Firearms Act or any other Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

And any criminal with half a brain who wants a firearm for his/her own use isn't likely to sell it on, given the tight supply of replacements.


I think NICS does an adequate job of screening out the criminal element from buying firearms through FFL dealers.

How nice. Kinda like how a bandaid does an admirable job of keeping the blood from a pinprick off the carpet.



There's a gap in the story. It seems likely that the dead drug dealer's mother sold the gun illegally for the money she needed.
How do we know she sold it illegally?

Forgive me, I lost my mind for a moment. A third party in possession of a handgun owned by a deceased convicted offender might have been selling it legally ... sorry, that thought just hadn't occurred to me.

[gorfle]

16. Replies.

Know of many drug dealers who are going to go and take the NRA firearms course and then apply for a licence, complete with the personal references and spousal signature required?

No...that's kind of the point, eh? Here we had a drug dealer with a firearm in Canada and he didn't do any of those things.

Oh, but then there's the big thing. Drug dealers like handguns. For that, they have to undergo further investigation as "collectors", or be accepted as members of approved gun clubs -- in a sane society, that is.

Didn't seem to slow down your drug dealer in your article.

For the love of fuck, does someone think this line of repeated bullshit is going to accomplish something?

For the love of fuck, you said: "Then, of course, if he'd had to register his firearm when he bought it -- well of course, no problem, he would have put himself on record as owning this particular gun. What drug dealer wouldn't?"

Since the original owner of this particular firearm was the sole owner right up until he died, there was a record of ownership for this particular gun right up until the owner died.

You were whining that there was no record for him owning this particular gun, when in fact, there was. For the love of fuck, and all.

But then, nobody said they would. Thick as three planks, maybe?

You know, if I were half as insulting as you are I'd have gotten a tombstone a long time ago.

And that would only be said by someone who didn't give a flying fuck about dead children.

Oh noes, it's for the CHIIIIIILLLLLDREEEENNNNNN! Quick! Let's give up our essential liberties for their safety! Oh wait. You're right. I just don't give enough of a fuck. So sorry. Think I'll be keeping my liberties.

Forgive me, I lost my mind for a moment. A third party in possession of a handgun owned by a deceased convicted offender might have been selling it legally ... sorry, that thought just hadn't occurred to me.

I'm not surprised. Since she sold the firearm in the United States, she could have sold it to anyone and it would have been legal to do so, unless she knowingly sold it to someone she knew was could not legally own them.

[iverglas]

19. look: what the hell are you talking about?

Do you have no idea how ignorant you sound?


Know of many drug dealers who are going to go and take the NRA firearms course and then apply for a licence, complete with the personal references and spousal signature required?
No...that's kind of the point, eh? Here we had a drug dealer with a firearm in Canada and he didn't do any of those things.

No, that was not kind of the point. It wasn't on the same continent as the point.

If someone wants to acquire a firearm LEGALLY in Canada, s/he must successfully complete the requisite training and submit an application supplying considerable personal information, and including two references. And, by definition, go on record as applying for a licence to aquire firearms.

Now. What drug dealer is going to do this?

And if someone does not do this, s/he may not acquire firearms legally. So where is s/he going to acquire firearms?

This is not the yoo ess of eh. There simply is not some maelstorm of handguns littering the streets here. Really. There isn't. It is not really very easy at all to get hold of a handgun illegally. It is huge gigantic news here when a "collection" of FORTY-TWO firearms is stolen.

Fifteen years ago, I was in enough contact with drug dealers (not by choice) that I might have been able to get far enough up that food chain to get my hands on a firearm -- let's assume that the same licensing/registration requirements were in place as are now, and that I'm not going to get a licence or prefer not to go on record as having a licence. Today, I might still be able to figure out somebody to approach; the same bar where I might have started 15 years ago would probably be a good place to start, although I don't have any current references; so I can only imagine what I would have to pay if I succeeded. A lot. Trust me.

I live in a neighbourhood frequented crackheads and drunks on public assistance and hookers and pimps and johns. There are no criminally owned handguns in my neighbourhood. There really, really are not. And I really, really don't need you to tell me what I know and don't know about the neighbourhood where I've lived for 25 years. There has never, not ever, not once, been a firearms incident here. A few blocks away, in a commercial Chinatown area that was becoming popular among small-time Asian gangs, I can think of one. And before I moved here, when the area was commercial Italian, there was, or so I always heard, an incident in which someone burst into Mama Rosa's restaurant with a machine gun. This isn't the worst part of town -- there are two or three others that are worse -- but this isn't yer full-employment, university graduate, white-collar WASP part of town. And there are no guns here.

But back to your point, whatever it was.

It seems to have been that a drug dealer (I don't know whom you're talking about, but a hypothetical drug dealer) in Canada had a firearm that he wasn't licensed to possess.

Uh huh. He did not acquire the firearm legally. So again: your point is?

Make up your mind. Either it's so easy to get a firearms licence and register a bunch of firearms that any idiot drug dealer can do it -- as you said elsewhere -- or it isn't, so any firearms that drug dealers want they have to acquire illegally ... from ...?


You were whining that there was no record for him owning this particular gun, when in fact, there was. For the love of fuck, and all.

Well, golly, no, I wasn't. But if you want to quote me, feel free.


Since she sold the firearm in the United States, she could have sold it to anyone and it would have been legal to do so, unless she knowingly sold it to someone she knew was could not legally own them.

Yes. Isn't that nice? It was legal for her to sell the firearm to a violent drug dealer, as long as she didn't know he was disqualified from owning it. And hey, if he was like her son ... and every other person who's ever been born ... he wasn't born with a criminal record, so it's quite possible that the violent drug dealer she did sell it to wasn't disqualified from owning it!

And hey. He obviously needed it for self-defence.


And that would only be said by someone who didn't give a flying fuck about dead children.
Oh noes, it's for the CHIIIIIILLLLLDREEEENNNNNN! Quick! Let's give up our essential liberties for their safety! Oh wait. You're right. I just don't give enough of a fuck. So sorry. Think I'll be keeping my liberties.

Oh dear. You didn't see the very next line, did you:

There really is a dead child in this story.
Look really hard, and you'll see him.

What I'm not seeing is anybody's essential liberties. Did you forget to put them in, or were they just too teeny tiny for me to see?

[Tejas]

20. Seems that it's finally gotten to that point

You need to actually go through the process of a firearm purchase in this country. Otherwise, I think you've come to an impass that you just can't cross. Your pointless F-bombs and bratty little phrases-of-the-week are showing that your learning curve is flattening out and it's holding you back.

You really need to do some field work and get your hands dirty. Just think of yourself as the ultimate agent-provoceteur, operating in total stealth.

[iverglas]

21. I'm flattered, I'm sure

As far as I can tell, your post is about me. That's as far as I get.

Were you going to propose too?

[gorfle]

22. Replies

Now. What drug dealer is going to do this?

No drug dealer is going to do this.

And if someone does not do this, s/he may not acquire firearms legally. So where is s/he going to acquire firearms?

The fellow in the article got them from the United States.

And there are no guns here.

Whew. I guess the article you cited is just a work of fiction then.

But back to your point, whatever it was.

It seems to have been that a drug dealer (I don't know whom you're talking about, but a hypothetical drug dealer) in Canada had a firearm that he wasn't licensed to possess.

The dealers in the article.

Well, golly, no, I wasn't. But if you want to quote me, feel free.

I did quote you.

Yes. Isn't that nice?

Yes, very.

Oh dear. You didn't see the very next line, did you:

There really is a dead child in this story.
Look really hard, and you'll see him.

Oh noes, it's for the CHIIIIIILLLLLDREEEENNNNNN! Quick! Let's give up our essential liberties for their safety! Oh wait. You're right. I just don't give enough of a fuck. So sorry. Think I'll be keeping my liberties.

What I'm not seeing is anybody's essential liberties. Did you forget to put them in, or were they just too teeny tiny for me to see?

You're just blind is all.

[maxidivine]

25. Inre: selling a formerly contraband firearm

"There's a gap in the story. It seems likely that the dead drug dealer's mother sold the gun illegally for the money she needed.
How do we know she sold it illegally?

Forgive me, I lost my mind for a moment. A third party in possession of a handgun owned by a deceased convicted offender might have been selling it legally ... sorry, that thought just hadn't occurred to me."


A firearm that was owned by a prohibited person does not have prohibited status transferred to it as well. It isn't the gun that is prohibited, it is the (in this case) dealer who owns it who is prohibited from owning firearms. So if he dies and his mother takes possession of all his belongings, including said gun, the gun is no longer an issue, provided the mother is not a prohibited person as well. If she had decided to keep it then it would not have been illegal, and if she sold it to someone who was not prohibited it would likewise remain legal. The gun is not what carries an illegal status, the onus is on the individual who owns it. What makes a perfectly legal gun illegally owned by a drug dealer any different than the same model of gun owned by an individual who is not prohibited? Does the gun become "guilty by association"? Does some of the prohibited persons' taint rub off on the gun?

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Were there any penalties

for the younger brother that stored this illegal, loaded, 'condition 0' pistol in their home, unsecured?

[iverglas]

12. I guess

You'll have to watch the video and see. Like I said, I plan to watch it tomorrow night.

[iverglas]

15. possible non-answer

Valleau says the teenaged brother of Michael James agreed to store the gun for the drug dealer.

There are references to the brother in the article, but he was not named. If he was a young offender, his name could not be released, permanently, and no information about charges or disposition would be available from official sources. Obviously the family would know and would have told the CBC, but the CBC would be barred by law from publishing the info.

I would think that if *no* proceedings were taken, the CBC might mention that fact, and so I might take silence as meaning that there were charges. I'll watch for indications in the program.

[iverglas]

14. local colour

The dealer who made the initial sale:

Arthur Banks, owner of Arrowhead Pawn Shop, at 7551 Tara Blvd (CHECK), in Jonesboro, Georgia, has been selling guns for about two decades. Seven hundred and five guns used in crimes were traced, by police, back to Arrowhead Pawn Shop.

In 2004, the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation published Selling Crime: High Crime Gun Stores Fuel Criminals which, for the first time, identified which American gun stores sold the largest volume of crime guns. The report used the most recent data available, 1996-2000, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The ATF found that one percent of the 80,000 licenced gun dealers in the U.S. sold more that 57 per cent of all crime guns. Arthur Banks and the Arrowhead Pawn Shop ranked number 19 on that list.

[gorfle]

17. Local colour indeed.

I know that area of town. I'm not surprised.

[iverglas]

41. fyi

-- having now watched the program (and remembered watching it a couple of years ago ...)

Arthur Banks did eventually lose his dealer licence. He set up an "everything but guns" store (ammunition) next to a nothing but "guns store" ... owned by his mother.

That little operation eventually got shut down, too.

He was one of the dirtiest operators in the US firearms industry.

But the manufacturers just kept on supplying him ...

[maxidivine]

26. In other words...

Almost all gun stores are up to their necks in respectability. Which you would know if you ever spent any time at one. Thank you!

"In 2004, the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation published Selling Crime: High Crime Gun Stores Fuel Criminals which, for the first time, identified which American gun stores sold the largest volume of crime guns. The report used the most recent data available, 1996-2000, from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The ATF found that one percent of the 80,000 licenced gun dealers in the U.S. sold more that 57 per cent of all crime guns. Arthur Banks and the Arrowhead Pawn Shop ranked number 19 on that list."


Seems to me that if 2/5 of all firearms used in crimes originated in at least 99% of all the licensed gun shops in the U.S., than that must mean that those shops were doing everything right, and the bulk of the "crime guns" which were sold in those shops were most likely either stolen later or sold and sold and sold on the private market until they were eventually stolen or sold to someone prohibited. Shows how successful and good our gun shops are.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

24. So....

Is the point that the drug dealer should have used the gun to defend himself when the competition decided to exercise a hostile takeover of market share?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

37. actually , I'm a Canadian verb

We don't have facists up here. You're going to have to tell me about them. Is it the shape of people's faces they propose to discriminate on the basis of, or the size, or the just plain plainness?

[Turbo Teg]

43. Well,

I guess the parents should have tought there children firearms safety. Take the mystery out of guns and they become just another tool, no more different than a nail gun or a saw or some other item.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Some sensationalizing here.

Pocket Rocket? Really? Pretty much any .45 caliber autoloader would fit that definition then. It's a medium-frame 1911 design. (Hint, they aren't really called that, except maybe by idiots)

Here in the US, this pistol would not have even been covered under the 1994 AWB, as it is not a high capacity pistol. Factory mags only hold 6+1. (Holds 10+1, absolute maximum, aftermarket magazines.)

Trigger type is dual-action. Someone had to chamber a round and leave the safety off. I challenge the idea that a 5 year old (I guess the age of the kid that aimed and fired the gun into Michael's face isn't clearly identified, but, I will assume) can successfully work the action on that heavy, steel, overbuilt piece of shit.

I also highly doubt the trigger on that pistol is 'sensitive', a little more embellishment. Those pistols are reputed as 'industrial strength', not match-grade hair-trigger material.


Details, I know, in the end, there was still a dead child, but since the author felt the need to embellish, I thought it might be helpful to keep some things in perspective.

[iverglas]

47. feel free to watch the video

It gave a full description of the firearm, including its weight, e.g.


Here in the US, this pistol would not have even been covered under the 1994 AWB, as it is not a high capacity pistol. Factory mags only hold 6+1. (Holds 10+1, absolute maximum, aftermarket magazines.)

I'll bet you thought you had some kind of point there.


I challenge the idea that a 5 year old (I guess the age of the kid that aimed and fired the gun into Michael's face isn't clearly identified, but, I will assume) can successfully work the action on that heavy, steel, overbuilt piece of shit.

I have absolutely no idea what you could mean by this.

Perhaps the child was really killed by jackbooted Mississauga police ...

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Pocket Rocket

Normally refers to very small pistols, that actually fit in your pocket. Like a .380, a small frame, low capacity 9mm, Kahr makes a lot of pistols that would fit this description. It does not refer to power. That medium frame 1911 would not fit in my pocket. Even if I managed to stuff it in there somehow, you could see the print of it's outline, and I wouldn't be getting it out on demand. It just seems to me the author is trying to paint it as some kind of gangland, thug type weapon. It's a very normal pistol, probably intended for inside-the-waistband carry, in a holster.

Unless that term has somehow adopted a completely different meaning in Canada.

I'll bet you thought you had some kind of point there.
No point, just speculation. Illustrating it's a very normal, common pistol type in the US.

I have absolutely no idea what you could mean by this.

Perhaps the child was really killed by jackbooted Mississauga police ...
No, not at all. Further demonstrating the negligence of the older brother that stored it. Storing a weapon like that for someone has nothing to do with leaving a pistol lying around with a round in the chamber, condition 0. I can imagine a small child getting the safety off, but not working the slide. The tragic consequences could have been avoided at so very many different points along the way. Literally everything had to go wrong for this to happen.


I get one Canadian channel where I live, but the guide didn't list this show. I'll go back and look at the article and see if there's a web link to it now.
I see the video link now.

Edit: How in the hell are people bypassing the 7 day waiting period in Georgia? Here the only way around that is a valid concealed pistol license, from this state.

[iverglas]

49. "Further demonstrating the negligence of the older brother that stored it."

The older brother, I think it has been made clear, was a juvenile. But hey, let's blame him. Let's not point a finger at anything that it might actually be possible to do something about.


How in the hell are people bypassing the 7 day waiting period in Georgia?

Was it 1997 when it was purchased? I forget. I suspect the date is the relevant datum.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Still

The older brother, I think it has been made clear, was a juvenile. But hey, let's blame him. Let's not point a finger at anything that it might actually be possible to do something about.
He holds the greatest share of blame, yes, I blame him even though he's a minor. Had that Firestar never been made, never sold illegally, never transported across national boundaries illegally, never used by gun runners or drug dealers, some other gun would likely have still been placed in his possession to hold.

He stored a loaded, chambered, ready to fire pistol where a small child could obtain it. He should be held accountable, insofar as a minor can be. Might help curb this new cultural phenomenon of 'good kids' being used as gun lockers, to store firearms for the kinds of people that might win more police scrutiny.

I tried watching the video, and it kept re-buffering ever 12 seconds or so, so I stopped about halfway, in order to save my sanity. Is the dirtbag that asked him to hold the gun alive still? Can he be prosecuted?

Was it 1997 when it was purchased? I forget. I suspect the date is the relevant datum.
For that gun, no, the waiting period had not sunset, but the video is talking about an issue NOW, that these massive straw purchases are being performed today, right now, not ~10+ years ago. My confusion may be around State law. If you don't have a concealed weapons permit here, you are still subject to the waiting period. Perhaps Georgia does not have this requirement.

If you sell more than (x)* number of guns in a month, you are subject to all the sales requirements of a firearms dealer, meaning paperwork, paperwork, and more paperwork, all around tracking the sale, and verifying the legal status of the end customer. I really don't understand how this can be happening, if the BATFE is doing it's job. All they would have to do is audit the store, and look for the customer with the enormous folder of forms, or close the store for failing to keep it's records.

These guns are alledged to be transported not only across into canada, but first stop New York, and other states, which means some angry people from the US Treasury should be banging on some doors... Here, a pawn shop would be in serious trouble for selling to a non-resident, normally the firearm would have to be transferred across state lines TO a FFL in the resident state, and then transferred to the end customer (obviously impossible in New York).



This video highlights some interesting failures of our patchwork quilt of gun laws. Thank you for sharing it.
(I will finish watching the movie later today, hopefully wherever the bandwidth was getting interrupted will be smoothed out by then)


*I'd have to look up (x), as I have never sold any of my firearms. I'm still accumulating. My impression is that number is fairly low, 10 or less.