how the Cdn firearms registry protects USAmericans

[iverglas]

I was looking for an article about the item I saw on Newsworld today -- the (US) ATF opening an office in Toronto (it already has offices in Vancouver and Ottawa) ... haven't found one yet, but this one caught my eye. Old news, but something that's never been talked about here.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2000/05/02/canada/gun_ring000502

TORONTO - A joint police effort between Canada and the U.S. broke up a gun smuggling ring Tuesday. Officers seized almost 2,000 M1 Garand rifles, guns that date back to the Second World War.

They also found three machine guns, and a large number of gun parts.

The guns and the parts are all perfectly legal in Canada. It's also legal to sell them in the U.S. The illegal part is that they were being shipped there labelled as auto parts.

It's illegal to ship them at all.

Supt. Ron Taverner of Toronto police described it as a type of "gun laundering."

Taverner says a large number of gun registrations in Canada caught the attention of authorities. ...

The gun-running usually goes in the other direction, of course, and it's the flow of handguns into Canada from the US that the ATF's office in Toronto is meant to address, I understand.

Canadian laws (and police, i.e. tax dollars) are protecting USAmericans from firearms getting into the hands of criminals in the US. (Did we think these were going to be sold at gun shows to people wanting to defend their homes and families?)

How nice it would be if the concern were reciprocated ...

.

[iverglas]

1. ATF opens office in Toronto

Found it.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1079565010244

The U.S. law enforcement agency charged with keeping track of guns is opening an office in Toronto to help Canadian police stem the flow of illegal firearms across the border. Canadian officials welcome the move by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). It's something Toronto police Chief Julian Fantino has lobbied for.

The U.S., which has much less restrictive gun laws, is a major source of illegal handguns, "the preferred weapons for use in the commission of criminal acts," according to a recent report prepared by Toronto police.

... A report released last month by Washington-based Americans for Gun Safety found states with the "gun show loophole" are flooding the rest of the U.S. with illegal guns, a phenomenon the group suggests would extend to Canada.

... A number of U.S. states have closed the gun show loophole, including the Ontario border states of Michigan and New York. Ohio, however, is a major gun trafficking source for New York, Pennsylvania, and then to Ontario, according to ATF crime gun data.

Gee, and they wonder why I have opinions ...

.

[RoeBear]

5. More bad reportage...

...our (Michigan's) 'private sale loophole' is alive and well, at least in regards to long guns.

[iverglas]

6. how informative

(Michigan's) 'private sale loophole' is alive and well, at least in regards to long guns.

Of course, and as I have noted multiple times in the past, the major problem with the smuggling of firearms into Canada relates to HANDGUNS. And as the article I quoted said:

The U.S., which has much less restrictive gun laws, is a major source of illegal handguns, "the preferred weapons for use in the commission of criminal acts," according to a recent report prepared by Toronto police.

Obviously, handguns will be the prime focus of the ATF/Cdn police cooperative effort, which has to do with tracing firearms used in crimes, those firearms being overwhelmingly illegally possessed handguns, and cooperation in tracing what are mainly illegally possessed handguns being the subject of the "reportage" quoted.

I couldn't tell you what the state of Michigan's laws is as regards sales of handguns at gun shows. (I took a quick google, but didn't find the answer.)

You're very eager to state an opinion about the "reportage" in question, but I haven't seen you offer anything by way of facts to back up that opinion yet. I'm not saying there aren't any, I'm just saying that you're the one calling something names based on nothing I've seen so far.

Everyone can now ask me whether I'm surprised.

.

[RoeBear]

8. Then again I'm not a reporter...

...skipping my homework.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

26. allow me to rephrase

I'm not at all sure why I should, or how to do it ...

You're not a reporter.

You are just you, making an allegation of wrongdoing against a reporter for which you have offered not a shred of evidence or argument, and, in response to evidence and argument offered in rebuttal of your claim, reiterating the allegation of wrongdoing without a shred of evidence or argument to support it ...

Round three, anyone?

.

[RoeBear]

27. I offered my knowledge as a citizen...

..of Michigan.

I respond to this part of the reporters story: "... A number of U.S. states have closed the gun show loophole, including the Ontario border states of Michigan and New York."

If you want to purchase a handgun in Michigan you must go to your local law enforcement center (city police or county sheriff) and obtain a purchase permit, UNLESS you have a CCW. This would be regardless of where you buy the gun; gun store, gun show or private owner. But if you have a CCW you can skip that process and purchase the gun without a purchase permit.

Long guns in Michigan can be purchased by anyone with a NICS check at a gun dealer (regardless if the dealer is at a gun show or not) or from a private seller (regardless if the private seller is at a gun show or not)without the NICS check.

Was this reporter someone you know? You seemed to take my admonishment of him/her quite personally.

[iverglas]

28. I always take it personally

When someone maligns another human being without grounds.

Once again, you have provided a bunch of totally irrelevant information, since, once again, the firearms that the project will be dealing with are virtually exclusively HANDGUNS.

As far as I can tell, what you are saying is that the gun-show loophole has been closed in Michigan for HANDGUNS.

So as far as I can tell, the article, which made it plain that the problem the project was designed to address was the illegal importation of HANDGUNS, made an accurate statement in respect of HANDGUNS.

Really -- nobody except you seems to care what the Michigan laws regarding long guns are. You see, people who are qualified for firearms licences in Canada can buy as many long guns as they please, right here in Canada. Kinda just like in Michigan. What they cannot buy in Canada, in most cases, as I understand things, is HANDGUNS.

Also, more specifically, the problem that the project is designed to address is the use of HANDGUNS in the commission of crimes, HANDGUNS being the preferred "tool" for that activity. People are just not smuggling long arms into Canada to commit crimes with. The people using those smuggled HANDGUNS would be most unlikely to qualify for a firearms licence, let alone to possess a HANDGUN, in Canada. So again, it is HANDGUNS that the article was talking about.

And in Michigan, as I still understand it, HANDGUNS cannot legally be sold at gun shows or by private vendors without the purchaser having the local counterpart of a Cdn firearms licence, a NICS check or a CCW permit.

So the original source of the illegally imported HANDGUNS used in the commission of crimes in Ontario is quite a good deal less likely to be Michigan than, say Ohio.

And all of your carrying on about LONG GUNS is still irrelevant to the information in the article and the project it was reporting on.

And what you did in respect of the reporter was not to "admonish" him/her, it was to make an unfounded allegation of wrongdoing. And all you've done since then is demonstrate how very unfounded it was.

.

[RoeBear]

29. So many words...

...so little substance.

Where in the article did it say "virtually exclusively HANDGUNS."

From the article:
"Police get new ally in gun fight"
not handguns, guns


"The U.S. law enforcement agency charged with keeping track of guns is opening an office in Toronto to help Canadian police stem the flow of illegal firearms across the border."
not handguns, guns

"Complicating things further is the so-called gun show loophole."
not the handgun loophole, the gunshow loophole

as an aside:
"The loophole allows sellers at gun shows who are non-licensed to bring their collection there and sell them. And what you have is essentially, like any loophole, the criminal market has figured it out."
Those damn genius criminals. Close the 'gun show loophole' and what will they do? Will it be the classified ad loophole, the grocery store bulletin loophole or the garage sale loophole that they go to next?

Do you think Canadian or US officials will ignore a shipment of rifles or shotguns crossing the border?

Although I mentioned that in Michigan one is supposed to get a purchase permit before buying a handgun that doesn't always happen.
Well it does happen at a gun show because private sellers are informed of the rules as a condition of getting a table. They also know that law enforcement is watching at gun shows. But I can easily find a private seller who would sell to me without my supplying a purchase permit simply because they don't know it's a requirement.

But let's say I want to commit a crime but can't find a handgun. Would I be any less dangerous with an easily concealable sawed off shot gun?

Betsy needs to do her homework

[iverglas]

34. so easy

to use so few words to be disingenuous, isn't it? I ask only because I think you might have an opinion. Perhaps you don't.

Where in the article did it say "virtually exclusively HANDGUNS."

I dunno. Perhaps you could ask someone who said that the article said that.

Now, here's what I said (emphasis added):

Once again, you have provided a bunch of totally irrelevant information, since, once again, the firearms that the project will be dealing with are virtually exclusively HANDGUNS.

Given what the article did say, and given what else someone who wants to discuss this matter should be presumed to know before forming and stating opinions about it, I thought it was just obvious that this was the case.

And here's what else I said, first in the opening post (emphasis added):

The gun-running usually goes in the other direction, of course, and it's the flow of handguns into Canada from the US that the ATF's office in Toronto is meant to address, I understand.

I said this based on the Newsworld report I had just watched, and of course based on numerous studies that I have read -- and quoted and cited on this board -- showing that a very substantial proportion of the handguns used in the commission of crimes in Canada were smuggled into Canada from the US. Oh, and on Canadian common knowledge; gun crime is so rare here that a pretty substantial proportion of it is reported in the news, so yer average Canadian knows that the criminals (including gangs) who use firearms are mainly using handguns. Actually, I think anyone with a brain cell knows that this is true most places. If you really didn't know why I would say these things, you were quite free to ask. Please, never hesitate.

Then in my second post I quoted the Toronto Star article (emphasis added below), this being the part that really does just make it obvious -- at least to anyone who has the information s/he needs to have before opening his/her mouth and spouting opinions -- that smuggled handguns are the main focus of the effort. (Not all of that information is available from that article, but then that's often the case for many things in this world, isn't it? A newspaper article about something just doesn't tell ya everything ya need to know about that thing ... and that explains why *I* said, based on the knowledge and information that *I* have and that anyone wanting to discuss this matter needs to have, that the focus of the effort was the smuggling of handguns.)

The U.S., which has much less restrictive gun laws, is a major source of illegal handguns, "the preferred weapons for use in the commission of criminal acts," according to a recent report prepared by Toronto police.

Did you miss that part? If not, I wonder why you quoted the parts of the article that described the factors that lead to the problem, without bothering to quote the part of the article that specifies what the problem is.

Do you think Canadian or US officials will ignore a shipment of rifles or shotguns crossing the border?

But don't you see, really? People just aren't smuggling varmint-killing weapons, or deer-hunting weapons, into Canada for poor disarmed farmers and hunters ... because there just aren't any poor disarmed farmers and hunters. Perhaps you're still labouring under some delusion that Canadians have been disarmed, who knows? And they're not smuggling assault weapons or sniper rifles or whatever you want to call them into Canada, because people who go on multiple-shooting rampages just aren't usually part of a crime organization and there isn't likely much money to be made in arming them. The money's in HANDGUNS. Handguns are the tools of the trade for CRIMINALS. And it's CRIMINALS doing the smuggling and the buying and selling and committing the crimes with the smuggled, bought and sold HANDGUNS.

People are smuggling HANDGUNS into Canada. Crimes are committed in Canada with HANDGUNS. They are undoubtedly sometimes committed with sawed-off shotguns in Canada, too -- but you see, it's pretty bloody easy to buy a shotgun legally in Canada, and likely not that hard to get hold of one on the post-purchase market given how many of them there are in Canada, so nobody needs to smuggle them into the country.

So -- drum roll -- nobody is going to gun shows in Michigan to buy shotguns to smuggle into Canada and use in the commission of crimes. Really. Truly. They're just not doing it. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can read the studies that I have quoted and cited on this board. And no, I really don't feel any obligation to do your research, and to constantly re-reproduce things that I have repeatedly cited and quoted in the past. Other people's attention span isn't my problem.


Although I mentioned that in Michigan one is supposed to get a purchase permit before buying a handgun that doesn't always happen.
Well it does happen at a gun show because private sellers are informed of the rules as a condition of getting a table. They also know that law enforcement is watching at gun shows. But I can easily find a private seller who would sell to me without my supplying a purchase permit simply because they don't know it's a requirement.

Hurray for you. Now on the other hand, if you were part of an organized group looking for handguns to smuggle into Canada, which would make more sense? --

(a) scouting around Michigan, scouring the classifieds and the grocery store bulletin boards, for a bunch of negligent or criminal handgun owners to buy a bunch of handguns from without a NICS check or a permit;
or
(b) going to a gun show or two in Ohio to buy a bunch of handguns without a NICS check or a permit.

I think that the gun smugglers are smart enough to figure that one out. May I ask, with all due respect: can you do the math?


But let's say I want to commit a crime but can't find a handgun. Would I be any less dangerous with an easily concealable sawed off shot gun?

I think you should address your questions to the people who seem to very much prefer to use HANDGUNS for their work. There just has to be some reason for their preference, doncha think?

And really. There's a big problem in Toronto ("big" in Toronto terms, of course) with people getting shot at bars and clubs. Is it really that easy to take a sawed-off shotgun dancing? People are getting shot in and from cars in Scarborough. Yup, you could take your sawed-off shotgun in your car with you, but does it really have the characteristics needed for that activity? Can you tuck it in your pants and go dancing, or just walking down Yonge Street, before or after the shooting?

Did you consider doing your homework first so that you maybe had an inkling of a clue as to what you're talking about?

Betsy needs to do her homework

And what you need to do is write to Betsy and tell her that, I'd say. That would be the brave thing to do.

.

[MrBenchley]

36. It's interesting to see the bullets for brains crowd

stringently avoiding the question of why these were being imported as "auto parts."

<sarcasm>No doubt it was so these could be sold by honest folks after background checks...and Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the Faeries.</sarcasm>

[demsrule4life]

38. I kind of explained it in my post below

they are war surplus and cant be brought back into the states. So they were being smuggled in. I don't know what the laws are concerning an arms company bringing them back into the states. When I was in germany I had to fill out an ATF Fm 6 in order to emport the guns I had bought. Main thing the ATF checks for is surplus and if they meet the GCA of 68 specs.

[MrBenchley]

39. Yeah, surrrrrrrre...

THAT makes it all right...they're war surplus.

[demsrule4life]

40. Christ what I get for trying to explain something nicely

If you cant bring them in legally then you have to fucking smuggle them in. And where did I say that it was ok to smuggle them?

[MrBenchley]

42. Too TOO funny....

"If you cant bring them in legally then you have to fucking smuggle them in."
Ho-kay.

[slackmaster]

43. Exactly the same technique the NRA uses to interpret the Second Amendment

Quote half of what was actually written, disregarding the qualifying language.

[RoeBear]

41. Blah, blah blah blah....

"(b) going to a gun show or two in Ohio to buy a bunch of handguns without a NICS check or a permit."

You really don't have a clue do you? Try to explain to us how someone would do that without arrousing suspision.


Where in the article did it say "virtually exclusively HANDGUNS."
"I dunno. Perhaps you could ask someone who said that the article said that."

Thank you for admitting that it wasn't in the article.

[MrBenchley]

44. Too funny, roe...

"Try to explain to us how someone would do that without arrousing suspision."
They'd go to a private seller in a gun show and buy a bunch of guns...no background check needed...

[RoeBear]

45. And in your extensive knowledge of gun shows...

...you think there isn't anybody watching that kind of activity?

[MrBenchley]

48. In other words...

I was right on the money...

[RoeBear]

20. If a handgun wasn't available...

...how hard would it be to make one of these?

"Obviously, handguns will be the prime focus of the ATF/Cdn police cooperative effort, which has to do with tracing firearms used in crimes, those firearms being overwhelmingly illegally possessed handguns, and cooperation in tracing what are mainly illegally possessed handguns being the subject of the "reportage" quoted."

[DoNotRefill]

31. Virginia's "gun show loophole" is wide open....

I wonder why Virginia isn't listed....

[iverglas]

35. gee

I wonder why Virginia isn't listed....

Maybe because the people who are involved in this effort have actually done their homework and know what they're talking about.

Did you read the rest of the article, that I didn't quote for copyright reasons, but the reading of which is about the minimum that someone with questions oughta have done? Here's a bit more:

In Canada, a firearm can be traced to the last registered owner as recorded by the Canadian Firearms Registry System. But tracing firearms that originated in the U.S. can be quite complex, notes the Toronto Police Service report, since "there is no requirement in the majority of American states to register firearms, so often existing records will only identify the first purchaser."

That makes it "extremely difficult" to account for any transactions subsequent to the original retail purchase.

"Agents ... must spend countless hours conducting investigations, locating documents and interviewing persons in order to provide investigators in Ontario with trace information," the report said.

The ATF DOES ITS HOMEWORK, and traces firearms used in the commission of crimes in Canada that have come from the US, as best they can.

A number of U.S. states have closed the gun show loophole, including the Ontario border states of Michigan and New York. Ohio, however, is a major gun trafficking source for New York, Pennsylvania, and then to Ontario, according to ATF crime gun data.

See? THEY DID THE MATH.

So perhaps they didn't mention Virginia because THAT IS NOT WHERE THE FIREARMS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES IN CANADA ARE COMING FROM, they having determined that by doing the work.

You've noticed that Ohio is a fair bit closer to Canada than Virginia, maybe?

.

[analogman]

46. Why gun shows?

I wonder how many criminals wait around for the annual gun show so they can get a gun? Does anybody have any statistics to show how many of the guns used to commit crimes were sold to the criminal at a gunshow?

[DoNotRefill]

50. The only statistics available....

are for if the gun was EVER sold at a gun show.

So, if a gun changes hands 15 times, and it was originally sold at a gun show, but the 15th purchaser is the one who used it in a crime, it shows up as a "gunshow" gun, even if he bought it from a store or on the black market.

[iverglas]

51. and what are *you* talking about?

The topic under discussion is trafficking in guns cross-border -- smuggling handguns, in particular. Into CANADA from the US.

The people trafficking those firearms just hafta get them *somewhere*, don't they?

They CAN'T get them legally in Canada.

Gun shows in the US are apparently ONE PLACE they get them -- according to THE INVESTIGATIONS DONE BY THE A.T.F. ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES trying to figure out where the firearms used in the commission of crimes in Canada, that were NOT legally bought in Canada, came from.

That is FACT, not speculation. The A.T.F. HAS TRACED firearms used in the commission of crimes in Canada. You did read the article we're talking about, did you? If you want to know "how many" came from any particular source, why don't you ask the ATF? Or find the Toronto Police Service report referred to in the Toronto Star article; I've taken a quick google, being short of time right now, and haven't found it, but I'd bet it's there.

Where are so many people apparently getting so much information that the ATF was so unable to get hold of?? And why won't they share it with us?

.

[FeebMaster]

2. Well, I feel safer

and that's what's important, that I feel safe.


Am I the only one who sees the irony of smuggling Garands into the United States?

[iverglas]

4. dumb criminals and "irony"

Ironic it might be, but it is presumably also profitable.

And those felons who can't buy firearms legally in the US have to get 'em somewhere, don't they? After all, they'll always get 'em somewhere, won't they?? That's what I thought the line was, anyhow.

I found it entertaining that somebody registered their ownership of them in Canada first. (They had to, if they were buying them legally, you see.)

Presumably there were enough of those "law-abiding honest gun owners" willing to be the proxies for the legal purchase, and, for a small commission, sell 'em on to the bad guys (and/or some law-abiding, honest bad guys able to purchase firearms legally), to make this worthwhile. Amazing what law-abiding honest people will do, ain't it?

.

[DonP]

9. Buy them cheap from the Government

I think the irony being pointed out is based on the fact that most Americans, with out a criminal record, can buy an M-1 Garand from a US Govt. agency, the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), for $400 to $500 and have it delivered directly to your door or office complete with sling and one clip.

I'm glad they busted the smugglers, it just seems a strange thing to be smuggling a 60 to 70 years big old rifle that only holds 8 rounds and weighs over 9 pounds into the country that made them in the first place.

(A big tip of the hat also goes to the brilliant Canadian born designer of the M-1, John Cantius (sp?) Garand of course.)

[iverglas]

12. the real "irony"

I think the irony being pointed out is based on the fact that most Americans, with out a criminal record, can buy an M-1 Garand from a US Govt. agency, the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), for $400 to $500 and have it delivered directly to your door or office complete with sling and one clip.

... it seems to me, is the apparent desperation I'm seeing to avoid the actual facts and issues here. Well, that's not actually irony, but then few things so called actually are.

I already asked: do we suppose that the firearms in question were destined to "law-abiding honest gun owners" in the US?

Those are the ones who can buy their firearms from the US govt agency in question, would I be correct in thinking?

Why, indeed, would anyone bother smuggling firearms into a country to sell to people who could already buy them legally in that country?

Maybe, just maybe, because they WEREN'T GOING TO SELL THEM TO PEOPLE WHO COULD ALREADY BUY THEM LEGALLY?

Cripes. Hand some people a barn to shoot at, and they'll still shoot themselves in the foot while covering their ears and going wah-wah ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

33. Iverglas....

What kind of criminal market is there in the US (or Canada, for that matter)for M1 Garands?

Do you have any collecting hobbies, like stamps or coins? Let me explain how CMP operates. CMP is designed to get functional weapons into private hands. It's not primarily geared towards collectors, it's geared towards shooters. If you order a gun from them, you can specify certain things like general manufacturer and overall condition. The M1 Garand was made by a great many manufacturers, and CMP sells guns put out by the "big ones". For collectors, value depends on condition and rarity. Some collectors are looking for guns from smaller manufacturers in a specific serial number range. CMP can't provide them. Just as with stamps and coins, serious collectors are looking for the rarer makes and serial ranges available. For example, an early "gas trap" M1 Garand can EASILY bring $20,000 on the US collector's market, because they're so rare in the original configuration. See, there was a US government retrofit of the "gas trap" Garands, and very few of them survived. Just as serious coin and stamp collectors go for the more exotic coins and stamps, based on things like total mintage and printage and mint marks, Garand collectors go for the less well-known manufacturers. For example, I have an M1 carbine (not a garand, but with some superficial similarities) that was made by IBM. The fact that it is IBM marked makes it much more collectable than one marked "Winchester".

In short, you're assuming that there's a market for Garands to further criminal enterprises. I've never heard of such a thing. There's another explanation, that the market is for legitimate collectors, but that silly import regulations are the cause of the legality problem.

[DoNotRefill]

32. Ummmm....Iverglas.....

the guns in question in the bust were M1 Garands. These are rifles which, due to their operating system, are very poorly suited to be "sawed off". The operating system extends almost the entire lenght of the barrel. Cut the barrel down, and the operating system no longer can function

I can't remember the last time I've heard of a gang-banger getting busted for carrying or using an M1 Garand. They're SPECTACULARLY unsuitable for use by "Bad Guys". They are, however, very collectable and are widely used in marksmanship competitions.

Just to let you know some stats about the M1 Garand:

Action: Semi-auto gas operated
Caliber: .30-06
Weight: 9.5 pounds, 11.25 pounds with standard accessories
Overall Length: 43.5 inches
Barrel Length: 24 inches
Capacity: 8 rounds in an enbloc clip
Maximum effective rate of fire: 16-24 rounds per minute.

Of course, they DO have bayonet lugs, so if a person is out of ammo and has a bayonet, it can be used as a spear.

These rifles are the US equivalent of the British and Canadian SMLE #1 Mark 3 and #4 Mark 1 bolt action rifles. The SMLEs had a higher capacity and effective rate of fire than the Garand, however, with a properly trained soldier being expected to be able to fire at least 30 aimed shots in a minute. The main advantage of the Garand was that you didn't lose your sight picture while operating it, like you did with the SMLE.

[FatSlob]

7. We should import M1 Garands from Canada

in wholesale lots.

[Liberal Classic]

3. Interesting post

And you're right. I almost never hear about smuggling across the US-Canadian border, it's always the US-Mexican border that gets aired. However, what United Statesians like myself don't realize is that most of the opium coming into north american comes through Alaska and Canada. It's the secret drug war you never hear about on the boob tube.

[MrBenchley]

11. Wish we had one here....

We need guns to be registered and gun owners to be licensed.

Interesting that the Iraqi constitution that the Pirates of Enron are trying to impose over there also has gun registration written right into it....

[FatSlob]

14. I'm amazed that you like registration as much

as the Pirates of Enron. I thought you'd be more liberal than them.

[MrBenchley]

21. Who are you kidding, fat slob?

They're "gun rights" all the way, like every other bigoted right wing pieces of shit.

[DonP]

16. Agreed

"We need guns to be registered and gun owners to be licensed."

I want this government to have a complete list of all gun owners and each gun they own that is kept up to date by Federal law.

[slackmaster]

13. No way to say where they might have ended up

But FWIW (which ain't much) I use an M1 Garand for home defense.

[FeebMaster]

15. Maybe Garands are the weapon of choice

for gangs in upstate New York and Michigan.

[DonP]

18. A Garand for HD, interesting

That's a lot of penetration!

I have a Springfield from '44 and a Danish return from '43 with some mixed parts and love shooting them both.

Now if you add the original bayonet to it you got a real scary HD tool that will keep any home invaders out of your bedroom, (or the Sudatenland for that matter).

But I fear we are hijacking a thread that was supposed to show how the BATF and our friends to the north are protecting us from Garand smugglers.

I'm still wondering what kind of gang banger or other criminal would want a Garand when they can get a lot more contemporary semi-auto firepower for a whole lot less money?

Garand drive by; "bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang - ping".

[FeebMaster]

19. Those high capacity clips are deadly (nt)

[slackmaster]

22. Let me explain why I deployed the M1 rather than another rifle

I would rather use a lower-powered rifle like an AR-15 for home defense, but they are considered "assault weapons" and because I live in California they cannot be bought legally at any price. The far more powerful M1 Garand is not an AW, and in the event I get entangled in a legal morass pursuant to a self-defense shooting I don't want to take a chance on having an IRREPLACEABLE firearm cloistered indefinitely in a police evidence locker.

Call it an unintended consequence of the California AWB. I'd also rather have the newspapers say "Homeowner shoots alleged robber" than "Man killed with assault weapon".

[FeebMaster]

23. Do you think the newspapers wouldn't

describe your rifle as a military issue, high powered assault rifle?

[slackmaster]

24. Maybe, but with an AR-15 my position would look much worse

And the possibility of losing a priceless AR-15 makes the discussion moot.

Because I am right-handed but left-eyed due to a lazy right eye, bolt-action rifles are very awkward for me to use. I don't own and have only rarely fired a left-handed bolt rifle. Lever actions work OK, but if I am to shoot effectively given my current state of training and experience semiautos are my only realistic choice.

[FeebMaster]

25. I'm all for using the Garand for home defense.

I was probably wrong, though. The newspapers would actually describe your Garand as a military issue machine gun or maybe a high powered sniper rifle.

[demsrule4life]

17. Further info on the M-1

M-1 garands are legal to own and sell in the states. What is not legal is for them to be imported into the states by private individuals since they are war surplus. The time I spent in Europe I would of sent several back if I could. Back in 88-89 a farmer in Belgium contacted the U.S. Army and stated during the war his barn was rented out for storage. Inside the barn there was 10,000 mint unfired M-1's. The Army didn't want them back. Frankonia of Germany took possession of the guns and were selling them for $500.00. I never bought one since I knew I couldnt bring it back with me.

[DoNotRefill]

30. Ummm....Iverglas.....

I've bought machinegun parts from Canada and had them shipped to me in the US. True, I filed an ATF Form 6 to do so, but I got the parts. They were for a firearm that I legally possess, made from 1934 to 1945. I don't recall them being shipped as "auto parts", but they were CERTAINLY parts for an automatic weapon. I don't know if I violated any Canadian laws to do so (I wouldn't think I did), but I'm SURE I didn't violate any American laws. Since I received the parts, I haven't sold them at a gun show or made them into an illegal gun.

[iverglas]

37. this is all fascinating

And apparently, indeed, the firearms in question in this instance were likely collector's items. I have no idea why cross-border trafficking in them is illegal. It must might have something to do with the fact that they are firearms and not stamp collections; I just don't know.

All of this is really quite beside the point. But perhaps I didn't make my own thoughts clear.

Canada has a system under which firearms owners must have licences before acquiring firearms, and the firearms they acquire must be registered -- universally, no exceptions. It is a national system, not a local-option system. It is centralized.

The US does not.

We are constantly told here that if the US adopted such a system, those criminals would just get their weapons somewhere else. Just as those criminals in DC get theirs, despite all those laws in DC.

So here's the point.

They would not be getting very many of them from Canada.

The story I reported demonstrates that the existence of the Canadian system of licensing and registration makes it extremely improbable that any significant number of firearms is going to be moving from Canada to the US. The system allows for anomalous acquisitions of firearms to be identified and an investigation conducted into what is going on. People cannot just wander the country acquiring firearms legally, in the quantities that would make an iota of difference to the firearms situation in the US, and traffic them into the US. They will in all probability be found out.

The argument that criminals in the US "would just get hold of firearms some other way" if the US had a Canada-style system depends on there being another way of getting them, i.e. somewhere else to get them from. Just as criminals in Canada seem to have to get a lot of theirs from the US.

I hope that helps.

.

[DoNotRefill]

47. you're gonna laugh at the reason.....

they're illegal to import into the US, but trust me on this, I'm not kidding.

Are you ready?

It's illegal to import US-made military surplus firearms into the US because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This part of the act was written into the act not to keep guns out of the hands of Americans, but to PROTECT US gunmakers from a flood of cheap imports of guns that they had made for the US government and that the US Government had given out to other governments, but that were now obsolete. There are a LOT of surplus guns on the world market that got there by this route, and they were of a type familiar and popular to most Americans, due to many years of conscription. Prior to 1968, this type of gun was readily available, and sold for $10-$15 for a NICE example. My local gunshop LITERALLY had multiple cut-open 55 gallon barrels of average examples of these for sale at $5 a gun in heavy cosmoline, "U pick and clean 'em". Gun makers simply didn't want the additional competition that bringing these guns into the country provided them. After all, if you're looking for a good deer rifle, why spend $59.95 for a new manufacture bolt gun when you could get a new USGI Garand, that the Government had trained you to use, for $10? This was part of the quid pro quo necessary to get the gun industry to go along with the GCA, so that it would pass.

The net result is that it's perfectly legal to import German, French, British, and Canadian-manufactured weapons of this time period, but not US manufactured weapons. How's THAT for a screwy reason? :)

[iverglas]

49. almost as good

As me not being allowed to take oranges across the border into the US.

... Where do they think we get them from? The plant in the living room downstairs sure isn't producing.

No, of course, some of us get them from places like Israel, so it makes sense. Don't want foreign fruit flies.

Until NAFTA, you could drive your car up here, but you couldn't sell it while you were here.

Hmm. NAFTA changed all that; used cars can now be sold cross-border. How come it didn't change the rules you cite?

Under NAFTA, we protected our health care system and our "cultural industries". The US apparently protected its firearms manufacturers. Hey, I'm not commenting. I'm just saying. (And if it didn't get that protection in NAFTA, those gun traffickers should probably be demanding a trade tribunal.)

In any event, can I assume that my initial point is now clear?

Nobody seems to be having anything to say about it now.

.