The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jed]

You try to buy gun in USA and you will make friends with Homeland Security.  Georgia is about the only place you can get away with it and then only certain gun stores will sell to you

How about if it is a gift from a relative? I guess things have change a bit since a purchased a Remington Army .44 revolver and brought it across in 1977.  :nod:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You try to buy gun in USA and you will make friends with Homeland Security.  Georgia is about the only place you can get away with it and then only certain gun stores will sell to you.

Way wrong.

It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm stateside. You need a FFL holder over there to do the transaction and export paperwork. Then you can meet them at the border with your import and registrations and process through CBSA. Niagra Falls\ Buffalo is a favorite spot.

That or have it shipped to a Canadian importer like Questar.

Happens all the time.

Lanes, that's why we have them. So people can stay in their's.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How about if it is a gift from a relative? I guess things have change a bit since a purchased a Remington Army .44 revolver and brought it across in 1977.  :nod:

Big difference between now and 77. See my post above.

Black powder guns are not even considered firearms in the States, just here in Canada.

 

[Jed]

Thanks, RG. I think if do acquire a bird gun down south I will just leave it with the relatives.

How stringent are they with the paper work if I wanted to get a short plain barrel (18 - 20 in whatever is legal) and a folding stock for an 870? Would those items been an issue?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks, RG. I think if do acquire a bird gun down south I will just leave it with the relatives.

How stringent are they with the paper work if I wanted to get a short plain barrel (18 - 20 in whatever is legal) and a folding stock for an 870? Would those items been an issue?

Quit making things difficult for yourself. If you're going to leave it with relatives, just let them buy it and the shells. All you have to do then is get a hunting license for the state you're in, which is normally pretty easy, get one of them to go with you and 'borrow' your gun. Depending on the hunting laws of course.

18 inch guns with folding stocks don't make very good bird equipment.

These questions and likely most others you have, are better asked and answered over on gunnutz http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/index.php There's all kinds of info about US purchases, etc.

This thread is about Canadian gun control.

 

[fraserdw]

Way wrong.


Lanes, that's why we have them. So people can stay in their's.

Maine 2002, I enquired about buying Kentucky Rifle in a shop in Bangor.  Owner said he could sell to Canadians, after I left he must have taken my plate.  Later at the hotel, 2 cops showed and questioned me for 10 minutes but seemed satisfied after seeing my military ID.  Once back to the border, Canada Customs virtually tore the car apart.  Thank you for pointing out my driving but I think I was well in my lane.

And back to Canadian gun control...

 

[Jed]

Apologies for the slight derail. Obviously folding stock is not for said bird gun.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Maine 2002, I enquired about buying Kentucky Rifle in a shop in Bangor.  Owner said he could sell to Canadians, after I left he must have taken my plate.  Later at the hotel, 2 cops showed and questioned me for 10 minutes but seemed satisfied after seeing my military ID.  Once back to the border, Canada Customs virtually tore the car apart.  Thank you for pointing out my driving but I think I was well in my lane.

And back to Canadian gun control...

That's because you illegally purchased it and had possesion of it in the States. Read my lips. Import and export permit and a qualified FFL dealer. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Watch the guardrail you're swerving again.

 

[NavyShooter]

Be aware that as a non-US Resident, you must be in posession of a Form 6 NIA (Non Immigrant Alien) and a valid hunting license (without which your Form 6 NIA will not be approved).

If you have a firearm in your posession in the US, and do NOT have a Form 6, then you're breaking the law.  Period.

See RG's info about import/export.  I haven't moved a firearm across the border (yet) but would definitely go through Questar or a similar company to get it done for me.

NS

 

[BernDawg]

Way wrong.

It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm stateside. You need a FFL holder over there to do the transaction and export paperwork. Then you can meet them at the border with your import and registrations and process through CBSA. Niagra Falls\ Buffalo is a favorite spot.

That or have it shipped to a Canadian importer like Questar.

Happens all the time.

Lanes, that's why we have them. So people can stay in their's.

No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now.... 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now.... 

I was responding to someone that was posting wrong information, not the OP.

Pay attention to the road, you're missing key intersections and blowing stop signs.

 

[fraserdw]

No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now.... 

Ack, thus my comment, if YOU pick one up in the US of A You will have issues with law enforcement.  The OP did not mention importing he mentioned "picking one up".  My comment and later clarification was based on that.  The information was not wrong, it was experience based on attempting to do what the OP was considering doing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ack, thus my comment, if YOU pick one up in the US of A You will have issues with law enforcement.  The OP did not mention importing he mentioned "picking one up".  My comment and later clarification was based on that.  The information was not wrong, it was experience based on attempting to do what the OP was considering doing.

And as I and NavyShooter clarified, there is ways of doing it. You just have to do it properly and know the laws.

Anyway, I'm done trying to explain things. People can just keep believing what they want to believe, it only makes it harder on themselves.

I've been doing stuff over there for years and years and never had a problem. I doubt that I'm just lucky

Have a good one

 

[NavyShooter]

Attention to detail is a good thing.

I went through this whole process of reviewing required forms and legal requirements several years ago when I got a concealed carry permit in the US.  As a non US citizen/resident, there were certain basic obligations that have to be met before you are allowed to carry ANY gun in the US, let alone carry concealed. 

Step 1 is having a REASON to hold that firearm (hence the hunting license...Alaska's Non resident hunting licenses are the cheapest at last check, and recognized in other states.)

Step 2 is having a Form 6 NIA approved for the firearms you're going to be carrying (as a note, Norinco firearms cannot be transported into the US...1992 ban on imports from China) so the form will list the firearms you're going to be carrying.

Step 3 is to make sure your ducks are in a row to get to the US border from your residence in Canada...so if you have a handgun or other restricted firearm, you need an ATT to get to the border and back.

Being a firearms owner in today's world requires a level of attention to detail to legalities that I would rate on the "high" side.  Unless you like your cheek pressed into the pavement by the barrel of an MP-5....

NS

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Attention to detail is a good thing.

I went through this whole process of reviewing required forms and legal requirements several years ago when I got a concealed carry permit in the US.  As a non US citizen/resident, there were certain basic obligations that have to be met before you are allowed to carry ANY gun in the US, let alone carry concealed. 

Step 1 is having a REASON to hold that firearm (hence the hunting license...Alaska's Non resident hunting licenses are the cheapest at last check, and recognized in other states.)

Step 2 is having a Form 6 NIA approved for the firearms you're going to be carrying (as a note, Norinco firearms cannot be transported into the US...1992 ban on imports from China) so the form will list the firearms you're going to be carrying.

Step 3 is to make sure your ducks are in a row to get to the US border from your residence in Canada...so if you have a handgun or other restricted firearm, you need an ATT to get to the border and back.

Being a firearms owner in today's world requires a level of attention to detail to legalities that I would rate on the "high" side.  Unless you like your cheek pressed into the pavement by the barrel of an MP-5....

NS

Got the same instuctions, when I got CCW for Nevada and New Hampshire.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Got the same instuctions, when I got CCW for Nevada and New Hampshire.

Just curious as to what the US authorities thought about a Canadian citizen applying for a CCW?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They had no problem with it. The course was taught in Canada by a certified instructor that they recognised. He handled all the paperwork, including the FBI background checks. Times are changing though and so are the rules. It's getting more difficult. Once mine expire, I probably won't renew.

 

[NavyShooter]

Mine has expired, I have not bothered to renew.  Lots of work for little gain, and the amount of travel I do in the US is limited enough to prove the exercise to be mostly futile....and can you imagine me going to the DeckO on the ship to ask for my Glock before I crossed the brow in foreign port? 

Other major issue with that is carrying on a US military base is highly restricted/illegal (particularly when you tie up at a Carrier pier) so getting ashore would be...well...problematic.

An interesting exercise, and yes, my FBI background check came back clear.

NS

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Mine has expired, I have not bothered to renew.  Lots of work for little gain, and the amount of travel I do in the US is limited enough to prove the exercise to be mostly futile....and can you imagine me going to the DeckO on the ship to ask for my Glock before I crossed the brow in foreign port? 

Other major issue with that is carrying on a US military base is highly restricted/illegal (particularly when you tie up at a Carrier pier) so getting ashore would be...well...problematic.

An interesting exercise, and yes, my FBI background check came back clear.

NS

They had no problem with it. The course was taught in Canada by a certified instructor that they recognised. He handled all the paperwork, including the FBI background checks. Times are changing though and so are the rules. It's getting more difficult. Once mine expire, I probably won't renew.

Thanks guys... much appreciated.

 

[Loachman]

It seems to me the difference between an FAC and a PAL is basically that the PAL requires a safety course (if you can even call it that).

No. Wrong.

The difference is fully explained in the names.

Firearms Acquisition Certificate - needed to acquire firearms legally.

Possession and Acquisition Licence - needed to continue to own your lawfully-owned property without going to jail.

Prior to 1995 Firearms Act: Own firearms, have no FAC, live in your house.

Since 1995 Firearms Act: Own firearms, have no PAL, live in the Big House.

Licensing is a far greater evil than registration.

Different aspect of the same topic:

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER - MARCH 27 2012

Ask Canada - gun registration won't make D.C. safer By John Lott, Jr. and Gary Mauser

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/03/ask-canada-gun-registration-wont-make-dc-safer/412041

The D.C. Council will soon vote on a new law that would eliminate several obstacles for gun buyers - a five-hour training course, ballistics testing, a vision test, and a ban on certain types of ammunition. But they will leave unchanged the registration requirement for gun owners. D.C. could learn a lot from Canada's decision to finally rescind its gun registry in February.

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns - in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

Gun control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue.

Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal. Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way.
Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.

From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveal that murder weapons were recovered in fewer than one-third of the homicides with firearms. About three-quarters of the identified weapons were unregistered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide.

In only 62 cases - that is, nine per year, or about 1 percent of all homicides in Canada - was the gun registered to the accused. Even in these, the registry does not appear to have played an important role in finding the killer. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case. Note that the data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. It isn't just the long-gun registry - there is also no evidence that Canada's handgun registry, started in 1934, has ever been important in solving a single homicide.

In parts of the United States where registration is required, the results have been no different. Neither Hawaii, D.C., nor Chicago can point to any crimes that have been solved using registration records. Nor is there any evidence that registration has reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other academic studies have found:

"This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.

The problem isn't just that the $2.7 billion spent on registration over 17 years hasn't solved any crimes. It is that the money could have been used to put more police on the street or pay for more health care or cut taxes. An extra $160 million a year pays for a lot of police officers - 2,300, to be precise, if their average annual compensation is $70,000. Academic research by one of us (Lott) indicates that adding that many street officers would reduce the number of violent crimes in Canada by about 1,800 per year.

Registration carries with it no such benefit. Canadians may not worry about Second Amendment rights, but they can spot a waste of money as well as we can. Hopefully, D.C., like Canada, realizes it's better to spend money on something that will actually do some good.

John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and a former chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.