• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CBSA confiscates 65 prohibited pistols in Toronto

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
428
Points
810
Jarnhamar said:
I'm torn between getting probably $600 for my $2500 AR or destroying it which I believe I'm legally allowed to do and don't see anything about having to prove its destroyed.

You are legally allowed to destroy it, its your property. You just have to get it verified as destroyed by a person qualified to verify it. Otherwise you would get a bunch of people 'deactivating' them and really not.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,808
Points
1,160
Haggis said:
The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.

On the contrary, The firearms lab has in the past help shipments for 6 months and then deemed something prohib because it can "easily be modified to be full-auto" yet them won't release how they came to that conclusion or show how it's done. So 6 months, a workshop with every tool you could want, experts on firearms, yes they can make anything do anything. With that setup I can make a lee-Enfield "Full-auto". So seizing something because an illegal act might be performed on them is definitely a slippery slope. If you want more fun, just look at CBSA knife classifications and god forbid you bring a blowgun across the border. Speaking of which we better ban PVC/copper piping in case someone makes a prohibited weapons from them as well.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
Eaglelord17 said:
You are legally allowed to destroy it, its your property. You just have to get it verified as destroyed by a person qualified to verify it. Otherwise you would get a bunch of people 'deactivating' them and really not.

Can I bug you for a reference for that? I didn't see a requirement for proof of destruction.
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
Haggis said:
You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.

What would you liked to have seen them do?

This isn't an either/or scenario, please do not misconstrue it as such.
They can seize these items as being improperly declared AND do something more substantial (in terms of public safety).

Given that THIS was the press release, it gives the appearance that this was their highest profile play of the week.
As I said before, shaking my head.
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
Haggis said:
The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.

Could you share what page of the FRT you are referencing?

 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Brashendeavours said:
Could you share what page of the FRT you are referencing?

Look up FRN 122910-1 in the publicly downloadable FRT.  I'm fairly certain that's the item in question.  The FRT is as user friendly as stereo instructions.
 

Brash

Jr. Member
Reaction score
20
Points
230
Haggis said:
Look up FRN 122910-1 in the publicly downloadable FRT.  I'm fairly certain that's the item in question.  The FRT is as user friendly as stereo instructions.

Thank you for that.

I agree with your point on the FRT's usefulness/user experience. I have a top of the line PC with a 9th gen i7 processor and 32GB of RAM that simply struggles to open and search this document.
Someone needs to tell the RCMP that we have this thing nowadays called the internet. It's made up of these other things we like to call "resources", like HTML "documents" and "images".

The only way the FRT format could be worse, is if they uploaded static images of each page.
I guess we'll have to wait until FRT 2.0 for that.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,084
Points
1,090
Brashendeavours said:
The only way the FRT format could be worse, is if they uploaded static images of each page.
I guess we'll have to wait until FRT 2.0 for that.

Any FQDN that includes a subdomain of "blob" you know is going to be bad...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,040
Brashendeavours said:
Thank you for that.

I agree with your point on the FRT's usefulness/user experience. I have a top of the line PC with a 9th gen i7 processor and 32GB of RAM that simply struggles to open and search this document.
Someone needs to tell the RCMP that we have this thing nowadays called the internet. It's made up of these other things we like to call "resources", like HTML "documents" and "images".

The only way the FRT format could be worse, is if they uploaded static images of each page.
I guess we'll have to wait until FRT 2.0 for that.

I've got an i5 with 32 GB so not quite as good as yours but really quite good for everything except high end video games. Took me three times to try to get the pdf. Each time the progress bar would go to about 99% and then freeze up. On the last one left it for an extra five minutes and --tada--the thing actually popped up.

At first I thought they ere using an 80286 processor as their download server, but I noticed with the document loaded, my whole system is crawling. The trouble is it hogs resources like crazy and everything slows to a crawl while it's up. (I cynically think its the RCMP's spider copying my hard-drive) Took forever for Task Manger to load so that I could see where the resources were going. Seems when I'm doing absolutely nothing the relevant Chrome page is eating up 50% of my processor, 1.6 GB of memory and 97% disk until finally...finally the document opened for reading. The moment you attempt to search, processor goes up to 96% and stays there for a minute or two as it gathers results.

Couldn't find FRN 122910-1 and all my searches for Kimar and model 314 and Olympic were in vain. Gave up after a half an hour.

I'm not sure if the guy that built their website should be fired or given a bonus for building exactly what they wanted i.e. a highly useless website. I would think some firearms lawyers should take a real-time video of this piece of crap in action to use as proof in court in the future that the website is unfit for purpose and no assistance to the public whatsoever in determining the usefulness to the general public as to whether or not their firearm complies or not.

:brickwall:
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,672
Points
1,060
FJAG said:
I've got an i5 with 32 GB so not quite as good as yours but really quite good for everything except high end video games. Took me three times to try to get the pdf. Each time the progress bar would go to about 99% and then freeze up. On the last one left it for an extra five minutes and --tada--the thing actually popped up.

At first I thought they ere using an 80286 processor as their download server, but I noticed with the document loaded, my whole system is crawling. The trouble is it hogs resources like crazy and everything slows to a crawl while it's up. (I cynically think its the RCMP's spider copying my hard-drive) Took forever for Task Manger to load so that I could see where the resources were going. Seems when I'm doing absolutely nothing the relevant Chrome page is eating up 50% of my processor, 1.6 GB of memory and 97% disk until finally...finally the document opened for reading. The moment you attempt to search, processor goes up to 96% and stays there for a minute or two as it gathers results.

Couldn't find FRN 122910-1 and all my searches for Kimar and model 314 and Olympic were in vain. Gave up after a half an hour.

I'm not sure if the guy that built their website should be fired or given a bonus for building exactly what they wanted i.e. a highly useless website. I would think some firearms lawyers should take a real-time video of this piece of crap in action to use as proof in court in the future that the website is unfit for purpose and no assistance to the public whatsoever in determining the usefulness to the general public as to whether or not their firearm complies or not.

:brickwall:

Weird considering we sent mankind to the stars using much less sophisticated computers (10,000 times larger) than what you're holding in your hand    :Tin-Foil-Hat:


My understanding is that the court ordered the RCMP to make the FRT more accessible and the RCMP ignored it for years. They finally gave in but in doing so made 3 different versions. One for them that's updated every day. One for business's that's updated ever week or two and one for the general public which gets updated every month or so.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,040
Jarnhamar said:
Weird considering we sent mankind to the stars using much less sophisticated computers (10,000 times larger) than what you're holding in your hand    :Tin-Foil-Hat:


My understanding is that the court ordered the RCMP to make the FRT more accessible and the RCMP ignored it for years. They finally gave in but in doing so made 3 different versions. One for them that's updated every day. One for business's that's updated ever week or two and one for the general public which gets updated every month or so.

Based on my experience, the RCMP is in contempt of court.  ;D

I guess it depends on what the definition of "more accessible" is. The old one must have been a humdinger.

:cheers:
 

J.J

Full Member
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
210
SeaKingTacco said:
Ok, I’ll bite...what am I missing? The pictures look like a shipment of starter pistols to me.

Are they prohibited now, or is there another batch of actual firearms that were seized, but not pictured?

It looks like something was missing, an amended article saying the shipment was declared as starter pistols, but under the initial layer there were 45 revolvers.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-cbsa-recovers-65-handguns-in-storage-container?fbclid=IwAR29CG2S7oUSk3zH-aaIQGA0qx2ytJyATPHZ-LGqH-JJPj19L1il5AF06pM

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,808
Points
1,160
Well it looks like CBSA shot themselves in the foot, had they provided a picture of the two types together and stated the model of the real revolvers, then people would believe them.
 
Top