Gun Control, who's for it?

Yes, Canada is as Canada does. (Camac, Oldraven you know I love you guys!)

It's the Canadians country and they should be able to do as they like in it. My problem is that many US politicians have the same tendency as their Canadian counterparts, which means a loss of freedom and safety for me and more safety for the criminals in our society.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

FWIW, I don't know of an officer who attempted to take a gun into Canada. That was a different poster.

Camac asked:

My point was simply that all of the police officers I know carry their weapons wherever they go, so it's not unreasonable to assume that if "wherever they go" happened to include Canada, they would take their gun with them.

As for them not thinking to check the laws, I could see why they would miss it. In the US, they can take their sidearms with them wherever they go. In the US, Canadian police can bring their sidearms with them, apparently. It wouldn't be all that weird if they would assume the same courtesy held for US police in Canada.

Having said that, when I was going to Boston, I checked with the NRA-ILA for the local gun laws in Massachusetts, and discovered they are unbelievably ridiculous. Before I checked, I assumed there would be no problem having a firearm in the house we were renting during our stay. I'm glad I checked, though, as they outlaw firearms in the home unless you have a conceal carry permit. Now I have to decide whether my constitutional 2nd Amendment rights trump the usurpation of them, or whether it's worth the trouble. I may just buy a better knife.

Now, *I* am a civilian, and check the laws wherever I go, because I don't have the carte blanche with regards to carrying firearms that the police do. I could see them just assuming that they would be permitted to carry their sidearm with them into Canada.

They would be wrong, of course, and they would have to decide what to do with their firearm while in Canada, as I would assume any police officer would have enough respect for the law to either leave his gun in the US, or not go to Canada. However, I also understand why they might have assumed the same courtesy to law enforcement officers that we extend to Canadians would be extended to US Citizens in Canada.

Think what you will, it's working pretty well up here. We happen to be considered quite a polite society without resorting to carrying guns everywhere we go. And thanks for understanding that our laws, no matter how different, are just as important and should be just as respected as your own.

The difference is, once that police officer crosses the border, they become an ordinary foreign civilian, and thus have no right to carry their gun with them wherever they go. When a cop leaves his/her jurisdiction, they cease to be a cop. I'd be very surprised if any cop didn't know that civilians aren't allowed to to so in Canada, and so any attempt to get away with it would be an outright disregard for the law here. I would have confiscated it or simply denied him entry. It's a pretty simply concept, and I'm sure most people in the US who do carry their guns with them are well aware that Canada has a different stance on that. I know many Americans seem to be oblivious to life in Canada, but something tells me those with concealed weapon permits down south are aware that it's simply not the same way up here. Most of all those who study and enforce the law itself.

If that were the case, and they really didn't know the difference, what would happen when they pulled that gun to supposedly defend themselves or someone else and shot someone down in the street? Do you think our legal system would let them go home because they simply didn't know they weren't allowed to use it here? No. Their ass would be in prison. Cop or no cop.

No matter, playing ignorant holds no water when you come face to face with the law. Oh, you didn't know? Well you know now.

Some points from my post in bullet form, since you apparently didn't read it:

• My point was simply that all of the police officers I know carry their weapons wherever they go, so it's not unreasonable to assume that if "wherever they go" happened to include Canada, they would take their gun with them.

I did NOT say that they should be allowed to do whatever they wanted. Neither did I say that their ignorance of the law would be used as a defense in court. This is explained a little further in my post.

• In the US, Canadian police can bring their sidearms with them, apparently. It wouldn't be all that weird if they would assume the same courtesy held for US police in Canada.

This was merely to support the above point, but I feel it's important, in terms of understanding where others are coming from. Not as a legal defense, or anything else of that nature.

• I could see them just assuming that they would be permitted to carry their sidearm with them into Canada.

Now, this is the preamble to the point I KNOW you missed in my post:

• They would be wrong, of course, and they would have to decide what to do with their firearm while in Canada, as I would assume any police officer would have enough respect for the law to either leave his gun in the US, or not go to Canada.

Ok? I'm not saying anything about a legal defense. If they were found with a gun, and weren't supposed to have it in Canada, they ought to be prosecuted. If they wanted to flaunt a law they disagreed with, then the stiffest penalties for such apply to them. It was implicit in my post, but I suppose I didn't state it clearly enough.

What would happen if they shot someone? Well, I suppose your legal system covers that, I don't know why you bring it up. I'm not excusing their legal culpability for having a firearm illegally.

It IS simple. That's what happened, and I agree with it. If Canada does not extend the courtesy to US LE Officers that the US does for Canadians, then he ought to be stopped at the border, and denied entry. (If confiscation included the return of the firearm on exit, then I'd be ok with that, but otherwise, I'd think the US LE Officer should provide for his own in-US gun storage while he's away.

My point was not to discuss the legal implications of illegally possessing a firearm, which are quite simple. My point was merely to address the question of Camac's which is "What the hell was he doing trying to bring a gun into Canada." I understand why. It does not legally excuse him. I was just explaining the situation for officers living in the US, since some here seem to be oblivious to life in the US.

Taliesin;

I agree with oldraven I would have either denied him entry of impounded the weapon. Under our law the weapon would not be returned upon exiting but would eventually be melted down. There are many laws that are different in Canada than in the U.S. as an example if a driver of an automoblie in Ontario is caught speeding in excess of 50 km (30miles) per hour over the limit he is charged with street racing and his car is impounded and the individual could pay fines ranging from $5000.00 and up plus their drivers license is taken from them on the spot. These laws apply to visitors also. There was a case last year where an American Family visiting was stopped doing 100mph (160kph) and the car was impounded on the spot. It sure ruined their visit. The car was returned after two weeks and the fine had been paid plus towing and storage. I use this just to point out that our Laws are different and visitors would be wise to check them before they come.


Camac.

As did I. Read my posts.

Agreed. Never said people shouldn't check or that our laws say the same thing. Again, read my posts.

Taliesin;

As I have posted before on this subject the American fascination with firearms befuddles my mind. I hate the damn things and I say that from the point that I have used them and regrettably taken the lives of my fellow man. I realize that it is a matter of cultures and your Constitution allows the individual to possess them but I find that part of your Constitution archaic and unreasonable. The English aren't coming back at least not in this timeline. We have pretty good gun laws here and most people respect them except of course for the criminal element and naturally Texas North (Alberta) where they still relate to the wild west, which is strange because we never had a wild west as when the settlers moved there the law was there ahead of them in the form of the North West Mounted Police (now R.C.M.P.). Big difference in cultures.


Camac.

BC was about the same as Alberta. BC was the last place I hunted in Canada and I have friends both places. The fact that criminals are armed puts the rest at a disadvantage. Just today I had to get "dinner" for the snakes and on the way there, I got a call from my son to let me know that "breaking news" just indicated that a 69 year old man had just been shot in the community I would be visiting. I do not intend for some low life criminal to take my life.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Just to clairfy, my friend checked with the Canadian customs prior to traveling into Canada. When he learnd the laws. He stored his gun at the US customs station prior to entering Canada. When we were asked if we had any fire arms, he said no and that he had it locked up at the US customs office . That's when the customs officer proceeded to "lecture him".

I wasn't bashing Canada's laws. Canada is Canada. The US is the US. The problem I had was how the US customs allow Canadian police into the US with their side arm. But after giving it some thought, why not. I agree with it.


Camac
I was never was a cop but I do know that in police work, you do become attached to your weapon for your own safety. Unless you are a cop, you'll NEVER understand why you'd want to bring your gun with you on holiday.

The problem I had with the whole ordeal at the border is how they talked to my friend, He's a cop. Not a criminal or just some joe schmo. He told them, and I counted 3 times, and even showed them his badge and they just continued to lecture and then never even asked for proff of citizenship. The law abiding citizens are the path of least resistance so authorities will always start with the weaker because it's safer for them. Ie. The New Orleans gun grab.

I still love Canada but I love The USA even more and Always will. So God bless the USA and Canada

Well, the "fascination" as you put it is merely as Patch said. The criminals have them, and have no qualms about using it to take the lives of law-abiding citizens.

I agree with you regarding the regrettableness (new word) of having to take someone's life with a firearm (or any other weapon). I hope I am never placed in a situation where I have to do so. However, if the situation is between protecting my wife and son or letting them be killed by a criminal with a gun, I know which side I'm going to pick. I know that I will thank my Lord if I have a gun at hand to do so.

See, laws don't discourage criminals. They are criminals...the word that defines them indicates a willingness to break laws. So just because the State of California says they can't carry a firearm doesn't mean they won't. That puts me at a distinct disadvantage as I *WANT* to obey the law.

Anyway, my point was never that Canadian law should be ignored, and anyone who says I claimed that obviously has more than a passing familiarity with ignorance, themselves. I stated quite clearly that were someone to carry a gun into Canada when they weren't supposed to, they were wrong.

Your befuddlement befuddles me. I have used them to take the life of people that were trying to take mine, and not only am I glad that I came out on top, but I have lost no sleep over the loss of those same. Me or them, and I won. period. No discussion.

Dogshirt'

I also have been in that situation and I lose no sleep over the fact that I killed in War. What I hate about guns is a personal matter having to do with what possession of a firearm does to me phsycologically. I am not alone up here in my position on guns. Yesterday a Saskatchewan Member of Parliament in favour of abolishing Long Gun Registration had to withdraw from being the speaker at a dinner hosted by the gun lobbist due to the public outcry against him because of his stance in favour of semi-automatic, automatic, and assault weapons being taken off the restricted list.
Also people wern't to happy that a Berreta 9mm automatic pistol was being raffled off to raise money.



Camac.

If that is socialism,, it is why we here do not want it. I apologize for being so blunt.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

It is not socialism it is democracy at work. Even the leader of his party (Conservatives did like the idea of him being the guest speaker).


Camac.