• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Foolish

Bringing Guns into Canada on your boat

99 posts in this topic

Here is an example of "tough on crime" legislation gone crazy. A 72 year old man, sailing up to Alaska, stops into Canada. He does not declare his weapons and is charged. Under our "mandatory minimum" legislation, he is treated like a gang lord and is subject to the mandatory minumum sentence of 3 years in prison. The judge in this case has no ability to give a reduced sentence.

 

BUT, the best part of the story is that this hardened criminal, who will be incarcerated with the toughtest gang lords, was released on $2,000 bail and continued on his way out of the country up to Alaska. His trial won't be for a year or so.

 

(You should note that mandatory minimum sentences are new to Canada. They have only come in during the last few years under the current government who have decided to get tough on crime, regardless of the fact that crime has dropped consistently since the 1960s.)

 

I'm all for stopping guns coming into Canada, but even I see the irony of this.

 

A Washington state charter boat owner who sailed into Pender Harbour and failed to declare three loaded handguns was facing a minimum mandatory threeyear jail sentence for smuggling firearms into Canada, his defence lawyer said.

 

Port Angeles resident Fred Rodolf, 72, will still face a one-year minimum mandatory jail sentence if federal prosecutors allow him to plead guilty to a less serious charge, Victoria lawyer Tom Morino said Friday.

 

"So I said 'No. We'll see you in court,' " said Morino. "This is a classic example of what is wrong with minimum mandatory sentences. The people we're after with this three-year minimum mandatory jail sentence are organized criminals smuggling handguns on the black market, not some poor guy who stupidly leaves the guns on his boat and comes into Canada with the intention of simply continuing on his way."

 

Rodolf was arrested May 3 after arriving in Bedwell Harbour aboard Lu-lu Belle, his 22.5-metre vessel. He was on his way to Alaska where he runs a charter business for about six months of the year, said Morino.

 

Upon arrival, Rodolf called Customs. When a Canada Border Services officer asked Rodolf if he had any weapons aboard, he replied that he had a shotgun, said Morino. Officers boarded the vessel and noticed a box of .38 shells beside a box of shotgun shells.

 

At first, Rodolf denied having any other weapons aboard, but within five minutes he admitted having three loaded handguns aboard and showed them to the officers, said Morino.

 

"They seized the three handguns and gave him a civil fine on the spot of $3,000 -that's $1,000 per handgun. They arrested him and took him into custody," said Morino.

 

Rodolf has been charged with making a false statement to Canada Border Services officers, three counts of smuggling loaded handguns, three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He was released on $2,000 cash bail and resumed his journey to Alaska. The case will probably go to trial sometime next year.

 

RCMP Cpl. Linda Simpson, with the Outer Gulf Islands detachment, said Americans bringing handguns into Canada is a common problem, especially in the spring and summer.

 

"They carry handguns around in the pockets like Smarties. To them, owning guns is commonplace. It's a fundamental right and their beliefs are deep-rooted. But we're very different," said Simpson.

 

The RCMP officer hopes more Americans travelling through Canada become aware that there are rules and regulations.

 

"If they research our procedures and protocols before coming here, there's no problem. We can assist them in moving their weapons to Alaska," said Simpson. "But they must abide by our laws, as we do with them."

 

Some U.S. citizens are just not aware. Others, who know, do not think it is an issue, said Simpson.

 

"They think 'We're not staying in Canada. We're checking in because we have to and going on through to our own country Alaska.' Their intent is to motor right on by. The other means of getting those weapons to Alaska could be costly or intricate."

 

Morino said his client probably understood he was not allowed to bring handguns into Canada without the proper permits to transport them.

 

"But the boat had been in dry dock and he was in a bit of a rush because otherwise he would normally have left the handguns in Port Angeles."

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/Port+Angeles+faces+jail+loaded+handguns/4786560/story.html#ixzz1MYNguqQg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries. Odds are he gets a lumberjack for a cellmate, and they're OK....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries. Odds are he gets a lumberjack for a cellmate, and they're OK....

 

 

Yeah, as long he sleeps all night and works all day.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the old fart tried to deceive the customs agent. Had he told the truth about the handguns things might have gone a little different.

 

 

Upon arrival, Rodolf called Customs. When a Canada Border Services officer asked Rodolf if he had any weapons aboard, he replied that he had a shotgun, said Morino. Officers boarded the vessel and noticed a box of .38 shells beside a box of shotgun shells.

 

At first, Rodolf denied having any other weapons aboard, but within five minutes he admitted having three loaded handguns aboard and showed them to the officers, said Morino.

 

"They seized the three handguns and gave him a civil fine on the spot of $3,000 -that's $1,000 per handgun. They arrested him and took him into custody," said Morino.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure every Canadian knows not to screw around with US customs. I don't have much sympathy frankly.

I'd just as soon see him pay for his stupidity in this case with his wallet though. What good comes of throwing him in jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to feel sorry for the guy especially given his age, but a frequent traveler doesn't have much excuse for ignorance of the law especially when traveling internationally. I hope cooler heads handle this without the need for impunity. But damn man, don't you know how many hiding places you can make on a nearly 75' boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to feel sorry for the guy especially given his age, but a frequent traveler doesn't have much excuse for ignorance of the law especially when traveling internationally. I hope cooler heads handle this without the need for impunity. But damn man, don't you know how many hiding places you can make on a nearly 75' boat?

 

 

Not that I would ever condone trying to sneak anything past 'The Man', I hear that the mast head can come in handy for stowing certain items.

 

Add bonus points if your halyards are significantly frayed or jammed.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory sentencing is real stupid sometimes, kind of goes with the territory.

 

The bright side is that a year goes by pretty quick for old folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory sentencing is real stupid sometimes, kind of goes with the territory.

 

The bright side is that a year goes by pretty quick for old folks.

 

 

Unless you're stuck in a cell with a gay moose named Bruce.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory sentencing is real stupid sometimes, kind of goes with the territory.

 

The bright side is that a year goes by pretty quick for old folks.

 

 

Unless you're stuck in a cell with a gay moose named Bruce.....

 

Doubt they will waste cell space on him.

 

I looked up something about it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/minimum-security.html

 

Could be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure every Canadian knows not to screw around with US customs. I don't have much sympathy frankly.

I'd just as soon see him pay for his stupidity in this case with his wallet though. What good comes of throwing him in jail?

 

Exactly. Even across state lines ... When an enforcement officer asks if you are carrying weapons, why lie?

 

If the old gentleman thought he had the balls to hold off attackers with his own weapons, then he should have had the balls to just come clean about them to the people who have a job to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada, the Nothing To See State.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy gets what he deserves. I'm tired of gun nuts trying to circumvent reasonable gun laws then whine about it when they're caught.

 

PS Canada is an awesome country. Whistler, Toronto and Montreal were outstanding vacation trips

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada. Keeping America Safe from the Eskimos since the Ice Age......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada, the Nothing To See State.....

 

Yeah, you've sure got that right...

 

 

peytolake.jpg

 

 

Rencountre1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada, the Nothing To See State.....

 

Yeah, you've sure got that right...

 

 

peytolake.jpg

 

 

Rencountre1.jpg

 

 

Yeah, sure a helluva lot of water sports and bikinis going on there, A?.....

 

 

Canada: We're just like Greenland, but without all the excitement....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he ever...

 

800px-Gros_Morne_NP_western.jpg

Gros Morne

282.jpg

 

bay-of-fundy3.jpg

 

The-Cabot-Trail.jpg

 

Nothing to see here...move along

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure a helluva lot of water sports and bikinis going on there, A?.....

 

 

Canada: We're just like Greenland, but without all the excitement....

 

I never took you for a Golden Shower type, Rick (NTTAWWT if that's your thing).

 

Furhermore, i've seen Woody's pictures, and seems to me that most of those chicks could use more clothes, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

 

mark emery got 5 years for selling pot seeds internationally. deported for the dastardly crime. wasn't charged in canada with any crime, but sent to the states to face trial. denied serving his sentence back in canada. not that i condone drug use or sales, but does the punishment fit the crime here?

 

at least emery didn't lie about what he was doing.

 

yes, the minimum sentence law isn't meant for a case like this. but california's 3 strikes law wasn't meant to send someone to jail for life for getting caught a few times with reefers either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure a helluva lot of water sports and bikinis going on there, A?.....

 

if you are going to use a tired and mostly false cliche, at least use the right one, EH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

 

mark emery got 5 years for selling pot seeds internationally. deported for the dastardly crime. wasn't charged in canada with any crime, but sent to the states to face trial. denied serving his sentence back in canada. not that i condone drug use or sales, but does the punishment fit the crime here?

 

at least emery didn't lie about what he was doing.

 

yes, the minimum sentence law isn't meant for a case like this. but california's 3 strikes law wasn't meant to send someone to jail for life for getting caught a few times with reefers either.

 

Except you're viewing it through the lense of this guy being an american and tit-for-tat.

 

I don't care what they do in the US.

 

Would you be ok with this kind of mandatory minimum citizen for a Canadian under similar circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure a helluva lot of water sports and bikinis going on there, A?.....

 

if you are going to use a tired and mostly false cliche, at least use the right one, EH?

 

 

Come to Canada, and watch our wheat grow.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

 

Sez the guy who has never been to Cuba....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

 

Sez the guy who has never been to Cuba....:rolleyes:

 

 

If you've actually been there, I'm just gonna have to hate you even more....... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

 

how much would 3 years of that cost the taxpayer. I say fine the crap out of him. Make it a very expensive mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

 

mark emery got 5 years for selling pot seeds internationally. deported for the dastardly crime. wasn't charged in canada with any crime, but sent to the states to face trial. denied serving his sentence back in canada. not that i condone drug use or sales, but does the punishment fit the crime here?

 

at least emery didn't lie about what he was doing.

 

yes, the minimum sentence law isn't meant for a case like this. but california's 3 strikes law wasn't meant to send someone to jail for life for getting caught a few times with reefers either.

 

Except you're viewing it through the lense of this guy being an american and tit-for-tat.

 

I don't care what they do in the US.

 

Would you be ok with this kind of mandatory minimum citizen for a Canadian under similar circumstances?

 

no, i am not viewing it as him being american and tit for tat. the law is the law. the law applies to him as a visitor the same as it applies to us as citizens. is it entirely right? no. a 72 yr old shouldn't be sent to jail for 3 years for not declaring 3 handguns. he obviously isn't a smuggler. but things would have been different if he hadn't tried to hide the fact that he had them. it would have been worse if he was hiding a .25 or a .32 caliber firearm.

 

 

are you ok with the liberal idea that every criminal needs a light sentence so they can be rehabilitated?

 

because that's what they wanted. you really think a gun smuggler would change his ways with 6 months probation and a talk about how guns are bad mmmmkay? you think a drug dealer would get a minimum wage 9-5 after a suspended sentence and a few weeks of counselling? try walking thru vancouver's downtown east side and tell me the zombies there can be rehabilitated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not declaring weapons at most Intl borders is pretty naughty. Get's the local uniforms all in a tizz usually. I've only known folks that got in the shit for it. One in Aussie, one in PNG and another here. None of them had any fun as I remember. The one in Aussie did it easier than the other two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

 

Sez the guy who has never been to Cuba....:rolleyes:

 

 

If you've actually been there, I'm just gonna have to hate you even more....... :P

 

Si senor, 2 months ago today...

 

cuba2.jpg

 

And will go back twice a year from now until that silly embargo is lifted, at which point we'll find somewhere else to go.

 

Lovely country, incredible people and no nasty bugs. 2nd largest coral reef in the world, 330 days of sun a year, cheap rum and wonderful cigars (not so cheap).

 

(and free health care ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guy must've had a big helping of stupid for breakfast

 

as to the sentencing - it's up to the locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

 

Sez the guy who has never been to Cuba....:rolleyes:

 

 

If you've actually been there, I'm just gonna have to hate you even more....... :P

 

Si senor, 2 months ago today...

 

cuba2.jpg

 

And will go back twice a year from now until that silly embargo is lifted, at which point we'll find somewhere else to go.

 

Lovely country, incredible people and no nasty bugs. 2nd largest coral reef in the world, 330 days of sun a year, cheap rum and wonderful cigars (not so cheap).

 

 

A picture most excellent, Dear.

 

WFD.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: We're just like Cuba, but without all those pesky palm trees and oh-so confusing personal freedoms.....

 

Sez the guy who has never been to Cuba....:rolleyes:

 

 

If you've actually been there, I'm just gonna have to hate you even more....... :P

 

Si senor, 2 months ago today...

 

cuba2.jpg

 

And will go back twice a year from now until that silly embargo is lifted, at which point we'll find somewhere else to go.

 

Lovely country, incredible people and no nasty bugs. 2nd largest coral reef in the world, 330 days of sun a year, cheap rum and wonderful cigars (not so cheap).

 

 

A picture most excellent, Dear.

 

WFD.....

 

Well, if you're ever in Halifax, pop over and I'll share my Cohibas with you (not that you'd need mine, since you can buy your own here)

 

viva%20la.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

 

 

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

 

I would suggest that releasing him on $2000 bail is a reflection of the fact he is not a hardened criminal.

 

to compare him to the Prex of the IMF is kind of silly--he's accused of a violent crime. This turkey lied, yes (and I don't doubt it was a lie, as opposed to a mistake, or forgetting) but he didn't hurt anyone, and I think the Crown would have a hard time proving that he intended to leave those gun here when he left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

 

 

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

How do you figure this creates revenue????

 

Highly doubtful on the guns ending up in a "private collection". Having unregistered prohibitied or restricted weapons wouldn't be worth losing a career over, especially when those weapons are stolen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest that releasing him on $2000 bail is a reflection of the fact he is not a hardened criminal.

 

Actually, I was wondering if they gave him a wink and a nod and said, "you're not planning on returning to Canada ever in your lifetime, right? We're going to have to press charges, but I don't think we'll send Dog the Bounty Hunter down to find you if you don't show up for the trial."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

So, what was the cause of your brain trauma? Or were you born this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, do they let people bring their guns to Cuba? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

 

Rape is just a tad different. Crimes of violence are quite rightly handled differently.

 

This guy hasn't hurt anyone, and was judged a low flight risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, do they let people bring their guns to Cuba? :rolleyes:

 

:lol:

 

Hell, you can't even take a GPS or walkie talkies to Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ah... why exactly did he have 3 Handguns and a Shotgun on board anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ah... why exactly did he have 3 Handguns and a Shotgun on board anyway?

 

 

Pirates off the coast of Alaska?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So ah... why exactly did he have 3 Handguns and a Shotgun on board anyway?

 

 

Pirates off the coast of Alaska?

 

I thought the only bandits off Alaska were the deadliest-catch-time-bandit-1.jpg's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's only looking at a year of being actually in the can, assuming he doesn't do anything (else) stupid. Eligible for parole after 1/3rd served.

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e081/e081e-eng.shtml

 

"Under supervision of the community" indicates he may have to live in Canada until probation expires though.

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e081/e081e-eng.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? dry.gif

 

 

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he lied about the fact he even had handguns. had he declared them, they probably would have given him a finger wagging and let him on his way. or at worst, held the guns until he left.

 

i wonder how much cash he had stashed under the mattress? we have that $10k limit too.

 

 

But you're fine with a 3 year mandatory minimum sentence?

 

how much would 3 years of that cost the taxpayer. I say fine the crap out of him. Make it a very expensive mistake.

 

It already has been, the loss of three expensive handguns and a three thousand dollar fine. Even in Canadian dollars that's got to hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has discussed the most ironic part of the story; that they released him on $2,000 bail and told him to go on his way - out of the country. This is how we treat hardened criminals in Canada. In most countries they take away your passport and set $100,000 bail when you commit a crime. Geez, in the US they wouldn't allow the President of the IMF out of jail for chasing a chambermaid down the hall. But not here. Ironic.

 

doesn't matter what the crime, you pretty much have the right to walk the streets until your trial. yes, they wouldn't let a child killer or the like roam the streets, but bail for almost everything going is the norm. if i recall it's part of our charter of rights and freedoms.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_(Canada)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

they get squished. they don't care what the significance of the firearm is, they destroy it.

 

there have been instances where war relics have been melted down because there was no proof of ownership and registration. instead of them being rendered unusable and given to a museum they were destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's only looking at a year of being actually in the can, assuming he doesn't do anything (else) stupid. Eligible for parole after 1/3rd served.

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e081/e081e-eng.shtml

 

"Under supervision of the community" indicates he may have to live in Canada until probation expires though.

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e081/e081e-eng.shtml

 

if it gets that far he can request to serve his sentence in the states. there is an exchange program between the usa and canada for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

 

transiting is visiting. the fact he made landfall pretty much solidifies the notion. try it sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It already has been, the loss of three expensive handguns and a three thousand dollar fine. Even in Canadian dollars that's got to hurt.

 

considering that canadian monopoly money is worth more than american pesos, he's out more than you think. our dollar is down a bit, but it's worth $1.03 us right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? dry.gif

 

 

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

 

Extradition would be in a federal court, and is pretty cut and dried to Canada. One of the reasons they let him go on light bail, I would bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

So, what was the cause of your brain trauma? Or were you born this way?

 

 

You obviously have not grasped upon the neat little trick that the Cali courts have concieved of, where a simple little twenty dollar cel phone ticket actually costs the end user 8 times that amount. Not to mention half of a person's work day.

 

Yup, it's all for the aids infested left handed blind children on welfare and that can't dance......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? dry.gif

 

 

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

 

 

So, if I sail into Newport on my way to the Caribbean, I'm not "visiting" your country in your book?

 

The guy pulled into a Canadian port, ergo, he's visiting our country and subject to our laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

So, what was the cause of your brain trauma? Or were you born this way?

 

 

You obviously have not grasped upon the neat little trick that the Cali courts have concieved of, where a simple little twenty dollar cel phone ticket actually costs the end user 8 times that amount. Not to mention half of a person's work day.

 

Yup, it's all for the aids infested left handed blind children on welfare and that can't dance......

 

Please don't assume our country is as fucked up as your, R.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because just like American traffic cops, it's no longer about safety, it's about creating more revenue.

 

 

On another tangent, I'd bet my third testicle that his three confiscated guns will end up in some Canadian official's private collection....

 

So, what was the cause of your brain trauma? Or were you born this way?

 

 

You obviously have not grasped upon the neat little trick that the Cali courts have concieved of, where a simple little twenty dollar cel phone ticket actually costs the end user 8 times that amount. Not to mention half of a person's work day.

 

Yup, it's all for the aids infested left handed blind children on welfare and that can't dance......

 

Not much of a problem if you obey the law, now is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? dry.gif

 

 

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

 

 

So, if I sail into Newport on my way to the Caribbean, I'm not "visiting" your country in your book?

 

The guy pulled into a Canadian port, ergo, he's visiting our country and subject to our laws.

 

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Im all for stopping guns coming into Canada'? What the fuck kinda metro-sexual pussy are you, to live in such a huge country that's almost entirely wilderness? A fricken sportsman's paradise, as well as having your own fair share of criminal nut fucks. Let me guess, you don't like ATV's, skis, sling shots, arrows, and fish hooks either?.....

You're a fucking idiot. Step into the saltchuck you clown and keep on truckin'.

 

So "John Wayne" lost his 3 handguns? :lol:

 

I hope they seized his scattergun for good measure.

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? dry.gif

 

 

He wasn't visiting your country, he was simply transiting through your politically correct waters to get to another part of his own country. I'll bet he never shows up for trial just to watch your government try to justify extradition in an Alaskan court. At his age, realistically what are they going to do, the three years sentence would probably be a life sentence.

 

 

So, if I sail into Newport on my way to the Caribbean, I'm not "visiting" your country in your book?

 

The guy pulled into a Canadian port, ergo, he's visiting our country and subject to our laws.

 

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

I wonder how your logic would work if I had a 6 month stash of weed on my boat to last me the duration of my winter in the Caribbean....

 

Last time I checked, anytime I enter (or exit, certainly in the case of airline travel), I am subject to being searched by your wonderful DHS folks. Heck, they even left a nice note in my luggage to let me know they'd rifled through my dirty underwear somewhere between Miami and Halifax. This gentleman is no different.

 

While the cargo you refer to, which is really apples and oranges, may not be searched, the containers are sealed, and the seals ARE verified as being original and intact.

 

In any case, when in our waters, and at our port, play by our rules. However much "intent" factors into your laws is pretty irrelevant here, now isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

have you been to a border lately? see the sign regarding declaration of firearms, at the border? not declaring said firearms, and not having proper documentation of said firearms IS a crime on both sides of the border. in fact, it's worse going to the states than it is coming to canada.

 

once he crossed the imaginary dotted line into canadian waters he was transporting undeclared undocumented firearms into canada. crime committed. concealing the fact that he had the firearms makes things worse. the point of this thread wasn't the legalities of it. everyone seems to agree he committed a crime. it's the punishment on debate here.

 

as for your theory on container inspections.. read this: http://www.worldtraderef.com/WTR_site/csi.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If convicted, he can be deemed criminally inadmissible, preventing him from entering Canada, including transiting Canadian waters or airspace.

 

He is also looking at the possibility of forfeiture of assets used in the commission of a crime.

 

Bottom line is you don’t lie to border officers no matter what the country; it’s just not worth the agro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years age some guys from work were going to Canada fishing. The first group left on Friday morning the others left after work.

 

When the first group got to the Canadian border, they were asked if the had any guns. The wise ass in the group spouted out, "No, they are with the other group coming later".

 

Needless to say the border patrol was not impressed with this answer and held them until the other group came.

 

Guns and borders don't mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind folks.

 

The border on the Great Lakes is equally strict. There is no difference.

 

Also there is some rule about which ports you put in to as well. If you are entering Canada I think you have to put in to port where Customs can come and inspect you. There are lots of harbours on islands in the North Channel for instance, but if they are isolated from mainland they are not acceptable to customs ... I think. Anyone remember what that rule is?

 

Anyhow, I got in trouble for that once.... I'm on a list somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind folks.

 

The border on the Great Lakes is equally strict. There is no difference.

 

Also there is some rule about which ports you put in to as well. If you are entering Canada I think you have to put in to port where Customs can come and inspect you. There are lots of harbours on islands in the North Channel for instance, but if they are isolated from mainland they are not acceptable to customs ... I think. Anyone remember what that rule is?

 

Anyhow, I got in trouble for that once.... I'm on a list somewhere.

 

You do have to go to a designated marine reporting site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

today there was a news report of a guy being barred entry from the states for 5 years.... for entering the states too much.

 

he has a summer home just across the border from vancouver in point roberts. he and his wife have weekended and summered there for over 20 years. us customs flagged him for crossing the border too much, accused him of living in point roberts, and demanded to see a LOT of proof that he was actually living in canada. his tax returns, cancelled rent cheques, pay stubs, bill payments seemed not to be enough to convince customs he was indeed living in canada.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/North%2BVancouver%2Bsell%2BPoint%2BRoberts%2Bcottage%2Bafter%2Bbeing%2Bbanned%2Bfrom%2Bentering/4745766/story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point of view:

Anyone going to spend any time in Alaska without a couple decent pistols and a good shotgun is an idiot.

That said, our lovely laws prohibit mailing a pistol to yourself. You can a shotgun, but no pistol. Only way to get a pistol to AK legally is to ship one to an FFL and pay their $50-75 fee, buy one, or fly with one in your airline luggage. Canada won't let you have pepper spray on your boat, let alone a pistol, so what the hell are you supposed to do? Honestly I wouldn't have tried to smuggle the pistols, but I did lie to the customs official in Canada when I said I didn't have pepper spray. Guess I should go back and spend a year or two in the lockdown for my transgressions. And .38??? Dude you need a bigger gun. Is this guy in Alaska right now? I would like to meet him and buy him a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only way to get a pistol to AK legally is to ship one to an FFL and pay their $50-75 fee, buy one, or fly with one in your airline luggage.

 

Shotgun or rifle, yes. Handgun, no. Federal law prohibits an FFL from selling him a handgun in a state in which he doesn't reside (as if that stops crime... different subject).

 

In any case, this guy clearly knew the law in Canada or he wouldn't have tried to hide the articles. So much for intent. It's up to the Canadian people to decide how to enforce their laws, though as a rule I'm againist mandatory sentance statutes as I doubt they're an effective deterrent for the career criminals that such laws are written to address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point of view:

Anyone going to spend any time in Alaska without a couple decent pistols and a good shotgun is an idiot.

That said, our lovely laws prohibit mailing a pistol to yourself. You can a shotgun, but no pistol. Only way to get a pistol to AK legally is to ship one to an FFL and pay their $50-75 fee, buy one, or fly with one in your airline luggage. Canada won't let you have pepper spray on your boat, let alone a pistol, so what the hell are you supposed to do? Honestly I wouldn't have tried to smuggle the pistols, but I did lie to the customs official in Canada when I said I didn't have pepper spray. Guess I should go back and spend a year or two in the lockdown for my transgressions. And .38??? Dude you need a bigger gun. Is this guy in Alaska right now? I would like to meet him and buy him a beer.

 

 

No one forced him to stop in Victoria. He could have gone straight through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one forced him to stop in Victoria. He could have gone straight through.

 

You still have to check in. Rules are the same either way. Offshore? Maybe, depending on time of year you are better off going sailing to Hawaii and then Alaska (which also gets pissed off if you bring guns there). Inside passage is the Alaska fisherman's highway. Everyone goes up & down though BC inside waters. If there was someway you could check in and sigh some sort of "will not stop" declaration that would exempt you from the queen's laws it would be great.

atoyot, right about not buying a pistol. I forgot about that. When I first came up here they turned me down so had to go to DMV. Half hour later I bought the pistol :) Guess that means you can't mail one to an FFL either? Only way to get a pistol to the last frontier is either to pack in your luggage live here, or sail offshore non-stop I guess. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one forced him to stop in Victoria. He could have gone straight through.

 

You still have to check in. Rules are the same either way. Offshore? Maybe, depending on time of year you are better off going sailing to Hawaii and then Alaska (which also gets pissed off if you bring guns there). Inside passage is the Alaska fisherman's highway. Everyone goes up & down though BC inside waters. If there was someway you could check in and sigh some sort of "will not stop" declaration that would exempt you from the queen's laws it would be great.

atoyot, right about not buying a pistol. I forgot about that. When I first came up here they turned me down so had to go to DMV. Half hour later I bought the pistol :) Guess that means you can't mail one to an FFL either? Only way to get a pistol to the last frontier is either to pack in your luggage live here, or sail offshore non-stop I guess. Interesting.

 

You have no obligation to present yourself to customs if you are not disembarking from the boat, or simply transiting the waters.

2.(1) Persons who arrive in Canada aboard a

commercial passenger conveyance, who do not disembark

in Canada and who have as their destination a place outside

Canada are not required to present themselves in accordance

with subsection 11(1) of the Act.

 

Canada Shipping Act

 

And no one is going to stop you along the way without a warrant or good reason.

For inspectors to conduct searches for evidence regarding contraventions of the CSA,

2001, they must first obtain a search warrant from a Justice of the Peace under the

provisions of s. 487 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code search requirements are

subject to certain modifications set out in subsections 1-3 of CSA, 2001 section 220,

namely: (1) no warrant is required for searches in exigent circumstances; (2) no search of

a living quarters is allowed without a warrant unless there is consent and (3) authorities

searching pursuant to a Criminal Code warrant are also to have all powers of an inspector

under s. 211(4) of the CSA, 2001.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's Canada?

 

it's that place you get drinking water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro, and food from.

 

since our dollar is worth more than yours, and we are geographically on top, you are our bitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

have you been to a border lately? see the sign regarding declaration of firearms, at the border? not declaring said firearms, and not having proper documentation of said firearms IS a crime on both sides of the border. in fact, it's worse going to the states than it is coming to canada.

 

once he crossed the imaginary dotted line into canadian waters he was transporting undeclared undocumented firearms into canada. crime committed. concealing the fact that he had the firearms makes things worse. the point of this thread wasn't the legalities of it. everyone seems to agree he committed a crime. it's the punishment on debate here.

 

as for your theory on container inspections.. read this: http://www.worldtrad...TR_site/csi.asp

 

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the statute you quote is saying something different, Nauti.

The example here would be non-nationals on a cruise ship or ferry. Not a personally owned non-commercial yacht putting into harbour.

 

 

No one forced him to stop in Victoria. He could have gone straight through.

 

You still have to check in. Rules are the same either way. Offshore? Maybe, depending on time of year you are better off going sailing to Hawaii and then Alaska (which also gets pissed off if you bring guns there). Inside passage is the Alaska fisherman's highway. Everyone goes up & down though BC inside waters. If there was someway you could check in and sigh some sort of "will not stop" declaration that would exempt you from the queen's laws it would be great.

atoyot, right about not buying a pistol. I forgot about that. When I first came up here they turned me down so had to go to DMV. Half hour later I bought the pistol :) Guess that means you can't mail one to an FFL either? Only way to get a pistol to the last frontier is either to pack in your luggage live here, or sail offshore non-stop I guess. Interesting.

 

You have no obligation to present yourself to customs if you are not disembarking from the boat, or simply transiting the waters.

2.(1) Persons who arrive in Canada aboard a

commercial passenger conveyance, who do not disembark

in Canada and who have as their destination a place outside

Canada are not required to present themselves in accordance

with subsection 11(1) of the Act.

 

Canada Shipping Act

 

And no one is going to stop you along the way without a warrant or good reason.

For inspectors to conduct searches for evidence regarding contraventions of the CSA,

2001, they must first obtain a search warrant from a Justice of the Peace under the

provisions of s. 487 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code search requirements are

subject to certain modifications set out in subsections 1-3 of CSA, 2001 section 220,

namely: (1) no warrant is required for searches in exigent circumstances; (2) no search of

a living quarters is allowed without a warrant unless there is consent and (3) authorities

searching pursuant to a Criminal Code warrant are also to have all powers of an inspector

under s. 211(4) of the CSA, 2001.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tour boat, so it's a commercial vessel.

 

But even if it was a personal yacht tranisiting Canadian waters, they don't have to present themselves to CBSA unless they come into port. (Still subject to any of the 21 Acts that govern Canadian waters, such as fishing and safety regulations though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

have you been to a border lately? see the sign regarding declaration of firearms, at the border? not declaring said firearms, and not having proper documentation of said firearms IS a crime on both sides of the border. in fact, it's worse going to the states than it is coming to canada.

 

once he crossed the imaginary dotted line into canadian waters he was transporting undeclared undocumented firearms into canada. crime committed. concealing the fact that he had the firearms makes things worse. the point of this thread wasn't the legalities of it. everyone seems to agree he committed a crime. it's the punishment on debate here.

 

as for your theory on container inspections.. read this: http://www.worldtrad...TR_site/csi.asp

 

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

 

What part of the fact that he pulled into a Canadian port does your thick skull fail to grasp? You make it sound like they boarded him at sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's Canada?

 

it's that place you get drinking water, oil, wood, minerals, hydro, and food from.

 

since our dollar is worth more than yours, and we are geographically on top, you are our bitch.

 

 

 

:P .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of the fact that he pulled into a Canadian port does your thick skull fail to grasp? You make it sound like they boarded him at sea.

 

I've been boarded at sea by the US Coastguard. I was just out for a day sail and crossed into US water in Washington. They did a very thorough search of my boat. I was surprised that they did not ask to come aboard, but just said "I'm coming on board." My auto pilot was steering at the time so I didn't even stop sailing for the entire 10 minutes he was on.

 

It's interesting that one is not even allowed to anchor in US waters without a normal checkin. Even if not intending to leave the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What part of the fact that he pulled into a Canadian port does your thick skull fail to grasp? You make it sound like they boarded him at sea.

 

I've been boarded at sea by the US Coastguard. I was just out for a day sail and crossed into US water in Washington. They did a very thorough search of my boat. I was surprised that they did not ask to come aboard, but just said "I'm coming on board." My auto pilot was steering at the time so I didn't even stop sailing for the entire 10 minutes he was on.

 

It's interesting that one is not even allowed to anchor in US waters without a normal checkin. Even if not intending to leave the boat.

 

The hoops that Customs, the Border Patrol and ICE make folks jump through on the Great Lakes are a royal PITA. They've pretty much destroyed Canadian marina and hospitality businesses in towns on the water in many areas ... Americans don't bother with the bother to cross into Canada anymore. And, uh, yeah, drop anchor in Canadian waters? You need to go through the check-in process, on both sides. Utter crap. Terrorists or no, I'd like to see these organization's budgets slashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

have you been to a border lately? see the sign regarding declaration of firearms, at the border? not declaring said firearms, and not having proper documentation of said firearms IS a crime on both sides of the border. in fact, it's worse going to the states than it is coming to canada.

 

once he crossed the imaginary dotted line into canadian waters he was transporting undeclared undocumented firearms into canada. crime committed. concealing the fact that he had the firearms makes things worse. the point of this thread wasn't the legalities of it. everyone seems to agree he committed a crime. it's the punishment on debate here.

 

as for your theory on container inspections.. read this: http://www.worldtrad...TR_site/csi.asp

 

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

 

 

If he wanted to, he could have gone offshore and never entered Canadian waters. He wanted to do the inside passage. What you are saying is roughly equivalent to saying that small private vessels can sail up the Mississippi without clearing customs, as long as they say they are not going to touch a shore. He knew he had to clear customs, and the story is ht tried to hide that he was carrying something that he knew he was obligated to declare.

 

It's a cold, cruel world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "personal responsibility" crowd has dulled, for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

 

how delusional are you? he tied up to a dock IN CANADA! how is this not entering canada? you think that if you were to ever come to a border, go thru customs, but then turn around and go home you haven't entered another country? guess what.... us customs will want to know what you were doing outside of the country. even if it was just to take an international u-turn.

 

and you didn't actually read the site linked, so i'll point it out to you.

 

"2. The CBP Administration must be able to inspect cargo originating, transiting, exiting or being transshipped through a country."

 

sure seems like part of the intent is to check containers as they move thru the system. in any of the participating countries. since the usa initiated the program out of their sheer paranoia the boogey man is coming, don't you think it applies to them?

 

stop the "i still say" shit and come up with some facts before you spew opinions on what you think he did, and what you think is law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now let this be a lesson to all you yankee Neanderthals, leave your guns at home when you come to visit. We don't cotton to your "wild west" mentality up here in civilization.

 

Dig? <_<

 

Why dig when you can just shoot holes in the ground? :P

 

AmericaXmas.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, as long as owner didn't attempt to transport the weapons off the boat and onto Canadian terrority, it was innocent passage. Customs doesn't inspect cargo in ships unless it is destined for the US. In fact cargo containers even transit the US by rail, offloaded from a ship on one coast to be loaded on another ship on the other coast without inspection. This looks like prosecution of low hanging fruit, or an official who doesn't like Americans. Yes having the weapons in Canadian territorial waters is a violation of the law, but what was the intent? I don't know about Canadian law, but in the US, intent is a major element of a crime.

 

have you been to a border lately? see the sign regarding declaration of firearms, at the border? not declaring said firearms, and not having proper documentation of said firearms IS a crime on both sides of the border. in fact, it's worse going to the states than it is coming to canada.

 

once he crossed the imaginary dotted line into canadian waters he was transporting undeclared undocumented firearms into canada. crime committed. concealing the fact that he had the firearms makes things worse. the point of this thread wasn't the legalities of it. everyone seems to agree he committed a crime. it's the punishment on debate here.

 

as for your theory on container inspections.. read this: http://www.worldtrad...TR_site/csi.asp

 

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

 

What part of the fact that he pulled into a Canadian port does your thick skull fail to grasp? You make it sound like they boarded him at sea.

 

I understand that he came into a Canadian port TO CLEAR CUSTOMS AS THE LAW REQUIRES. What part of the guy forgetting he had the weapons on board until the custom's agent noticed the box of ammo don't you understand? No he shouldn't have lied, but he probably panicked, haven't you ever done something stupid when you were caught violating a rule or the law? I sure have. This is an over reaction. Confiscate the guns? OK Fine him? OK. Jail him for stupidity when there is no evidence of prior criminal activity? Not OK. As to your earlier comparision to carrying a large amount of grass, you can't make a case that you simply forgot it was on board since you admitted the purpose of transporting it was for your personal consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't crossed an international border in a loooong time. So I am not conversant with regulations. But I still say his intent wasn't to enter Canada, merely to transit Canadian waters from one US state to another. His conduct probably resulted from a oh crap moment and he panicked. What is going on is over reaction by the Canadian officials.

 

I looked at the site you linked, and while it is a program to inspect or preclear containers destined for the US, it doesn't affect containers transiting the US.

 

how delusional are you? he tied up to a dock IN CANADA! how is this not entering canada? you think that if you were to ever come to a border, go thru customs, but then turn around and go home you haven't entered another country? guess what.... us customs will want to know what you were doing outside of the country. even if it was just to take an international u-turn.

 

and you didn't actually read the site linked, so i'll point it out to you.

 

"2. The CBP Administration must be able to inspect cargo originating, transiting, exiting or being transshipped through a country."

 

sure seems like part of the intent is to check containers as they move thru the system. in any of the participating countries. since the usa initiated the program out of their sheer paranoia the boogey man is coming, don't you think it applies to them?

 

stop the "i still say" shit and come up with some facts before you spew opinions on what you think he did, and what you think is law.

 

 

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

I just went back and re-read the story, I misread it. I thought the American stated he forgot the guns were there. the story does imply that he forgot to remove them since the boat was fresh out of drydock and the guy left in a hurry. If it was an innocent mistake on his part my feelings stand, if it was a deliberate act he deserves what he gets.

 

I hope that clarifies my opinion on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

I got news for you: Customs inspects cargo transiting the US for other destinations. All. The. Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

I got news for you: Customs inspects cargo transiting the US for other destinations. All. The. Time.

 

According to CBP's website, they inspect containers "bound for or transiting the US if identified as a possible threat". I gather that means the vast majority are not even looked at by CBP unless there is intelligence of a terrorist threat, or the presence of contraband. They don't give much in the way of details, but containers originating in te middle east and Columbia seem to be particulally suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

so now you are saying the usa is not a country. they are part of the agreement, and will do the same inspections at home as they would abroad. i'd be more suspect of intermodal at the rail transfer than at the port, and do an xray there too.

 

According to CBP's website, they inspect containers "bound for or transiting the US if identified as a possible threat".

 

so transiting the usa, in your opinion, isn't really covered, despite the cbp's website stating otherwise? what colour is the sky in your world?

 

I just went back and re-read the story, I misread it. I thought the American stated he forgot the guns were there. the story does imply that he forgot to remove them since the boat was fresh out of drydock and the guy left in a hurry. If it was an innocent mistake on his part my feelings stand, if it was a deliberate act he deserves what he gets.

 

I hope that clarifies my opinion on the subject.

 

well used: ignorance of the law is no excuse. forgetting the firearms? tough luck. you think i can get out of a speeding ticket because i misread the speedo in my car and thought i was doing 75 kmh instead of 75 mph? won't happen. i was speeding. honest mistake though right?

 

trust me, if the tables were turned and it was a canadian in this situation, there would be no leniency on the part of americans. there'd be more laws broken stateside than the canadian side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just went back and re-read the story, I misread it. I thought the American stated he forgot the guns were there. the story does imply that he forgot to remove them since the boat was fresh out of drydock and the guy left in a hurry. If it was an innocent mistake on his part my feelings stand, if it was a deliberate act he deserves what he gets.

 

I hope that clarifies my opinion on the subject.

 

well used: ignorance of the law is no excuse. forgetting the firearms? tough luck. you think i can get out of a speeding ticket because i misread the speedo in my car and thought i was doing 75 kmh instead of 75 mph? won't happen. i was speeding. honest mistake though right?

 

trust me, if the tables were turned and it was a canadian in this situation, there would be no leniency on the part of americans. there'd be more laws broken stateside than the canadian side.

 

Sorry, but you Canuckleheads just don't understand Americans when it comes to our guns... They're just not that big a deal to us, in fact it's quite commonplace for American sailors to completely forget having stashed away a few guns on our boats...

 

Such an innocent mistake is on a par, say, with one of you guys north of the border misplacing your car keys...

 

I'm starting to think there could be a decent business opportunity in the States for marketing a sort of "Gun Pager", to help us keep track of all our guns... Like for when a guy is getting ready to drive his kids to soccer practice, he's halfway out the door, then... "Aw, shit - where did I leave my Glock?"

 

"Honey, have you seen my Glock?" With the Gun Pager, finding your mis-placed or long-forgotten weapons is easier than finding your SUV in a mall parking lot with the electronic key fob...

 

So, yeah, it's completely credible that a red-blooded American sailor could arrive in a place like Canuckistan, having completely and innocently forgotten that he had a few guns lying around the boat, somewhere...

 

Shit, haven't you been reading any of the Piracy or Guns Aboard threads around here? (grin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

so now you are saying the usa is not a country. they are part of the agreement, and will do the same inspections at home as they would abroad. i'd be more suspect of intermodal at the rail transfer than at the port, and do an xray there too.

 

According to CBP's website, they inspect containers "bound for or transiting the US if identified as a possible threat".

 

so transiting the usa, in your opinion, isn't really covered, despite the cbp's website stating otherwise? what colour is the sky in your world?

 

I just went back and re-read the story, I misread it. I thought the American stated he forgot the guns were there. the story does imply that he forgot to remove them since the boat was fresh out of drydock and the guy left in a hurry. If it was an innocent mistake on his part my feelings stand, if it was a deliberate act he deserves what he gets.

 

I hope that clarifies my opinion on the subject.

 

well used: ignorance of the law is no excuse. forgetting the firearms? tough luck. you think i can get out of a speeding ticket because i misread the speedo in my car and thought i was doing 75 kmh instead of 75 mph? won't happen. i was speeding. honest mistake though right?

 

trust me, if the tables were turned and it was a canadian in this situation, there would be no leniency on the part of americans. there'd be more laws broken stateside than the canadian side.

 

CBP's website says they only inspect transiting containers if there is intelligence of a threat or contraband. If CBP had meant the USA they would have staed that, no used the language "a country" As for penalties, Losing the guns and paying a multiple thousand dollar fine is already a pretty stiff punishment. I think that much is justified, if he had no intent to violate the law a full-blown criminal trial with a three year mandatory jail sentence is a litle over the top. In he was deliberately violating the law the trial would be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says "a country" not the US. They are talking about inspecting containers with an end destination inside the US. Not containers transisting the US for other destinations.

 

so now you are saying the usa is not a country. they are part of the agreement, and will do the same inspections at home as they would abroad. i'd be more suspect of intermodal at the rail transfer than at the port, and do an xray there too.

 

According to CBP's website, they inspect containers "bound for or transiting the US if identified as a possible threat".

 

so transiting the usa, in your opinion, isn't really covered, despite the cbp's website stating otherwise? what colour is the sky in your world?

 

I just went back and re-read the story, I misread it. I thought the American stated he forgot the guns were there. the story does imply that he forgot to remove them since the boat was fresh out of drydock and the guy left in a hurry. If it was an innocent mistake on his part my feelings stand, if it was a deliberate act he deserves what he gets.

 

I hope that clarifies my opinion on the subject.

 

well used: ignorance of the law is no excuse. forgetting the firearms? tough luck. you think i can get out of a speeding ticket because i misread the speedo in my car and thought i was doing 75 kmh instead of 75 mph? won't happen. i was speeding. honest mistake though right?

 

trust me, if the tables were turned and it was a canadian in this situation, there would be no leniency on the part of americans. there'd be more laws broken stateside than the canadian side.

 

CBP's website says they only inspect transiting containers if there is intelligence of a threat or contraband. If CBP had meant the USA they would have staed that, no used the language "a country" As for penalties, Losing the guns and paying a multiple thousand dollar fine is already a pretty stiff punishment. I think that much is justified, if he had no intent to violate the law a full-blown criminal trial with a three year mandatory jail sentence is a litle over the top. In he was deliberately violating the law the trial would be justified.

 

About the first thing they always ask you at the border is if you have any guns. I suspect you were not aware of that. In that context, I can see how it might look quite unfair. Answer honestly and you are not in any trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

railwhale, i can tell you are the type of guy that would only pay $3 for a $4.50 beer. and not tip. because that's the way you think it should be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the nra website has a link to the canadian firearms website so that us visitors can figure out what to do when coming to canada. even the required forms are supplied there.

 

don't all gun owners in the states pray to the nra gods?

 

just for fun:

 

There are three classes of firearms in Canada:

 

Non-restricted (most common rifles and shotguns): These may generally be imported for purposes such as hunting, protection from wild animals in remote wilderness areas where firearms are allowed, or target-shooting. They may also be taken in transit through Canada by a reasonably direct route.

 

Restricted: (longer-barreled handguns, some types of long guns) These are allowed for certain purposes, such as target shooting at an approved club or range, but they are not allowed for hunting or self protection.

 

Prohibited: (shorter-barreled handguns, automatic weapons) These cannot be brought into Canada.

 

and from the nra website:

 

CANADA

 

Caution: Canada has very strict laws governing the transportation and possession of firearms.

 

Lawful use and possession of firearms in Canada requires the possessor to be licensed and the firearm to be registered. Nonresidents may meet these requirements in either of two ways. The first is to complete a Non-resident Firearm Declaration prior to arrival at the point of entry. Declarations are valid for 60 days but may be renewed free of charge before expiration. The second method is to apply for a five- year Canadian Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) and then, once the PAL is obtained, register the firearms in Canada.

 

In addition, Canadian law establishes three broad classifications of firearms: “non-restricted,” “restricted,” and “prohibited.”

 

A person may not enter Canada with prohibited firearms, which include: (1) a handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (approximately 4.1 inches) or less; (2) a handgun capable of firing .25 or .32 caliber ammunition; (3) a rifle or shotgun that has been altered so that its barrel length is less than 457 mm (approximately 18 inches) or its overall length is less than 660 mm (approximately 26 inches); (5) automatic firearms (including those converted to fire only as semiautomatics); and (6) certain firearms specified by model (and their variants), including AR-15s (as well as .22 rimfire clones), AKs, various semi-automatic shotguns, Intratec TEC-DC9s, UZIs, Steyr AUGs, FN-FALs, and numerous others. Also prohibited is the importation of so-called “large capacity magazines,” which generally means any magazine for a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that holds more than five rounds or any magazine for a handgun that holds more than 10 rounds.

 

Restricted firearms include any non-prohibited handgun; a non-prohibited centerfire rifle with a barrel of less than 470 mm (approximately 18.5 inches); a firearm that can be fired after being folded, collapsed, or otherwise reduced to a length of less than 660 mm (approximately 26 inches); and other models designated by law. These require an Authorization to Transport (ATT) in addition to the Non-resident Firearm Declaration or PAL.

 

Limited amounts of ammunition may be imported.

 

All firearms must be transported unloaded. Non-restricted firearms left unattended in a vehicle should be locked in the vehicle’s trunk, or if the vehicle does not have a trunk, locked out of sight in the vehicle’s interior. Restricted firearms must be rendered inoperable during transport by a secure locking device or locked within an opaque container that cannot readily or accidentally be broken open during travel. Canadian officials recommend using both of these measures for restricted firearms, as well as removing the bolt or bolt carrier, if applicable.

 

Information and forms governing all of these requirements may be obtained from the Canadian Firearm Program (CFP) website at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm or by contacting the CFP at 1-800-731-4000.

 

his handguns would have for sure put him in category 2, and possibly 3. had he declared the firearms beforehand (and i will give that he left the states in a hurry, so wouldn't have had time to find and fill out forms) he would have been declined entry, or probably been flagged for search upon entry if he was told he could come minus the firearms. the shotgun alone would not have done much.

 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/visit-visite-eng.htm

 

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=59

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

railwhale, i can tell you are the type of guy that would only pay $3 for a $4.50 beer. and not tip. because that's the way you think it should be.

 

 

You're half right. I'm part Scot, so I try never to pay retail, but I am a very generous tipper when the server deserves it. I also tip very poorly for bad service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites