Another one bites the dust ...(Update)Hold that thought, there might be hope!
- Thread starter jibjedi
- Start date
Again, something was already in the works before the newspaper even heard of it. Based on speaking with the officer in question, I'm not concerned about whether it will remain in one piece, but if it will be at a museum that will show it (I have little faith in the Vernon museum in that regard) and if it will be at one close enough for me to go check it out.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Now I wonder just how many "innocent people" that Thompson killed while it was in the possession of the old man? OBVIOUSLY NOBODY!
Its dribble and nonsense like this that make our plight just that much harder. It just makes me sick to see such senseless anti-gun propaganda. The anti's won't be satisfied until all we can possess are slingshots and pointy sticks.
Read in a newspaper that in England you need to be 18y or older to buy a solar powered garden light as they have a pointy bottom that can be used as a weapon
wonder how long it will be before you need a permit to grow a Walnut tree.There are a couple of facts here that people seem to be glossing over.
1. This fellow was in possession of a prohibited, unregistered firearm and was in contravention of the criminal code, whether we agree with the law or not. I don't believe that any responsible gun owner, self included, could endorse this.
2. If he was acting responsibly he would have registered the piece and obtained the appropriate PAL endorsement for himself in the first place. He did have at least 65 years to come to grips with this. This would have facilitated the transfer of the piece to a museum or another qualified purchaser. I wonder if he had a PAL of any sort. As it was he didn't do his survivors any favours.
Presumably the family will employ a lawyer to settle his estate. If this is the case they may have some recourse to sell the firearms and at least derive some value from them. Family members are often too pre-occupied with the death of a loved one and all of the ensuing complications to think everything through clearly. Non-restricted pieces are not yet required to be registered, so there would be no insurmountable problem with selling them out of his estate. What course of action should we reasonably expect from the police in this case- insist that the family keep the guns, incl the Thompson, as a historically significant artifact, or maybe shop them around hoping that some repository can be found for them? That isn't the job of the police. The owner could have avoided this all by acting responsibly in the first place. There's a caution and a lesson in this.
1. This fellow was in possession of a prohibited, unregistered firearm and was in contravention of the criminal code, whether we agree with the law or not. I don't believe that any responsible gun owner, self included, could endorse this.
2. If he was acting responsibly he would have registered the piece and obtained the appropriate PAL endorsement for himself in the first place. He did have at least 65 years to come to grips with this. This would have facilitated the transfer of the piece to a museum or another qualified purchaser. I wonder if he had a PAL of any sort. As it was he didn't do his survivors any favours.
Presumably the family will employ a lawyer to settle his estate. If this is the case they may have some recourse to sell the firearms and at least derive some value from them. Family members are often too pre-occupied with the death of a loved one and all of the ensuing complications to think everything through clearly. Non-restricted pieces are not yet required to be registered, so there would be no insurmountable problem with selling them out of his estate. What course of action should we reasonably expect from the police in this case- insist that the family keep the guns, incl the Thompson, as a historically significant artifact, or maybe shop them around hoping that some repository can be found for them? That isn't the job of the police. The owner could have avoided this all by acting responsibly in the first place. There's a caution and a lesson in this.
Thanks for the reply, purple ...you are bang on with some of this.
Although as I mentioned earlier, it was more the manner in which the article was portrayed to the public, that concerned me more than anything.
As firearm owners, we generally all have a better understanding and respect for the realistic dangers of our weapons, than the general public. Articles written in the way this particular one was, only add to the unwarranted fear and misunderstanding of our hobby. Making it ever harder for us to ease, let alone maintain, the constraints we are placed under in regards to gun laws.
I certainly do not endorse breaking the laws, but I do endorse using common sense. And by the sounds of it, the officer(s) involved with this are doing a fine job in using theirs by making an effort to keep the firearm intact. I would also hope that if the old fella been caught out with the weapon prior to passing on, he would have only been given a slap on the wrist. As it is totally plausible, that he somehow did not know owning the weapon was illegal.
I consider myself a responsible gun owner as well, and obey all the rules in place ....but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that they are all rational.
Although as I mentioned earlier, it was more the manner in which the article was portrayed to the public, that concerned me more than anything.
As firearm owners, we generally all have a better understanding and respect for the realistic dangers of our weapons, than the general public. Articles written in the way this particular one was, only add to the unwarranted fear and misunderstanding of our hobby. Making it ever harder for us to ease, let alone maintain, the constraints we are placed under in regards to gun laws.
I certainly do not endorse breaking the laws, but I do endorse using common sense. And by the sounds of it, the officer(s) involved with this are doing a fine job in using theirs by making an effort to keep the firearm intact. I would also hope that if the old fella been caught out with the weapon prior to passing on, he would have only been given a slap on the wrist. As it is totally plausible, that he somehow did not know owning the weapon was illegal.
I consider myself a responsible gun owner as well, and obey all the rules in place ....but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that they are all rational.
Sorry, purple's head is jammed up his purple spider. This man probably fought in the war, thats the only ####ing PAL he needs in my book. As for his poor grieving family? His body wasn't cold and they had rifled through his stuff WITHOUT benefit of a lawyer. Sorry pal you are totally out in left field...No smiley!!!!!!
X2 banjaboy and most likely many more from the site. Facts are facts though and Purple is just pointing out the law as it stands.
I also contacted a fellow from Chiliwack. He is one of the curators of a military museum in the Lower Mainland. He and his commanding officer are going to contact the RCMP as well. The museum is on DND property and can legally take ownership of the Thompson.
There was a similar precedent last fall, although I don't recall the firearm being a full auto, rather a black powder cartridge rifle.
If the Thompson gets destroyed, it will be out of spite more than anything else and it certainly won't be the local detachment commander that makes the decision.
I also contacted a fellow from Chiliwack. He is one of the curators of a military museum in the Lower Mainland. He and his commanding officer are going to contact the RCMP as well. The museum is on DND property and can legally take ownership of the Thompson.
There was a similar precedent last fall, although I don't recall the firearm being a full auto, rather a black powder cartridge rifle.
If the Thompson gets destroyed, it will be out of spite more than anything else and it certainly won't be the local detachment commander that makes the decision.
The great paradox (and injustice) of our gun control/people control scheme is that it assumes that the majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people who will be compliant with the system. This includes the vast majority of people in the various organizations that Mr. Banjaboy claims membership in. Ironically, this is/was also our own best argument against the system in the first place, and that argument has failed time and again.
We can take this discussion a step further and consider the case of the FA and CA and other categories of "prohibited" firearms which are now in the possession of licensed, "grandfathered" owners. At one point these pieces (except for short barreled guns like the Thompson, MP 40,etc) could be freely used and enjoyed at the range or for hunting as we chose. The ultimate fate of all of these pieces is already determined. With no new licensed owners, there are only 4, and ultimately 2, options for them as their "grandfathered" owners die or lose interest in them. They will either be sold to one of an ever-diminishing number of other "grandfathers", de-activated, transfered to an approved museum which will accept them, or forfeited to the system for destruction. Is this fair or just? Hell no. They are our property and were a lot of fun to shoot, and AFAIK, none of these duly registered pieces has ever been used to commit a crime.
What are our recourses to reverse this? Public demonstrations, mass PAL burnings, praying for salvation from some stripe of politician, storming the local MP's office,or what else? There are no special off ramps for supposedly more deserving people, like veterans, either. I spent 32 years in the Army entrusted with using various types of automatic weapons, got the opportunity to be a live target, and picked up a couple of real PITA physical afflictions that I'd rather not have while serving in some crappy situations 8,000 km away from home. I do not expect any special exemptions because of this, even though I can demonstrate a proven track record of reliability and conduct. The law is the law and it applies universally, whether we agree with it or not.
On the topic of veteran "bring-backs", there are provisions for survivors to retain these pieces, although not full-autos. My late uncle shipped his own personal issue revolver and a couple other pieces back from Europe after VE Day and proceeded to register them when he returned home. That was a good thing as I now own them. Other vets I knew did likewise. Some who had brought back more exotic pieces, like a STEN, Thompson, MP40, and M3 Grease Gun kept them under wraps and we young fellows would get to shoot them on occasion. We lived out in the country, with no crime or contact with the police, so it didn't seem to matter 50 yrs ago. I expect that virtually all of these unrecorded pieces eventually wound up in a hole, the bottom or a slough, or torched on the scrap heap when the boys got tired of them. What other realistic, practical, and legal options would they have had when/if their wives and families had no interest in keeping them? One guy had a stone mint Browning HP which I know got toasted in the wood burning stove when he lost interest in it. Too bad, because I had offered to buy it from him a few times over the years.
On the topic of estates, responsible and thoughtful people will make a will where specific provisions can be made for guns or whatever else. If they neglect to do this, then the survivors are totally free to do what they wish to dispose of the deceased's property, guns included, regardless of the opinions of those who are not involved. If anybody wants to pretend otherwise, they need to give their head a shake. Dead people don't get to control things from the grave and there are no roof racks on a hearse. I've had to deal with an estate, which included firearms, in the absence of a will and it was not an enjoyable exercise. I remember one other inheritor claiming this or that on the basis of what the deceased's unrecorded "wishes were". The reality was that his "wish" was to not have a will and we were stuck with the consequences. Like I mentioned in my first post, there are some harsh realities here, and this is a cautionary tale for people to consider their own circumstances.
We can take this discussion a step further and consider the case of the FA and CA and other categories of "prohibited" firearms which are now in the possession of licensed, "grandfathered" owners. At one point these pieces (except for short barreled guns like the Thompson, MP 40,etc) could be freely used and enjoyed at the range or for hunting as we chose. The ultimate fate of all of these pieces is already determined. With no new licensed owners, there are only 4, and ultimately 2, options for them as their "grandfathered" owners die or lose interest in them. They will either be sold to one of an ever-diminishing number of other "grandfathers", de-activated, transfered to an approved museum which will accept them, or forfeited to the system for destruction. Is this fair or just? Hell no. They are our property and were a lot of fun to shoot, and AFAIK, none of these duly registered pieces has ever been used to commit a crime.
What are our recourses to reverse this? Public demonstrations, mass PAL burnings, praying for salvation from some stripe of politician, storming the local MP's office,or what else? There are no special off ramps for supposedly more deserving people, like veterans, either. I spent 32 years in the Army entrusted with using various types of automatic weapons, got the opportunity to be a live target, and picked up a couple of real PITA physical afflictions that I'd rather not have while serving in some crappy situations 8,000 km away from home. I do not expect any special exemptions because of this, even though I can demonstrate a proven track record of reliability and conduct. The law is the law and it applies universally, whether we agree with it or not.
On the topic of veteran "bring-backs", there are provisions for survivors to retain these pieces, although not full-autos. My late uncle shipped his own personal issue revolver and a couple other pieces back from Europe after VE Day and proceeded to register them when he returned home. That was a good thing as I now own them. Other vets I knew did likewise. Some who had brought back more exotic pieces, like a STEN, Thompson, MP40, and M3 Grease Gun kept them under wraps and we young fellows would get to shoot them on occasion. We lived out in the country, with no crime or contact with the police, so it didn't seem to matter 50 yrs ago. I expect that virtually all of these unrecorded pieces eventually wound up in a hole, the bottom or a slough, or torched on the scrap heap when the boys got tired of them. What other realistic, practical, and legal options would they have had when/if their wives and families had no interest in keeping them? One guy had a stone mint Browning HP which I know got toasted in the wood burning stove when he lost interest in it. Too bad, because I had offered to buy it from him a few times over the years.
On the topic of estates, responsible and thoughtful people will make a will where specific provisions can be made for guns or whatever else. If they neglect to do this, then the survivors are totally free to do what they wish to dispose of the deceased's property, guns included, regardless of the opinions of those who are not involved. If anybody wants to pretend otherwise, they need to give their head a shake. Dead people don't get to control things from the grave and there are no roof racks on a hearse. I've had to deal with an estate, which included firearms, in the absence of a will and it was not an enjoyable exercise. I remember one other inheritor claiming this or that on the basis of what the deceased's unrecorded "wishes were". The reality was that his "wish" was to not have a will and we were stuck with the consequences. Like I mentioned in my first post, there are some harsh realities here, and this is a cautionary tale for people to consider their own circumstances.
Last edited:
On the topic of estates, responsible and thoughtful people will make a will where specific provisions can be made for guns or whatever else. If they neglect to do this, then the survivors are totally free to do what they wish to dispose of the deceased's property, guns included, regardless of the opinions of those who are not involved. If anybody wants to pretend otherwise, they need to give their head a shake.
All true. But IMO there is more at stake here than the loss of yet another historical gun. It's the loss of a historical anything. If not for the media fear-mongering, this same scenario may have been very different. Upon finding the firearms, instead of reacting in fear of legal reprisal, the heirs may have taken a little more time to investigate what they had (I think we can safely assume they are unfamiliar with guns) and checked to see if there was any historical significance to these heirlooms. If this Thompson had been dug up in the old fella's yard (minus the fear of legal charges) I suspect their first thought would be historical significance. If they had disovered an ancient car in the back of the guy's barn it would have been history. If they uncovered a box of medals, clothing/uniforms, tools, helmets, anything other than a gun their thoughts I'm sure would have been historical (and probably money).
My point being that if we didn't have the media constantly frightening people with stories of evil guns the heirs may have taken a breath and taken the time to see if a museum had any interest.
Judging by some of the other posts, museums are getting involved and on historical value alone I am relieved.
. I edited my post to remove all of the little faces to avoid another nomination.
Exactly right.
What bugs me is when my Father in Law passed away several years ago my Mother in law kept getting stern letters from the firearms office suggesting that she can turn the rifles into the RCMP, fortunately she knew better and also they where all spoken for to other members of the family through the estate via a well written will.
She was getting a letter every few weeks from them so I stepped in and registered them in my name to get the CFO to back off of her and giving the other members of the family (one in another country) time to get their PAL's and such.
I hope the rifles mentioned in the first post can be saved.
