Man gets charged and jailed for illegally importing a rimfire revolver?

K

krprice84

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
97   0   0
Location
Calgary, Alberta
Can't tell for sure, but those cartridges look to be bigger than 22rf... do they not? Or am i missing the scale of the thing? If they are not, is it not likely that the gun is an antique? I could be wrong again, but I was under the impression that pretty much any rimfire handgun in one of the larger rimfire calibers would not have been made after 1897.... any thoughts? do antiques need to be declared when coming into canada? I didn't think they did, as they are not firearms. I would be declaring it myself anyways, just to save the hassle and risk, but is it a legal requirement?

here's the story:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...-of-gun-smuggling-at-emerson-border-1.2651172
 
It is a newly made revolver, 22 magnum I'd bet.
Just a guess but a google-fu search would be more telling.
He broke the law, you get in trouble crossing borders with undeclared handguns.
 
Personally I think that's a new made gun whatever the caliber. They make a lot of them down there still. If it is old, the cylinder looks new, and good luck proving manufacture date IF the whole thing fits antique status. I suspect this' a case of either smuggling or sheer stupidity.
 
Fair points, I didn't know they still made bigger rimfire revolvers still.

One thing though, if it is an antique frame with a new cylinder, it's still an antique gun, by our laws. And it's not a firearm by most laws (unless used in a crime and four storage and transport it is, but not for import. Just don't know if it still needs to be declared or if it is the same as coming across the border with a legal folding knife in your pocket or something like that?)

Regardless, yes it's stupidity to even think about it, I was more asking if anyone thought it was od an antique and, if so, what the law technically is on declaring them. Obviously with antiques the law doesn't always help you stay away from initial trouble, it only helps you in court once you are already charged
 
Get caught taking a handgun from PA to NY without a NYS pistol permit and you'll be taking an extended on Rikers Island.
How F'N stupid do you have to be to cross an international border with a handgun without making sure you are in compliance with that jurisdictions laws?
And the "I forgot" excuse doesn't cut the mustard.
When I'm traveling with guns I know about it and check and comply with the law before attempting to cross any border.
 
krprice84 said:
Fair points, I didn't know they still made bigger rimfire revolvers still.

One thing though, if it is an antique frame with a new cylinder, it's still an antique gun, by our laws. And it's not a firearm by most laws (unless used in a crime and four storage and transport it is, but not for import. Just don't know if it still needs to be declared or if it is the same as coming across the border with a legal folding knife in your pocket or something like that?)

Regardless, yes it's stupidity to even think about it, I was more asking if anyone thought it was od an antique and, if so, what the law technically is on declaring them. Obviously with antiques the law doesn't always help you stay away from initial trouble, it only helps you in court once you are already charged
Click to expand...

Not antique if it is .22 rimfire!
 
Yea no fair enough. And if that's a new model one even worse!

I was more curious if it was a new model or not, and if it was antique, then I was going to ask if anyone knew the actual laws (I was curious, I'd never try to bring a gun across without telling them....that's just freaking stupid!)
 
bobdbldr said:
Not antique if it is .22 rimfire!
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I didn't realize it was 22, couldn't tell the scale, just looked bigger to me. But from what I know it cannot fire 22 short, 22 long, or 22 long rifle. 22 mag should actually be an acceptable caliber to modify the gun over to, assuming it is old enough. I've seen guns modified from 32 rimfire to fire 17 rimfire and they are still legally classified as antiques. 22 mag and 17 are both not on the "no go" list as far as I know, unless 22 mag is somehow considered 22lr for classification purposes (don't see how they could try to pull that
 
krprice84 said:
Yea no fair enough. And if that's a new model one even worse!

I was more curious if it was a new model or not, and if it was antique, then I was going to ask if anyone knew the actual laws (I was curious, I'd never try to bring a gun across without telling them....that's just freaking stupid!)
Click to expand...

Yeah, It is 100% new manufactured firearm. Big pile of stupid on their part.
 
.
This is a newly manufactured firearm. The name "Freedom Arms" comes to mind, but I could be wrong. This looks like it is in .22 Winchester Rimfire Magnum, (long cylinder). I have seen pictures of these in some of the gun magazines, and even one in .22 Long Rifle that attaches to a metal belt buckle and looks like an ornament on the buckle.

Hate to say it, but the Border Security people were right.
 
yes looks similar NAA in .22 mag. a prohib here with this short barrel. And besides the fact... not declaring it... antique or not is an offense.
 
buffdog said:
.
This is a newly manufactured firearm. The name "freedom arms" comes to mind, but i could be wrong. This looks like it is in .22 winchester rimfire magnum, (long cylinder). I have seen pictures of these in some of the gun magazines, and even one in .22 long rifle that attaches to a metal belt buckle and looks like an ornament on the buckle.

Hate to say it, but the border security people were right.
Click to expand...

naa
 
Fair enough, that must be a small gun then if it is 22! Re declaring antiques, is that the law if you are coming across in person or is it just common sense? I'm not arguing it would be stupid to try to cross without declaring, but just more curious about the technical and legal requirements. Since an antique isn't a firearm for this purpose, it would lead me to believe that it is not technically a requirement (not referring to this gun anymore,- obviously, and not saying you SHOULD not declare it just asking if it is a legal requirement when it is not even a legal firearm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom