those tough American gun laws

[winterbadger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703321.stm

Apparently it's news to some people that one can't order guns by mail. And he received a license? Well, I suppose as an Englishman studying in Canada, he probably didn't show up on an FBI database check (if they even bothered with that...)

Comments

[faerlyn-darkelf.livejournal.com]

OH dear - that is very disturbing!!!!

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

That article sounds like an at least partial fabrication, and I suspect a total fabrication. There's just too many rules broken, and no mention of a corresponding BFI or BATF investigation. If a permit was issued in his name, who filled out an application for him? You can have a firearm shipped, but it has to be shipped to a gun dealer who can legally recieve it, and then you take posession of it from them.

Although I wonder if it could be true, if you take out the part about it having come from the US. The rules in canada are different from the rules in the US after all. They rely, I'm told, very heavily on their poorly enforced system of licensing and registration. Maybe they allow more transactions via the mail than we do.

[winterbadger]

That article sounds like an at least partial fabrication, and I suspect a total fabrication.

Rolleyes. Yes, because the BBC's reporters are known for making up stories out of thin air when they get bored...

You seem to be assuming that people always follow the rules correctly; I think the point of the article, and what disturbs me, is that it suggests that people don't. It certainly sounds like the person in the pawn shop filled out the application for the permit for the buyer and processed it without ever actually seeing him, then received the license and shipped it and the gun through the mail.

I imagine an FBI/BATF investigation isn't mentioned because, until the story was broken they didn't know they had something to investigate. I assume (I certainly hope) there's one ongoing now.

Here's a link to the original newspaper article, but I'm not a subscriber, so I can't get the full text. http://www.canada.com/search/story.html?id=7c864291-e588-4294-8d14-7d4a8fc77042

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

It wasn't so long ago that local govenment cited the use of di-hydrogen monoxide in the manufacture of styrofoam in some anti-styrofoam legislation. Newspapers publish urban legends all the time. Fact-checking is a lost art. The BBC probably didn't make up the story, their attention was drawn to it and they re-printed it, assuming it was accurate. Did some saskatoon paper make up a story or alter some details? Could be. I'm betting altered details. To be exact, I'm betting that a gun or some gun parts were shipped in the wrong box to the wrong destination.

Here's what gets me. This lousiana gun shop got his winning bid for the MP3 player on e-bay. They pulled the canadian handgun application out of a drawer. They made up information to fill in the blanks. They sent it to canada. The canadian government processed the application full of false information, approved it, and returned the permit, despite being fairly restrictive about handgun permits. The pawn shop then turned around and shipped the handgun to this guy with the fraudulent permit, in a box labeled "mp3 player" with a customs declaration that described it as an MP3 player. If the article had omitted the part about a permit in his name, I'd buy it. People put the wrong thing in the wrong box from time to time. I'd still grumble about all the use of the word "high caliber" in an article about a .22 revolver, and the picture of a large caliber handgun that accompanied the article, but I'd buy it. The permit is the little detail that makes it so I am unable to suspend disbelief. That the article hasn't been picked up by american wire services makes me wonder too. They usually jump on stories like this. So far it's only made it to the saskatoon paper, the BBC, and some weblogs.

[winterbadger]

It wasn't so long ago that local govenment cited the use of di-hydrogen monoxide in the manufacture of styrofoam in some anti-styrofoam legislation.

Where's the newspaper issue there? A local government did something stupid, not a newspaper.

Newspapers publish urban legends all the time.

Newspapers sometimes print urban legends. Newspapaers sometimes print stories that have been falsified by journalists who are looking for acclaim. That doesn't make me automatically doubt any news report I see.

To be exact, I'm betting that a gun or some gun parts were shipped in the wrong box to the wrong destination.
That part certainly seems to be without dispute; I really find it hard to believe that the newspaper, having that story, would then invent the issue of the license and the recipient photocopying it as a souvenir. Is it possible that they made it up? Sure, but I see no reason to think that they did.

Here's a link to the Star article (I found it through Google)

http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/news/story.html?id=eef309e0-bf08-4f13-b0ba-af8791392e1c

I don't see any mention there or on the BBC article of the words "high power," and while the photo looks more like a .44 Magnum, the visual difference between that and the .22 Magnum, at least based on the pictures at the S&W website, is fairly slight. I'm also not seeing anything that says that the license was a Canadian one.

That the article hasn't been picked up by american wire services makes me wonder too. They usually jump on stories like this.
They also usually only reprint local reporting in stories like this, so I doubt there'll be any more detail when they do.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

the visual difference between that and the .22 Magnum, at least based on the pictures at the S&W website, is fairly slight.

There are a few .22 pistols that are made to look like bigger guns, but for the most part, they are very visually different from the gun pictured. .22 and .22magnum are not the same thing.

I don't see any mention there or on the BBC article of the words "high power,"

Sorry, that came from a google news search. This article (http://p2pnet.net/story/1425) makes reference to a "high caliber mp3 player" while displaying a picture of a large pistol. I'd swear the wording on the article has changed since I last looked at it.


I'm also not seeing anything that says that the license was a Canadian one.

If the recipient of the firearm was canadian, he would need a canadian license. Although re-reading the articles, it's less clear. The starpheonix article says "Next to it is a handgun licence for Abe's Pawn Shop in Louisiana." I'm guessing, on reflection, that isn't a license at all, but some FFL transfer paperwork. It's not customary for gun shops to obtain licenses for people, but there is some paperwork that has to be done. Looking for the simple explaination, calling a document by the wrong name seems like the simplest mistake. The subject is confusing since many states don't require licenses to own firearms, although canada does. A canadia reporter might expect a license to come with a gun, for all I know, that's how they do it up there.