# CBSA confiscates 65 prohibited  pistols in Toronto



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2020)

> * Canada Border Services Agency stops another 65 prohibited firearms from entering our communities*
> 
> Today, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) announced the largest single firearm seizure, on record, with the interdiction of 65 prohibited guns at the Toronto Pearson International Airport. The CBSA remains committed to addressing risks and threats in cross-border trade while ensuring essential goods continue to enter Canada’s supply chain during this COVID-19 pandemic period.



https://www.canada.ca/en/border-services-agency/news/2020/06/canada-border-services-agency-stops-another-65-prohibited-firearms-from-entering-our-communities.html?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news

Nice to see illegal guns confiscated.  I'm assuming there were actual firearms in the bust and CBSA isn't considering blank firing pistols as dangerous weapons. 




> Close up of "prohibited firearm" seized


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jun 2020)

Ok, I’ll bite...what am I missing? The pictures look like a shipment of starter pistols to me.

Are they prohibited now, or is there another batch of actual firearms that were seized, but not pictured?


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2020)

Maybe it depends on one's definition of starter, but then again, I'd hardly consider a 45 a starter pistol.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2020)

Oh my god, I am embarrassed for CBSA that they would go this self-glorifying BS over a shipment of starter pistols.


----------



## medicineman (10 Jun 2020)

You can make a Saturday Night Special from some of those starter pistols - knock out the barrel spike and then you stick .22 rounds in the cylinder.  Of course, they're highly inaccurate unless you're sticking the thing right in the person's ribs, but can still hurt folks...even if not the one you're aiming at.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok, I’ll bite...what am I missing? The pictures look like a shipment of starter pistols to me.
> 
> Are they prohibited now, or is there another batch of actual firearms that were seized, but not pictured?



I'm confused by the article myself. _Maybe_ the pistols in the other picture off the article are actual guns? Doesn't seem like it though.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jun 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe it depends on one's definition of starter, but then again, I'd hardly consider a 45 a starter pistol.  ;D



Methinks that was the quantity of the first shipment, not the calibre, no?


----------



## Haggis (10 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Oh my god, I am embarrassed for CBSA that they would go this self-glorifying BS over a shipment of starter pistols.


  Don't blame the CBSA.  The article states that these were listed as prohibited by the RCMP in the FRT.  The CBSA had no choice but to seize them.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Don't blame the CBSA.  The article states that these were listed as prohibited by the RCMP in the FRT.  The CBSA had no choice but to seize them.



Not every seizure needs a press release.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not every seizure needs a press release.


No, but under normal circumstances, this is a big seizure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not every seizure needs a press release.



In their minds every seizure needs to be milked, they seized my friends shipment and where going to do a whole dog and pony show till someone realized he had all his permits in place to import them. My opinion of CBSA has been steadily reduced by many interactions with them during my Public Service career.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jun 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> In their minds every seizure needs to be milked, they seized my friends shipment and where going to do a whole dog and pony show till someone realized he had all his permits in place to import them. My opinion of CBSA has been steadily reduced by many interactions with them during my Public Service career.



Declining more than your opinion of Canada’s judicial system that releases those actually smuggling real handguns into Canada (because...well...you know, they have arthritis and hypertension and may die from COVID while in detention)?

Alleged gas-tank gun smuggler set freed due to COVID-19 risks

Poor woman, she might die from COVID if she were to remain incarcerated...notwithstanding had she been successful in smuggling the weapons into Canada, there would have been more illegal handguns in the streets, like the illegal handgun used by the 2018 Toronto Danforth shooter, etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2020)

Well I can't blame CBSA for that, I am sure all the officers involved in nabbing her are utterly pissed. I will give kudoes to CBSA in releasing embarrassing email in a ATIP my friend actioned on them in regards to a seizure of one of his shipments. CBSA for all of their faults at least seems to honour the spirit of the Access to Information Act, unlike the RCMP who have a FU attitude to it.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2020)

After nineteen months in custody, despite not being convicted of anything, she was permitted to post bail - nineteen months in custody despite having no priors.

Not quite the "criminals running rampant" story the Sun (or its readers (note to self: Never read the comments)) would like to project.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/firearm-trafficking-ring-dismantled-after-police-thwart-gas-tank-gun-smuggler-at-peace-bridge-1.4167035


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Don't blame the CBSA.  The article states that these were listed as prohibited by the RCMP in the FRT.  The CBSA had no choice but to seize them.



That's fair, we all know the games the RCMP are playing with the FRT. But to call these weapons and firearms?  CBSA is either completely confused as to the nature of what these actually are or they're misleading the public on purpose to make it appear that they confiscated a bunch of illegal guns that shoot bullets.



> Quick facts
> -Firearms and weapons are high-risk commodities and their interdiction is a CBSA enforcement priority.
> -The CBSA and its domestic and international law enforcement partners work together to prevent illegal firearms and weapons from reaching our communities.





> Quotes
> “I am proud of my team as they continue to make these important interceptions of firearms to keep them off our streets. The CBSA is committed to detecting and stopping gun smuggling into Canada and to keeping our communities safe. The GTA Region Firearms Interdiction Team will continue to verify all firearms coming into Toronto Pearson, resulting in seizures that will disrupt dangerous criminal networks.”
> -  Lisa Janes, Regional Director General, Greater Toronto Area Region, Canada Border Services Agency


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> After nineteen months in custody, despite not being convicted of anything, she was permitted to post bail - nineteen months in custody despite having no priors.
> 
> Not quite the "criminals running rampant" story the Sun (or its readers (note to self: Never read the comments)) would like to project.
> 
> https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/firearm-trafficking-ring-dismantled-after-police-thwart-gas-tank-gun-smuggler-at-peace-bridge-1.4167035



Follow-on discussion about why she was held for so long pre-trial would indeed be interesting, but her lawyer didn’t make any mention of why she was still in custody for as long as she was...one would think there’d be talk of injustice/etc. if there wasn’t a reason. 

Point being, the Crown appeared to have a case for the detention up until COVID-related health concern became an issue.   Had she succeeded, those smuggled handguns would have most likely made it onto the street.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's fair, we all know the games the RCMP are playing with the FRT. But to call these weapons and firearms?  CBSA is either completely confused as to the nature of what these actually are or they're misleading the public on purpose to make it appear that they confiscated a bunch of illegal guns that shoot bullets.



If the FRT classes them as firearms, then they are deemed to be firearms.  So, that's not misleading the public.  If someone wants to dispute that, the FRT and those populating/amending it are the issue here. 

Maybe the RCMP Firearms Lab will re-examine them and reverse the decision? Just like what's happened with over 300 previously non-restricted firearms which are now retroactively prohibited in the FRT since May 1st?


----------



## FJAG (10 Jun 2020)

I've found this little piece of technology on the internet. It's described as a Kimar 314 Model Olympic 6mm Blank Firing Revolver (lists at US$42.75) At this particular site it's out of stock (probably just sold their last 65  ;D) 

This one looks identical but there are other sites where the item looks identical but has slightly different markings.

https://www.wholesaleblades.com/Kimar-314-Model-Olympic-6MM-Blank-Firing-Revolver_p_68233.html

This one has different markings:






https://www.tcnvault.com/blankfiringguns/kimar-model-314-blank-firing-revolver

It's basically advertised everywhere as a blank firing item useful as a starter pistol.

I really have no idea as to whether or not this thing is convertible to becoming capable of firing live rounds but that's always one thing that seems to crank the RCMP's gourd.

To put it politely, CBSA must be very hard up to claim a victory right now if it puts out a press release that is so misleading. Someone there needs a warm hug and a pat on their tummy (right after a smack upside the head).

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If the FRT classes them as firearms, then they are deemed to be firearms.  So, that's not misleading the public.  If someone wants to dispute that, the FRT and those populating/amending it are the issue here.
> 
> Maybe the RCMP Firearms Lab will re-examine them and reverse the decision? Just like what's happened with over 300 previously non-restricted firearms which are now retroactively prohibited in the FRT since May 1st?



The spirit of what Mrs Lisa Janes posted about firearms and the GOC webpage still feels very misleading if it's directed at the public. We could slap an FRT on a banana and it would be officially considered a firearm, but it's a banana. Know what I mean? 

Yea it's pretty interesting how the RCMP lab can keep changing the FRT classification of guns even weeks after the OIC.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2020)

[quote author=FJAG]

I really have no idea as to whether or not this thing is convertible to becoming capable of firing live rounds but that's always one thing that seems to crank the RCMP's gourd.
[/quote]

I don't think they would have enough pressure inside the cylinder and barrel to build up the pressure. You'd need to machine a new cylinder and barrel.

You could actually take a box of 9mm hollow-point bullets, drop them in a camp fire and stand 4 feet away. It'll be loud but if you get hit with a bullet it's probably not even going to break skin.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> After nineteen months in custody, despite not being convicted of anything, she was permitted to post bail - nineteen months in custody despite having no priors.
> 
> Not quite the "criminals running rampant" story the Sun (or its readers (note to self: Never read the comments)) would like to project.


Maybe it was to keep her alive?


----------



## FJAG (10 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I don't think they would have enough pressure inside the cylinder and barrel to build up the pressure. You'd need to machine a new cylinder and barrel.
> 
> You could actually take a box of 9mm hollow-point bullets, drop them in a camp fire and stand 4 feet away. It'll be loud but if you get hit with a bullet it's probably not even going to break skin.



Here's an article on convertibility. Note that the only Kimar mentioned is not convertible because it's manufactured from a zinc-alloy.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/G-Issue-briefs/SAS-IB10-From-Replica-to-Real.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Here's an article on convertibility. Note that the only Kimar mentioned is not convertible because it's manufactured from a zinc-alloy.
> 
> http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/G-Issue-briefs/SAS-IB10-From-Replica-to-Real.pdf
> 
> :cheers:



Damn, thanks for digging that up. Reading that article I still find it really surprising. The starter pistols that I've seen that aren't cheap plastic have been really weak metal and would still blow apart. Cylinders too dinky and barrels would need drilled out (or heavily modified). Reading the article and conclusion I guess a lot depends on the material and model.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I really have no idea as to whether or not this thing is convertible to becoming capable of firing live rounds but that's always one thing that seems to crank the RCMP's gourd.



These $42 USD "firearms" can still be used to threaten or intimidate.  Using a firearm in the commission of an offence,  even a replica or imitation one, ist verboten (CCC s 85).  They may even be able to fire a live round.... once... and that may be enough.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Someone there needs a warm hug and a pat on their tummy (right after a smack upside the head).



That doesn't only apply to the CBSA.


----------



## Brash (10 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> These $42 USD "firearms" can still be used to threaten or intimidate.  Using a firearm in the commission of an offence,  even a replica or imitation one, ist verboten (CCC s 85).  They may even be able to fire a live round.... once... and that may be enough.



Committing an offense is in an of itself, already illegal.
I'm going to go out on a limb with the thought that criminals might not care about the nuance of committing an offense while they're illegally committing an offense.

A black wooden carving could be used into an imitation firearm and likewise used to intimidate.
Given some effort in carving they also might be able to fire a live round once.
I hope you're not suggesting we similarly celebrate a CBSA seizure of softwood lumber and black paint.  

Concretely, as a taxpayer I would prefer that our law enforcement focus on things that are *standalone* crimes of a significant nature.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Concretely, as a taxpayer I would prefer that our law enforcement focus on things that are *standalone* crimes of a significant nature.



You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment. 

What would you liked to have seen them do?


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2020)

Not issue a press release.  Doing their job at the established level and seizing $3k of contraband...

If you want to issue a press release, try cleaning up organized crime ground side at one of Canada's major airports.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not issue a press release.



What I should have more clearly asked was "What would you have liked to have seen the BSOs do?" in response to brashendaevours.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.
> 
> What would you liked to have seen them do?



Same as dapaterson. The CBSA was within their rights (and duties) to seize this shipment. The press release, however, is overwrought and makes it sound as if a shipment of nuclear weapons was intercepted and almost misrepresents what occurred (you have filled in the blanks that many of, who are pretty expert in firearms knowledge in our own right, could not figure out on our own based only on the infirmation in the press release). Would it have killed the CBSA to either not issue a press release in this case or to be more truthful and state that they intercepted a shipment of starter pistols that were illegally modified?  I don’t blame the line CBSA agent- they do not write press releases.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.



Shoot somebody with a .22 short in an oversized bore and they will likely give you a thrashing like you never had before.  Is there an under 500fps defence available here?  Note that such a pistol is only prohibited by having a short barrel, not because it is painted black.  I own one such pistol and I can sell it to anyone else owning a gun in the class or give it to a kid, grandfathering them as an owner of a gun in the class.  This class of prohibited is particularly stupid and most of the guns are 100 years old.  It is almost as stupid as the .32 and .25 prohibited class.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The press release, however, is overwrought and makes it sound as if a shipment of nuclear weapons was intercepted and almost misrepresents what occurred (you have filled in the blanks that many of, who are pretty expert in firearms knowledge in our own right, could not figure out on our own based only on the infirmation in the press release). Would it have killed the CBSA to either not issue a press release in this case or to be more truthful and state that they intercepted a shipment of starter pistols that were illegally modified?



As I said earlier, on a normal day, this is a good seizure.  I see no problem with publicizing it.  I'm not defending the press release, per se, however, i agree the wording could've been much better.

When I was at NDHQ, I had a draft Briefing Note I'd written returned to me by a senior officer with the direction of "I want it to say_ this_", when "_this_" was a clear misrepresentation meant to fulfill a particular agenda.  

Remember the anti-gun government we are ruled by today and the climate of gun fear they perpetuate.  That may have help craft the wording of the press release particularly if the Minister's office was involved. Everybody has a boss, even a CBSA Director.



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Shoot somebody with a .22 short in an oversized bore and they will likely give you a thrashing like you never had before.  Is there an under 500fps defence available here?  Note that such a pistol is only prohibited by having a short barrel, not because it is painted black.  I own one such pistol and I can sell it to anyone else owning a gun in the class or give it to a kid, grandfathering them as an owner of a gun in the class.  This class of prohibited is particularly stupid and most of the guns are 100 years old.  It is almost as stupid as the .32 and .25 prohibited class.



No argument here.  But for the BSOs staring at a box of revolvers who has only the FRT entry to determine their legality, they have to follow the FRT and let the appeals process and/or the courts sort it out later.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2020)

We're these pistols actually modified to shoot bullets when they were confiscated?


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We're these pistols actually modified to shoot bullets when they were confiscated?


The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.



You see now, THAT's the type of information that would be of some value to the reader of this type of notice.

I just used my GCKey to look at the FRT and then found I had to jump through another hoop to sign up for access to the FRT. I said screw it. I still have no idea what the FRT says with respect to this item. The website strikes me as more a Police investigative tool to track who accesses the system for information than a system to distribute information to the public.

A month ago I was a staunch supporter of the RCMP and reasonable gun control measures. Thanks to JT and the bureaucracy behind all of this I'm starting to become as paranoid as some of the folks that actually own these types of firearms.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> A month ago I was a staunch supporter of the RCMP and reasonable gun control measures. Thanks to JT and the bureaucracy behind all of this I'm starting to become as paranoid as some of the folks that actually own these types of firearms.



You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I just used my GCKey to look at the FRT and then found I had to jump through another hoop to sign up for access to the FRT. I said screw it. I still have no idea what the FRT says with respect to this item. The website strikes me as more a Police investigative tool to track who accesses the system for information than a system to distribute information to the public.



You can download a publicly available FRT in PDF (it's about 170 MB) from the RCMP website.  It's about three weeks out-of-date, so I wouldn't trust it to determine if the gun you want to take shooting this afternoon was deemed prohibited this morning.



			
				CloudCover said:
			
		

> You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.



Some have suspected that the detail of the recent ban was fueled, in part by trolling online forums to see what inventive ways owners had found to work around the expected restrictions (i.e. banning AR uppers).  Our "Gun Porn" thread would be one target and i suspect "The Great Gun Control Debate" would be another.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jun 2020)

And I'm certain of it. Just saying....


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You can download a publicly available FRT in PDF (it's about 170 MB) from the RCMP website.  It's about three weeks out-of-date, so I wouldn't trust it to determine if the gun you want to take shooting this afternoon was deemed prohibited this morning.
> 
> Some have suspected that the detail of the recent ban was fueled, in part by trolling online forums to see what inventive ways owners had found to work around the expected restrictions (i.e. banning AR uppers).  Our "Gun Porn" thread would be one target and i suspect "The Great Gun Control Debate" would be another.



They don't need to troll around forums. The RCMP firearms lab is full of very knowledgeable and competent people, I know someone who works there and I almost got a job there myself (turned it down for a better paying job were I want to live). Most (all?) firearms lab people are gun nuts, its basically a requirement for the job otherwise you wouldn't be able to gain the knowledge required to become a subject matter expert in the first place as it isn't like you can really go to school for it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2020)

I'm torn between getting probably $600 for my $2500 AR or destroying it which I believe I'm legally allowed to do and don't see anything about having to prove its destroyed.


----------



## FJAG (11 Jun 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> You mean like maybe they downloaded the entire gun porn thread and have a production order ready for a list of usernames, IP addresses, email addresses etc.



Nothing like that really. I actually just renewed my Firearms licence and all my perfectly inoffensive firearms were registered under the old regime.

I'm just frustrated with what I see as a terribly unfair piece of executive action that has the potential to turn thousands of perfectly law abiding citizens into criminals for no demonstrable crime prevention purpose. I'm not even sure it's a vote getter in the GTA. Even that hotbed of sideways thought is smart enough to see through this. This is all so unnecessary and on top of everything else it's going to cost the average taxpayer money to satisfy JT's little vanity project.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Eaglelord17 (11 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm torn between getting probably $600 for my $2500 AR or destroying it which I believe I'm legally allowed to do and don't see anything about having to prove its destroyed.



You are legally allowed to destroy it, its your property. You just have to get it verified as destroyed by a person qualified to verify it. Otherwise you would get a bunch of people 'deactivating' them and really not.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.



On the contrary, The firearms lab has in the past help shipments for 6 months and then deemed something prohib because it can "easily be modified to be full-auto" yet them won't release how they came to that conclusion or show how it's done. So 6 months, a workshop with every tool you could want, experts on firearms, yes they can make anything do anything. With that setup I can make a lee-Enfield "Full-auto". So seizing something because an illegal act might be performed on them is definitely a slippery slope. If you want more fun, just look at CBSA knife classifications and god forbid you bring a blowgun across the border. Speaking of which we better ban PVC/copper piping in case someone makes a prohibited weapons from them as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2020)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You are legally allowed to destroy it, its your property. You just have to get it verified as destroyed by a person qualified to verify it. Otherwise you would get a bunch of people 'deactivating' them and really not.



Can I bug you for a reference for that? I didn't see a requirement for proof of destruction.


----------



## Haggis (11 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can I bug you for a reference for that? I didn't see a requirement for proof of destruction.


  This is the  Canadian Firearms Registry Deactivation Guidelines.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This is the  Canadian Firearms Registry Deactivation Guidelines.


Shoot, thanks. I was hoping deactivation and destroying the gun were different.


----------



## Brash (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> You're missing the point. The BSOs were called (article doesn't say by whom) to verify a shipment.  They found "anomalies with the Customs declaration" (omissions/misrepresentation.... who knows?)  So, they attempted to verify the declaration and found items deemed to be prohibited firearms in the FRT. (According to the publicly available FRT entry (FRN 122910-1) these firearms were manufactured in 6mm as blank guns and later modified to fire .22 short.) I would say that importing prohibited firearms is a "standalone crime of a significant nature".  They acted as they should and seized the shipment.
> 
> What would you liked to have seen them do?



This isn't an either/or scenario, please do not misconstrue it as such.
They can seize these items as being improperly declared AND do something more substantial (in terms of public safety).

Given that THIS was the press release, it gives the appearance that this was their highest profile play of the week.
As I said before, shaking my head.


----------



## Brash (11 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The article doesn't say.  But they are prohibited in the FRT when/if modified so I would expect they were.



Could you share what page of the FRT you are referencing?


----------



## Haggis (12 Jun 2020)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Could you share what page of the FRT you are referencing?



Look up FRN 122910-1 in the publicly downloadable FRT.  I'm fairly certain that's the item in question.  The FRT is as user friendly as stereo instructions.


----------



## Brash (12 Jun 2020)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Look up FRN 122910-1 in the publicly downloadable FRT.  I'm fairly certain that's the item in question.  The FRT is as user friendly as stereo instructions.



Thank you for that.

I agree with your point on the FRT's usefulness/user experience. I have a top of the line PC with a 9th gen i7 processor and 32GB of RAM that simply struggles to open and search this document.
Someone needs to tell the RCMP that we have this thing nowadays called the internet. It's made up of these other things we like to call "resources", like HTML "documents" and "images".

The only way the FRT format could be worse, is if they uploaded static images of each page.
I guess we'll have to wait until FRT 2.0 for that.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2020)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> The only way the FRT format could be worse, is if they uploaded static images of each page.
> I guess we'll have to wait until FRT 2.0 for that.



Any FQDN that includes a subdomain of "blob" you know is going to be bad...


----------



## FJAG (12 Jun 2020)

Brashendeavours said:
			
		

> Thank you for that.
> 
> I agree with your point on the FRT's usefulness/user experience. I have a top of the line PC with a 9th gen i7 processor and 32GB of RAM that simply struggles to open and search this document.
> Someone needs to tell the RCMP that we have this thing nowadays called the internet. It's made up of these other things we like to call "resources", like HTML "documents" and "images".
> ...



I've got an i5 with 32 GB so not quite as good as yours but really quite good for everything except high end video games. Took me three times to try to get the pdf. Each time the progress bar would go to about 99% and then freeze up. On the last one left it for an extra five minutes and --tada--the thing actually popped up. 

At first I thought they ere using an 80286 processor as their download server, but I noticed with the document loaded, my whole system is crawling. The trouble is it hogs resources like crazy and everything slows to a crawl while it's up. (I cynically think its the RCMP's spider copying my hard-drive) Took forever for Task Manger to load so that I could see where the resources were going. Seems when I'm doing absolutely nothing the relevant Chrome page is eating up 50% of my processor, 1.6 GB of memory and 97% disk until finally...finally the document opened for reading. The moment you attempt to search, processor goes up to 96% and stays there for a minute or two as it gathers results.

Couldn't find FRN 122910-1 and all my searches for Kimar and model 314 and Olympic were in vain. Gave up after a half an hour.

I'm not sure if the guy that built their website should be fired or given a bonus for building exactly what they wanted i.e. a highly useless website. I would think some firearms lawyers should take a real-time video of this piece of crap in action to use as proof in court in the future that the website is unfit for purpose and no assistance to the public whatsoever in determining the usefulness to the general public as to whether or not their firearm complies or not.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jun 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've got an i5 with 32 GB so not quite as good as yours but really quite good for everything except high end video games. Took me three times to try to get the pdf. Each time the progress bar would go to about 99% and then freeze up. On the last one left it for an extra five minutes and --tada--the thing actually popped up.
> 
> At first I thought they ere using an 80286 processor as their download server, but I noticed with the document loaded, my whole system is crawling. The trouble is it hogs resources like crazy and everything slows to a crawl while it's up. (I cynically think its the RCMP's spider copying my hard-drive) Took forever for Task Manger to load so that I could see where the resources were going. Seems when I'm doing absolutely nothing the relevant Chrome page is eating up 50% of my processor, 1.6 GB of memory and 97% disk until finally...finally the document opened for reading. The moment you attempt to search, processor goes up to 96% and stays there for a minute or two as it gathers results.
> 
> ...



Weird considering we sent mankind to the stars using much less sophisticated computers (10,000 times larger) than what you're holding in your hand    :Tin-Foil-Hat:


My understanding is that the court ordered the RCMP to make the FRT more accessible and the RCMP ignored it for years. They finally gave in but in doing so made 3 different versions. One for them that's updated every day. One for business's that's updated ever week or two and one for the general public which gets updated every month or so.


----------



## FJAG (12 Jun 2020)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Weird considering we sent mankind to the stars using much less sophisticated computers (10,000 times larger) than what you're holding in your hand    :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the court ordered the RCMP to make the FRT more accessible and the RCMP ignored it for years. They finally gave in but in doing so made 3 different versions. One for them that's updated every day. One for business's that's updated ever week or two and one for the general public which gets updated every month or so.



Based on my experience, the RCMP is in contempt of court.  ;D

I guess it depends on what the definition of "more accessible" is. The old one must have been a humdinger.

 :cheers:


----------



## J.J (12 Jun 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ok, I’ll bite...what am I missing? The pictures look like a shipment of starter pistols to me.
> 
> Are they prohibited now, or is there another batch of actual firearms that were seized, but not pictured?



It looks like something was missing, an amended article saying the shipment was declared as starter pistols, but under the initial layer there were 45 revolvers.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-cbsa-recovers-65-handguns-in-storage-container?fbclid=IwAR29CG2S7oUSk3zH-aaIQGA0qx2ytJyATPHZ-LGqH-JJPj19L1il5AF06pM


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jun 2020)

Well it looks like CBSA shot themselves in the foot, had they provided a picture of the two types together and stated the model of the real revolvers, then people would believe them.


----------

