• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Improbable but entertaining scenario....

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Can't happen, the Canadians had all their handguns taken away.

wrong canadians can in fact possess handguns, generally most canadian citizens can only possess restricted handguns (a barrel of 4.1 inches or longer) where as prohibited handguns cannot be possessed except by licenses (which are rarely issued) these have lengths under 4 inches. I know of a man from British Columbia who comes to GSSF shooting meets, he fires glock 17 in the shoots.

also CPLs (known as ATC-authorization to carry) CAN be issued, but very rarely are.

Canada isn't totally like UK or Australia, but you wouldn't like it either.
 

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
well lets change it a little, lets say he points a gun at you and before he fires you draw and fire. who's juristiction is this and what's likely to happen?

This type of scenario came up in my naval training, albeit with a slightly more plausible situation: Armed guard on board ship returns fire against a terrorist, while alongside in a foreign port, where the assailant is on the dockside. In this case we retained jurisdiction over our guard and any subsequent investigation/trial. Any extradition attempt would fail regardless of any treaty with the host nation.

If our guard stepped ashore and returned fire, then the host nation had jurisdiction. If he shot from the gangway, he was in legal limbo. In these cases he'd need to get his butt back on board before he could be arrested, and then the host nation would need to apply for extradition.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
Heck, let's spice it up some more, by moving it to Derby Line, Vermont.

You're enjoying a nice day, and stop in at the Haskell Free Library to admire the architecture. Behind you, an argument breaks out. While trying to avoid the unpleasantries, you accidentally step on a toe that belongs to someone who is part of the fight.

You find yourself punched, knocked across the room, kersplat on your backside, except now you're in Canada and the other guy is coming at you with a knife, while you draw the pistol that you were legally carrying in America just seconds earlier.

Now what, legal beagles?

:lol:
 
Last edited:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Heck, let's spice it up some more, by moving it to Derby Line, Vermont.

You're enjoying a nice day, and stop in at the Haskell Free Library to admire the architecture. Behind you, an argument breaks out. While trying to avoid the unpleasantries, you accidentally step on a toe that belongs to someone who is part of the fight.

You find yourself punched, knocked across the room, kersplat on your backside, except now you're in Canada and the other guy is coming at you with a knife, while you draw the pistol that you were legally carrying in America just seconds earlier.

Now what, legal beagles?

:lol:

Flee to mexico

I suppose you're now in possession of a prohibited weapon without government approval in Canada, good news, Canadian law allows for self defense of yourself from deadly attack (Canada Criminal Code, Title 3.1 section 34) bad news, Canadian crown prosecutors are not above charging someone for "careless use of a firearm" for self defense. now here comes the fun part, the part where our treaty with Canada states in Article 8 that
The determination that extradition should or should not be granted shall be made in accordance with the law of the requested State and the person whose extradition is sought shall have the right to use all remedies and recourses provided by such law.

Now US Law establishes a procedure for extradition. which means the secretary of state makes the final determination.

So if you shoot, in canada, at a canadian national, I'd first make it back to the United States side of the building and inform local police. you will likely be arrested and held in Vermont. the Canucks will likely file for extradition in accordance with the treaty. now you'll first have a court hearing to determine if you are extradictable. how do they determine this? glad you asked because the US Department of Justice has the accepted criteria here on their website! look at this

Offense Charged: The crime with which the fugitive has been charged or of which he or she has been convicted. Some extradition treaties limit extradition to offenses specified in the treaty. The more recent treaties allow extradition in any case where the conduct is criminal and punishable as a felony in both countries. In either event, OIA must know the offense to determine whether an individual is extraditable.

Since possession of a pistol in public is not a felony in the part of the United States you were in, that may save you from that charge, so you may only be extradicted for the aggravated assault/homicide, now you only have to work on defending yourself from the charge relating to the use of force itself, which should be much easier then gun charges... but it's canada so be careful...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Oh, the library-knife scenario is too easy. That Canadian national extradited you to Canada in violation of treaties when he knocked you across the border. Then, he launched a violent attack from a neighboring country, using US territory as a staging area. And, since he knocked you across the border, he is in violation of Canada's firearms importation laws. Probably a tax violation, too. :)
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Oh, the library-knife scenario is too easy. That Canadian national [strike]extradited[/strike] smuggled you into Canada in violation of [strike]treaties[/strike] Canadian immigration laws when he knocked you across the border. Then, he launched a [strike]violent attack from a neighboring country[/strike] international terrorist attack, using US territory as a staging area. And, since he knocked you across the border, he is in violation of Canada's firearms importation laws. Probably a tax violation, too. :)

FIFY.

And here I always thought you kept an eye on the details. ;)


stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Who knew! Canada has immigration laws? Now that the NHL is likely a no show for 2012-2013 cross border incidents may become for prevalent.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
OK lets say you're OCing and minding your own business in peace park in Blaine WA which literally sits on the border with canada, it's like this open sports type field, and there's this ditch that marks the border and on the otherside of the ditch is a residential neighborhood in BC. so you're on the Washington side OCing lawfully and lets say an angry or drunk canadian shows up with a gun, and starts shooting across the border, at you. so you hit the deck draw your firearm and return fire. well lets change it a little, lets say he points a gun at you and before he fires you draw and fire. who's juristiction is this and what's likely to happen?

There's one aspect of that that nobody has touched on yet. It's illegal under U.S. law for a private citizen to go fight in someone else's war without U.S. government approval, or to start their own war without Congressional permission. There's also the Geneva Conventions to consider, particularly the parts about illegal combatants.

Depending on how such a cross-border altercation is handled by the federal governments on both sides, it might be legal to simply shoot the participants the moment they are apprehended. No need for a trial, since they were caught in the act out of uniform.

But ultimately the long gun will defeat the handgun at any range beyond 50 yards.

Depends on the handgun, depends on the rifle. With the right handgun or the wrong rifle, you might get different results at that range.

LIBERTY%203.jpg

henry_survival.jpg
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
It's amazing that you all get the obvious question so wrong.

You are under the jurisdiction of the blue helmet UN storm troopers, your trial will be at the international criminal court, The Hague.

That is all. :monkey
 

Cremator75

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
392
Location
Beaverton, Oregon, USA
What sucks for the people that live in that neighborhood is they have to go through a border crossing to take their kids to the playground. It's just sitting there taunting them. Major inconvenience.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
LOL, good responses on the Canadian scenario. The U.S. doesn't have a good history there, though. Just ask Marc Emery.

What sucks for the people that live in that neighborhood is they have to go through a border crossing to take their kids to the playground. It's just sitting there taunting them. Major inconvenience.

That's the reality of life along the border. Both borders, northern and southern.

Sadly, the immigration furor ignores the fact that people living in such areas now have to deal with their own version of an iron curtain, when historically and culturally crossing the street from Stanstead to Derby Line, or Blaine to White Rock, or Juarez to El Paso was no different than crossing the street from Texarkana Texas to Texarkana Arkansas.

There's no good reason why it should be different today.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
LOL, good responses on the Canadian scenario. The U.S. doesn't have a good history there, though. Just ask Marc Emery.



That's the reality of life along the border. Both borders, northern and southern.

Sadly, the immigration furor ignores the fact that people living in such areas now have to deal with their own version of an iron curtain, when historically and culturally crossing the street from Stanstead to Derby Line, or Blaine to White Rock, or Juarez to El Paso was no different than crossing the street from Texarkana Texas to Texarkana Arkansas.

There's no good reason why it should be different today.

well I once google earthed the US-Canadian border, take a look on google earth, google "Coutts, AB" it should take you to I-15 crosses the border, then look out east, you'll see several maintained roads that cross the border with no station, and many range roads that connect farm fields on both sides to the same road straddling the border. I always wondered if people freely cross and no one cares. also I've read that canadians can enter peace park from canada, but can't leave the park without talking to customs. I'm not 100% sure of this, my only cites are some blogs and forums. never looked into the legal side.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
When I was a kid we'd go camping at Ross Lake sometimes, we took a dirt/gravel road through the woods from the Canadian side to get to the U.S. side to camp. No border but a white stripe on the rd. in the middle of the woods.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
Mayor McGinn wants to know why you would even take a gun into a park with children present, and Chris Hanson and I want to know why you are hanging around a park watching children play.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Mayor McGinn wants to know why you would even take a gun into a park with children present, and Chris Hanson and I want to know why you are hanging around a park watching children play.
Easy, to protect the kids from McGinn's lackadaisical approach to child safety in a public park. I must watch those kids to document the event, for civil liability purposes, when they injure themselves on that highly dangerous city play ground equipment. I'm a socially responsible member of our village.

By the way, what are you talking about?
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Easy, to protect the kids from McGinn's lackadaisical approach to child safety in a public park. I must watch those kids to document the event, for civil liability purposes, when they injure themselves on that highly dangerous city play ground equipment. I'm a socially responsible member of our village.

By the way, what are you talking about?

Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle advocated for and got passed an ordinance to trespass anyone carrying a firearm from city parks in order to test out the state preemption in court. Well after a scandal involving nickels another liberal named Mike McGinn was elected mayor of Seattle. And McGinn continued to support this ordinance despite an AGO opinion that the preemption law made it illegal. So McGinn was saying it was for the children and they were only protecting areas where children may be present. The ordinance was tossed out in court and the city had to stop enforcing it
 
Top