Combatting Illicit Firearms - A 2006 Canada and United States Overview

[iverglas]

Offered because it's interesting.

http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/prg/le/_fl/CombattingIllicitFirearms-en.pdf
(long gov doc, passages below constitute fair use/dealing)

The Canada-U.S. Firearms Trafficking Group was formed in 2003 to implement law enforcement initiatives that would help prevent and combat firearms trafficking - a shared concern that threatens the public safety of residents in Canada and the United States. This Group is one of eight working groups of the Cross Border Crime Forum, and is co-chaired by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canada Firearms Centre and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A joint Action Plan was developed that focused on awareness of our respective laws before crossing the border, appropriate information sharing using sophisticated new technologies, recognition of differences in our firearms laws that can be exploited by traffickers, and ongoing training for law enforcement officials. Most of these deliverables are also included in the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Action Plan between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

-- the security and prosperity partnership itself really being a subject for another thread/forum.

OVERVIEW

In Canada, the illicit firearms market is supplied primarily by either smuggled firearms or firearms stolen from private residences or commercial venues. By virtue of its proximity to Canada and differences between Canadian and American firearms laws, the United States is the primary source of firearms - particularly handguns - smuggled into Canada. In the case of the United States, the majority of illegal firearms originate from within the country, although occasionally firearms may be sourced from other countries such as Canada.

There are five primary methods used by criminals and their organizations to acquire firearms from sources in the United States for subsequent smuggling attempts into Canada. These methods are secondary markets (e.g., gun shows, flea markets, and private sales), thefts, straw purchasers 1, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) that are dealing illegally, and persons who purchase firearms with false identification.

A large volume of persons and goods legally moves across the Canada and United States border through designated ports of entry. Criminal entities may try to exploit this cross-border traffic to smuggle firearms and other weapons into Canada, utilizing a variety of conveyances that include private vehicles, aircraft, commercial vehicles, boats, and other means. In some instances, those conveyances are altered to include specially designed concealment locations.

Illegal firearms are also smuggled across the vast unmanned border areas by individuals carrying contraband items in backpacks and via all terrain vehicles and private vehicles. Criminals also sometimes use a small number of Native American/Aboriginal reserves and/or territories situated on or near the border to move illegal firearms from the United States to Canada and/or as storage locations for subsequent illegal distribution.

The actual number of firearms smuggled into Canada, or vice-versa, is unknown. What is known is that most firearms smuggling attempts involve single firearms, and that seizures of multiple firearms (more than two) primarily involve seizures of handguns.

A case study example:

In January 2003, ATF developed information relating to an employee of a FFL in the U.S., who had been dealing firearms without a license for a number of years. This individual had sold approximately 200 firearms, including machineguns, to a Canadian citizen who operated a long-haul truck across the international border.

The Canadian trucker had disposed of some of these firearms to gang members of the British Columbia area. The RCMP subsequently recovered these firearms at crime scenes. The Canadian smuggler was convicted of four separate felonies <i.e. in the U.S.> and was sentenced to 18 months incarceration. Additionally, this investigation resulted in ATF seizing assets totalling $98,200.

For anyone interested in a straightforward comparison of approaches in the two countries, and description of the cross-border cooperation on shared problems, it's an easy read.

[Wcross]

1. There are only two choices.

1) Ban all firearms from the face of the planet.
2) Impose a penalty so harsh for smuggling guns into Canada that it wouldn't be worth it.

I believe option #2 is the most viable.

[iverglas]

2. glad you enjoyed it

[Wcross]

3. I enjoyed it.

It points out that ONCE AGAIN, criminals are breaking the law. Make them pay a price if caught that makes the crime unattractive. Thirty years hard time tends to put a damper on the idea.

[iverglas]

4. have you considered

putting your resumé in? I'm sure the RCMP, CSIS, CFC, ATF et al. could use your obvious expertise.


Meanwhile: up here, we have a little thing called a constitution. It contains (as Part I), something called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Within that Charter, there is a provision that goes something like this:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

And then there's:

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

And the danged thing is, we actually believe in adhering to the Charter ... all of the Charter. And we know that nonsense laws like you propose would

(a) violate fundamental rights and freedoms without justification; and
(b) be an expensive waste of time (one reason why they would be unjustified).

I mean ... how's that death penalty thing working out?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. How would his proposal violate your constitution?

30 years for 200 plus "felonies" is somehow cruel and unusual? What is your proposal if his is so ridiculous? After all it's your country and your problem. How do you propose you Canadians deal with your problem. If you actually think that 30 years for these hundreds of crimes is unjustifiable then you have far greater problems than we know. Our death penalty seems to work about as well as your laws to stop illegal gun trafficking .

David

[iverglas]

7. Well ....

Since this one was actually charged, tried, convicted and sentenced in the USofA, maybe we should be talking about that. Maybe your legislators and prosecutors and courts should be doing just a little better job of dealing with gun runners and all of the people who facilitate them.


I, and progressive Canadians generally, oppose most mandatory minimum sentences. They are contrary to pretty much everything: the known facts about the effects of sentencing, fundamental rights, etc. etc.

But you'll be happy to hear that our present ultra-right-wing (by our standards) federal government is on your side.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2008/doc_32252.html

PROVISIONS TO COME INTO FORCE ON MAY 1, 2008
Tougher laws to address gun crimes

The Tackling Violent Crime Act provides for:

Higher mandatory prison sentences

* Five years for a first offence and seven years on a second or subsequent offence for eight specific offences (attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion) involving the actual use of firearms, when the offence is gang-related, or if a restricted or prohibited firearm such as a handgun is used.
* Three years on a first offence and five years on a second or subsequent offence for other serious firearm-related offences (firearm trafficking, possession for the purpose of firearm trafficking, firearm smuggling and illegal possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm with ammunition).

And none of this will have any effect on firearms trafficking, or the use of firearms in crime, but it might help the ultra-right-wing Conservative Party get re-elected if it can hold onto that 1/3 of the popular vote, from the same ignorant morons who voted for it last time.


Me, all I ask is that if someone wants to propose sentencing measures as a way of reducing crime, s/he have the courtesy to take a few courses in the subject matter, or at least read a couple of books, or maybe even just a few journal articles, first.

I've done all of the above, and I continue to do it on a regular basis. And I don't talk shop with uninformed amateurs.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. So your proposal is????

We'll be happy to consider it. Why wasn't the Canadian charged with the crimes in Canada or will he be when he is released from prison? What is my side anyway iverglas? Since you seem to know. I still think that a criminal who commits more than 200 felonies deserves more than 18 months, if that makes me a ultra right winger then you live in an alternate universe.


David

[iverglas]

11. I'm not disagreeing on that one

I still think that a criminal who commits more than 200 felonies deserves more than 18 months

I don't know the details of what they actually got convictions on. But firearms trafficking is, and should be treated as, a very serious offence. That does not mean that mandatory minimum sentences are appropriate or necessary, or useful or wise.

It's pretty hard to track the actual story down from the vignette in that document. ... Oh, okay, the Cdn was convicted of four felonies and got 18 months. It doesn't say what the US citizen offender got.

The Cdn will presumably be deported when he has served his sentence -- or may have got his sentence transferred to Canada. If there is evidence of offences in Canada, I expect he has been charged.

For comparison; how timely:

http://www.theobserver.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1067766

Bringing gun into Canada earns U.S. trucker one year sentence
Posted 4 hours ago

A North Carolina trucker who hauled his semi-automatic pistol into Canada earned a one-year jail sentence Tuesday in Sarnia court.

Cedric Taylor, 35, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon and attempting to bring the Desert Eagle nine-millimetre pistol into the country. Taylor had a U.S. permit for the gun, but Justice Mark Hornblower told him significant efforts are made at the border to keep out weapons.

Taylor has been in the Sarnia jail since his arrest at the Blue Water Bridge on Dec. 18, 2007.

He was hauling a load of facial tissues to Toronto when his truck was picked for a high-tech scan, which is capable of detecting smuggled goods. Nothing abnormal was spotted, but a search of the cab revealed the loaded gun inside an open duffle bag beside the driver’s seat.

Satisfied?

Will it deter anybody else? Doubt it.

For info: Ordinarily, time before sentence is credited two for one, because pre-trial detention is regarded as harder than post-sentence incarceration (no access to programs etc.) and to account for parole / mandatory remission that would otherwise have applied to the time.

Well here's a novel approach:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/06/08/5812986-cp.html

Some firearms dealers in British Columbia have taken advantage of movie production companies filming in various Canadian locations, says the newly declassified report on trends in gun trafficking and smuggling.

... "In this process, these dealers have exploited a loophole in the Canadian firearms legislation, which specifies that firearms must be registered as soon as practicable," says the November 2007 report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

"However, there is no exact time frame defined, allowing the dealers to circumvent the registration process and keep the firearms. Frequently, these firearms end up on the streets of Canada after being sold in illicit markets."

... In December 2006, a Burnaby, B.C., company with a licence to import guns for use in the film industry was busted for alleged illegal distribution of deadly submachine guns. And last year police traced two assault rifles used in a January 2007 shootout in Richmond, B.C., to another B.C. firm with a movie import licence.

... Sgt. Nathalie Deschenes <denying there is a "loophole"> noted that firms licensed to supply firearms to the movie industry are not allowed to sell or otherwise transfer these guns to any individual or business other than another movie supplier. "Any business who does otherwise is breaking the law," she said, adding, "We enforce the law as it is written."

Bits and bobs, hopefully of some interest.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. May deter some.

Cedric Taylor, 35, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon and attempting to bring the Desert Eagle nine-millimetre pistol into the country. Taylor had a U.S. permit for the gun, but Justice Mark Hornblower told him significant efforts are made at the border to keep out weapons.

He may have just been bringing the gun in because he carries it all over the US and thought he wouldn't get caught. His sentence won't deter the criminal making money on gun smuggling but it may deter the guy who just thinks he won't get caught. If he had gotten through with his gun it may have been stolen and used in another crime. I don't want to spend a year in jail anywhere. Canada is probably a good place to do it though if you have to.

David

[iverglas]

15. I couldn't quote the whole thing

Probably should just have mentioned: he was asked whether he had firearms and said No.

If he'd simply said Yes, they would have just sent him home. Because then he wouldn't have looked like he was trying to smuggle. Actually, I would think he should have been able to just turn it over and continue, the way I can if I say Yes when they ask me at Detroit whether I have oranges. (Yes, it's true, I may not take oranges grown in Florida back over the border into the US.)

One might think that his "woe is me, I'm an idiot who made a stupid mistake" is a little hard to swallow, but the thing was in an open duffle bag in his cab, so stupid may be the best explanation. Or stupid looked like a good defence in case he got caught intentionally smuggling to traffic ...

With a sentence of under 2 years, he goes to a provincial correctional institution instead of a federal penitentiary. (Sentences of "two years less a day" are very common for that reason.) I'm not quite up on what the calculations are these days -- basically it's 1/3 times 3: first 1/3 has to be served inside, eligibility for parole for second 1/3, third 1/3 is mandatory remission (release under supervision like parole) unless there is some qualifying reason not to release until end of term.

[maxidivine]

21. Not exactly a trafficker

"He was hauling a load of facial tissues to Toronto when his truck was picked for a high-tech scan, which is capable of detecting smuggled goods. Nothing abnormal was spotted, but a search of the cab revealed the loaded gun inside an open duffle bag beside the driver’s seat."

Looks and sounds like he ordinarily carries for protection, who knows why he went ahead and brought it with him when he entered Canada, possibly he had been on the road for some time and didn't think to get some storage accomodations on our side of the border.

"Desert Eagle nine-millimetre pistol"

Which one was it? A Desert Eagle or a nine millimeter? It cannot be both, although it could be a rebranded IMI/IWI Jericho 941, which Magnum Research, manufacturer of the Desert Eagle, imports and sells as the "Baby Eagle". The only similiarity is that they both have a rearwards angle beneath the muzzle.

[krispos42]

17. This actually might help

The smugglers have to work out a system, a method, an organized plan including logistics, to smuggle firearms across the border. When the smugglers get tossed in the jug for a while, not only are they out of action but so is the system they've created.

And most people that commit robbery and the like are career criminals that do it over and over and over again until caught. It's a way of life. If they're in jail serving time for previous offenses, they're also not committing robberies.

We had good results with the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws that passed in the 90's. They essentially warehoused career criminals, which did a lot to reduce crime.

Of course, the puritanical politicians in DC and the state capitols can't get their heads out of there asses and say "Hey, maybe we have too many laws, let's legalize pot", but maybe that's changing.

[maxidivine]

20. Yep, prison time for felonies is unconstitutional :eyes:

:eyes:

If you want to stop people from bringing guns into canada, why not go ahead and make it a less worthwhile proposition? If people are facing 30 years without parole, then it stands to reason they will be less excited about getting a gun illegally, and in turn the traffickers would lose significant business. Seems like a sound idea to me.

[iverglas]

22. yes, you do say some amazingly stupid things, don't you?

Or were you pretending to think that someone else had said that?

[iverglas]

26. of course, resurrecting a thread always provides opportunities

to memorialize the unresurrectable.



RIP, maxidivine!

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Here's part of the problem.

The Canadian smuggler was convicted of four separate felonies <i.e. in the U.S.> and was sentenced to 18 months incarceration. Additionally, this investigation resulted in ATF seizing assets totalling $98,200.


18 months for 200 firearms including machine guns. Firearms that were found at crime scenes. Why wasn't this man charged as an accessory to those crimes? That is simply ridiculous.


David

[pipoman]

8. I thought the same thing at first,

now I am wondering if the individual charges may be coming, after all they are going to know right where he is at for 18 months, they haven't released him yet. There is also the question of if the Canadian violations might be prosecuted resulting in more time in Canada? Maybe iverglas would tell us what might be prosecuted and what the likely punishment would be in her opinion?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Source of confusion.

Iverglas,

This is what confused me. The Canadian smuggler was convicted of four separate felonies <i.e. in the U.S.> and was sentenced to 18 months incarceration. i.e. is often misused as for example. I should have known you wouldn't misuse it in that way. I didn't know if you were saying that these would have been felonies if they were in the US, does felony apply in Canada or is their any phrase. The multiple agencies also make it confusing. I don't think you wrote this part though so I can't blame you for it. Sorry for the confusion though. Will the criminal be charged in Canada when his sentence is complete in the US? Why was he charged in the US first instead of Canada? How much time did the FFL holder get in prison?

David

[iverglas]

12. sorry, it was perhaps too concise

I knew the charges and conviction and sentence occurred in the US, because there is no such thing as a felony in Canada. Mind you, an ignorant journalist could use the term, like they call Canadian lawyers "attorneys" and such, but that one would be pretty far out.

So: The Canadian smuggler was convicted of four separate felonies -- that is, he was convicted in the U.S. -- and was sentenced to 18 months incarceration.

I assume he was charged in the US because that's where he was when he was caught -- possibly in the course of a transaction with the trafficker there. It might be that when the report was written (2006) the US citizen's case wasn't completed yet. Whether the Cdn will be / has been charged here would depend on whether there was actual evidence of what he was doing on this side of the border. If there is, I'd certainly think he will be / was charged.

You have somebody else we're waiting for, you know. James Kopp. He was extradited from France (on assurances the death penalty would not be sought) for the murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian. If the state where he is in prison in the US ever gets tired of him, he's wanted for the attempted murder of a couple of doctors up here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp

I did try googling ... for trucker guns and for the amount of money mentioned ... but there's just a bit too much to sift through. Found those other ones along the way, though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Thanks for the explanation.

The reference to the RCMP and the crimes in Canada coupled with the often misused i.e. made it a little confusing. So what are "felonies" in Canada? I'm glad we agree on the sentence though. I don't know what it should be but 18 months is just silly. I think I saw a story on James Kopp maybe on Dominick Dunne's Power, Privilege and Justice. I watch a heap of those crime and law shows more the real ones than the fiction. The First 48 on homicide detectives is really good if you ever get a chance to see it. I actually thought about going to law school when my wife finishes her PHD but I am really good at my job and I get to help people who really need it. I love learning about the law though. Maybe one day after I retire from the Fire Dept. That's just 16 years away. I'll probably just fish though, there are probably enough lawyers out there.

David

[iverglas]

16. offences / sentences

So you have the sentencing arrangements down pat; now for offences.

Two varieties that correspond, formally, to misdemeanour and felony, respectively.

Offence punishable on summary conviction.

- no preliminary hearing
- no jury trial
- max sentences anything up to 2 years, depending on the offence (may be 6 months, 2 years ...)

Indictable offence

- preliminary hearing
- trial by judge and jury or judge alone, at accused's option
- max sentences up to life

Preliminary hearing: roughly corresponds to grand jury, in terms of purpose. But it is a public hearing before a judge, to determine whether the prosecution has the evidence to make out a case. It's often waived by the accused. The accused doesn't have to present any evidence or testify, but may.

Sentences: offences fall into categories with max sentences of, I'm doing it from memory, two, five, seven, ten, fourteen years, life.

For categories of murder, there are special rules about parole eligibility. Ordinarily, it's after 10 years for a life sentence. The sentencing judge can specify a longer time before eligibility. There is still the faint hope clause: the person sentenced can apply after a shorter time to be allowed to apply for parole at or after the 10-year mark. It isn't usually granted.

And there's an illustration of the problem with mandatory minimums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Latimer

R. v. Latimer <2001> 1 S.C.R. 3, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Mr. Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court also ruled that Mr. Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the Court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.

That's "severely disabled, in constant pain, about to undergo another serious of painful surgeries, unable to communicate" daughter.

The first jury, as I recall, had pitched a fit when it learned that sentence was automatic once they convicted and they would have no input in terms of recommending clemency. Watching too much yankee teevee, I guess.

But it shows the problems with not being able to tailor sentence to offender. Latimer was not a danger to the community or anyone in it. Allowing him to serve more of his sentence in the community would not have brought the administration of justice into disrepute or been an incentive for anybody else to commit similar crimes.


I wouldn't go to law school. I might take an undergrad course or two in something like legal history or current legal issues or some such, just for interest and mind expansion, in case you want my opinion. ;)

[krispos42]

18. And what is a Canadian lawyer called?

Barrister? Counseler?

<insert lawyer joke here> :-)

[iverglas]

19. lawyer

hahaha.

Barrister and solicitor, in most provinces. Counsel, not counsellor, in address. Advocate, in Quebec.

Ma'am will do, for moi.

[Longtooth]

23. Guess we need two walls.

One on the southern boarder and one on the northern. Wonder how much Canada will be willing to contribute to it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. About as much as Mexico.

Although with our economy in the crapper they may be willing to pull out of NAFTA.

David

[iverglas]

25. okay -- WHO DUNNIT?

Have to resurrect this ancient thread in order not to hijack someone else's.

Who paid for my star??

Just because I was too damned lazy to go figure out paypal all over again ...

If it's meant to be my bride price ... well, it's a start.