NationStates Jolt Archive

CALGARY - Calgary police have charged a man with 63 weapons offences after seizing an arsenal from a home, including part of an anti-tank missile launcher.

Police say during a search of the suspect's residence they discovered 22 firearms.

The weapons and related material include assault rifles, a rifle with a scope, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, a throwing star, a machete, a bayonet and various types of ammunition.

Police have charged John Sattler, 46, with possession of unlicensed weapons, possession of restricted/prohibited weapons, unsafe storage of firearms and other offences.

He also faces a charge of uttering a threat.

There is no immediate word on when Sattler is to appear in court.

What was this guy planning on doing? Hunting deers that drive tanks? Jesus!

Are machetes illegal in Canada?

Are machetes illegal in Canada?

No. They are gardening tools.

But you can't walk down the street waving a shovel either.

If he wasn't harming anyone with this armoury, how is he different from any other sort of collector?

No. They are gardening tools.

But you can't walk down the street waving a shovel either.

If he wasn't harming anyone with this armoury, how is he different from any other sort of collector?

Geee.... sawn off shotguns,silencers, and parts of a anti-tank rocket while having no license for them and also unproperly storing them.(A.k.a easy to fall into other people hands.) I think you know the answer to your own question.

a throwing star

Wut?

Geee.... sawn off shotguns,silencers, and parts of a anti-tank rocket while having no license for them and also unproperly storing them.(A.k.a easy to fall into other people hands.) I think you know the answer to your own question.

The type of object collected is not important if the objects are not causing harm or risk of harm to others. Improperly storing these weapons would be a potential risk to the community if all the weapons were stored improperly, in such a way that it made it easier for others to steal them. However, the fact is that he was simply charged with one count of improper storage for each firearms. This is because most law enforcement officials in Canada are unclear on what constitutes safe storage and so they charge the person just to be on the safe side.

From an article discussing gun storage in the Canadian context:

There are three common areas where a firearms charge can be laid. A firearm owner could be charged with a “firearm being used” offence, or a firearm “being transported” offence, or a firearm “being stored” offence.

Careless storage of a firearm is the most frequently laid charge. It is also one of the most confusing sections of the law.

Often the police lay this charge as a “catch all” charge when charging a person who, the officer thinks, has “done something wrong”.

When you read a news story, it frequently says the firearm owner has been charged with "unsafe storage" of a firearm. That is an error. There is no such charge in the Criminal Code.

http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/152/199/

Youre not really Texas till you threaten to secede for no reason, duh...


Posers, lol...

What stupid regulations in Canada.

Youre not really Texas till you threaten to secede for no reason, duh...


Posers, lol...

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.html

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.header.png

And the rest of Canada would let them go, if we could keep their oil.

I always end up with Alberta when I play risk. And I always lose. Connected? I think so.

they can join the US at anytime they wish.

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.html

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.header.png

And the rest of Canada would let them go, if we could keep their oil.

How bout we trade you Texas and you can give us Alberta? deal? lol

I always end up with Alberta when I play risk. And I always lose. Connected? I think so.

Shit, you should always go for South America, its the best continent in the game, Easiest to Defend, while still maintaining your options for offense...

The type of object collected is not important if the objects are not causing harm or risk of harm to others. Improperly storing these weapons would be a potential risk to the community if all the weapons were stored improperly, in such a way that it made it easier for others to steal them. However, the fact is that he was simply charged with one count of improper storage for each firearms. This is because most law enforcement officials in Canada are unclear on what constitutes safe storage and so they charge the person just to be on the safe side.

From an article discussing gun storage in the Canadian context:



http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/152/199/

O come on now. Couldn't you have parry with me for a little bit first like a cat does to a mouse?Fake a little bit, let the mouse see his hole in the wall and let him get close and then go for the kill? Not, o I don't know, crushing me(the mouse) with a sledge hammer?

Also I do know that assault rifles and sawn off shotguns are restricted/prohibited weapons because they are designed to kill humans. And here in Canada we don't have the whole second ammendent thing going on.

I mean it not like anyone would have a problem with this if he was a private weapon collector who had licenses for these weapons. But when was he planning on telling the rest of us he had assault weapons. In the nearest crowded shopping mall?

If he wasn't harming anyone with this armoury, how is he different from any other sort of collector?

possession of unlicensed weapons, possession of restricted/prohibited weapons

It was a licensing issue. Handguns are restricted, while Sawed-off Shot guns and Assault Rifles are prohibited firearms (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a3). And AFAIK you need special permission to have those.

And of course, this doesn't help.

He also faces a charge of uttering a threat.

So Alberta is the best part of Canada. That's good to know.

So Alberta is the best part of Canada. That's good to know.

You guys can have Alberta. Good knows they got enough wackos to fit right in with the deep south.

Those Alberta would probably always be the outsider of the group. The little kid jumping up and down. "See! We hate homosexuals also!" While wearing T-shirts that say "Fort Battleford!"

You guys can have Alberta. Good knows they got enough wackos to fit right in with the deep south.

Those Alberta would probably always be the outsider of the group. The little kid jumping up and down. "See! We hate homosexuals also!" While wearing T-shirts that say "Fort Battleford!"

Please. Canada is the part of America that the US didn't want. It should tell you something, that the Americans chose part of Mexico over you all.:tongue:

Please. Canada is the part of America that the US didn't want. It should tell you something, that the Americans chose part of Mexico over you all.:tongue:

*Waits for the typical response of "we kicked your ass in the war of 1812!".

Please. Canada is the part of America that the US didn't want. It should tell you something, that the Americans chose part of Mexico over you all.:tongue:

*Waits for the typical response of "we kicked your ass in the war of 1812!".

we kicked your ass in the war of 1812!

Please. Canada is the part of America that the US didn't want. It should tell you something, that the Americans chose part of Mexico over you all.:tongue:

What I used to wonder is why Amercia is North of America. Then I remember Americans are horrible at geo anyway.

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.html

http://www.freealberta.com/secession.header.png

And the rest of Canada would let them go, if we could keep their oil.

I think a lot of us aren't even interested in the oil anymore. Hell, some days I think about studying constitutional law just to figure out how to kick them out of Confederation.

I think a lot of us aren't even interested in the oil anymore. Hell, some days I think about studying constitutional law just to figure out how to kick them out of Confederation.

I could see it now. When the Alberta Liberation Group tries to break free. We'll call in the War Measure Act and thrown anyone who votes no for seperation into jail.

And yeah blame Quebec for making it harder to leave the country. Maybe we can do a two for one deal with the U.S? They get Alberta and Quebec and in return they finally addmit they lost the War of 1812. :p

I could see it now. When the Alberta Liberation Group tries to break free. We'll call in the War Measure Act and thrown anyone who votes no for seperation into jail.

And yeah blame Quebec for making it harder to leave the country. Maybe we can do a two for one deal with the U.S? They get Alberta and Quebec and in return they finally addmit they lost the War of 1812. :p

We didn't lose. Everyone got bored and went home.

If he wasn't harming anyone with this armoury, how is he different from any other sort of collector?Might be going out on a limb here, but unsafe storage?

What stupid regulations in Canada.

Yeah. How is one supposed to fight against the oppressive government without at least 10 antitank missiles and a FlAK?

I could see it now. When the Alberta Liberation Group tries to break free. We'll call in the War Measure Act and thrown anyone who votes no for seperation into jail.

And yeah blame Quebec for making it harder to leave the country. Maybe we can do a two for one deal with the U.S? They get Alberta and Quebec and in return they finally addmit they lost the War of 1812. :p
Some history for all to enjoy... (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=166)

It was a tie. The claim that the US lost is quite ridiculous, considering that it was the British Empire that ended up paying reparations...

It was a licensing issue. Handguns are restricted, while Sawed-off Shot guns and Assault Rifles are prohibited firearms (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a3). And AFAIK you need special permission to have those.

And of course, this doesn't help.

Right. Except for the particular nature of the things he collected, it was no different from any other collection, including the fact that it did not pose harm or a risk of harm to the community.

Which makes me wonder why we need the licenses in the first place.

Some history for all to enjoy... (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=166)

It was a tie. The claim that the US lost is quite ridiculous, considering that it was the British Empire that ended up paying reparations...

Status ante bellum - nobody lost, nobody won. Anybody claiming otherwise is a silly and a poopsmith. Some outside context however - Britain wasn't impressing american sailors because it wanted to engage in a pissing contest with america - it would have won so hard if it actually tried that it wouldn't be even slightly funny. Sailors were impressed into british service because of the threat that napoleon posed - Infact, once the US leadership wrote to britain asking them to stop, britain acceded to their request, but the US declared war before the reply got back. It's only logical that Britain would have paid some reparations because of this, but it would not be -because- of the war, for the simple reason that, what could america possibly do to make britain pay any money at the time?

So yeah, no winners, and no losers except us because of people that keep trying to claim one side won over the other.

If Alberta had existed back then, Canada would have totally won!

And yeah blame Quebec for making it harder to leave the country. Maybe we can do a two for one deal with the U.S? They get Alberta and Quebec and in return they finally addmit they lost the War of 1812. :p

The only losers of 1812 were the indigenous peoples.

The only losers of 1812 were the indigenous peoples.

Unfortunately that always seems to be the case.

What I used to wonder is why Amercia is North of America. Then I remember Americans are horrible at geo anyway.

No, its because its really a 500 years old templar conspiracy that will lead to America ruling both South America and Canada and Mexico.

No, its because its really a 500 years old templar conspiracy that will lead to America ruling both South America and Canada and Mexico.

In nomen of ordo of Templum miles militis EGO vadum iuguolo vos.

In nomen of ordo of Templum miles militis EGO vadum iuguolo vos.

Way to butcher, or should I say interfecere (YES! I finally get to use some fucking Latin), the Latin language.

Way to butcher, or should I say interfecere (YES! I finally get to use some fucking Latin), the Latin language.

lol its been over 15 years since Ive looked at Latin.
A java translator is the best your going to get from me.

lol its been over 15 years since Ive looked at Latin.
A java translator is the best your going to get from me.

and they suck so hard, I mean, this:


Deus servo rex

is what it gives you for "God Save the King"...

If you want us to even consider taking alberta, you'll have to take utah and tennessee! :p

If you want us to even consider taking alberta, you'll have to take utah and tennessee! :p

Hmm...But Memphis extends into Mississippi and Arkansas...Im not sure we're willing to let those parts go....

If you want us to even consider taking alberta, you'll have to take utah and tennessee! :p

No deal. But what if we took one of the Carolinas (your choice), and in addition to Alberta we gave you an annual truckload of poutine?

Some history for all to enjoy... (http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=166)

It was a tie. The claim that the US lost is quite ridiculous, considering that it was the British Empire that ended up paying reparations...


Status ante bellum - nobody lost, nobody won. Anybody claiming otherwise is a silly and a poopsmith. Some outside context however - Britain wasn't impressing american sailors because it wanted to engage in a pissing contest with america - it would have won so hard if it actually tried that it wouldn't be even slightly funny. Sailors were impressed into british service because of the threat that napoleon posed - Infact, once the US leadership wrote to britain asking them to stop, britain acceded to their request, but the US declared war before the reply got back. It's only logical that Britain would have paid some reparations because of this, but it would not be -because- of the war, for the simple reason that, what could america possibly do to make britain pay any money at the time?

So yeah, no winners, and no losers except us because of people that keep trying to claim one side won over the other.


The only losers of 1812 were the indigenous peoples.


O come on, the one time I want to have a pissing match over the war of 1812 you guys show up. Where were you guys in the other twenty 1812 threads? :p

O come on, the one time I want to have a pissing match over the war of 1812 you guys show up. Where were you guys in the other twenty 1812 threads? :p

Well....I suppose we could try it literally, :p

and they suck so hard, I mean, this:



is what it gives you for "God Save the King"...

Deus servo rex.
I god serve the king.

Deus servo rex.
I god serve the king.
Yeah, it should be:
Servet Regem Deus

Which is literally, "God save the King"

Well....I suppose we could try it literally, :p

Sure. And we can do it at the Canadian/U.S borader and the winner gets bragging rights while the loser has to jump off niagara falls.

Yeah, it should be:


Which is literally, "God save the King"

If I am king id rather have god serve me.

O come on, the one time I want to have a pissing match over the war of 1812 you guys show up. Where were you guys in the other twenty 1812 threads? :pInking.

http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=180
he was found guilty and punished.

Right. Except for the particular nature of the things he collected, it was no different from any other collection, including the fact that it did not pose harm or a risk of harm to the community.

Except it was illegal for him to collect those without a licence. Me collecting illegal drugs doesn't make possession of them okay, it's still illegal.

Since "A firearms licence shows that the licence holder has met certain public-safety criteria and is allowed to possess and use firearms." He didn't have that licence, he's not allowed to have those guns.

Which makes me wonder why we need the licenses in the first place.

IMHO that's irrelevant since we are debating need or lack therof of gun licences.


If he wasn't harming anyone with this armoury, how is he different from any other sort of collector?

Except it was illegal for him to collect those without a licence. Me collecting illegal drugs doesn't make possession of them okay, it's still illegal.

Since "A firearms licence shows that the licence holder has met certain public-safety criteria and is allowed to possess and use firearms." He didn't have that licence, he's not allowed to have those guns.

IMHO that's irrelevant since we are debating need or lack therof of gun licences.

Yes, well, the drugs should also be legal if they are not posing a risk to the community.

Basically, I'm arguing that we should not need licences for collecting things if these things do not pose a threat to the community. A gun, even one designed to shoot huge holes in tanks, does not inherently pose a threat to the community.

Yes, well, the drugs should also be legal if they are not posing a risk to the community.

Basically, I'm arguing that we should not need licences for collecting things if these things do not pose a threat to the community. A gun, even one designed to shoot huge holes in tanks, does not inherently pose a threat to the community.

Surely it is the person owning them that is likely to present the threat, and the licensing process is a way to judge if they are potentially dangerous/mentally unstable/criminal etc.. Without out the licensing process you would have to wait until they actually misused the anti-tank weapon.

Yes, well, the drugs should also be legal if they are not posing a risk to the community.

Basically, I'm arguing that we should not need licences for collecting things if these things do not pose a threat to the community. A gun, even one designed to shoot huge holes in tanks, does not inherently pose a threat to the community.

Well I'm not arguing against that at all. :p