illegal gun factory busted in Montreal.

[gejohnston]

Photos have emerged of an underground gun factory which operated in Montreal, Canada to produce high quality copies of the TEC-9 / DC-10 submachine gun for the criminal market. This model of illicit craft produced machine pistol was previously documented having appeared seized in several police operations.

The factory was discovered by accident after a burglar alarm altered police to the warehouse of the company located in LaSalle borough. Vice-president of Perfection Metal, Pierre Larivière, 60 and Jean-Pierre Huot, 59 are facing charges relating to the 2014 find. Employees at the factory were apparently told that they were manufacturing parts for paintball guns.

An easily recognizable feature of these guns is that unlike the original molded polymer lower receiver of the TEC-9 / DC-10, copies were produced using two CNC-machined halves bolted together for ease of construction:

https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/photos-of-illegal-tec-9-submachine-gun-factory-operating-in-montreal/

For those who never heard of the TEC-9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9

My question is where customers get the ammo, since you have to have a PAL to buy ammo legally.

[applegrove]

1. I used to live in LaSalle. Never forget warning a corner store owner

about a robbery down the street and he said "we don't have to worry about that, we are connected". Actually it was 3 blocks from LaSalle in Lachine. But you get the idea.

[jimmy the one]

2. curiosity doesn't always kill the cat

gej: My question is where customers get the ammo, since you have to have a PAL to buy ammo legally

I tentatively give you the benny of the doubt & a rec on this one, johnston, since it appears you approved of the takedown of the illegal gun shop. And your above sentence appears out of curiosity.
Of course, subject to change if my benny is out of line.
PAL is not a true blue pal, but a license of some sort. Excuse' moi, too tired to google.

Still, is gonna force you to read my sig line:

[gejohnston]

3. It was a factory,

not a shop. Given the likely customers of said machine gun factory, I'm guessing the National Firearms Association (the Canadian NRA) probably does too.

Not familiar with Canadian gun laws? A PAL is "Possession and Accusation License". They come in three flavors: unrestricted (most rifles and shotguns including most "assault weapons&quot , restricted (usually handguns), and prohibited (usually grandfathered pre-1977 machine guns). The cool thing about the PAL system is that they can buy across provincial lines and internet purchases are delivered directly to the house.

Burger's opinion, I really don't care what he wrote for Parade since it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/crburger.htm

[jimmy the one]

4. canadian PAL, not a license to kill

gej: Not familiar with Canadian gun laws? A PAL is "Possession and Accusation License". They come in three flavors: unrestricted (most rifles and shotguns including most "assault weapons", restricted (usually handguns), and prohibited (usually grandfathered pre-1977 machine guns).

Well pot, calling me black are you? My lack of knowledge of a canadian 'PAL' is countered by your misinformation about it. Your explanation of a 'possession & accusation license' for PAL, threw me so I googled and you have gotten another footstick comparable to your famous coordination does not prove causation. The PAL is not a license to kill after accusation, johnston.
Abracadabrawiki: Currently only one type of licence is available to new applicants, the possession-acquisition licence (PAL). .... (quick johnston, call it a typo like you did before).

The handgun restriction is probably why only 5% of canadian national gunstock is handguns (or was it 95% of canadian gun owners owned longguns, or in households. eh).
In the early aughts I think it was I visited a friend in Ottawa (elmvale actually) who had what he called a FOID (f-owners ID), and had a pistol, whereas I was an american who owned no guns, so we had a joke about role reversal amongst allies.
Spent last summer 2 months quebec, 2 weeks ontario (disgust of trump elected a goodly reason) so I'm not a stranger to canada, but their gun laws are as difficult to master as america's. (Turns out it isn't that easy to relocate to canada, especially at my age.)

As far as you rebutting Justice Burger (my signature line) by citing kopel, I trust Burger knew what he was saying, rather than putting any credibility into a far rightwing gunnut like dave kopel, who just gishes out a great big GISH GALLOP with tedious & generally irrelevant factoids & non sequiturs to rebut. A gish gallop tries to snow people into thinking that such a large number of factoids & trivia must be overwhelming evidence of some point, which when scrutinized the gish gallop turns into a house of collapsing cards.

kopel's argument: Unfortunately, {scotus 1939 decision} Miller was written by Justice James McReynolds, arguably one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of the twentieth century.

Huh, what kinda argument is this above? Using this criteria isn't heller wrong since clarence thomas is (inarguably) one of the worst supreme court justices of the 20th & 21 centuries? Change heller, 4 - 4 tie.

kopel cont'd: The opinion nowhere explicitly says that the Second Amendment does (or does not guarantee) an individual right

Evidently kopel missed this part: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia] forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

amicus brief by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of {2ndA}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:.. The second amendment to the Constitution .. {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights. http://www.guncite.com/miller-brief.htm

Then kopel, like scalia, or perhaps teaching scalia, inexplicably cites justice joseph story (circa 1830): And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised that, among the American people, there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed, without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

Duh, kopel & scalia need their thinking caps reset. Story clearly says that to keep the people 'DULY ARMED', it is not practicable without some ORGANIZATION, which would be the militia organization. If 2ndA were an individual RKBA per scalia/kopel the people would be kept duly armed WITHOUT the militia. Sheesh, take a logic course or something kopel, cause you two stink at it. Oh wait, scratch scalia, he dead, sniff.

[gejohnston]

5. so?

Yes it was a typo with my phone.
I don't know what Kopel's politics is, but it is irrelevant since the facts and reason he used stands on its own. Does the argument stand on its own merit or not, is the only difference. No anti gun arguments be it from a right or left winger does. All of them are built entirely on logical fallacies, fake statistics, and complete lies.

amicus brief by justice dept in 1938 to the 1939 supreme court re miller: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearms Act have been assailed as being in violation of {2ndA}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows:.. The second amendment to the Constitution .. {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights

which the court rejected and is accepted only by those who never bothered to research it. All of the BoR are restrictions on the State, a set of negative rights. That fact makes him less than a good judge.

Huh, what kinda argument is this above? Using this criteria isn't heller wrong since clarence thomas is (inarguably) one of the worst supreme court justices of the 20th & 21 centuries? Change heller, 4 - 4 tie.

Some progressives make that claim about Thomas (there is a difference between a liberal like myself and progressive like Cenk Uyger, who is a racist, Christophobe, and Armenian Genocide denier). Yes, racism does exist on the fringes of the left just like the right.
Even Think Progress says he wasn't that great. Maybe he didn't like the idea of Jews arming themselves against the KKK or something.
https://thinkprogress.org/the-five-worst-supreme-court-justices-in-american-history-ranked-f725000b59e8/

Story didn't write the 2A. George Mason did.

[jimmy the one]

6. blame it on alexa

johnston: Story didn't write the 2A. George Mason did.

Here the past 40 years I thought james madison had written 2ndA. Another typo?
Your remark 'story didn't write the 2ndA' means what? people have opined on the 2nd amendment for centuries now. Story clarified the contemporary ~1825 meaning, if you weren't too blind to see.

Mason wrote this in Virginia Decl of rights 1776, which I don't see how it helps you: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Mason's 'who are the militia' quote pertained to militia, not individual rkba.
___________________________________
DoJ amicus brief to 1938 scotus re 1939 miller 2ndA decision: The second amendment to the Constitution .. {2ndA} refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights

johnston replied: .. which the court rejected and is accepted only by those who never bothered to research it.

According to who, you? Where you pulling this cr*p from?
The 1939 supreme court INCORPORATED the DoJ amicus brief into their pro militia ruling in miller. They did not 'reject' the brief.

J: "Possession and Accusation License". -- gong: P & acquisition license.
johnston: Yes it was a typo with my phone.

Blame it on alexa; so then you didn't understand it completely now did you? or you'd'a caught it.

[gejohnston]

7. You thought wrong

and it doesn't matter given that it is a natural right commonly accepted then because they viewed the individual before the group, a view I share. One reason why I didn't support crypto-Marxist Bernie in the primaries.

SCOTUS decisions always include them, but that was not the ruling, even though that was the argument there (since Miller was dead, there was no opposing argument). The decision was simply that a sawed off shotgun was not protected because it wasn't a military weapon (meaning, under the decision's logic, the Hughes Amendment is unconstitutional.)

WTF Alexa has to do with typing on an Android phone? Not relevant to the conversation, but I expect ad homonyms and red herrings with the rest of the logical fallacies from the antis.