NY Gun-Smuggling Bust Proves Canadian Shooters Are Right
A police operation in the state of New York in early May resulted in the seizure of 89 firearms that law enforcement says were headed to the Canadian border, to be smuggled in, including 17 stolen guns. And once more, law-abiding Canadian shooters are proven right when they say they’re not the problem.
The wrong target
Canada is in the middle of an incredibly poorly-thought-out, poorly-run firearms crackdown that started off by targeting semi-auto rifles, particularly those with tactical features, and ended up including super-rare, super-valuable hunting guns that would never be used in a drive-by. Think of the stuff you’d take elephant hunting. In the middle of this firearms confiscation program (officially called a buyback by the government), law-abiding Canadian firearms owners who’ve jumped through all the hoops the government put in their way and gotten the correct licensing have been saying they’re not the problem; they’ve been carefully vetted. It’s criminals who are the problem, and no matter how many guns the government seizes, criminals will smuggle more across the border.
This latest incident once again proves Canuck gun owners are correct. On May 7, on State Route 90 in New York, a state trooper pulled over a car containing three men and a lot of guns. The men were identified as Malik Bromfield and Kamal Salman, who are Canadian citizens and Faizan Ali, a Pakistani citizen. In the car, they had 89 firearms, say police, including 17 firearms that police say had been reported as stolen.
Police say these men were headed to the Canadian border to smuggle these firearms over. None of this has been proven in court. However, prosecutors are gearing up to throw the book at them, charging all men with one count of smuggling guns out of the U.S. (maximum sentence, 10 years) as well as a charge of unlicensed dealing in firearms (maximum sentence, 5 years), a charge of transporting stolen firearms in interstate commerce (maximum sentence, 10 years) and a charge of unlawful possession of firearms (maximum sentence, 10 years).
If convicted, they could be facing some very heavy time. Of course, the charges could all be dropped, pled away, or some other circumstance could arise to minimize the impact on these men.
See News 12’s report on the case below:
In the aftermath of the arrest, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said “It is critically important to New Yorkers and Americans to keep illegal weapons out of the hands of criminal actors. The trafficking of dangerous weapons will be relentlessly pursued by this Office.” Too bad the Canadian government won’t take the same tack and is instead focused on licensed shooters.
Professional hoser with fudd-ish leanings.
More by Zac K
Comments
Join the conversation
They are rapidly zeroing in on ammunition.
While the article lists all the charges the prosecuting attorney is going to trial on (fling enough mud against a wall some of it is bound to stick theory of criminal law. Actually the real phrase talks about something else being flung. I am sure the reader can infer what that is) his statement that the accused are facing very long sentences is inaccurate. I am not sure if it is the CA Supremes or the Federale Supremes who have ruled that where multiple crimes are charged arising out of a single transaction the convicted can only be sentenced on a single crime. No ganging up on sentencing allowed. So as in this case, whatever crime of which they are convicted, assuming that a conviction is reached and no plea deal is allowed by the court, only one sentence may be imposed. So the maximum they are facing is ten years, If they are being tried in state court, they won't serve the full ten years, probably out in three. I understand in federal court which seems the logical place to charge them I understand the convicted felon must serve the whole sentence. I am not a lawyer but worked in CA state courts for 20+ years so have some familiarity with what really happens in court.