Green Momma Lizzie May had to get rid of a Wing Nut candidate, maybe Dion will take heed and do likewise with this Dude.

No doubt it's tough to get good candidates for a Party in shambles with all the stalwarts jumping ship. Maybe he could find a woman for that riding to help meet his 33% quota. It would be a good exercise for a young person trying to get some experience and who is prepared to lose.

Posted by: Libby at April 27, 2007 11:58 AM

---

OT why does your spam filter block ref. to foxnews. com

Posted by: Pissdoff at April 27, 2007 12:00 PM

---

I modified that URL to get it through

Posted by: Pissdoff at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM

---

Foxnews? That's a new one.

Posted by: Steve Janke at April 27, 2007 12:06 PM

---

...it is registered right?

Posted by: tomax7 at April 27, 2007 12:31 PM

---

FoxNews works now.

Posted by: Steve Janke at April 27, 2007 12:43 PM

---

"an illegal shotgun, a weapon designed to hurt people indiscriminately."

A shotgun is designed only to propel projectiles. Whether or not it is a weapon, or whether or not it is used to hirt people, indiscriminately or not, depends exclusively on the user's intent.

In other words, don't confuse the tool with the fool.

Posted by: ml at April 27, 2007 01:09 PM

---

A shotgun is an area affect weapon. No finesse, no control. Though any weapon could hurt an innocent bystander, a shotgun is far more likely to than a rifle. Firing a gun blindly is criminally negligent, but when that weapon is a shotgun...

Posted by: Steve Janke at April 27, 2007 01:24 PM

---

depends, if it was sawed off or not. Sawed off are for one purpose only, one that fits Steve's description.

In any case, I doubt that this one was, if so it was a prohibited weapon and I don't think one could plea his way out of that.

Posted by: The Hammer or Thor at April 27, 2007 01:26 PM

---

...and I don't think he could plea his way out of that.

Sorry to pop your bubble there Hammer but this is Canada...the land of Liberal judges and demographic/minority quotas where incarceration is concerned. Remember Sven...the minority gay.

Steve:

This is the best thing since sliced bread and man I'm laughing! Congrats to both Kevin Libin and yourself on this sleuth work.Should be interesting to see how this one plays out:of course assuming we are talking the same Farhan Mujahid Chak in both cases.

IMO this is like a canary in a mine...be interesting to see which way the bird falls.

Out of town...no comment...Bwah..ha..ha!!

Posted by: Simon at April 27, 2007 02:04 PM

---

If it was in "illegal" shotgun, it would have to be one of the following:

sawed off shorter than legal length (18" iirc)
unregistered
the user did not have a firearms license

then again, the way this person used it was illegal in the first place, therefore deeming it illegal. I was curious about whether it was sawed off or not, because posessing and especially using a weapon that is classed as prohibited is (or should be) a very serious offense.

I just popped over to cherniaks to see what he had to say about this, strangely enough nothing yet.. judging by his recent posts his nose is too far up dions backside right now anyway..

Posted by: The Hammer or Thor at April 27, 2007 03:07 PM

---

Like the old Western Movies, when the Cowboys with guns are "out of town" all is quiet.
Will the dust fly when he returns?

Posted by: Libby at April 27, 2007 03:35 PM

---

I don't see why this is shocking. The Liberals support the terrorists and murder of innocent Canadians and civilians in Afghanistan. They LOVE Taliban soldiers however.

Is it any coincidence that these two Liberal candidates are of Pakistani origin?

Posted by: Ace at April 27, 2007 04:27 PM

---

Methinks some damage control is going on now as we speak. IF this person is the same the nominee, expect to see him dropped quietly as possible. Again, IF this is all true, they are huddled around right now trying to put as good a face on this as possible.

Posted by: The Hammer or Thor at April 27, 2007 04:28 PM

---

This happened in 1993. There was no gun control at that time. The enabling legislation,C-68 was passed in 1995, coming into full effect in 2003. Back in the good old days,one had rifles etc hung on racks in the back windows of pick up trucks. What is illegal is to do what this guy with the same name as the candidate did. Would it surprise me to find it is the same person? No. By the way, the real fight over gun control is about to get underway. Check out the LUFA site news section and look for Bruce Montague. He now has a lawyer who is capable of winning.

Posted by: Dave from Campbell River at April 27, 2007 05:04 PM

---

Great work Steve!
Looks like it's getting near time for time for Farhan to play his 'Charter Card'

Posted by: Gord at April 27, 2007 07:31 PM

---

"sawed off shorter than legal length (18" iirc)
unregistered
the user did not have a firearms license"

As someone else mentioned, this was in 1993 which means:

1) there was no long gun registration
2) you didn't need a license to own/use a firearm (you just needed an FAC if you intended to PURCHASE a firearm.

Which means that if this was in prohibited firear, 1993 there was only one possibility left: it was sawed-off.

FYI: 3) if it really was a "prohibited" firearm that means they're banned and nobody can legally own one in the first place with or without license and registration(as opposed to "restricted" firearms)

Posted by: Cool Blue at April 27, 2007 08:00 PM

---

"sawed off shorter than legal length (18" iirc)
unregistered
the user did not have a firearms license"

As someone else mentioned, this was in 1993 which means:

1) there was no long gun registration
2) you didn't need a license to own/use a firearm (you just needed an FAC if you intended to PURCHASE a firearm.

Which means that if this was in prohibited firearm in 1993 there was only one possibility left: it was sawed-off.

FYI: 3) if it really was a "prohibited" firearm that means they're banned and nobody can legally own one in the first place with or without license and registration(as opposed to "restricted" firearms)

Posted by: Cool Blue at April 27, 2007 08:01 PM

---

let me first begin by saying nobody has the right to purge a person's career before knowing the facts. there is dispute over names of those who were accused and those who were acquitted. where are the facts?. where is the proper research?. printing such slander with out a firm conclusion is simply fraud against our very own system. theres is no doubt that Farhan Chak was attacked because of his faith and background. propaganda has always been the choice of weapon in the political world. unfortunately Farhan Chak is just another victim of dity politics.

Posted by: joe at April 29, 2007 09:38 PM

---

Jumping to conlusions before we get all the facts feeds the propaganda machine. Further it makes us sheep. We can speculate and anticipate but until all the facts are known we no nothing for sure.

Posted by: Impartial at April 30, 2007 10:41 PM

---

Is he back in town yet? Maybe the town wasn't big enough for both him and his opponent Sital Nanuan. Has anyone looked into his past? I wonder we might uncover if we did. This is better than live mud wrestling.

Posted by: Mud Wrestler at April 30, 2007 11:07 PM

---

Is he back in town yet? Maybe the town wasn't big enough for both him and his opponent Sital Nanuan. Has anyone looked into his past? I wonder we might uncover if we did. This is better than live mud wrestling.

Posted by: Mud Wrestler at April 30, 2007 11:07 PM

---

There was indeed gun control in 1993.. I used to hunt with my handgun in the 60's, that finished with Trudeau's changes to the law in combating the FLQ. Although I've owned firearms for over 40 years, I can'r remember a time when it was legal to drive around with a rifle in a window rack.. It is is some parts of The U.S. though.. A much free'er country than socialist Canada

Posted by: Me at May 2, 2007 01:57 PM

---

Farhan did not do this. In fact, it was a Jew disguised as Farhan.

Posted by: Daddy-o at June 17, 2007 06:21 PM

---