I am not looking to argue with what the law says, but where are the specified conditions? How are we to assume that the specified conditions are those set by the CFO?

are the revolvers mentioned by the op not antiques? they sound like it . If so they would not be restricted , correct?

Good grief....enough.
The law says you can own a restricted firearm for the purposes only of target shooting.
You can't use it for self defense (we all know that of course).
In the firearms act their is no provision for 'plinking'.
You are only issued a restricted license for the purposed of collecting firearms or target shooting.
The firearms act states you can only 'target shoot' at a CFO approved range.
It just doesn't get any clearer than how it is written, unless you are trying to read what isn't there between the lines.

Why not call the guys that make the rules ?

I'm assuming one "specified condition" would be an authorization to carry a restricted firearm or handgun, for wilderness protection, or related to their profession... armoured car guard, etc....


Question, if a person has such a permit, can they do a little legal practice out on the trapline?

ATC's exist....

X2 !!!!!
Those that don't believe should phone the CFO I don't think they're bluffing

Answers

1. They are not examples, they are in fact the only 2 lawful uses allowed by your ATT. In addition to those 2 allowed uses, you can transport for several other reason that are pre-determined reasonable. There are thousands of possible unauthorized places to discharge your restricted firearms, so instead of trying to accurately provide an unending list, the Regulation stipulate the 1 type of location where a restricted firearm can be discharge. ie a CFO approved range.

2. That is an argument that has already been fought in the courts and determined that restricted and prohibited firearms are confined to range use. As much as you want to argue that handguns are no more dangerous that rifles, the flip side to that argument is that rifles are as dangerous as handguns, so be careful opening that can of worms.

3. The Criminal Code Sec. 86(2) C.C. makes it an offence to contravene a regulation listed in the firearms Act. So if you fail to unload your handgun before storage, the offence is Section 86(2) of the Criminal Code.

The charge would read......
On or about the ........in the Province of Alberta, did store a firearm loaded thereby contravening section 6(a) of the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations contrary to Section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.


With Section 6 of the Firearm Act Regulations it tells me how to store a Restrict Firearm; it does not list what is illegal. Any other storage than what is listed is deemed illegal.

4. Sec. 86(2) C.C.

Handling of Firearms

15. An individual may load a firearm or handle a loaded firearm only in a place where the firearm may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

Since the Firearm Act list the only lawful place to discharge a restricted/prohibited firearm is at a CFO certified range, then loading a restricted or prohibited firearm at any other location would be an offence under Section 86(2) C.C. That is the difference between taking a restricted firearm out of storage to clean and going shooting in your own back yard.


5. See all above responses.

Simmer down. These are legit questions, with answers that could benefit many restricted firearm owners out there.

1. They are not examples, they are in fact the only 2 lawful uses allowed by your ATT. In addition to those 2 allowed uses, you can transport for several other reason that are pre-determined reasonable. There are thousands of possible unauthorized places to discharge your restricted firearms, so instead of trying to accurately provide an unending list, the Regulation stipulate the 1 type of location where a restricted firearm can be discharge. ie a CFO approved range.

And again....if you are not actually TRANSPORTING the firearm anywhere,the argument is that "lawful uses authorized by your ATT" are irrelevant,and while it is "assumed" that the only places that one might normally and legally discharge a restricted firearm would be a CFO approved range,I've yet to see anybody provide the Section or subsection in the FA that specifically prohibits the discharge in any place other then a CFO approved range or deems it unlawful to do so.
I really don't care and don't have a dog in this fight,it's just fun to argue,lol.
I don't live on a rural property where I can legally shoot NR rifles from my deck,so again,not my battle to pick.
All I'm saying is there are those that think it is borderline legal and might have a strong case to argue in court.
There's two separate issues up for debate here really.1)is arguing that one hasn't actually transported the restricted firearm anywhere if they haven't left home with it,therefore conditions of the ATT are irrelevant,and 2)that the firearm has been discharged in an unauthorized location,which is not clearly defined,or rather,that the regs imply that the only place one might discharge a restricted firearm would presumably be at a CFO approved range,however they fall short of specifically prohibiting the discharge at any place other than a CFO approved range.

Newview...I'm not at all upset (don't need to simmer down)...but after all this time, do you not think that if their was legal precedence to get around the use of restricted firearms it would not have been tried.
In actuality it has...and went nowhere.
They're called 'restricted' because they are...'restricted'.

Fire away. If there is no precedent set yet, there probably would be one real soon.

I been listening to people looking for the "loophole" for 40 years, log in after court and let us know how it went.

This was covered ad nauseum on CGN a few years ago. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread. People are quoting storage regs, lawful reasons for obtaining an RPAL, lawful reasons for ownership of restricted firearms, and ATT requirements & provisions.

The gist of it was that if you live in a rural area where discharging firearms is legal, and your restricted firearms are registered to that address you could conceivably & legally shoot your restricted guns from your dwelling. The minute you leave your house/dwelling you are violating transport regulations.

You would still most likely end up in court and would have to fork out big dough in legal fees but it is not illegal to discharge a restricted gun where it is legal to discharge non-restricted guns, it is illegal to transport them anywhere except CFO approved places. Since you never left your house/dwelling you haven't violated transport regulations. The gun is legally registered to you and you're licensed to possess so you haven't violated possession regulations. The gun is not in storage so you haven't violated storage regulations. And finally you live in an area where it is legal to discharge firearms.

Would I do it? Not a chance! But it is an interesting loophole.

This is only an opinion and observation.
Post#74,#73, and some more.

Nothing wrong with post#1.

You seem to know the answer, if you wish to change it and have deep financial pockets you might have a chance.

Any question about rights, privilege or law will depend on your community?
Your question has been asked but the answer is yours.

Thank you!!
Join CCFR,opt in for the legal defence insurance,fire away,set the precedent.....arguably no place better in the country to test these waters then gun friendly Alberta. ;)

Exactly but if you choose to step outside the law and get caught don't blame the RCMP or your dog:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Answer is clearly NO
 

As the title says, I cannot shoot on my land. Oh well, I kind of thought so, now I know so.

Me, I'll forget about any issues - it's just not worth the trouble. To the range I'll go, and actually a bit happy to show off the revolvers too.

I found this thread very informative and glad there is a wealth of knowledge here. Sounds like it's best to play it safe and don't dabble in any gray areas. Have to remember owning firearms is a privilege and not a right IMO.


Elkster

Be careful drinking all that red KOOL-Aid,it's known to cause tooth decay and brain cancer.

I usually prefer the blue koolaid, red koolaid is alright, don't care at all for orange koolaid...
But then again wouldn't mind pooring them all down the drain!


Elkster

I hate both red and orange with equal enthusiasm. ;)

Most jurisdictions have a law that you cannot discharge a firearm within one kilometre of another residence. If you are on private property and your residence is on that property, why could one not discharge a handgun legally in a remote area. For one, the liklihood of getting caught is zero, and whose interest would it be in to prosecute under these circumstances?

There are two types of lawyers: ones who know the law and the ones who know the judge.

Where do you get the 1 km of a dwelling ? Here our hunting regs state 200 yards. You can how ever shoot within 200 yards of the dwelling with consent. Non restricted only of course

If you had to be >1km from a dwelling to discharge a rifle,there would precious few places in Alberta that one could legally hunt or shoot outside of the green zone.
Minimum distance rules vary by province and are covered in hunting regs.
As posted,it's 200y/183m in Alberta from a dwelling other then your own unless you have express permission.
In NB for instance,it's 400m for rifle,200m shotgun or muzzleloader,100m bow.
1000m would close most of the populated areas of Canada to hunting.

Your jurisdiction; is not most jurisdictions. The jurisdictions that I have hunted in, do not require a person to be a kilometer away from residences, in order to legally discharge a firearm.

Not about transportation. Your not allowed to shoot a restricted firearm anywhere but a official CFO permitted range. If your back forty is not an official CFO sanctioned range approved for the discharge of restricted weapons your not allowed to shoot them there.

See post#74

Fellas. Is the OP not talking about an antique firearm ?? If so, then what's the problem?

Why???? Post 74 is incorrect.