Ahh.. you're probably right, it's likely ok. Try it your self... invite the boys from the local detachment out to join you for a target shoot / BBQ. Let us know how it all works out.

so is it against the law just cause a smart guy like you knows it is or do you have some specific piece of legislation you can show us? I have been trying to talk to my CFO but cant get through so next step is a letter but maybe an expert such as yourself can save me the time by pointing out the exact piece of legislation prohibiting this. Or maybe you can just pull snide remarks and unfounded conclusions out of your ass rather than contributing to a discussion.

An interesting letter from the NFA posted on CGN. It's a good 30 page read dealing with the PEI CFO giving permission to discharge restricteds on the property the firearm is registered to.

a link to the thread:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum...on-my-own-land

A lot of this is a gray area that does not concern those who live in urban areas where it is not practical to shoot on one's property, or prohibited by municipal bylaw.

The firearms bureaucracy will maintain that it is unlawful to shoot on one's own private property in a rural area where for all intents and purposes it is practical due to the absence of other individuals and property surrounding it.

This is predicated on these things; Registration, the ATT system, and the firearms range approval system.

Registration The firearm must be "stored" at the address attached to the registration cert, unless alternative storage is approved by the provincial CFO. The firearm may only leave that address and be transported on the terms and conditions noted on the ATT. Storage and transport regulations apply. The firearm may only be transported to a gun club certified by the CFO, and a few other places approved by that CFO and noted on the ATT.

This only really effects people who live in rural areas. If your gun is registered to a physical street address, despite the fact that it might be the only address on that street for 10 miles, yes the CFO can make a case that you are breaking the conditions of the ATT by taking it into your backyard for some plinking. It has left the "residence", and is being transported - and it can only be transported to the places indicated on the ATT, usually a certified gun club approved by the CFO.

But if the gun is registered to a section of land and not a residence, and does not leave that section of land, and there is no bylaw prohibiting discharge of firearms in that area, what law or regulation is being broken?

The CFO only controls where it may be stored, where it may be transported, and the certified gun club it may be transported to. Your private property is probably not a certified gun club, so the CFO has no say unless you apply to certify it as a gun club.

If there is no issue of public safety and no complaint in the discharge of that firearm, on the section of land it is registered to and not being transported off of and there is no bylaw prohibiting the discharge of firearms, what offense is being committed?

Thoughts?


Blair Hagen
Executive Vice President
Canada's National Firearms Association
www.nfa.ca

No need for name calling friend. The firearms act has been around for many years now. If target shooting with restricted firearms was legal on private land (non-approved shooting ranges), why doesn't everyone do it? No snide remarks are necessary, why don't you call the RCMP's firearm center and get your answer? It's not a grey area in the law.

Fistly I am not your friend bub.
Secondly the Firearms act has indeed been around for many years now. Try reading it. I have many times and cannot find anything in it prohibiting this activety and as I stated it is quite hard to actually get to talk to CFO.
Thirdly the RCMP firearm center is completely unrelated to these enquiries. For someone who obviously has absolutely no knowledge of the Firearms act or the powers / responsibilties of the CFOs you sure have a lot to say on the subject with absolutely nothing to back it up. Your mommy says it time for you to get off dads computer and go play outside so run along skippy and let the adults talk.

Simple question for you.... why doesn't everyone shoot restricted firearms on their own property? All the "mommy and daddy" stuff really doesn't help your argument.

If you go over the post you'll see that many restricted firearms are being discharged on private property. When I was out visiting my father a few years ago before I moved here, I was witness to the discharge of a restricted on the little smokey on crown land.

It happens, all the time.

I have no doubt that it happens all the time. It's not legal though, you can prove me wrong if you'd like to.

If you will read my OP I was asking where specifically in the regs it is prohibited. I was not asking for your opinion. And how do you know everyone does not shoot retricted on their own property. So unless you can provide specifics shut up and quit wasting everyones time. If you can provide specifics thank you. What everyone does or does not do has absolutely f all to do with what is legal.

Why dont you prove yourself right?

you can start here http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/

In none of the posts, or the bit of the act I've been able to see does it clearly and unequivocally say you cannot discharge a restricted on your private property. If you can show us a section that clearly and unequivocally states that then it is legal to do so.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/

It's not my opinion. I'll ask you again, why doesn't everyone shoot restricted firearms on their own property?

Unless you have proof it is your opinion. Thats kinda the definition of opinion.

And i will ask you again where it says that it is against the law to do so. I will also ask why nobody has to date that i can find been charged for doing so and as we can see by this thread it goes on quite a bit.

OK, and I'll ask you again, why doesn't everyone shoot restricteds on their own land? There doesn't seem to be any point in continuing the conversation with you, you believe it's legal, and that's ok. Have fun shooting!

You know what, I cannot find anything in the Act about the discharge of restricted firearms. Only about the transportation, transferring and storage of them. Most of it is about the license and getting/keeping one. We all know that you can drive a vehicle on your private property without a license, I cannot see any difference between that and a restricted firearm, in the eyes of the law as it is written.

Range membership
 

As a long time member of the NFA, I recall reading in one of their journals the exact question , if a membership is legally required to own a restricted firearm. The NFA answered that it is not a requirement legally by law that you must be a member of a certified club , and that you can inform the CFO that it is not a legal requirement, but the CFO will most likely just refuse to issue an ATT, and many gun shops tell you that you must have an approved range membership to purchase a restricted firearm, which according to the NFA is simply not so. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind, and the CFO making up rules as they go along. This needs to change and fast, and it will only happen if we yell loud enough, CFO's have way too much say, but parliament probably gave them such authority just keep them out of their face.:argue2:

Best course of action I can see is to send a Notice of Understanding to the CFO about the lack of conditions for the discharge of a restricted firearm on personal property and ask for a response within a set time frame. Send the letter out at least twice, better if you did it in triplicate, certified mail so you can be sure it was received, and await a response. If no response is forth coming follow it up with a Notice of Intent declaring you will be using your restricted on your property in a safe manner, give them a set time frame to respond and then have at it.

Responses must counter your claims on a point by point basis, so make sure you get your ducks in a row. Anything not countered in a response is accepted as truth. It may require some back and forth correspondence, but at least you'll get to the bottom of things and if LEOs come to you about it you've got documentation to back yourself up with.

I'm sure it's illegal, and no I can't produce the exact laws. But there are so many people doing it that I'm sure unless your doing something reckless and horribly irresponsible the police just look the other way. I have 5 or 6 friends who are police officers and they bring their handguns out to my place to shoot quite often, personal handguns of course, though I would like to shoot their service handguns. :D

But of course there are different rules for the cops than for us lowly peons.

I wouldn't trust any cop to look the other way, after all it is their job to enforce the laws of the land, or make them up as they see fit.

Wow.

So if police do it, at your home, and without an ATT.... what the fudge is the point of the law anyway.

This just goes to prove my point that without a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous section of a firearms Act you can discharge a restricted firearm on your property legally.

Let us know when the cops come to shoot at your place, I'm sure an anonymous tip will speed up answering this question a lot quicker.

There are provisions in the act for them to do this

This thread is a prime example of how law abiding folks are led astray and confused by the ridiculous state of Firearms Law in Canada. That said, some people just assume things are illegal because they think they are without reason (hence why some Canadians believe that it is illegal for a person who is appropriately licensed to hunt Canada Geese).

To the best of my knowledge there are currently no Laws on the books saying that a rural resident whom is in possession of sufficient licensure (PAL with Restricted endorsement) and registration can not legally discharge a Restricted firearm on their property.

Instances of police shooting in rural private locations backs this up, yet opens a can worms beyond the scope of this post. Of course, the discharge of any firearm must occur in a safe manner. That said, many Provinces do seem to have laws on the books that make it illegal to hunt with and use Restricted firearms on crown land.

Let us not forget the examples set for us by Canadian firearms owners in 1951. Remember when the government attempted to institute a firearms registry and gave up due to lack of compliance?

If people excercise their priviledges to discharge their legally owned firearms on their own property it will be known to be common place and such actions can dispell the myths that some people take as law.

?
 

I am of a distinct understanding that that provision is only for their restricted service weapons(pistol, rifle, etc). That provision mostly originates from the fact that LEO's can carry without RPAL or ATT. Personal weapons require both.
I fully appreciate the ambiguous interpretation of the 'elusive' authorized location of discharge; I think it can be agreed upon, however, that if you are allowed to shoot on your own property, it is your property that you must shoot on. Not a buddy's.
When it is stated that 'people shoot on my land', might that person actually be one of the few with an approved range?

There is provisions under the rasnge regs for police to practise where there is no ranges. And yes the ATT would prevent someone else from bringing a restricted to someone elses place. But for the life of me I cannot find where it is prohibited to dischgarge restricteds on my home quarter. We need a test case but I sure as heck aint volunteering.

First off let me say that I am all for being able to use restricted weapons anywhere on my farm. However section 17 of the firearms act states that these weapons may only be possessed at your "dwelling-house" or at a place authorized by the CFO (a gun range for example). So while your registration certificate may list your rural address as your home it would appear that the only place at your rural address that you are allowed to "possess" or handle your restricted weapon is at your dwelling-house. On the other hand this should also make shooting off your attached deck acceptable and legal?

All the act pertains to is the possession, not the use of. If it does not say you cannot do it, then it does not say you cannot do it.

Unless you are using some type of remote device to fire it, you have to possess it, in order to fire it.

Shoot out your window then. There is nothing in the act that says you cannot discharge your weapon on your own property. And if it is registered to the land, and not the numbered address of the house, the loophole is complete.


Also, it is illegal to posses a controlled substance, but not illegal to use them.