Remove

[brendan's dad]

Reading 2 lines in the Firearms Act or CC is not a proper interpretation of the law.

From the RCMP CFP website:

Transfers of non-restricted firearms (where both residents are outside Quebec) can be conducted without contacting the CFP, as registration is no longer required for this class of firearm. The transferor is nevertheless required to verify that the transferee has a valid PAL. The transferor can call the CFP toll-free number (1-800-731-4000) to confirm the validity of the transferee's licence before making a sale.

If you read the "Annotations" for Sec 101, it refers to the Crowns duty to prove that the actions of the seller were wilfully blind or reckless as to whether the recipient was licensed. R v Hault (2004)

If you do nothing to confirm the license then the Crown's task of proving that you were wilfully blind or reckless would be quite easy.

The power of any law lies within the related case law and the prior court decisions.

You make this statement:

Like I also said, there may be some case law out there that interprets it the other way from what I suggested.

Then 2 lines later:

None of this changes the correct (in my own opinion) interpretation of the legislation.

So does your opinion carry more weight then the current case law in the 2014 CC and the instructions on the CFP website.

Anyone can give their opinion on an open forum, but if you are advising people on legal issues that can get them in trouble, for their sake, know what you are talking about.

[csteeves]

Thank you for parsing my decisions. If you think that is helpful feel free. Also feel free to cherry pick the parts of my post that you object to. I'm sure that you have a fulsome grasp of statutory interpretation in Criminal law contexts.

I trust you will take my assurances that I have done more than read 2 lines of the Firearms Act. Infact, I assure you that I have read the Act in it's entirety. I would add that I have done the same with the Criminal Code many times. Thank you for the cheap shot.

As I said, I didn't research the case law regarding this section. I would suspect it is not the subject of frequent litigation.

Again, as I specifically commented, my opinion of the correct interpretation stands apart from whatever cases have been decided. I do not resile from my opinion because Justice Read in R v Haut disagrees.

Justice Read, again in my opinion, fails to consider the wording of the Firearms Act to determine if the transfer was in fact contrary to the Firearms Act.

The biggest problem with the decision (again in my own opinion) is that Justice Read assumes that the prohibited act has been performed and skips to see if the necessary state of mind has been established.

For what it's worth, you don't seem to realize that what the RCMP decides to post on their website is not the law.

As I stated in my first post, take it for what it's worth. This is not legal information and is certainly not legal advice. You would be an utter moron to take what you read online as legal advice.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by claykuch

Keep your eye out for people trying to buy guns without a licence. I had a guy try to trick me. And he almost did. These guys really make me angry as we who go out of our way to comply with all the BS laws would be the ones the law would come down on, not the criminal. Anyway just wanted to share.

And are you associated with a private members bill that is going through the house of commons?

I will probably get kicked off this forum by a certain individual, but do you an any contacts with the coalition for gun control or the federal liberal party?

[1000yards]

Ive sent a picture of my card with half the number blocked out, as well as my birthday covered.
And while selling, it is my butt on the line, so yes, I will try and be diligent, to ensure I am selling to a legitimate individual.

[csteeves]

I actually changed my opinion on this topic after some more research. Not to resurrect an old thread but I think you need to at least view buyer's PAL to insure that it valid.

Putting this out with the intent of correcting my previous statements.

[wasteland.soldier]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

This seems very straight forward. For the seller to transfer two conditions must be met: condition a and condition b.

Condition a - buyer holds a PAL

and


Condition b - The seller does not have information to believe that the buyer is no longer authorized. ex ( under suspension but still in possession of PAL.

Not one condition or the other but both conditions must be met.

This. It's not the part in red you need to worry about but the part before. For a tranferor to legally transfer a firearm, the transferee must have a valid PAL. If the transferor transfers to a transferee who doesn't have a valid PAL, the transferor has committed a crime.

Cssteeves: if you get called out on your opinion being wrong, you can't just say "it's the internet, you're a moron if you believe the internet." This doesn't make you less wrong.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I always request an email or text picture of the person I am selling to PAL....I usually get it in 5 or less minutes and check to see expiry is ok....that's my due diligence.

LC

[pdog15]

There are those on this forum who wonder why some of us simply refuse to buy or sell except in person where the firearm/pal/person can be checked out and verified. I will continue with this policy, and if those trying to buy a firearm illegally are members of AO, I hope they are bounced permanently and reported to the RCMP.

Combined with the very limited number of places one can buy/sell firearms along with the prevalence from manufacturers in producing firearms under $400, it does not bode very well for the sale of used firearms in general.

It seems we have to increasingly aware of scammers (read blatant criminals) as well. It is a good time to be looking at higher end firearms and see them as keepers for a long time.