Province is completely against handgun hunting.

[rwm1273]

You could expand the license courses to include some range time. If you want to hunt with a pistol, you need to do add a range outing to your RPAL course. No further testing required, just a certificate from your tester. No different that getting an initial hunting license, you needed to show a hunters course for that.

[Scar270]

So amI to understand that a handgun isn't powerful enough to kill a deer, yet you'd prefer to have these idiots sending high powered rifle bullets all over the country then what you feel are underpowered handgun bullets.

You do realize that I own a handgun chambered for 308 winchester, is that now an underpowered cartridge?

You say that you believe in freedom, but it seems you only believe in the freedoms you
want. While it might be a tough fight for handgun hunting politically, that doesn't mean it's not a fight I should be able to make. I hope you go back and replace all your arguments with a rifle, and see how you would feel if people were suggesting banning rifle hunting for the same resons you are giving.

I'd give more points but not till I get a real computer, this tablet is driving me nuts.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

You could expand the license courses to include some range time. If you want to hunt with a pistol, you need to do add a range outing to your RPAL course. No further testing required, just a certificate from your tester. No different that getting an initial hunting license, you needed to show a hunters course for that.

It wouldn't work. The fellow that I took my RPAL from did the testing with disabled handguns, as all do. He lives in town, a range is not available to him. Think of the implications of having to pass your RPAL should it be done at an approved range, an ATT and all of the other associated legalities, going to a range etc.

[260 Rem]

If we ever hope for change to become a reality, we will have to be prepared to "give" before we "get" ..and please spare me the "we should have the right" argument because the bottom line is that we currently "don't". Tough as it would be, as costly as it would be..I could see supporting the idea that handgun hunters would need to "pass" a proficiency test and hold a "special permit". The cost of the program would be borne entirely by the "applicants". Some conditions might include:
* a "trusted hunter" status similar to NEXUS
* a proficiency test - must demonstrate ability to hit 2 of 3 targets (10" diameter) @ 75 yds five times in a row off-hand.
* authorization to carry only in a specific area at a specific time.
* licence specific to an approved handgun (deemed with sufficient power)

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Scar270

So amI to understand that a handgun isn't powerful enough to kill a deer, yet you'd prefer to have these idiots sending high powered rifle bullets all over the country then what you feel are underpowered handgun bullets.

You do realize that I own a handgun chambered for 308 winchester, is that now an underpowered cartridge?You say that you believe in freedom, but it seems you only believe in the freedoms you
want. While it might be a tough fight for handgun hunting politically, that doesn't mean it's not a fight I should be able to make. I hope you go back and replace all your arguments with a rifle, and see how you would feel if people were suggesting banning rifle hunting for the same resons you are giving.

I'd give more points but not till I get a real computer, this tablet is driving me nuts.

How could I possibly realize that you own a .308Win handgun unless you told me so. And what difference would that make? You're one in a thousand. The big picture is NOT about your abilities, it's about those of the millions of clowns that likely far outnumber you. That was kinda of a compliment BTW.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Scar270

So amI to understand that a handgun isn't powerful enough to kill a deer, yet you'd prefer to have these idiots sending high powered rifle bullets all over the country then what you feel are underpowered handgun bullets.

You do realize that I own a handgun chambered for 308 winchester, is that now an underpowered cartridge?

You say that you believe in freedom, but it seems you only believe in the freedoms you
want. While it might be a tough fight for handgun hunting politically, that doesn't mean it's not a fight I should be able to make. I hope you go back and replace all your arguments with a rifle, and see how you would feel if people were suggesting banning rifle hunting for the same resons you are giving.

I'd give more points but not till I get a real computer, this tablet is driving me nuts.

I'll make reference to something that Redfrog said earlier. Everyone else is an idiot, except the perpetrators. Just like in our prison system, none of them are guilty, it was all "the other guy" bahahahah!

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

No, I'm not punishing you.
Yes, many will abuse the right.
Yes, I disagree with you
I'm am all for freedom, not anarchy.

And remember that I have mentioned that I hold an RPAL and own a handgun. So on many levels, we're on the same page. Let me ask you...why is it that you feel that handgun hunting is so important to you.? Is the 7lb, 24" barreled, scoped rifle slung across your shoulder not sufficient enough to do the intended job? Does the .357 Magnum Revolver on your hip make you feel like Billy the Kid? Do you not feel that having elected a Conservative majority government whom have promised to abolish the LGR good enough for you at a time when they are still going through the parlimentary process to abolish it good enough. Do you not realize that if you wish to build on something that you build it up stone by stone. Like yourself, I want to gain a lot more rights to transport my handgun, but you're going about it the wrong way. First you get people to come on your side with honey, not force. What you're asking for is way too much for most politicians to comprehend all at once. And besides, you're still gonna have to deal with the likes of ME who believe that your need to hunt with handguns is nothing more than a bully pressure to obtain a lesser thing. I've been hunting this land for 40 years (ages me), and I've seen the exponential growth of the idiotic moron, careless hunters, and new immigrants who've now got a free for all. Guys who should even be let out with a rubber band gun, never mind a hand gun. So. NO, I will never concede to hand gun hunting, in spite of the fact that I am a proud hand gun owner. As a matter of fact, if it were a political issue, I will even say that I'll stand against it. There would simply be too many hoops to jump through to make a specific handgun owner legal and responsible to go afield when you have to separate that same person from all the gangbangers out there. No way, not on my watch.

Well 1st off from where I'm sitting despite the fact you own numerous firearms you sound alot like an anti to me. I mean afterall its statements like your Billy the Kid comment that tare used against use all the time. 2nd. I don't know what you consider a "gangbanger" but I've seen and dealt with several of them on the streets and I've never ONCE seen an individual of that sort out in the woods hunting. 3rd, Your trying to protect yourself by limiting what other people want to do. The same thing those who are fore the LGR are doing to those of us who oppose it. you'll never protect everyone and there will always be that % of society thats just dumb and irresponsible. NO MATTER WHAT you CANNOT do anything about it. So why punish the many for the actions of a few? Thats how we got the LGR ain't it? Remember you can't fix Stupid!

Anyways FWIW I could care less about handgun hunting. I coulda shot my doe this year with my .357...(which isn't on my hip btw so I guess I ain't the Kid).next year if the opportunity arrises I may give it a shot. Hand gun hunting its just like anythign else out there. If you want to take the responsibility and do it then you should be allowed to if you've had the training. In Canada if you have done the training and got your RPAL then you should be good to go. If you want an extra level of saftey make them take a Handgun Hunters ED course. When it all comes down to it I'd rather be flagged by a pistol than a long gun or bow any day of the week!

[silver]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

While YOU're on the topic of trolling, this discussion is about handgun hunting. Did you miss something duffus4?

duffus4!!! Really!!! Is that the best you can do? Leave the names in the schoolyard.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

There is no way that I'll ever support handgun hunting. Be it that you may want to even pack a .22LR pistol for chickens or what have you. I've been witness to so many idiots that pack long guns that I couldn't possibly imagine more of these morons packing a side arm to boot.

I have to admit that at first I thought the same thing as you.
But after thinking about it for a while I realized that I have already encountered idiots packing side arms, some legally.

The problem with idiots is they will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not. At least some do, other idiots would indeed start packing sidearms.
But again, there really wouldn't be any difference for the rest of us.
After all, an idiot is dangerous with whatever he or she packs, be that a rifle, a handgun or a purse.
In fact, they would be less of a threat with a handgun I would think. Less range, less accuracy, less power, less threat, right ?

Another thought I had was; just what our Police Officers need, concealed weapons in the hands of lunatics. Almost immediately I realized that they already face that possibility every day. The only possible difference I can see for them is that it might make it a bit harder to tell the criminals from the law abiding. But I suspect that if it did turn out to be the case, the difference would be inconsequential.

No, the only legitimate concern I can come up with is the possibility that this would make some nervous cops even more nervous and handgun owners could find life rather unpleasant should they encounter such an individual.

And that would be no reason to stand against this proposal, after all, if I'm afraid of getting roughed up by a cop because I was carrying a handgun, I can simply choose to not carry one.
Let the braver souls take the risks if they wish.

Yeah I'll vote for this change, although I doubt I'd ever use a handgun for hunting, or even own one.

[hillbillyreefer]

Hmmm, maybe not as dangerous as our anti buddies think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ess=364x401653


Don't let the fools confuse you.
TENNIS
In 2003, out of 100,000 participants, there were 1,228 injuries serious enough to require hospitalization. Other injuries, including those requiring a doctor's visit were 21,300 injuries, including sprains, strains, fractures, carpal tunnel, lacerations, torn skin.

SOCCER, a more violent sport
In 2003, out of 100,000 participants, there were 1,232 injuries serious enough
to require hospitalization. Other injuries were estimated at 30,000, sprains, strains, etc.

CHEERLEADING (like King George)
In 2003, out of 10,000 participants, there were 219 injuries serious enough to require hospitalization. That is almost 2x the rate of soccer and tennis. (per 100,000 participants)

HUNTING
In 2003, with multiple participants, throughout the entire nation, with more than four MILLION hunters, there were a total of 668 gun injuries, 1/5 of which were self-inflicted. That works out to be per 100,000 participants, that means 16.7 hunters were shot, 3 of whom shot themselves.

Anyway you cut it, Hunting is mainly done by people who are safe, highly trained, careful and who try to respect others. You know. People totally unlike Dick Cheney.


- -
These figures were collated from Industry Intelligence Reports (hunting), medline (tennis and net ball statistics) and Sports Injury Bulletin.

- -

[silver]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I have to admit that at first I thought the same thing as you.
But after thinking about it for a while I realized that I have already encountered idiots packing side arms, some legally.

The problem with idiots is they will do what they do no matter if it's legal or not. At least some do, other idiots would indeed start packing sidearms.
But again, there really wouldn't be any difference for the rest of us.
After all, an idiot is dangerous with whatever he or she packs, be that a rifle, a handgun or a purse.
In fact, they would be less of a threat with a handgun I would think. Less range, less accuracy, less power, less threat, right ?

Another thought I had was; just what our Police Officers need, concealed weapons in the hands of lunatics. Almost immediately I realized that they already face that possibility every day. The only possible difference I can see for them is that it might make it a bit harder to tell the criminals from the law abiding. But I suspect that if it did turn out to be the case, the difference would be inconsequential.

No, the only legitimate concern I can come up with is the possibility that this would make some nervous cops even more nervous and handgun owners could find life rather unpleasant should they encounter such an individual.

And that would be no reason to stand against this proposal, after all, if I'm afraid of getting roughed up by a cop because I was carrying a handgun, I can simply choose to not carry one.
Let the braver souls take the risks if they wish.

Yeah I'll vote for this change, although I doubt I'd ever use a handgun for hunting, or even own one.

Well said

[philthygeezer]

I still think a rimfire single action or single shot with barrel over 7" is a very useful tool for hares and grouse while big game hunting or for survival if lost.

Not having to carry two rifles is the reason.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by philthygeezer

I still think a rimfire single action or single shot with barrel over 7" is a very useful tool for hares and grouse while big game hunting or for survival if lost.

Not having to carry two rifles is the reason.

Yes, and for a trapper it could save him or her a lot of grief.
I'm thinking of my buddy Herb, at least twice that I know of he has had to deal with a live Wolverine in one of his traps.

That's not something I'd want to face without a firearm. I hear they can be very hard to kill and very aggressive when trapped.
Fortunately for me, the only Wolverine I ever trapped hit one of my 220 sets.
He never knew what hit him, thank goodness.

[Pudelpointer]

My god, what a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwits we have in our community.

Why do you people fear everyone? What is it; the fact you can't control others? I would guess that your irrational fears are so deep seated that you would give up your own rights / freedoms in order to keep others from having them.

Why do you automatically think a person with a handgun is irrational, dangerous, violent and suicidal????

Are YOU violent, irrational, dangerous or suicidal? Maybe YOU should not be allowed to own a handgun (or any other firearm) if you are this irrational.

[Scar270]

Thanks to those supporting me. Some great points you are making to save me from trying to carry on this debate from my phone.

You'll hear more from me when I get to a computer instead of phone. Some great pro freedom points.

[silver]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

My god, what a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwits we have in our community.

Why do you people fear everyone? What is it; the fact you can't control others? I would guess that your irrational fears are so deep seated that you would give up your own rights / freedoms in order to keep others from having them.

Why do you automatically think a person with a handgun is irrational, dangerous, violent and suicidal????

Are YOU violent, irrational, dangerous or suicidal? Maybe YOU should not be allowed to own a handgun (or any other firearm) if you are this irrational.

Interesting viewpoint, and again, well said.

[Skinnydipper]

Why is it that we tend to be sooooo far reaching when it comes to the thought of anything handgun? Perhaps a few need to take a quick trip down to Montana to realize it is not doom and gloom. Not every hunter, given the opportunity, would care to hunt with a handgun, as it is right now with many different forms of weapon types. Most hunters that choose to hunt with a bow or crossbow realize that it is a limited form of hunting that does require more hunter skill and practice to perform successful harvests. Why is it so hard to imagine handgun hunters are not capable to understand this same principle.
We as Canadians tend to sensationalize handguns because of our limited exposure to them in general. We are not so different a human than our US neighbours, in that, given an opportunity to bring handguns into out daily life, the novelty would soon fade and we'd discover them to be the same tool as a rifle, bow, crossbow, muzzleloader, etc. I know that since I've owned handguns the "aura", the "mystic" of them has certainly changed significantly.
Given the opportunity, I would certainly try handgun hunting. It would not suddenly turn into my only hunting form but add another way to express my love for the outdoors and enhance the experience.

[Trav]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

How could I possibly realize that you own a .308Win handgun unless you told me so. And what difference would that make? You're one in a thousand. The big picture is NOT about your abilities, it's about those of the millions of clowns that likely far outnumber you. That was kinda of a compliment BTW.

That would make him two out of a thousand, as I have a 308 winchester also in a handgun along with a 7mm IHMSA and a 7BR all of which will cleanly harvest an animal.....

I would like to see a handgun season also..... Each to their own if a person does not like it then so be it. I personally would like to see it.

[RAK]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

My god, what a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwits we have in our community.

Why do you people fear everyone? What is it; the fact you can't control others? I would guess that your irrational fears are so deep seated that you would give up your own rights / freedoms in order to keep others from having them.

Why do you automatically think a person with a handgun is irrational, dangerous, violent and suicidal????

Are YOU violent, irrational, dangerous or suicidal? Maybe YOU should not be allowed to own a handgun (or any other firearm) if you are this irrational.

Very good points! !

[rwm1273]

Why is it that if you are against open season with a pistol, we are paranoid lunatics? I see handgun hunting as a balance between ethical hunting and freedom. I want to be able to hunt legally, and have nobody claim I am not being ethical. I also want some peace of mind that the guy in the bush has had some proper training.

I have been to the range many times and watched some idiot with a pistol do stupid things trying to clear a round. Now this guy will want to go and hunt with his pistol because he can? Not in my neck of the woods thank you.

All I want to see is some proper training to be a prerequisite before you can go pistol hunting. I don't think this is too much to ask, and should not be much of a burden to most. Just have a range hold a test day every once in a while. If you want to hunt with your pistol, go to the range and qualify, then you get the certificate, then you can go buy tags to hunt with your pistol.

Our military make our soldiers all qualify with their weapons. We don't think that this is silly. The police need to do the same thing too. So why do some think it is silly to have to qualify to hunt with a pistol? Perhaps once some of the pistol owners see how hard it is to hit a moving target, or even hit a target at 75yards, may make them think twice about hunting with a pistol.

Now there are a few guys who have stated they have a pistol in 308, and most likely there are others with similar pistols. Yes those will easily kill big game. So will my .22 from the right distance. How many people will take their 9mm Glock out hunting? Yes it will kill a deer, but how far out will it do it cleanly? How good of a shot are these guys? Another poster stated that there are lots of game that have died because they got hit with a large enough bullet. That may be true, but do we want this to happen all the time? Do you want to come by that deer after someone has put a couple 9mm rounds in it that only penetrated the shoulder or hip? At least with most hunting rifles, the bullet will do much more damage, and the animal usually dies.

With big game regs, we used to be limited by both caliber and length of cartridge. Now it is just caliber. Should there be similar restrictions placed on pistol hunting? Or do we trust that because you have an RPAL that you know everything?

I may seem like I am against some here, but I am not. I am not a troll either. I just am looking at what it will take to pass a law, and I prefer to pass it easily, and once you prove that the system is working, then you remove some of the restrictions. Other wise we will never get anything passed. Do you not think it is better to have handgun hunting permitted with a few restrictions such as a range test, than not have handgun hunting permitted at all? Seems pretty easy to me.

[huntinstuff]

I think disagreeing on a subject is just as important as agreeing, maybe more.

I welcome good debate. There are things both side can learn.

When it comes to freedom and firearms, I am always ready to talk in defence of both. I dont expect to convert everyone, nor do I expect that we will agree in the end, but I do suggest you pack a lunch. You are gonna need it.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

Why is it that if you are against open season with a pistol, we are paranoid lunatics? I see handgun hunting as a balance between ethical hunting and freedom. I want to be able to hunt legally, and have nobody claim I am not being ethical. I also want some peace of mind that the guy in the bush has had some proper training.

I have been to the range many times and watched some idiot with a pistol do stupid things trying to clear a round. Now this guy will want to go and hunt with his pistol because he can? Not in my neck of the woods thank you.

All I want to see is some proper training to be a prerequisite before you can go pistol hunting. I don't think this is too much to ask, and should not be much of a burden to most. Just have a range hold a test day every once in a while. If you want to hunt with your pistol, go to the range and qualify, then you get the certificate, then you can go buy tags to hunt with your pistol.

Our military make our soldiers all qualify with their weapons. We don't think that this is silly. The police need to do the same thing too. So why do some think it is silly to have to qualify to hunt with a pistol? Perhaps once some of the pistol owners see how hard it is to hit a moving target, or even hit a target at 75yards, may make them think twice about hunting with a pistol.

Now there are a few guys who have stated they have a pistol in 308, and most likely there are others with similar pistols. Yes those will easily kill big game. So will my .22 from the right distance. How many people will take their 9mm Glock out hunting? Yes it will kill a deer, but how far out will it do it cleanly? How good of a shot are these guys? Another poster stated that there are lots of game that have died because they got hit with a large enough bullet. That may be true, but do we want this to happen all the time? Do you want to come by that deer after someone has put a couple 9mm rounds in it that only penetrated the shoulder or hip? At least with most hunting rifles, the bullet will do much more damage, and the animal usually dies.

With big game regs, we used to be limited by both caliber and length of cartridge. Now it is just caliber. Should there be similar restrictions placed on pistol hunting? Or do we trust that because you have an RPAL that you know everything?

I may seem like I am against some here, but I am not. I am not a troll either. I just am looking at what it will take to pass a law, and I prefer to pass it easily, and once you prove that the system is working, then you remove some of the restrictions. Other wise we will never get anything passed. Do you not think it is better to have handgun hunting permitted with a few restrictions such as a range test, than not have handgun hunting permitted at all? Seems pretty easy to me.

Why do you automatically assume that there won't be caliber restrictions for handguns the same as rifles? As it is right now I come across deer/elk that have been stuck during bow season and run off, who do you think it will automatically happen more with handguns? I had a friend shoot one and had to throw it out as a quarter was shot. Should we get rid of bow hunting now because animals are getting away injured? I think not. Some of the assumptions being voiced on what "will" happen if they allow handgun hunting is absolutely rediculous. Sorry but thats how I see it. On the other hand I partially agree with your qualifying idea as I mentioned in my first post, make them take a handgun hunters ed course just like your required to take regular hunters ed or bow hunters ed...(at least in MT and WA). I said it before and I'll say it again, I hunt in Montana and I've been around handgun hunters and I've never been worried...Perhaps thats because most people in the USA are more familiar with handguns, I dunno. I choose to not let fear run my life, if your wish to let it well its your life...

Just because somethin has never been done doesn't make it a bad idea. I'm for handgun hunting but don't do it even though in MT I'm allowed. Most of the people I know who handgun hunt in the USA are all decent shots. The ones who aren't stick to rifles/shotguns. Why do you think it would be any different in Canada?

[bobalong]

It appears that most of the negative comments on here about hand gun hunting are the same old ones about all hunting........basically it goes.

I do not use this type of weapon, nor would I want to, so therefore no one else should either
Hunters who use hand guns (or bows, or crossbows, or blackpowder) are just going to wound game
Handguns are not accurate enough (nor are bows, crossbows, or blackpowder)
Hunters who use hand guns are gangbangers, idiots, and are irrational
WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!

For all you nay sayers, I say: do not assume everyones capabilities are as limited as your own.

[wally338]

Originally Posted by bobalong

It appears that most of the negative comments on here about hand gun hunting are the same old ones about all hunting........basically it goes.

I do not use this type of weapon, nor would I want to, so therefore no one else should either
Hunters who use hand guns (or bows, or crossbows, or blackpowder) are just going to wound game
Handguns are not accurate enough (nor are bows, crossbows, or blackpowder)
Hunters who use hand guns are gangbangers, idiots, and are irrational
WHAT A BUNCH OF BS!!!

For all you nay sayers, I say: do not assume everyones capabilities are as limited as your own.

X2

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

Why do you automatically assume that there won't be caliber restrictions for handguns the same as rifles? As it is right now I come across deer/elk that have been stuck during bow season and run off, who do you think it will automatically happen more with handguns? I had a friend shoot one and had to throw it out as a quarter was shot. Should we get rid of bow hunting now because animals are getting away injured? I think not. Some of the assumptions being voiced on what "will" happen if they allow handgun hunting is absolutely rediculous. Sorry but thats how I see it. On the other hand I partially agree with your qualifying idea as I mentioned in my first post, make them take a handgun hunters ed course just like your required to take regular hunters ed or bow hunters ed...(at least in MT and WA). I said it before and I'll say it again, I hunt in Montana and I've been around handgun hunters and I've never been worried...Perhaps thats because most people in the USA are more familiar with handguns, I dunno. I choose to not let fear run my life, if your wish to let it well its your life...

Just because somethin has never been done doesn't make it a bad idea. I'm for handgun hunting but don't do it even though in MT I'm allowed. Most of the people I know who handgun hunt in the USA are all decent shots. The ones who aren't stick to rifles/shotguns. Why do you think it would be any different in Canada?

I like a good debate, and I am not automatically assuming. I just know from my experience that getting a hand gun hunting bill before the courts will be harder than trying to get a shared parenting bill before the government. There are all kinds of things that need to be hashed out before it gets to the table, and even with shared parenting that has nearly unanimous agreement from all parties, and most of the population, it is how it is going to be implemented that is the problem. The biggest groups against shared parenting are the Feminists, then the Lawyers. Both groups will lose money with a change in the law. Trying to get a hand gun hunting bill before the government will be even more difficult because there are far less people that it will affect, and too many people think that guns are bad.

By the way, I am not against some guy shooting deer with his 9mm Glock, so long as he is able to make a clean kill. As others have said, hand gun hunting is not as easy as other kinds of hunting. I guess I would like to police some of the idiots out there, but this is a double edged sword that has the potential to limit me too.

I stand firmly behind some kind of testing and certification before you can hunt with a handgun. Perhaps after some time, we will get a range report on how the average guy shoots. Perhaps that will give us some indication of how good of shooters and hand gun handling we have here, as currently there is nothing like that, and I know my RPAL course did not teach me much. (I took it when it was still an FAC) If the reports show that most RPAL holders are competent, and careful, then we can ask for a relaxation of other laws too. With nearly everything I have earned in our courts, I have earned it with baby steps. This could be the same. Prove that the other side's claims are unfounded. (even some of my concerns)

[Rocks]

Originally Posted by Scar270

Ok, many of you know I've been fighting to get the "No hunting with Pistols and Revolvers" clause removed from the hunting regulations.

Well it turns out currently the actual wildlife statute says:

10 A restricted firearm or a prohibited firearm of a kind that is a handgun for whose possession the holding of a licence and a registration certificate is required by the Criminal Code (Canada), except where a person
(a) uses the handgun to kill an animal caught in a trap, or
(b) is in possession of that handgun only for a purpose incidental to that use or the reasonable expectation of that use.

So basically antique status handguns have been legal to hunt with, I really regret not being smart enough to have looked the actual statute up before. I took the regs at face value.

However I finally got the Provincial government to realize that they do have some jurisdiction, and it's not just federal law restricting us. So now instead of dropping that clause, it sounds like SRD is looking hard at making it a complete ban on hunting of big game with handguns.

If anyone on here actually would like to see us ever get to have handgun hunting in this province, right now would be a good time to start hitting up your MLA's about this. We are on our way into a provincial election, so they might even answer their phones right now.

Convince them that if they are reviewing the law it would be better to remove it then tighten it up.

Thanks.

Good thread scar. I'l definitely write some letters, I would support handgun hunting.

I also thought it was illegal to hunt with an antique status. Maybe time to go on a cat hunt?

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

I like a good debate, and I am not automatically assuming. I just know from my experience that getting a hand gun hunting bill before the courts will be harder than trying to get a shared parenting bill before the government. There are all kinds of things that need to be hashed out before it gets to the table, and even with shared parenting that has nearly unanimous agreement from all parties, and most of the population, it is how it is going to be implemented that is the problem. The biggest groups against shared parenting are the Feminists, then the Lawyers. Both groups will lose money with a change in the law. Trying to get a hand gun hunting bill before the government will be even more difficult because there are far less people that it will affect, and too many people think that guns are bad.

By the way, I am not against some guy shooting deer with his 9mm Glock, so long as he is able to make a clean kill. As others have said, hand gun hunting is not as easy as other kinds of hunting. I guess I would like to police some of the idiots out there, but this is a double edged sword that has the potential to limit me too.

I stand firmly behind some kind of testing and certification before you can hunt with a handgun. Perhaps after some time, we will get a range report on how the average guy shoots. Perhaps that will give us some indication of how good of shooters and hand gun handling we have here, as currently there is nothing like that, and I know my RPAL course did not teach me much. (I took it when it was still an FAC) If the reports show that most RPAL holders are competent, and careful, then we can ask for a relaxation of other laws too. With nearly everything I have earned in our courts, I have earned it with baby steps. This could be the same. Prove that the other side's claims are unfounded. (even some of my concerns)

I am a strong believer in being competent with what ever weapon you choose to hunt with as well, I would think everyone would agree with that.
Putting competency restrictions on just a handgun to me is not rational, as you are assuming that most people using them would not be accurate with them. Why would you assume this, do you feel the same with bows, crossbows, and blackpowder? I believe that hunters (or the majortity) realize that improved shooting form, on-going practice and limited ranges are all part of hunting with these weapons, or any weapon for that matter. They accept that, and to be competent, put in the extra effort for their own reasons, being it extended seasons, hunting in milder weather, or just the opportunity to hunt with a different weapon. Why do you feel that would be any different with handgunners?
There is no competency (accuracy) test for any other hunting weapon, by suggesting that there would have to be one for hanguns, you could possibly suggest to politicians that hunters are not responsible, and there should be an accuracy test for all weapons. I think that you would agree that a handgun is every bit as accurate as a bow, crossbow, or the older style blackpowder rifles. Although I have not shot a TC Contenter handgun, I have seen them used, and they are very accurate.
I am not suggesting that there should not be standards set, there is for every hunting method, so there would be for hand guns as well.
IMO accuracy and responsibility are still 100% dependent on the hunter, regardless of weapon, and always will be. Suggesting that handgunners would not be as accurate and responsible while hunting is unjustified and unfair IMO.

[elkhunter11]

My god, what a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwits we have in our community.

Why do you people fear everyone? What is it; the fact you can't control others? I would guess that your irrational fears are so deep seated that you would give up your own rights / freedoms in order to keep others from having them.

Why do you automatically think a person with a handgun is irrational, dangerous, violent and suicidal????

Are YOU violent, irrational, dangerous or suicidal? Maybe YOU should not be allowed to own a handgun (or any other firearm) if you are this irrational.

Very well said. Why is it that it's okay for a person to run around the country with a high powered rifle, yet some people would panic if the same person was allowed to hunt with a handgun? And for those people that would demand a proficiency test for handgun hunters, you should start with a test for long gun hunters, as either can be just as incompetent.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

My god, what a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwits we have in our community.

Why do you people fear everyone? What is it; the fact you can't control others? I would guess that your irrational fears are so deep seated that you would give up your own rights / freedoms in order to keep others from having them.

Why do you automatically think a person with a handgun is irrational, dangerous, violent and suicidal????

I guess I read differently then you do. The way I read it some people acknowledge that there are some crazy people out there and they would rather give up a little to prevent the crazies from getting their hands on dangerous weapons.

I just think they are wrong. I think the crazies will get their hands on whatever weapon no matter what the law says.

(Edit)
Besides, I think we have given up more then enough to accommodate the crazy people and I don't think it did any good.

I sure hope you are reading it wrong, LOL. This world is mixed up enough without a bunch of paranoid, phobic dimwit, gun owners hanging about.
On second thought, , , , , , I have heard plenty of stories about guys getting shot at, scoped, ext.

Mmmmmmm,

[adaras]

First merry Christmas to all and happy new year my personal opinion is that every one live in the country should be able to carry a handgun. In the summer I was helping a friend with his cattle and we shere looking for a bull in a thick area one of the fellas run into a tomcat not big but it could have attack him if the dogs weren't chase the Tomcat so I think it is good to carry one when you are out there hunting or not but that is just me