Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:35 PM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaner View Post
If anyone is interested in what the people at the canadian firearms program have to say, i had to call them this morning on a different matter but asked them about the topic of this thread and their answer is the only place a restricted firearm may be legally discharged is at an approved range.
Please tell me you had them forward you the relevant Section of the Firearms Act that states this "fact"??
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #242  
Old 03-21-2017, 04:38 PM
couleefolk couleefolk is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaner View Post
If anyone is interested in what the people at the canadian firearms program have to say, i had to call them this morning on a different matter but asked them about the topic of this thread and their answer is the only place a restricted firearm may be legally discharged is at an approved range.
Sounds about the same as asking the guy working at customs telling you that you can't import something, and after you ask him to call his supervisor, he finds out that you did actually do your homework and are obeying the law. In this case, it sounds like the law is vague. Same situation with putting a child on a motorcycle, I call the government folks, and they tell me it depends on whether an officer feels he can ticket me for doing something dangerous, and at that point the lawyers will have to decide if I made a bad call or not, so I would have to spend time fighting it. Our country is designed for folks to back down and be scared, not a country that has laws that are easy to understand and follow, or make any sense. Having one's own opinion is also frowned upon, just follow the herd.
  #243  
Old 03-21-2017, 05:04 PM
Don_Parsons Don_Parsons is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,827
Default

1-800-731-4000

Make the call and ask for them to send the written law where it states one can not discharge their restricted hand-gun from the deck of your dwelling in the country.

Sounds simple too me as this phone call is free and they should have the info at their ready.

I don't own or have a restricted firearm nor a deck on our house, so it's up too those interested in knowing what they email or mail too a person of what they have in writing.

Don
  #244  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:27 PM
SylverCANADA SylverCANADA is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 141
Default

West O'5 if you want just give me your name and PAL# and I can get the RCMP to give you the answer shortly. Just here to help
  #245  
Old 03-21-2017, 06:30 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SylverCANADA View Post
West O'5 if you want just give me your name and PAL# and I can get the RCMP to give you the answer shortly. Just here to help
What an absurd veiled threat. If you don't like his opinion, fine. But to imply that you would report him to the RCMP because you disagree with what he says shows absolutely zero class whatsoever.
  #246  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:56 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SylverCANADA View Post
West O'5 if you want just give me your name and PAL# and I can get the RCMP to give you the answer shortly. Just here to help
Here to help all gun owners I see.
  #247  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:05 PM
FCLightning FCLightning is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
This thread is like a long boring book.

But it would be helpful if a serving LEO would let us know what the charge would be, or if there is precedence of some sort.
There was a fellow, Ian Thomson, in Ontario that discharged his pistol on his property. He was charged with careless use of a firearm and improper storage. The charges were thrown out in court a couple of years later.
  #248  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:17 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
There was a fellow, Ian Thomson, in Ontario that discharged his pistol on his property. He was charged with careless use of a firearm and improper storage. The charges were thrown out in court a couple of years later.
Good to know there is a precedent. But I couldn't afford the legal proceedings.
  #249  
Old 03-21-2017, 08:21 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FCLightning View Post
There was a fellow, Ian Thomson, in Ontario that discharged his pistol on his property. He was charged with careless use of a firearm and improper storage. The charges were thrown out in court a couple of years later.
And the careless use charge arose from him firing warning shots at his attackers.
  #250  
Old 03-21-2017, 09:03 PM
SylverCANADA SylverCANADA is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1 View Post
What an absurd veiled threat. If you don't like his opinion, fine. But to imply that you would report him to the RCMP because you disagree with what he says shows absolutely zero class whatsoever.
I do disagree, and it was not aimed as a threat, but one cannot disagree with the law. By mudding the waters with "perspectives of what is legal" may lead someone to misinterpret the context and face some severe legal repercussions. Every RPAL course teaches the right & responsibilities of firearm use, and in my opinion all this conversation has shown is how people want to side step the rules. In turn, if this conversation was viewed by anyone other than firearms owners it would seriously raise some red flag and probably provide support for movements like with Bill S-223 (now thankfuly dead). So yes, I side with the RCMP, and how the rules are laid and for further support, below I posted their stance.

The CFP is committed to communicating with the public and distributing firearms safety information through a variety of media. The goal is to improve public safety by expanding awareness of, and compliance with, the safe use, handling and storage of firearms.

The CFP offers a toll-free line (1-800-731-4000) and urges those with non-emergency, firearm-related public safety concerns to call and report them. The CFP encourages people to call if they believe a person who owns firearms could be a danger to themselves or to others, or if they know of any valid reason why a person who has a firearms licence or has applied for one should not have such a licence.
  #251  
Old 03-21-2017, 09:18 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SylverCANADA View Post
I do disagree, and it was not aimed as a threat, but one cannot disagree with the law. By mudding the waters with "perspectives of what is legal" may lead someone to misinterpret the context and face some severe legal repercussions. Every RPAL course teaches the right & responsibilities of firearm use, and in my opinion all this conversation has shown is how people want to side step the rules. In turn, if this conversation was viewed by anyone other than firearms owners it would seriously raise some red flag and probably provide support for movements like with Bill S-223 (now thankfuly dead). So yes, I side with the RCMP, and how the rules are laid and for further support, below I posted their stance.

The CFP is committed to communicating with the public and distributing firearms safety information through a variety of media. The goal is to improve public safety by expanding awareness of, and compliance with, the safe use, handling and storage of firearms.

The CFP offers a toll-free line (1-800-731-4000) and urges those with non-emergency, firearm-related public safety concerns to call and report them. The CFP encourages people to call if they believe a person who owns firearms could be a danger to themselves or to others, or if they know of any valid reason why a person who has a firearms licence or has applied for one should not have such a licence.
Don't sugarcoat your threat. No one in this thread has even come close to saying anything that could be construed as a threat to public safety, it's a discussion about written law.

The fact you think it's ok to phone the RCMP on a guy in a discussion while fully cognizant of the repercussions for a gun owner having a public safety complaint filed against them speaks volumes.

With friends like you, who needs enemies?
  #252  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:02 PM
SylverCANADA SylverCANADA is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1 View Post
Don't sugarcoat your threat. No one in this thread has even come close to saying anything that could be construed as a threat to public safety, it's a discussion about written law.

The fact you think it's ok to phone the RCMP on a guy in a discussion while fully cognizant of the repercussions for a gun owner having a public safety complaint filed against them speaks volumes.

With friends like you, who needs enemies?
The fact that you think this is actually a discussion is ridiculous in itself. If there is a need for clarification of the rules or how they are enforced there is a contact number for that. If you think the rules should be changed or inturpreted differently there is a platform for that.

If you continue to misrepresent what is clearly stated as the legal transportation and use of firearms by law, then yes, a question of safety does come to mind. So pretend to be self righteous all you want, but contrary to your belief, if you are not following the rules all you will do is hurt the firearms community and perhaps lead someone into legal trouble. Good day.
  #253  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:31 PM
700-223 700-223 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
And THAT is exactly the cowardly and defeatist attitude that keeps not only CDNS ,but all "free" citizens oppressed.
Yep, I'm a coward and my attitude is oppressing 'free citizens' everywhere.

Or, I have a wife and kids and choose to advocate for for firearms rights by being a responsible firearms owner, trying to introduce friends to the hobby, and supporting fewer restrictions on our hobby and the right to self defense as well.

Anyway, go back to running through the streets in your Rambo outfit screaming 'molon labe' - I'm sure you'll accomplish a little lot more that way.
  #254  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:18 AM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SylverCANADA View Post
The fact that you think this is actually a discussion is ridiculous in itself. If there is a need for clarification of the rules or how they are enforced there is a contact number for that. If you think the rules should be changed or inturpreted differently there is a platform for that.

If you continue to misrepresent what is clearly stated as the legal transportation and use of firearms by law, then yes, a question of safety does come to mind. So pretend to be self righteous all you want, but contrary to your belief, if you are not following the rules all you will do is hurt the firearms community and perhaps lead someone into legal trouble. Good day.
Again show me where I have misrepresented anything. No one is questioning the validity of transport laws. We all know what they say and mean. This is about discharge and trying to find laws that address discharge where transport isn't part of the equation. Why have courts & lawyers at all when all you have to do is phone a call centre to have legal interpretations made for you?

To me, discussion like this is good. Do you think we would have LAR-15 mags if everyone just shut up and took everything at face value? LAR-15 magazine use in Canada came about from people who discussed the law and found that yes magazine capacity is dependent on "the firearm for which the magazine was originally designed for".

All gun owners who use STANAG magazines benefitted from the few who dared to have the "ridiculous" discussions about magazine law. This is only different in that there isn't a product whose legality is in question, rather an activity.
  #255  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:30 AM
michaelmicallef michaelmicallef is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,474
Default

You guys talk as if no one from the RCMP is monitoring this thread. I think if someone admitted to doing something illegal phone calls to the police wouldn't be required. They can read.
  #256  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:36 AM
catnthehat's Avatar
catnthehat catnthehat is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ft. McMurray
Posts: 38,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelmicallef View Post
You guys talk as if no one from the RCMP is monitoring this thread. I think if someone admitted to doing something illegal phone calls to the police wouldn't be required. They can read.
I have met several RCMP ,, F&W, and EPS officer that are members of this site over the years.
I doubt very much however that they are not about to go running after someone for SAYING they can do something however, that would be chasing shadows
Cat
__________________
Anytime I figure I've got this long range thing figured out, I just strap into the sling and irons and remind myself that I don't!
  #257  
Old 03-22-2017, 07:50 AM
michaelmicallef michaelmicallef is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,474
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catnthehat View Post
I have met several RCMP ,, F&W, and EPS officer that are members of this site over the years.
I doubt very much however that they are not about to go running after someone for SAYING they can do something however, that would be chasing shadows
Cat
Our gun club was told by the CFO to be careful what is said on social media. Just reminding people that's all.
  #258  
Old 03-22-2017, 08:33 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SylverCANADA View Post
The fact that you think this is actually a discussion is ridiculous in itself. If there is a need for clarification of the rules or how they are enforced there is a contact number for that. If you think the rules should be changed or inturpreted differently there is a platform for that.

If you continue to misrepresent what is clearly stated as the legal transportation and use of firearms by law, then yes, a question of safety does come to mind. So pretend to be self righteous all you want, but contrary to your belief, if you are not following the rules all you will do is hurt the firearms community and perhaps lead someone into legal trouble. Good day.

WOW....it's a pretty sad statement on the brainwashed mindset of CDN gun owners when the mere discussiion of challenging and questioning the uber-restrictive regs and laws and plinking cans at the farm can be perceived as a threat to
public safety....get a grip.
Perhaps you should lobby your Liberal MP to introduce a new bill....let's call it M-104,to oppress the free speech and criticism of firearms regulations.
"Clearly stated"....??
Sorry but no,I beg to differ,and that is in fact the exact context of this "rediculous discussion",the FACT that the legal use is NOT clearly stated in any regulation.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.

Last edited by West O'5; 03-22-2017 at 08:48 AM.
  #259  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:07 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Speaking of rediculous......it would be rediculous for this discussion to continue beyond 2-3 replies if there was in fact a valid legal interpretation and relevant section of the ACT that clearly prohibits the action being discussed.....yet here we are,9000+ views and almost 260 replies into it,and not ONE person amongst the infinite assemblage of AO internet legal experts has been able to cite a relevant section/subsection of the ACT nor CC that clearly prohibits some imaginary crime of "unlawful discharge".
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #260  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:14 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

It has been awhile and a lot of misinformation since my last post, so here we go again......

Transporting and using prohibited firearms or restricted firearms

19 (1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms may be authorized to transport a particular prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

(a) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under specified conditions or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29;

(a.1) to provide instructions in the use of firearms as part of a restricted firearms safety course that is approved by the federal Minister; or

(b) if the individual

(i) changes residence,

(ii) wishes to transport the firearm to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer for registration or disposal in accordance with this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

(iii) wishes to transport the firearm for repair, storage, sale, exportation or appraisal, or

(iv) wishes to transport the firearm to a gun show.

Marginal note:Target practice or competition

(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.


If you discharge a restricted or prohibited firearm anywhere other then an approved range, the grounds exist for a charge under Section 86(2) C.C.

The charge on the information laid would read...

On or about the 22nd day of March, 2017 at or near the County of Leduc in the Province of Alberta did load a firearm in a place where the firearm can not be discharged thereby contravening section 15 of the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations contrary to Section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Cheers
  #261  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:25 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Seriously??
Yet AGAIN with the Transport regulations??
WOW....how incredibly thick in the head are you anyway?
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #262  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:27 AM
Norwest Alta Norwest Alta is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post
It has been awhile and a lot of misinformation since my last post, so here we go again......

Transporting and using prohibited firearms or restricted firearms

19 (1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms may be authorized to transport a particular prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

(a) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under specified conditions or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29;

(a.1) to provide instructions in the use of firearms as part of a restricted firearms safety course that is approved by the federal Minister; or

(b) if the individual

(i) changes residence,

(ii) wishes to transport the firearm to a peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer for registration or disposal in accordance with this Act or Part III of the Criminal Code,

(iii) wishes to transport the firearm for repair, storage, sale, exportation or appraisal, or

(iv) wishes to transport the firearm to a gun show.

Marginal note:Target practice or competition

(1.1) In the case of an authorization to transport issued for a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(a) within the province where the holder of the authorization resides, the specified places must include all shooting clubs and shooting ranges that are approved under section 29 and that are located in that province.


If you discharge a restricted or prohibited firearm anywhere other then an approved range, the grounds exist for a charge under Section 86(2) C.C.

The charge on the information laid would read...

On or about the 22nd day of March, 2017 at or near the County of Leduc in the Province of Alberta did load a firearm in a place where the firearm can not be discharged thereby contravening section 15 of the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations contrary to Section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Cheers
19(1)(a). What are the specified conditions? Whould this be for dispatch circumstances?
  #263  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:48 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

BD,I'm gonna type this reaaaalllly slowly so you understand....
(Paraphrasing)
19(1)an individual licenced to posess restricted firearm MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT said firearm between two places for any good and sufficient reason INCLUDING
a)target practice


Sections 19(1) and 19(1)(a) define where you may be authorised to transport your restricted firearm to from your home/registered address....period FULL STOP!!

19 says absolutely nothing zero nada in regards to where you may or may not discharge a restricted firearm.
If you are shooting your restricted firearm out your farmhouse kitchen window or from your deck,where pray tell have you TRANSPORTED that firearm??
Answer....NOWHERE!!

Please for the love of God and for the last time get it thru your thick skull...Section 19 is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to this discussion.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #264  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:53 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norwest Alta View Post
19(1)(a). What are the specified conditions? Whould this be for dispatch circumstances?
19 (1) An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms may be authorized to transport a particular prohibited firearm or restricted firearm between two or more specified places for any good and sufficient reason, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

(a) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under specified conditions or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29;


There are no provisions for using a restricted or prohibited firearm for dispatching animal if that is what you are talking about.

The lawyer in Ontario and a few individuals here are stuck on the fact that because the regulation do not clearly state "I can't" therefore I must be able to. Again that is not how these regulations are written, they are written to tell you what "is" legal.

19 (1)(a) makes it legal to transport your registered restricted or prohibited firearm to an approved range and to use the firearm at said range.

Another way to look at it is that your ATT also authorizes transport from the range back to your residence. No provision such as found in 19(1)(a) were included to allow usage at your residence.

How exhaustive would the regulation have to be to list every potential location in Canada that would be unauthorized to discharge. Alternatively it list the 1 type of location you can legally discharge a restricted or prohibited firearm under current law.

So based on rules of section 19(1)(a) of the firearms regulation 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, Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals applies for charge purposes. And if you breach a regulation then the applicable Criminal Code charge is section 86(2) C.C.
  #265  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:59 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
BD,I'm gonna type this reaaaalllly slowly so you understand....
(Paraphrasing)
19(1)an individual licenced to posess restricted firearm MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT said firearm between two places for any good and sufficient reason INCLUDING
a)target practice


Sections 19(1) and 19(1)(a) define where you may be authorised to transport your restricted firearm to from your home/registered address....period FULL STOP!!

19 says absolutely nothing zero nada in regards to where you may or may not discharge a restricted firearm.
If you are shooting your restricted firearm out your farmhouse kitchen window or from your deck,where pray tell have you TRANSPORTED that firearm??
Answer....NOWHERE!!

Please for the love of God and for the last time get it thru your thick skull...Section 19 is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to this discussion.
You are wrong and have no comprehension of the law. So you can take your advice and your invalid points and direct them elsewhere. In about 3 days from now, after you have posted a bunch more garbage, I will come back here and re-post the above information to make sure that someone new to the discussion doesn't take your ramblings as anything other than delusional.
  #266  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:20 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
BD,I'm gonna type this reaaaalllly slowly so you understand....
(Paraphrasing)
19(1)an individual licenced to posess restricted firearm MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT said firearm between two places for any good and sufficient reason INCLUDING
a)target practice


Sections 19(1) and 19(1)(a) define where you may be authorised to transport your restricted firearm to from your home/registered address....period FULL STOP!!

19 says absolutely nothing zero nada in regards to where you may or may not discharge a restricted firearm.
If you are shooting your restricted firearm out your farmhouse kitchen window or from your deck,where pray tell have you TRANSPORTED that firearm??
Answer....NOWHERE!!

Please for the love of God and for the last time get it thru your thick skull...Section 19 is completely irrelevant and inapplicable to this discussion.
I don't know about you but when I use firearm in target practice, or a target shooting competition, I discharge charge it.

I will try to dumb this down

ATT's are authorized for transport for a purpose

Transport and Purpose

1.To your residence For Storage
2. To your range For Target Practice/shooting
3. To a course Use as a teaching aid
4. To a new residence For storage
5. To a police station To surrender for destruction
6. To a business/gunsmith for repair, storage, sale, appraisal etc
7. To a gun show for display or sale
8. To and from point of sale for sale or storage.

Every authorized activity under your ATT has a transport component with a purpose component. The only purpose component that allows discharge is Section 19(1)(a) which states this only can occur at an approved range.

Is that simple or slow enough for you?
  #267  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:37 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post

The lawyer in Ontario and a few individuals here are stuck on the fact that because the regulation do not clearly state "I can't" therefore I must be able to. Again that is not how these regulations are written, they are written to tell you what "is" legal.
And THAT^^ is where you are absolutely unequivocally wrong!
In a free society,we don't need laws that grant permission for every conceivable action and activity,rather,we have laws that prohibit acts.
I don't need permission nor a law that says I can legally walk down 17th Ave chewing bubble gum and blowing bubbles.
If you find that a disgusting behavior,then you are free to lobby the govt to enact a law that prohibits blowing bubbles in public....ya see how that works??

Here's the issue...again....sighhhhh

When the Firearms Act was drafted,the great minds that be presumed that if they made it illegal to TRANSPORTyour restricted firearm to essentially anywhere other then a CFO approved range,then by default,it would seem logical that one would only be allowed to discharge said restricted firearm at said CFO ranges.

What they completely overlooked and therefore failed to address was the possibility that some RPAL holders and restricted owners who are in a somewhat unique living situation wherein they live in a rural area where the discharge of firearms from your deck,kitchen window,bedroom balcony etc. etc. is perfectly LEGAL may actually be able to shoot their restricted weapons without ever having to TRANSPORT the firearm anywhere.

You can argue all you want,but the actual discharge of said firearms and locations where you may or may not legally discharge said firearms is not and has not been defined in the Act,it is only presumed that if you can only TRANSPORT the firearm to a CFO approved range then all other locations would be illegal by default.

It's actually mind boggling that you fail to grasp this simple concept,and actually very disturbing that you believe that laws are created that grant permission to perform any act rather then the actual fact of the matter that instead,laws are created that prohibit certain acts,and if something is not prohibited then it is in fact,again by default,NOT illegal.
If I want to ride my dirt bike some place other then a motocross track,then I am perfectly well within my rights to do so legally until such a time that legislation is enacted that prohibits the riding of dirt bikes at any place other then a properly zoned and licenced motocross track.The fact that I must TRANSPORT my bike by means of a trailer or pickup bed to get it to the motocross track because riding it on the street is illegal is completely irrelevant.If I want to ride around in circles on my 40 acres without ever TRANSPORTING my bike on public roads,then that is none of the govts,the police,or anybody else's bizness.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.

Last edited by West O'5; 03-22-2017 at 10:48 AM.
  #268  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:47 AM
Wolftrapper's Avatar
Wolftrapper Wolftrapper is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
Speaking of rediculous......it would be rediculous for this discussion to continue beyond 2-3 replies if there was in fact a valid legal interpretation and relevant section of the ACT that clearly prohibits the action being discussed.....yet here we are,9000+ views and almost 260 replies into it,and not ONE person amongst the infinite assemblage of AO internet legal experts has been able to cite a relevant section/subsection of the ACT nor CC that clearly prohibits some imaginary crime of "unlawful discharge".
From your last posts, you come across like an angry, insulting individual.
If you don't like the advice or discussion here, ignore it or seek the answers you want to hear elsewhere.
My humble opinion.
  #269  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:47 AM
brendan's dad's Avatar
brendan's dad brendan's dad is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton Area
Posts: 4,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
And THAT^^ is where you are absolutely unequivocally wrong!
In a free society,we don't need laws that grant permission for every conceivable action and activity,rather,we have laws that prohibit acts.
I don't need permission nor a law that says I can legally walk down 17th Ave chewing bubble gum and blowing bubbles.
If you find that a disgusting behavior,then you are free to lobby the govt to enact a law that prohibits blowing bubbles in public....ya see how that works??

Here's the issue...again....sighhhhh

When the Firearms Act was drafted,the great minds that be presumed that if they made it illegal to TRANSPORTyour restricted firearm to essentially anywhere other then a CFO approved range,then by default,it would seem logical that one would only be allowed to discharge said restricted firearm at said CFO ranges.

What they completely overlooked and therefore failed to address was the possibility that some RPAL holders and restricted owners who are in a somewhat unique living situation wherein they live in a rural area where the discharge of firearms from your deck,kitchen window,bedroom balcony etc. etc. is perfectly LEGAL may actually be able to shoot their restricted weapons without ever having to TRANSPORT the firearm anywhere.

You can argue all you want,but the actual discharge of said firearms and locations where you may or may not legally discharge said firearms is not and has not been defined in the Act,it is only presumed that if you can only TRANSPORT the firearm to a CFO approved range then all other locations would be illegal by default.

It's actually mind boggling that you fail to grasp this simple concept,and actually very disturbing that you believe that laws are created that grant permission to perform any act rather then the actual fact of the matter that instead,laws are created that prohibit certain acts,and if something is not prohibited then it is in fact,again by default,NOT illegal.
If I want to ride my dirt bike some place other then a motocross track,then I am perfectly well within my rights to do so legally until such a time that legislation is enacted that prohibits the riding of dirt bikes at any place other then a properly zoned and licenced motocross track.
You just proved my point, Sec. 86(2) C.C. does in fact make it illegal to do anything that contravenes a firearms act regulation. That is why when to do contravene a regulation the charge section in 86(2) C.C. as opposed to section 15 of the Firearms Act. Your understanding of how the law and the firearms act is applied is very narrow and it sounds like you received most of your knowledge and training on social media and CGN.
  #270  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:55 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendan's dad View Post
You just proved my point, Sec. 86(2) C.C. does in fact make it illegal to do anything that contravenes a firearms act regulation. That is why when to do contravene a regulation the charge section in 86(2) C.C. as opposed to section 15 of the Firearms Act. Your understanding of how the law and the firearms act is applied is very narrow and it sounds like you received most of your knowledge and training on social ring able to cite a section of the media and CGN.
And again....I ask...which section(s)(?) of the Firearms Act are being contravened?
Storage?? Nope
Transport? Nope
Unlawful discharge? Nope,that's not even addressed nor defined in Act

If your gonna charge me under 86(2) don'tcha think that being able to cite the relevant section of the Act that has allegedly been contravened might be a kinda important minor detail??

....270 posts now and counting and ya still got nuthin...wth??
This alleged crime of unlawful discharge must be an extremely obscure and hard to find little piece of legalese fine print buried deep in the secret pages of the Act,accessable only to cops and anti-gun ownership judges and politicians I guess??
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.

Last edited by West O'5; 03-22-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.