Pistols on private land?

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by Newview01

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

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

[coastalhunter]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

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

ATC's exist....

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

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

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

[West O'5]

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

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

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by West O'5

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

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

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

[West O'5]

Originally Posted by Bushrat

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

See post#74

[Wiz]

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

[mgvande]

Originally Posted by Wiz

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

The enfield in 38s&w is not an antique no matter how old the pistol is. The 7.5 Swiss could be if his gun is old enough. If he is on his land and shooting an antique 7.5swiss he is not going to jail.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by West O'5

See post#74

Why???? Post 74 is incorrect.

[West O'5]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Why???? Post 74 is incorrect.

...and I'm still waiting for anybody to cite the applicable section of either the Firearms Act and/or CC that proves post #74 is incorrect.
ie;you are shooting your pistol from your back deck at targets in your backyard,the very same targets that you regularly,legally and safely plink with your .22LR on any given day.
RCMP show up to investigate noise complaint from new city transplant yuppy neighbors.Whats the charge??
"Common knowledge" that pistols are restricted to approved range use only doesn't cut it.If it's against the law,then there must be a law,yes?
And fire away...

[Throttle_monkey1]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Why???? Post 74 is incorrect.

You may feel it is incorrect and that's your right but you need to post sections of the firearms act that support what you are saying. Yes ranges need to be CFO certified, and ranges that are certified for the use of restricted firearms are subject to more stringent regulations than non-restricted only. And restricteds are subject to CFO approval for licensing, possession and transport.

We are not talking about those things.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by Newview01

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

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

[Salavee]

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

[bat119]

Originally Posted by Salavee

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

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

[Throttle_monkey1]

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

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

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

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

[West O'5]

Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1

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

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

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

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

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

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

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

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

[TargetRick]

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

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