Cbc lies

[.264 Win Mag]

What a bunch of lies. Not surprised would expect nothing less from cbc

[TylerThomson]

That's weird because I can't even buy ammo without a pal let alone a gun

[TomP]

Wow what a bunch of garbage

[Newview01]

Please post a link to the article. I would like to let the author know my thoughts.

[.257Weatherby]

Originally Posted by .264 Win Mag

What a bunch of lies. Not surprised would expect nothing less from cbc

Fake News....
Well, if they tell a lie enough times it eventually becomes believable.
Next it becomes the truth.
Rob

[CaberTosser]

Is that an actual CBC link or garbage from the comments section? Can't tell with a lousy little screenshot

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Is that an actual CBC link or garbage from the comments section? Can't tell with a lousy little screenshot

X2 ...need to see more. Post it up OP.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Is that an actual CBC link or garbage from the comments section? Can't tell with a lousy little screenshot

X2

Is this out of the comments section pertaining to an article posted? if so, comments could say that the earth is flat and pigs fly ....... it's meaningless if that where this came from and certainly nothing to get up in arms about.

If it is from an article written by a CBC columnist - it's pretty easy to post your comments correcting this misinformation and asking for a formal retraction.

[JWCalgary]

its a posted article but has been corrected.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-...2018-1.4581821

This seems to be another boondoggle in the making



Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

[Trochu]

I sent feedback to the CBC regarding the article. Specifically,

-"It could also require people buying guns to prove they have a licence before completing a transaction." and,

-"The government used to require the sales records from the vendors, along with a proof of licence."

Its wrong, misleading, and embarrassing.

[Hogie135]

I wonder what Canadian gun sales are like now with the impending changes coming.

[350 mag]

Originally Posted by Hogie135

I wonder what Canadian gun sales are like now with the impending changes coming.

I never owned an AR or wanted to.

But I bought a stripped AR lower today for $100 shipped.

SFRC is now sold out of cheap ones.

They are selling like hotcakes....and we all should support these Dealer s and Shops by buying as many as we can as a form of protest and to get the numbers up.

Write MPs and Senators and explain who you are and ask why you are being treated like a criminal?

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by .264 Win Mag

What a bunch of lies. Not surprised would expect nothing less from cbc

Some context would be useful... you paste a paragraph from the article and nothing else and people are supposed to interpret it? Very lame

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Trochu

I sent feedback to the CBC regarding the article. Specifically,

-"It could also require people buying guns to prove they have a licence before completing a transaction." and,

-"The government used to require the sales records from the vendors, along with a proof of licence."

Its wrong, misleading, and embarrassing.

I did the same. Pretty ridiculous stuff there. Embarrassing indeed.

[Nova]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Its wrong, misleading, and embarrassing.

Wrong and misleading has become CBC's specialty.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Some context would be useful... you paste a paragraph from the article and nothing else and people are supposed to interpret it? Very lame

It said the author is a biased idiot. Found it easy to interpret.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by drhu22

Some context would be useful... you paste a paragraph from the article and nothing else and people are supposed to interpret it? Very lame

That paragraph didn't really need context for the OPs point to be clear.

[Dr. Phil A]

That is only one of many misleading bs articles on line.

You cant buy any ammo or reloading components or tannerite without a PAL. If they could get it through their cranial constipation and actually understand it, they may realize it is already working and the real problem is unethical people and the catch and release legal system.

[.264 Win Mag]

I don’t really know how to post a link so a screen shot was the best I could do. Either way pretty easy to tell cbc is just adding to fear mongering and printing whatever it wants to drum up support for the coming regulations.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Dr. Phil A

That is only one of many misleading bs articles on line.

You cant buy any ammo or reloading components or tannerite without a PAL. If they could get it through their cranial constipation and actually understand it, they may realize it is already working and the real problem is unethical people and the catch and release legal system.

Don't need a PAL to buy reloading components.

The Firearms Act also currently doesn't require showing a PAL when purchasing a non-restricted. It requires the seller to be reasonably satisfied that the buyer is authorized.

[6.5 shooter]

Originally Posted by whiteout

Don't need a PAL to buy reloading components.

The Firearms Act also currently doesn't require showing a PAL when purchasing a non-restricted. It requires the seller to be reasonably satisfied that the buyer is authorized.

Talk about fake and miss leading information!

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by whiteout

The Firearms Act also currently doesn't require showing a PAL when purchasing a non-restricted. It requires the seller to be reasonably satisfied that the buyer is authorized.

And this is why CBC does stuff like this. People just eat it up and believe it.

Poster, your statement is clearly false. It says right in the Firearms Act, and I quote:

"23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,

(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;"

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Trochu

And this is why CBC does stuff like this. People just eat it up and believe it.

Poster, your statement is clearly false. It says right in the Firearms Act, and I quote:

"23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,

(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;"

The article dealt with showing proof of a license. Which you don't have to do.

The whole text of Section 23 has nothing about showing proof of license.

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms

23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,

(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and

(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

It said the author is a biased idiot. Found it easy to interpret.

What is "it"?
Some paragon of truth?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by drhu22

What is "it"?
Some paragon of truth?

“It” is obviously a screen shot of a CBC article with misinformation. Plain to see.(for most of us).

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by 6.5 shooter

Talk about fake and miss leading information!

Can you link to the law that says you need a PAL to buy primers, powder, casings or projectiles?

Not LOADED ammunition, which you do need a PAL for.

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by whiteout

The article dealt with showing proof of a license. Which you don't have to do.

The whole text of Section 23 has nothing about showing proof of license.

Authorization to transfer non-restricted firearms

23 A person may transfer a non-restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,

(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm; and

(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm.

So how is the transferor to know the transferee has a license if he doesn't show it to him?

And further, what good is showing it if the transferor knows he has one? Either way you chose to look at it, its a weak article. The point is, the article makes it appear you don't require a license to obtain a firearm, which you clearly do.

[Dr. Phil A]

Originally Posted by whiteout

Don't need a PAL to buy reloading components.

The Firearms Act also currently doesn't require showing a PAL when purchasing a non-restricted. It requires the seller to be reasonably satisfied that the buyer is authorized.

Yes you do. Sportsmens Den, Bashaw Sports, Wolverine, and Cabelas have all asked for my PAL in the past three months. Powder and primers especially. It is the law and while they even rolled their eyes at the requirement, they said they will comply as it is their business.

I don't like it but it is there.

You are limited to 44 lbs of tannerite at one purchase. If you dont think that can do some damage and they dont want to track it think again.

[Dr. Phil A]

Originally Posted by whiteout

Can you link to the law that says you need a PAL to buy primers, powder, casings or projectiles?

Not LOADED ammunition, which you do need a PAL for.

Run to Cabelas and buy some powder and primers. You will be asked for your PAL.

[Opalsasquatch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Phil A

Run to Cabelas and buy some powder and primers. You will be asked for your PAL.

Just because someone asks for it, doesn’t mean it’s legally required.