Penalties with Restricted

[Lefty-Canuck]

Wow it is so amazing how a thread can get derailed in a hurry.......

Lefty

[fallen1817]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Wow it is so amazing how a thread can get derailed in a hurry.......

Lefty

I'm to blame for that one

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It is quite logical to assume that the CFO wouldn't condone someone doing something illegal, such as discharging a restricted weapon where it isn't legal to do so.

Elkhunter....

Sadly I had an experience with the CFO office that indeed she did recommend doing something against the rules... I will explain.

I had submitted paperwork for my PAL long before my birthday (which happens to be Oct.25th), with the opener coming close (Nov 1st) and my old PAL was about to expire. I called the CFO to find out where in the process my new card was because I didnt want to go out hunting without it. So the CFO proceeded to tell well it might take a few more weeks, we have a back log. I argued that this "administrative backlog" was putting a huge damper on my hunting trip. She told me very clearly, Well in this case you could go out and hunt and tell them you have applied and its caught in a backlog. Then they may or may not give you a small fine.....based on what they decide....!!!!!! I told her....well I don't want to break the law. She said well likely you will only get a small fine.....Sadly that year I had to start hunting a week or 2 into the season due to a "administrative backlog". I will be aplying alot sooner (maybe 6 months?) next time I need my PAL renewed.

I guess I get screwed on renewal date cause I was born so close to rifle season starts.

Lefty

(figured thread was derailed enough I would continue the crash course of off topicness )

[love those guns]

My brother had been waiting for I don't know how long to get his Pal renewed .Before it came it had expired. He called down because it hadn't come and the CFO told him the same thing about a back log but not to worry because he was already registered and in the system.

[elkhunter11]

She told me very clearly, Well in this case you could go out and hunt and tell them you have applied and its caught in a backlog. Then they may or may not give you a small fine.....based on what they decide....!!!!!

That goes against all logic.It is very disturbing, that an official would suggest that you do something that is against the law, especially while telling you that you might get fined if you get caught.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That goes against all logic.It is very disturbing, that an official would suggest that you do something that is against the law, especially while telling you that you might get fined if you get caught.

Yah I hear you...I was equally confused and disturbed with her comments.

Lefty

[wwbirds]

Even if you hadn't received the renewal you would still have the old one to show you qualify to own firearms and explaining the renewal was on they way there isn't an officer in alberta that would charge you. Alberta has been on record for many years as not willing to enforce the federal PAL requirement.
More of a derail I guess.

[Robmcleod82]

Originally Posted by Leeper

Given the responses to the original poster, here's the real question:

Violent criminals are not the ones who ruined the privelege of recreational handgun use. Politicians and their supporters did that.

Couldnt agree more

[Rem - P14]

Newbie, I regret the flak you took in asking such a legitimate question. I was glad however to see some of your detractors were big enough to offer an apology once they realized what they had done.
I too am new to this forum and have found it to be a very good place to come for information. Perhaps, some of the hostility you ran into is born of fear. Speaking for myself, as a firearms owner and enthusiast I constantly feel as though I'm under the gun where my rights are concerned and so, in a manner of speaking, I am afraid. Fear is often expressed through anger.
I feel as though I've learned a lot from your question:
"There are no shades of grey where the law is concerned."
"It is too easy to begin writing your own laws when your opinions make sense."
"Some answers are best sought from the source itself."

Sorry about the bullet you just took and I hope you do not let this experience sour you to the forum. My bet is that a lot of people learned much they needed to know by virtue of the question you asked.

[Chevy 454]

Originally Posted by pattycr125

although i think handguns are very interesting i think it is pointless to own one in canada, also i have a question, do you need to call and get a ATT every single time you go to the range or do you get one att and its good for going to the range and back without the need to call every time?

violent criminals ruined the privledge to enjoy handguns for recreation outside of a range

Why would you think it is pointless to own one in Canada? Yes,the gov't tries to make it very inconvenient to own one, but shooting with a handgun is every bit as fun as shooting a rifle or shotgun. They can even be used in self defence as the jeweler in B.C. did not to long ago, another thing gun laws try to make nearly impossible.

[huntinstuff]

I encourage everyone to purchase/shoot/collect as many firearms as they can

The law says you cannot have a restricted firearm where it is not authorized to be

Taking a handgun to a farm to shoot is illegal. You will be charged

Personally I think we should be able to hunt with handguns

I also think that a PAL should be a license that allows you to buy any type of firearm and transport it. This ATT and temporary ATT garbage is just not necessary

[couleefolk]

so many laws in this country, its crazy. as i am reading this thread, my gears are turning. if you want to get somewhere fast, your best bet is to ride with an off duty police officer who has very little chance of getting a ticket. i'm thinking that this rule may apply to this situation as well. just check a few news articles involving off duty police officers involved in illegal activities, and how many of them really get punished? if a person decides they should be able to break the law, i'm thinking you should at least be in the proper company. bottom line is "don't break the law and mess things up for other shooters!"

[rugatika]

I believe you will get tazed, kicked in the face, and then charged with a bunch of stuff.

[colt45]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

I encourage everyone to purchase/shoot/collect as many firearms as they can

The law says you cannot have a restricted firearm where it is not authorized to be

Taking a handgun to a farm to shoot is illegal. You will be charged

Personally I think we should be able to hunt with handguns

I also think that a PAL should be a license that allows you to buy any type of firearm and transport it. This ATT and temporary ATT garbage is just not necessary

I agree with Huntinstuff, totally

[podman]

I think rim fire handguns should be placed in a different category and you could take them out to a private ranch or property of a certain size and shoot gophers or targets.

My 2 cents, with an election coming maybe handguns need to be readdressed.

[duffy4]

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, using no form of violence. It is one of the primary methods of nonviolent resistance.



Or bend over and submit to all aspects of the federal firearms laws.

[Tundra Monkey]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

The Darwin awards exist for a reason!

Yup....why would anyone ever want to shoot their pistol out on the farm?? Don't they know that the only safe place for a Canadian citizen to play with one is at an approved range

I wanna nominate Huntinstuff for PM

tm

[Rem - P14]

Originally Posted by fallen1817

Many gray areas within the law, and I am by no means a professional, just expressing my point of view and my thoughts on the subject. Sure, my example wasn't the most concrete. The Mens Rea I mentioned is intent. Did you intend to do something? There are few excuses that will get you off the hook, such as intoxication, duress, necessity, etc. I guess the confusion within my post was that thinking about something may not be illegal, but having intention on following through on the act is illegal. Again, I may not have provided the best examples, but there's no need to call names; we're all adults discussing our thoughts.

-Jeff

I wonder how many "gray areas" there are within the law. A lot is left to a judge's discretion of course but it seems to me that once the law has been compromised in one way or another one of the judge's choices might be to apply penalties to the absolute letter. The "intent" of which you speak is (in my unqualified opinion) probably only punishable after actual commision of the crime or in cases where conspiracy can be proven.
Woa! Somebody please punish me for pretending to be a lawyer. Everything I think I know comes from the television shows I watch. Seriously though, practicing law without a license is highly frowned upon by the legal community so it would be very unwise for any of us to rely on anything we learn by word of mouth or recreational keyboard.
I truly agree with your point on name-calling. This type of communication is only fun so long as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I will hear anyone out on virtually any subject whatsoever. I only ask that I be afforded the same privilege.

[hardy]

If you live on a farm and your restricted weapon is registered to that residence you could shoot it there. Seeing that the OP doesn't live their it would be illegal. I know someone who got caught out in the bush with his handgun, he was shootin cans and a guy on a quad drove buy and must have reported him. The police showed up and gave the guy a break. So I guess you could say that it depends on who catches you but I wouldn't want to find out. As for my friend well he got lucky,everyones luck runs out at some point.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by hardy

If you live on a farm and your restricted weapon is registered to that residence you could shoot it there. Seeing that the OP doesn't live their it would be illegal. I know someone who got caught out in the bush with his handgun, he was shootin cans and a guy on a quad drove buy and must have reported him. The police showed up and gave the guy a break. So I guess you could say that it depends on who catches you but I wouldn't want to find out. As for my friend well he got lucky,everyones luck runs out at some point.

^^^^

Unfortunately I think you are mistaken. Unless the residence has an "approved range" on it. You are not even able to discharge a handgun on your own property legally.

Lefty

[firegod74]

What exactly is an approved range? Is it something a landowner could apply for?
I think it would be a great idea if in a situation like this a person could go into an RCMP station, say "My uncle wants to bring his handgun out to my farm for some plinking. Here is the land location." A form is filled out, a fee is paid, and the property becomes a temporary range for the weekend. The officers then have the heads up, and can come out and confirm that guns are being discharged in a safe manner if they choose.

[elkhunter11]

What exactly is an approved range? Is it something a landowner could apply for?
I think it would be a great idea if in a situation like this a person could go into an RCMP station, say "My uncle wants to bring his handgun out to my farm for some plinking. Here is the land location." A form is filled out, a fee is paid, and the property becomes a temporary range for the weekend. The officers then have the heads up, and can come out and confirm that guns are being discharged in a safe manner if they choose.

It's not nearly that easy, the property must have approved backstops. You would require access to earth moving equipment, and plenty of soil to be moved to provide the required backstops. It could require a considerable investment if you have to hire equipment and operators.

[D-Cell]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

^^^^^^^
Just like saying....

Just wondering what kind of penalties would a person face for firing up some methamphetamine at a family members ranch with a glass pipe? Is it just a fine. Anyone know anyone personally that has faced fines or jail time for doing this? Or are they pretty lax with these laws as long as its safe and not in the commission of a crime.

Illegal is illegal......

Better chances with the methamphetamines.

[D-Cell]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's not nearly that easy, the property must have approved backstops. You would require access to earth moving equipment, and plenty of soil to be moved to provide the required backstops. It could require a considerable investment if you have to hire equipment and operators.

You missed the part about having a plan to clean up the lead after the shooting range was done with, asking nearby neighbours if they would be okay with the noise.

Can be done.

[elkhunter11]

You missed the part about having a plan to clean up the lead after the shooting range was done with, asking nearby neighbours if they would be okay with the noise.

Add that to the conditions, and it makes the idea seem even less attractive, although just the requirement for building backstops results in most people giving up on the idea. It can be done, but it is certainly not as easy as some people want to believe.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I think a good overall message for things found on a forum post is.....ask the question....check the answers.....and don't follow/believe everything that results. Then follow up with authorities to see if something is truly allowed.

If people followed the forum posts we would have people hunting cougars at all times of the year with handguns as long as they owned the property!

Lefty

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Rem - P14

The "intent" of which you speak is (in my unqualified opinion) probably only punishable after actual commision of the crime or in cases where conspiracy can be proven.

In most cases, firearms offences (such as that asked about by the OP) are regulatory in nature and are considered "strict liability" offences. In other words, WHY you did something, has no bearing on the determination of guilt: either you DID or DID NOT do something.

For example, a speeding ticket: the reality is if you are fleeing from a crazed gunman or your child is bleeding to death and you are racing to the hospital, you can be charged with speeding - and there is no excuse for it (well there is, but it does not matter). In reality, the officer who wrote you a ticket would have to be one cold-hearted SOB to do so, but under the law, he has every right to do so, and you have no valid argument against it, except that he was mistaken, and you did not actually drive over the posted limit (but you did, so you are out of luck).

Most other "crimes" that are not paper offences (regulatory) require proof of a "guilty mind", otherwise they are not criminal. Say you are at the range (an approved range) and you are shooting in the accepted approved manner of the range rules. In doing so a bullet richochets of the berm, catches a hard crosswind, and kills a jogger on an adjacent property. There is no intent to do anything not allowed, there is no intent to harm someone, therefore there is no crime.

Same situation, but now you are goofing around shooting at geese flying past - same sad ending. Now you are in the poop. You are committing a crime by shooting at the geese (single projectile & migratory birds) and you know it (or should know it); so now you are criminally responsible for the persons death.

Get it?

ETA, So how does this apply to the OP's question? Simple. It does not matter much if he knows it is a crime to fire a restricted firearm where he is not allowed, he either shoots it or he does not, and can be fined up to 5K or sent to jail for up to 6 months. It is a (regulatory) criminal offence.

Now, if the crown decided to make an example of him and tries to put him in jail for 5 years, it is a whole new ball of wax. Now the question of whether he knew it was a crime is important. Why he shot it is also important. In this case there ARE valid excuses for shooting a restricted firearm somewhere other than an approved range.

[Rem - P14]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

In most cases, firearms offences (such as that asked about by the OP) are regulatory in nature and are considered "strict liability" offences. In other words, WHY you did something, has no bearing on the determination of guilt: either you DID or DID NOT do something.

For example, a speeding ticket: the reality is if you are fleeing from a crazed gunman or your child is bleeding to death and you are racing to the hospital, you can be charged with speeding - and there is no excuse for it (well there is, but it does not matter). In reality, the officer who wrote you a ticket would have to be one cold-hearted SOB to do so, but under the law, he has every right to do so, and you have no valid argument against it, except that he was mistaken, and you did not actually drive over the posted limit (but you did, so you are out of luck).

Most other "crimes" that are not paper offences (regulatory) require proof of a "guilty mind", otherwise they are not criminal. Say you are at the range (an approved range) and you are shooting in the accepted approved manner of the range rules. In doing so a bullet richochets of the berm, catches a hard crosswind, and kills a jogger on an adjacent property. There is no intent to do anything not allowed, there is no intent to harm someone, therefore there is no crime.

Same situation, but now you are goofing around shooting at geese flying past - same sad ending. Now you are in the poop. You are committing a crime by shooting at the geese (single projectile & migratory birds) and you know it (or should know it); so now you are criminally responsible for the persons death.

Get it?

ETA, So how does this apply to the OP's question? Simple. It does not matter much if he knows it is a crime to fire a restricted firearm where he is not allowed, he either shoots it or he does not, and can be fined up to 5K or sent to jail for up to 6 months. It is a (regulatory) criminal offence.

Now, if the crown decided to make an example of him and tries to put him in jail for 5 years, it is a whole new ball of wax. Now the question of whether he knew it was a crime is important. Why he shot it is also important. In this case there ARE valid excuses for shooting a restricted firearm somewhere other than an approved range.

Thank-you for your reply. When I first spoke up on the "intent" issue it sounded as though some of the members were including speculation of what might happen as a definition of the word "intent." I realize my input was just as cloudy as the original message and this thread does not need any further complications than it already has.
It's good to hear from someone who prefers to deal with hard, cold facts rather than unqualified conjecture. Some rules can only be enforced if they are dealt with to the absolute letter.

[Rem - P14]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I think a good overall message for things found on a forum post is.....ask the question....check the answers.....and don't follow/believe everything that results. Then follow up with authorities to see if something is truly allowed.

If people followed the forum posts we would have people hunting cougars at all times of the year with handguns as long as they owned the property!

Lefty

Very well said Lefty. What worries me somewhat is the possibility of people taking dancers on the net as some kind of authorities on the subject being addressed. In some cases they are very well informed and may very well know when we are straying too far out in left field but we are better off consulting a recognized authority when the water gets murky.
Meanwhile, it is a lot of fun to throw ideas back and forth though. We just can't take ourselves too seriously.

[Manitoba_shooter]

The gun laws in this country are just plain stupid. Seems like it's getting harder to find somebody who will enforce them.

My brother, who is a CO, has told me numerous times that they won't recognize this whole gun registry BS. If him or anyone from his office happens to pull you over, they will just check to make sure it's not loaded. Not once has he ever checked for proper registration and such. These orders come right from his boss.

My wife, a member with the RCMP, shoots on our rural property all the time. Her co-workers come over and bring their service pistols all the time. It's not uncommon having 3-5 off duty officers over on a Sunday afternoon for some food and shooting. Never had a problem,neighbors are miles away. Oh, and my wife won the lottery in the RCMP. That's how it's been put by her co-workers anyway. She was posted 15 minutes from where she was born and raised right after depot. Been here 11 years now. Just wanted to add that so it doesn't seem like were shooting pistols in the back yard in town or something. We don't live in a RCMP provided home.

Don't want to name any names or locations, but from just looking at my name, you could tell where were located.

Just for the record, my wife nor her co-workers, do NOT support any gun registry laws.

CRIMINALS don't register firearms!

Sorry, may be a little off topic. We've never had any penalties shooting restricted firearms on private property.

When the government pays my property taxes and helps me work the land. Then they can tell me what I can and can't do on it.