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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:14 PM
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
Yes this is Brendan, I am 9 years old and in grade 4. At school they teach us not to call each other dumb, so I will say you are not very smart. I will go get my Dad now, bye.
Well young man,I must say you are a very good speller for 9yo,keep up the good work,work hard in school,and some day you may even become a lawyer that comprehends legal arguments and letter of the law.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #182  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:46 PM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
Fine,if "legislation clearly says that"/qu....cite the section of the ACT that clearly states that and settle this once and for all??
You can't.
Please don't waste your breath yet again citing regs that define where one is authorized to transport a restricted,the firearm is not being transported,its irrelevant to this argument.
The legislation has been highlighted in RED several times(read it carefully) in this thread that restricted firearms can only be discharged at a CFO certified range where restricted firearms are sanctioned permission to be fired. It seems pretty cut and dried. You keep parroting wishful delusions of twisted nonsense citing imaginary loopholes that don't exist.
  #183  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:10 PM
arnsem10 arnsem10 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 21
Default what is a pistol?

So the thread title is 'shooting pistols on private land'. Assuming a 'pistol' is a 'handgun'. Let us start from the beginning... What is the Canadian definition of a 'handgun'?

The only information I can find is that a 'prohibited handgun' has a barrel length of less than or equal too 105mm. And that restricted firearms include: Handguns that are not prohibited.

So I ask again. What is a handgun?
  #184  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:32 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
What is so hard to understand? It is very simple. Legislation clearly says the only place a restricted firearm can be fired is at a CFO endorsed range where the discharge of restricted firearms is approved. You are not allowed to fire a restricted firearm anywhere else. How much more simple can they make it.......Has the CFO inspected, approved or licenced your kitchen window or back deck or your back forty for the legal discharge of restricted firearms? If not then you can't shoot it there. Transport laws have nothing to do with where you can shoot it. Transport laws allow you to transport the weapon to and from where it is stored to where it is legal to shoot it, and the only legal place to shoot it is at an Approved range. It is not legal to shoot it where you store it unless where your storing it happens to be an Approved range.
The legislation says that the only place a restricted can be transported & used is a CFO approved range. Transported and used. Not used. Transported & used. Sec 19 is covering the criterion for being authorized to transport, and being used at an approved range is one of the reasons for being authorized to transport it.

Sec 28 is covering the criteria for having a transfer approved when you buy/inherit/acquire a restricted or 12(6) handgun. Neither is relevant in the situation we are talking about.

For the millionth time we are talking about an RPAL holder who has restricted guns registered to his rural address where it is legal to discharge firearms discharging his firearm from his house/dwelling. Possession laws are not violated. Storage laws are not violated. Transport laws are not violated.
  #185  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:38 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

And can someone post Section 19 & Section 28 again in bold or red for good measure? Just one more time ought to do it.
  #186  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:02 PM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1 View Post
And can someone post Section 19 & Section 28 again in bold or red for good measure? Just one more time ought to do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
The legislation has been highlighted in RED several times(read it carefully) in this thread that restricted firearms can only be discharged at a CFO certified range where restricted firearms are sanctioned permission to be fired. It seems pretty cut and dried. You keep parroting wishful delusions of twisted nonsense citing imaginary loopholes that don't exist.
I've read it carefully umpteen times and I've yet to find ANYTHING in this thread nor the Act that states restricted firearms can only be discharged at a CFO approved range,nor that discharging a restricted anywhere other then a CFO approved range is expressly prohibited.Ive only seen examples of places where one is authorized to transport restricted firearms to and from their legal residence....period.
Correction....I've seen that AND the fact that many people struggle with reading comprehension.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #187  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:31 PM
denied access denied access is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silver View Post
I think you have a pretty good grip on this. I have read the law several times and came to the same conclusions. Who would want to shoot out of the window? You would have to be a bachelor to do it.
Devils advocate but as you need a building permit to add a deck and it is clearly shown on your lot plan would the back deck not be part of the dwelling? Used to shoot trap off the back deck all the time.
  #188  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:45 PM
purgatory.sv purgatory.sv is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,296
Default

Definition can be discussed, but meaning can only be achieved by questioning in the courts.
Interpretation can be discussed but meaning can only be resolved by court challenge.

Last edited by purgatory.sv; 03-19-2017 at 11:46 PM. Reason: fire
  #189  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:50 PM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by denied access View Post
Devils advocate but as you need a building permit to add a deck and it is clearly shown on your lot plan would the back deck not be part of the dwelling? Used to shoot trap off the back deck all the time.
It's attached to and essentially part of your house,I don't see why not?
Actually,the original thread on CGN went so far as to say that your entire home property may in fact be legally described as say 123 Range Rd 45 for example,wether that is 1 acre surrounded by crown or 40 acres or 160 acres......but let's keep it simple and presume you are shooting from your deck,don't wanna open that can of worms,lol.

On the other hand.....speaking of devils advocate.....what if you live off grid.....ie;you bought a quarter section and built a self sufficient cabin on it and it is only accessible by goat path,you have no actual municipal address,only the legal land description,ie 10-20-35-45-W5 for instance?
That is your only legal address and primary residence.Your DL,Alberta Health Card,voter registration,RPAL,restricted firearms are all registered to that "address" which is in fact the entire quarter.Arguably,you could be anywhere on that quarter without ever having transported your restricted firearm from its registered address.
Hmmmmmmmm...??
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #190  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:02 AM
TomCanuck TomCanuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,506
Default

There is a jeweller in Vancouver who kept his target pistols at his shop. He did some shooting on his premises one day and got away with it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ights-1.817344

I suspect your mileage might vary depending on the cops and the crown attorney.
__________________
Pacifists exist at the pleasure of the more aggressive, or by the sacrifices made by the less passive.
  #191  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:00 AM
700-223 700-223 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Anyone got the specific reference showing it's legal to carry on a trapline and DISCHARGE it there? The comparison may shed some light on this. Does it explicitly say they can be discharged in a trapline or just carried there and imply discharge is permitted?

IMO, our firearms laws are confusing - and this is a feature, not a bug. Nobody here is trying to break the law, just the opposite in fact, this thread started to confirm one reasonable interpretation of the legislation AS WRITTEN is that you could discharge your restricted firearms at home if it is otherwise legal and safe to do so. Not having a clear consensus after 7 pages says more about how our laws are written than the community here. And since it only takes one LEO who doesn't interpret it the way you do to charge you... and, since they no longer go through the training to get their PAL during depot in Regina, this is a real possibility.

OTOH, it was covered in my firearms courses that the only legal place to discharge a restricted is at the range and is something I've heard many times from other RPAL holders. The prudent thing to do is to realize that such an action could lead to charges and even if you are eventually exonerated - the process is the punishment. Absent a statement from a firearms lawyer, the RCMP, or in the PAL education books, I plan on NOT being a test case. We all have too much to lose.
  #192  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:38 AM
35 whelen 35 whelen is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: GRAND PRAIRIE
Posts: 5,720
Default

I wonder if these would be legal in Canada

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
  #193  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:40 AM
35 whelen 35 whelen is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: GRAND PRAIRIE
Posts: 5,720
Default

I wonder if these would be legal in Canada

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
  #194  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:00 AM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 700-223 View Post
Anyone got the specific reference showing it's legal to carry on a trapline and DISCHARGE it there? The comparison may shed some light on this. Does it explicitly say they can be discharged in a trapline or just carried there and imply discharge is permitted?

IMO, our firearms laws are confusing - and this is a feature, not a bug. Nobody here is trying to break the law, just the opposite in fact, this thread started to confirm one reasonable interpretation of the legislation AS WRITTEN is that you could discharge your restricted firearms at home if it is otherwise legal and safe to do so. Not having a clear consensus after 7 pages says more about how our laws are written than the community here. And since it only takes one LEO who doesn't interpret it the way you do to charge you... and, since they no longer go through the training to get their PAL during depot in Regina, this is a real possibility.

OTOH, it was covered in my firearms courses that the only legal place to discharge a restricted is at the range and is something I've heard many times from other RPAL holders. The prudent thing to do is to realize that such an action could lead to charges and even if you are eventually exonerated - the process is the punishment. Absent a statement from a firearms lawyer, the RCMP, or in the PAL education books, I plan on NOT being a test case. We all have too much to lose.
If your one of the few who have a wilderness carry permit it is issued for protection and it would be legal to fire it in a case of emergency if needed, the permit is issued in exception to the rule of not being able to shoot anywhere but an approved range. Same as police officers and others who are allowed carry outside the regular regulations. It would silly to grant these exemptions yet not allow them to be fired in the purpose the permit was issued for. This is apples and oranges, Regular RPAL does not allow this and arguing that it somehow does is well whatever. Just ask one of the past executives of our local gun club who used the same argument to have a few friends over to his private acreage and shoot their restricted firearms off their back deck and then post pictures of this activity on facebook where it came to authorities attention. Fortunately the authorities (understanding that they were shooting safely and nobody in the area was in danger along with the fact the authorities and the people shooting were amicably and previously acquainted) were very diplomatic and only warned them to cease, that if it were to happen again their firearms would be seized and they would wind up in court. They were advised by a lawyer familiar with firearms law, who also advises our shooting club on these issues that if they fought it they would lose.

You can interpret this legislation however you want but you should understand how the courts will interpret it which for the vast majority of us is all that matters. You can argue semantics till the cows come home and if you guys want to make a constitutional challenge that may take years and cost many millions of dollars that you are very unlikely to win, in fact you won't win but even on the extremely remote chance you did win, the law then would be subsequently amended to make your challenge redundant anyway..... Go ahead be my guest.
  #195  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:42 AM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

Prove it time....

Someone who thinks it's ok, do it and post a video here.

Wait for the knock at the door.

LC
__________________
  #196  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:15 AM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
If your one of the few who have a wilderness carry permit it is issued for protection and it would be legal to fire it in a case of emergency if needed, the permit is issued in exception to the rule of not being able to shoot anywhere but an approved range. Same as police officers and others who are allowed carry outside the regular regulations. It would silly to grant these exemptions yet not allow them to be fired in the purpose the permit was issued for. This is apples and oranges, Regular RPAL does not allow this and arguing that it somehow does is well whatever. Just ask one of the past executives of our local gun club who used the same argument to have a few friends over to his private acreage and shoot their restricted firearms off their back deck and then post pictures of this activity on facebook where it came to authorities attention. Fortunately the authorities (understanding that they were shooting safely and nobody in the area was in danger along with the fact the authorities and the people shooting were amicably and previously acquainted) were very diplomatic and only warned them to cease, that if it were to happen again their firearms would be seized and they would wind up in court. They were advised by a lawyer familiar with firearms law, who also advises our shooting club on these issues that if they fought it they would lose.

You can interpret this legislation however you want but you should understand how the courts will interpret it which for the vast majority of us is all that matters. You can argue semantics till the cows come home and if you guys want to make a constitutional challenge that may take years and cost many millions of dollars that you are very unlikely to win, in fact you won't win but even on the extremely remote chance you did win, the law then would be subsequently amended to make your challenge redundant anyway..... Go ahead be my guest.
Again the wilderness carry permit is not about discharging it's about being
Allowed to transport it to not typically approved places. Discharge doesn't even factor into it. Why on earth would anyone be issued a wilderness carry permit with the stipulation that you can't discharge the thing?! Why carry it then?
  #197  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:10 AM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1 View Post
And can someone post Section 19 & Section 28 again in bold or red for good measure? Just one more time ought to do it.
Really....are your comprehension skills that poor???
  #198  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:18 AM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

This scenario is also apples to oranges compared to gun club friends described above inviting friends over to shoot THEIR restricteds....they would all be in contravention of TRANSPORT regs with the possible exception of the host,who,again,hasn't TRANSPORTED his restricted firearm anywhere,assuming the property is also his primary residence and address that RPAL is registered to.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.
  #199  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:23 AM
astuart44's Avatar
astuart44 astuart44 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Saguenay, QC
Posts: 30
Default Don't do it...

Have seen more than one lose ALL their firearms for doing this...Don't do it.
  #200  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:11 PM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
Prove it time....

Someone who thinks it's ok, do it and post a video here.

Wait for the knock at the door.

LC
Rather then spending tens and hundreds of thousands to PROVE it,why not just test it?
I'm sure there are RCMP members follow AO...likely even this thread in particular?
I'm sure there also many AO members that have RPAL and pistols and live in a rural area where they can legally without hassle/no questions asked plink tin cans from their back deck with their non-restricted .22 on any given Sunday.
Chances are also quite good that some of these RPAL holding/pistol owning/rural living AO members also have friends,neighbours,huntin buddy,hockey line mate,drinking buddy that is RCMP.
So here's what you do.....
-Invite your RCMP buddy Bob over for back deck BBQ next Sunday.
-before he arrives,pull out the Ruger 10/22 and set up tin can alley in backyard.
-plink cans with your good buddy Bob with said non-restricted rifle,same as you've done together legally in your backyard on many occasions
-tell Bob that you are now going to your safe and gonna pull out your legally stored and registered 9mm Glock 17 to shoot some cans.

Now of course at this point,RCMP Bob will tell you that's illegal and we can't be doing this and why would you put him in this situation?

Then you say"Well Bob,I don't believe it is illegal and I'm doing it and what are you gonna charge me with?"
That's when Bob will scratch his head and think really hard and say "Gee whiz Bill,I'm not really sure,but I know it must be illegal."
So then you have Bob call his Supervisor and ask him what he should charge you with....and his answer will be the same...hmmmm...Bill is not in contravention of any transport laws,nor storage laws,and he is a legal and lawful RPAL holder,and the gun is properly registered to his proper address,and there's no reckless nor carelessness discharge and it's safe and legal to shoot his .22 and 12ga and .300winmag there,,,,,hmmmmm....let me get back to you on that.
So RCMP Supervisor will call Crown Prosecutor and explain that he has this redneck scofflaw shooting his Glock from the back deck of his home out in FarmVille and what do I charge him with??
....and the Crown will scratch his head and think real hard and get out his big stack of law books and say l"let me get back to you on that."
So a few hours or a few days or a few weeks if you insist go by and Mr. Crown Prosecutor call back RCMP Supervisor and says "Damn,I've read and reread every Section of Firearms Act and I know the CC inside and out and I really can't find any appropriate section of CC to charge this guy with if he wants to shoot his pistol at home nor any Section of the Firearms Act that he is in contravention of....how can this be,OH the humanity!!
So then he tells RCMP Supervisor Joe to tell your Constable Bob to tell this redneck scofflaw that if he dares to fire one single round from that pistol in his backyard were gonna come at him with everything we've got and make his life hell and leave him in financial ruin!!
"But just between me n you Joe.....we really got nothing on him.....shhhhhhh....if the sheeple find out it will be madness and anarchy,scofflaws shooting tin cans and gophers with Glocks and AR-15s all over the province and country!!
We cannot and will not have this Joe!!Think of the children Joe!!"

Oh and while your waiting for response from RCMP Supervisor and Crown.....might as well pull out your 25rd HotLips mags for the Ruger and dare him to charge you with Posession of a prohibited device while yer at it and your here anyway.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.

Last edited by West O'5; 03-20-2017 at 12:36 PM.
  #201  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:46 PM
West O'5 West O'5 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: W5
Posts: 1,093
Default

And guess what....Constable Bob won't charge you with Posession of Prohibited device because RCMP know damn well that they goofed on that call re:10/22 mags and the first person that fights it in court will win and set the precedent and overturn their nonsense prohibited device declaration.
So instead they use intimidation and issue warnings and tell you to get that menace to public safety 25rd rimfire magazine pinned to 10 or yer gonna be in BIG trouble next time Mister.
__________________
The toughest thing about waiting for the zombie apocalypse is pretending that I'm not excited.

Last edited by West O'5; 03-20-2017 at 12:56 PM.
  #202  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:08 PM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Throttle_monkey1 View Post
Again the wilderness carry permit is not about discharging it's about being
Allowed to transport it to not typically approved places. Discharge doesn't even factor into it. Why on earth would anyone be issued a wilderness carry permit with the stipulation that you can't discharge the thing?! Why carry it then?
Of course they wouldn't issue a Wilderness carry permit without allowing you to shoot it, that's what I was referring to in reply to 700-223 who basically asked if it was legal to discharge a firearm on a trapline if you had a wilderness carry permit. Wilderness carry allows the holder to be exempt from the regulations that require restricted firearms to only be legally fired at an approved range. Again you take it out of context and twist it around to try to suit the agenda your trying to push.
  #203  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:33 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
Rather then spending tens and hundreds of thousands to PROVE it,why not just test it?
I'm sure there are RCMP members follow AO...likely even this thread in particular?
I'm sure there also many AO members that have RPAL and pistols and live in a rural area where they can legally without hassle/no questions asked plink tin cans from their back deck with their non-restricted .22 on any given Sunday.
Chances are also quite good that some of these RPAL holding/pistol owning/rural living AO members also have friends,neighbours,huntin buddy,hockey line mate,drinking buddy that is RCMP.
So here's what you do.....
-Invite your RCMP buddy Bob over for back deck BBQ next Sunday.
-before he arrives,pull out the Ruger 10/22 and set up tin can alley in backyard.
-plink cans with your good buddy Bob with said non-restricted rifle,same as you've done together legally in your backyard on many occasions
-tell Bob that you are now going to your safe and gonna pull out your legally stored and registered 9mm Glock 17 to shoot some cans.

Now of course at this point,RCMP Bob will tell you that's illegal and we can't be doing this and why would you put him in this situation?

Then you say"Well Bob,I don't believe it is illegal and I'm doing it and what are you gonna charge me with?"
That's when Bob will scratch his head and think really hard and say "Gee whiz Bill,I'm not really sure,but I know it must be illegal."
So then you have Bob call his Supervisor and ask him what he should charge you with....and his answer will be the same...hmmmm...Bill is not in contravention of any transport laws,nor storage laws,and he is a legal and lawful RPAL holder,and the gun is properly registered to his proper address,and there's no reckless nor carelessness discharge and it's safe and legal to shoot his .22 and 12ga and .300winmag there,,,,,hmmmmm....let me get back to you on that.
So RCMP Supervisor will call Crown Prosecutor and explain that he has this redneck scofflaw shooting his Glock from the back deck of his home out in FarmVille and what do I charge him with??
....and the Crown will scratch his head and think real hard and get out his big stack of law books and say l"let me get back to you on that."
So a few hours or a few days or a few weeks if you insist go by and Mr. Crown Prosecutor call back RCMP Supervisor and says "Damn,I've read and reread every Section of Firearms Act and I know the CC inside and out and I really can't find any appropriate section of CC to charge this guy with if he wants to shoot his pistol at home nor any Section of the Firearms Act that he is in contravention of....how can this be,OH the humanity!!
So then he tells RCMP Supervisor Joe to tell your Constable Bob to tell this redneck scofflaw that if he dares to fire one single round from that pistol in his backyard were gonna come at him with everything we've got and make his life hell and leave him in financial ruin!!
"But just between me n you Joe.....we really got nothing on him.....shhhhhhh....if the sheeple find out it will be madness and anarchy,scofflaws shooting tin cans and gophers with Glocks and AR-15s all over the province and country!!
We cannot and will not have this Joe!!Think of the children Joe!!"

Oh and while your waiting for response from RCMP Supervisor and Crown.....might as well pull out your 25rd HotLips mags for the Ruger and dare him to charge you with Posession of a prohibited device while yer at it and your here anyway.
Be my guest, let me know the outcome.

LC
__________________
  #204  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:34 PM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
This scenario is also apples to oranges compared to gun club friends described above inviting friends over to shoot THEIR restricteds....they would all be in contravention of TRANSPORT regs with the possible exception of the host,who,again,hasn't TRANSPORTED his restricted firearm anywhere,assuming the property is also his primary residence and address that RPAL is registered to.
The police responded because restricted firearms were being fired illegally at a place they are not allowed to be discharged. Transportation violations were not a concern with the police nor were they even discussed.

I take it your trying to say it should be legal for the host to shoot but not his guests because they transported their firearms there illegally but the host didn't? So if none of the guests brought their own firearms and instead only shot the hosts guns it would all be legal?
  #205  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:45 PM
srs123 srs123 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 455
Default

go for it. always seek legal advice on a hunting forum. what's the worst that could happen. just point the cops to this post and where you got your answerif they give you grief over it.

shoot away, and make sure you are aiming at a good back stop like a neighbors house.
  #206  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:42 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
Of course they wouldn't issue a Wilderness carry permit without allowing you to shoot it, that's what I was referring to in reply to 700-223 who basically asked if it was legal to discharge a firearm on a trapline if you had a wilderness carry permit. Wilderness carry allows the holder to be exempt from the regulations that require restricted firearms to only be legally fired at an approved range. Again you take it out of context and twist it around to try to suit the agenda your trying to push.
I'm not twisting any agenda or taking anything out of context. You're saying an ATC makes one exempt from "the regulations that require restricted firearms to only be legally fired at an approved range". What regulation is that? Section 19?

The one that basically says says a person who has their RPAL may be authorized to transport their firearm for any good and sufficient reason such as:

i) for target practice at an approved range. (Paraphrased).

Section 19 is about being authorized to transport and what criteria need to be met to obtain authorization/approval to transport. So of course target practice at an approved range would be a valid reason for authorization to transport. And you would not be authorized to transport it to your friend's house to plink. But the rural homeowner who has his restricteds licensed to that address who shoots from his house/dwelling in an area where there are no discharge bylaws doesn't require any authorization to transport to do that.

Do you guys honestly not understand that?
  #207  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:53 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by West O'5 View Post
It's attached to and essentially part of your house,I don't see why not?
Actually,the original thread on CGN went so far as to say that your entire home property may in fact be legally described as say 123 Range Rd 45 for example,wether that is 1 acre surrounded by crown or 40 acres or 160 acres......but let's keep it simple and presume you are shooting from your deck,don't wanna open that can of worms,lol.

On the other hand.....speaking of devils advocate.....what if you live off grid.....ie;you bought a quarter section and built a self sufficient cabin on it and it is only accessible by goat path,you have no actual municipal address,only the legal land description,ie 10-20-35-45-W5 for instance?
That is your only legal address and primary residence.Your DL,Alberta Health Card,voter registration,RPAL,restricted firearms are all registered to that "address" which is in fact the entire quarter.Arguably,you could be anywhere on that quarter without ever having transported your restricted firearm from its registered address.
Hmmmmmmmm...??
From what I've read that would get you in some poop with the law as house/dwelling is pretty well defined in Sec 2:

s. 2
...
“dwelling-house” means the whole or any part of a building or structure that is kept or occupied as a permanent or temporary residence, and includes

(a) a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is connected to it by a doorway or by a covered and enclosed passage-way, and
(b) a unit that is designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being used as such a residence;

So move out to the country, buy some land, live in a motorhome on your land with your restricteds registered to that address and drive around your land in your motorhome, park your motorhome, shoot restricteds from motorhome. Winning!
  #208  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:47 PM
700-223 700-223 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
Of course they wouldn't issue a Wilderness carry permit without allowing you to shoot it, that's what I was referring to in reply to 700-223 who basically asked if it was legal to discharge a firearm on a trapline if you had a wilderness carry permit. Wilderness carry allows the holder to be exempt from the regulations that require restricted firearms to only be legally fired at an approved range. Again you take it out of context and twist it around to try to suit the agenda your trying to push.
No, that wasn't what I asked. I asked if anyone had a copy of the specific regulation referring to carry permits for trapline use. I know, everyone knows, that you can use it for protection or dispatch animals caught in a trap. That is the whole point. My question was whether or not anyone has a copy of the specific regulations with regards to wilderness carry permits. How does the wording compare? Does it specifically say that they are allowed to discharge firearms when regular RPAL holders cannot? Is it explicit approval for discharge for wilderness carry or implicit (i.e. Says they can discharge their firearm away from the range or simply does not say they can't).
  #209  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:58 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

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.
  #210  
Old 03-20-2017, 04:03 PM
Throttle_monkey1 Throttle_monkey1 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 700-223 View Post
No, that wasn't what I asked. I asked if anyone had a copy of the specific regulation referring to carry permits for trapline use. I know, everyone knows, that you can use it for protection or dispatch animals caught in a trap. That is the whole point. My question was whether or not anyone has a copy of the specific regulations with regards to wilderness carry permits. How does the wording compare? Does it specifically say that they are allowed to discharge firearms when regular RPAL holders cannot? Is it explicit approval for discharge for wilderness carry or implicit (i.e. Says they can discharge their firearm away from the range or simply does not say they can't).
Section 17:

S 17 Subject to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry, or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer.

And section 20 deals with ATCs:

20 An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun

(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or

(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

Again there is nothing on discharge, but this is from the firearms act. I don't
have an ATC and have never seen one in person so I can't comment on the language within the ATC itself.
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 07:51 AM.


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