Two noob questions, one transport and one home defense

[llO0DQLE]

If you had given that reason when you applied for a restricted, you would not hAve been given the restricted license. Should tell ya the most correct answer....

Totally different scenario. The first situation is regarding your application for an RPAL and you're reason for acquiring restricted firearms. The other scenario is related to the use of already acquired firearm for HD and SD is supported in the Criminal Code.

[GunGuy34]

1) once I get my transport papers to a club, can I just throw my handgun in my backpack(in a locked case and trigger locked) and ride my motorcycle there? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes from what I've read on that rcmp flyer I got at the course. I just dont know if I stopped for gas and walked into the gas station to pay, could I be charged with concealed carry or something stupid like that.

2) if someone breaks into my house and is threatening my life can I use a firearm (restricted or not) for self defence? or am I suppose to throw my TV at them? I don't mean, if the guy is running away down the street and I shoot him in the back, that's not self defense.

you will fair better throwing the tv.

[GunGuy34]

That is a gross over simplification. You are not allowed to own a gun for self defence. You are not allowed to own a baseball bat, golf club or pool noodle for self defence either. Just because the status quo is that you cannot buy a pistol to use specifically for home defence, does not mean that you cannot use a pistol you bought to shoot targets to shoot an attacker.

If you are facing a direct threat of grevious bodily harm or death to either yourself or another, you are justified in the use of force up to and including deadly force. You have the RIGHT to self defence, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Whatever tool you have at your disposal is acceptable, be that a pistol that you can access from its properly stored location (there are fast access safes on the market for this express purpose) or the aformentioned pool noodle of death.

Just understand that you will need to justify any action that takes the life of another.

yup. get pulled over and frisked by a cop for example, he finds a knife and asks what you have the knife for, if you say self defense you can be charged as its then a weapon, you say i open parcels with it, then no problem.

[kobs]

yup. get pulled over and frisked by a cop for example, he finds a knife and asks what you have the knife for, if you say self defense you can be charged as its then a weapon, you say i open parcels with it, then no problem.

Laws are so stupid, and two sided

[GunGuy34]

Laws are so stupid, and two sided

yup.

[kobs]

In most cases home intrusion criminals do not come in armed, a little something that could get them a much longer jail time if caught. So the simple fact of pointing a gun at them will get them running for the door. Most self defence scenario home intrusion/attack/robbery with the victim pulling out a gun, ended up with the attacker running without any shots fired more than 80% of the time. No one wants to get into a gun fight including criminals.

[BCMark]

I've has people tell me that in those situations you should put the first shot between his eyes and the next into the floor. Tell the police you fired a warning shot. Neighbours wont know the difference.

This is the wrong way to go about it. DO NOT fire or claim to have fired a warning shot. The courts can/will argue that you did not feel a threat to your life if you opted for a warning shot over disabling your attacker. Secondly, if you do fire a warning shot and they run off you have to convince the legal system that there was in fact an intruder in the first place to keep from being charged with the discharging of your firearm within municipal limits.

[kobs]

LOL you have not read your own quote BC

"you should put the first shot between his eyes and the next into the floor"

I doubt very much that anyone will run off after that, so your theory of convincing the legal system that there was in fact an intruder in the first place to keep from being charged with the discharging of your firearm within municipal limits doesn't have a leg to stand on. Plus "The courts can/will argue that you did not feel a threat to your life if you opted for a warning shot over disabling your attacker" That is just what you should do in this situation, giving the intruder a way out. i doubt very much that anyone will argue the fact that you gave the criminal a chance before putting one between his eyes. <- That is the hard part to do in this situation lol