Question Regarding Restricted Firearm Storage

[awront]

Take a look at this thread.
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1204800-Would-this-pass-our-storage-and-transportation-restricted-laws?

I'll quote myself from post #18, where I state that the Firearm's Act (the actual law, not some RCMP webpage) uses the same wording for container in both the transport and storage sections.
Therefore, if you can transport in that container, you can store it that way.
There is no mention anywhere about fastening to anything.

Legal, vs. wise are two different things though.
I also believe that a position of going beyond minimum would be easier to defend.

And I'll say it again, reference the Firearm's Act (that is the law), not the RCMP's website for exact wording.

--- below from above mentioned thread ---

The wording in regard to the paraphrased "difficult to break into" is the same for transport and storage.
My interpretation is that any container which satisfies the requirements of one, would satisfy the other (exception maybe being added requirement of opaque for transport).

I don't know if the added words "strength" and "nature" under transport are meaningful.
If anything, I would think that might tighten the transport requirements.


Transport:
"it is in a locked container that is made of an
opaque material and is of such strength, construction
and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into"

Storage:
"stored in a container, receptacle or
room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed
so that it cannot readily be broken open or into"

[aragorn1]

Original Poster..... by the time you finish reading all the posts here, you will be more confused than before asking. The "clear" rules are open to interpretation and peoples own interpretation of said rules. I can tell you what I do as will everyone else on here. It's not that confusing really, I go above and beyond what the regs "require", to cover my ass. If you are inspected you are at the mercy of the officer standing before you, even if he's wrong you still have to jump through a lot of hoops and perhaps court time to prove you are correct. Do yourself a favor..... go above and beyond

[whiteoutjeeper]

Sigh. There's always one that must ignore common sense considerations. "Show me the law that says I can't drive with both eyes closed!"


Actually, that requirement exists in military regulations for the storage of classified information and equipment in homes (INFOSEC 2). Precisely because we don't want thieves to simply look at the nice portable fire-proof safe, think "I'll open that at home when I have time", pick it up and leave with it.

I'll freely grant you, there's no explicit requirement that a small container must be attached to the structure. The requirement is:

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked;

This said, without being a lawyer, I can just about guarantee you that a small (i-e portable) container for a handgun that is not secured against unauthorized removal will not be deemed to be "secure storage" by a judge. There's no point in placing the handgun in the most resistant case in existence if you let the thief take it home so he can break it open at his leisure!

And of course, there's a matter of degree to this concept, like for the unattended storage of weapons in a vehicle: it's a risk management issue and the idea is that the weapons are not usually left in a vehicle for permanent storage.

So you concede that there is actually no requirement to bolt containers to the structure of the home. Yet you continue to claim there is, despite being able to post the actual laws.

Also, military requirements don't mean anything when interpreting the FA in a civilian setting.. Especially when you quote a rule about storing classified material and equipment, not even firearms.

So stop making things up, its as bad as Sunray.

[K-Roc]

Wouldn't that fail the "not readily broken into" requirement?

Maybe. Although its just as easy for me to break into some of the cases they sell specifically for guns.

I've seen some GCN sponsors selling storage or transportation containers and someone asks "Is this legal? Does this meet the requirements?" The sponsor will duck the question or give some vague definition of the regulations... and not clearly answer if it is 100% legal or not. I cant say I blame them at all, bc as most of us know the laws are vague, and can be interpenetrated in different ways.

All in all ppl worry wayyy tooo much about this stuff and many (maybe even myself sometimes!) are tightly wound on CGN. Lock your unloaded firearms in a cabinet or a safe, put a trigger lock on your restricteds... put them in some type of lockable case during transportation. There ya go... stop worrying about it and enjoy the hobby.

[Grawfr]

So you concede that there is actually no requirement to bolt containers to the structure of the home. Yet you continue to claim there is, despite being able to post the actual laws.

Also, military requirements don't mean anything when interpreting the FA in a civilian setting.. Especially when you quote a rule about storing classified material and equipment, not even firearms.

So stop making things up, its as bad as Sunray.

Whiteout, the military requirement I gave an as example of the application of the common sense principle. The good news is, you don't need that to own a gun or to have children. The bad news is, you don't need that to own a gun or have children, if you get my drift.

The first three posters that answered the OP perfectly settled the minimal requirements for storage of handguns, must you still try to wiggle around them? You want to drive with your eyes closed because there's no "actual law" that explicitly forbids it?

All right, try this one for size then: section 86.(1) of the criminal code:

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Now, you want to store a handgun in a small locked container (plastic case, small fire safe, whatever) that anyone can pick up, put under their arm and run away with, go right ahead. You'll be perfectly safe and content as long as nothing bad happens.

But if something bad does happen, you'll have to prove to the judge that leaving that container unsecured was a careful, perfectly reasonable and sufficient security measure to prevent the theft of the weapon. If you have good lawyers and an understanding judge, you'll be OK. Just missing a nice gun and whatever else was in the container. Otherwise...

[grumpyold]

The way the laws written, and so your butts, possibility but probably not, covered, trigger locks, into a lockable container, into a lockable cabinet, into a vault in a lockable room with an unfed rabid Rottie chained to the vault. Truth is the best lawyers in Canada can't interrupt the gun regs, and when the man shows up at the door he'll kick your guns down the driveway anyway, never to be seen again.

[dHb]

About 15 years ago I had a chat with the lawyer who wrote the safe storage regulations. He said that in "(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked;" any vault or safe would do. He said that it is only with respect to the room option that the clause "that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms" is applicable.

The threshold that I'm aware of being used by a frequent expert witness is that if a tool is required to break into the locked container, then the container was securely locked.

[shawn]

Whiteout, the military requirement I gave an as example of the application of the common sense principle. The good news is, you don't need that to own a gun or to have children. The bad news is, you don't need that to own a gun or have children, if you get my drift.

The first three posters that answered the OP perfectly settled the minimal requirements for storage of handguns, must you still try to wiggle around them? You want to drive with your eyes closed because there's no "actual law" that explicitly forbids it?

All right, try this one for size then: section 86.(1) of the criminal code:

86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Now, you want to store a handgun in a small locked container (plastic case, small fire safe, whatever) that anyone can pick up, put under their arm and run away with, go right ahead. You'll be perfectly safe and content as long as nothing bad happens.

But if something bad does happen, you'll have to prove to the judge that leaving that container unsecured was a careful, perfectly reasonable and sufficient security measure to prevent the theft of the weapon. If you have good lawyers and an understanding judge, you'll be OK. Just missing a nice gun and whatever else was in the container. Otherwise...

The issue is you keep making crap up and proclaiming it to be law. Such as:

you'll have to prove to the judge that leaving that container unsecured was a careful, was a careful, perfectly reasonable and sufficient security measure to prevent the theft of the weapon.

The section you quoted says none of that, it does not even say theft or have any thing to do with theft.

Shawn

[Grawfr]

Here you go again, resurrecting threads too.

Answer the OP, Shawn. Come on, give the OP the benefit of your considered legal opinion.

I quoted the CC and you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine. But you don't seem to be providing any useful advice to the original poster. Can you do that? Or is backseat driving the extent of your abilities?

[shawn]

I quoted the CC and you disagree with my interpretation, that's fine. But you don't seem to be providing any useful advice to the original poster. Can you do that? Or is backseat driving the extent of your abilities?

LOL Sure you did

You mad bro? Cant back up your BS so you name call, way to prove your point.

Go ahead and give us a link to where the CC says sufficient security measure or theft prevention.

We wont wait tho as it doesn't exist, like 90% of the junk you have posted in this thread.

Shawn