Shooting Restricted on your own Property

[tritium4ever]

Why??

It might come as a shock to some of you, but people have been shooting restricteds on private property, without the proper permits, on a regular basis for years and have never had any problems.

For me it's right up there with speeding. Yes, you shouldn't do it, and yes you might get caught, and if you get caught you might get in trouble. If you can handle the trouble, and feel it's worth it do what you please. There's no way they could arrest everybody if we all did it....

As the saying goes, it's only illegal if you get caught. Though if you get caught, enjoy your stay in jail and your firearms prohibition order.

[smellie]

A friend of mine has restricted and his legal address is "SWxx-###-xxW", which makes his place of residence 160 acres in area. I would say that the majority of rural residences in Western Canada are written up in this manner.

BTW, depending on your local police and CPFO, you CAN get an ATT for "nuisance/rodent control" (gopher shooting) in an agricultural area. This works ONLY if you have a WRITTEN INVITATION SPECIFYING THE DATE(S) ON WHICH YOU ARE INVITED, which has been submitted to the authority issuing the ATT. And, yes, open letters do work on occasion for this purpose.

Several years ago, a small number of us decided that this area's one-and-only outdoor range was a little too short. I mean, really, what can you tell, how many long-range shoots can you get ready for, if you can't shoot more than 100 yards? Actually, some of us didn't like shooting at the "Approved" range because a high shot would go screaming straight down Number 1 Highway, but that's neither here nor there.

So we got together, started a very small club, drew up plans from the Government specs, got advance approval from the RCMP. We were very careful, crossed every "t", dotted every "i", did the thing absolutely according to The Book. A hearing with the RM Council was friendly and very positive. They actually offered us an area in which to shoot, but we felt that it was too close to idiots with ATVs, even if half a mile of sand does make a pretty decent backstop. The RM asked about and discovered ONE little old lady, 9 miles to the North of where we wanted to build, who was terrified of a "wild shot" demolishing her home. That was dealt with through reason, logic and an appeal to HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK, the chapter on extreme ranges of military rifles. Finally, the RM delivered their approval, along with an apology for taking so long. They actually went as quickly as they could; they thought that it was something that would benefit the RM generally.

The gentleman who ran cattle to the North of where we would be shooting said simply that he would appreciate our not shooting his cattle because he was losing enough to coyotes and city hunters already. He then opined that gunfire might even keep the 'yotes away: one more on our side.

So, with all approvals in place, we hired a dragline and backhoe, built a berm which exceeded all provincial and federal specifications, roofed it as the official plans demanded and asked the RCMP to come and inspect it. The RCMP duly showed up, looked everything over and pronounced it to be the best private range in the province.

We were set to go, sent in our papers and awaited the approval which we knew was coming.

The only thing we didn't reckon with was that the CPFO at the time was (1) an ex-cop, (2) hated the idea of mere Civilians using guns and (3) was a good NDP appointee.

Our approval started taking too much time.

And then it took even more time.

And it still wasn't issued.

Finally, we asked what was happening in Winnipeg.

Our application had been duly noted but, four months later, still had not been date-stamped, much less approved.

So the CPFO made a new "regulation" as he is allowed by God and the Parliament of Canada to do..... and his new regulation said that we now must have the approval of the CPFO BEFORE any construction was started!

NOW our application was date-stamped as being received and, failing the NEW specification, was denied!

The only suggestion that his office came up with was that we were to bulldoze everything flat, get approval from the CPFO's office and then REBUILD everything which had been built once and then destroyed!

We didn't have the money, of course, having spent everything we had (and the proceeds of a hefty bank loan) on building the range to the already-existing specifications.

So we have a very nice 800-yard rifle range on private property which still hasn't been approved. Three people shoot there, that's all. The public can't shoot because there is no "approved club" and no "approved range".

It's a complete waste, but that must be what the provincial Government wants, because that is what THEY mandated.

That's Canada.

[scribbles]

I don't know why folks keep asking this question. If you have many many acres of land and you don't brag. Why ask? Just saying.

[Halger280HVMag]

And I don't know why you'd bring this thread back from the dead!

5 year old Necropost!!!

[Rapier46]

Restricted firearms- range only.

[Gruhler]

It would be legal to discharge HIS firearms but not yours. The issue is: you're not going to get an ATT to take your guns to your buddies place, but if his firearms are being discharged in a safe manner then the law makes no distinction between non-restricted and restricted firearms as far as being safely loaded, handled, and discharged. From an Ontario lawyer:

https://plourdelaw.ca/where-can-fire...ed-in-ontario/

[dudebud]

It would be legal to discharge HIS firearms but not yours. The issue is: you're not going to get an ATT to take your guns to your buddies place, but if his firearms are being discharged in a safe manner then the law makes no distinction between non-restricted and restricted firearms as far as being safely loaded, handled, and discharged. From an Ontario lawyer:

https://plourdelaw.ca/where-can-fire...ed-in-ontario/

At least I know who to call if I ever get charged with shooting my Restricted's "at my dwelling-house"

[Bodain]

Permitted purposes for a restricted firearm
There are a few purposes for which individuals can be licensed to acquire or possess a restricted firearm, the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection.

In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with one's lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life.

Exception: Individuals who have a firearm that is registered to them as a relic under the former legislation may continue to possess it for that purpose. However, they cannot pass that designation on to the next owner. The next owner can acquire the firearm only for one of the purposes referred to above.

As set out in the Firearms Act, a relic firearm is one that is of value as a curiosity or rarity, or that is valued as a memento, remembrance or souvenir.

Criteria for each purpose
Depending on which purpose is claimed, there are specific criteria that must be met, as follows:

Target Shooting Practice and Competition
To be authorized to have restricted firearms for target shooting purposes, an individual must provide proof that he or she practices or competes at an approved shooting club or range. For more information about approved shooting clubs and ranges, contact the appropriate provincial or territorial CFO by calling 1-800-731-4000.

This^

[johnl]

whats so dangerous about a handgun compared to a rifle being shot on my property?

This makes no sense at all.

Nothing to do with dangerous, the clue is in the word “restricted” as in there are restrictions in how, where and why. The government sets the restrictions, handguns or rifles, ie AR’s for instance. As for making sense welcome to Canada comrade.

[SteelFlint]

I'd admit I've debated shooting my .22LR pistol using subsonics in my basement. But the wife would not approve lol.