Indoor private handgun shooting range?
- Thread starter detonator
- Start date
- Status
Halger280HVMag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- B.C. XMU Local .454
Well then.
Suppose that when the farmer reached for his rifle. He found the nearest at hand was the AR15 he'd been cleaning. Without thinking further he loaded the gun, then fired at the coyote killing his chickens.
The patio door was opened, but he fired before he made it through the door.
Assuming there's a police officer sitting in his cruiser, with an eye out for possible farmyard shenanigans.
The minion of the Law observing the actions of the old farmer.
Charges this public menace with.......
What?
Suppose that when the farmer reached for his rifle. He found the nearest at hand was the AR15 he'd been cleaning. Without thinking further he loaded the gun, then fired at the coyote killing his chickens.
The patio door was opened, but he fired before he made it through the door.
Assuming there's a police officer sitting in his cruiser, with an eye out for possible farmyard shenanigans.
The minion of the Law observing the actions of the old farmer.
Charges this public menace with.......
What?
^Poor shooting technique if he doesn't down the yote with the first 3...ta tump thump 
twoicebergs
Regular
I asked that very question to the CFO. The answer was always, "the restricted firearm can only be discharged at an authorized place, unless the person was exempt from the CF legislation. A trapper has authority to discharge while on a trap line. A wilderness permit holder can for protection. All of the standard peace officer, military (etc) can in the performance of statute duty. The standard answer was you must only use the non-restricted firearm for any and all purpose, including if you needed to protect your pet or farm animals. Now, if your life was in danger in your dwelling, at an approved range, in the ditch after an accident on the way to said range (the coyotes are eyeing up your carcass) shoot with what you have readily available and be prepared to defend your actions should charges be laid. Even the Brits will allow civilians who hold handgun permits to dispatch injured beyond repair animals. It is in their legislation, but not ours.
This is the handgun section after all!
This is the handgun section after all!
You say your BS all you want that doesn't make it right. Go ahead post a link to the law that say restricteds can only be fired on a range. You wont because it doesn't exist.
Again more made BS go ahead and post the section that says this
Time to back up your BS post the section
You must have a really have hard time cleaning your guns if you think your ATT applies to everything even when your are not transporting them. I am sorry but your wrong.
Shawn
Last edited:
Halger280HVMag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- B.C. XMU Local .454
LOL you just disproved your own point LOL
According to you the CFO said:
And an authorized place is described in section 15 (that you think says something else), what it actually says:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-5.html#h-13
Which states in black and white that in the absence of an act of parliament, provincial legislation, regulation made under such acts and municipal by-laws saying you cant shoot there it is legal to shoot there.
Shawn
twoicebergs
Regular
Shawn,
An authorized place to discharge, not an authorized place to sleep with your piece, while holding it gently but firmly with both hands while you stroke your action.
True, for non-restricted. As I have posted before, and you seem to forget, restricted and prohibited have rules you don't want to recognize.
I would be the first one to say the legislation we now live with is a bundle of crap, with all kinds of faulty logic. I have enough property that in the old days, I could shoot anything legally on my property. I have carried large calibre revolvers while working up north doing polar bear research and even darting the PBs with drugs that the boys in the hood would have loved to had on the street corner. I have used SMGs and other prohibited (for civilians) small arms in my previous employment. We did have fairly strict control of our small arms after about 1982, to parallel the changes made to civilian holders of fully automatic and selectable burst rifles. Fast forward to today, I still keep a NR firearm readily available for predator control and I have used it a few times for that purpose. I know what the municipal by-laws state for firearm discharge where I live. I have a fairly good knowledge of range design and the requirements for approval as I was considering installing a private handgun range on my property.
You guys do what you want, believe what you want and act as you see fit. Rather than call BS, how about do some of your own research and report back, instead of trolling. Post something of substance and illustrate your creativity to work with what we have all been given.
An authorized place to discharge, not an authorized place to sleep with your piece, while holding it gently but firmly with both hands while you stroke your action.
True, for non-restricted. As I have posted before, and you seem to forget, restricted and prohibited have rules you don't want to recognize.
I would be the first one to say the legislation we now live with is a bundle of crap, with all kinds of faulty logic. I have enough property that in the old days, I could shoot anything legally on my property. I have carried large calibre revolvers while working up north doing polar bear research and even darting the PBs with drugs that the boys in the hood would have loved to had on the street corner. I have used SMGs and other prohibited (for civilians) small arms in my previous employment. We did have fairly strict control of our small arms after about 1982, to parallel the changes made to civilian holders of fully automatic and selectable burst rifles. Fast forward to today, I still keep a NR firearm readily available for predator control and I have used it a few times for that purpose. I know what the municipal by-laws state for firearm discharge where I live. I have a fairly good knowledge of range design and the requirements for approval as I was considering installing a private handgun range on my property.
You guys do what you want, believe what you want and act as you see fit. Rather than call BS, how about do some of your own research and report back, instead of trolling. Post something of substance and illustrate your creativity to work with what we have all been given.
Go ahead post up the law that says the only thing I can do at my dwelling is sleep with my piece
So it should be easy for you to prove me wrong and post up these mythical laws then right? Or are you going to stick with making up stuff and hoping that if you say it long enough it will become true?
Cool story bro, you think your the only one that was or is in the army or a cop?
That is relevant how? Other that to change the subject and some how make people think you have some credibility.
And? Just because you may not be able to do something doesn't make it illegal for everyone.
So? Again you think your the only one who does?
I have been involved in getting multiple ranges approved under section 29 and am more than familiar with the range construction and maintenance manual as it was 90% of my job.
I dont need to, I have done the research and posted the legislation, you are the one pontificating that there are these magic laws that say we cant. But you are unable to post them. Either they exist and you can post them or you are talking out your ass.
Time to put up or shut up, prove me wrong post the law that says this is illegal.
Shawn
So he shot at the coyotes but killed his own chickens instead...... Hmmm
I guess when the cop was done laughing at this he would lay a dozen firearms charges.
Lol
Halger280HVMag
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- B.C. XMU Local .454
sometimes in a furball, it's difficult to safeguard the chickens, while attacking the varmint.
what would these charges consist of?
what would these charges consist of?
I thought this discussion went on, and as of now us still going on, in the other thread posted earlier....
Anyways I'm sure you responded to my posts of the law then, and i expect much the same here, but I think it's important and this is directed at the OP and anyone who didn't read the other thread...
Section 67 of FA says at renewal
Section 28 says
And lastly
So.... when renewing your licence or when informed by a CFO that the restricted firearm is being used for a purpose not described in s 28, shall revoke the registration certificate.
Section 28 states (for target practice purposes) the restricted firearm can be used at an approved range or under conditions of your ATT.... my ATT specifies for target practice at an approved range.
So... If you are target practicing at home with your restricted, have your approved range approved or you will lose your registration certificates.
Ok guys...Shawn is right.....show the legislation that states you may not discharge a restricted firearm at home. You are in an Authorized place with your restricted. YOUR HOME. You are Authorized to posses it in your home (Back Porch) You are legal. You allow to generally discharge a firearm...ok Legal there. So far so good. You are target shooting with it... legal there. Still ok. So you are in a place that is AUTHORIZED, Legally in possession. Legal to Discharge. Discharging for a legal reason(target shooting). So instead of opinion, please show the legislation that prohibits this scenario. Not what someone said(CFO< brother in law ect) Show the actual applicable legislation. I am genuenly interested in this topic. I am not trolling.
Here is the thing, the CFO has policy based on they choose to interpret the law. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LAW. We have all heard instances where the CFO's interpretation of the LAW as applied to POLICY has proven on court to be incorrect.
So if we want further RIGHTS and privileges with our firearms.....I am thinking we had best completely understand what we have now before we go pushing for having more.
Here is the thing, the CFO has policy based on they choose to interpret the law. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LAW. We have all heard instances where the CFO's interpretation of the LAW as applied to POLICY has proven on court to be incorrect.
So if we want further RIGHTS and privileges with our firearms.....I am thinking we had best completely understand what we have now before we go pushing for having more.
Last edited:
Section 95(1) criminal code:
ossession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.
And the firearm act:
Places where prohibited and restricted firearms may be possessed
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.
1995, c. 39, s. 17; 2003, c. 8, s. 15.
So Authorized place( home) Authorized intent (Target shooting) Come on guys, pony up
ossession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.
And the firearm act:
Places where prohibited and restricted firearms may be possessed
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.
1995, c. 39, s. 17; 2003, c. 8, s. 15.
So Authorized place( home) Authorized intent (Target shooting) Come on guys, pony up
No that refers to the CFO approving a transfer,
28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun
(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is
(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.
You will note that FOR USE IN TARGET PRACTICE, OR
so the intent of target practice has to be Established. Which it has, but again, this part of the Act is direction to the CFO. Not the person shooting. It does not apply to the civilian who is using his restricted. It applys to the CFO who is approving the the transfer of a restricted.
67, 28, 71. of the ACT are directions to the CFO. NOT the individual. There is nothing in those sections that prohibit the scenario I presented. We have ESTABLISHED that the person in this scenario IS TARGET shooting. So there for there is no reason for the CFO to invoke 67 28 or 71 of the ACT. They could. BUT DO THEY HAVE A LEGAL leg to stand on? That is the Question.
Really? Ok..... so the fact that the Registrar SHALL revoke your registration certificates for target practice at an unapproved range means nothing to the individual having the Revocation?
I don't see any charges that follows, but by by restricted firearm.
I don't see any charges that follows, but by by restricted firearm.
""Section 67 of FA says at renewal
(2) On renewing a licence authorizing an individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), a chief firearms officer shall decide whether any of those firearms or handguns that the individual possesses are being used for a purpose described in section 28.
Section 28 says
Permitted purposes
28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun
(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is
(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.
And lastly
Revocation of registration certificate
71. (1) The Registrar
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.
So.... when renewing your licence or when informed by a CFO that the restricted firearm is being used for a purpose not described in s 28, shall revoke the registration certificate.
Section 28 states (for target practice purposes) the restricted firearm can be used at an approved range or under conditions of your ATT.... my ATT specifies for target practice at an approved range.
SHOW US WHERE SEC 28 SAYS IT CAN ONLY BE USED AT APPROVED RANGE
So... If you are target practicing at home with your restricted, have your approved range approved or you will lose your registration certificates. ""
Most ATT say for TARGET PRACTICE, and that is ESTABLISHED. In this scenario the purpose is TARGET PRACTICING.
(2) On renewing a licence authorizing an individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), a chief firearms officer shall decide whether any of those firearms or handguns that the individual possesses are being used for a purpose described in section 28.
Section 28 says
Permitted purposes
28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun
(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is
(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.
And lastly
Revocation of registration certificate
71. (1) The Registrar
(a) may revoke a registration certificate for a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm for any good and sufficient reason; and
(b) shall revoke a registration certificate for a firearm held by an individual where the Registrar is informed by a chief firearms officer under section 67 that the firearm is not being used for a purpose described in section 28.
So.... when renewing your licence or when informed by a CFO that the restricted firearm is being used for a purpose not described in s 28, shall revoke the registration certificate.
Section 28 states (for target practice purposes) the restricted firearm can be used at an approved range or under conditions of your ATT.... my ATT specifies for target practice at an approved range.
SHOW US WHERE SEC 28 SAYS IT CAN ONLY BE USED AT APPROVED RANGE
So... If you are target practicing at home with your restricted, have your approved range approved or you will lose your registration certificates. ""
Most ATT say for TARGET PRACTICE, and that is ESTABLISHED. In this scenario the purpose is TARGET PRACTICING.
Last edited:
- Status
