OK what's the deal?

They probably won’t care if the membership isn’t renewed until you go to purchase a new handgun. Again from what I’ve read here it depends on the CFO.
 
Last edited:
Yes, for every Provence except Ontario at the moment. I suspect that that will eventually change for Ontario.
 
unicorn gravedigger said:
Do I have to be a member of a range to have my handguns? This should be quick.
Click to expand...

Depends on the CFO. This was what mine told me.

In answer to your question regarding confirming purpose for owning a restricted firearm, please see Section 28 (b) of the Firearms Act and Section 6 of the Shooting Clubs & Shooting Ranges Regulations.
Click to expand...

if you have restricted firearms, you are required to always have a purpose (gun club membership) on file with us.
Click to expand...

Basically it's up to the CFO to decided to what's necessary.
 
Garaldtao said:
Yes, for every Provence except Ontario at the moment. I suspect that that will eventually change for Ontario.
Click to expand...

No it won't change for Ontario actually. You see Ontario used to do it to, until one plucky gun owner took the CFO to court over it, all the way to the Ontario Court of Appear.

Nowhere in law does it state requiring a range membership is a requirement of having restricted firearms or an RPAL.

Gun owners in the other 9 provinces need to get off their duffs and follow suit.

CFOs only do that nonsense cause we let them get away with it.
 
que. started this crap years ago, and last few years every body has jumped on the bandwagon.
You will have not have any trouble, At least in western Ca if your range membership expires.
But if you buy another gun and your membership is not on file with your CFo, transfer will not be approved, till you send them a proof of membership
My CFO's and I have talked about this in length.
Their take it IS IN the law, you have only 2 reasons in Ca. for a handgun, target shooting, or collector.
The only place you can shoot is a licenced range, So that is their logit for saying it in the fire arms act 'that you have to have a membership'
I know , silly, but remember who make the rules ( not laws)
The local CFO's are reasonable good to deal with and will help with problems, but on this one , no point in getting into a fight you can't win out side of court.
 
marshall said:
The only place you can shoot is a licenced range, So that is their logit for saying it in the fire arms act 'that you have to have a membership'
I know , silly, but remember who make the rules ( not laws)
The local CFO's are reasonable good to deal with and will help with problems, but on this one , no point in getting into a fight you can't win out side of court.
Click to expand...

And they are wrong. You can discharge a restricted firearm anywhere that it is legal to discharge a firearm, unless there is a specific bylaw that mentions restricted. I am aware of no such by law that manages firearms discharge by classification.

CFOs in some provinces routinely issue ATTs for crown land to known target shooting spots.

To say that you can only shoot a restricted on a range, and therefore you need a membership to own a restricted is completely fallacious.

Its the same bad logic that lets people say ARs are no good for hunting because its illegal to hunt with a restricted.

The local CFOs are NOT reasonable or good to deal with if they are making up bogus laws, lying about them, and then enforcing them.

And yes there is a point to getting into a fight that you can't win out of court, because once you win, you have won for everyone. Feeling that its not worth is precisely why you have to deal wtih this crap.
 
Cameron SS said:
And they are wrong. You can discharge a restricted firearm anywhere that it is legal to discharge a firearm, unless there is a specific bylaw that mentions restricted. I am aware of no such by law that manages firearms discharge by classification.

CFOs in some provinces routinely issue ATTs for crown land to known target shooting spots.

To say that you can only shoot a restricted on a range, and therefore you need a membership to own a restricted is completely fallacious.

Its the same bad logic that lets people say ARs are no good for hunting because its illegal to hunt with a restricted.

The local CFOs are NOT reasonable or good to deal with if they are making up bogus laws, lying about them, and then enforcing them.

And yes there is a point to getting into a fight that you can't win out of court, because once you win, you have won for everyone. Feeling that its not worth is precisely why you have to deal wtih this crap.
Click to expand...

The problem is the ATT only allows you to take a restricted firearm to certain places. These places do not include general shooting areas. They are limited. What they cover tends to change on a regular basis so always check what the ATT says. An older one may be different from a recently issued one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom