Antique Handgun Hunting / Carrying in the Bush

I agree, covert is the way to go. We have a good thing going here, and with too much publicity and a swipe of the pen, it could all be gone. Let's take our antique's to the bush where it's legal to do so, but let's not get ourselves on the 6 o'clock news doing it.
 
oh yes keep the antiques on the DL tell no one i only like plink on my property where i feel safe i would't wanna get screwed
 
I carry my antique revolver when I bow hunt. It is illegal to hunt with a handgun in Alberta, but I figure if the opportunity ever arose where I felt a need to use it at least I'd be around to argue about the legalities later. Carrying it is not illegal so I do.

I don't think anyone talking about carrying them quietly meant concealed, but just to make sure, my understanding is as soon as it's concealed it becomes a concealed weapon and some charges may be layed under that, so if carrying them carry them open. Oh and in my case I talked to my local RCMP officers and CO who I may run into in my travels and they are aware I have and carry an antique revolver. I felt that was an easier conversation to have before I was handcuffed and layed out on the ground.
 
Scar270 said:
I carry my antique revolver when I bow hunt. It is illegal to hunt with a handgun in Alberta, but I figure if the opportunity ever arose where I felt a need to use it at least I'd be around to argue about the legalities later. Carrying it is not illegal so I do.

I don't think anyone talking about carrying them quietly meant concealed, but just to make sure, my understanding is as soon as it's concealed it becomes a concealed weapon and some charges may be layed under that, so if carrying them carry them open. Oh and in my case I talked to my local RCMP officers and CO who I may run into in my travels and they are aware I have and carry an antique revolver. I felt that was an easier conversation to have before I was handcuffed and layed out on the ground.
Click to expand...

Good for you!
And no i certinly didnt meen Concealed I doubt Doug ment that either.
What i do is i have a Old Flap holster that my WG fits into (its got two D rings on its back that a strap clips onto.
I have a long thin Sam brown strap that goes over the left shoulder and the holster sits on my right hip on top of my Jacket.
If i see a Hiker person comeing down a trail, I can just spin it around onto my back as they walk by so they never see anything and are more concerned about me dogs than me ;)
It works EX
I dont think in a holster in open view is Concealed.
 
Last edited:
sportee said:
here's a little somthing i found in the Criminal Code...


(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:...this includes antique firearms.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me exactly where you found that in the criminal code. I'd like to photocopy that section. I do carry my antique handgun in the remote wilderness in case a Couger jumped one of my family on a portage or a roque bear decided to go for one of my kids on a portage. I keep a rifle in camp, but when you are holding a 65 pound canoe on your head and a big pack on your back, carrying a rifle is pretty much impossible. However, I also carry a photocopy of the factory letter proving my handgun was made in 1880, as well as a photocopy of the CFC regs, showing it qualifies as an antique. I'd also like a photocopy of that section as well. I do not expect a police officer or CO to know the regs. They should, but this is real life. So I carry the regs with me.

I am discreet about wilderness carry of antique six shooters, since I don't want some remote hiker who hasn't got a clue about the law to get all excited. I'm glad to see we all feel the need to be discreet about this, even though it is legal.
 
It is in my copy of "Statutes of Canada" and refers to sections cc84 1(a) and cc84 1(b) and SOR 98-464 which collectively define antiques and the section above --- (cc84 3) which gives the exemptions applicable to antiques. Remember, I believe that 84 3 also finishes by saying that an antique becomes a firearm if used for a criminal purpose. The dual classification definitely exists and I think it is at the end of 84 3.

cheers mooncoon
 
true enought moncoon...an antique firearm becomes a firearm if used in a crimnal offence. I pulled the info directly form the criminal code...i have it flagged at work. ill take a look for the specific section and post it on monday if you like.
 
bigdawg said:
very interesting anyone know the details in ontario?
Click to expand...

If you note; it is the statutes of Canada as in everywhere except possibly Quebec.
I got my copy free from the CFC; try writing them and asking for a copy of the Statutes of Canada as they apply to firearms and including the firearms act.

cheers mooncoon
 
sunray said:
"...in Ontario..." The hunting regs say no handguns. Period.
Click to expand...

This thread seems to keep drifting between using handguns for hunting and the general legal requirements of owning and carrying antiques. Most of the recent questions have not related specifically to hunting and therefore the laws/guidelines are found in the criminal code and the firearms act as stated above. These laws/guidelines apply across Canada.

The use of handguns for hunting is a provincial matter and more or less is found in the hunting regulations. More or less because the hunting regulations often are abreviated from the actual legal wording. For example do they say single projectile prohibited or do they say shotguns only; big difference. Some provinces such as BC and Ontario specifically prohibit handguns for hunting and in BC that would include using one to finish off an animal wounded by a muzzle loader. Other provinces may not specifically prohibit their use but I think you might rest assured a CO would find some charge to use, that would cost considerable money to defend yourself against.

The bottom line is that the antiques can be used for target shooting and that target shooting can take place outside of a registered handgun range but where it is otherwise safe and legal to shoot, but that interpretation depends on the local and individual CO or police officer you meet and I don't believe has been yet tested in court. I also have little doubt that the courts are sufficiently confused about firearms law once you get outside basic bank robbery and homicide, that you might easily be looking at taking the case to appeal. I am sure that Dingus will jump in and repeat what he has been told by the provincial CFO or the CFC but I am equally sure that if the police decide to recommend charges (actually laid by the prosecutor) they will move heaven and earth to see these charges actually laid in order to save face and regardless of what the law might say.

The bottom line is that you can save yourself a lot of potential grief and expense by being a member of a gun club and shooting on their ranges. It seems to me that while there are a few people like Dingus who live where there is no range close by, I read quite a few posts by (seemingly) young members who live in an area where there is a range but want to shoot in a gravel pit or equivalent and in a manner that stands a good chance of provoking a challenge or confrontation.
just my thoughts anyhow

cheers mooncoon
 
Sounds good to Me Doug ;)
Hey i use the Range to! I am a member! and agree its the best place to Target shoot a Antique Revolver.
And anyone that can should.
Its just for my Remoat location its Legal to do what i do so i do it sometimes and it was the Entire Surry CFO Office of CFOs that said its OK not just one Mavrick CFO!
That being said.
We dont need no stinking court cases or Badgers :D
 
Last edited:
Spokerider said:
Can that section be found online? I too am interested in downloading that valuable little tidbit.......
Click to expand...

It seems a couple of folks are interested in this section...I have it marked at work. I will post the link and the section tomorrow.

Ive got to respond to mooncoon's posting as well. When i started this thread i was looking for opinions/interpretations/knowledge on carrying an antique handgun in the bush...The reason i included the "handgun hunting" part of it is because the hunting regs in Sask say that when ever a person is carrying a firearms in the wilderness they are considered to be hunting...entering the question of handgun hunting (in SK specifically)...In this case we refer to the criminal code and firarms act for the requirements for antique handguns...for certain purposes an antique is not considered a firearm.

As mooncoon said...shoot at the range. The only reason i could see packing one in the bush is protection from pissed off bears or mountain lions ect. If the regs allow it - ok then. just dont be stupid... :)
 
Last edited:
i need to get out of ontario and enjoy some antique handgun hunting before they ban it everywhere
 
Thanks to all who responded, there's some good advice to heed.
When is a "non-firearm" a "firearm" ?

When a CO or LEO, acting as an agent of the crown, in their opinion deems it to be, for whatever reason.

We probably know how much a good lawyer costs to fight a case like this.
Checks and balances; is it worth it ?

Thanks again to all who have responded, definately helps to clear up somewhat of a grey area.

Cheers nessy.
 
sportee said:
The only reason i could see packing one in the bush is protection from pissed off bears or mountain lions ect. If the regs allow it - ok then. just dont be stupid... :)
Click to expand...

I think there is a bit of a flaw in that logic; first my reference would be a study done in Alaska on the suitability of various guns for bear protection. The conclusion was that the only handgun caliber was the .44 magnum (study was done before the Casull) and that it was only marginal. I am prepared to admit that I knew a fellow who killed a charging grizzly with a .38 special revolver with one shot to the head at 5 or 6 feet, but the main point is that the vast majority of antique calibers are relatively anemic by today's standards. Remember that 38-40, 44-40 and 45 long colt are all named calibers. Bottom line is that for bear protection you would probably be far better off with a short light marlin or winchester rifle than with any of the legally antique handguns.

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
I think there is a bit of a flaw in that logic; first my reference would be a study done in Alaska on the suitability of various guns for bear protection. The conclusion was that the only handgun caliber was the .44 magnum (study was done before the Casull) and that it was only marginal. I am prepared to admit that I knew a fellow who killed a charging grizzly with a .38 special revolver with one shot to the head at 5 or 6 feet, but the main point is that the vast majority of antique calibers are relatively anemic by today's standards. Remember that 38-40, 44-40 and 45 long colt are all named calibers. Bottom line is that for bear protection you would probably be far better off with a short light marlin or winchester rifle than with any of the legally antique handguns.

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

true enough...in the case of bears the antique might be more usedfull as a "bear banger"... make some loud noises and hope it scares the thing away :redface:
 
Yeah I carry my antique partly because I can, and partly for protection, but I'm relying much more on the flame and smoke to encourage whatever nasty I encounter that I'm not worth it then I am the bullet stopping it. Although if my options are beating it over the head with my bow or shooting at it with an antique revolver, no matter how anemic, I know which one I'll choose. Until we can carry 44mags, and casuls regularily in the bush we get by with what little we are allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom