ATT - "Geographical Extent"

K

kel1

Member
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
What's the deal with Section 63.(1) in the firearms act. I came across it earlier today and it states:

63. (1) Licences, registration certificates, authorizations to transport, authorizations to export and authorizations to import are valid throughout Canada.

(2) [Repealed, 2003, c. 8, s. 39]

Authorizations to carry
(3) Authorizations to carry are not valid outside the province in which they are issued.

1995, c. 39, s. 63; 2003, c. 8, s. 39.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to get separate ATTs for different provinces when it says clearly here that ATTs are good for all of Canada?

Am I missing something else? Is this just the CFOs making up rules as they go along?

-kelly
 
What's the problem? As I read it, it says ATT's are valid accross canada in part 1, and part 3 says that ATC's are only valid in the province they are issued. It makes sense as much as any of the lunacy we deal with can make sense. There's a big difference between ATT and ATC.
 
curtmg said:
What's the problem? As I read it, it says ATT's are valid accross canada in part 1, and part 3 says that ATC's are only valid in the province they are issued. It makes sense as much as any of the lunacy we deal with can make sense. There's a big difference between ATT and ATC.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Is ATT and ATC being mixed up here ?
 
No, I don't think we're mixing up ATC and ATT. I don't know what it's like for parts out east, but in BC, your ATT says it is only good for BC/Yukon. If we want to go to Alberta, we're told we have to pull an Alberta ATT.
That seems to be contrary to what I'm reading here in the Firearms Act. I've got to call the BC CFO this week to be a squeaky wheel with my ATT application, seeing as I'll have to wait on hold for a half hour anyway, might as well take the time to ask them about it.
-kelly
 
I believe that the CFO puts limits on the ATT as a matter of policy, not of legal requirement.

I've heard that IPSC competitors can still get multi-province LTATT's. I suppose it all depends on what you can convince the CFO to issue...
 
I think you're right, Squared. That is the current policy of the CFO's.

According to the firearms act, the CFOs are delegated to carry out the mandate of the Act. I don't believe that they have the authority to contradict legislation, especially when it's written out in black and white right in the Act itself. There doesn't seem to be any room for interpretation to make a contradictory policy. I think they call that illegal in most of the Western World.

I have a brother in Alberta and plan on visiting him this summer a few times. My guns will be visiting too, and we're going to find a range or two to take them to out there. It would be nice to be able to enjoy the rights set out in legislation without having to go through the headaches of the paperwork.

-kelly
 
kel1 said:
No, I don't think we're mixing up ATC and ATT. I don't know what it's like for parts out east, but in BC, your ATT says it is only good for BC/Yukon. If we want to go to Alberta, we're told we have to pull an Alberta ATT.
That seems to be contrary to what I'm reading here in the Firearms Act. I've got to call the BC CFO this week to be a squeaky wheel with my ATT application, seeing as I'll have to wait on hold for a half hour anyway, might as well take the time to ask them about it.
-kelly
Click to expand...

I've posted on this a few times. For example, in this thread: http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2109458#post2109458 I said;

You may be correct as far the Ontario inspections are concerned, but regarding the bolded statement above- I have to disagree. The enforcers (CFO's) are not applying the FA uniformly, and when they do try to apply it, do so in contravention of the Act itself. Example: the BC CFO arbitrarily ended the already flawed policy of the so-called "Western Canada" ATT. Even that was in contravention of FA Section 63.1:

Quote:
63. (1) Licences, registration certificates, authorizations to transport, authorizations to export and authorizations to import are valid throughout Canada.
(emphasis mine)

But most of us out here were happy to accept that. Now, however, the BC CFO has decided that ATT's will be limited to BC and Yukon only. Their reason for this change is:

Quote:
58. (1) A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.

The bold emphasis is mine, and is the crux of the matter- at no point has the CFO stated why those restrictions are now considered desirable, what the particular circumstances are, nor how the "safety interests" are affected by those unnamed circumstances.

But that's not the end of it. That is the situation if you happen to be an ordinary RPAL holder. However, if you happen to be a "Black Badge"/IPSC type, the CFO will change the policy for you, and grant you that "Western Canada" ATT that the ordinary RPAL is denied.
Nowhere in the FA is the CFO given authority to create a "two-tier" ATT system.

The point of all this being that, yes, the Act is to blame, but so are the "decisions" and "interpretations" of the various CFO's. In the current political situation, they appear to be answerable to no-one.
Click to expand...

Keep us posted on what the CFO says in your call. If possible, take notes. I'd be interested in seeing if they're consistent. Thanks... ;)
__________________
 
Last edited:
That's what I was looking for, Steve. I figured there'd be a catch all sort of clause in there.
I would think that would be pretty hard for them to back up in court, though. The CFO would have to prove that there was a valid reason why in each particular circumstance it was desirable in the interest of safety to contradict the law. I think that sounds like a pretty hefty task. I'm no lawyer though.

-kelly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom