Anyone had luck getting a license to carry?

[volks_r_us]

What we dont know dosent hurt , and we dont need to know everything about Law-abiding citizen.


http://api.ning.com/files/vXddP*YmeyLEiPilY81y5zPGXDE-*bVCIZS9jz1pbrqj0pz-YhtPHCXpEow2G5HR1q9nut2MkhmylDGMfsOOb-Yks*P3jdN-/Scabbard4.jpg

On the other hand you get more fire power with a setup like this
http://api.ning.com/files/vXddP*YmeyKZBEGUjSX8p4TlK9jS3nEiLL31kO41OlfO3V4JvZdcSJjwF2tebQxvxvDEpPDi8rujKDuPT2ldJVRcjFgeAP0B/Scabbard1.jpg

with one of these

 

[troutseeker]

one pal/core instructor here in town says all you need to legally carry in the bush is a prospectors licence... i know thats b/s but u gotta wonder how many people get it and carry without knowing they are doing it illegally

hummm... Better advise this fellow that he is counselling others to commit a criminal offense.

I tried to get an ATC as I do some prospecting. The response I got from the CFO was that since it was not my "primary" occupation, i was SOL. He also claimed it was better for me to carry a long gun...

Let's face it they don't wnat us to carry restricted anywhere and will come up with any excuses thay can to p[revent us from doing so. I wish I could get my $80 application fee back...

 

[mtylerb]

...

To me it makes no sense to issue carry permits to anyone who wants to carry in a city, town, village, or even on their small acreage. But for those living on a larger piece of land in a rural or forested area, it makes a lot of sense.

...

But they certainly won't - and shouldn't, in my opinion - allow urban people to carry in an urban situation.

WTF? Because violence and attacks never happen in urban "situations"?

 

[deets]

WTF? Because violence and attacks never happen in urban "situations"?

Its funny, ive been been in the wilderness alot and have never been attacked by a bear. I cant say the same about humans in the city. So where exactly is it necessary to have an ATC?

Oh wait, thats why we have the police. NM

 

[swampdog]

WTF? Because violence and attacks never happen in urban "situations"?

As I understand Canada's gun laws, our nation does everything it can to discourage and prevent people from shooting other people, and, for the most part, that is working. Having lived in the US, where a lot of wackos legally carry hand guns, I'll take Canada's rules any day. In Canada it is not legal for an ordinary citizen to point a weapon at a person or to shoot at a person. Given that, why would you expect to be allowed to carry in an urban situation?

This thread began with the original poster's concern about bears and cougars in a wilderness environment. I can understand that concern. As I said before, I'm in favor of easing restrictions on hand gun use for rural and wilderness situations.

Given a few of the comments in above posts, I'm wondering if everyone on this forum has to agree with each other? What kind of "freedom" is that? I happen to like guns and have legal uses for them.

 

[Contondant]

In Canada it is not legal for an ordinary citizen to point a weapon at a person or to shoot at a person. Given that, why would you expect to be allowed to carry in an urban situation?

Because the 7th article of the Charter of Rights guarantees the right to security of person. If a person feels they are at risk of grievous bodily harm or death, they are justified in using lethal force to protect themselves. It can be the only reasonable reason for an ATC.

Who said "When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away"?

 

[CompBoy]

As I understand Canada's gun laws, our nation does everything it can to discourage and prevent people from shooting other people, and, for the most part, that is working. Having lived in the US, where a lot of wackos legally carry hand guns, I'll take Canada's rules any day.

Except you don't actually see an increase in lic. owners shooting people other then to defend themselves and others. We see just as many nut jobs shooting each other here as the US does. Without the permit to carry. Why because nut jobs are nut jobs and if they don't have a legal gun option they will get it illegally. Once you've moved to the idea of shooting a person without justification. Your into the criminal element.

I would get a CCW if offered in Canada not because I'm particularly concerned about it but simple put as a political action to make those in charge understand that a gun is safe and it's more about the people using it then the gun it's self.

In Canada it is not legal for an ordinary citizen to point a weapon at a person or to shoot at a person.

Actually you can use a weapon (firearm in this case) to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. You get arrested you are charged and you get off on self defense. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO STOP SOMEONE FROM KILLING YOU OR THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT. YOU DON"T JUST HAVE TO SIT THERE WHILE THEY BEAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TO DEATH. It just requires a legal defense instead of them letting you go while they investigate.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.


(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.


35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(a) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
( b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Yes you can point and shoot a gun at someone as long as it's justified. Since attacks take place without warning having the tools to equalize the situation IE criminal threatens you with a gun on the way home from work you are allowed to shoot him if you can .

My wifes cousin did that to a rapist trying to attack her during college. She was jogging on bike path he grabbed her from behind didn't know she was Martial arts trained and found himself on the ground begging for the pain to stop after she removed his knife. Police told her she shouldn't have fought back. With AIDS as it stands I consider rape a deadly assault. A gun with the proper retention training would have done the same.

 

[Contondant]

Police told her she shouldn't have fought back. With AIDS as it stands I consider rape a deadly assault. A gun with the proper retention training would have done the same.

The police tow a line they often or even usually don't believe in. Political correctness. Your discretion in defending yourself from a threat is justified by the way you describe your perceived level of threat. It's all about words afterwards.

 

[Agent Law]

Because the 7th article of the Charter of Rights guarantees the right to security of person. If a person feels they are at risk of grievous bodily harm or death, they are justified in using lethal force to protect themselves. It can be the only reasonable reason for an ATC.

Though how do you reconcile people who feel they are at risk with others who allowed to carry? Reasonable or not, their security of person must, too, be respected. It's not so clear cut...

Actually you can use a weapon (firearm in this case) to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. You get arrested you are charged and you get off on self defense. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO STOP SOMEONE FROM KILLING YOU OR THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT. YOU DON"T JUST HAVE TO SIT THERE WHILE THEY BEAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY TO DEATH. It just requires a legal defense instead of them letting you go while they investigate.

This is true. The law allows you to legally defend yourself and others, but, at the same time, not giving you a carte blanche to commit homicide (in the way castle doctrine does).

It's not strictly castle doctrine or duty to retreat, but a gray middle that requires you to use discretion and sound judgement.

My wifes cousin did that to a rapist trying to attack her during college. She was jogging on bike path he grabbed her from behind didn't know she was Martial arts trained and found himself on the ground begging for the pain to stop after she removed his knife. Police told her she shouldn't have fought back. With AIDS as it stands I consider rape a deadly assault. A gun with the proper retention training would have done the same.

I do imagine it's for liability reasons that police do not encourage the general public to defend themselves. Call me an optimist, but I'm not cynical enough to believe that it's towards a sinister goal for us to become dependent upon them. Most people aren't trained to effectively defend themselves, so they enact a general policy instead of accessing particular situations (that they may not have the expertise to do).

 

[Contondant]

Though how do you reconcile people who feel they are at risk with others who allowed to carry? Reasonable or not, their security of person must, too, be respected. It's not so clear cut...

Ahh, that's why I advocate CONCEILLED carry, not open carry.

 

[swampdog]

Interesting discussion. It sounds as if it is legal to use the minimum amount of force necessary to preserve one's life. Using more than the minimum force necessary could result in a long career within the penal system. And forget about using a firearm to protect personal property.

An interesting read on the topic is available at:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter 10.htm

According to a study mentioned in this chapter, more than 2.1% of Canadians used a firearm for self defence in a five year period of time. That seems like a rather large percentage. A large majority of those incidents involved defence against wildlife and not against people.

 

[mojoman]

 

[Agent Law]

Interesting discussion. It sounds as if it is legal to use the minimum amount of force necessary to preserve one's life. Using more than the minimum force necessary could result in a long career within the penal system. And forget about using a firearm to protect personal property.

An interesting read on the topic is available at:

http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter 10.htm

According to a study mentioned in this chapter, more than 2.1% of Canadians used a firearm for self defence in a five year period of time. That seems like a rather large percentage. A large majority of those incidents involved defence against wildlife and not against people.

That is interesting. Seemed like a fairly small sample size, though. It was also done around the time C-68 was being enacted, so I wonder if the statistics would be different now.

I particularly thought this was a gem:

It appears that, when personal or family safety is at risk, most of those who oppose guns would still use one for their own protection. To see just how far personal interest went, those who were in favour of confiscating self-defense handguns were examined to determine if they would use a gun to defend themselves. As the following table shows, a majority (54%) of those who wanted to confiscate the self-defense handguns of other people would use a gun for self defense if they themselves were threatened. This is similar to the finding that 75% of the students at Concordia University who signed a petition to ban all handguns said they would use a gun to defend themselves (Buckner 1994 Graphic).
[...]
Perhaps those who say they would personally use guns they favour confiscating from everyone else have not worked through the logic of their position. These inconsistencies do, however, provide an interesting insight into the depth of thought that goes into much of the gun control rhetoric

That entire section has interesting statistics, however, they are fairly weak majorities. It seems split down the middle, more or less. I suppose the point is to demonstrate that a large percentage don't think the gun control thing through. (And the slant in the tone of the text is obvious in that regard. Mind you, it's not surprising given how absolutely pro-gun Dr. Mauser is.)

Once again, I wonder how attitudes and actions have changed in the 13 or so years since that paper.

Not everyone who challenges or disagrees with the hivemind consensus is a troll.

 

[Contondant]

I think being woken up in the middle of the night by someone breaking into your house while your kids sleep in the next room will change ANY liberals mind about the logic of having a firearm as a household protection tool.

 

[mojoman]

Anyone who feels Canadas gun laws were designed to keep people from shooting each other, hasn't really taken a close look at them. Canadas gun laws were written by people who watched way to many movies, example 32/25 cal prohib. They are written to slowly chip away at any firearms rights you now have.Example the S&W M&P 15/22 being classed restricted. The list goes on and on. This is about control and taking your firearms away, not about your protection.

 

[Sam Fisher]

The law allows you to legally defend yourself and others, but, at the same time, not giving you a carte blanche to commit homicide (in the way castle doctrine does).

Which State's castle doctorine permits people to commit unjustifiable homicide? Please qualify your statement.

Sam

 

[Agent Law]

Which State's castle doctorine permits people to commit unjustifiable homicide? Please qualify your statement.

Sam

Woah, now, don't put words in my mouth. My statement was that the law is worded so you can't just shoot a person, no questions asked, for walking into your home, or crossing onto your property. Justified or unjustified doesn't come into it if the wording of the law is such that it's always justified. (ie. like in Florida) In fact, it being always justified is what makes it a carte blanche, in the sense that you don't have to explain yourself when you shot 78-year-old lady next-door for walking into your house in the middle of the day (for whatever reason), which is certainly not the case in Canada.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Woah, now, don't put words in my mouth. My statement was that the law is worded so you can't just shoot a person, no questions asked, for walking into your home, or crossing onto your property. Justified or unjustified doesn't come into it if the wording of the law is such that it's always justified. (ie. like in Florida) In fact, it being always justified is what makes it a carte blanche, in the sense that you don't have to explain yourself when you shot 78-year-old lady next-door for walking into your house in the middle of the day (for whatever reason), which is certainly not the case in Canada.

I apologize for straying off topic.

Sorry I am not trying to engage you in a debate or trying to change your mind on how you personally view "castle doctorine". It is not a carte blanche licence to kill. It is codified protection under the law for citizens and home owners who by definition (from the link you posted):

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

Your example above "you don't have to explain yourself when you shot 78-year-old lady next-door for walking into your house in the middle of the day (for whatever reason), " is a poor example.

Do you really think the statute you linked to really permits what you described in your example? Do you really think as you stated, one would not have to explain themselves after shooting someone in a castle doctorie situation?

 

[mojoman]

Agent Law please copy and paste from your Florida example, where it says you able to shoot someone for just wandering onto your property or into your house. The base of those laws are really no differnt than Canadian law. You need eminent threat of danger. The difference being Florida has expanded their laws to cover your yard, vehicle ect.

 

[Agent Law]

I apologize for straying off topic.

Sorry I am not trying to engage you in a debate or trying to change your mind on how you personally view "castle doctorine". It is not a carte blanche licence to kill. It is codified protection under the law for citizens and home owners who by definition (from the link you posted):

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

Your example above "you don't have to explain yourself when you shot 78-year-old lady next-door for walking into your house in the middle of the day (for whatever reason), " is a poor example.

Do you really think the statute you linked to really permits what you described in your example? Do you really think as you stated, one would not have to explain themselves after shooting someone in a castle doctorie situation?

You quoted the relevant part, which is the presumption. Canadian law does not have that presumption. If it did, it'd be no different from castle doctrine.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Along with (1) is what makes it allowable to shoot in almost all circumstances. It presumes the person there is there with ill-intent, and presumes you had a fear for your life. Practically, it means burden of proof is shifted to state, but it's hard to prosecute based on feelings.

The only part you really have to argue is, if your door was unlocked, whether they forced themselves in.

You can also find examples in the news of people having been killed for merely crossing into property, and the property owner not being thrown in jail. It's not only the wording of the law, but how it is enforced which affects its real implications.