Anyone had luck getting a license to carry?

Agent Law said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

Well, in those cases, the law says it is presumed, but realistically in Canada all you have to say is you "perceived" a thread and it's the same bucket of bolts. It's about how you explain you perceived a threat. An LEO is justified in using force on an individual if that individual demonstrate certain threat hallmarks, such as clenching of fists or slight blading of stance or shifting of weight, etc.
 
Contondant said:
Well, in those cases, the law says it is presumed, but realistically in Canada all you have to say is you "perceived" a thread and it's the same bucket of bolts. It's about how you explain you perceived a threat. An LEO is justified in using force on an individual if that individual demonstrate certain threat hallmarks, such as clenching of fists or slight blading of stance or shifting of weight, etc.
Click to expand...
I feel that, in Canada, it is a bit more complicated than that. The overall situation does come into play, and you're going to have to justify that you acted appropriately given the circumstances. Not that it should deter you from effectively defending yourself, but you're going to have to justify it with more than just a perception or feeling. LEOs are a slightly different affair, with a different set of circumstances.
 
My last "Wilderness Carry" permit expired 20 years ago. At that time they were issued by the RCMP K division. I had to do an interview with a mountie, who thought he was some kind of psychologist. He told me his stated duty was to discourage me from seeking the permit. Since I had a legitimate reason for it, I was issued the permit. It only covered me while I was working, had to be carried in plain view, and only applied to one firearm.

My nephew has a current permit. He's a survey party chief in Grande Prairie, as I was 20 years ago. Surveyors have always been eligible for these permits, and have the most obvious reasons for needing a handgun. We're always loaded down with equipment, and often running chainsaws. A rifle or shotgun usually ends up leaned against a tree at the start of the cutline. One thing I'm not sure about is fly-in jobs. I used to carry in helicopters, but there might be problems with tightened aviation regulations, especially if you fly out of an airport.

My ex-brother-in-law has a permit for his work as a wildlife photographer, and he lives on the prairies. The theory is, he might work anywhere in AB, or SK, alone, and in proximity to predatory wildlife. He can pack a Glock 20, legally, just about anywhere outside urban areas.

I plan to get a new permit for fishing... er, I mean consulting this year. As a contractor, with a limited corporation, it's up to me to decide what is work, and what isn't.
 
Agent Law said:
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).
Click to expand...

At the point the police arrived he was on the ground whimpering and begging them to take him away. I don't know I think it has to do with their training. I've heard of fit Vets (army, not animal doctors) getting told the same thing.
 
Geof here again, the original poster. Wow am I impressed with you people's knowlege. Are you guys lawyers or something? Thanks for the stimulating discussion, it went far deeper than what I was expecting. This is a great site!!!
 
boxcoach said:
My ex-brother-in-law has a permit for his work as a wildlife photographer, and he lives on the prairies. The theory is, he might work anywhere in AB, or SK, alone, and in proximity to predatory wildlife. He can pack a Glock 20, legally, just about anywhere outside urban areas.
Click to expand...

This has likely been ammended since the CFOs got together a couple of years ago and decided autos were no longer in vogue for wilderness carry.
 
Agent Law said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...


Agent Law

The statute you are quoting clearly states the offender would have be entering unlawfully and by force. If someone is entering the house, residence or vehicle in that manner then the presumption is that they are intending to commit further unlawful acts involving force or violence. Why else would someone kick in the door or a residence they did not live at?

This does not make it allowable as you stated, to shoot in almost all circumstances. The circumstance would have to fit the critera. The person is presumed to be there with ill intent because they entered unlawfully and by force.

The spirit and purpose of castle doctorine law is to allow people to defend themselves from home invasions rapes and robberies. What is your problem with that?

Please quote these news stories you speak of and remember a thirty second news soud bite rarely contains all the intricate details of these incidents.

What is wrong with a law that holds the offender accountable for their actions?

You appear to be fixated on the issue of wrongful shoots and you are focusing on words not the spirit of the law. It is not protection against accidental shoots it is protection from criminals trying to harm law abiding home owners.


Respectfully,

Sam
 
Last edited:
Right, so the sentiment I introduced (and subsequently defended) was incorrect. The correct one was:
"I'm not sure people would approve of a black-and-white law that if someone breaks into your home, you can have cart blanche to kill them," says Anand, a University of Alberta law professor and co-author of the book Principles of Criminal Law.
Click to expand...
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=f045b583-2373-4893-bec3-a0ab6f7d076c
My mistake.

Sam Fisher said:
The spirit and purpose of castle doctorine law is to allow people to defend themselves from home invasions rapes and robberies. What is your problem with that?
Click to expand...
I never said I had a problem with it, but it is what it is (which is a right to use lethal force in all break-ins), and the point of my original statement was that Canadian law differs in that regard.

Sam Fisher said:
What is wrong with a law that holds the offender accountable for their actions?
Click to expand...
It doesn't really hold the offender accountable; it holds the defender unaccountable.

Sam Fisher said:
You appear to be fixated on the issue of wrongful shoots and you are focusing on words not the spirit of the law.
Click to expand...
Probably.
 
Home invasions have really been on the rise lately. Hell, just 3 days ago, a guy in Edmonton in his house minding his own business when he hears some noises in his garage. He moves towards the front door and 5 rounds came through the door, narrowly missing him.

I wouldn't hesitate to defend my home with lethal force and justify my use of such as a response to a perceived threat of death or GBH.
 
Boomer said:
They will now only authorize revolvers for wilderness ATCs, the argument being that semi-autos are not suitable . . . whatever that means. .
Click to expand...

So why are all police agencies in Canada switching to semi-autos if they are less reliable than a revolver? Makes you wonder who makes these rules up.
 
Agent Law said:
Right, so the sentiment I introduced (and subsequently defended) was incorrect. The correct one was:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=f045b583-2373-4893-bec3-a0ab6f7d076c
My mistake.


I never said I had a problem with it, but it is what it is (which is a right to use lethal force in all break-ins), and the point of my original statement was that Canadian law differs in that regard.


It doesn't really hold the offender accountable; it holds the defender unaccountable.


Probably.
Click to expand...

Castle doctorine sees the break-in itself as a crime of violence because the crossing of the threshold is a precursor to a futher crime upon the
resident. Castle doctorine holds the offender accountable because the law reconizes the victim's right to defend themselves and others in the residence.

The justice system does not expect the average citizend to know as much about the law as justice officials. Therefore the laws (specifically self defence laws) are written so that if you the homeowner/victim/defender are acting in good faith you are protected.

Some people visit this site to educate themselves, to mis-inform them is a diservice. Castle doctorine is not open season on door to door salesman and people knocking on your door asking for directions. It recognizes that some people will kick in your door and kill you for your stuff because they need to get high. Try and look at it through the victim's point of view instead of from text books and professor quotes.

Sam
 
Contondant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the law makers have money and live on the correct side of the train tracks. It's the side that has private security and alarms, better lit streets, etc. Heck, some even have police protection because they are more important than the regular folks. The rest of us live on the other side of the tracks and are therefore subject to victimization a lot easier. So why would these law makers change the rules when the bad things don't happen to them?
 
victor16 said:
Unfortunately the law makers have money and live on the correct side of the train tracks. It's the side that has private security and alarms, better lit streets, etc. Heck, some even have police protection because they are more important than the regular folks. The rest of us live on the other side of the tracks and are therefore subject to victimization a lot easier. So why would these law makers change the rules when the bad things don't happen to them?
Click to expand...




^ This.
 
troutseeker said:
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...
Click to expand...

You should have asked him which days were safer to go unprotected. Ask him for it in writing.
 
victor16 said:
So why are all police agencies in Canada switching to semi-autos if they are less reliable than a revolver? Makes you wonder who makes these rules up.
Click to expand...

He didn't say they were less reliable, just less suitable. The average semi-auto doesn't have the knockdown power of a magnum revolver and is therefore not suitable as protection from larger carnivores.

victor16 said:
Unfortunately the law makers have money and live on the correct side of the train tracks. It's the side that has private security and alarms, better lit streets, etc. Heck, some even have police protection because they are more important than the regular folks. The rest of us live on the other side of the tracks and are therefore subject to victimization a lot easier. So why would these law makers change the rules when the bad things don't happen to them?
Click to expand...

From my understanding, the (certain) lawmakers who live on the good side of the tracks, and their families, are among the only citizens in Canada to have CCW permits. I've been told Justin Trudeau has a CCW. That's laughable. What enemies does he have?
 
Kieran said:
i carry between my safe and my bathroom to watch myself draw and dry fire in the mirror... what a land so strong and FREE...
Click to expand...

I wore my shoulder holster around the house all day today on my day off. Unloaded of course, well, dummy rounds.Simply because I can't any time else. The lady thinks its "cute but makes it hard to snuggle".

I'm a weirdo, I know.

Anyways, I went to the store to grab some stuff so she could bake cupcakes. Considered leaving the 1911 on under my hoodie. No one ever frisks you at the grocery store...

But I didn't...
 
Boomer- Are you sure about autos not being eligible any more? I was told by someone who certifies people that 10mm autos are still okay. Gunnar, at Armco told me this last year.

I don't pay a lot of attention to all the technicalities of Canadian law. It comes down to a simple choice. Do I protect my family and myself, or do I worry about obeying laws written by urban elitists who live in secure communities?
 
boxcoach said:
Boomer- Are you sure about autos not being eligible any more? I was told by someone who certifies people that 10mm autos are still okay. Gunnar, at Armco told me this last year.
Click to expand...

the BC/YT CFO accepted the addition of a semi to my ATC last month.
 
RGV-Makes sense. I know they're accepting 10mm revolvers, so why not autos? I can't imagine a more useful wilderness gun than a Glock 20, even though I'd probably designate a model 29.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom