Can I buy restricted from Marstar before joining a club?

playkation said:
Nice job on the thread hijack, but when it boils down to getting a restricted transferred I have yet to year what you can say or do to get around CFO approval. If a CFO says you need a firearms membership and you refuse and argue, they can basically tell you to pound sand and hang up the phone. What do you do then?? The options I see are to either go with the collector status and deal with that or forget about your transfer. Is there a 3rd (legal) option I don't know about? I'm all for fighting the good fight but yapping on about rights and privileges is good and all but there's no tangable results there for someone trying to get a transfer.
Click to expand...


You quote the law to them and demand they put that refusal in WRITING which they do not want to do.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180

as well as a ton of other reading a good thing to know exactly what they CANNOT do.




Hmmm am the only one on CGN with the balls to actually pick the fight with them intentionally???? How sad :mad:
 
Shalimar said:
Actually no they cannot. There is specific rules they have to abide by within our current laws.. they cannot simply choose to do so w/o valid reason.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180

Read and learn please before claiming that ever again.
Click to expand...
"27. On being informed of a proposed transfer of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm under section 23, a chief firearms officer shall
(a) verify

(i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,

(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and

(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be;
(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee or individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;
(c) decide whether to approve the transfer and inform the Registrar of that decision; and
(d) take the prescribed measures.

1995, c. 39, s. 27; 2003, c. 8, s. 20.

Permitted purposes
28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun

(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or

(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is

(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or

(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

1995, c. 39, s. 28; 2003, c. 8, s. 21."

The above section of the Firearms Act seems to give the CFO very broad discretion over whether to approve a transfer Sec. B and C. Exactly what would rule out the refusal of a transfer by the CFO of a handgun to someone who is not " unfder the auspices of a shooting club" ?
 
Shalimar; You seem very passionate about this issue.. and as much as I'd love to debate it... You seem to think taking shots at my character is appropriate becuase I have a differing opinion then you.. It isn't...


Anarchy is not the way to solve an issue.. You may believe what you are saying but the courts have already decided that you are not correct.. It's held more then once that the CFO has discretion in these matters..

Having dealt with the CFO and having it not go my way I can say that they have a couple things we don't; They have access to lawyers and money that we don't they have the courts on their side unusually (at least in Ontario)..
see the text below...

(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or

(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

There are 3 conditions...
target practice - prove where you are shooting and why (has to be an approved range)
competition - be a member of some org and shoot their matches
or as a member of a club - have a membership


PS you probably owe Doc an apology in your rants you missed that he was calling me messed up...

Before you get on a high horse and start ranting maybe you should figure out who the people you are looking down on are..


Again I will reiterate.. The CFO in Ontario has interpreted the law to say you should belong to a club unless you have good reasons why you don't.. Yes you can be a guest but at some point if this is abused which it has been they will most likely add additional rules.. Yes if you are refused you can get a hearing but don't expect a judge to side with you... The judge will say based on precedent that it's "reasonable" that you belong to a club if there is a club within 2 hours of where you live. How mnay cases are you aware of in Ontario that have gone in the challengers favor...

As for looking at club records... Not all clubs have extensive records.. I've belonged to 2 clubs and been to a number more that don't have any method of tracking guests... If you think a sign in sheet works.. I'm not sure how a signature in a book works back to a license...

Is this worth fighting.. I guess it depends on what you want to do... For me it's not worth fighting I have bigger battles to fight and for the $150 a year to join a club seems cheap compared to the hassle of having to go to court each time I want to buy a gun..

I think it's italy you can own 2 guns for target practice.. But you need to prove you have been to the range 12 times in a year to keep them.. And you have to go to the range at least once every 3 months...(I remember thing from M1911.ORG as the mod there had to turn in his guns after his wife had twins he couldn't get to the range) Do you really want to see rules like that...They exist elsewhere and under C-68 they can exist here...
 
Shalimar said:
You quote the law to them and demand they put that refusal in WRITING which they do not want to do.
Click to expand...

That has been tried already by someone on here. The CFO quoted the section 28. b) i) where it states you want the restricted firearm to shoot at a range. The CFO plainly said it is reasonable to expect you to have a range membership to prove you are using your restricted firearm for your claimed intended purpose. Sadly they have legal precident on their side. If you refused their explanation about the best case scenario you can hope for is a court date. Realistically multiple court dates until you took it to provincial supreme court would be required to get this policy overturned. Shalimar, perhaps you have the money and time to hire a lawyer and fight that but most of us don't. If I go talking like a big man to the CFO or doing the whole keyboard commando thing, that will not get the CFO to see things my way and forget about the range membership. Don't kid yourself, they will need to be forced by the courts.
 
For what it's worth.... I bought my first restricted 6 months after my renge membership expired and was honest with the CFO in Orillia when they asked if i was a member. The lady then told me that Ontario has DOES not require PROOF of membership in order to complete a transfer. And made a point of saying Ontario is the only province that does not require such proof.
 
sdlonyer said:
"27. On being informed of a proposed transfer of a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm under section 23, a chief firearms officer shall
(a) verify

(i) whether the transferee or individual holds a licence,

(ii) whether the transferee or individual is still eligible to hold that licence, and

(iii) whether the licence authorizes the transferee or individual to acquire that kind of firearm or to acquire prohibited weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition or prohibited ammunition, as the case may be;
(b) in the case of a proposed transfer of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns), verify the purpose for which the transferee or individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun and determine whether the particular restricted firearm or handgun is appropriate for that purpose;
(c) decide whether to approve the transfer and inform the Registrar of that decision; and
(d) take the prescribed measures.

1995, c. 39, s. 27; 2003, c. 8, s. 20.

Permitted purposes
28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun

(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or

(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is

(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or

(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

1995, c. 39, s. 28; 2003, c. 8, s. 21."

The above section of the Firearms Act seems to give the CFO very broad discretion over whether to approve a transfer Sec. B and C. Exactly what would rule out the refusal of a transfer by the CFO of a handgun to someone who is not " unfder the auspices of a shooting club" ?
Click to expand...

No where within the law does it state membership at a range is required.

It is that simple.. and while the cfo can try to make policy all they want in the end they have to follow the law.

And remember "under the auspices of a shooting club" does not mean membership.. it simply means it can only be used AT the approved shooting club.
 
bear.23 said:
Shalimar; You seem very passionate about this issue.. and as much as I'd love to debate it... You seem to think taking shots at my character is appropriate becuase I have a differing opinion then you.. It isn't...
Click to expand...

On the contrary it is about your attitude of "sit back and take it" that I am picking on... something none of us should be doing. We either fight.. or we loose by default.. and that is simply not acceptable IMO.


bear.23 said:
Anarchy is not the way to solve an issue.. You may believe what you are saying but the courts have already decided that you are not correct.. It's held more then once that the CFO has discretion in these matters..
Click to expand...

wtf? Anarchy has nothing to do with this... :rolleyes:

The CFO does not have discretion to ignore or make the laws.


bear.23 said:
Having dealt with the CFO and having it not go my way I can say that they have a couple things we don't; They have access to lawyers and money that we don't they have the courts on their side unusually (at least in Ontario)..
see the text below...

(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or

(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.

There are 3 conditions...
target practice - prove where you are shooting and why (has to be an approved range)
competition - be a member of some org and shoot their matches
or as a member of a club - have a membership
Click to expand...

Now you are putting your own words in there...

There is NO condition at all that says you MUST have a membership... if you are going to quote regulations quote them.. do not paraphrase and/or add in your own wording. :rolleyes:





bear.23 said:
PS you probably owe Doc an apology in your rants you missed that he was calling me messed up...

Before you get on a high horse and start ranting maybe you should figure out who the people you are looking down on are..
Click to expand...


Indeed.. correction made to my post.

bear.23 said:
Again I will reiterate.. The CFO in Ontario has interpreted the law to say you should belong to a club unless you have good reasons why you don't.. Yes you can be a guest but at some point if this is abused which it has been they will most likely add additional rules.. Yes if you are refused you can get a hearing but don't expect a judge to side with you... The judge will say based on precedent that it's "reasonable" that you belong to a club if there is a club within 2 hours of where you live. How mnay cases are you aware of in Ontario that have gone in the challengers favor...
Click to expand...

The CFO cannot "interpret" in such a way as to ADD to the law.. and trying to say membership is mandatory would be adding to the law. They do not have that authority.

The NB CFO tried that already as well.. and LOST.


bear.23 said:
As for looking at club records... Not all clubs have extensive records.. I've belonged to 2 clubs and been to a number more that don't have any method of tracking guests... If you think a sign in sheet works.. I'm not sure how a signature in a book works back to a license...
Click to expand...

A sign in sheet is all they are required to do... and the CFO has the right to inspect that.. and guests are required to sign in as well.

Also when asked for proof that "you" go to that range they are NOT allowed to demand you present it. That is an improper manner to gain evidence. They are required instead to contact the range(s) in question to obtain a copy of their records.


bear.23 said:
Is this worth fighting.. I guess it depends on what you want to do... For me it's not worth fighting I have bigger battles to fight and for the $150 a year to join a club seems cheap compared to the hassle of having to go to court each time I want to buy a gun..

I think it's italy you can own 2 guns for target practice.. But you need to prove you have been to the range 12 times in a year to keep them.. And you have to go to the range at least once every 3 months...(I remember thing from M1911.ORG as the mod there had to turn in his guns after his wife had twins he couldn't get to the range) Do you really want to see rules like that...They exist elsewhere and under C-68 they can exist here...
Click to expand...

It is worth fighting in spades... and only by having a LARGE number of gun owners fight it will they rethink their BS. It does not even ahve to be a court case... if say 10,000 owners all at once did the same thing and picked the same fight it would have one huge impact.. and with that many the outcry would be huge.

Remember it's playing politics with them.. they want to make up rules at will... and we cannot abide by them since if we do then what idiotic rule will they try next??? Sitting back and being so apathetic does no one any good... it does us all harm instead. :mad:
 
playkation said:
That has been tried already by someone on here. The CFO quoted the section 28. b) i) where it states you want the restricted firearm to shoot at a range. The CFO plainly said it is reasonable to expect you to have a range membership to prove you are using your restricted firearm for your claimed intended purpose. Sadly they have legal precident on their side. If you refused their explanation about the best case scenario you can hope for is a court date. Realistically multiple court dates until you took it to provincial supreme court would be required to get this policy overturned. Shalimar, perhaps you have the money and time to hire a lawyer and fight that but most of us don't. If I go talking like a big man to the CFO or doing the whole keyboard commando thing, that will not get the CFO to see things my way and forget about the range membership. Don't kid yourself, they will need to be forced by the courts.
Click to expand...

I've already spoken with that party about it and there was an entirely different set of evidence being used.. Therefore there is no legal precedent.
 
CDNJackpot said:
For what it's worth.... I bought my first restricted 6 months after my renge membership expired and was honest with the CFO in Orillia when they asked if i was a member. The lady then told me that Ontario has DOES not require PROOF of membership in order to complete a transfer. And made a point of saying Ontario is the only province that does not require such proof.
Click to expand...

Indeed and the irony there is legally all of Canada has to follow the same law since it is federal... CFO's constantly try all sorts of #### to screw with us...

Why are more of you not fighting back??? :(
 
tonyhzhen said:
I'm in Ontario and just got my RPAL. As some ppl on CGN recommended, I'd like to buy a Norinco M-93 woodsman from Marstar as my first handgun. But the probelm is that Marstar's online order form requires a club name and a club membership number for purchasing restricted. I'm wondering if I have to join a club and get some membership number to fill in the form for my purchase, or can I just leave them blank on the order form?

I searched the forum for this kind of question but none seems to be asked before.
Click to expand...
Under Canadian gun laws you must have a legitimate reason for possessing or obtaining firearms..one good reason is for target practice the other is as a collector outside of that are reasons that most of us can't justify. Join a club and you are good to go.
 
Skinny 1950 said:
Under Canadian gun laws you must have a legitimate reason for possessing or obtaining firearms..one good reason is for target practice the other is as a collector outside of that are reasons that most of us can't justify. Join a club and you are good to go.
Click to expand...

Sorry but again.. having a club MEMBERSHIP is not required by law.. though you can visit various clubs as a drop in and/or guest. Do not continue to perpetuate the BS crap spewed by the CFOs!!.. That is what they want!
 
A special occasion ATT may be obtained to transport restricted firearms to a range where one is shooting as a guest. Membership in the club is not required, but an invitation is. Usually this occurs when the range is one not covered by the shooter's LTATT.
 
Shalimar said:
Sorry but again.. having a club MEMBERSHIP is not required by law.. though you can visit various clubs as a drop in and/or guest. Do not continue to perpetuate the BS crap spewed by the CFOs!!.. That is what they want!
Click to expand...

So do you live in Ontario?? Do you have a club membership?
 
tiriaq said:
A special occasion ATT may be obtained to transport restricted firearms to a range where one is shooting as a guest. Membership in the club is not required, but an invitation is. Usually this occurs when the range is one not covered by the shooter's LTATT.
Click to expand...

True a STATT can be had,.. but unless your LTATT is gimped then you should at the min have to all ranges/clubs in your province.
 
Shalimar said:
True a STATT can be had,.. but unless your LTATT is gimped then you should at the min have to all ranges/clubs in your province.
Click to expand...

If a person holds an ATT valid for CFO ranges, and wishes to shoot at Base Borden, a STATT can be had for the occasion. If a person has an ATT through the ORA, it will be valid for DND ranges, and a STATT would need to be obtained to shoot at a CFO range.
There are LTATTs which are valid for both CFO and DND ranges; useful if a shooter shoots at both.
If a person had no LTATT, then a STATT could be obtained for a specific event at any range.
 
tiriaq said:
If a person holds an ATT valid for CFO ranges, and wishes to shoot at Base Borden, a STATT can be had for the occasion. If a person has an ATT through the ORA, it will be valid for DND ranges, and a STATT would need to be obtained to shoot at a CFO range.
There are LTATTs which are valid for both CFO and DND ranges; useful if a shooter shoots at both.
If a person had no LTATT, then a STATT could be obtained for a specific event at any range.
Click to expand...

Indeed and a properly done LTATT w/o being gimped will cover all of the above as well as border points, gunsmiths and verifiers. Possibly even gun shows as well if it was worded properly. Of course most ppl end up with at least partially gimped ATTs since the CFO wants desperately to make them that way intentionally. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom