Two noob questions, one transport and one home defense

rem74283 said:
a "safe" has its definitions too. I have a Canadian Tire tin "locker". it wouldn't classify as a safe. I have a friend with a certified "vault" in his house. He can store his restricted inside unlocked.
Click to expand...

Actually a safe does not have definitions with regards to the firearms act, and according to legal precedent your "tin" box does indeed qualify as a safe to at least one judge. ie: the crown vs Harry Barnes i'm not going to cite it as i just did yesterday.
 
Its common sense, if your range is East of your house and you are heading to Walmart which is due West of your house you are obviously not "on the way to the range"

There is nothing in the law that says you can't stop on the way to get gas, coffee, have dinner etc.

I know many shooters who after tournaments stop for dinner on their way back home.

I don't think being reasonable is arbitrary, it is common sense.

I have stopped for different reasons many times on my way to and from the range, and even if you get stopped for speeding or whatever there is nothing in the law that says you need to confess all the evil guns in your car. You would only answer if the officer asks, and then his next question would be where are you going or coming from, and you would answer true-fully that you are on the way or coming from the range.




Pete-aarr said:
That is the very problem with our laws. It is very arbitrary, hence the changes were are pushing for as a community.
Click to expand...
 
If in a locked case, and also triggerlocked, can a shotgun be stored/transported with shells in the side-saddle, the same way a restricted can have a loaded magazine in the same case, but not in the firearm?
 
JayFlip said:
If in a locked case, and also triggerlocked, can a shotgun be stored/transported with shells in the side-saddle, the same way a restricted can have a loaded magazine in the same case, but not in the firearm?
Click to expand...

The side saddle is not a magazine, so yes.
 
It's virtually impossible to use a firearm to defend your self if it's legally stored due to the the fact the danger you are allowed to use it for would make it very hard to get it out of storage and find the correct ammo or magizine and then use it in the short time needed.
 
Raton57 said:
It's virtually impossible to use a firearm to defend your self if it's legally stored due to the the fact the danger you are allowed to use it for would make it very hard to get it out of storage and find the correct ammo or magizine and then use it in the short time needed.
Click to expand...

Not true, at all. I have completely legal system that could be used very rapidly.
 
llO0DQLE said:
do a 'coupe de grace (I don't know if I spelled that right).
Click to expand...

Except for the extra "e" in coup, you did spell it right.
This specific phrase irks me immensely when in American movies
they pronounce it "coo" (correct) de "grah". Gras (pronounced grah in French) means fat or lard.

There they are administering a last, merciful hit of fat.
 
Cavs42 said:
That is a gross over simplification. You are not allowed to own a gun for self defence. You are not allowed to own a baseball bat, golf club or pool noodle for self defence either. Just because the status quo is that you cannot buy a pistol to use specifically for home defence, does not mean that you cannot use a pistol you bought to shoot targets to shoot an attacker.

If you are facing a direct threat of grevious bodily harm or death to either yourself or another, you are justified in the use of force up to and including deadly force. You have the RIGHT to self defence, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Whatever tool you have at your disposal is acceptable, be that a pistol that you can access from its properly stored location (there are fast access safes on the market for this express purpose) or the aformentioned pool noodle of death.

Just understand that you will need to justify any action that takes the life of another.
Click to expand...

I agree with cavs43.
 
flyrrad said:
If you had given that reason when you applied for a restricted, you would not hAve been given the restricted license. Should tell ya the most correct answer....
Click to expand...

Totally different scenario. The first situation is regarding your application for an RPAL and you're reason for acquiring restricted firearms. The other scenario is related to the use of already acquired firearm for HD and SD is supported in the Criminal Code.
 
Up_On_One_Ramon said:
1) once I get my transport papers to a club, can I just throw my handgun in my backpack(in a locked case and trigger locked) and ride my motorcycle there? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes from what I've read on that rcmp flyer I got at the course. I just dont know if I stopped for gas and walked into the gas station to pay, could I be charged with concealed carry or something stupid like that.

2) if someone breaks into my house and is threatening my life can I use a firearm (restricted or not) for self defence? or am I suppose to throw my TV at them? I don't mean, if the guy is running away down the street and I shoot him in the back, that's not self defense.
Click to expand...

you will fair better throwing the tv.
 
Cavs42 said:
That is a gross over simplification. You are not allowed to own a gun for self defence. You are not allowed to own a baseball bat, golf club or pool noodle for self defence either. Just because the status quo is that you cannot buy a pistol to use specifically for home defence, does not mean that you cannot use a pistol you bought to shoot targets to shoot an attacker.

If you are facing a direct threat of grevious bodily harm or death to either yourself or another, you are justified in the use of force up to and including deadly force. You have the RIGHT to self defence, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Whatever tool you have at your disposal is acceptable, be that a pistol that you can access from its properly stored location (there are fast access safes on the market for this express purpose) or the aformentioned pool noodle of death.

Just understand that you will need to justify any action that takes the life of another.
Click to expand...

yup. get pulled over and frisked by a cop for example, he finds a knife and asks what you have the knife for, if you say self defense you can be charged as its then a weapon, you say i open parcels with it, then no problem.
 
GunGuy34 said:
yup. get pulled over and frisked by a cop for example, he finds a knife and asks what you have the knife for, if you say self defense you can be charged as its then a weapon, you say i open parcels with it, then no problem.
Click to expand...

Laws are so stupid, and two sided f:P:
 
In most cases home intrusion criminals do not come in armed, a little something that could get them a much longer jail time if caught. So the simple fact of pointing a gun at them will get them running for the door. Most self defence scenario home intrusion/attack/robbery with the victim pulling out a gun, ended up with the attacker running without any shots fired more than 80% of the time. No one wants to get into a gun fight including criminals.
 
rem74283 said:
I've has people tell me that in those situations you should put the first shot between his eyes and the next into the floor. Tell the police you fired a warning shot. Neighbours wont know the difference.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong way to go about it. DO NOT fire or claim to have fired a warning shot. The courts can/will argue that you did not feel a threat to your life if you opted for a warning shot over disabling your attacker. Secondly, if you do fire a warning shot and they run off you have to convince the legal system that there was in fact an intruder in the first place to keep from being charged with the discharging of your firearm within municipal limits.
 
LOL you have not read your own quote BC

"you should put the first shot between his eyes and the next into the floor"

I doubt very much that anyone will run off after that, so your theory of convincing the legal system that there was in fact an intruder in the first place to keep from being charged with the discharging of your firearm within municipal limits doesn't have a leg to stand on. Plus "The courts can/will argue that you did not feel a threat to your life if you opted for a warning shot over disabling your attacker" That is just what you should do in this situation, giving the intruder a way out. i doubt very much that anyone will argue the fact that you gave the criminal a chance before putting one between his eyes. <- That is the hard part to do in this situation lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom