Originally Posted by
varsil
Short answer: Maybe.
That's probably terribly unsatisfying, so let's look at why we get to "maybe".
First of all, I don't know if you have restricteds or not. I'm guessing not, because otherwise that scrap of paper would have the ATT on it as a condition. Note, though, that you can also have another ATT that you might be using.
Now, the part that says "Please detach the conditions below" isn't part of your conditions. But if your conditions sheet is like mine then it also includes a line like this:
"Carry this document with your licence card as you must be able to produce this document on demand if requested by a peace officer or other authority."
Now, it's pretty clear that no lawyers were allowed in the room when they drafted that formula text. I think they'd have some interesting times enforcing that. Let's say I leave my licence at home. Am I required to have the paper with my licence, or to be able to produce it? Is being able to produce it the same thing as actually producing it? I mean, I might be able to produce it and just refusing to do so... This is seriously bad wording for a legal document, and raises questions as to the legal enforceability. But, let's assume it can be enforced. What's the penalty?
If we assume non-restricteds, here are possible consequences:
70(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act states:
70 (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport for any good and sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(ii) contravenes any condition attached to the licence or authorization, or
So, assuming that you have a condition to carry that piece of paper (check the piece of paper), and assuming that condition is enforceable, then failing to do so can allow the CFO to revoke your licence.
Which sucks.
But wait: It gets worse.
110 Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, contravenes a condition of a licence, registration certificate or authorization held by the person.
Maximum punishment on that one is two years in prison, by the by. You'd be very unlikely to get two years in prison, though.
That's assuming you're moving a non-restricted. Let's move on to the other thought of you moving a restricted firearm.
All of the above still applies. In addition, it could be argued that instead of s. 110 of the Firearms Act, that you might be transporting your firearm in a way that is unauthorized. Note that it is not clear that this would stand, for reasons that are probably too complicated for this comment. But the argument is there, and that's a very serious penalty.
As /u/dabbin [+8] pointed out, you also have to worry about s. 117.03, which allows an officer to seize your firearms if you can't produce a licence, authorization, etc. Note that 117.03 isn't a charge, it's just an authorization for a seizure. It's permissive rather than mandatory (so the officer can decide not to seize your stuff), but odds are good that you get your stuff seized. But, 117.03 was designed to try to meet the initial promises of "You won't be charged for forgetting your papers at home". So it also includes a provision that allows you to get your stuff back by showing up and presenting a licence and authorization.
That doesn't seem so bad, right? Well, after fourteen days of you not showing up, they can apply to forfeit it to the Crown. Oh, and remember that bit about how violating a condition can allow them to revoke your licence? Yeah, that can be bad here.
Now, there's various things a lawyer competent in this area can do to prevent a catastrophe if you're found without it, but best to avoid needing one (much as I like cash).
So yeah, I carry the slip of paper.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote