ATC for Protection of Life (not wilderness, just from wilderpeople)

[MoMoney]

Are you a rat?

LOL. Now that's a question I can get behind. This is why I didn't want to get into too much detail on the post itself, but feel free to PM if you have any decent information in regards to the ATC and I'd be happy to explain a bit more. While the RCMP have identified people who may be of threat, the threat has nothing to do with my interactions with the RCMP.

Without getting into too much detail, it was more someone else ratting on someone else that led to the information being passed to me that there was a threat. It's a very long story, and something that my fiance and I unfortunately had no say in and no way to prevent. But it is indeed a real, credible threat.

[nick237]

Kick his ass sea-bass lol

[FoxAlpha]

I've never understood the rational behind the requirements.

Someone must have attempted to harm you or take your life on multiple occasions before we'll allow you to protect yourself.

[nowarningshot]

2.2 million firearms owners. Besides trappers, and armored car employees, you could probably fit everyone with a ATC around a soccer field one deep.

It exists on the books, unless your really connected, it doesnt exist.

[MoMoney]

2.2 million firearms owners. Besides trappers, and armored car employees, you could probably fit everyone with a ATC around a soccer field one deep.

It exists on the books, unless your really connected, it doesnt exist.

Yup.. that's why I'm so perplexed! Lol. I'm new to the firearm community so this is pretty mindblowing to me. Seeing it mentioned on the news, RCMP articles, written in law.. but when you actually look at applying.. yeah right.

Mindblowing to me, but I guess it's par for the course in Canadian firearms world. Really unfortunate.

[tiriaq]

Please do not post a response in this thread unless you have specific information for MoMoney about obtaining a non-wilderness ATC.

[Cameron SS]

I've never understood the rational behind the requirements.

Someone must have attempted to harm you or take your life on multiple occasions before we'll allow you to protect yourself.

The rationale is to make it virtually impossible to obtain an ATC, without a complete ban. A complete ban would be an obvious infringement of your section 7 charter right to life and wouldn't survive the first court challenge.

The ATC process is meant to create the appearance of a legal avenue for exercising your right to life, while creating a bureaucratic hurdle that is so insurmountable that no one but a privileged few could get one.

2.2 million firearms owners. Besides trappers, and armored car employees, you could probably fit everyone with a ATC around a soccer field one deep.

It exists on the books, unless your really connected, it doesn't exist.

From the research and FOIs I have seen, I suspect you can fit everyone who was EVER issued an ATC for the protection of life into one school bus.

[Cameron SS]

I know there's another thread about everyone applying for an ATC as a sign of rebellion or whatever, but I'd like to inquire a bit more around the specifics of applying for an ATC for Protection of Life.

Is this still a thing you can feasibly do? Is there any information about people who h ave been approved in the last couple of years?
Is the final decision made by the RCMP, or the CFO of your Province, or both? Better question, when you apply with the RCMP form, do they automatically send it to the CFO? Or do they vet it first and decide if there's enough merit?
Is there some kind of special way to apply? It appears there is no section on the ATC to apply for general protection of life, and nowhere to explain what justifies it. Would attaching a letter to the application even get looked at?

Any insight or feedback would be appreciated. Not sure if anyone around here has applied for this before?

One last question, does anyone have the old RCMP ATC form that DOES include the Protection of Life section? Did anyone save it? I'd just apply with that form if so.

MoMoney, there are probably very few people on this forum with more first hand knowledge dealing with ATC for the Protection of Life (ATC PL) applications than I have. At the risk of overwhelming you, I am going to be overly inclusive of information as I try to answer your questions.

First, lets start with the law. Yes, the law creates a mechanism for your to APPLY for an authorization to carry. It is found at S 20 of the Firearms Act.

20 An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun
(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or
(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

These are the two reasons for which you can be granted an ATC. This discussion will focus entirely on the first, as I have limited experience dealing with ATCs for employment, typically wilderness folks and currency guards. Note this this only applies to restricted firearms, and 12.6.1 handguns (barrels 105mm or less). You can not get an ATC for a Non-Restricted firearm.

The rest of the process is outlined by the "Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations SOR/98-207". http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/r.../FullText.html

In these regulations at section 2 it further specifies the requirements to justify the need for an ATC PL.

2 For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where
(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

The first requirement is by far the most problematic. "Imminent" is not defined by law. Any reasonable interpretation of what imminent might mean, precludes the possibility of even applying for an ATC PL.

If you truly believe that your life, or someone else's life is in imminent danger, it is time to be loading rounds into chambers, not filing out forms. Typically, in order for a person to 'reasonably believe' there is a threat of force against them, it would be cause the person doing the threatening has actually made the threat. IE, Shady Dude calls you and says I am coming to kill you. If you deem this a credible threat, then clearly, it is imminent as he is on his way to you and will arrive at any time. Since the threat has actually already been made, you now have immediate access to taking self defense steps under S34 of the criminal code.

So this is the catch .22 of ATC PL. IF you actually know of a credible threat against your life, then S 34 already authorizes you to take steps in your own self defense, even if it means breaking laws such as storage laws, concealment laws, possession of a loaded gun law, etc. There was a case from NS a few years back where a guy received a threat via telephone from the ex boyfriend of his current girlfriend, who after other assaults and threats, indicated he was coming to kill him. That guy went to the locker, loaded a gun and left it by the front door. When the Ex showed up, driving his car onto the lawn, the Guy actually grabbed his gun, walked out onto the lawn, and pointed the firearm at the Ex and warned him to leave. When the car lurched forward, the guy shot the Ex through the windshield. At his trial, the Guy was acquitted because the judge agreed that under the circumstances, it was a reasonable act of self defense in the face of a credible threat of bodily harm to prepare for an altercation, and that the guys increasing use of force, ie confronting on the lawn, pointing, and eventually firing, was a measured and proportionate response to the escalating attack. The important thing to learn from this story is primarily that any use of a firearm for self defense will go to trial. You will get zero benefit of the doubt, and you will be financially ruined by legal costs. I doubt having a valid ATC PL would save you from such a treatment. Its also probably unlike that a judge would be as open minded about carrying the load gun about town while waiting for the attacker to ambush him, compared to hunkering down at home.

So an imminent threat doesn't leave much time to fill out forms. Unfortunately, according to the Canadian Firearms Program, the service delivery standard for issuing any ATC is 30 days from the date of receiving a completed application. Submitting a complete application will typically require contacting at least one, usually two other government organizations for forms and or document searches, meaning between 10 and 30 days depending on THEIR service delivery standards, and thats assuming they want to help you, which they won't. Meaning you might have to file an Access To Information Program request to obtain the necessary information, which could mean 90 days or more. This means from the time you determine that a threat is imminent, you could be waiting up to 120 days for your ATC PL to be issued. 120 days does not meet anyone's idea of 'imminent'.

Police Protection. In Ontario, there is an additional form that you will be given by the Ontario Chief Firearms Officer for the purpose of substantiating that police protection is insufficient under the circumstances. This form is to be submitted to the Chief of Police of the police force with jurisdiction where you live, for them to sign off that they can not protect you under YOUR particular circumstances. Each police force may vary in how they handle this. At the recent Canadian Association Chiefs of Police conference, I spoke to 5 different Ontario Police Chief's on this issue, and not one them was willing to entertain a scenario where they would sign that form. These were chief's of urban centers. A rural police chief might be more open minded. The form the CFO will give you asks for police report occurrence numbers to document the threat against you. The presumption being that you called the police when you were threatened, they took it seriously, they investigated it, and either have an open investigation, or resolved the threat in some way, probably by not really doing much to help you. Verbal threats are pretty difficult for them to do anything about. IF this is a new threat, you can guarantee an investigation will have to be exhausted before they even entertain filing out the form. If you actually do have one or more reports already made, they will probably review those cases.

If you can convince some investigator to support your claim that you are in danger, you will need to educate the investigator, his boss, some superintendent, and the Chiefs executive assistant just to get the form on his desk, which will inevitably get forwarded to the legal department for review because NONE of these people will have seen this form before, and most will tell you that there is no such thing as ATC PL, because they simply never actually get people trying to apply for one. If you can get past that, and talk with the Chief, they will consider the political ramifications of publicly signing their name to a form that admits the police force, with all their money, legal power, training, equipment resources and expertise, can not protect you. Any chief who signs that form will likely wind up in front of the Board trying to justify his continued employment. Which is exactly what one of the Chiefs at CACP told me.

Interestingly, this form can be signed by EITHER the Chief of Police, or curiously the Chief of Defense, as in the Chief of the Defense Staff, a 4 leaf General in Ottawa. The Canadian Armed Forces Legal Advisors office is of the opinion that if the Chief were to sign this form, they would then become politically and probably legally liable for your actions while carrying, despite the fact that they are not issuing the ATC itself, nor are they bound by the legislation that governs its issuance, ie the Firearms Act. Their position is that they have no mandate to guarantee the safety of individual Canadians (the police don't either for the record), only Canada's national interests and their own members. If one of their members is ever in danger, they already have the power under the National Defense Act to authorize the carriage of military weapons for that purpose, and as such, have no interest in being involved with civilian ATC PL issuance.

If you can overcome the police protection hurdle, before the 'imminent' attack begins, satisfying the 3rd requirement is either easy or impossible. I've never gotten that far. The CFO could readily suggest that carrying a firearm in public is not reasonable, and you should simply batten down the hatches at home, or get better door locks. Or enter a witness protection-like program. Alternatively you could argue that when police are individually threatened, they let them carry guns off duty, and therefore carrying guns is reasonable, and they might very well agree. It would be illogical to provide a system of carrying firearms and then default to the believe that its always unreasonable, but then its the CFO we are talking about.

If you have satisfied A, B, and C, you have demonstrated that you NEED an ATC PL. But you still aren't eligible for one until you also meet the following requirements.

4 A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is needed in the circumstances described in section 2 or paragraph 3(a) unless the chief firearms officer determines that
(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force that is appropriate for using the firearm in those circumstances; and
(b) the firearm is appropriate in those circumstances.

So lets start with the second one first. The firearm you want to carry must be appropriate "in those circumstances". There is absolutely zero guidance as to what an appropriate firearm in any given circumstances might be. This is literally the realm of "best gun for bear defense". Note that the police will never answer the question "what would you consider reasonable?". Giving any recommendation would make them liable for the outcome, and they will never accept that liability. They are not in the business of giving advice. I would start with the premise that any gun that the police deem appropriate for their officers, is probably appropriate for you. You may be called upon to substantiate how your preferred firearm is comparable to an issued service pistol. Note that if you don't have a firearm they consider reasonable, and you have to go out and buy one, add the time it takes to buy the firearm and have it transferred to your estimation of 'imminent'.

Now the training. First, it should be noted that the training must be conducted with the particular firearm(s) you want to carry, or else you likely need to convince them that the firearm is close enough to what you used during training as to rule out there being any issues with use. This is particularly problematic if you had to go buy a new pistol in order to have one that is appropriate for the circumstances, as they may very well want you to repeat the training. This is similar to what some CFOs require for Wilderness ATC.

Second, you must have training in proficiency, AND use of force, where such use of force training includes using firearms and addresses the particular circumstances you are facing.

The Ontario CFO, and to my knowledge every other CFO in the country, has prohibited the provision of Use of Force training with firearms to civilians without their express prior consent. While nothing in law substantiates this position, the CFOs have threatened to shut down clubs which enable this training. Not surprisingly, the CFO is not aware of any course offered by competent instructors with sufficient course curriculum to satisfy this requirement, outside of what is taught at various Police Academies. Not your Police Foundations available at the local college, but the Academy, such as RCMP Depot or Ontario Police College. Given that any ATC PL issuance is in accordance with Canadian firearms and self defense laws, no training taken outside of Canada will be accepted. Nothing outside of Canada is accepted. Nothing inside is permitted. Together it makes it pretty much impossible to meet this requirement, Although they will reluctantly consider individual exceptions on a case by case basis. I submitted an extensive resume, and never received a response because I couldn't overcome the police protection hurdle.

Basically unless you are a current serving or retired law enforcement officer, it is very likely that you will be deemed to lack the training, at which time the CFO will likely authorize you to seek out the required training, if you can find it. Again, they can't recommend anyone (but they are out there), but you will have to complete the training at your own expense. Add the time this takes to your estimate of 'imminent'. Could be months before the next course, and they won't let you even start looking until you pass the NEED hurdle.

If you can meet the demonstrated needs requirement, and satisfy the training and firearm requirement, the ATC will be issued with, at a minimum, the following conditions:

6 A chief firearms officer who issues an authorization to carry shall attach to it the following conditions:
(a) if the individual is authorized to possess more than one restricted firearm or prohibited handgun for the purposes of section 20 of the Act, that the individual carry not more than one of them at a time;
(b) that the restricted firearm or prohibited handgun be carried in a holster;

The first one is logistically problematic, unless your ATC PL comes with an ATT to transport the firearms listed on the ATC PL anywhere in the province. Otherwise, any firearms not being carried must be secured at home, making them utterly useless for ATC PL.

The second requirement is probably unsurprising, but should be taken as an inference that any training conducted should include training on a holster. IPSC enthusiasts can put their hands down and take a seat because a black badge in no way shape or form is recognized as acceptable firearms proficiency training, even if augmented by use of force training. This holster requirement is problematic, particularly because up until this point the law seemed to broadly apply to the carriage of any restricted firearm, but now seems to require that an AR-15 approved for ATC PL must now be carried in a holster. My ATC PL applications have always included a Colt IUR in a nearly identical C8 Police Patrol Carbine Configuration as well as a restricted Remington 870 shotgun, and this has never raised a flag. Although that could simply be because I never got that far.

You will note that so far there has been no mention of concealment, although I would expect that this would be added as an additional condition to any ATC PL.

Further, once issued the CFO has a legal duty to revoke your ATC PL if they become aware that your mental or physical state deteriorates to such an extent that it may affect your safety or anyone else's. Interestingly this is not a requirement to be evaluated during the issuance process, and I'll save you from my speculation on why that is. In any event, given that it is a requirement that exists the second the ATC PL is issued, I expect that this will come up as part of the application process anyways.

I suspect that additional conditions could be added surrounding the requirement to notify the CFO of changes to your health, abstinence of consuming drugs or alcohol while carrying, and avoiding certain medications.

Is getting an ATC PL something you can feasibly do? You tell me. I can't even get the CFO to confirm receipt of a completed application so that they can issue me a refusal that I can go to court with.

There is zero information on anyone who has been approved in the last few years, likely because no one has been approved in the last few years. The CFO refuses to disclose the number of these permits that have been issued, and escapes liability under the ATIP program claiming they are protecting the identify and personal information of at risk individuals, which is a noble goal if it were true. Which it isn't. They wont even disclose the number of applications they have received or rejected. Arguably, if they rejected the application, then there is no danger and no basis to refuse to disclose it, but they refuse anyways. But then this is the same CFOs office that openly committed contempt of court and refused a duly issued Court order, so go figure.

As mentioned, the decision is entirely your provincial CFOs. In Ontario, that means the OPP. When you submit your form to the CFP, they will forward it. Or you can contact the Ontario CFO directly and submit it to them. There is no special way to apply. Call the CFP, ask for a transfer to the CFO of Ontario, tell them you want to apply, and they will advise you who to send your application to.

The current version of the ATC form is written entirely for ATC for employment, because that is 99.99999% of the applications they receive. If you have any questions on how to fill out the form, call the CFO and get the instructions or clarification in writing. Or leave it blank and submit a plainly worded letter as an addendum. Yes they will consider this letter, and ask you for much more information than what is required on the form anyways. If you get that far.

Yes, I have applied. Many others suggest they have applied as well. We have no way of knowing how many have actually applied, and how many merely claim to, but are scared off by the prospect of forfeiting their application fee and being denied. You should note they do not collect the fee if the application is denied.

The RCMP does not provide archived forms that are no longer current on their website, for the simple reason that they do not accept any applications that are not submitted on the most up to date form. Submit one on the old form if you like, you will just be invited to resubmit on the new form, despite the fact that its inappropriate for ATC PL.

Hope you find some of this useful. I encourage you to apply simply for the purpose of educating yourself on how frustrating this process is, so that you can complain bitterly about it later from a position of first hand knowledge, rather than internet griping.

I started a thread after the Danforth shooting encouraging everyone, especially Torontonians, to apply for ATCs to send both a practical and political message that some of us know what guns are for, and we want to be able to use them accordingly. On the one year anniversary of that shooting will submit yet another ATIP asking for the numbers to demonstrate the increase in requests for ATC PL after that shooting. I suspect that for all of the people who claimed to have sent in an application in that thread, there will be less than 10 who actually did, not that I expect the CFO to actually disclose that number.

In conclusion, ATC PL is a novelty. Its a political statement. Having one is a demonstration of your political connections. Its not for people actually in danger. For anyone actually in danger S34 of the criminal code already justifies you taking reasonable steps to protect yourself from the threat, which courts have already determined includes keeping firearms ready for defense in contravention of storage laws. And remember that all use of force involving firearms goes to trial, so consider firearms legal defense insurance.