CSAAA Bill C71 Discussion Q+A

[Janeau]

So now in EE, we will need a drop menu to ‘for lending’ WTL instead of WTS.

[dragonslayer64]

always new laws and rules for law abiding gun owners.

Less punishment for the criminals. DO they even think about them sometimes?

The only thing our liberal overlords care about is votes, trying to appease the scared masses in the big cities by enacting ridiculous firearms laws/bans that make it appear that they are doing something to combat gang violence and criminal activity, thereby winning the favor of said scared masses and getting voted back in and keeping their kushy paychecks coming. That, and having the inane attitude that disarming the population will somehow keep everyone safer.

[Thunder-Stick]

Thanks for the summary. Will follow this thread for updates.

[CommonCents]

...

[TriggerTime]

Barter:
"Immediate & direct reciprocal exchange of goods or services without use of money"

There is a strong possibility, that my english has some significant holes in it, as it is not my first language.
However there would be no "reciprocal exchange" taking place, as the other party would of course be lending me the money not in return for anything, but rather out of the goodness of their heart in a separate and unrealated manner.

My understanding of lending is that you temporarily release a physical object which you own into someones care with the expectation of eventual return (the return could be time specific or not)

I don't think it falls under "giving", "selling" or "barter".
Not trying to be a ###### but em I wrong?

Logically you are not wrong, but how logic applies in firearms law is another thread.
Note that to even lend a restricted to another RPAL holder, I must go through transfer hoops.
I can see this being extended to NRs - so we are getting what we asked for, namely a simplified system.
A gun is a gun is a gun. More paperwork for everyone. See? Careful what you ask for, you may get it.

[dragonslayer64]

They don't care about us at all, hence our immigration numbers. If we won't vote for them they'll bring in others who will. We just pay our taxes.
The point of their disarmament agenda isn't to make us safer, it's to make sure we can't meaningfully resist.

Yes, very true, I agree.

[Bigbubba]

Barter:
"Immediate & direct reciprocal exchange of goods or services without use of money"

There is a strong possibility, that my english has some significant holes in it, as it is not my first language.
However there would be no "reciprocal exchange" taking place, as the other party would of course be lending me the money not in return for anything, but rather out of the goodness of their heart in a separate and unrealated manner.

My understanding of lending is that you temporarily release a physical object which you own into someones care with the expectation of eventual return (the return could be time specific or not)

I don't think it falls under "giving", "selling" or "barter".
Not trying to be a ###### but em I wrong?

you know what, I don't know. You could be ok, maybe not.

Some LEO then Prosecutor then Judge could decide it was not ok. They could decide it is ok.

Time will tell. I won't be telling anyone anything though going forward.

[Suther]

Barter:
"Immediate & direct reciprocal exchange of goods or services without use of money"

There is a strong possibility, that my english has some significant holes in it, as it is not my first language.
However there would be no "reciprocal exchange" taking place, as the other party would of course be lending me the money not in return for anything, but rather out of the goodness of their heart in a separate and unrealated manner.

My understanding of lending is that you temporarily release a physical object which you own into someones care with the expectation of eventual return (the return could be time specific or not)

I don't think it falls under "giving", "selling" or "barter".
Not trying to be a ###### but em I wrong?

Considering Lending is covered under a different section of the firearms act (section 33), I can't see why changes to NR transfers, which is Section 23, would have any impacts.

However, if there is also a lend of money at the same time it might be hard to convince a cop or judge that you were lending and not selling the gun... and all it takes is charges for your whole life to get flipped upside down, even if those charges get dropped after you spend a pile of time and money on dealing with the mess you've created for yourself.

Lending a gun is fine. Using "lending" as a work around to transfer laws runs the risk of being charged with an illegal transfer (or whatever the specific offense would be.)

[Bigbubba]

Considering Lending is covered under a different section of the firearms act (section 33), I can't see why changes to NR transfers, which is Section 23, would have any impacts.

However, if there is also a lend of money at the same time it might be hard to convince a judge that you were lending and not selling the gun.

that's where it will get tricky. Proving it was a "lend" not a sale or barter....

[LSB]

However, if there is also a lend of money at the same time it might be hard to convince a cop or judge that you were lending and not selling the gun... and all it takes is charges for your whole life to get flipped upside down, even if those charges get dropped after you spend a pile of time and money on dealing with the mess you've created for yourself.

I might lend my rifle and get "a safety deposit", to be given back upon return of the rifle, "whenever/if it happens"