ATT's what you need to know

DOOK said:
When I spoke to the BC CFO about five years ago regarding ATC & ATT's, she said she would follow the law if it said shall issue instead of may issue. She claimed to be merely an administrator of the law.
When I asked why we needed ATT, she said if we didn't have that, people would be driving their guns all over town. ( which I talked to see a problem with, we are all law abiding after all )
This was also why it was limited to BC/ Yukon, instead of Canada wide as per the law, which is federal. This means it must be applied the same all over Canada.

Of course it is not. I suppose we should be glad 'policy' isn't.
Click to expand...


How about we all get majorly MAD and fight back to eliminate this BS once and for all instead?

The horse#### is piled so high it's bigger than any Phd...
 
Shalimar said:
Sorry and no offense.. but you have no idea and are making assumptions based on zero facts.

Regardless of my situation or not... you should NOT accept that BS since that again is the CFO trying to make law.. and he has zero authority to do so period!

So to be blunt... get in the ####ing fight.. you already know about the ungimped ATT... there is no "good and sufficient reason" why that should not be the standard for any ATT at all.... so why on earth would you say " I'm fine with all that"? That is in case you did not know it doing exactly what you just said ("Okay trust me, im not one of those people that just lie down and take it up the rear.") you did not do.

Again harsh yes... but that is the flat out reality of the situation.


Not to mention the fact is the LAW does not require membership... nor does any ATT have by law ANYTHING to do with any club... the forms and laws regarding such are designed to be used by the individual RPAL holder... so stop drinking the CFO's cool-aid...


In short.. the ON CFO (and all the others for that matter) are full of ####...... so why in hell would you believe them or be happy with the BS they spew??
Click to expand...

That may be the reality of your situation, but not mine!

I mean trust me, It'd be cool if ATT's did not exist at all, I dont think even if every single person with a restricted license stood up and fought itd change anything, it gives them jobs, good luck just "getting ride of an entire department" I mean government waste money on all sorts of things we DONT NEED! How about stand up and fight for no more Etests lol Thats something that grinds my gears, This I can deal with, At least its free although a waste of time. Thats my input, sorry but not going to change it lol

Again,

Why would I want an ATT aside from traveling to and from my range?

You seem to be missing MY point. Obviously I understand your fight, let me be simple and put it as, I could care less about your fight lol

Personally I have no Issues with my ATT being issued the way I described. Give me one "good and sufficient reason" as to why I should use the ATT you have made and not just fill it out for my needs.

I dont care what LAW REQUIRES, and what you think there MAKING UP. As far as I'm concerned your blowing it way out of proportion lol I mean they are still willing to give out 5 year ATT's, Apply without a membership I'm sure that would be fine, I just dont get why anyone would need one if they wernt going to a club anyways. Now back to my main question of,,,,,,,,,,,

WHY WOULD I NEED A LONG TERM ATT FOR ANYTHING ASIDE FROM TRAVELING TO MY CLUB???
 
Last edited:
NAA said:
Yes, they could simply give you an ATT that is "attached" to your PAL. [Could be written on the back as a "condition"].

If you have a valid PAL you have a valid ATT for all the short term & long term reasons you need one for.

Simple.
Click to expand...

Shalimar said:
Or more simply put... eliminate all of the "ATT" BS in the first place since if you have a license you obviously are not the "criminal" element etc and if you were you would not worry about a BS permission slip from "MOM"....

Whereas attaching as a "condition" could easily be abused.. as has the entire farce of the FA / C-61 etc etc
Click to expand...

I totally agree - eliminate the need for an ATT altogether.

My thoughts above were in connection with the way it is now. You have your PAL & have to "apply" for an ATT. They already make the ATT in synch with the PAL for expiry, so administratively it just seemed more efficient to just "attach" it to the PAL. You have a valid PAL ergo you have a valid ATT.

To & from the range; to & from gunsmith; gunshop; gunshow; border point etc, etc.

I will say for the record that I fully support CCW, if it was widely available, for those that wanted to accept the responsibility.

:canadaFlag:
-----------
NAA.
 
jacoblombardo said:
WHY WOULD I NEED A LONG TERM ATT FOR ANYTHING ASIDE FROM TRAVELING TO MY CLUB???
Click to expand...

You shouldn't actually "need" an ATT at all. But since it currently exists as an administrative requirement you should be able to have a blanket one for all the movement required.... to & from the range; gunsmith; gunshop; gunshow; border point etc etc.

A firearms owner already jumps through enough bureaucratic hoops to get the firearms licence [which is required by current law] to begin with. So, to me, the free movement of your already lawfully obtained property should just be a given.

:canadaFlag:
----------
NAA.
 
NAA said:
You shouldn't actually "need" an ATT at all. But since it currently exists as an administrative requirement you should be able to have a blanket one for all the movement required.... to & from the range; gunsmith; gunshop; gunshow; border point etc etc.

A firearms owner already jumps through enough bureaucratic hoops to get the firearms licence [which is required by current law] to begin with. So, to me, the free movement of your already lawfully obtained property should just be a given.


:canadaFlag:
----------
NAA.
Click to expand...


Of course I can agree with that! If only that were the way.
 
DOOK said:
When I asked why we needed ATT, she said if we didn't have that, people would be driving their guns all over town. ( which I talked to see a problem with, we are all law abiding after all )
Click to expand...

I don't need an ATT for my non-restricted's, and I continue to have no intention to 'drive my guns all over town'.
My problem is keeping stuff out of my trunk, so I can drive other stuff, all over town.
 
NAA said:
Yes, they could simply give you an ATT that is "attached" to your PAL. [Could be written on the back as a "condition"].

If you have a valid PAL you have a valid ATT for all the short term & long term reasons you need one for.

Simple.
Click to expand...

No.
That would be logically equivalent to what we have now. And your licence would have to expire/become-invalid when you changed home ranges, or any other ATT condition changes.

The ATT is a leftover, as several of the Firearms Act Regulations are, from a time before the Firearms Act C68.
The ATT serves no purpose now that there is licencing.

A compromise position would be
a) Move all the common stuff that shows up in LTATTs and STATTs into a regulation related to the RPAL. (going to all ranges in Canada [not just your home range, not just your province], going to post office (with a 'do not open rule'), going to gun shop, going to verifier, going to border crossings and airports, going to gun shows, selling a firearm privately dwelling to dwelling, end-of-life situations)
b) continue to have ATTs for all the really unusual stuff. Anything that contradicts a regulation, but the CFO judges as reasonable. I can't think of any 'really unusual stuff' off hand, but that's why it's unforeseen really unusual stuff. Perhaps a restricted private sale at a non-firearm-business parking lot.
 
jacoblombardo said:
WHY WOULD I NEED A LONG TERM ATT FOR ANYTHING ASIDE FROM TRAVELING TO MY CLUB???
Click to expand...

e.g. Ontario ATTs do not include gunsmiths or verifiers.

Yet...

"the authorization should include the transport to gunsmiths or verifiers. Logically, it is in the public interest in terms of safety that firearms are in proper working order. It is nonsensical to deny such authorization on the basis of infrequency as the CFO has done."
-- Justice R. Khawley, September 21, 2012
 
jacoblombardo said:
That may be the reality of your situation, but not mine!

I mean trust me, It'd be cool if ATT's did not exist at all, I dont think even if every single person with a restricted license stood up and fought itd change anything, it gives them jobs, good luck just "getting ride of an entire department" I mean government waste money on all sorts of things we DONT NEED! How about stand up and fight for no more Etests lol Thats something that grinds my gears, This I can deal with, At least its free although a waste of time. Thats my input, sorry but not going to change it lol

Again,

Why would I want an ATT aside from traveling to and from my range?

You seem to be missing MY point. Obviously I understand your fight, let me be simple and put it as, I could care less about your fight lol

Personally I have no Issues with my ATT being issued the way I described. Give me one "good and sufficient reason" as to why I should use the ATT you have made and not just fill it out for my needs.

I dont care what LAW REQUIRES, and what you think there MAKING UP. As far as I'm concerned your blowing it way out of proportion lol I mean they are still willing to give out 5 year ATT's, Apply without a membership I'm sure that would be fine, I just dont get why anyone would need one if they wernt going to a club anyways. Now back to my main question of,,,,,,,,,,,

WHY WOULD I NEED A LONG TERM ATT FOR ANYTHING ASIDE FROM TRAVELING TO MY CLUB???
Click to expand...



Let me simplify since there have been other replies as well

#1.. pick which side you are on.. the CFO's or the law abiding firearms owners.

#2 If you are not on the CFO's side this IS your fight as well though you don't realize it... and the "reality" of the situation applies to ALL of us... not merely those few of us that actually fight back.

#3 "I dont care what LAW REQUIRES, and what you think there MAKING UP" Well if you don't care what the law requires then why did you go through the hoops to get an RPAL? And you should care when the CFO is making things up since they are NOT legally allowed to create law... but that poor attitude of yours only helps them.

#4 "Why would I want an ATT aside from traveling to and from my range?"

How about just for sake of argument I or someone else within a reasonable distance says.. "Hey I'm not busy tomorrow.. do you want to go shooting with me at X club?"

As it is now w/o an ATT covering ALL clubs you are screwed... even more so if it's a weekend.. etc...

But somehow that magical piece of paper aka "permission from mom slip" makes you safer and less of a public risk? (insert rolled eyes here)


The rest... well others have already addressed in here... but seriously... u might be a newb.. but u have an infinite ammt to learn before you make such a statement based again on assumptions and fallacy..



PS: The simplest of which answer is this: An ATT should NEVER have existed and is pure BS.
 
NAA said:
I totally agree - eliminate the need for an ATT altogether.

My thoughts above were in connection with the way it is now. You have your PAL & have to "apply" for an ATT. They already make the ATT in synch with the PAL for expiry, so administratively it just seemed more efficient to just "attach" it to the PAL. You have a valid PAL ergo you have a valid ATT.

To & from the range; to & from gunsmith; gunshop; gunshow; border point etc, etc.

I will say for the record that I fully support CCW, if it was widely available, for those that wanted to accept the responsibility.

:canadaFlag:
-----------
NAA.
Click to expand...

Tada,..... since it's nothing but BS that is there to be abused by ######s like wyatt

and as for CCW.. so do I.. and I'd be happy to do so.
 
rangebob said:
I don't need an ATT for my non-restricted's, and I continue to have no intention to 'drive my guns all over town'.
My problem is keeping stuff out of my trunk, so I can drive other stuff, all over town.
Click to expand...

They tried that crap with me, cyclone and others I'm sure in court.. trying to say it was as if we wanted an ATC w/o restriction etc etc... total BS inflammatory crap as usual from the CFO(s)
 
rangebob said:
No.
That would be logically equivalent to what we have now. And your licence would have to expire/become-invalid when you changed home ranges, or any other ATT condition changes.

The ATT is a leftover, as several of the Firearms Act Regulations are, from a time before the Firearms Act C68.
The ATT serves no purpose now that there is licencing.

A compromise position would be
a) Move all the common stuff that shows up in LTATTs and STATTs into a regulation related to the RPAL. (going to all ranges in Canada [not just your home range, not just your province], going to post office (with a 'do not open rule'), going to gun shop, going to verifier, going to border crossings and airports, going to gun shows, selling a firearm privately dwelling to dwelling, end-of-life situations)
b) continue to have ATTs for all the really unusual stuff. Anything that contradicts a regulation, but the CFO judges as reasonable. I can't think of any 'really unusual stuff' off hand, but that's why it's unforeseen really unusual stuff. Perhaps a restricted private sale at a non-firearm-business parking lot.
Click to expand...



Well said... but seriously. a compromise? There should not be any needed period... and to even think that is sadly supporting the moronic POV that we are somehow dangerous and need to be controlled etc...
 
rangebob said:
e.g. Ontario ATTs do not include gunsmiths or verifiers.

Yet...

"the authorization should include the transport to gunsmiths or verifiers. Logically, it is in the public interest in terms of safety that firearms are in proper working order. It is nonsensical to deny such authorization on the basis of infrequency as the CFO has done."
-- Justice R. Khawley, September 21, 2012
Click to expand...

:agree:


PS: Khawley was nice and very smart and put up with none of the CFO's BS or flat out lies (which he and his staff were caught in)
 
Shalimar thanks for the links to the pre-filled att. Faxed mine in a week ago and got my att in the mail today. You made the process way easier for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom