ATT's what you need to know

Shalimar said:
Yes a proper ungimped att is for you for ANY restricted so long as you have the cert as well as is allowed via law.

I understand the range u have is cheap... but the price of that is never the issue. The CFO trying to FORCE you by their own statements to have such membership even though it is not required by law is the issue. It does not matter if the cost is $0.01 or $1 Million. If it is NOT required by LAW then the CFO's have no business trying to enforce their "policy" as if it is law.

It's a matter of principle... we already put up with far more BS than we should.... I for one drew a line in the sand... are you going to do the same.. get in the fight.. or are you going to be a sheeple?

There are only the 2 sides after all.
Click to expand...

How are we supposed to draw a line in the sand? I tried and all I got was a letter from the CFO stating that if I didn't prove membership to a range they would have no choice but to reject my application.
And here in BC the CFO controls the transfer as well, so to even BUY restricted I need to be a range member.:confused:
I suppose it would be different for someone who already owned restricted, but I'm just getting my first.
 
tinman1275 said:
How are we supposed to draw a line in the sand? I tried and all I got was a letter from the CFO stating that if I didn't prove membership to a range they would have no choice but to reject my application.
And here in BC the CFO controls the transfer as well, so to even BUY restricted I need to be a range member.:confused:
I suppose it would be different for someone who already owned restricted, but I'm just getting my first.
Click to expand...

As I already stated.. you force them to either accept the xfer or to issue a written refusal.. then that can be forced to a hearing. Then it is out of the CFO's hands and a judge gets to decide.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180

In the case of a transfer there is no lack of evidence that such has been done for many many many others as well as evidence that membership is not required by law.

As for your first.. no that does not matter. Again for the same reasons and the CFO is trying to act as if "policy" is law which it is not.
 
Well it's been over a month now, so if I don't hear one way or the other by the end of this week I'll have to drive 5 hours down to the office and find out what the holdup is.
It sure would be easier if they just answered the phone.:rolleyes:
 
Shalimar said:
As I already stated.. you force them to either accept the xfer or to issue a written refusal.. then that can be forced to a hearing. Then it is out of the CFO's hands and a judge gets to decide.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180

In the case of a transfer there is no lack of evidence that such has been done for many many many others as well as evidence that membership is not required by law.

As for your first.. no that does not matter. Again for the same reasons and the CFO is trying to act as if "policy" is law which it is not.
Click to expand...

You make this sound so easily... but reality is somewhat different isn't it?

How does one "force" the CFO to approve the transfer or issue a written refusal? What exactly does a person do that "forces" the CFO to do anything?

What stops the CFO from being "busy" and taking 3 or 4 or 6 months to make a decision on your application? (as is often the case for those living in Quebec).

What forces the CFO to issue a written refusal... what if they just call and tell you and simply don't put it in writing?

I saw one instance where the Quebec CFO (after a 4 or 5 month delay) simply notified a purchaser that their purchase was being denied approval because the CFO and RCMP did not believe it was in the "public interest". This person already owned firearms... no other details were given... and I honestly don't know what happened after that.

My point is this... unless you're willing to spend years in court and thousands of dollars fighting with the governing authorities (neither of which will get you anywhere fast) isn't that type of action better chosen as a "last resort" rather than a starting position?

The Ontario CFO does NOT require club membership as a condition to approving a Restricted purchase... but the ATT you'll get is to bring the purchase home. Long term ATT's have to be processed by the club you belong to... if no club membership then very difficult to get an LTATT. Having said that... you can be a competitive PPC shooter (for example) and get ATT for matches without ever being a member of a specific gun club, but it is a lot easier if you are a club member.

Not sure why there is a difference in "policy" from CFO to CFO... but their arguement seems to be their belief that the Firearms Act gives them the power to determine who is "unsuitable" to possess firearms (not in the public interest) and at the same time gives no criteria or guidelines for making that determination. Doesn't even define what "not in the public interest" means with respect to approving transfers and ATT's.

Mark
 
Questar said:
You make this sound so easily... but reality is somewhat different isn't it?

How does one "force" the CFO to approve the transfer or issue a written refusal? What exactly does a person do that "forces" the CFO to do anything?

What stops the CFO from being "busy" and taking 3 or 4 or 6 months to make a decision on your application? (as is often the case for those living in Quebec).
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't that hard.. it's a matter of some patience though.

And yes the CFO can be forced since I am demanding they do their job. If they do not and try such BS stalling tactics etc there are measures already in place to force them.

Contrary to what the CFO's appear to wish for they are not able to just ignore an official request.. and if they attempt to do so it's merely a matter of a formal complaint to their "boss" and so on up the chain.


Questar said:
What forces the CFO to issue a written refusal... what if they just call and tell you and simply don't put it in writing?
Click to expand...

The Firearms Act actually forces them to do so and any refusal or revocation that is not in writing is not valid.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180


Questar said:
I saw one instance where the Quebec CFO (after a 4 or 5 month delay) simply notified a purchaser that their purchase was being denied approval because the CFO and RCMP did not believe it was in the "public interest". This person already owned firearms... no other details were given... and I honestly don't know what happened after that.
Click to expand...

The problem in such an instance is the person waiting for such simply waited instead of not playing by the CFO's rules.


Questar said:
My point is this... unless you're willing to spend years in court and thousands of dollars fighting with the governing authorities (neither of which will get you anywhere fast) isn't that type of action better chosen as a "last resort" rather than a starting position?
Click to expand...

Not true... since this is a challenge of the "Policy" and not of the law. I and others are actually using the law instead of fighting it. It is costing me virtually nothing overall nor do I or anyone else need a lawyer for this.

To challenge the law or some interpretations of it however your statement would be accurate. (Such as your company already has done)

Questar said:
The Ontario CFO does NOT require club membership as a condition to approving a Restricted purchase... but the ATT you'll get is to bring the purchase home. Long term ATT's have to be processed by the club you belong to... if no club membership then very difficult to get an LTATT. Having said that... you can be a competitive PPC shooter (for example) and get ATT for matches without ever being a member of a specific gun club, but it is a lot easier if you are a club member.
Click to expand...

Again that is "policy" but it is NOT law.. which is the point. And yes it can be difficult.. but it should not be.. hence why I picked this fight (as well as others have)

It is "easier" as you say yes.. but the entire point is having a membership or not is irrelevant according to the FA.. therefore the CFO should not be making any such demands... it's absurd.


Questar said:
Not sure why there is a difference in "policy" from CFO to CFO... but their arguement seems to be their belief that the Firearms Act gives them the power to determine who is "unsuitable" to possess firearms (not in the public interest) and at the same time gives no criteria or guidelines for making that determination. Doesn't even define what "not in the public interest" means with respect to approving transfers and ATT's.

Mark
Click to expand...

I agree.. and again that is something we all must fight.. since the CFO's need to be reigned in.. and stop trying to act as if they make the law.
 
I still don't see how anyone can "force" a CFO to deny in writing. All they have to do is say that you application is still being "processed" and they can make you wait indefinitely, at least I can't find any time limit for processing an application.
I think that is happening to me right now, well over a month and no one answers the phone, no call backs for messages, just one letter proposing to deny. Monday I'm thinking of taking the 4 hour drive to the office, but I imagine they will have some excuse to put it off some more.
Maybe they figure if they take long enough the gun will be on the prohibited list before they approve me owning it.:rolleyes:
 
A letter to your Member of your Provincial Parliament (or Legislature, or National Assembly), cc'd to the Minister of Justice (or whatever your province calls that portfolio), can work wonders.

In the case of you guys from the West, a letter to your Member of Parliament, cc'd to the Minister of Public Safety, MP Breitkreuz, the Prime Minister, and to your Provincial Minister of Justice (or whatever your province calls that portfolio), can have the same effect.

They can't fix it if they don't know about it.
 
Wendell said:
A letter to your Member of your Provincial Parliament (or Legislature, or National Assembly), cc'd to the Minister of Justice (or whatever your province calls that portfolio), can work wonders.

In the case of you guys from the West, a letter to your Member of Parliament, cc'd to the Minister of Public Safety, MP Breitkreuz, the Prime Minister, and to your Provincial Minister of Justice (or whatever your province calls that portfolio), can have the same effect.

They can't fix it if they don't know about it.
Click to expand...

But what is the normal waiting time? I have heard everything from a few days to 6 months.
I don't want to be complaining about the time mine is taking if I am still under the norm.
 
Shalimar said:
Actually it isn't that hard.. it's a matter of some patience though.

And yes the CFO can be forced since I am demanding they do their job. If they do not and try such BS stalling tactics etc there are measures already in place to force them.

Contrary to what the CFO's appear to wish for they are not able to just ignore an official request.. and if they attempt to do so it's merely a matter of a formal complaint to their "boss" and so on up the chain.




The Firearms Act actually forces them to do so and any refusal or revocation that is not in writing is not valid.

http://www.nfa.ca/node/180




The problem in such an instance is the person waiting for such simply waited instead of not playing by the CFO's rules.




Not true... since this is a challenge of the "Policy" and not of the law. I and others are actually using the law instead of fighting it. It is costing me virtually nothing overall nor do I or anyone else need a lawyer for this.

To challenge the law or some interpretations of it however your statement would be accurate. (Such as your company already has done)



Again that is "policy" but it is NOT law.. which is the point. And yes it can be difficult.. but it should not be.. hence why I picked this fight (as well as others have)

It is "easier" as you say yes.. but the entire point is having a membership or not is irrelevant according to the FA.. therefore the CFO should not be making any such demands... it's absurd.




I agree.. and again that is something we all must fight.. since the CFO's need to be reigned in.. and stop trying to act as if they make the law.
Click to expand...

So... again I ask you: How does one "force" the CFO to make a ruling and issue a written ruling if the CFO doesn't want to do so? What exact legal steps can a person take to "force" them to do what you say?

I'm not saying you're wrong... but be clear... state the legal procedure one can take to "force" the CFO to approve a transfer and stop "stalling" if they so choose.

Without a written denial you can't ask for a Section 74 hearing so no way to get it before a judge. What is your method of "forcing" them to do what you say? Please claify this for me :)

Mark
 
tinman1275 said:
But what is the normal waiting time? I have heard everything from a few days to 6 months.
I don't want to be complaining about the time mine is taking if I am still under the norm.
Click to expand...
Waiting time last month was a few days to a week in BC.
Fax the copy again and once a week while you're waiting. :)
 
tinman1275 said:
But what is the normal waiting time? I have heard everything from a few days to 6 months.
I don't want to be complaining about the time mine is taking if I am still under the norm.
Click to expand...

Rule of thumb... in writing for anything past the initial application... put a deadline in writing. As for the initial app.. give them 10 working days... then readdress the issue since that is more than enough time to deal with a simple routine LTATT. For them to claim longer time period is needed only makes them look incompetent and then some. At which time you start up the chain of command. Remember.. do NOT play by their rules.
 
Honestly I can't be bothered to read all 32 pages of this to see if someone already corrected this, but someone said that in BC you cannot call for an ATT you can only do it by paper. Not true. I called and left a brief message on their specific ATT answering machine and got a call not even five minutes later just confirming some information. Very convenient in my opinion.

Also whoever said you don't need a membership to a club to get an ATT, I just moved here from AB and got a letter in the mail saying that I wasn't even allowed to sell a pistol to a friend because I was not a member of a club, and therefore not legally considered a "target shooter", and therefore wasn't allowed to complete the transfer. It was followed by information on how to sign myself up as a collector..
 
mobusten said:
Honestly I can't be bothered to read all 32 pages of this to see if someone already corrected this, but someone said that in BC you cannot call for an ATT you can only do it by paper. Not true. I called and left a brief message on their specific ATT answering machine and got a call not even five minutes later just confirming some information. Very convenient in my opinion.

Also whoever said you don't need a membership to a club to get an ATT, I just moved here from AB and got a letter in the mail saying that I wasn't even allowed to sell a pistol to a friend because I was not a member of a club, and therefore not legally considered a "target shooter", and therefore wasn't allowed to complete the transfer. It was followed by information on how to sign myself up as a collector..
Click to expand...

I got the same letter when trying to buy a pistol, with a 6 page application for becoming a collector because my club wasn't approved, I just faxed back my club membership again.
I think that the CFO should be an elected position, and the only voters will be the provinces current gun owners:D
 
So here's what I would like to know. Does anyone even have a LTATT that allows them transport their restricted firearms anywhere besides their home, gunsmith, or range? And this isn't including IPSC or competition shooters. It sounds like people are fighting the good fight, but is anyone winning? Going through a 6 month ordeal just to take my pistol or AR to go put holes in paper with my friends a couple of time a year over spending $50 for a year membership and having my ATT adjusted to allow me to do this doesn't seem worth it.

I get that we live in a free country and as long as we are law abiding, we should be able to take our legally acquired firearms wherever we want, whenever we want. But since this planet has been graced with a plethora of morons laws, regulations, and policies need to be in place. I won't mind getting the membership because it isn't a lot of money and that membership helps support something that can benefit a lot of people with the same interests and hobbies as us.

I hate to be a defeatist, but to go fight a battle to allow me to shoot in a different province which could take months or go get the membership and be able to go shooting within a couple of weeks, I don't see how I'm losing. Fighting to go shooting but not actually shooting, or playing with their rules and shooting, I'll choose to go shooting.
 
Punchy said:
So here's what I would like to know. Does anyone even have a LTATT that allows them transport their restricted firearms anywhere besides their home, gunsmith, or range? And this isn't including IPSC or competition shooters. It sounds like people are fighting the good fight, but is anyone winning? Going through a 6 month ordeal just to take my pistol or AR to go put holes in paper with my friends a couple of time a year over spending $50 for a year membership and having my ATT adjusted to allow me to do this doesn't seem worth it.

I get that we live in a free country and as long as we are law abiding, we should be able to take our legally acquired firearms wherever we want, whenever we want. But since this planet has been graced with a plethora of morons laws, regulations, and policies need to be in place. I won't mind getting the membership because it isn't a lot of money and that membership helps support something that can benefit a lot of people with the same interests and hobbies as us.

I hate to be a defeatist, but to go fight a battle to allow me to shoot in a different province which could take months or go get the membership and be able to go shooting within a couple of weeks, I don't see how I'm losing. Fighting to go shooting but not actually shooting, or playing with their rules and shooting, I'll choose to go shooting.
Click to expand...



So just because the CFO decides to demand you have X before you can go shooting at all.... even though that demand is not part of law you would rather not fight back.. and simply bow down to the CFO's absurd demands?

It's not the $ for a membership.. though that part can be much higher than you are saying... it's the principle of the matter though for some it could play a larger part for various reasons (IPSC competitors for example such as John Phillip Gould)

The CFO CANNOT make law.. and the more people simply cow down to their "policy" the more it makes such a policy more like law... and the more the CFO's will make even more absurd policy next..

If the CFO next decides that you can not shoot at all unless you are wearing a tutu... (so those with "restricted" firearms can be easily identified or some other insane excuse) would you blindly obey that as well?


Adhering to the stupidity that is c-68 is already massively invasive and prohibitive... why add to that voluntarily?
 
Talked to my LGS today to order an M&P, and he told me when they do the application, they get back a STATT, as well as the LTATT? Sounds weird to me - wonder how gimped it is?
I have my call in to the CFO to see if I can get a non-gimped LTATT with BC and AB, as well as Gunsmiths, etc.
 
Hodaka said:
Talked to my LGS today to order an M&P, and he told me when they do the application, they get back a STATT, as well as the LTATT? Sounds weird to me - wonder how gimped it is?
I have my call in to the CFO to see if I can get a non-gimped LTATT with BC and AB, as well as Gunsmiths, etc.
Click to expand...

Details are needed before anyone can really comment on that post
 
Last edited:
Another inequity is the fact you must obtain a STATT to bring a new restricted home from a dealer specifically for that gun, even if you have a LTATT that you used to bring a gun with you to the dealer/ gunsmith.

How much is this costing us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom