Why is it that a modern long arm, clearly a firearm under the definitions, is not the subject of conceiled weapons charges, unless the use or intent is to use it in the commission of a crime? Or am I wrong, must long arms be displayed prominently while transported? Never heard of such a requirement to not conceil them?
Concealed weapon or not: The bush and animal protection
- Thread starter Win 38-55
- Start date
Grizzlypeg, that question is discussed in the legal stuff Smokepole posted. In that discussion, they do mention that long guns are not allowed to be concealed by one set of laws and required to be 'concealed' by another. They discuss a compromise, though some of their reasoning is faulty.
Win 38-55...
AWESOME posts my friend! I always wondered the same thing.
When my S&W #3 gets here, I will wear it in a cross draw (if my belly doesn't get in the way) and if it is covered by my slicker, other jacket or whatever, so be it. If I end up being the test monkey, I will fight to the best of my abilities.
Stupid and/or poorly written "laws" need to be challenged.
Later..........
AWESOME posts my friend! I always wondered the same thing.
When my S&W #3 gets here, I will wear it in a cross draw (if my belly doesn't get in the way) and if it is covered by my slicker, other jacket or whatever, so be it. If I end up being the test monkey, I will fight to the best of my abilities.
Stupid and/or poorly written "laws" need to be challenged.
Later..........
LeRoy, I'd recommend not getting yourself into a position where you are the fellow doing the test case. Those high priced lawyers can clean a fellow out in no time flat. Me, I just prefer to disappear into the wilderness and enjoy myself and not cause any problems for anyone, least of all myself. Personally, however, I don't think a test case is necessary. I want to check another copy of Sections 84 and 89 before I post my summary of what it says, but it looks very clear to me. However, I'll hold off on summarizing until I double check, but it is looking pretty good if I am seeing properly.
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
it would be nice if "concealed" carry was a viable option.
I have the coolest .450 Bulldog that would be perfect when I'm fencin and such but it disappears with anything other than a tucked in shirt...
can't wait to read your summary 38!
I have the coolest .450 Bulldog that would be perfect when I'm fencin and such but it disappears with anything other than a tucked in shirt...
can't wait to read your summary 38!
''There is usually no warning when a bear or cougar will show up and when they do, you need a firearms right now if they are grabbing one of your kids. An unloaded rifle in the tent is 60 seconds too late.''
Didn't a mother use her bare hands to wrestle a cougar off of her toddler in squamish this summer? why didnt she need a firearm? she wasnt scarred why are you?
Didn't a mother use her bare hands to wrestle a cougar off of her toddler in squamish this summer? why didnt she need a firearm? she wasnt scarred why are you?
- Location
- London, Ontario
Well that cougar was probably not that hungry and didn't feel like putting up a fight......good luck fighting on off that wants to hurt you
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
if she wasn't scarred she probably didn't get scratched or bitten...
Win 38-55....
thanks for the kind thoughts. Lawyers are gonna clean me out anyway.
Just got separated, and I am afeared it is going to get very ugly. She says
not, but I believe that like I believe Iggy has never told a lie.
Later.......
thanks for the kind thoughts. Lawyers are gonna clean me out anyway.
Just got separated, and I am afeared it is going to get very ugly. She says
not, but I believe that like I believe Iggy has never told a lie.
Later.......
tactical870
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Buckhorn, Ontario
Those not scared during a cougar encounter are either incredibly stupid or on something better than prescription drugs....
Myself, I have just ordered a shoulder holster for my Webley to carry it when the canvas flap holster doesn't suit my needs. I don't know about anyone else on here but I'd rather have it under my coat warm and dry than cold and wet on my hip. I also have not been strip searched for weapons by any CO I've ever encountered in the bush but then again I'm in Ontario not BC......
She was fortunate. Another mother in Banff a several years ago was killed by a Cougar while saving her child. I trust you were joking when you made that post, but if not, a comment like that demonstrates a remarkable lack of knowledge and respect for what an adult Cougar or bear can do if it chooses to. For Cougar killings, check out http://www.southeasternoutdoors.com/wildlife/mammals/mountain-lion-attacks-fatal.html
For a list of fatal attacks by bears, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
The issue is not whether or not a person is scared. The real issue is whether or not a person in the bush has the kind of knowledge and respect for wildlife to be adequatly prepared in a responsible manner not only for his or her own safety, but for the safety of those in his or her care.
Last edited:
Okay, I tried to slug my way through the Criminal Code sections that deal with concealed carry, weapons, and firearms. I think I got buried. From what I can see, here's a summary:
In the Interpretation section:
“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;
Note: this is different from the discussion on page two of this thread by the justices, where the above definition was changed to define a firearms according to section 84)
"firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;
In Section 84(3)a it states ....
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
(a) any antique firearm;
The law against concealed weapons is in section 90.
So to summarize, it looks like if it is a firearm, it is a weapon, and antiques are sometimes firearms and sometimes not, but since section 90 is not mentioned as being included in the sections where an antique firearm is deemed not to be a firearm, it appears as if an antique would be included as a 'firearm' in Section 90, provided the definition of a firearms I found is correct, and the judges definition which, supposedly was also from the Interpretation section of the criminal code, was wrong.
However, he's a judge and I'm not. If he was correct, then it looks like an antique firearm is not a firearm ...... or is it?
Also, I didn't read the firearms act, and for the firearms act, Section 84(3)a specifically states that antique firearms are not firearms for the Firearms Act.
Bottom Line: I don't know what's what, and my head is spinning. To be on the safe side, if some canoeists go by in the wilderness and you are packing an antique gun. It seems the law might be saying (but I'm too confused now to know what it is saying) to let them see it and get them all intimidated and nervous, rather than it let your coat hang over it so it is covered up and they can paddle on cheerfully in blissful ignorance that you are packing a 135-year old sixgun on your belt. However, what do I know. I ain't no lawyer. I haven't even discussed the question of intent like the justices did on page two. That makes things even more confused. I don't think any of us 'intend' to worry anyone or do bad things with our antiques. As the justices discussed on page two, there are laws that require us to conceal our firearm in an unnattended vehicle where the intent is good and they say that is okay.
Another bottom Line: I sure don't want to be the poor fellow who makes a legal case out of this. Better to be discrete and let sleeping dogs lie.
In the Interpretation section:
“weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;
Note: this is different from the discussion on page two of this thread by the justices, where the above definition was changed to define a firearms according to section 84)
"firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm;
In Section 84(3)a it states ....
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
(a) any antique firearm;
The law against concealed weapons is in section 90.
So to summarize, it looks like if it is a firearm, it is a weapon, and antiques are sometimes firearms and sometimes not, but since section 90 is not mentioned as being included in the sections where an antique firearm is deemed not to be a firearm, it appears as if an antique would be included as a 'firearm' in Section 90, provided the definition of a firearms I found is correct, and the judges definition which, supposedly was also from the Interpretation section of the criminal code, was wrong.
However, he's a judge and I'm not. If he was correct, then it looks like an antique firearm is not a firearm ...... or is it?
Also, I didn't read the firearms act, and for the firearms act, Section 84(3)a specifically states that antique firearms are not firearms for the Firearms Act.
Bottom Line: I don't know what's what, and my head is spinning. To be on the safe side, if some canoeists go by in the wilderness and you are packing an antique gun. It seems the law might be saying (but I'm too confused now to know what it is saying) to let them see it and get them all intimidated and nervous, rather than it let your coat hang over it so it is covered up and they can paddle on cheerfully in blissful ignorance that you are packing a 135-year old sixgun on your belt. However, what do I know. I ain't no lawyer. I haven't even discussed the question of intent like the justices did on page two. That makes things even more confused. I don't think any of us 'intend' to worry anyone or do bad things with our antiques. As the justices discussed on page two, there are laws that require us to conceal our firearm in an unnattended vehicle where the intent is good and they say that is okay.
Another bottom Line: I sure don't want to be the poor fellow who makes a legal case out of this. Better to be discrete and let sleeping dogs lie.
somewhere in cc84 (3) it says that an antique gun is not a firearm unless used in a crime. So if you are carrying it concealed in the bush and the CO and subsequently the judge decides that it is a weapon (the law does not seem to distinguish between a weapon intended to kill or injure a person vs an animal) then you are guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. On the other hand if the gun is not obvious, you are unlikely to be asked and/or searched. If you are carrying exposed you almost certainly will be asked unless you know the CO and have discussed the issue at length with him.
cheers mooncoon
Well if your worried about it being concealed then the way i do it works ex.
I have a Big old RCMP Flap holster. its got D rings for a Shoulder strap.
I carry my gun in that holster over my shoulder with the Strap so its about belt height maby a tad higher.
This is good in a Canoe as well cause if you flip the thing the guns still on you.
When i come accross Hikers or Anyone (seldom happens tho) i just give the holster a flip and it spins around to my Back but still outside in plain View
So its not Concealed if its behind me now is it?
Now my two Dogs get 99% of the passers by Attention as one is quite visious likes flesh and i have to snap her on a leash fast people pay her way more attention than me.
I dont think anyone has ever known i was Carring a Antique gun on my Bush target shooting trips.
I just Get off the Trail outa the way so they can walk by. well most move at a fast Trot LOL
Then when there gone we get back onto the trail everyone is happy!
I have a Big old RCMP Flap holster. its got D rings for a Shoulder strap.
I carry my gun in that holster over my shoulder with the Strap so its about belt height maby a tad higher.
This is good in a Canoe as well cause if you flip the thing the guns still on you.
When i come accross Hikers or Anyone (seldom happens tho) i just give the holster a flip and it spins around to my Back but still outside in plain View
So its not Concealed if its behind me now is it?
Now my two Dogs get 99% of the passers by Attention as one is quite visious likes flesh and i have to snap her on a leash fast people pay her way more attention than me.
I dont think anyone has ever known i was Carring a Antique gun on my Bush target shooting trips.
I just Get off the Trail outa the way so they can walk by. well most move at a fast Trot LOL
Then when there gone we get back onto the trail everyone is happy!
Last edited:
BrotherRockeye
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Saskatchewan
This is something I could never understand...unless the law is written specifically with LEO in mind in that if displayed they would know you were heeled and could then act accordingly.
Joe blow is better off NOT knowing a fella is heeled imo...
course I'm no lawyer either...
Devils advocate
Ya I was just messing with you. just playing devils advocate to see what you would say, you know fishing for controversy. I fully and strongly agree that we all should have the right to at least defend ourselves from angry desperate animals if not even angry desperate humans.
thanks for the great thread I have found it very enlightening. and might I say you responed gracefully to my intentionally ignorant post.
Ya I was just messing with you. just playing devils advocate to see what you would say, you know fishing for controversy. I fully and strongly agree that we all should have the right to at least defend ourselves from angry desperate animals if not even angry desperate humans.
thanks for the great thread I have found it very enlightening. and might I say you responed gracefully to my intentionally ignorant post.
