Concealed weapon or not: The bush and animal protection

Win 38-55 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Excellent bit of reseach win, Too bad I havent been up on the forums latey as Ive done all of this myself a while back. Im a legislation nut, Its part of my jobs. so when I get onto something I read all fo the applicable legislation from to back (the worst has got to be the Traffic Safety Act - its been changed too many times to connect all fo the links)

..anyways, There is a fedral regulation ( I'll have to dig it up now) that states that carrying a firearm for "protection in the wilderness" or something like that can be done but it must be in a holster and viewable at all times. this particulat reg as I recal does not fall within any of the exemptions that relate to antique firearms as defined under the Act or Regs.

I'll see if I can dig that suff out for everyone.

...on the otherhand...looking at section 117.3 of the CC...basically antiques are exempt from the "seizure on failure to produce authorization" clause. So i guess by that you might say that your local RC or CO technically cant seize the antique for simply having it on you in the woods.
 
Ok, I dug out the junk.

Antique firearms are of course defined by:
Criminal Code of Canada (C-46), and,
Regulations Prescribing Antique Firearms (SOR/98-464)


CC section 84(3) deals with "Certain weapons deemed not to be firearms"

“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;

Section 90 states:
90. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries a weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition concealed, unless the person is authorized under the Firearms Act to carry it concealed.

Note: although a prescribed antique is not considered a firearm it is still considered a weapon by definition under the CC.

As per Section 84 (3.1),any regulation under persuant to Section 117 (h) of the Firearms Act. [a regulation regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sale of firearms and restricted weapons and defining the expression “mail-order sale”] does apply to antique firearms...

so, the:
Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations (SOR/98-207) ,and the,
Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations (SOR/98-209) DO APPLY

But...the grey area...
Althgouth the Auth to Carry Regs do apply, they list resticted firearms and certain handguns - the regs specifically address restricted firearms and defines prohibited handguns as the CC defnintion...so antiques are not covered.

and...of course we do have to follow Section 14 of the Disply, Transport and Handling regs which does specifically address antique firearms.

Muddy enough for ya?
 
Ok, here's the last one from me:

I took another look into things.
Section 84 (3.1) really screws things for us:

Exeption – Antique firearms
Section 84 (3.1)

"Notwithstanding subsection (3), an antique firearm is a firearm for the purposes of regulations made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act and subsection 86(2) of this Act."

[Firearms Act (C-39)
"Section 117 (h) regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sale of firearms and restricted weapons and defining the expression “mail-order sale” for the purposes of this Act;"]

and

[Criminal code (C-46)
Contravention of storage regulations, etc.
86 (2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.]


So basically, any regulation made under the Firearms Act relating to storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display... applies to antiques as they are considered firearms for section 84(3.1). ####! this really screws us over doesnt it. They've found a way to cover antiques under the same laws that apply to th rest...only thing is, they dont state what they are considered. (nor-restricted, retricted, prohib...) I guess if I have a 3" bulldog, it would be considered a prohib for these purposes...

I imagine I really threw a keg or powder on the fire with this...

Im hoping it's just been a long day and I mis-read something. Can someone tell me im wrong?
 
soloist said:
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.
Click to expand...
No problem. I saw that your other posts on other threads seemed to be normal so I figured you had to be pulling my leg.
 
Sportee, I think you read it wrong. Note that Sec. 84 (3) specifically states that antiques are deemed not to be firearms " 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."

Note that there are only certain sections in the CC that it is deemed not to be a firearm, but there are no stipulations for the Firearms Act. That means for the entire Firearms Act, antique guns are not firearms. So you can toss the entire Firearms Act except for any part that specifically addresses antique guns ..... and there isn't much there. There are specific instructions given for the regulations and transport of antique firearms and only those apply. (e.g., stored unloaded, antique handguns in a locked case when 'transporting').
 
The Way i see all this B.S is as long as your not doing something Ilegal with the Antique it stays Antique.
But the minute you pull it out and start shooting Coons and gophers crows ect depending where you live then because thats and ilegal act (hunting) with a Handgun your then charged just as if it was a Modern handgun.

So packing a Antique in a holster in plain view is not breaking any laws because its not concealed.
Same with target shooting in areas you can fire a non restricted.

The Bottom line is dont do anything stupid or ilegal with your antique firearms and we should be ok.
I would not carry mine concealed tho.
Give em any reason to haul your ass to court in this Country and your going regardless of what you think you know.
 
Win 38-55 said:
Sportee, I think you read it wrong. Note that Sec. 84 (3) specifically states that antiques are deemed not to be firearms " 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."

Note that there are only certain sections in the CC that it is deemed not to be a firearm, but there are no stipulations for the Firearms Act. That means for the entire Firearms Act, antique guns are not firearms. So you can toss the entire Firearms Act except for any part that specifically addresses antique guns ..... and there isn't much there. There are specific instructions given for the regulations and transport of antique firearms and only those apply. (e.g., stored unloaded, antique handguns in a locked case when 'transporting').
Click to expand...


Correct, 84(3) states that they are not firearms for sections.... however, section 84(3.1) which is the exceptions thet apply to antique firearms states:

Exeption – Antique firearms
"84(3.1) Notwithstanding subsection (3), an antique firearm is a firearm for the purposes of regulations made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act and subsection 86(2) of this Act."


Basically, in spite of what 84(3) says, any regs under 117(h) of the Firearms Act still applies inder 84(3.1)

All of the sections listed from 91 to 117.03 deal with possession without a license, trafficking, destroying, failure to produce authorization etc. - All things relating to licensing and registration. All of the other stuff still applies. I was incorrect in saying a 3" bulldog would be a prohib...for purposes of all of these regulations the antiques would just be considered non-restricted...That's why you can shoot an antique anywhere it is ok to shoot a non-restricted.

Just to make sure that folks know that the regs do apply and be careful when telling the LOE that antiques are completely exempt. Technically, the only thing they are exempt from under federal legislation is licensing and registration requirements.

On the other hand...im not saying everyone is f'd...just letting everyone know that this clause is there...

In the end, I look at things the same way Dungus put it:

"The Bottom line is dont do anything stupid or illegal with your antique firearms and we should be ok.
I would not carry mine concealed tho.
Give em any reason to haul your ass to court in this Country and your going regardless of what you think you know."
 
I have come to the conclusion that the laws are written to be unclear on purpose.
Left open to interpretation they can be read to suit the Crown if need be.
The presiding Judge it seems would have the final say,and his political slant may be the deciding factor.
Who wants to chance that?
Not Me!
After all this do we have a definitive yes or no on concealed carry?
I don't!
I'll do like Pancho ;)
"he wore his gun outside his pants,for all the honest world to feel"
 
All 117(h) of the Firearms Act states is this ....

117. The Governor in Council may make regulations ....
(h) regulating the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sale of firearms and restricted weapons and defining the expression “mail-order sale” for the purposes of this Act;

That's it. With regard to antique firearms, the regulations regarding storage, handling, etc., are quite minimal. Regarding storage and display, they must be 'unloaded'. With regard to transport, specifically, antique handguns, they must be in a locked case.

There's nothing here in 117(h) that we did not already know.

I echo what Dingus said ..... don't do anything stupid. Stay discrete. That fellow that the justices were discussing (who took his 22 rifle on the Skytrain) was just plain stupid. That's not the kind of publicity or court cases we want. Frankly, I amazed that some of the justices were as positive as they were, given the bone-headed stunt the goof pulled off and the foolish statement he made re. going on a killing spree.

Regarding concealed carry, it looks to me like the letter of the law rules against it for antique guns, but looking at the discussion of the justices, it isn't that easy, because in the criminal code, intent is key, and the fact of whether or not there is a victim. As their discussion shows, there are aspects of the Firearms act that directly contradict the Criminal Code (i.e., the requirement to conceal your cased rifle in your vehicle), but the intent is to either avoid theft or to avoid disturbing people (i.e., avoid creating a victim). In other words, the intent to avoid creating a victim can be an excuse (in the legal sense) or at the very least, a mitigating factor. Or to put it differently, there is already a precedent in place within the Firearms Act, that overrules the criminal code on concealed carry, that is based on the intent to avoid harm to other people, where 'harm' is quite broadly interpreted to include disturbing and intimidating. That's all I'll say, but it would come down to what arguments were presented at trial. As for me, I want nothing to do with setting precedents, massive legal fees, etc., so I would recommend that everyone avoid getting themselves in a situation where they became a test case. Not only would it cost you a king's ransom in legal fees, but you could end up setting the wrong precedent that would royally screw things up for everyone.
 
Last edited:
handgun carry

I've only read thru' page 2 of this thread. Some comments ....

What constitutes a weapon is location and deemed intent. A rock or beer bottle in your pocket at a public gathering will be regarded as a potential 'concealed weapon'. You might beat it, but you will be charged. Try approaching Obama or Harper with a Swiss Army knife or nail file in your pocket ....

I've had discussion with Gunnar Christenson (familiar to many of you) of PG re: his 45-08; a 1911 loaded to the gills with brass made from cut down .308 cases. He makes a great case for an auto vs a revolver for dealing with a bear up close and personal. If you're not a customer, he won't discuss the load with you.
Some of his customers speak from personal experience, not armchair theory. Most of these guys pack legally as timber cruisers or placer miners.

I've shot several bears, the last two with a 50-70 Sharps (65 grs BP/425 gr Lyman 515141). Both were spring bears and weighed in excess of 400 lbs. Both were shot and killed at 100 yds. One needed a little encouragement to expire by means of a few whacks on the head with a club.

Paper ballistics bull aside, I cannot imagine taking either with a handgun, especially if it was close and aggressive; i.e. charging.
Having said that, I admit to packing a 4" M29 when my wife and I are berry picking on our property. There is something about berry picking on ground where you see the imprint of a bear's body made just a short time ago that makes this seem prudent.
I could have any calibre rifle at hand, but Murphy's Law says the bear will be between me and the rifle should I need it.

I've had occasion to discharge a 45-70 over the head of a 300 lb bear from 3' away when he was rummaging in a storage bin on the porch and I was on the ground. Effect on the bear - nil. I got a .45 LC and fired twice over his head which got his attention. He ambled off the porch and I put three more rounds into the dirt behind his butt as he toddled off.

When it comes to a Grizzly, fuggedaboudit! You could get lucky, but more likely you and the bear will go to Valhalla on the same longship; minus the Viking funeral. I'll happily back up anyone who wants to take an adult grizz with a handgun, but I'll my '86 45-70 with bear loads.

Re: the legality of packing an 'antique' status handgun, you are taking the chance that a LEO of any stripe will know the difference, know the law or give a damn. You'll have to prove your case in court and you'd be a fool to represent your self.
It could also get you shot or worse, Tasered with a CEW. Do you really trust our trigger happy cops?

The individual is between a rock and a hard place with this dilemma. Bottom line: don't do anything if you can't live with the consequences. Doing something positive beats the hell out of self-recrimination later wishing you had done something, anything, to save someone's life - or your own.

Retired and living 60 kms from the nearest town, I spend a lot of time on the ground in the bush, most often without a gun. I feel safer than when I'm on the Skytrain or when I used to work in the alleys Vancouver on afternoon shift. If I was ever to pack a gun, that's the environment.
 
i have been watching this thread with interest, cuz i have an antique.

the legalties aside i think that if i was at a busy trailhead with my holstered non-concealed totally legal antique, someone around there would have a cel phone. the RCMP would arrest me, and it would cost me big $$ even if i am in the right.

i am not sure what the answer is. but i don't like going back country with just a pointed stick and bear spray. (BTW does it have an expiry date?)

in that i am with a dog (which is more of an attractor than a deterrent) i usually have some sort of noise maker in my pack.
 
hornhead said:
... i think that if i was at a busy trailhead with my holstered non-concealed totally legal antique, someone around there would have a cel phone. the RCMP would arrest me, and it would cost me big $$ even if i am in the right.
Click to expand...
Part of the responsibility of owning an antique firearm is exercising wisdom and discretion. When I am at the trailhead, launching our canoes to head into the wilderness, my sixgun, holster and belt is still locked in a box that I was transporting it in. People might wonder what is in the locked box, but that's their problem. Basically, if I'm going to be running into people, I don't pack iron. That way, everyone is happy.
 
that makes perfect sense. what they don't know won't hurt them.
as dingus said don't do anything stupid.
the hypothetical situation i was refering to is akin to " i double dog dare you!"
and people are paranoid about handguns ...
 
Sharps '63 and Hornhead are right on the money. I would only consider an antique revolver for defense against wild dogs, mountain cats, wolves, or coyotes. The probability of stopping a charging bear with any antique revolver is pretty slim. I've seen bears shot with .375 H&H magnums, hit solidly, and still require finishing shots. A bear on my porch that was eating the cat food took a .303 crimped blank at two feet, and didn't even blink. Also, in BC, it states in the hunting regs "it is illegal to hunt game with a handgun". If you were to shoot a bear, and somehow kill it, with your .455, you would most likely be charged and lose all your hunting rights for five years. Several years ago, a CO advised me to always have a bear tag, and simply cancel it and remove the hide if I had to shoot a bear. I guess I'm supposed to let the bear eat me if the season is closed. The point is, if you shoot a bear with your handgun, and the CO or member of the Sierra Club happens along right after the kill, you could find yourself in deep ####! How do you prove that the bear was attacking you, unless you have claw marks on you? At least if you used a rifle, and had a tag, you could just cancel it and claim you were hunting. Save you going to court, anyway. The CO isn't going to say, "Oh, that's an antique revolver, it's alright, then." He/she is going to see a handgun, and a dead bear. Providing the bullets didn't just make the bear mad, that is. And as for dogs, they really are a nuisance in the bush. A friend always bragged about how great his dog was at running bears off. Until the dog met a bear that didn't scare, and chased the dog right back to his master! He had to shoot the bear, or it probably would have got them both. When I used to spend time in the bush with my dog, he always seemed to attract bears. I had bears on the porch all the time, too, even when I didn't have food out.
 
BUSHMAN79 said:
Sharps '63 and Hornhead are right on the money. I would only consider an antique revolver for defense against wild dogs, mountain cats, wolves, or coyotes. The probability of stopping a charging bear with any antique revolver is pretty slim. I've seen bears shot with .375 H&H magnums, hit solidly, and still require finishing shots. A bear on my porch that was eating the cat food took a .303 crimped blank at two feet, and didn't even blink. Also, in BC, it states in the hunting regs "it is illegal to hunt game with a handgun". If you were to shoot a bear, and somehow kill it, with your .455, you would most likely be charged and lose all your hunting rights for five years. Several years ago, a CO advised me to always have a bear tag, and simply cancel it and remove the hide if I had to shoot a bear. I guess I'm supposed to let the bear eat me if the season is closed. The point is, if you shoot a bear with your handgun, and the CO or member of the Sierra Club happens along right after the kill, you could find yourself in deep s**t! How do you prove that the bear was attacking you, unless you have claw marks on you? At least if you used a rifle, and had a tag, you could just cancel it and claim you were hunting. Save you going to court, anyway. The CO isn't going to say, "Oh, that's an antique revolver, it's alright, then." He/she is going to see a handgun, and a dead bear. Providing the bullets didn't just make the bear mad, that is. And as for dogs, they really are a nuisance in the bush. A friend always bragged about how great his dog was at running bears off. Until the dog met a bear that didn't scare, and chased the dog right back to his master! He had to shoot the bear, or it probably would have got them both. When I used to spend time in the bush with my dog, he always seemed to attract bears. I had bears on the porch all the time, too, even when I didn't have food out.
Click to expand...

If you have to kill a game animal in self defence, the site will be looked at to determine if you were in real danger. If you were, no problem.
You can be sure a fellow being attacked by a bear will not toss away his antique handgun because it 'might make the bear mad'. Bear attacks have been stoped with sticks and knives, an antique handgun would have been welcomed in those cases, I'm certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom