I still think we should focus our energy on eliminating, or amending the ATT to allow the same regulations as a non-restricted firearm. All we would have to do is have them re-word the law to something like "Allows the holder to transport a restricted firearm from the holders residence to wherever possession of a firearm is lawful" Or whatever legal wording is needed. Boom, we still have the ATT, BUT we are now allowed to transport to places such as crown land and private property for target shooting/hunting, and the argument can still be made that they are still "tracking" who is transporting restricted firearms as we will still need to apply for the ATT.
For those that would argue "Well we can't do that, that will mean they are not restricted anymore", ya, that's the point their buddy. And, if you still want to argue about it, they would still be restricted in the manor that they are restricted to those who possess the appropriate classification of license, Transport is restricted to to those who possess the proposed GATT (General Authorization To Transport), and they would still be Registered.
This, to me, seems 100x more plausible then DE-restricting the whole type. We can still give something the government cann hold on to as "protecting the public" by still technically having the need for an ATT, and we would have gained a large grasp of freedom. Also, this would have the effect of making the restricted class a lot more appealing to others, as I know a lot of people are holding out on that pistol, or AR, because they don't want to be limited to a range only. Doing what I propose, would increase the number of restricted owners significantly. Which would have the side effect of boosting support in favor of more pro-restricted changes.
