Finally - I got a response from the govt as to why AR15s are restricted!
- Thread starter nntw
- Start date
Minster Nicholson has also responded, saying in part, "... A decision was made to list to class of AR-15 rifles as restricted firearms in the Regulations because of their paramilitary characteristics. The government has no plans at this time to amend... the Regulations or... Criminal Code".
Would it be easier to have the government allow the carry of restricted firearms in a hunting situation, rather than have them try and reclassify a huge number (according to the desires expressed in this thread) of firearms to non-restricted?
It seems like the whole issue of firearm classification is too muddy and convoluted to be sorted out by politicians (non-experts), and perhaps never will be.
As it is, you can legally own an AR, and you can go to the range with it too. It's that pesky stipulation that we can't have our sidearm/restricted with us when we leave the range that gets in the way.
It seems like the whole issue of firearm classification is too muddy and convoluted to be sorted out by politicians (non-experts), and perhaps never will be.
As it is, you can legally own an AR, and you can go to the range with it too. It's that pesky stipulation that we can't have our sidearm/restricted with us when we leave the range that gets in the way.
mildcustom2
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Surrey, B.C.
Nothing is going. To change without a very large sum of money and lots of lawyers.
That would defeat the purpose of a restricted class of firearms. Although its an offensively stupid class they cling to it like it has a useful purpose. They have gone on record many times stating that they don't feel military firearms serve any hunting or sporting purpose. Even though they don't own guns, hunt or have anything to do with shooting sports other than trying to ruin them. They want all guns that scare them banned, they want it bad and they don't care who they hurt to get what they want. They will make a bridge of victims to drive their overloaded short bus over to get there. The only way we will ever get anything off the restricted list is to prove to the general voting public that they serve just as much purpose in civilian hands as traditional hunting and sporting rifles. Until that happens we will be the evil gun lobby.
Quick afterthought.. My shooting buddy put it to me like this: It is illegal for a civilian in Canada to own/purchase/operate ANY firearm. However, as PAL/RPAL holders, we are given a five year exemption to the law. Within that exemption we are granted the freedom, albeit limited to some extent, to enjoy the sport of range shooting and the sport of hunting.
Considering the options one has when deciding on a gun to buy for sport or the hunt, a lot of people sure fixate on the things they aren't allowed to do within the exemption, rather than move forward.
I personally think it is much more practical to change the way we view our privilege to bear arms rather than try and change the ignorance within the politics of it all.
That said, I would love nothing more than to strap a drop holster on and take a TT33 into the bush and hunt some pig.
Considering the options one has when deciding on a gun to buy for sport or the hunt, a lot of people sure fixate on the things they aren't allowed to do within the exemption, rather than move forward.
I personally think it is much more practical to change the way we view our privilege to bear arms rather than try and change the ignorance within the politics of it all.
That said, I would love nothing more than to strap a drop holster on and take a TT33 into the bush and hunt some pig.
If you can, explain the PURPOSE of the restricted class, please.
Which characteristics? A Minister of Justice should not be so vague.
Which characteristics? Its cuteness factor?
Which characteristics? Its non-pink colour?
Which characteristics? Its ugliness?
Which characteristics? Its Dianne Feinsteininess?
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.
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.
The mole on it's nose! She's a witch! A witch! Burn herrrrrr!
You already know the purpose of it so why ask? Its to keep "scary guns" under "control" by restricting where gun owners can legally take them and having documentation to keep track of their whereabouts. Its supposed to keep them off the street, except for the giant f**k up they made when they thought criminals who by definition break the law rather than abide by it would be stopped by this system, making the entire system a complete failure and the only explanation for its continued existence is to punish law abiding citezens and sieze their guns when they commit a "crime" that puts nobodies safety in danger. Anything else you want to know?
This is not an answer as to why the AR15 is restricted. Being similar to something does not explain why you can only fire it at an approved range. My M14s is very similar to a widely used military weapon, the M14. It is non-restricted.
You did not get an answer.
Thanks for the response dawg. Totally nailed it. I only asked as to have it put so eloquently.
On another note, Mr.Enfield here gets the picture. Especially the middle part.
The part about being 'limited to a range only' though...apart from hunting in the wilderness, and maybe an outing into crown land, is the range such a limitation?
Not being a hunter (yet) myself, I imagine the round count in the bush to be low compared to a day at the range (the constant firing of guns scaring away game no doubt). So, how does the range come to be a limiting factor, when you can shoot from dawn until dusk? Literally all day.
Last edited:
Don't get me wrong guys. I agree with the fact that the bureaucracy behind the majority of our gun laws is unfounded and archaic, and comes from absolute ignorance.
The government definitely needs to find a way towards lateral regulation.
As it is though, they aren't saying you can't have your AR15.
They're just telling the fat kid with his pudding on the couch that he has to go back to the dining room table to eat it.
The government definitely needs to find a way towards lateral regulation.
As it is though, they aren't saying you can't have your AR15.
They're just telling the fat kid with his pudding on the couch that he has to go back to the dining room table to eat it.
