Full-auto/Suppressors or Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions

Full-auto/Suppressors or Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions?

  • Full-auto/Suppressors

    Votes: 58 14.8%

  • Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions

    Votes: 334 85.2%
  • Total voters
    392
blaxsun

blaxsun

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
769   0   0
Location
Where the wind doesn't blow - it sucks
As the title says, you have a choice:

1. Full-auto/Suppressors (assume these would continue to be prohibited, albeit obtainable; range-only restrictions still apply).

2. Integrated ATT/No shooting restrictions (your RPAL is your ATT, and you can hunt and shoot with a restricted anywhere you can with a non-restricted).

Magazine caps/limits still apply in either instance, and you can't have both. :evil:
 
horseshoe said:
What would be the point of being "restricted" then? Would that not be the same as just de-classifying them?
Click to expand...

They're still registered, and different transport/storage rules still apply. There's a snowball's chance in h*ll of ever seeing any restricted firearms (particularly the AR) de-classified, but getting an ATT integrated into a PAL is entirely achievable. From there, easing shooting restrictions is also less of a hurdle. And this opens up a whole range of interesting possibilities...
 
No point trying to fight to have 1 firearm "de-classified". Better to have the whole restricted class be open to use anywhere a nonrestricted is.
 
Full auto is too expensive and suppressors are cool but not really necessary at the range. It's easy to pull on/off your muffs when shooting paper, unlike in the field where you need your hearing until you get a few seconds to take out your shot. Having a restricted in the woods would be great, better then suppressors at the range with your F/A M305.
 
The way I look at it, is if they "deem" me fit to own a fire arm I should be allowed to use/own anything I want. Full auto, suppressors, non neutered magazines, etc. Doesn't stop the criminals from getting what they want.
 
I voted for the integrated ATT/No shooting restrictions:

Because we have absolutely ZERO chance of ever getting full-auto legal again.

For the life of me, I just can't see the "logic" behind the fact that AR-type rifles are limited to range use, when my AR with a 20" barrel is about as concealable as a 39" long two-by-six chunk of lumber. I'd LOVE to be able to take my AR out for gophers and 'yotes here on the Prairies.
 
Integrated ATT/No shooting restrictions.

IMO having full auto and suppressors wouldn't be nearly as practical as being able to enjoy what is currently a restricted firearm on private property with the integrated ATT.
 
twig_40 said:
The way I look at it, is if they "deem" me fit to own a fire arm I should be allowed to use/own anything I want. Full auto, suppressors, non neutered magazines, etc. Doesn't stop the criminals from getting what they want.
Click to expand...

X2.. I've been checked out and deemed legally fit to possess non-restricted and restricted firearms. Why shouldn't we be allowed to use restricteds outside of the range?
 
I only target shoot and never hunt, so I voted option 1.

But I don't really care for full auto. Maybe it'd be a cool thing to show friends once or twice.

I just want a comp for competitions.
 
Option 2 would be my choice. There are plenty of black rifles out there that I would love to get my hands to take them out into the wild with me.
 
Very interesting weay of looking at it.....it actually makes strange sense to me when I try to think like a liberal. Not sure if I really can but makes sense. Full filles the requirment of stricter use guidlines and responsibilities while working with in current frame work with really minor alteration. Smart thinking....Blax for primeminister :)
 
I voted option 2 -- AR hunting + handgun hunting? Yeah, that would be awesome, and I think is a more realistic short- to medium-term goal.

That said, I think option 1 is also desirable, but unless we can convince the government of the day to rewrite the entire Firearms Act, I think we need to take realistic baby steps toward getting our rights back, and integrating ATTs into the PAL is an achievable first step.

I also think that full auto will probably have to be tackled separately from suppressors. The argument can be made for suppressors that they're safety equipment, and a ban on them is unconstitutional (see the recent court decisions in Ontario re: speed limiters in trucks and brothels, both based on personal safety), whereas the argument for full auto is a little harder to "win" in the eyes of the public.
 
alter3d said:
I voted option 2 -- AR hunting + handgun hunting? Yeah, that would be awesome, and I think is a more realistic short- to medium-term goal.

That said, I think option 1 is also desirable, but unless we can convince the government of the day to rewrite the entire Firearms Act, I think we need to take realistic baby steps toward getting our rights back, and integrating ATTs into the PAL is an achievable first step.

I also think that full auto will probably have to be tackled separately from suppressors. The argument can be made for suppressors that they're safety equipment, and a ban on them is unconstitutional (see the recent court decisions in Ontario re: speed limiters in trucks and brothels, both based on personal safety), whereas the argument for full auto is a little harder to "win" in the eyes of the public.
Click to expand...

Suppressors will never win the support of the public as well.
 
horseshoe said:
What would be the point of being "restricted" then? Would that not be the same as just de-classifying them?
Click to expand...

There would still be a theoretically higher barrier to entry on restricteds than with non-restricted. I would be perfectly fine with more stringent check, exam, interview and then more freedom after you have proved you are squeaky clean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom