Hunting without PAL

Runningfool said:
So which is it? Believe the rcmp or not? You seem to be saying two different things in this thread.

You certainly don’t realize it but you are a big part of why these threads are full of confusion and nonsense! Remember the last time you were “100% sure” about how posted land works?
Click to expand...


I've posted nothing but , clear , educated and truthful comments in this thread and would accept my comments being challenged by a CFO or a firearms lawyer.
The link I posted is not an RCMP bulletin , it is from the Firearms act facts pages.
Yes, I've been mistaken before on many things in my life, and generally don't mind being corrected. In this topic I have given the OP the link to the answer to his question directly from the canadian firearms center/rcmp website that explains each section of the act. Again, these are not bulletins like the magazine bulletins or the bill c71 bulletins. The information in the link I posted has not changed since c-68 became law. Again, it does not say a non pal holder can borrow a firearm under the act if there is only 1 firearm per pal.
It DOES say, there is an exception to the law that states a non pal holder can not posess a firearm
It Does say that there is an exception to the law that states a PAL holder can not give a firearms into the posession of a non PAL holder

that exception is very clear
a PAL holder may lend a firearm to a non pal holder
the conditions are clearly spelled out regarding supervision and no mention of 1 firearm per pal.

furthermore , in answer the OP's question when he started this thread, the Alberta Hunting regs don't even mention firearms licencing/borrowing.... they instead refer to the firearms act.... CFC/RCMP website..... which takes you to the page i posted the link to..... use of firearms by those over 18.

I'm not gonna bother trying to educate you guys any further..... the answers are there in black and white.
 
Last edited:
45ACPKING said:
the firearms act does not say anything about 1 gun per pal in the borrowing section and based on the information that is provided by the cfc/rcmp, it would say 1 gun per pal if it "was" the law.

I'm gonna leave you guys to your confusion...... a high school student with a C+ average in basic law and english language should be able to understand what is written in the firearms act. It's very clear and easy to understand.
Click to expand...

The Firearms Act does mention immediate supervision. Be prepared to justify that in court, if a CO finds that is not the case.
You are misconstruing the lawful use wording.
Trimmer gave some good advice.
 
45ACPKING said:
i don't know why a few of you from ontario are confusing this thread (since post 10) with bow hunting regulation from mu's all over ontario. Start another thread for that.

this thread was from a member from alberta regarding hunting without a pal. All you guys have proved is that the provincial regulations differ from province to province under each provinces wildlife act. Where bow hunting came into it..... I dunno.

Bottom line is in the sections headed "it is unlawful " in the Alberta Hunting regulations, they do not even mention firearms licensing other than an age definition , nor do they mention or discuss borrowing/lending. Instead, the Alberta Hunting regulations defer to a link to the canadian firearms center.

cutting thru all the crap in this thread , the simple answer to the OP's question was Yes, you can hunt with a PAL holder and they can lend you a firearm while you are under thier direct supervision. Which means in thier presence not requiring magnification to see what they are doing. It means to be in thier presence not requiring amplification to verbally communicate.

there is no "1 gun per PAL" regulation in the firearms act lending borrowing exception , nor is there a 1 gun per PAL regulation in the Alberta wildlife act or hunting regs.
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe, we are just trying to clear up confusing statements (intentional or not) by some, in order to avoid someone being charged for inadvertently violating some obscure regulation. For example, I was not aware that, in most WMU's with controlled hunts, you could not hunt with a bow. Just might have saved me a ticket at some point. If ON stuff doesn't apply to you, why not just skip over it? No one is forcing you to read it.
 
Dukester said:
The Firearms Act does mention immediate supervision. Be prepared to justify that in court, if a CO finds that is not the case.
You are misconstruing the lawful use wording.
Trimmer gave some good advice.
Click to expand...

no I'm not misconstruing anything.
I've posted what the firearms act states , go read it yourself and interpret it how you may.
Before a judge, there is only one interpretation that matters and that is the intent of the law.

like with target shooting at the range, or on crown land with an appropriate back stop , allowing a Non PAL holder to join you for the day is perfectly legal and a widely accepted and practiced use of firearms. I mysef have been to "bring a friend" days at the range where members are asked to bring NON pal holders who are then encouraged to possess and shoot borrowed firearms under supervision..... because it is a lawful practice. Hunting is also a lawful practice and so a non pal holder can , under exception listed in the firearms act, borrow a firearm for the purpose of hunting.... under supervision.


believe what you will, I'm just trying to educate.
As far as the giving of advice on CGN..... I have been giving sound advice to fellow cgn'ers since early in my years of being a member here. Most of that advice has been in the form all things related to the M14 rifles. Information that runs the risk of putting fellow cgn'ers in danger should they take my advice and it wrong. I've given that advice over the forums and to cgn'ers gathered in my own home willing to hear it.
And yet I'm still here. So I'm guessing my advice is more often than not, accurate and valuable. I've certainly posted in error on the odd topic.... like the posting of land thread..... but I also can take being corrected and shown things in black and white and admit my error.

which many here seem to be unable to do or grasp.
 
I'm only asking for someone to provide an actual example of someone being charged for this in Ontario. I see tons of charges being laid in the local paper every moose season, when our population increases by about 5000 people for a few weeks. Charges are usually in the area of loaded guns in or on vehicles, improper tagging, wrong moose shot, violations of party hunting regs, occasional alcohol charges, but never once for hunting without a PAL.

I mysef have been to "bring a friend" days at the range where members are asked to bring NON pal holders who are then encouraged to possess and shoot borrowed firearms under supervision..... because it is a lawful practice.
Click to expand...

The last time I asked this question here, I was assured by the astute members of this forum that when non-pal holders shoot at a range, they had to be in direct supervision of a PAL holder who was not shooting. Hence their interpretation of "direct supervision". So is it that way at a range? I shoot in gravel pits, lol. I could see that if ranges had that interpretation, that it could spill over into hunting.

I have a friend waiting for a PAL now, been over 4 months, he has all of his hunting licences, but does not want to become a test case for MNR. We've been out hunting several times, but only with one gun, which is silly, because we are walking within reach of each other.
 
When a non pal hunter is with me, 99% of the time, the firearm is safe and being carried. When it's thier turn to take a shot, my rifle is still on my shoulder where it should be. This allows me to devote my entire attention to the shooter. Otherwise, the person is with me in a proximity that common sense tells me... is under my supervision.

you guys do what you want, I'll continue to bring new shooters into the fold by taking them shooting and hunting as per the firearms act and my provinces wildlife act..... even ones who have passed the conservation and outdoor education course along with it's required firearms safety course...... regardless of them having a PAL.
 
The last time I asked this question here, I was assured by the astute members of this forum that when non-pal holders shoot at a range, they had to be in direct supervision of a PAL holder who was not shooting.

Hahaha.. there' s the problem..how does anyone know who an "astute" member is ?, its all self proclaimed !!

I honestly really feel bad for the poor slob that asks a legitimate question on a forum that he or she would suspect to get some sage advice but ends up opening Pandora's box as all the "sidewalk lawyers" chime in with their interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded piece of law.

Go to the source and ask,, if the MNR/OPP in Ontario tells you one thing why in Gods name would you pick and choose your advice from peoples so called opinions ? Its nonsense man.

And 45ACPKING,, I find it interesting that you are trying to come across now as the voice of reason, go back a few pages of crap and re-read your comments advising people to needing to "expand their privileges " as firearms owners. What the h#ll does that mean ? in another thread you spoke of your confrontational experiences with LEO whom you felt didn't understand the law !! . Totally irresponsible, man ! Think before you post, I hope no one takes that crap literally.

This thread needs a bullet in the head from a moderator. It helps no one.
 
smokin'stoegie said:
The last time I asked this question here, I was assured by the astute members of this forum that when non-pal holders shoot at a range, they had to be in direct supervision of a PAL holder who was not shooting.

Hahaha.. there' s the problem..how does anyone know who an "astute" member is ?, its all self proclaimed !!

I honestly really feel bad for the poor slob that asks a legitimate question on a forum that he or she would suspect to get some sage advice but ends up opening Pandora's box as all the "sidewalk lawyers" chime in with their interpretation of a somewhat vaguely worded piece of law.

Go to the source and ask,, if the MNR/OPP in Ontario tells you one thing why in Gods name would you pick and choose your advice from peoples so called opinions ? Its nonsense man.

And 45ACPKING,, I find it interesting that you are trying to come across now as the voice of reason, go back a few pages of crap and re-read your comments advising people to needing to "expand their privileges " as firearms owners. What the h#ll does that mean ? in another thread you spoke of your confrontational experiences with LEO whom you felt didn't understand the law !! . Totally irresponsible, man ! Think before you post, I hope no one takes that crap literally.

This thread needs a bullet in the head from a moderator. It helps no one.
Click to expand...

there are many LEO on this site that know me personally, have been in my house socially and professionally (gunsmithing)...... and interact with me both here and outside cgn.
I'll stick to my comments and advice when it comes to the firearms act. It has personally served me extremely well and I'm not too concerned going forward.
i'm not an armchair lawyer but I do understand intent of written law.
two things I'm extremely passionate about...... hunting and firearms and I make a point to know and follow the law.

I'm going to call the local CO office tomorrow...well i guess tuesday with the holiday and the local rcmp detachment and do a little fishing. However, I doubt reporting back here with what I find would matter to anyone anyways.
the truth is right in front of you and yet folks refuse to see it LOl
 
This is all re-goddamned-diculous. I can hunt in Alberta with as many guns strapped to me as I can walk with. A non-pal holder can hold a rifle for me if I'm close enough to still be "in control" of the gun. There isn't a C.O. in this province who gives a damn about the minutia of the firearms act. If he has a hunting license and the right tag, it's in season, and inside of legal light, givver. That's the functional answer. The rest of it is just picking fly crap out of pepper.
 
Papaclaude said:
This is what I found, and it does seem to indicate that bowhunting is legal during the gun season. Am I missing something? My understanding is that you can use bows, but must (should?) wear orange during the gun season. (I never bothered to check on the legal status of that, as there is no way I'm walking around the bush in camo during gun season - when I'm up in my stand the orange comes off.) Anyway, ere are the regs, but they wouldn't paste as a table.

2018 Deer Seasons Rifles, Shotguns, Bows and Muzzle-loading guns
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53A, 54, 55A, 55B, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63A, 63B, 64A, 66A, 67, 68A, 74B Nov. 5 to Nov. 18
Click to expand...

the bloody confusion comes from the bow season table, it clearly marks end of bow season day before gun season and reopens day after, i’ve been bow hunting in october so many times, when i’m not successful i just put my bow away for gun season and grab a gun
i see where my error may have been, there are no conditions listed in wmu i hunt, alas i rather walk the woods with a gun during gun season, this is the least user friendly regulations in the country, thanks for pointing this out
 
Still waiting for someone to answer the range question. And I have no doubt provincial interpretations in Alberta and BC are different than Ontario. I'm asking about Ontario. Someone show me some case law. Until then, I'm going to comply with MNR dictates, I'm not keen to be that guy.
 
memaquay said:
Still waiting for someone to answer the range question. And I have no doubt provincial interpretations in Alberta and BC are different than Ontario. I'm asking about Ontario. Someone show me some case law. Until then, I'm going to comply with MNR dictates, I'm not keen to be that guy.
Click to expand...

Wiser words rarely seen. I am a firm believer in veering on the side of safety. I can't afford or risk a judge making the final decision. Personally, when at the range, if I have a non-PAL shooter with me, only one gun is shooting at any one time. I can hardly be giving adequate supervision to someone if I am busy trying to shoot on the bench beside my guest. It's not a question of law but of conscience. If we were hunting in a stand, yes, I would allow 2 rifles because we are not actively shooting and I can adequately supervise my guest. If we are walking, my gun is unloaded, slung over my shoulder, and my guest would be walking in front of me. In our area, deer season is shotgun only, so only 1 shotgun for the 2 of us, because of Migratory Game Bird regs (unless my guest was licensed, but it's never happened to me). BTW, any time I've had a newbie (usually one of my kids), they get to take the shot. My only use for the gun is for a coup de grâce.
 
One PAL, one rifle. Dumb. I’ll carry as many bloody rifles as I see fit. Some here need to learn how to read. These pretend rules look made up east of Winnipeg to me. Too much weight on the left side will do that to a person.
 
I think that a lot of guys are getting hung up on how they interpret "immediate supervision". I myself interpret that to mean that I can say "NO, don't do that" and expect that it would be heard as being close enough...... Teaching my kid to drive, I don't sit behind her with a stick in my hand so I can stab the brake pedal, but evidently that is how some folks would want to interpret this scenario.
 
KodiakHntr said:
I think that a lot of guys are getting hung up on how they interpret "immediate supervision". I myself interpret that to mean that I can say "NO, don't do that" and expect that it would be heard as being close enough...... Teaching my kid to drive, I don't sit behind her with a stick in my hand so I can stab the brake pedal, but evidently that is how some folks would want to interpret this scenario.
Click to expand...

The issue is the law says direct and immediate, not just immediate. You cant cherry pick a single word and then decide what the law is.

Shawn
 
I don't want to debate this anymore and the only reason I have posted what I have so far is that a pile of people have posted comments suggesting my common practice with lending firearms for lawful purposes such as target shooting and hunting, is illegal and that my perception or interpretation of the law is off base. I strongly disagree based on my interpretation of the firearms act , the various information pages on the cfc website (not bulletins) and the BC wildlife act. Not to mention, real world encounters with LEO/CO while in the act of practicing what I see as common safe practice.

I'll agree that there should perhaps be more clarification on the immediate supervision but I don't see it as confusing or overly difficult to comply with while in the field with a non PAL holding licensed hunter. My primary concern beforehand is to know for sure they don't have any prohibitions from posessing firearms.
lastly on the 1 gun per hunter thing.
The federal firearms act is the guideline and further to that , provinces and municipalities also have further laws and bylaws that determine lawful use. That 1 gun per hunter situation is not in the firearms act and would be a local government addition to the regulations/laws. It does not apply in BC for the purpose of lending and in the OP's case, does not appear in the Alberta hunting regs either.

K, that's it..... you guys can chase your tails on this one all you like.
 
If you are within arms reach ( supervision) of a guy with a PAL , then you can have a gun . Does not matter
if the supervising guy has a gun or not. Remember ,,,, the supervision must be @ ALL TIMES that you have the gun .
This is Federal Law ,,,,,,,,,, so all provinces .
 
So if it's 1 gun per hunter/pal does that mean as a licensed pal holder I can't have a 22 on my pack while hunting with my bigger gun?
Or a bear defence shotgun with me while I'm deer hunting with a 308?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom