ILS,trigger lock???

Yes and No,

I called the CFC few years ago about this and they said that it does count as a trigger lock. Then I heard about two hunters that were charged with unsafe transport because they were using the internal trigger locks on their Remmington 597 rifles. After $5,000 each in legal fees, they did win the court case, but the Police continue still to lay charges if you do not have an external trigger lock "applied" to the firearm.

William Arms will not let you pick up a restricted firearm with out a trigger lock because the OPP(Ontario Provincial Police) told them they will charge anyone that does not use an external lock.

So legally you can beat the charges, but it's not worth the hassles of argueing with a police officer that does not know the law. Because the cops will law the charges anyway and let the courts figuier it out in the end. So my suggestion is to use one of those cheap $2.00 plastic trigger locks and save yourself some grief!
 
Last edited:
happiness is a warm gun said:
Yes and No,

I called the CFC few years ago about this and they said that it does count as a trigger lock. Then I heard about two hunters that were charged with unsafe transport because they were using the internal trigger locks on their Remmington 597 rifles.
Click to expand...

Nevermind that you don't need a trigger lock on non-restricted firearms for transport.

Sounds sort of urban-legendy to me.

If it's not, it's simply proof that you can't avoid the possibility of running into a ignorant cop, they exist on every force.
 
Nevermind that you don't need a trigger lock on non-restricted firearms for transport.QUOTE said:
These are restricted firearms he is refering to, so yes you need a trigger locking device when transporting. ILS is a Springfield lock in the mainspring housing.

The 597 was just an example on how the cops are treating & charging people using internal trigger locks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
hold on, Remington 597's are restricted? but two hunters were using them? umm that makes no sense.
 
Slavex said:
hold on, Remington 597's are restricted? but two hunters were using them? umm that makes no sense.
Click to expand...


No.....the Remington 597 rifles were one of the first guns(non-restricted) with an internal locking devices on the market. I was using these as an example because my gun smith told me about two customers that were charged by the police for not excepting internal locks as trigger locks. The point being, internal locks to comply, but the cops will still charge you if you don't have an external lock on your pistols.

I guess I should have more clear.
 
Last edited:
happiness is a warm gun said:
No.....the Remington 597 rifles were one of the first guns(non-restricted) with an internal locking devices on the market. I was using these as an example because my gun smith told me about two customers that were charged by the police for not excepting internal locks as trigger locks. The point being, internal locks to comply, but the cops will still charge you if you don't have an external lock on your pistols.

I guess I should have more clear.
Click to expand...
If the guns are non-restricted, there's no need for trigger locks, whether external or internal. If they are restricted, they can't be hunted with. The story is BS.
 
capp325 said:
If the guns are non-restricted, there's no need for trigger locks, whether external or internal. If they are restricted, they can't be hunted with. The story is BS.
Click to expand...

Then tell the gunsmith at Gannon Sport it's BS. That's what he told me! Wether they were hunting or not, I don't know. I wouldn't put it past TINY to tell stories. That's I why called the CFC about the internal trigger lock issue!
 
Last edited:
happiness is a warm gun said:
Then tell the gunsmith at Gannon Sport it's BS. That's what he told me! Wether they were hunting or not, I don't know. I wouldn't put it past TINY to tell stories. That's I why called the CFC about the internal trigger lock issue!
Click to expand...
Well, that wouldn't be the first BS story told in a gunshop :p. Remington 597 is a non-restricted rifle. No need for a trigger lock.

But it's probably not a good idea to use internal locks on restricted guns even if that's legal. Better to use an external one that argue with the cops. Also, I would hate to have an internal crap out on me...
 
I won't put an external trigger lock on my Walther P22, and if some freak wants to harangue me about it, they can go whistle dixie for all I care. It fulfills the legal requirement:
"it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;"
 
Bartledan said:
Nevermind that you don't need a trigger lock on non-restricted firearms for transport.

Sounds sort of urban-legendy to me.

If it's not, it's simply proof that you can't avoid the possibility of running into a ignorant cop, they exist on every force.
Click to expand...

I'll just post this again. FYI, and all that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom