Indoor private handgun shooting range?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paul_1982 said:
Really? Ok..... so the fact that the Registrar SHALL revoke your registration certificates for target practice at an unapproved range means nothing to the individual having the Revocation?

I don't see any charges that follows, but by by restricted firearm.
Click to expand...

WHY would they revoke the cert? The firearms is being used for its intended purpose....you are applying your belief that it must be a range. That is where you error. If the firearms is being used for the specified purpose TARGET PRACTICE, then there is no legal grounds to revoke the cert.



If your ATT specifically states at an approved range then you may have point. I say may not because I am being difficult but because ATT's are for transport and possession, outside of you dwelling. So I still think a case could be made for Target Practice in your dwelling house(back porch). I'd have to dwell and dig more to form a better informed decision on the matter.

YES I know what the CFO policy is and we all know what there response would be. I am more concerned with the LAW than there policy because again it has been proven that there policy has been wrong in the past.

Cheers I appreciate the patience as we chew this thru.
 
No bud, in your own post you came to the conclusion yourself that your ATT saves you for shooting at an unapproved range at home, since this is where you can lawfully posses it.

Unless yours is worded different than mine, that doesn't fly. My ATT states specifically for target practice at an approved range. The rest of 28 (b)(I) uses the words approved range directly.

So... again you are stuck having to comply with 28 (b)(I) for target practice with restricteds. At an approved range or under the conditions of your ATT, which unless yours differs from mine, clearly indicates said target practice must occur at an approved range.
 
NO the firearms act and the CC Allow for possesion of a Restricted in your Dwelling house. Your ATT does not do so. You can have a restricted Firearm without having an ATT so obviously the ATT is not what authorizes possession.

You are dwelling on Sec 28. Sec 28 is the guiding legislation for THE CFO not the owner of said gun. THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE. Sec 28 is dealing with the act of transferring a restricted, not using one.


Paul_1982 said:
No bud, in your own post you came to the conclusion yourself that your ATT saves you for shooting at an unapproved range at home, since this is where you can lawfully posses it.

Unless yours is worded different than mine, that doesn't fly. My ATT states specifically for target practice at an approved range. The rest of 28 (b)(I) uses the words approved range directly.

So... again you are stuck having to comply with 28 (b)(I) for target practice with restricteds. At an approved range or under the conditions of your ATT, which unless yours differs from mine, clearly indicates said target practice must occur at an approved range.
Click to expand...
 
Supposing that person does not hold a LTATT, but still possesses the restricted arm legally by being holder of an RPAL.
That person is not bound by any ATT conditions at all.
And no worries at renewal time.

As an aside.
How does the CFO learn that a person a person might have discharged a restricted arm other than on an approved range?
Is there a legal obligation to incriminate one's self by volunteering such information??
 
When one section of the Firearms Act refers to another, as both 67, and 71 do, the referred to section becomes a part of the new section. So no, section 28 does not ONLY deal with transfers. It also deals with the permitted continued possession of the restricted firearm.

We are dealing strictly with target practice here. Section 28(b)(I) deals specifically with target practice with a restricted firearm. It clearly states target practice at an approved range OR under the conditions f your ATT. Meaning you either shoot at an approved range, or follow whats written on the ATT. As I've said, my ATT states for target practice at an approved range, so even though your ATT deals with transporting, because the CONDITIONS of your ATT are referenced in a different section dealing with use, those conditions also then are taken into account for using the firearm for target practice.

Now, if you don't have an ATT, the OR means it does not apply. So you are stuck solely with the part that specifies at an approved range only.

As far as how the CFO would know, I believe we are dealing in hypotheticals where law enforcement will prosecute any broken laws. Obviously if no one calls and the police never come to your home you are fine. But that also applies to murder. We are dealing with the CFO watching you conduct your target shooting.
 
Equating any of this with murder is quite a stretch.:rolleyes:


Paul_1982 said:
When one section of the Firearms Act refers to another, as both 67, and 71 do, the referred to section becomes a part of the new section. So no, section 28 does not ONLY deal with transfers. It also deals with the permitted continued possession of the restricted firearm.

We are dealing strictly with target practice here. Section 28(b)(I) deals specifically with target practice with a restricted firearm. It clearly states target practice at an approved range OR under the conditions f your ATT. Meaning you either shoot at an approved range, or follow whats written on the ATT. As I've said, my ATT states for target practice at an approved range, so even though your ATT deals with transporting, because the CONDITIONS of your ATT are referenced in a different section dealing with use, those conditions also then are taken into account for using the firearm for target practice.

Now, if you don't have an ATT, the OR means it does not apply. So you are stuck solely with the part that specifies at an approved range only.

As far as how the CFO would know, I believe we are dealing in hypotheticals where law enforcement will prosecute any broken laws. Obviously if no one calls and the police never come to your home you are fine. But that also applies to murder. We are dealing with the CFO watching you conduct your target shooting.
Click to expand...
 
Paul_1982 said:
Section 28 says

Permitted purposes

28. A chief firearms officer may approve the transfer to an individual of a restricted firearm or a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) only if the chief firearms officer is satisfied
(a) that the individual needs the restricted firearm or handgun
(i) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals, or
(ii) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation; or
(b) that the purpose for which the individual wishes to acquire the restricted firearm or handgun is
(i) for use in target practice, or a target shooting competition, under conditions specified in an authorization to transport or under the auspices of a shooting club or shooting range that is approved under section 29, or
(ii) to form part of a gun collection of the individual, in the case of an individual who satisfies the criteria described in section 30.
Click to expand...

So you are not transporting the firearm anywhere if you are shooting inside your home.
 
192-0214161240-super-retard.jpg
...oh man, this is fantastic! :popCorn:
 
Let me be clear guys, I am not advocating anyone shoot outside of a licensed range. This is a hypothetical scenario to challenge against the law and I have no intent of becoming the test case. So lets not let it get personal in anyway. Lets keep it quesy legal arguments. What you would present a judge if challenged to defend said scenario. or what you would try and use to persecute someone in contravention and the logic behind it.

Its a worth while endeavor, if for no other reason than we will all come away much more acquainted with the letter of the law. That can never be a bad thing.
 
Paul_1982 said:
Please read my other posts and section 67 and 71.
Click to expand...


I agree that the CFO could use that to pull your certs. That does not mean it makes it illegal to do as the scenario. First the CFO would have to be satisfied that you contravened the TARGET practice portion of the regs. Er go Where does it say you can not do so from inside or off the deck of your home. Where does the initial violation occur? OK maybe your ATT violation. So if we eliminate the ATT from the scenario then what. Legal possession at home....check......target practice ....check. Generally Legal to Discharge.....check. So where does that leave us.....Show us the reg that the CFO will hang his reputation on to yank your regs with the authority granted in the sections you quoted.

I am enjoying the mental exercise..... I truly hope you are too. Set aside your bias or what you think you know...and pull it right from the regs like a computer....1+1 = 2....
 
I see it as there are no charges to be laid. But because you are shooting outside of an approved range your registration certificates will be revoked.

No charges but no gun either.

And the reg is sections 67, 71 and 28... unapproved range with restricted is not a "permitted pupose".
 
shooting centre said:
the firearms act states that a business may operate a range without cfo approval. Only employees can use it though. Set up an in home business and you remove the cfo component. The next issue is your municipal bylaws. Can you operate a business in your home and can you get approval to discharge in the city.
Click to expand...

this.....this....this.
 
Paul,

Thanks for posting up the other sections, I was getting tired of the barrage.

So... If you are target practicing at home with your restricted, have your approved range approved or you will lose your registration certificates. ""

Most ATT say for TARGET PRACTICE, and that is ESTABLISHED. In this scenario the purpose is TARGET PRACTICING.
Click to expand...

Hawking,

What you have said that I outlined in bold would be a permitted use since your private range is approved. Maurice brings up another point showing how a firearms business has much greater freedom of use than us lowly individual citizens. The Criminal Code charge of careless discharge of a firearm can be laid for just about any use. Whether a judge or a higher Court would sentence or decide is another matter but any of us would have a hard time defending a discharge in our "parlour" or perhaps even from our deck to a target on our property in many areas. Of course, barring municipal or provincial legislation about where you can legally discharge a firearm (NR or R or P), as Paul pointed out, your entitlement to ownership of a restricted or prohibited firearm is based on intended purpose. Your argument of being at an approved location doing and approved activity, do not go hand in hand. The activity of shooting is authorized with the ATT. I would agree this is probably not the best place for it to be noted, but it is what it is. So, if you do not have an ATT, the logic follows that you can not target practice at your approved location (dwelling). Now, assuming you have or do not have and ATT, you discharge on your property and someone complains or the LEO is scoping you out from the street shooting the restricted firearm from your deck. The LEO informs the CFO of said action or perhaps even lays a charge. From what we have discussed, the charge may not stick if you had an acceptable safety area beyond your target, but the CFO pulls your registrations and ATT immediately, as that is allowed. Remember intended purpose for ownership could result in the legal indefinite revocation of your restricted registration. So now you are forced to go to Court to get your firearms back and have your registrations and ATT reinstated. The judge will again look at the Act and make a decision of your use based on the intertwined Sections of the Act using the "reasonable" test. You may win, but with all of the hoops that have been put in place for legitimate permit holding ranges, the odds are not in your favour unless your unapproved firing location meets the design criteria of an approved range. One other thing to keep in mind is that a firearms business must meet other conditions to hold a permit, including range design. So even though they may not hold a range license, the range indicated as part of their business and insurance for its use will probably meet the approved criteria.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom