Seriously you cant even keep what section means what straight, yet you want us to believe that you have a firm grasp on what the law says?
Shawn
Indoor private handgun shooting range?
- Thread starter detonator
- Start date
- Status
Seriously you cant even keep what section means what straight, yet you want us to believe that you have a firm grasp on what the law says?
Shawn
So you only have to follow the law and regulations the day of transfer, day of renewal and while transporting? Every other day is the wild west?
So if a CFO is notified in between the day of transfer and day of renewal that you are not using the firearm for target practice at an approved range, they throw their hands up and say "damn that sneaky bugger, it's not the day of renewal so our hands are tied?"
You don't think if notified the issue won't be addressed at renewal, or sooner based on s 71?
Huh? Lol ok see how that goes for you.
Hope you enjoyed shooting restricted because it's the last time you will have owned one.
Ok lets:
Full stop end of story
Just like I dont have to follow the import, export, business, government agent laws if I am not in that category. They dont apply unless you are doing the thing they regulate.
I never said other wise
So go ahead and tells how you mange to find the time to renew your PAL every time you go shooting?
No that is what the law says
I only have to follow the laws when doing something that is regulated by said laws. Any other time I am free to do as I please.
He can go ahead and try, but with not doing any thing illegal good luck with that.
Not to mention you two keep glossing over what if I have a range membership? And the fact that the courts have ruled that range memberships are not legally required.
And that the firearms act says I fire my firearms anywhere there is no law against it. Also that there is no law saying I cant have firearms for more than one purpose.
Answer this one question:
Your stance is that any section of the firearms act applies 100% of the time regardless if you are doing the thing that that section regulates or not? Correct
Shawn
Ok, no matter how many purposes you think you can use your firearm for, we are discussing target shooting. Which is specifically regulated.
Anyone else who wishes to discuss this I'll be around. Shawn and I are done lol The dog never catches it's tail when spinning too fast.
Anyone else who wishes to discuss this I'll be around. Shawn and I are done lol The dog never catches it's tail when spinning too fast.
Last edited:
Ok, I am glad you finally admit. So since you think transfer regulations always apply you follow this every time you go to the range right?
IF you answer no, you just proved my point. And we all know you dont 1) Because they would not let you 2) You will say it is not legally required
Shawn
Pure Energy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A river runs through it.
S. 28 says... IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH TRANSFERS. Get off of S. 28 and the whole ATT thing. YOU ARE NOT TRANSPORTING, YOU ARE NOT TRANSFERRING, AND YOU ARE NOT RENEWING A PAL. FFS just end this thread, and post the law that says it is illegal to discharge a firearm, restricted or not, in your own home.
S 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.
I can't help it if you are not accustomed to reading law.
To save time and space it's a frequent occurrence to see one section, in part or whole, referenced in another. The two sections may be talking about completely different things. Instead of writing out in the new section, something that already applies to another, you simply reference it.
To make you happy, section 67 should read:
Instead of having to rewrite what's already written, you simply reference it.
The same applies to section 71, I won't cut and past everything again.
EDIT
And to your comment about not being involved in a transfer, renewal or transport pls read post 198 in this thread.
Just because you aren't doesn't mean you never will need a renewal. All of your actions with your restricted firearm are always under the eye of the CFO. So if you are not or have not been abiding by section 67 at renewal the Registrar will revoke your certs.
To save time and space it's a frequent occurrence to see one section, in part or whole, referenced in another. The two sections may be talking about completely different things. Instead of writing out in the new section, something that already applies to another, you simply reference it.
To make you happy, section 67 should read:
Instead of having to rewrite what's already written, you simply reference it.
The same applies to section 71, I won't cut and past everything again.
EDIT
And to your comment about not being involved in a transfer, renewal or transport pls read post 198 in this thread.
Just because you aren't doesn't mean you never will need a renewal. All of your actions with your restricted firearm are always under the eye of the CFO. So if you are not or have not been abiding by section 67 at renewal the Registrar will revoke your certs.
Last edited:
I love the following things about this thread:
1) the people who think it's legal know that it would turn into an expensive court battle to prove it;
2) the people who think it's illegal know that it would only be enforced if the CFO somehow found out about it and applied it during renewal;
3) everybody knows that the only people who physically could do it live in rural areas...and are already shooting their restricted stuff in the bush anyway, therefore
4) this is a purely theoretical, legal, argument...being conducted by laypeople.
Personally I suspect it's technically legal but who cares? If you get caught doing it, you will have headaches. If it makes you feel better to figure it's technically legal, knock yourself out. Practically speaking, if you're in a situation in which you can get away with shooting stuff in your house, nobody is ever going to know anyway, so worrying about the legality is a complete waste of time.
This much is definitely true: there are a ####ing hell of a lot of restricted guns that get shot in rural parts of this country, and nobody is going to jail over it.
1) the people who think it's legal know that it would turn into an expensive court battle to prove it;
2) the people who think it's illegal know that it would only be enforced if the CFO somehow found out about it and applied it during renewal;
3) everybody knows that the only people who physically could do it live in rural areas...and are already shooting their restricted stuff in the bush anyway, therefore
4) this is a purely theoretical, legal, argument...being conducted by laypeople.
Personally I suspect it's technically legal but who cares? If you get caught doing it, you will have headaches. If it makes you feel better to figure it's technically legal, knock yourself out. Practically speaking, if you're in a situation in which you can get away with shooting stuff in your house, nobody is ever going to know anyway, so worrying about the legality is a complete waste of time.
This much is definitely true: there are a ####ing hell of a lot of restricted guns that get shot in rural parts of this country, and nobody is going to jail over it.
Pure Energy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A river runs through it.
I quit, some people can not read and interpret.
Yes you do, and yet it doesn't say that any of these cross referenced sections apply to things that are not regulated by said sections.
What would the charge be to turn into this expensive court battle?
Shawn
Most likely a series of vague charges, including unsafe storage and careless use of a firearm, neither of which necessarily apply, but which you would be charged with regardless.
I will answer it when you answer the question you have been dodging since page one
Shawn
Go ahead. I must have forgotten it.
- Status
