ITAR....strikes again

Briefcase_Wanker

Briefcase_Wanker

Regular
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Location
Edmonton, AB
I'm a big fan of Magpul Dynamics and Chris Costa and Travis Haley, I bought their Dynamic Handgun dvd and I though it was fairly good as reference for improving my handgun shooting. But it can't replace good old one on one instruction. So I visited Chris Costa's website and saw there were openings in one of his handgun employment classes in July down if Florida. I thought the price for the class was fairly reasonable considering all of the training I would receive. I hadn't had a plan for summer vacation yet and I figured this would be a great way to spend it. So I start looking at flights, getting the ATF form 6 sorted out so I can take my guns down there for the course...etc. I have to register on the website before I can buy my spot on the course. But half way through doing that, I read a disclaimer stating that Chris Costa's courses are ITAR items and they are only available to US citizens and valid state id is required when you show up on the first day of the class. ITAR.....stops me dead in my tracks.
 
Last edited:
Wow! Thought-control! So - you can't leave the country with knowledge from a firearms course, as that would be the export of US military technology hardware?!?

I crawled my way through tons of ITAR documents, and this is the first I've heard of anything other than hardware being restricted. I'm guessing that next it will be illegal for a US website to show a photograph of a sporting rifle...
 
mh434 said:
Wow! Thought-control! So - you can't leave the country with knowledge from a firearms course, as that would be the export of US military technology hardware?!?

I crawled my way through tons of ITAR documents, and this is the first I've heard of anything other than hardware being restricted. I'm guessing that next it will be illegal for a US website to show a photograph of a sporting rifle...
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing....I can see a surefire weapon light being an ITAR item, heck even a Safariland Holster.....but a shooting course. Thats a bit much. The price was only $695 which is'nt bad considering somewhere like front sight charges 2k for a similar course
 
I'm a dual citizen (Texan Canadian :p ) so I go down for these courses with no problems and no NAI 6 form needed (bragging a bit)

You can still attend civilian training courses from some companies as a foreigner but they are not allowed to have any military type training as part of the curriculum which makes it a non starter in my eyes
 
Recce21 said:
I'm a dual citizen (Texan Canadian :p ) so I go down for these courses with no problems and no NAI 6 form needed (bragging a bit)

You can still attend civilian training courses from some companies as a foreigner but they are not allowed to have any military type training as part of the curriculum which makes it a non starter in my eyes
Click to expand...

Yeah I like the tactics....etc that Costa and others teach and If I can't get that level of training because of ITAR and what not theres no point
 
mh434 said:
Wow! Thought-control! So - you can't leave the country with knowledge from a firearms course, as that would be the export of US military technology hardware?!?

I crawled my way through tons of ITAR documents, and this is the first I've heard of anything other than hardware being restricted. I'm guessing that next it will be illegal for a US website to show a photograph of a sporting rifle...
Click to expand...

And all Hollywood movies with Rambo or the other superheroes will be banned
from viewing abroad.
 
Recce21 said:
Totally agree with you

Obama is such a POS
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike that commander in thief, Obama did not implement the increased ITAR restrictions towards Canada. Most of them were brought in starting in '99 and the last decade. Magpul Dynamics have had that restriction on training classes for the last several years.

Briefcase_Wanker said:
I don't think I can find that level of training here in Canada since using a firearm for self defense is illegal
Click to expand...

Really? These two sections are from the Canadian Criminal Code

26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

R.S., c. C-34, s. 27

I would interpret those two sections as meaning you are justified in using firearms as long as the usage is reasonable. As a police officer I am justified in using firearms to prevent "death or grievous bodily harm" and would suggest this would be a similar threshold for the use of firearms by Joe Citizen. There have been issues around the firearms act and safe storage but that is another can of worms. I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be nor want to be one.

On another note. There are a lot of good courses in the United States and Canada that you can take. It doesn't have to be through Chris Costa or Travis Haley.
 
Last edited:
homer76 said:
Really? These two sections are from the Canadian Criminal Code

26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

R.S., c. C-34, s. 27

I would interpret those two sections as meaning you are justified in using firearms as long as the usage is reasonable. As a police officer I am justified in using firearms to prevent "death or grievous bodily harm" and would suggest this would be a similar threshold for the use of firearms by Joe Citizen. There have been issues around the firearms act and safe storage but that is another can of worms. I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be nor want to be one.
Click to expand...

That is correct so it could technically be legal depending on the circumstances but we have all seen what happens to people who have used a firearm for self defence, even with only firing warning shots in Ian Thomson's case. Technically legal so you won't go to jail but you probably will have PAL and guns taken away and definitely better have the money for a lawyer... may as well be illegal in my opinion.
 
Sambaru said:
That is correct so it could technically be legal depending on the circumstances but we have all seen what happens to people who have used a firearm for self defence, even with only firing warning shots in Ian Thomson's case. Technically legal so you won't go to jail but you probably will have PAL and guns taken away and definitely better have the money for a lawyer... may as well be illegal in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The Criminal Code seems clear to me, regardless, better to explain to the Judge...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom