Notice to BC wilderness ATC holders

Camp Cook said:
I will be seeing him tomorrow night and will get it hopefully clarified for us.

As of now I'm just assuming he used the wrong term and meant this is what all CFC offices are starting to do.
Click to expand...

That is probably the case, but it is still not right. If the legislation does not discriminate between types of actions to me it seems that they don't have the Authoritay to apply their spin to legislation, particularly dumb and unfounded applications like this one.
Keep us in the loop CC.
 
Camp Cook said:
Here is the info on ATC's issued in Canada that you were refering too...

Table 5 – Authorizations to Carry Handguns and Restricted Firearms,
Issued 1 September 2004 to 20 April 2006
Province / Territory Protection Against Wildlife Armoured Vehicle Industry

British Columbia/Yukon 434 2,160
Alberta/Northwest Territories 116 1,489
Saskatchewan 19 619
Manitoba/Nunavut 9 645
Ontario 235 4,712
Quebec 73 2,566
New Brunswick 0 346
Nova Scotia 0 569
Newfoundland and Labrador 0 133
Prince Edward Island 0 56

Total 886 13,295

Source: Minister of Public Safety.( )
Click to expand...

So does this mean armed security guards will ALSO be losing their semi-autos too???....tough to protect money if your carrying an un-reliable semi-auto sidearm?

Something stinks and it seems the CPC is in cahoots with the CFO's/RCMP/CFC...? There has to be a reason/source for this idea and it has NOTHING to do with reliability of semi-auto pistols.
 
Camp Cook said:
He stated that people that work in the bush work in extremely dirty enviroments where semi-auto's would tend to jam so they are only allowing revolvers.
Click to expand...

I guess they have never seen the stress tests for Glocks, not to mention the millions of hours of test before and during real battle field conditions by several nation for the past 100 years. :rolleyes:

Methinks this is very win able in court if anyone wants to take this on, and challenge it.
 
just another example of an ill informed CFO's office. Don't they realize that 80% of the municipal police forces in Canada carry semi-autos? GLOCK in particular?

Are they going to tell them that their semi auto's are not reliable enough and they must now spend millions on getting another type of firearm?

do they think we are stupid?
 
Here is more that I just recieved.

I believe the CFC officer you refer to comes under federal jurisdiction. Presumably you would have to go through a formal appeal process to overturn his decision. If the appeal is filed by an organization rather than an individual it may have more weight in influencing the final decision.
Click to expand...

So guys I guess we have to band together to fight this...
 
Which company

Who in BC has the most employees with ATC's then. I would guess it would be one of the logging companies. Time to make some phone calls guys to anyone that has an ATC and make them aware of the new BS law from your CFO and get them to bring it to the companies safety departments attention that it is hard enough making a living in the bush without all the BS laws that put their employee's in danger.

Ask your company safety officer to sit down over coffee or lunch to discuss this and make sure they understand that it is your safety that is important here, not a new law. Ask them to send a letter. Offering to draft a letter for them makes it easier. It makes them feel like them have accomplish something for the company and you and like you have a good relationship with the company safety policy. In the letter, something like "the company leaves it up to the individual to retain and use the caliber/action of their choice within the the peramters of the individuals ATC would work. The company believes that the best sidearm is the one that the employees is comfortable with and can handle safely. The company can also ask for all research that the CFO has in ATC's bear/human contacts, reliabilities of sidearms used in defence of bear attack etc. for use in implementation of safety policies in the companies safety manual.

I am the only employee in my company but I am sure you guys would be able to make them rethink this before it gets too far out of hand.
 
Last edited:
Major OOOPs on this Guys...

Camp Cook said:
Just received a response from my MP in regards to this...

I wrote...


"I've spoken to Minister Day's office.

They advise that they are well aware of the issue and are reviewing it. Having said that, the legislation is the law of the country at this time.

We'll just have to wait and see where it goes from here. I have passed on your concerns to the Minister".
Click to expand...

I sent a return email requesting clarification on this statement.

Here's what happened. My MP answered my question on the email that I had sent him in regards too this issue but his answer was to a previous question that I had asked him in regards to Bill C10-A which is the UN gun marking that is to take effect in December so please disregard this entry....

It was his answer to the Bill C10-A question that I asked about.

Sorry for the confusion...

On a brighter note I did pick up my new ATC today but on a lesser note I was limited to only 2 handguns both of which are revolvers.
 
Camp Cook said:
On a brighter note I did pick up my new ATC today but on a lesser note I was limited to only 2 handguns both of which are revolvers.
Click to expand...


do you mean that you previously had >2 guns on your atc, and they arbitrarily took them all off except 2 revolvers?
 
albertacoyotecaller said:
When it comes down to prospecting full time vs. recreational; the recreational prospector is far less likely to require the use of a handgun for protection when completing the same task, only not 12 months a year but only 6 months?

What qualifies it as recreational anyways? Just a WCB#? So a guy decides he is going to take a year away from his steady work and try prospecting while taking a financial loss and that is recreational? Makes sense now. Or you have and WCB# and you haven't made you payments up to date, and they choose to revoke your ATC because of financial problems making you a criminal? How should those really be tied together?
Click to expand...

I would play the game. Get the WCB#. As owner of your "company" you can decline coverage, if you don't want to make payments.

Once WCB is happy, my next step would be to get my ATC and then write off all the >>>>*tools*<<<<< and >>>>>>*safety equipment*<<<<<<I need to carry on prospecting. And all the maintenance, care and storage, AND consumables related to the tools for the job.

Wonder what Revenue Canada would think of that?
 
Didn't Alaska issue 10 mm's to their LEO's with the reason that they would be better suited to humanely destroy large animals and better penetrate thick clothing on two legged predators in the winter. Glock 20's are used by a very large # of hunters in the US and are they not designed to function in extreme enviroments.
 
Perhaps your thrust should be thus -

The pistols which have been arbitrarily removed from my ATC represent a capital investment of several thousand dollars to my company. Prior to the purchases, I researched the reliability of these pistols and it appears that they have provided military service around the world, chambered for various cartridges, over the last 96 years under conditions that would leave a revolver unserviceable. I would be happy to forward details. Upon obtaining the pistols, I tested each of them to ensure they would meet or exceed my expectations in the field, with respect to functioning, accuracy, and terminal ballistics. In all cases my expectations, were met. With respect to my 10 mm pistols, you may note that the power level equals or exceeds a .41 magnum revolver of equal barrel length, and gives me the advantage of 10 (?) rounds as opposed to 6 in a revolver. I can only conclude that the information which resulted in an arbitrary revolver only policy for ATC's in the province of British Columbia is at best flawed There being no substantive reason not to include pistols on ATC's, I would appreciate the immediate issue of a new ATC that includes the pistols I have been authorized to carry in previous years.
 
This is absolute nonsense! IF the intent is to have people ignore their ATT and carry in the bush without one this is about as good a way as any. There is nothing in the law that dictates what kind of handgun can be carried and it is the law the RCMP are supposed to be enforcing.

As to the reliability issue it is long past the time when the myth that the revolver was/is more reliable than a pistol. Where the CFO's came up iwth that oine is beyond comprehension. Maybe the NFA or CSSA can take this issue up with the CFO's.

I am going to write to my MP and Day on this one. Others should to.

Take Care

Bob
 
Maybe in a few more years this will be deemed the most reliable pistol for carry...

22-1012.jpg


...the rest of us will only be able to own these (legally).
 
Umm, isn't a DA revolver a semi-automatic design? Keep squeezing the trigger, keep on shooting? It readies the next round and cocks the action with a single trigger squeeze
 
Canuck44 said:
This is absolute nonsense! IF the intent is to have people ignore their ATT and carry in the bush without one this is about as good a way as any. There is nothing in the law that dictates what kind of handgun can be carried and it is the law the RCMP are supposed to be enforcing.

As to the reliability issue it is long past the time when the myth that the revolver was/is more reliable than a pistol. Where the CFO's came up iwth that oine is beyond comprehension. Maybe the NFA or CSSA can take this issue up with the CFO's.

I am going to write to my MP and Day on this one. Others should to.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

Camp Cook said:
I used to have 6 on my permit which included 2 semi-auto 10mm's and now I am only allowed 2 revolvers.
Click to expand...


I don't think it would be a big push to have the CFO acquiesce to allowing a large bore semi on an ATC, particularly if it was the only pistol you included in the application.

As far as restricting the number of pistols on the permit arbitrarily, that may be a difficult issue to push, since ATC's (and firearm ownership in general) are not a right in this country. Still, it is worth requesting an explanation from the CFO as to the purpose of such a restriction, and forwarding the explanation to your MP.

I just sent in a request to add a new-to-me 629 onto my ATC, if they refuse (I have more than two guns on it already), I will request an explanation and post.
 
What are we going to do about this

I can see their issue with the number of pistols allowed on the ATC. Do I agree with being limited to 2. No but I can see there arguement. Two is enough in case one breaks and needs to be in for repair. I really can't see us making headway with the number of pistols on the permit.

However I think the fight should be directed to the action type. That is total bull####. So I am willing to throw some monies at someone's laywer who is willing to fight this. I will through in the first $250.

It is either that or I will offer Campcook $250 for his Glock 29:D

Where are we going with this guys/gals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom