PAL and Divorce

Tokay444 said:
The rest of the forum has moved on. You ought to do the same.
Click to expand...

I thought you were done with this? :)

You could move on too. You could move on but you chose to make the snarky comments about people being responsible to read the whole thread before they commented on your mistake. Because it's their job to ensure they know and check the accuracy before they post misleading statements. Right?


Tokay444 said:
I didn't get snarky. I acknowledged my mistake and moved on. You decided to have a cry fest because I wouldn't edit something that had already been quoted multiple times anyway, and if you bothered to try and comprehend my original post, it began with, "I believe..." leaving the door open to the fact that I could be misinformed.
Click to expand...

"Snarky" See above. You're still being snarky, telling me to move on and telling me I'm crying. Snarky. :)

"I believe" means "I have a basis to understand", but it does not mean "I don't know so I'm just guessing".

I don't give a crap what you think, but I don't want to see someone hurt because of your misleading post. We need to encourage new shooters, not chase them away. A person newly interested in shooting will see it and will not know it's total BS, and that unfortunate person will stop reading and not apply for his PAL because he is recently divorced or separated. And he will tell his friends and the damage will continue.

You could simply edit the post and add an extra line to the bottom of the existing post like this: "EDIT: I am informed this is not correct, please ignore." I bet you could think of something.

Every post that has quoted you since then has also refuted it. The only post that could hurt someone is the first one you made.
 
I don't bother with the silliness of having an ignore list but if i did you aren't so important that you'd be on it. :)
 
Last edited:
you will be denied a pal Licence:
"Criminal and Psychiatric Checks

According to section 5(1) of the Firearms Act, “[a] person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm.”[38] Therefore, “[a]n applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records.”[39] Besides criminal checks, in order to determine eligibility under the Act, authorities must consider whether within the previous five years the applicant

has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise
and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with
violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

has a history of behavior that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the
person against any person.[40]" Quote

This was taken directly from Firearms-control Legislation and policy Canada web site
 
Little Moose said:
you will be denied a pal Licence:
"Criminal and Psychiatric Checks

According to section 5(1) of the Firearms Act, “[a] person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm.”[38] Therefore, “[a]n applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records.”[39] Besides criminal checks, in order to determine eligibility under the Act, authorities must consider whether within the previous five years the applicant

has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise
and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with
violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

has a history of behavior that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the
person against any person.[40]" Quote

This was taken directly from Firearms-control Legislation and policy Canada web site
Click to expand...

More B.S. advice.
Is there some kind of Misinformation University pumping out new graduates?

Licensed firearms owners have a veritable minefield to cross every single day, even just the in-storage/in-use/in-transport definitions themselves are so open to interpretations that can cause obvious serious ramifications for us.
If you give out false information with the unintended consequence of discouraging someone from applying for their PAL or worse, you should be taken to task on here.

And if it's too damn much for some of the fragile egos on here to edit your damn post for the good of others. Well then maybe you should just step back from the keyboard.
It's not about you. It's about the good of the community.

We all make mistakes, iv'e made many. It's how you choose to rectify it that will define you.
 
Here's the link: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/canada.php

Criminal and Psychiatric Checks

According to section 5(1) of the Firearms Act, “[a] person is not eligible to hold a licence if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm.”[38] Therefore, “[a]n applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records.”[39] Besides criminal checks, in order to determine eligibility under the Act, authorities must consider whether within the previous five years the applicant

has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise
and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with
violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any person; or

has a history of behavior that includes violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the
person against any person.[40]
In addition to background checks, “third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required.”[41]
 
patrickosuave said:
More B.S. advice.
Is there some kind of Misinformation University pumping out new graduates?

Licensed firearms owners have a veritable minefield to cross every single day, even just the in-storage/in-use/in-transport definitions themselves are so open to interpretations that can cause obvious serious ramifications for us.
If you give out false information with the unintended consequence of discouraging someone from applying for their PAL or worse, you should be taken to task on here.

And if it's too damn much for some of the fragile egos on here to edit your damn post for the good of others. Well then maybe you should just step back from the keyboard.
It's not about you. It's about the good of the community.

We all make mistakes, iv'e made many. It's how you choose to rectify it that will define you.
Click to expand...

I see I got to your fragile ego.

I hold both firearm and hunters certification
 
I better trot off and go tell the guy iv'e known for 35 years, who incidentally plead guilty to manslaughter, that his RPAL is invalid then.

It's going to be disappointing to some of the local detachment members that he shoots with at the fish and game club.

Believe it or not, some citizens make mistakes along the way.

It's how they deal with those mistakes that defines them. Sound familiar?

It's dealt with on a case by case basis.
 
Entertainment is where you find it. :)

People who have a criminal record or previous mental illness are still eligible to be issued firearms licenses if they have proven since that they are now coping and responsible.
 
Update:

Now I can officially start writing my time frame break down,

May 27 - completed non-restricted safety course

May 29 - had photo taken at Walmart

May 30-31 - had references and photo guarantor sign application and photo

June 1 - Mailed in application regular mail with no tracking

June 6 - Application received (as per online)

July 13 - Cheque cleared and application shows up online (initial processing is complete)

So now I think I'm going to call in and see if they need my references to call or not (non-restricted license only). I had a check mark on the recently separated section and have an attached letter stating my situation. Also my ex didn't agree to sign the application (oh well). So I have a feeling they will want references.


Now I'm getting pretty excited/nervous (I really hope I don't get denied)
 
For anyone who is interested,

I have a small update:

I just found out a couple days ago, that the Alberta CFO has contacted my ex regarding my non-restricted PAL application.
She pretty much told them exactly what I expected, gave them every reason she could think of as to why I shouldn't have a firearms license. She made up a bunch of false claims, and even lied and said that I have never been interested in shooting until recently (I've owned air rifles, paintball markers and airsoft guns for over 10 years now). She wouldn't get into detail about how the entire interview went.

Again this is exactly what I expected, so I'm not shocked by any means, and honestly, I'm just happy that my application is showing progress!!

The "recently separated" check mark has delayed the process significantly so far (compared to other Alberta application time frames I've seen posted)

Here is my time frame:

May 27 - completed non-restricted safety course

May 29 - had photo taken at Walmart

May 30-31 - had references and photo guarantor sign application and photo

June 1 - Mailed in application regular mail with no tracking

June 6 - Application received (as per online)

July 13 - Cheque cleared and application shows up online (initial processing is complete)

Aug 4 - AB CFO contacts ex for interview

Aug 22 - Online status still says "initial processing has been completed. Please check again at a later date"

I have called in a few times and asked for updates, the very nice lady always tells me to call back in a couple weeks.
 
Big update for anyone who cares

After countless times calling, I finally was able to speak to the actual CFO in Alberta. Not just the "cfo representative" for Alberta.

Logged in today and boom "license issued"!!!

From start to finish it took me 428 days.

When I called I was always polite. I was starting to lose hope.

Today is a good day!!

Thanks guys!!
 
ae92gts said:
Big update for anyone who cares

After countless times calling, I finally was able to speak to the actual CFO in Alberta. Not just the "cfo representative" for Alberta.

Logged in today and boom "license issued"!!!

From start to finish it took me 428 days.

When I called I was always polite. I was starting to lose hope.

Today is a good day!!

Thanks guys!!
Click to expand...

Holy crap. That's a little longer than usual, lol. I had gone through a recent long term relationship break up shortly before I applied, and indicated as such on my RPAL application (Already had PAL). My ex was fairly cooperative though, and signed the application. They Didn't call her, and only called one of my references. Took about 3 months if I remember correctly? Not great, but not terrible either after talking to a few other people that had applied around the same time.

Congrats on getting your license, despite a spiteful malicious ex.
 
Scotty454 said:
Holy crap. That's a little longer than usual, lol. I had gone through a recent long term relationship break up shortly before I applied, and indicated as such on my RPAL application (Already had PAL). My ex was fairly cooperative though, and signed the application. They Didn't call her, and only called one of my references. Took about 3 months if I remember correctly? Not great, but not terrible either after talking to a few other people that had applied around the same time.

Congrats on getting your license, despite a spiteful malicious ex.
Click to expand...



Thank you so much. This is such a weigh off my shoulders. Time to actually decide on what to buy now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom