PSA - Firearms transfer notice no longer temp Reg Cert.

Onus on the accused

117.11 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105, any question arises as to whether a person is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, licence or registration certificate.
Click to expand...

You're choosing to misread everything you're quoting.

That section you just quoted doesn't even apply to Sec 92 or 94 of the criminal code. It only applies to the specific sections mentioned. Those are offences like attending a public meeting, concealed carry, possession at unauthorized place, transfer without authority, unauthorized importing or exporting and losing and finding. All things that are illegal whether you are the holder of a registration certificate or not. It does not apply to unauthorized possession or unauthorized possession in a motor vehicle.

I understand the fear and potential with not having your registration certificate on you but no matter how many sections of the criminal code you quote you're not going to find it as a criminal code offence to not have it in your possession.

You're spreading blatant misinformation even when being presented the error of your ways and the correct information.
 
I never said it applied to section 92 or 94. That is you cherry picking 2 sections, and willfully ignoring the rest of the act as if it does not exist. Just because you may be in a car does not mean they have to charge you under 92 or 94. They are separate offenses and can be stacked or used interdependently from each other.

Section 91 applies

Nope try again, I never said there was an offense for not having it on you. I said, there are offenses if you are unable to produce it within 14 days. Which you cant if you dont have it. You need to go back ad re-read what I said as you are making up BS I never said and claiming I did

Shawn
 
shawn said:
I never said it applied to section 92 or 94. That is you cherry picking 2 sections, and willfully ignoring the rest of the act as if it does not exist. Just because you may be in a car does not mean they have to charge you under 92 or 94. They are separate offenses and can be stacked or used interdependently from each other.

Section 91 applies

Nope try again, I never said there was an offense for not having it on you. I said, there are offenses if you are unable to produce it within 14 days. Which you cant if you dont have it. You need to go back ad re-read what I said as you are making up BS I never said and claiming I did

Shawn
Click to expand...

You're clearly quite upset about this but I'm not cherry picking sections. Your implication was that ALL firearms offences are reverse onus, which is patently false. Reread what you wrote in the post I replied to.

Section 91 states you must be a HOLDER OF a registration certificate, not in POSSESSION of the certificate. You keep ignoring that fact.

I think we're in agreement that there is no offence in relation to not being in possession of a registration certificate when you actually hold one.

Your concern is that the police will charge you with additional offences by virtue of you not having a piece of paper on you. You can live in that fear all you want but what's stopping the police from charging you with a bunch of other offences even if you have your registration certificate? You appear to be coming from the idea that the police will conduct a witch hunt on you and fail to take any investigative steps to see if you are the holder of a registration certificate prior to charging you. It's all possible but it would lead to a very crappy case for them and the Crown would be quite pissed if they wasted the courts time when it would have taken them 30 seconds to confirm you were the holder of a registration certificate and they just chose not to look into it prior to laying charges.

As I stated originally, you do not HAVE to have your registration certificate in your POSSESSION but it is best to have it to minimize frustrations but in the end the cops can do as they please whether you have it or not and you'll comply regardless if you're in the right because that's what you do in those situations. And then get yourself a lawyer.

But the decision on what people want to do is up to them. By virtue of not being in possession of the certificate they are not breaking the law as long as a registration certificate in their name for that firearm exists. Period.
 
over two years ago they told me this was the case anyways that you need registration in order to take it to the range
 
tiriaq said:
Remember the multitude of threads asking if it is necessary to wait for the Registration Certificate before taking the new gun to the range?
Well, the CFP has answered the question...
Click to expand...

Yep , Right old news. Guys will do what they got to do.
 
shawn said:
Yes they have multiple times in this thread.

Post up where the law even says registration number or any variant of that. Its black and white the law says reg cert. While, as others of said, it is not required by law to carry it. It is required by law to be able to produce the actual reg cert.

The law is clear on this. The "TAN" has never had any standing in law and was simple used by the government to make it easier for them. Now they want to make it harder.

Shawn
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I have been saying although I misspoke in my last post. Yes obviously you will have a reg. certificate. Depending who you are dealing with you may have to produce the actual certificate. If they are a stickler they may confiscate your toy until they see the actual certificate. We have heard from a few people that have produced the registration number via a copy of the certificate with no negative results but havent heard from anyone that had their firearms confiscated until the actual cert was produced. Is it a crime to not have your registration certificate with you? I dont think so.
 
If you did get pulled over, only had your TAN with you, and had a stickler cop it wouldnt matter if you coming home from the store or the range. The possibility has always been there for your firearm to be confiscated until you produce a registration certificate. Am I mistaken?
 
Last edited:
I too wonder what spurred this announcement. I wonder if it was - once again- Canadian gun owners screwing themselves by calling and asking for "clarification"
 
icdbko32 said:
over two years ago they told me this was the case anyways that you need registration in order to take it to the range
Click to expand...

I've had this told to me over two years by both the CFP and my provincial CFO office. I've always waited until the paper came in the mail which arrives usually by five business days later. I'd rather not have my firearms confiscated by not having the certificate with me and then having to go to some station with it later.
 
btabin said:
Lol, what a nothingburger. The whole "temporary registration certificate" was only ever just an opinion and never legitimate. Nowhere meaningful did it ever say the transfer notice allowed you to take your restricted firearm to the range. Anyone upset at the notice needs to practice their critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that you're allowed to bring your restricted firearm home without a registration certificate?
 
Paatz said:
If you get stopped on your way to or from the range and can't produce a registration certificate then the cop can assume your new gun is stolen or not registered.
You could take that chance but not having that piece of paper is illegal, is it not?
Click to expand...

What if you get stopped on your way home from the sellers house. The cop says "can I see your registration certificate?".
What do you do?
 
trucker60 said:
If you did get pulled over, only had your TAN with you, and had a stickler cop it wouldnt matter if you coming home from the store or the range. The possibility has always been there for your firearm to be confiscated until you produce a registration certificate. Am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

That's exactly correct, there's no distinction in law between transporting to the range or transporting home for the first time. The CFC is either misinforming us about not being able to transport to the range, or they're counseling us to break the law by telling us we may take possession of our new firearm. It must be one or the other.
 
ted_dent said:
You can decide what you want to risk or quote what Rod Giltaca has said until the sun comes up (when did he get his law degree?) but nothing you have quoted from the Firearms Act says you MUST have your registration certificates with you or that you can only transport from a named club to another location such as your home. I am simply pointing out what "might" happen. You "might" spontaneously combust, too, but do you carry a fire extinguisher with you everywhere you go on the remote chance it will happen?

if you have a valid PAL and you have valid reg certs (not necessarily in your possession) and you are travelling by a reasonably direct route from point A to point B with your properly transported firearms what part of the Firearms Act have you contravened?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

My initial post was simply answering the question of what the difference between the transfer notification and the registration certificate is. No statement was made about laws being broken.

I later stated that it's not good to rely on a "might." At no point did I say in contravention of a law, but that laws are often left open to interpretation and that is something all of us in the firearms community are aware of. Your analogy to an individual carrying a fire extinguisher because they might spontaneously combust actually supports the points myself and other made, as carrying a fire extinguisher in your vehicle is recommended (not law), having one in your home is recommended (not law) and in many work places is an OHS requirement. In the event your vehicle or someone else’s catches fire, or you have an oven fire in your house, having that fire extinguisher will prevent the situation from getting worse and prevent further loss. Do you see the parallel? It might not be interpreted as the law, but having your reg cert and PAL with you when transporting a restricted firearm will save you grief, if stopped by the police and asked for them. The vast majority of us on here are not lawyers, so we don’t test the law, but rather practice due diligence to avoid unfavorable interactions with the police. If someone wishes to put their time, money, effort and future into that pursuit, they are free to do so.

The purpose of this thread isn’t to get into adversarial exchanges where people vent their anger at others because they are unhappy at firearms regulations, it’s to provide some insight and let folks know what has been pushed out by the government to one of the CGN vendors/sponsors, so there are no surprises if they are stopped by the police and asked for something like a reg cert. It’s a PSA.
 
I have always left my restricted in the safe until I recieved my paper cert.to transport your restricted anywhere you need your cert.the only exception is from the post office or gun store.if you bought it privately and picked it up you need a temp att.in noway should you be travelling around or to the range without your paper cert.your emailed version is not valid to transport or possess.
 
scarab66 said:
I have always left my restricted in the safe until I recieved my paper cert.to transport your restricted anywhere you need your cert.the only exception is from the post office or gun store.if you bought it privately and picked it up you need a temp att.in noway should you be travelling around or to the range without your paper cert.your emailed version is not valid to transport or possess.
Click to expand...

You're definitely wrong about needing the STATT if you buy it privately, your license conditions clearly state "from place of acquisition", which includes Bob's house if you buy his gun. It also says to your "dwelling house, or other place authorized by the CFO", i.e. a range lol.

The "only exception is from the post office or gun store" is the crux of the conversation. If you could show your work and explain where this exception is codified it would settle the ambiguity here. Thanks!
 
btabin said:
Lol, what a nothingburger. The whole "temporary registration certificate" was only ever just an opinion and never legitimate. Nowhere meaningful did it ever say the transfer notice allowed you to take your restricted firearm to the range. Anyone upset at the notice needs to practice their critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

Yeah this whole thing has me confused. As far as I can tell exactly nothing has changed. Why the alarm here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom