RCMP Phone interview

Hey guys, new applications or upgrades to restricted class they will call, everyone!! but if you remain sane and renew your licence on time ( don't let it lapse) they will just rubber stamp it as long as you maintain your club membership as well
 
Hmmmmmmmmm, I went through an long interview, about an hour, with a nice lady from the CFC who asked me at least a dozen questions covering my family, my work, my psychological state, etc. All three of my references received phone call from the CFC asking the same questions. I'm 63 - looks like an age discrimination thing, lol.
 
CompBoy said:
Because several women have been killed by ex-husband with guns so it does become a safety issue. Good or bad owning a gun requires your safe enough to have a gun before you get it.

I've got three daughters if there Ex suddenly wants a gun. No I don't want him having one particularly if he is abusive or has threatened to kill her. This creates the problem that she says no not because of legitimate concern but to be a problem or she has a legitimate concern we can't know for sure. After all I don't know too many guys who threaten their wives in front of witnesses Now we have a decision to make should he have the gun or not. Well if we don't issue the permit he gets a little pissed off or uses a knife or a bat a little less effective and easier to defend against and the Anti-gun groups don't have more data . If we do she could end up shot and all the anti-gun groups have more ammo to their cause and she's dead. Personally I agree with it. Same as if my wife felt that I was becoming unsafe with guns I'd want her to get the guns removed from the house for the kids safety.
Click to expand...

It's sad to me that you would choose to live in a country where one persons "concerns" directly impacts anthers freedoms and liberties. This is the slipperiest slope of all and we as a nation are sliding pretty fast.

Anything in the name of safety :rolleyes:

If it saves just one life :puke:
 
Last edited:
The slippery slope argument can be applied anywhere along the slope. One could also argue that restricting driver's licenses for people with certain medical problems is an infringement on fundamental freedoms and liberties. Of course there needs to be a balance between freedoms and public safety. If you're smart enough you can fool the system and get a gun even though for public safety you probably shouldn't have one. Fortunately, most people with the intent to commit some crime are impulsive, so the delay stymies them, and many of the rest aren't smart enough to get the paperwork in, get references who can intelligently answer simple questions and be reliably at a place where they can be reached by telephone.
Granted, it's is a coarse net, but to be 100% effective at preventing those who pose a significant societal danger, it would be a much more onerous system of screening, and if anyone could walk in off the street and buy a gun with no questions asked, the numbers of guns around would be much higher, and the commensurate risk to the rest of us would then be higher.
I'm happy that only people who have their sh!t together can get through the process. I'm also happy that illegal possession of a firearm can land you in trouble, because it's not that hard for me to get guns legally as opposed to the gang-bangers who are much more likely to misuse them.
 
:D
I was called after a couple of citizens phoned in to the CFC "800" number expressing concern about me talking to birds & insects while strolling through the local park. :D

They were afraid I might be a kwazy kat with anti social tendencies.

crazy-cat.gif



Just kidding ;)........no calls were received by either me or my references in regards to my application & my last renewal arrived in just two weeks.
 
Canuckistanman said:
Hmmmmmmmmm, I went through an long interview, about an hour, with a nice lady from the CFC who asked me at least a dozen questions covering my family, my work, my psychological state, etc. All three of my references received phone call from the CFC asking the same questions. I'm 63 - looks like an age discrimination thing, lol.
Click to expand...

WOW, my interview was in August, not even 5 minutes for the RPAL.

I guess you have to be mentally prepared and convincing.


Question: What do you need a restricted PAL for?

Answer:

option 1: self defense
option 2: just in case, you never know what is going on there in the US
option 3: target shooting at my gun club


Hmmm, maybe she was just wondering why you put 3 (!) references down when only 2 are required, ...


./
 
onedayaway said:
Question about the RCMP interview.
After sending off my application I was laid off due to lack of work should I be concerned?
Could that prevent me from getting my pal/rpal?
Click to expand...

I got the call today and told her I had since been laid off.
She just asked if the lay off caused me any hardship, I just chuckled and said nope. She just laughed and that was that.
 
Everyone who is getting mad and angry about all this red tape, should watch out. An earlier poster stated people who get angry easily should not get RPAL's. Maybe we should all smoke pot and mellow out. lol
 
redddogg69 said:
Everyone who is getting mad and angry about all this red tape, should watch out. An earlier poster stated people who get angry easily should not get RPAL's. Maybe we should all smoke pot and mellow out. lol
Click to expand...

Maybe we shouldn't associate ourselves with the likes of pot smokers. We're frowned on enough as it is. I certainly do not want to be anywhere near users/scum.
 
For the record i dont smoke pot!! But pot smokers are generally though of as passive and mellow. Didnt see how having a short temper translates to unstable mentally. I hope more people dont share your narrow view (Jericho) isnt intolerance part of the problem with the anti-gun set? You dont smoke pot, I dont smoke pot, but if someone else wants to smoke pot knock themselves out doesnt affect me.
 
Last edited:
To mediatrigg. Yes i was stirring the pot hehe. i thought the comment about getting angry painted a picture of psyhcotic maniacs who turn into the hulk when they strip a lug wrench.
 
Vince910 said:
As much as I agree with most of your post, my mind can't get over how wrong you are on how gun ownership being a right.

1. If it was then, how come the government forces us to apply and denies various applications for a PAL? There's a mandatory exam for a reason.

2. Our rights are outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms and last I checked, gun ownership is not listed in there.

3. If was a right then every damn person walking the streets would have a gun.

Gun ownership is a privilege not a right, a privilege can be taken away, a right cannot (legally at least).

We're Canadians, not Americans.
Click to expand...

1. It forces us to comply because it has over ridden our rights.

2. All our rights are not enumerated in the Charter. It says so in the Charter. Read it, if you are going to talk about it.

3. All people do not exercise their rights. Take voting for example. Less than 50% even bother.

You last statement is the truest, and explains the situation precisely.

"Gun ownership is a privilege not a right, a privilege can be taken away, a right cannot (legally at least). "

They (our rights)were usurped illegally. We stood by and allowed it to happen. Shame on us.

Not sure what nationality or citizenship has to do with anything...
 
RPAL application mailed Sept 22 2009. Upgrade from POL; ticked off PROHIBITED/RESTRICTED/EVERYTHING ELSE against the "what kind of hardware do you intend to buy if we let you?" question.

Got phoned yesterday by a person at 1-800-731-4000 who identified himself as being with the SQ (I'm in Québec), with a remarkably John Smith hotel check-in name.

Questions read to me for my recorded reply included the "are you a certified wingnut?" series, and "what's your motive for this application?" Told him that I was a target shooter. Got tolded that my application would only be processed upon my sending them a copy of my membership card and a copy of a current ATT. He went on to say that my application was basically a rubber-stamp, pursuant to his receipt of those papers and him calling my references.

Later that evening, he did contact one of my references, who phoned me afterwards to report that all seemed well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom