Restricted at Hunting Camp

Nothing will ever change unless we pressure our MPs. There's a way to make this happen without making a big media splash...simply force the CFOs to issue ATTs for "any lawful purpose", or circumvent the CFOs entirely by making the "all lawful purposes" ATT automatic and a part of your license. In this age of cost cutting, scrapping an office that costs over $7 million in Ontario alone that does nothing would be a slam dunk. This message needs to be conveyed to our MPs, and to any whiners it is easily argued that hunting with a handgun is more sporting, since they are less accurate and have far less reach than more traditional hunting firearms.
 
Last edited:
jeffcarr88 said:
LOL...some people really do think you need belted magnums to kill a white tail...
Click to expand...
I'm not one of those persons, but was wondering the general results using a 357 on deer. I always thought a 44 or 45 was the norm for deer hunting with a handgun cartridge and the 357 would be considered too small.

My Google-foo search last night generally states that a well placed shot at close range (under 50yds) and it will do the job.
 
If you think that a .357 magnum with a 158 gr bullet, 15.2 gr of H-110 using a magnum primer will not kill a deer, then you are on crack.

Scroll ahead to about 1:00 min and watch until about 3:00 min on this video and listen to 'ol Crazy Barry about the .357 Magnum and stopping power. Notice the downplay of the .44 magnum.

 
Last edited:
The North Pole isn't part of Canada, Canadian law doesn't apply on foreign lands, as long as you can transport your handgun there you can discharge it. Might be nice to have for the bears, or who knows maybe the occasional Somali pirate?
 
hayamissle said:
I lost a good friend years back when he and a CO friend of his from the Fraser Valley were elk hunting by Radium. Grizzly hit them while gutting an elk. The CO was decapitated and they found my friend dead under some windfall with an unfired chambered round...and not a scratch on him...they figured he died from shock and exposure. Maybe if they had sidearms, the story would have ended differently. But hey our politicians know best!!
Click to expand...

I know that story...so sorry to know that it was a friend of yours. We were living in Invermere at the time and shook us all to the core. Our deepest sympathies.
 
Those of us who can carry a handgun, are restricted by the limitations of the wilderness ATC in that the gun is not to be drawn except when you believe that you are in danger. Thus we're denied a benefit that could otherwise be gained from shooting live targets. Punching a one dimensional target, paper or steel, is better than nothing, but IMHO, it is less than ideal when you you're concerned with carrying a handgun for protection. A 3 dimensional target frequently demands something other than a dead center hold if the bullet is going to tract where it needs to. Sometimes the bullet you expected to create death and destruction doesn't perform so brilliantly when it hits meat, and it would be nice to know that prior to shooting to save your life. So I fail to see how preventing ATC holders from hunting with their protection guns makes the world a better place. If we could just get to that point, there would then be a precedent for recreational use of the handgun outside of a range, and more folks could be issued ATCs.
 
Calum said:
When exactly did it become illegal to hunt with Handguns in Canada?

Anyone know the timeline around this?
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge c1970, thanks to the Liberal government of the day under Pierre Trudeau.

After some minor digging, I found this:

LaserGuy Says:
November 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Reply
Back in the 60′s in Ontario, there was no specific ban on hunting with a handgun, and I used to do it all the time.. Back then you had to be 21 to own one, and as long as you held a ATC (authorization to carry, there were NO ATT’s back then) and a hunting license you were good to go. The only quirk was it was illegal to hunt with more than one gun. So if you just used the pistol you were fine. But you could not carry a rifle or shotgun and a pistol on your hip.. The specific ban came around about the same time Trudeau’s government of thieving liberals changed the firearms laws due to, what else, Quebec and their problems with the FLQ.

A little more digging:

In Canada, the push for more restrictive gun laws had its genesis in the upheaval surrounding the growth of the separatist movement in Quebec and the violent politics of the FLQ. Alarmed by a perception of rising levels of violence, politicians and senior Canadian police officials vigorously pressed the government for "tougher" controls on guns and gun owners.

Just 15 months before the crisis in October, 1970, the federal government reacted to these demands by passing new gun laws that for the first time in Canadian history legally defined long guns as "firearms." It also eliminated handgun hunting and the carrying of handguns upon the person by authorized permit holders. Further, the legislation introduced the concept of "restricted" and "prohibited" firearms. It gave the government complete authority to restrict or prohibit, without consultation, any restricted or prohibited firearm not "commonly-used for hunting or sporting purposes"; authority that would be expanded in subsequent legislation to allow the government to prohibit any firearm.
 
Last edited:
Boomer said:
Those of us who can carry a handgun, are restricted by the limitations of the wilderness ATC in that the gun is not to be drawn except when you believe that you are in danger. Thus we're denied a benefit that could otherwise be gained from shooting live targets. Punching a one dimensional target, paper or steel, is better than nothing, but IMHO, it is less than ideal when you you're concerned with carrying a handgun for protection. A 3 dimensional target frequently demands something other than a dead center hold if the bullet is going to tract where it needs to. Sometimes the bullet you expected to create death and destruction doesn't perform so brilliantly when it hits meat, and it would be nice to know that prior to shooting to save your life. So I fail to see how preventing ATC holders from hunting with their protection guns makes the world a better place. If we could just get to that point, there would then be a precedent for recreational use of the handgun outside of a range, and more folks could be issued ATCs.
Click to expand...

Good point Boomer.
 
You'll NEVER see a candidate with any Political party in Canada speak out as pro-gun. When they are approved to run in a constituency by the Party HQ, they're given a VERY detailed list of policy points that they are allowed to speak on. They're also given a list of things they are not to open their mouths about. Guns, gun control and changing said laws are on the second list. It's political suicide to br pro gun in Ontario and/or Quebec.

Since thats where most of the votes are, you'll have to convince the population there that guns are not only O.K. but that they are a good thing. Until then, the Politicians and subsequently the CFOs are going to keep ramming regulations down our throats
 
Calum said:
Great info thank you StoneHorse and Dan.
Click to expand...
Glad I could answer your question.
Yycadm said:
You'll NEVER see a candidate with any Political party in Canada speak out as pro-gun.
Click to expand...
Not unless firearm owners contact their MP's and voice their concerns. Even if your MP is a vocal anti, letting him or her know that not everyone thinks like them. Fear & ignorance are a powerful combination and what drives an emotional response. Educate your MP if needs be. They may never become pro-gun but at least may move them over to being neutral on firearm issues. Doesn't hurt to try and much better than doing nothing. Also join the NFA and CSSA if you have not already done so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom