Restricted storage question?

gdawg said:
No just pre 1896 i think. There are some 45 and 41 colts out there among others.
Click to expand...
Pre 1898 for antique status,,, .45 LC not antique, a lot of those old calibers were/are very powerful and accurate, the smith and Wesson new model 3 was very accurate in .44 Russian , the president Theodore Rosevelt bought a couple as well as many law men and outlaws and Annie Oakley also bought a couple due to accuracy of the target model! Don't discount the antiques!
 
bobdbldr said:
Pre 1898 for antique status,,, .45 LC not antique, a lot of those old calibers were/are very powerful and accurate, the smith and Wesson new model 3 was very accurate in .44 Russian , the president Theodore Rosevelt bought a couple as well as many law men and outlaws and Annie Oakley also bought a couple due to accuracy of the target model! Don't discount the antiques!
Click to expand...

Good info. Didn't realize 45 LC was excluded!
 
for the opinionated ignorant :) the Johnny Sombrero case: full autos stored in ... cabinets and lockers.

http://torontosnews.########.com/2011/06/johnny-gets-his-guns.html ##### is b l o g s p o t

TORONTO - He will soon get his guns back, but it will be a long hard road before he forgets what happened to him.

Aging biker Johnny Sombrero was all smiles as he exited 1000 Finch Ave. W. court Friday after all 18 charges of unsafe firearms storage against him were tossed. Surrounded by family and friends in the Black Diamond Riders he founded 60 years ago, Sombrero breathed a sigh of relief.

“My reaction to the verdict is: I told you so,” the 77-year-old whose real name is Harry Barnes said outside of court. “You’re damn right I’m pissed off. They’ve had my property for 17 months and this the 21st time I’ve been in court.”

On Jan. 21, 2010, Toronto Police raided Sombrero’s North York apartment and he alleges they roughed him up.

He says they held him at gunpoint for five hours before confiscating his collection and charged him for leaving the bolts inside his machine guns, even though the weapons were stored in lockers.
Sombrero said his finger was bent back by one of the cops and he suffered injuries to his ribs during the takedown. More than 100 weapons were seized, including automatic and semi-automatic weapons, leather, knives, bullets and scopes.

On Friday, Justice Carol Brewer dismissed the case.

“I find the cabinets in which the defendant’s prohibited firearms were stored fall within the definition of a safe,” the judge said in her decision. “Both of the lockers in which the prohibited firearms were stored were made of steel. Each cabinet was securely locked. The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable double that there was non-compliance with the regulation.”

A gun expert for the defence testified Sombrero met or exceeded the requirement of safe storage laws.
“The ironic thing is a lot of the safes were bought at government auctions,” Sombrero’s lawyer David Costa said. “Parliamentarians owe a service to gun collectors to properly set out what it means to store weapons, what constitutes a safe, what constitutes a vault or specialized room.”

Sombrero has been a gun collector for half a century. The weapons will be returned early next week. Sombrero is pondering filing formal complaints against police about his arrest.

“This wouldn’t have happened in the U.S.,” he said. “But here, they charge you over and over again.”
Click to expand...
 
legi0n said:
for the opinionated ignorant :) the Johnny Sombrero case: full autos stored in ... cabinets and lockers.

http://torontosnews.########.com/2011/06/johnny-gets-his-guns.html ##### is b l o g s p o t
Click to expand...

Perhaps if he stored them in proper Gun Safes he would’ve been spared the wasted time, effort and extreme inconvenience and all those lawyers fees. I bet he could have bought 2 dozen 20-gun safes with tens of thousands of dollars leftover, instead of wasting them on lawyer fees.
 
Last edited:
easyrider604 said:
Perhaps if he stored them in proper Gun Safes he would’ve been spared the wasted time, effort and extreme inconvenience and all those lawyers fees. I bet he could have bought 2 dozen 20-gun safes with tens of thousands of dollars leftover, instead of wasting them on lawyer fees.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but by the way the police barged in, he was targeted for confiscation

in the end, pertaining to this thread, the "cabinet" storage of restricted guns meets the requirements, no trigger locks required
 
350 Mag said:
But you can legally discharge a non- restricted outside of the approved range.....

The ONLY place you can n load and discharge a "restricted" legally is on a approved range.

There is no provision in the C.C to use a restricted firearm for self defense.

A farmer is allowed to use non-restricted to defend his property and animals from pests or predators....but not a restricted.

I only bring this up because I think some on here feel they would be justified in using a restricted handgun to defend their home.

Be ready to lose your guns for 10 years....
Click to expand...

Good point, fair enough!
 
Could someone point to the section of the firearms act which defines "a safe". If you can't do that, could someone grab a dictionary and post the definition of "a safe". Why would that matter? Because that is exactly what the judge will do. They have to - no other defensible option exists (judges have to be able to defend their decisions), in the absence of a specialized definition in the act, the dictionary comes out. Incidentally, back in the 1970's you could buy a "Gun Cabinet" haven't seen one since about 1982, it was a wooden free standing piece of furniture, like a curio cabinet, that had a glass doored top section with rifle hooks to display your firearms in. People would put their Wingmaster and Weatherby magnum in the cabinet on display in their living rooms - we've come a long way since anyone used a gun cabinet.


Gun Cabinet: https://towncofurniture.com/shop/6-gun-cabinet-2/

This does not meet the definition of safe from most dictionaries, and is not considered safe storage, or a "safe" for storage. It does however meet the definition of "Gun Cabinet".
 
Last edited:
350 Mag said:
The ONLY place you can load and discharge a "restricted" legally is on a approved range.
Click to expand...

Wrong, post the law that says this

350 Mag said:
There is no provision in the C.C to use a restricted firearm for self defense.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and post the provision in the CCC to use a non restricted

350 Mag said:
A farmer is allowed to use non-restricted to defend his property and animals from pests or predators....but not a restricted.
Click to expand...

And?

350 Mag said:
I only bring this up because I think some on here feel they would be justified in using a restricted handgun to defend their home.

Be ready to lose your guns for 10 years....
Click to expand...

That because it is legal to do. Go ahead and post up a single law that says otherwise.

Shawn
 
gdawg said:
Op, go directly to the source and make a determination for yourself or call theCFO to verify.
My read is that if it is not a ‘safe’ it needs a trigger lock
Click to expand...

After my experience with the Alberta CFO representative even that may not help. I was told flat out that I needed a trigger lock on a handgun stored in a gun safe. I told the lady she was wrong and she told me she worked for the RCMP. I told her I knew who she worked for but she was still wrong. She then sent my request off for approval without changing her mind.

I would suggest a call to someone in Ottawa via the 1 800 number might get you a correct answer if in doubt. I have less faith you will get correct information from the Provincial CFO office unfortunately.

Take Care

Bob
 
The CFO has the same access to the laws as you and I, but sometimes they interpret them to what they want to believe.
Then they try and force their interpretation on us.
 
Brianma65 said:
The CFO has the same access to the laws as you and I, but sometimes they interpret them to what they want to believe.
Then they try and force their interpretation on us.
Click to expand...

In my case I think she was confused and wasn't about to change her mind period. She is a clerk in the CFO office. She doesn't get paid to make decisions and no is the best option for her. I doubt there was anything malicious in her intent, she just had it wrong. I guess I should have asked for her supervisor and the matter would have been a learning exercise for her...or maybe not.

Take Care

Bob
 
legi0n said:
for the opinionated ignorant :) the Johnny Sombrero case: full autos stored in ... cabinets and lockers.

http://torontosnews.########.com/2011/06/johnny-gets-his-guns.html ##### is b l o g s p o t
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. I wish I had it when I was speaking to Miss Personality at the Alberta CFO office. I store my restricted in a 800lb safe. Nice to know my gun cabinet also qualifies, assuming this judges ruling is not appealed.

Take Care

Bob
 
Unfair enough we have to live with unfair laws, if over that, some civil servant interpret the law to his taste.

Hum… I know lawyers that feed with that kind of behaviour and are ready to go all the way to see that the law is correctly used.
 
caramel said:
Unfair enough we have to live with unfair laws, if over that, some civil servant interpret the law to his taste.

Hum… I know lawyers that feed with that kind of behaviour and are ready to go all the way to see that the law is correctly used.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile you don't seem to mind interpreting the law to suit your taste despite a clear cut ruling in regards to storage, weird. Are you for the law being used correctly or not? I'm very confused...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom