shooting pistol on own property
- Thread starter mark123
- Start date
Well, sure, what's your point?
Seriously, for me it began with comment from someone at the range that first made me question the commonly stated "fact" that there is a federal law that says you can only shoot handguns at an approved range. So I read all the way through the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act. There is no such law there. Once I saw that, I started to question what the situation actually was under law, what was "urban myth" and what the CFO wanted us to believe. Now, thanks to this thread, I think I finally understand it!
rommelrommel
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Jesus... not this BS again.
We seem to cover this rather throughly every few months.
Yes, according to the law you can fire a restricted from your dwelling house or curtilage, in the absense of municipal/provincial discharge laws to the contrary. Yes, if you get a range approved on your property, and get an ATT, you can transport your restricted to and from it, and load/discharge it at the range only.
And, obeying the law as written is NOT searching for a "loophole."
That's the kind of thinking that liberals use to describe us owning guns they don't like such as the VZ58 as a "loophole" because the OIC's were never updated. It's NOT a f***ing loophole. It's THE LAW.
We seem to cover this rather throughly every few months.
Yes, according to the law you can fire a restricted from your dwelling house or curtilage, in the absense of municipal/provincial discharge laws to the contrary. Yes, if you get a range approved on your property, and get an ATT, you can transport your restricted to and from it, and load/discharge it at the range only.
And, obeying the law as written is NOT searching for a "loophole."
That's the kind of thinking that liberals use to describe us owning guns they don't like such as the VZ58 as a "loophole" because the OIC's were never updated. It's NOT a f***ing loophole. It's THE LAW.
I know, but the gov. should come out with an information package that tells you exactly what is legal to do. How many people to you meet that think that your rifle needs to be trigger locked and in the trunk of their cars when they are driving in day light to the range? They base their beleifs on the unattended vehicule rule, because the regs don't tell the whole story. Just try to find info on type 3 ATC on the RCMP (CFC) website... Dealing with half honnesty and having to read between the lines is f**king frustrating!
At your dwelling-house means inside. To test that as a hypothesis, assume you have a vacant piece on land. Does that vacant land qualify as a dwelling-house? Absolutely not! Therefore "at the dwelling-house" means inside your home, not in your backyard. Once you cross the threshold, you're in transport and require an ATT.
The most prudent course of action would be to consult with a firearms lawyer if you would like to have a range in your yard. Just because some get away with it or laws aren't enforced in certain jurisdictions, doesn't mean its legal. Remember, when you're charged with a firearms offence, its not us (CGNr's) you have to convince - its the Lieberal judge that hears your case who doesn't think you should have guns in the first place and thinks WTF!.
rommelrommel
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I know, but the gov. should come out with an information package that tells you exactly what is legal to do. How many people to you meet that think that your rifle needs to be trigger locked and in the trunk of their cars when they are driving in day light to the range? They base their beleifs on the unattended vehicule rule, because the regs don't tell the whole story. Just try to find info on type 3 ATC on the RCMP (CFC) website... Dealing with half honnesty and having to read between the lines is f**king frustrating!
Well, the transport rules are pretty clear, and there's lots of info easily available about them.
ATC for protection of life is entirely another story.
"At your dwelling-house means inside. "
There you go. Just set your targets up outside, and shoot out the window. In the dwelling, on your property, etc, etc. - dan
There you go. Just set your targets up outside, and shoot out the window. In the dwelling, on your property, etc, etc. - dan
Based on all the information being reviewed here including the words that are "subject to interpretation" regarding the Firearms act, I suggest that a way around the confusion would be to build a range that in some way attaches to the dwelling. Consider the firing range as an addition to the home with a door connecting the home to the ranges firing position. At this point, you are shooting inside the dwelling which appears to be legal provided local bylaws allow for the discharge of firearms at your address.
If your property is a legal range, sure. - dan
I started this thread
I don't understand what all the fuss is, I went into the office and spoke directly to my CFO face to face and she told me what I originally said here. For personal use the range does not need to be inspected or approved but that it should be safe according to the guidelines used to build an approved range which they will gladly mail to you for free. The ATT covers you exiting your house. All of you who don't think this is the case should go and speak directly to your CFO.
I don't understand what all the fuss is, I went into the office and spoke directly to my CFO face to face and she told me what I originally said here. For personal use the range does not need to be inspected or approved but that it should be safe according to the guidelines used to build an approved range which they will gladly mail to you for free. The ATT covers you exiting your house. All of you who don't think this is the case should go and speak directly to your CFO.
colt45cz75
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Hard to judge, isn't it. If it's not specifically stated as illegal, is it then legal?
I believe this is what happens when you let lawyers write laws. It seems their only use is to write laws that need to be argued about to find their true meaning.Which is open to interpretation. Generally at a minimum of 500 clams an hour. Sorry for the rant. The whole ####ing process just pisses me off.
I believe this is what happens when you let lawyers write laws. It seems their only use is to write laws that need to be argued about to find their true meaning.Which is open to interpretation. Generally at a minimum of 500 clams an hour. Sorry for the rant. The whole ####ing process just pisses me off.
