So why is proof of range membership a thing?

J

Jeffhere

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
35   0   0
So why is proof of range membership a thing when purchasing restricted firearms?
Fact: many persons will purchase "associate memberships" to satisfy this requirement
Fact: Associate memberships really give you nothing other than to put your name on the record with a local gun club. You still pay day admission like any other drop in shooter
To me, it seems like this is a unnecessary tax that is simply putting more money into the pocket of a already expensive gun club. If I want to go shoot, I can pay my day admission. I shouldn't need to pay $80-100 for the privilege of having my name in the range books.
 
Last edited:
Because the CFO, directed by senior RCMP, approved by the Liberals and NDP, believe civilian ownership of firearms, especially handguns should be hindered and restricted by any means possible. Yes, they want to #%€k you.
 
emerson said:
Because the CFO, directed by senior RCMP, approved by the Liberals and NDP, believe civilian ownership of firearms, especially handguns should be hindered and restricted by any means possible. Yes, they want to #%€k you.
Click to expand...

...


So the liberals, in power since 2015 (1 year.) had been directing senior RCMP for years??!!

Jesus. The ignorance. I guess when it (slightly) meshes with your political believes you can think it's based in logic.

lol. The ignorance is outstanding.
 
It's up to the discretion of the CFO. Since the only legitimate use for a restricted is sporting purposes (though I guess there's also collecting), they saw it fit that you must be a member of a range to make good on that. Depending on how much you go shooting, it can be worth it. My gun range membership is $175/yr, but day cards are $35. It pretty much pays for itself even if you only go once every two months. I go every one or two weeks, because I'm big on handgun shooting. Also, at my club, being a member gets you other benefits, like being able to use unsupervised ranges, and use holsters.

I don't see it as a big deal since there's fat load of nothing you can do with a handgun outside of a range, and really isn't worthwhile to have one if you don't go shooting often.
 
dacron said:
...


So the liberals, in power since 2015 (1 year.) had been directing senior RCMP for years??!!

Jesus. The ignorance. I guess when it (slightly) meshes with your political believes you can think it's based in logic.

lol. The ignorance is outstanding.
Click to expand...

Wow......

Who's ignorance? Yours?

He isn't talking about the current Trudeau but the last one.

Maybe you should Google 1969 and Bill C-150.

While that bill did many wonderful things IMO it also set the 3 classifications of firearms still in use today and gave carte blanche to the RCMP to place any firearm into any classification they see fit.
 
The range requirement is just to discourage ownership of firearms, just like all the other gun laws we're saddled with in the name of public safety.
Kristian
 
turbo_bird said:
The range requirement is just to discourage ownership of firearms, just like all the other gun laws we're saddled with in the name of public safety.
Kristian
Click to expand...

^This.

Curtail firearms ownership as much as possible. Can't have the serfs and peasants having an uprising, now can we????? ;)
 
peterrunsguns said:
only place to shoot restricteds is at a range...if you dont have a membership then what do you need restricted for?
Click to expand...
The window of use keeps narrowing down. Not so long ago, it was legal hunt using a handgun but that "right" was taken away by the government of the day. It is next to impossible to get a wilderness ATC because of CFO policy. Maybe the next CFO policy change will be having to live within a given distance to a "approved range" before approving a restricted transfer. The window could get even narrower.
 
peterrunsguns said:
only place to shoot restricteds is at a range...if you dont have a membership then what do you need restricteds for?
Click to expand...

Why should we have to prove a NEED in order to own anything? Why can't we own something simply for the sake of owning it? So why can't we own a handgun without proving that we are somehow using it regularly? I don't have to prove that I'm driving my car in order to own it. I just might like having my car in the garage... you know, just simply owning it.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir.
 
propliner said:
Why should we have to prove a NEED in order to own anything? Why can't we own something simply for the sake of owning it? So why can't we own a handgun without proving that we are somehow using it regularly? I don't have to prove that I'm driving my car in order to own it. I just might like having my car in the garage... you know, just simply owning it.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir.
Click to expand...

It's a classic communist argument. Ever read 'Rules For Radicals"??? Wants are bad according to the dogma. The hive mind. The collective. Anything which doesn't seem to benefit the WHOLE society CANNOT and MUST NOT be owned or possessed by anyone. Once you start to understand the mind of a communist? You'll realize very quickly how much they have in common with gun grabbers and fascists. Socialism IS communism and communism IS socialism regardless of how they try to spin their bullschit. It's all the same left-wing poison and ill-minded thought of a diseased and warped, despotic view of the world born of jealousy and greed because the WEST enjoys freedom while a lot of others don't.

yeah I gots a really nice car. They're NOT EFFING TAKING IT just because it has a V-12 under the hood. There will be an all out nuclear war AND an invasion of aliens AND a zombie apocalypse (not necessarily in that order but they ALL must happen) before I even CONSIDER giving up my ###y German made luxury beast!
 
Juster said:
The state must move towards a monopoly on lethal force to protect itself against the subjects it seeks to abuse.
Click to expand...

Yes you nailed it! When the law protects the corrupt from it's citizens instead of the citizens protected from the corrupt? The nation has become a failed state. Law has already ceased to exist as was intended in the foundation and birth of a nation. From that point on? It's destruction is inevitable, sad to say. I know Canada will collapse. Only a matter of time. ISIS. Trudeau. Wynne. Notley. Etc. etc. etc. The list goes on for miles.
 
Does it piss you off? Enough to make you want to give up firearms? Yeah, the lefties & RCMP wins.
 
Say you just got your RPAL and wants to buy restricted to go try out different clubs. POCO is one that does calendar year membership, not prorated so based on your go once every two month that is max two trips on $175 2016 membership.
Agent Law said:
It's up to the discretion of the CFO. Since the only legitimate use for a restricted is sporting purposes (though I guess there's also collecting), they saw it fit that you must be a member of a range to make good on that. Depending on how much you go shooting, it can be worth it. My gun range membership is $175/yr, but day cards are $35. It pretty much pays for itself even if you only go once every two months. I go every one or two weeks, because I'm big on handgun shooting. Also, at my club, being a member gets you other benefits, like being able to use unsupervised ranges, and use holsters.

I don't see it as a big deal since there's fat load of nothing you can do with a handgun outside of a range, and really isn't worthwhile to have one if you don't go shooting often.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom