Stupid question.

M

maka

Regular
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Location
Southern Ontario
Do you need an RPAL to shoot IPSC. Is there that specific requirement?

If someone was to always be with a licensed friend or spouse as well as at their black badge course would they need a license.

Stupid question I know. But was curious about this.

thanks
 
The licensed spouse would have to be within arm's reach of the competitor.. I just don't see it happening and also I'm sure that there is something against it in our legal tomes :cool:
 
Not a stupid question at all! In fact, that's a great question.

maka said:
Do you need an RPAL to shoot IPSC.
Click to expand...
No.

If someone was to always be with a licensed friend or spouse as well as at their black badge course would they need a license.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're good to go!

TRaTSeRiF said:
The licensed spouse would have to be within arm's reach of the competitor..
Click to expand...
All our our Officials have RPALs, and they are within arm's reach.
 
Regardless of what the intent of your line of questioning is, the best advice I can give you is to go out and get your R-PAL license.

Yes it costs you a bit more hassle, and a bit more money, and a bit more time, but once you get over those obstacles it is quite liberating to know that you're on the right side of the law.

Bottom line: Spend the time and money to get your R-PAL. Don't let people who remember Canada 50 years ago talk you out of it, ask people in 2014 who live in England or Australia how much they would like the opportunity to be able to buy what we can, regardless of the restrictions.
 
A guy at my black badge course didn't have his rpal yet. A buddy of his was doing the course as well, so he had his buddies gun registered in his name as well as storing and transporting it for him until the other guy got his card in the mail. But definitely a good idea to get your rpal anyway.
Kristian
 
Petamocto said:
Regardless of what the intent of your line of questioning is, the best advice I can give you is to go out and get your R-PAL license.

Yes it costs you a bit more hassle, and a bit more money, and a bit more time, but once you get over those obstacles it is quite liberating to know that you're on the right side of the law.

Bottom line: Spend the time and money to get your R-PAL. Don't let people who remember Canada 50 years ago talk you out of it, ask people in 2014 who live in England or Australia how much they would like the opportunity to be able to buy what we can, regardless of the restrictions.
Click to expand...

I have my RPAL and have had since the FAC ( a better system) went the way of the dodo bird. If my wife can shoot with me at matches in Canada by just taking her BB than she will do so. Otherwise she will just shoot in the states with me when we are down there. It's about money and BS rules nothing else.
 
My 13 year old comes with me to matches and is keen to start competing. I am under the impression that as long as I stay nearby while he takes his black badge we are good to go. This is because the pistol being used is registered to me. I hope I am correct any comments???
 
As far as the law goes (to the best of my knoweldge) a shooter without a PAL or RPAL must be within "arms reach" of someone with a PAL or RPAL. It does not matter who owns the gun.
 
Chef40 said:
As far as the law goes (to the best of my knoweldge) a shooter without a PAL or RPAL must be within "arms reach" of someone with a PAL or RPAL. It does not matter who owns the gun.
Click to expand...

The law actually says "direct and immediate supervision". This may be commonly extrapolated to mean "arms length", but the actual wording is direct and immediate supervision. Like most of our laws, open to interpretation. Also, simply being "arms length" from someone doesn't in and of itself mean you're properly supervising. If you're not paying attention to the person, but simply "within arms length", you not really supervising.

And no, there is no requirement that the owner of the gun be the one who is supervising. As long as the one supervising has a valid license for that particular firearm, it doesn't matter if they are the owner or not. At the local shooting range, a dad was supervising his son shooting a handgun. The dad had to go to the washroom or something, and asked if I'd watch his son shoot. I wasn't shooting at the time, so I was more than willing to 'supervise'. It didn't matter that the gun owner wasn't present. I have my R-PAL, and the firearms was a restricted, so everything is good.

I have also seen minor's shooting ipsc. I guess the RO running the stage is considered in 'direct and immediate' supervision?
 
titan_rw said:
The law actually says "direct and immediate supervision". This may be commonly extrapolated to mean "arms length", but the actual wording is direct and immediate supervision. Like most of our laws, open to interpretation. Also, simply being "arms length" from someone doesn't in and of itself mean you're properly supervising. If you're not paying attention to the person, but simply "within arms length", you not really supervising.

And no, there is no requirement that the owner of the gun be the one who is supervising. As long as the one supervising has a valid license for that particular firearm, it doesn't matter if they are the owner or not. At the local shooting range, a dad was supervising his son shooting a handgun. The dad had to go to the washroom or something, and asked if I'd watch his son shoot. I wasn't shooting at the time, so I was more than willing to 'supervise'. It didn't matter that the gun owner wasn't present. I have my R-PAL, and the firearms was a restricted, so everything is good.

I have also seen minor's shooting ipsc. I guess the RO running the stage is considered in 'direct and immediate' supervision?
Click to expand...

Your Absouletly right on that. My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom