What happens to prohibited 12.6 guns after license holder passes?

golddust said:
The Govt turned thousands of POL into PAL's. Did the POL holders need to renue every 5 years/ Now they do ,so a lot don't this?
Click to expand...

The POL holders who let their gun license expire have to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course before they are allowed to renew.
And many PAL Holders do forget their gun license expires.
I have had guys show me a 1980's F.A.C. when trying to buy a gun. I tell them they are out of luck and ask to see their badge.
 
Cocked&Locked,

Easy enough. Cameron SS wrote: "For the 1001st time. Don't talk to police."

And I agree wholeheartedly. DO NOT TALK TO POLICE. If you want to keep your guns.

I call them guardians in uniform - just like Colonel Jeff Cooper used to call the police - sometimes.
 
Last edited:
10x said:
The POL holders who let their gun license expire have to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course before they are allowed to renew.
And many PAL Holders do forget their gun license expires.
I have had guys show me a 1980's F.A.C. when trying to buy a gun. I tell them they are out of luck and ask to see their badge.
Click to expand...

I meet older gun owners ever year who tell me emphatically that they dont need a PAL because they are grandfathered on the old FAC system and you cant tell them any different.

Ignorance is bliss.

The firearms act is a paper tiger.
 
It is legislated theft.

Nothing but a dishonest government(s).

Those is Parliament do more harm than your common street criminals.

And laugh all the way to the bank with your tax dollars paying exorbitant salaries, expenses and tax free pensions.
 
Cameron SS said:
I meet older gun owners ever year who tell me emphatically that they dont need a PAL because they are grandfathered on the old FAC system and you cant tell them any different.

Ignorance is bliss.

The firearms act is a paper tiger.
Click to expand...

It may be a paper tiger but the criminal consequences for non compliance with non violent, non victim, administrative Firearms Act infractions are extremely expensive and will plague a person for a life time
 
10x said:
It may be a paper tiger but the criminal consequences for non compliance with non violent, non victim, administrative Firearms Act infractions are extremely expensive and will plague a person for a life time
Click to expand...

Those consequences are almost entirely academic.

Find me a single instance where a person saw the inside of a jail cell for peaceful possession of a firearm without a license that wasnt otherwise involved in criminal activities.

I remember seeing photos of NFA activists walking around parliament hill with a single shot cooey in the days after bill C68 came into force darring the police to arrest and charge him for unlicensed possession only to go home with his rifle disappointed.

Neither no Crown prosecutor in the country wants to risk being the one who loses a constitutional challenge to a simple section 91 charge.
 
Cameron SS said:
Those consequences are almost entirely academic.

Find me a single instance where a person saw the inside of a jail cell for peaceful possession of a firearm without a license that wasnt otherwise involved in criminal activities.

I remember seeing photos of NFA activists walking around parliament hill with a single shot cooey in the days after bill C68 came into force darring the police to arrest and charge him for unlicensed possession only to go home with his rifle disappointed.

Neither no Crown prosecutor in the country wants to risk being the one who loses a constitutional challenge to a simple section 91 charge.
Click to expand...

They seldom need to get a conviction. The local crown prosecutor will barter a plea bargain rather than court 1) forfeiting all firearms an ammo to the crown 2) imposition of a 5 or ten years firearms possession prohibition. and C) no criminal record, just a record of a prohibition.
The prohibitions last 5 years, There are currently over 450,000 active firearms prohibitions - this is the last 5 year period.
The cumulative some of prohibited folks between 1998 and present is 400,000 X 5 5 year periods. or over a possible 2 million folks who had a negative interaction over CCC S 91
And there are many Section 91 convictions- the courts claim they do not track total numbers of CCC S 91 convictions when asked/
 
10x said:
They seldom need to get a conviction. The local crown prosecutor will barter a plea bargain rather than court 1) forfeiting all firearms an ammo to the crown 2) imposition of a 5 or ten years firearms possession prohibition. and C) no criminal record, just a record of a prohibition.
The prohibitions last 5 years, There are currently over 450,000 active firearms prohibitions - this is the last 5 year period.
The cumulative some of prohibited folks between 1998 and present is 400,000 X 5 5 year periods. or over a possible 2 million folks who had a negative interaction over CCC S 91
And there are many Section 91 convictions- the courts claim they do not track total numbers of CCC S 91 convictions when asked/
Click to expand...

Im not talking about any and all section 91 conviction. Every gang banging drug slinging thug found with a loaded G-lock in his trousers gets convicted of s91.

Of those 400k with prohib orders how many were former PAL holders whose only sin was letting their PAL lapse? Becauae that is who we are talking about.
 
Cameron SS said:
Im not talking about any and all section 91 conviction. Every gang banging drug slinging thug found with a loaded G-lock in his trousers gets convicted of s91.

Of those 400k with prohib orders how many were former PAL holders whose only sin was letting their PAL lapse? Becauae that is who we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Good question, - the government is not prepared to share the numbers of CCC S 91 charges and convictions.
According to a Local crown prosecutor there are many Former PAL holders who get convicted.
It appears that of the 400,000 plus folks many never had a gun license in the first place
 
Cameron SS said:
Those consequences are almost entirely academic.

Find me a single instance where a person saw the inside of a jail cell for peaceful possession of a firearm without a license that wasnt otherwise involved in criminal activities.

I remember seeing photos of NFA activists walking around parliament hill with a single shot cooey in the days after bill C68 came into force darring the police to arrest and charge him for unlicensed possession only to go home with his rifle disappointed.

Neither no Crown prosecutor in the country wants to risk being the one who loses a constitutional challenge to a simple section 91 charge.
Click to expand...

Rodger Kotan...nevermind.
 
Cameron SS said:
Those consequences are almost entirely academic.

Find me a single instance where a person saw the inside of a jail cell for peaceful possession of a firearm without a license that wasnt otherwise involved in criminal activities.

I remember seeing photos of NFA activists walking around parliament hill with a single shot cooey in the days after bill C68 came into force darring the police to arrest and charge him for unlicensed possession only to go home with his rifle disappointed.

Neither no Crown prosecutor in the country wants to risk being the one who loses a constitutional challenge to a simple section 91 charge.
Click to expand...

Whoa??? Which NFA activist was this? Can you post a link to a photo? Name names please?
This was never discussed in the Canadian Firearms Digest which was loaded with folks that watched the media daily and reported what was in the media daily. A number of NFA supporters from the Ottawa area were posting to the digest.

This would also have been front and center in Can.talk.guns - the newsgroup equivalent of social media prior to the graphics oriented social media groups we have today (CGN being a social media group too) .
The NFA did not have a person doing this. The NFA has always worked within the law to change the law. Dave Tomlinson would have been mortified - Henry Atkinson, Ray Laycock, and Ted Simmermon would also have been mortified.

Bruce Hutton (LUFA) did not do this.
Tony Bernardo (Ontario Handgun Association and with Larry Whitmore the Founders of C.I.L.A) did not do this.
Bruce Montague did not do this (Montague broke a variety of administrative FIrearms act regulations) And Montague was not an NFA member
Ed Burlew - a vocal firearms lawyer at that time made no mention of this in his posts to the Canadian Firearms Digest.

The guy who perpetrated this incident had never even heard of the NFA ( https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...outside-of-parliament-hill-timeline-of-events )
Canadian soldier shot outside of Parliament Hill: Timeline of events
A gunman opened fire at the National War Memorial in Ottawa at 9:52 a.m.
Click to expand...

Please tell us more about armed civilians patrolling the grounds of Parliament without being challenged or charged by Parliamentary security or the police?
A link to photos would be nice,
A link to a news video clip would be nice.
A link to a news article of the day would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Rule followers will turn them in for destruction. Cranky old SOBs will give them away before they die. One last FU to the government after death.
 
emerson said:
Rule followers will turn them in for destruction. Cranky old SOBs will give them away before they die. One last FU to the government after death.
Click to expand...

There is no downside for the nearly dead. Govt can't come after you in the grave and govt has not given any incentive to follow the rules. Govt is kinda dumb that way.
 
I Dont Care About You said:
There is no downside for the nearly dead. Govt can't come after you in the grave and govt has not given any incentive to follow the rules. Govt is kinda dumb that way.
Click to expand...

Point of order, for the past 40 years government has ignored the rules regarding Common law rights and the constitution.
Section 1 of the charter is an attempt to allow Parliament to suspend common law rights at a whim.
Section 1 of the charter makes every section of listed common law rights moot.
Quebec has not validated the charter so it is unlikely the charter is a valid constitutional document with any force or effect at all
 
10x said:
Point of order, for the past 40 years government has ignored the rules regarding Common law rights and the constitution.
Section 1 of the charter is an attempt to allow Parliament to suspend common law rights at a whim.
Section 1 of the charter makes every section of listed common law rights moot.
Quebec has not validated the charter so it is unlikely the charter is a valid constitutional document with any force or effect at all
Click to expand...

Unfortunalely, I think that you are right. From A to Z. Very unfortunately, that is.

Pretty rough road ahead for gun owners of Kanuckistan - as usual.
 
10x said:
Point of order, for the past 40 years government has ignored the rules regarding Common law rights and the constitution.
Section 1 of the charter is an attempt to allow Parliament to suspend common law rights at a whim.
Section 1 of the charter makes every section of listed common law rights moot.
Quebec has not validated the charter so it is unlikely the charter is a valid constitutional document with any force or effect at all
Click to expand...

Thats an interesting interpretation of constitutional process. So you think that each province has a veto right over the constitution, if its not 'validated' by all 10 then its worthless?

Tell me which legal document do you rely on in support of that position?

Im not a constitutional scholar but I dont think each province does or should have a veto over the other 9.

For m money if the Quebec of 1982 wanted to refuse to sign then I would have liked to have seen them excluded from Canada and the constitutional altogether, and revert to a terrority of the United Kingdom. As a thought experiment it would be funny to see that play out.
 
Cameron SS said:
Thats an interesting interpretation of constitutional process. So you think that each province has a veto right over the constitution, if its not 'validated' by all 10 then its worthless?

Tell me which legal document do you rely on in support of that position?

Im not a constitutional scholar but I dont think each province does or should have a veto over the other 9.

For m money if the Quebec of 1982 wanted to refuse to sign then I would have liked to have seen them excluded from Canada and the constitutional altogether, and revert to a terrority of the United Kingdom. As a thought experiment it would be funny to see that play out.
Click to expand...

The fact that the Charter was not validated by Quebec makes the force and validity of the Charter suspect. That does not make the rest of the Constitution suspect as being invalid.
The interesting part is that NFA did go to bat for for gun owners in Quebec on many issues including the refusal to renew PALs to folks who may have been seen at the same location as criminal motorcycle gang members. As well as the NFA did challenge the ability of the Quebec Government using the 2000 Alberta court challenge ruling as a foundation for the challenge. - That was lost but only because of a political decision was made rather than a legal decision based on legal fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom