Handguns in Canada

[Colpy]

Thanks for the response, Colpy. I was hoping you would join in and answer some of my many questions regarding this issue.

I have been shooting for years with friends and in Army Cadets and I am just now getting around to actually getting my PAL (restricted). I have friends that do PPC and my brother-in-law and I are interested in the IPSEC(?)shooting. All kinds of target shooting, I'm not really interested in hunting so much.

The instructor teaching the course said in the first 30 minutes of the class that if you came into his store to buy a gun for home protection he would have to refuse. He said that the only permitted reasons for owning a gun in Canada were sport shooting, hunting and collecting. Obviously police and military have guns but I assumed that that was some special governmental allowance. That is why the idea of Brinks and other security guards carrying loaded, restricted handguns in a vehicle (all very discouraged actions) intrigued me. What is this licence you speak of posessing, as the only licences I know of would be PAL and the transport permit?

I am sorry if I am asking basic questions, the subject is interesting to me.

One other question. Would the old Canadian Forces FN rifles be legal to own? Could I buy one with a non-restricted or restricted licence? I remember shooting those in Cadets and the memories are very pleasant ones. I saw one at a gun show decomissioned, It was a sad sight.

When you take restricted weapons to a range, you require an Authorization to Transport (ATT), on which are listed the restrictions upon that authorization, for example the firearm must be unloaded, trigger locked, locked securely in a container designed for the transport of firearms.

When I carry on the job, I require an Authorization to Carry (ATC), a permit that looks the same as an ATT, and upon which is listed the restrictions upon that authorization, for example only on the job, whil;e in uniform, in a holster, unconcealed.

Funny you should ask about the FN. I own one. Unfortunately you can't. Ha ha. (just kidding) Seriously, this firearm was prohibited in 1992, and only persons who owned this class of firearm at that time are allowed to possess them. We aren't allowed to take them to a range and shoot them anymore, so they are basically large, expensive paperweights.

So stupid, as I own a semi-auto .308 sporter that works EXACTLY the same way (and is smaller and lighter), and it is unrestricted. The FN is prohibited simply because it has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug. HUH!????

It LOOKS nasty!!!!!!!...that's it........and it is a fine example of the insanity of Canadian gun laws..

 

[iARTthere4iam]

When you take restricted weapons to a range, you require an Authorization to Transport (ATT), on which are listed the restrictions upon that authorization, for example the firearm must be unloaded, trigger locked, locked securely in a container designed for the transport of firearms.

When I carry on the job, I require an Authorization to Carry (ATC), a permit that looks the same as an ATT, and upon which is listed the restrictions upon that authorization, for example only on the job, whil;e in uniform, in a holster, unconcealed.

Funny you should ask about the FN. I own one. Unfortunately you can't. Ha ha. (just kidding) Seriously, this firearm was prohibited in 1992, and only persons who owned this class of firearm at that time are allowed to possess them. We aren't allowed to take them to a range and shoot them anymore, so they are basically large, expensive paperweights.

So stupid, as I own a semi-auto .308 sporter that works EXACTLY the same way (and is smaller and lighter), and it is unrestricted. The FN is prohibited simply because it has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug. HUH!????

It LOOKS nasty!!!!!!!...that's it........and it is a fine example of the insanity of Canadian gun laws..

ATT vs ATC, thanks I understand now.

That sucks about the FN. I really was hoping I could at least own one even if I couldn't shoot it. Such is the stupidity of our gun laws.

Thank you very much for your insight. I sincerly appreciate it.

 

[MikeyDB]

I'm with you on that count Colpy, but isn't the real issue, that while a single round of one caliber may do what you want it to do, it all comes down to putting that round where it will have the best chance of achieving what you want...?

Since we don't use firearms in Canada for personal defense....while the stopping power (a belicose term I suppose) of a .45 is the handgun...one should do the job, but two nine's a quarter inch apart will have the same effect....

Hand grips and bipods as rationale for prohibiting firearms is at best a ruse when you consider that there are a significant number of rifle calibers that will chamber in handguns... Of course the hitting power of any center fire rifle round is far greater than any pistol round ....

Only hunt living creatures when I have no other option and quite frankly don't see sitting in a tree stand with a .308 as "sport". Murdering ducks could be fun I suppose but I demand that you eat what you kill.....

 

[iARTthere4iam]

It's best to contact the CFO to determine which particular license you'd need for such and such a firearm. There is a prohibited class that covers basically "easily concealed" handguns and is specific regarding calibers and barrel length. There is no limit to the magazine capacity on rimfire rifles but there is a limit of five rounds on any caliber larger than .22.

I've shot IPSC for nearly twenty years...had to take a few years off to have a few strokes and things but I'm back at it again. The action involved in IPSC shooting is the big draw in my opinion since one is required to solve "scenarios" that would be encountered by law enforcement during the typical patrol shift in a large city or at least urban civil disobedience of the gun kind....

Another option to bullseye and IPSC is Cowboy Action Shooting which is a class of competition that involves handguns (only revolvers of .44 cal and larger) in combination with rifle (same caliber restrictions) and shotgun. Many folk use black-powder firearms to shoot some of the Action events but where speed is critical, cartridge ammunition is the only way to go....

20 years? No kidding. I pictured you as younger than that. Ha ha.

I was first introduced to shooting by my friend's dad who shot everything. He had at least one of everything from an AK to muskets to Thompson contender and everything in between. I have loved shooting as a sport, I want to continue that. It is fun and interesting.
Do you only shoot handguns? I have my first gun already picked out. A simple inexpensive Cooey 12 gauge single shot break action. Very fun to shoot. Very simple gun. $50.

 

[MikeyDB]

No I shoot .22 (like most people because ammo is so cheap) both pistol and rifle and I have a Winchester Model 94 in 30 30. I've only ever used my firearms for target competition and only my Ruger .22 (rifle...I have a Ruger handgun in .22 as well) many years ago to reduce the ground hog population on the farm where I worked as a young man. If you've ever been handling a tractor or farm equipment when you drop into a hole you'd know that it's sometimes inconvenient and sometimes down right dangerous.

I was trained to us a rifle in the military but found the recreational application of handguns and handgun competitions as more demanding...and hence more fun...to me at least..

 

[warrior_won]

Ya, that seems to be one of the things that they do automatically when you are covicted of a serious offence. It is likely not always a very appropriate punishment, but our government likes people disarmed.

Pens are so yesterday. Your computer is better than any pen.

Who said I was convicted of a serious offense? I was convicted of an offense that got me probation and a lifetime firearms ban. What was it that I did? I was convicted of using a telephone, email, and a fax machine.

Think about that! A telephone, email, and a fax machine. What do you suppose I did in order to receive a lifetime firearms ban?

 

[warrior_won]

This has always been a mystery to me. I've never really had a major problem beyond personality quirks with police. Though I have never argued with them over something. They have a job to do and a method in which they are to carry out that job. Arguing the validity of a response to what I'm doing just doesn't make sense to me.

I've always thought that argument is with the Crown and is done between my attorney and the Crown before a judge.

In your particular case, saying that you would probably shoot a cop for trying to arrest you speaks volumes toward the validity of the decision never to allow you to access a firearm.

No offence intended. ;-)

Does it? Or does it speak volumes about the policing in this community?

 

[warrior_won]

I'm not allowed to have one for five more years, I think they;re afraid I'll smoke it.:lol:

Have you ever owned one or used one in the commission of a crime?

That's the part of the whole thing that really bothers me. It was the Liberal government that introduced legislation that allowed the Courts to do this. The Liberal government has used the "numbers" to illustrate how effective their legislation has been. Yet, I would hazard to guess that a significant fraction of those banned from owning firearms have never actually owned or used a firearm. Even more shocking, is the fact that people who actually do own and use firearms in the commission of a crime, somehow seem able to avoid these bans. It just makes no sense.

It would seem to me, at least superficially, that this legislation is used to help combat those of us who profess and maintain that we have individual rights. I can think of no other reason for banning non-violent, non-gun owning, non-gun using citizens from owning a firearm. Can you?

 

[Colpy]

Have you ever owned one or used one in the commission of a crime?

That's the part of the whole thing that really bothers me. It was the Liberal government that introduced legislation that allowed the Courts to do this. The Liberal government has used the "numbers" to illustrate how effective their legislation has been. Yet, I would hazard to guess that a significant fraction of those banned from owning firearms have never actually owned or used a firearm. Even more shocking, is the fact that people who actually do own and use firearms in the commission of a crime, somehow seem able to avoid these bans. It just makes no sense.

It would seem to me, at least superficially, that this legislation is used to help combat those of us who profess and maintain that we have individual rights. I can think of no other reason for banning non-violent, non-gun owning, non-gun using citizens from owning a firearm. Can you?

I have to ask, Warrior-One, did your offense include threats?

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Who said I was convicted of a serious offense? I was convicted of an offense that got me probation and a lifetime firearms ban. What was it that I did? I was convicted of using a telephone, email, and a fax machine.

Think about that! A telephone, email, and a fax machine. What do you suppose I did in order to receive a lifetime firearms ban?

Please excuse me. You haven't said what it was that you were charged with. So I don't know. I had a friend in high school who was connected with a very serious crime. He hadn't actually commited the serious crime but was closely associated with the perpetrator. My friend even acted as a witness in the trial. One of the terms that kept him out of real trouble was a liftime ban on gun ownership.

My dealings with police have been generally reasonable. When you know police officers it makes you think twice about the job they have to do. I don't see them as vindictive, I see them as people like me trying to do their job.

 

[warrior_won]

I have to ask, Warrior-One, did your offense include threats?

A threat of legal action? Yes!

 

[warrior_won]

Please excuse me. You haven't said what it was that you were charged with. So I don't know. I had a friend in high school who was connected with a very serious crime. He hadn't actually commited the serious crime but was closely associated with the perpetrator. My friend even acted as a witness in the trial. One of the terms that kept him out of real trouble was a liftime ban on gun ownership.

He didn't commit the crime. He testified against the person who had actually committed the crime. And he received a firearms ban for being a witness? Something doesn't sound right there.

That sounds almost like banning a store clerk from owning firearms because he had been robbed at gunpoint. The ounce of prevention being that the store clerk may want to defend himself should he ever find a gun pointed at him again.

My dealings with police have been generally reasonable. When you know police officers it makes you think twice about the job they have to do. I don't see them as vindictive, I see them as people like me trying to do their job.

I suppose that tells it all. I was accused by people who *know* police officers. That says a lot, doesn't it?

For the record, I don't see them as vindictive either. I see them as abusing their power and authority to assist a friend who is commiting a crime. Then covering up that crime by denying my rights to due process and equal protection and benefit of law. And that's principally what they stand accused of.

I don't know yet whether the officer involved received any form of benefit for his role in assisting and covering up, but it would seem that way on the surface. It very well appears to be that this officers son gained employment as the result of the officer's misconduct. Although this remains unproven.

 

[Niflmir]

Yeah, Canada doesn't really have a well organized position with regards to weapons. We have a patchwork system of legislation designed to deal with problems on an ad hoc basis and it has largely been disastrous. Our biggest problem currently is gun smuggling, the proposed solution was a gun registry. I am not against a gun registry, but there is no rational connection between the current problem and the proposed solution. We really need some unity on this issue.

It is surprising to me how few of my peers have shot a gun. So few have any real interest in it as well.

As for complaints about the judiciary, one can always spin a case to make it look like judges are idiots. You merely leave out the important details that would be required to look up the decision over at CanLII, leave out which sections of the criminal code were involved and leave out the compounding factors. Maybe a case was outrageous and was worthy of an appeal, maybe not, one cannot make judgements without the evidence.

 

[darkbeaver]

Have you ever owned one or used one in the commission of a crime?

That's the part of the whole thing that really bothers me. It was the Liberal government that introduced legislation that allowed the Courts to do this. The Liberal government has used the "numbers" to illustrate how effective their legislation has been. Yet, I would hazard to guess that a significant fraction of those banned from owning firearms have never actually owned or used a firearm. Even more shocking, is the fact that people who actually do own and use firearms in the commission of a crime, somehow seem able to avoid these bans. It just makes no sense.

It would seem to me, at least superficially, that this legislation is used to help combat those of us who profess and maintain that we have individual rights. I can think of no other reason for banning non-violent, non-gun owning, non-gun using citizens from owning a firearm. Can you?

When I was a kid I had a 410 and there was always rifles in my old mans house, but I'v never used one to sell pot, usually I didn't have to threaten people to buy it.

 

[MikeyDB]

As simply an informal survey, are there many people here at CC who participate in the shooting sports..?

Hunting for food isn't a sport and I suppose vermin and pest reduction isn't a sport either...

 

[Unforgiven]

Why don't we have the US extradite those gun store owners who we feel are selling guns illegally that find their way into Canada? It's not a secret that you can fairly easily go to a gun store or gun show and buy a weapon to smuggle over the border. The CBC or CTV did a show on that not too long ago.

I would see about changing Canadian law to include the dealer of the weapon brought into Canada to stand trial as an accomplice to any homicide committed with those weapons.

 

[MikeyDB]

Why would any Canadian want to purchase a smuggled gun?

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Why would any Canadian want to purchase a smuggled gun?

Because they are cheap and no one asks questions. In high school I was offered a revolver for a hundred bucks, the seller wanted to buy crack. I am sure the gun was not registered and was probably smuggled or stolen.

 

[thomaska]

Some people might be interested to know that many states here still have open carry laws, some with hand guns, and others that only pertain to rifles and shotguns. Which means, barring any city or county ordinances, you can walk down mainstreet with your handgun in a holster, visible on your hip, or with your shotgun hanging from your shoulder.

I wouldn't recommend either however, I suspect it would make the unarmed very nervous, or just might get you preemptively shot by one of the thousands of concealed carriers roaming the streets. Common sense should dictate where a person should carry, but thats just not an option for some people.

 

[warrior_won]

Why don't we have the US extradite those gun store owners who we feel are selling guns illegally that find their way into Canada? It's not a secret that you can fairly easily go to a gun store or gun show and buy a weapon to smuggle over the border. The CBC or CTV did a show on that not too long ago.

I would see about changing Canadian law to include the dealer of the weapon brought into Canada to stand trial as an accomplice to any homicide committed with those weapons.

Why would the U.S. extradite a law abiding citizen? Good luck trying to get the U.S. to extradite an American citizen who didn't do anything wrong.

Could you imagine what the media circus that would surround that? The headlines would read something like this: Canadian Government Seeks To Lynch Law Abiding American Citizens!

Wouldn't be good for relations, I'd bet.