We Know you Ride, But do you Shoot? | Page 97 | GTAMotorcycle.com

We Know you Ride, But do you Shoot?

Coming in to this thread late, and forgive me if already asked (looks like 96 pages), but are there any reasons NOT to get your PAL & RPAL? I know there is a police check when you get the licenses, and then I think they might run you every now and then (which is all ok), but I am wondering if there is anything else.

Essentially I've been mulling over doing this the last few years (few friends got their licenses and joined ranges), and am thinking of doing it this summer as I have the time. That said, I just want to be 100% sure it won't bite me in the *** at some point, given my only reason is I'd like to have both licenses, and maybe pick up a gun or two and join a range in future (but probably not for a few more years due to costs).
 
Getting your RPAL/PAL, simply lets anyone who you tell, or is able to access this information, that you are legally allowed to acquire and own firearms. I expect that Canada's various police agencies, don't have the time or desire, to do random checks on RPAL/PAL holders - anymore than they would do random checks on drivers license holders. I'm sure that it probably happens, but there is enough expertise out there, that if someone wanted to do a full "work-up" on you - you having an RPAL/PAL, would only be another bit of info. I've had one for a couple dozen years. I am not aware of any extra scrutiny - or any scrutiny, for that matter. Statistically, legal firearms owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country - the cops know this.
 
Crackberry said:
^^^^^^^

What gatekeeper wrote.....plus

Here's what the law states, this is taken from the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations SOR/98-209:

Transportation of Restricted Firearms

11*An individual may transport a restricted firearm only if
* (a)*it is unloaded;

* (b)*it is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device;

* (c)*it is in a locked container that is made of an opaque material and is of such strength, construction and nature that it cannot readily be broken open or into or accidentally opened during transportation; and

* (d)*if it is in a container described in paragraph (c) that is in an unattended vehicle,
* (i)*when the vehicle is equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the container is in that trunk or compartment and the trunk or compartment is securely locked, and

* (ii)*when the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk or similar compartment that can be securely locked, the vehicle, or the part of the vehicle that contains the container, is securely locked and the container is not visible from outside the vehicle.


The following key terms are also defined:

vehicle means any conveyance that is used for transportation by water, land or air. (véhicule)

unloaded, in respect of a firearm, means that any propellant, projectile or cartridge that can be discharged from the firearm is not contained in the breech or firing chamber of the firearm nor in the cartridge magazine attached to or inserted into the firearm. (non chargée)

secure locking device means a device
* (a)*that can only be opened or released by the use of an electronic, magnetic or mechanical key or by setting the device in accordance with an alphabetical or numerical combination; and

* (b)*that, when applied to a firearm, prevents the firearm from being discharged. (dispositif de verrouillage sécuritaire)


The regulation also defines storage as:

Storage of Restricted Firearms

6*An individual may store a restricted firearm only if
* (a)*it is unloaded;

* (b)*it is
* (i)*rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

* (ii)*stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and

* (c)*it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in
* (i)*a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

* (ii)*a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked.

Always go beyond what's required....store your ammo in a separate locked container away from the gun AND the magazine or if you don't load your own ammo, do what I do, just buy it at the range and use it at the range so that the only thing you are transporting is the restricted firearm which is locked in accordance with the requirements..

This is by no means legal advice, I'm simply giving my personal opinion on the subject.

Cheers




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"the container is not visible from outside the vehicle"

That makes it sound as though the container must be within another container to be legal on a bike.
 
Doug Tait said:
Getting your RPAL/PAL, simply lets anyone who you tell, or is able to access this information, that you are legally allowed to acquire and own firearms. I expect that Canada's various police agencies, don't have the time or desire, to do random checks on RPAL/PAL holders - anymore than they would do random checks on drivers license holders. I'm sure that it probably happens, but there is enough expertise out there, that if someone wanted to do a full "work-up" on you - you having an RPAL/PAL, would only be another bit of info. I've had one for a couple dozen years. I am not aware of any extra scrutiny - or any scrutiny, for that matter. Statistically, legal firearms owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country - the cops know this.
Click to expand...
Please, a bunch of cold blooded killers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-fatally-shot/article28752343/?service=mobile

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...l-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers

Sent from my Z826 using Tapatalk
 
2 incidents out of the 1.98M (as of 2014) gun owners in Canada.

Pretty sure that there were more than 2 shootings in the GTA since Friday, and I'll bet my house that they weren't caused by legal owners.
 
Last edited:
miggs said:
2 incidents out of the 1.98M (as of 2014) gun owners in Canada.

Pretty sure that there were more than 2 shootings in the GTA since Friday, and I'll bet my house that they weren't caused by legal owners.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. I was just pointing out legal gun owners are not always law abiding citizens. Plenty of other examples.
 
There are no absolutes.
The argument was that legal gun owners are amongst the more law abiding citizens in this country.
Based off cases of gun violence, it would appear that legal gun owners being the cause of the crime are much lower.

There was a shooting in T.O this weekend where the police recovered 16 casings. This was from a single shooter.

Since CDN law dictates handgun magazines can only hold 10rds then either the shooter had to reload, or was using a prohibited magazine.

Do you want to wager that this was a legal, or non-legal gun and gun owner?
 
Last edited:
miggs said:
There are no absolutes.
The argument was that legal gun owners are amongst the more law abiding citizens in this country.
Based off cases of gun violence, it would appear that legal gun owners being the cause of the crime are much lower.

There was a shooting in T.O this weekend where the police recovered 16 casings. This was from a single shooter.

Since CDN law dictates handgun magazines can only hold 10rds then either the shooter had to reload, or was using a prohibited magazine.

Do you want to wager that this was a legal, or non-legal gun and gun owner?
Click to expand...

depending on the firearm used......

for example

5. Magazines for semiautomatic handguns which contain more than ten (10) rounds of a different calibreMagazines designed to contain centrefire cartridges and designed or manufactured for use in a semiautomatic handgun, are limited to 10 cartridges. The capacity is measured by the kind of cartridge the magazine was designed to contain. In some cases the magazine will be capable of containing more than 10 rounds of a different caliber; however that is not relevant in the determination of the maximum permitted capacity.
Example:
Heckler and Koch P7 pistol chambered for 9mm Luger caliber:

The magazine designed for the 40 S&W calibre variant of the pistol will hold 13 cartridges of 9mm Luger calibre and function in the 9mm Luger calibre P7 pistol. This is permissible as the maximum permitted capacity of the 40 S&W calibre magazine must be measured by the number of 40 S&W calibre cartridges it is capable of holding, which is 10 such cartridges in the case of the HK P7 pistol magazine.
Click to expand...
 
I am aware you can load 13 rds of 9mm into a .40 magazine. That, +1 in the chamber is still only 14.

You can also fit a bunch of .223 / 5.56 into a .50 mag and run it through an AR there for bypassing the 5rd capacity required by law.

While I would argue that the average criminal on the street does not know that info, you can be damn sure that the RCMP does, and is now fighting to have the regulations changed.

They are asking that anyone found using a magazine in a gun it was not intended for to be a punishable offense.
 
To get this back on topic...

I bought me one of these today. Can never have too many shotguns.

_pa_08_tr.jpg
 
daught said:
That's not the point. I was just pointing out legal gun owners are not always law abiding citizens. Plenty of other examples.
Click to expand...

Both of your examples are no good. One was acquitted and the other hasn't been convicted yet...
So, as it stands right now... both guys are law abiding citizens.
 
daught said:
That's not the point. I was just pointing out legal gun owners are not always law abiding citizens. Plenty of other examples.
Click to expand...

You couldn't have picked a worst case by citing Thomson.. there is literally video of his home being firebombed by thugs while he's inside. And the man had the restraint to actually not even shoot his attackers, merely scare them away with warning shots. Daught indeed.
 
Doug Tait said:
Getting your RPAL/PAL, simply lets anyone who you tell, or is able to access this information, that you are legally allowed to acquire and own firearms. I expect that Canada's various police agencies, don't have the time or desire, to do random checks on RPAL/PAL holders - anymore than they would do random checks on drivers license holders. I'm sure that it probably happens, but there is enough expertise out there, that if someone wanted to do a full "work-up" on you - you having an RPAL/PAL, would only be another bit of info. I've had one for a couple dozen years. I am not aware of any extra scrutiny - or any scrutiny, for that matter. Statistically, legal firearms owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country - the cops know this.
Click to expand...

I guess. Just part of me thinks it means you'll flag at a traffic stop or when crossing the border, and somehow come back to haunt you/cause more issues (eg. TSA issues, potentially trigger happy cops, random police checks, etc). If I got mine it would solely be for the hell of it and as a potential hobby (target shooting at a range), so I could easily forgo it if it meant less potential issues in future.
 
conundrum said:
I guess. Just part of me thinks it means you'll flag at a traffic stop or when crossing the border, and somehow come back to haunt you/cause more issues (eg. TSA issues, potentially trigger happy cops, random police checks, etc). If I got mine it would solely be for the hell of it and as a potential hobby (target shooting at a range), so I could easily forgo it if it meant less potential issues in future.
Click to expand...

Since getting my PAL a few years ago, I swear every time I cross the border they ask me if I have any firearms... and I don't recall being asked that before I had my PAL... but I just might not remember it happening before. There has never been an issue though... because I would never bring a firearm across the border without the proper paperwork/reason, and I would never try to bring any firearm related merchandise back (like magazines or other 'controlled' items).
 
mmmnaked said:
You couldn't have picked a worst case by citing Thomson.. there is literally video of his home being firebombed by thugs while he's inside. And the man had the restraint to actually not even shoot his attackers, merely scare them away with warning shots. Daught indeed.
Click to expand...
It's the perfect case to cite. It shows gun owners escalate violence and put the aggressors in danger instead of calling 911 and waiting for the police.
 
So you have multiple assailants throwing molotov cocktails at your house trying to burn it down while you are inside.

You're going to call the police and then wait the 7-10min to arrive while your home is burning down around you?

You going to exit the house and wait patiently outside alongside your attackers unarmed?

You also probably think that criminals are going to start turning in their illegal guns to get $200 from the police.
 
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?

The law is the law. Call 911 and wait. He could have reached for a fire extinguisher instead of his gun. Guns don't put out fires.

Sent from my Z826 using Tapatalk
 
Re: We know you ride, but do you Shoot?

daught said:
The law is the law. Call 911 and wait. He could have reached for a fire extinguisher instead of his gun. Guns don't put out fires.

Sent from my Z826 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The law is the law. Citizens are justified in defending themselves and those under their protection.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-25.html

  • 25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
    • (a) as a private person,
    • (b) as a peace officer or public officer,
    • (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
    • (d) by virtue of his office,
    is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Fire extinguishers don't stop arsonists.

Defence — use or threat of force
  • 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
    • (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
    • (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
    • (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom