Authorization to carry success?

[Brew]

This.

As a field biologist working in the Arctic, I had a carry permit for many many years.
It covered the NWT, Yukon, BC, Alberta & Saskatchewan.
Pretty much anywhere, any time.

When we moved south I was informed I would never be issued one again, even if working in grizzly habitat.
Fought that. Lost.
Most bio's I know have had their permits revoked or have been refused re-issue.

No way in hell they will allow on for personal defense when hunting. Ever.

Nog

I find it weird that they cancelled yours or said they wouldn’t issue again do to living in the south. I live in the lower mainland and work up and down the coast and mines good for all of bc and the Yukon. I don’t know about you but I have had way more problems with black bears in guiding days and now my forestry job.

[ryanb]

I've had one in the past associated with employment, it wasn't as hard to get as I thought it would be. There was never a "proficiency check", is that something new?

Fact of the matter is I think it's a bit of a liability issue if they deny without a good reason and you end up getting chewed on by a bear

[twoSevenO]

It has recently come to my attention that some folks head into the bush with their handguns. When I inquired a bit more into it I realized they weren't even aware they were breaking the law.

When they responded with "oh they'll never check anyways because what's the chance of getting searched?" I pointed out they could simply be involved in an accident and have it discovered by first responders on scene they seemed to have a bitnof a Eureka moment ... :/

My question is: what is the actual punishment you face if you were to get busted transporting an handgun to and from the bush?

[firebird]

I've had one in the past associated with employment, it wasn't as hard to get as I thought it would be. There was never a "proficiency check", is that something new?

Fact of the matter is I think it's a bit of a liability issue if they deny without a good reason and you end up getting chewed on by a bear

At renewal time you had to ‘qualify’ with your pistol in front of an instructor. Can’t remember the target circle size now. But a black bears kill spots about 3” when facing you.

[firebird]

I find it weird that they cancelled yours or said they wouldn’t issue again do to living in the south. I live in the lower mainland and work up and down the coast and mines good for all of bc and the Yukon. I don’t know about you but I have had way more problems with black bears in guiding days and now my forestry job.

Things obviously have changed over the years. Mine was only go for above a certain parallel. I lived below it. But worked/flew above it.

[Norwestalta]

It has recently come to my attention that some folks head into the bush with their handguns. When I inquired a bit more into it I realized they weren't even aware they were breaking the law.

When they responded with "oh they'll never check anyways because what's the chance of getting searched?" I pointed out they could simply be involved in an accident and have it discovered by first responders on scene they seemed to have a bitnof a Eureka moment ... :/

My question is: what is the actual punishment you face if you were to get busted transporting an handgun to and from the bush?

Did you save the world and report them?
Couple years ago a guy around swan hills shot and killed a grizz bear with his pistol. They powers that be were more upset about the bear but I think they did take the guys gun. I'm not sure about the exact outcome other then dead bear and a alive guy?

[Ron.C]

My question is: what is the actual punishment you face if you were to get busted transporting an handgun to and from the bush?

Here's a couple charges to ponder. I'm not a lawyer and not saying these would apply( I think the first one would). I'm assuming an ATT would not be valid if it's clear you were not not transporting it to/from a range or gunsmith. And according the the firearms act a vehicle means any conveyance that is used for transportation by water, land or air, so you truck, atv, boat.

Anyhow, a couple examples of what you'd might be looking at. There are most certainly other charges for that matter but 5 years/10 years for these 2 as an example.

Not to mention the fact you would most certainly loose your PAL/RPAL. In my case, I'm a defense contractor and I would also lose my job (even if I didn't serve jail time) as I hold a security clearance at work that would be revolked.



Possession at unauthorized place

• 93 (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, being the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, possesses them at a place that is
  
  • (a) indicated on the authorization or licence as being a place where the person may not possess it;
  • (b) other than a place indicated on the authorization or licence as being a place where the person may possess it; or
  • (c) other than a place where it may be possessed under the Firearms Act.
  
  
• Marginal note:Punishment
  (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
  
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Unauthorized possession in motor vehicle

• 94 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), every person commits an offence who is an occupant of a motor vehicle in which the person knows there is a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm, a non-restricted firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition, unless
  
  • (a) in the case of a prohibited firearm, a restricted firearm or a non-restricted firearm,
    
    • (i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of
      
      • (A) a licence under which the person or other occupant may possess the firearm, and
      • (B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it,
      
      
    • (ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was the holder of
      
      • (A) a licence under which that other occupant may possess the firearm, and
      • (B) in the case of a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, an authorization and a registration certificate for it, or
      
      
    • (iii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this Act by reason of sections 117.07 to 117.1 or any other Act of Parliament; and
    
    
  • (b) in the case of a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any prohibited ammunition,
    
    • (i) the person or any other occupant of the motor vehicle is the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the person or other occupant may transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, or
    • (ii) the person had reasonable grounds to believe that any other occupant of the motor vehicle was
      
      • (A) the holder of an authorization or a licence under which the other occupant may transport the prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device or prohibited ammunition, or
      • (B) a person who could not be convicted of an offence under this Act by reason of sections 117.07 to 117.1 or any other Act of Parliament.
  
  
• Marginal note:Punishment
  (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
  
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[Bernie O]

Upon carefull reading of the above act it would appear that the law only applies to people that have an rpal. Are we not surprised that these laws dont apply to criminals. If you want to carry the first thing to do is give up your rpal.

[HappyJack]

Upon carefull reading of the above act it would appear that the law only applies to people that have an rpal. Are we not surprised that these laws dont apply to criminals. If you want to carry the first thing to do is give up your rpal.

I have to agree with those sentiments, it's all a bit stupid. They have an irrational fear of legal handgun ownership and use.

[Brew]

I’ve had my atc for seven years now. For me there has always been a questionnaire to fill out and paperwork for the one or two guns I want on my atc and then a proficiency test for both pistols. The proficiency test is quite the joke. It’s so extremely easy My non shooter of a wife could pass it.