Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    The conditions are standard. The standard is defined in the regulations. I don't carry them in the same manner that I don't carry a copy of the firearms act. It is not needed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    The ATT as a condition is non standard.
    Two vicious lies undergird that stinking pile of excrement that passes for firearms law and regulation in Canada.

    Some guns are too dangerous for you to have, and you don't "need" guns because you have police to protect you.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    6,205
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    The ATT as a condition is non standard.
    It became standard with the coming into force of the ATT provision in C-42. It is indeed standard (until the Libs remove it).
    CSSA/CCFR/NRA

  3. #33
    Senior Member Petamocto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Rusagonis/Waasis, NB
    Posts
    4,664
    Back to Mr Blaney, I think most of us can agree that Blaney had a part of moving the ball down the field in the right direction.

    We also know that a first down is not enough for CLW45; either the quarterback throws a hail mary touchdown every play or CLW45 will assess their performance as useless.
    I have no signature block.

  4. The Following User Liked This Post By Petamocto

    labradort (04-16-2017)

  5. #34
    Senior Member speedloader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    It became standard with the coming into force of the ATT provision in C-42. It is indeed standard (until the Libs remove it).
    yes, I went up to my CFO last year (after Selphie the clown was elected) at the big gun show here in april and asked,
    do I need to carry my att paper work again?
    He said no it is still an automatic condition of your RPAL until further notice.

  6. #35
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    It became standard with the coming into force of the ATT provision in C-42. It is indeed standard (until the Libs remove it).
    It is in my hand as I write.

    "SPECIAL CONDITIONS

    These licence conditions authorize the transport..."

    The only STANDARD CONDITION is that you must inform the CFO of name and address change.
    Two vicious lies undergird that stinking pile of excrement that passes for firearms law and regulation in Canada.

    Some guns are too dangerous for you to have, and you don't "need" guns because you have police to protect you.

  7. #36
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    16,359
    Right after Bill C42, the first thousand or so that asked for new RPALs with the new Standard Conditions, got a new licence card and a new piece of conditions paper. Then the Canadian Firearms Program stopped doing that, and the RCMP website started telling everyone that most were automatically attached to the licence depending upon if they had a restricted, and one more if they were a member of a range.

    I have some photos, all dated Sept 2015.


    Here's the first guy's (personal information obviously edited):





    and here's the second guy's from British Columbia




    Another got an accompanying letter, with the text we've all seen before, even though lots have phoned the Canadian Firearms Program office and got an official who says the exact opposite (they're standard, fixed text by regulation, leave them at home).



    The 1998 police handbook described it like this, although I think the CFOs may be resisting this definition.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 04-02-2017 at 09:07 AM.
    Data does not equal information, and information does not equal understanding.

  8. #37
    Senior Member speedloader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    2,323
    oh you gotta love the CFP its so clear as mud is almost clear,
    good thing we have these laws or .....it might get confusing sometimes

    must be just absolute hell on the criminals ........trying to follow all this ...
    every time they call the cfo they get a different answer on how to transport their firearms for various crimes
    gotta be just nerve racking

  9. #38
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    6,205
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    It is in my hand as I write.

    "SPECIAL CONDITIONS

    These licence conditions authorize the transport..."

    The only STANDARD CONDITION is that you must inform the CFO of name and address change.
    You can say that until you are blue in the face. But that doesn't change the reality for myself and the others who've posted here saying that their respective CFO's say the ATT is attached as standard conditions, not special.

    And I will ask again (just to make a point), does anyone know of anyone who only has "standard conditions apply" on their PAL who has been asked to provide the conditions sheet? Anyone?
    CSSA/CCFR/NRA

  10. #39
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    You can say that until you are blue in the face. But that doesn't change the reality for myself and the others who've posted here saying that their respective CFO's say the ATT is attached as standard conditions, not special.

    And I will ask again (just to make a point), does anyone know of anyone who only has "standard conditions apply" on their PAL who has been asked to provide the conditions sheet? Anyone?
    For what it is worth:


    Actually section 117.11 of the Criminal code of Canada.

    Onus on the accused (Firearms offenses)

    117.11 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105, any question arises as to whether a person is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, licence or registration certificate.

    1995, c. 39, s. 139.

    Who among us trusts the government sufficiently, that when charged with having a restricted firearm / prohibited handgun in a place that we are not authorized to have it, to rely on a government agent to testify that we had a condition attached?

    And yes, in relatively free Alberta, the condition sheet is still included when the licence is issued / renewed.
    Two vicious lies undergird that stinking pile of excrement that passes for firearms law and regulation in Canada.

    Some guns are too dangerous for you to have, and you don't "need" guns because you have police to protect you.

  11. #40
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    6,205
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    For what it is worth:
    I carry my PAL and registration certificates so that isn't worth much.

    Who among us trusts the government sufficiently, that when charged with having a restricted firearm / prohibited handgun in a place that we are not authorized to have it, to rely on a government agent to testify that we had a condition attached?
    There are a myriad of ways one could be "punished by process". I carry insurance to protect me from such punishment. I recommend all gun owners do, even those who carry their attached conditions.
    CSSA/CCFR/NRA

  12. The Following User Liked This Post By Doug_M

    Coke (04-15-2017)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •