PDA

View Full Version : ATT Differences Across Canada



Battle Beaver
12-29-2014, 12:19 PM
With Bill C-42 on the horizon, I started collecting ATT info for all provinces across Canada on the "other" forum. Thought I might post it here too.

This is what I have so far (revision 12 - 09/FEB/2015)

http://www.battlebeaver.com/files/CanadaATTRules_v12.jpg

If you prefer a PDF, you get it here:
http://www.battlebeaver.com/files/CanadaATTRules_v12.pdf

RED boxes mean bad (ie: restrictions), GREEN boxes mean good (ie: freedom!)

I scored each province and C-42 as follows:

1] I ignored "Valid For Ranges in Other Provinces", as this only applied to 3 provinces which happen to be geographically located near a territory. If Ontario (for example) had a territory above it, it would likely have a YES along with AB, BC and MB. So I didn't think it fair to give an extra point to those provinces because of geography.
2] For the most part, all green boxes get 1 point. But because from the info people here have provided, there are some discrepancies between ATTs within the same province. For example, some ATTs from SK seem to have a club listed, but some don't. So for those green boxes that have dependencies (listed in the notes), they will get 1/2 point.
3] I've given 2 scores to the "BILL C-42" column. As I said above, I had to guess on some of the answers so they're in YELLOW boxes. So the first score for that column is worst case (1 point for each green box), and the second for best case where I also add 1 point for each yellow box EXCEPT the "Club Membership Required", that remains at zero for now.
4] My scoring system is arbitrary. An argument could be made to assign more points to certain green boxes, or subtract points to penalize for red boxes (such as the serial numbers listed on ATTs). But I wanted to keep it simple.

Since the ATT will become part of our PAL licence, I've made some guesses for some of the C-42 questions:

Club Membership Required : UNKNOWN (I'm guessing no, but we'll have to see)
Home Club Named : PROBABLY NOT (reason being is I can't see the RCMP issuing a new PAL when people change home clubs)
Restricted Serial #'s Listed : PROBABLY NOT (same reason as above, would be too expensive to keep re-issuing the PAL card)
To/From Retail Locations : Section 2.2 (a) of Bill C-42 says the individual must be authorized to transport the firearm within the individual’s province of residence from the place where the individual acquires it to the place where they may possess it under section 17

IF YOU SEE ANY ERRORS PLEASE LET ME KNOW (in this thread or PM)

I've read the entire text of Bill C-42 in order to fill in the blanks for the C-42 column. Relevant section here:

(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.3), an individual
who holds a licence authorizing the
individual to possess prohibited firearms or
restricted firearms must, if the licence is
renewed, be authorized to transport them within
the individual’s province of residence
(a) to and from all shooting clubs and
shooting ranges that are approved under
section 29;
(b) to and from any place a peace officer,
firearms officer or chief firearms officer is
located, for verification, registration or disposal
in accordance with this Act or Part III
of the Criminal Code;
(c) to and from a business that holds a
licence authorizing it to repair or appraise
prohibited firearms or restricted firearms;
(d) to and from a gun show; and
(e) to a port of exit in order to take them
outside Canada, and from a port of entry.

Read that carefully, it's all GOOD NEWS in my opinion. Not only because I live in Ontario, but good for all of us. Bill C-42 does nothing that I can see that will take anything away from the "have" provinces in the west (god help me, I want to move out west!).

Note the wording that a person who is licensed (PAL) MUST be authorized to transport them within their own province. What that means is the ATT now will AUTOMATICALLY become part of the PAL.

To and from a business for repair (gunsmith) or appraisal. The business needs to be "authorized". Almost all gun stores I've been to (leaving aside the big ones like Cabelas, Canadian Tire, etc) will take your firearms to sell on consignment. In order to sell them, they're going to have to appraise them. The question is then, how hard would it be for existing businesses to become "authorized" appraisers?

I'll be updating/editing this post as I make any changes to the spreadsheet.

Thanks!
Scott
(Battle Beaver)

harbl_the_cat
12-29-2014, 04:02 PM
That's a cool chart... Alberta FTW - but I guess us Alberta rednecks MIGHT lose out after C42.

That's a whole lot of red for Ontario/Quebec. Must be rough with all those restrictions being a gun owner over there.

Kind of funny how it's cowboy country out West in general...

Kobs
12-29-2014, 04:19 PM
So the biggest winners will be QC and Ontario with the new laws, hard to get any worse .

What about P.E.I. there's no guns there LOL

Edit: Just to have everything evened out trough out the provinces would be great, no more this but not that here and vice versa in another province. Sometimes as stated even in the same province peoples face discrepancies in the ATT's This is just a circus that has to stop.

Gaidheal
12-29-2014, 04:46 PM
What about P.E.I. there's no guns there LOL


That's right. Nothing to see here... move along

blacksmithden
12-29-2014, 06:05 PM
Now...don't quote me on this, but I think my latest ATT (Alberta) says all ranges are cool, but I think they took off the gunsmiths and border crossings....I don't ever remember one of mine saying anything about NWT...just within the province of Alberta. I'd have to dig through 10 gun cases to find my ATT, and I'm not that desperate to find out. Anybody else get a new Alberta ATT in the past year ?

Edenchef
12-29-2014, 11:07 PM
My current ATT, issued in April, of this year. Is good for all approved ranges and border crossings in Alberta only. Nothing about gunsmiths or NWT.

Cheers!

RangeBob
12-30-2014, 01:08 AM
I don't have a copy of a Quebec ATT, but someone once posted they listed the Restricted (by serial# or certificate#).
Then again, someone once posted that Quebecer PALers had to write down each used serial at ranges -- and someone from Quebec posted that its not universal.

Battle Beaver
12-30-2014, 02:40 AM
Yeah, I'm having that issue with a few of the provinces while filling out the spreadsheet. Seems to be some inconsistencies between ATTs within some of the provinces. At least where I live in Ontario, all our ATTs universally suck. :)


I don't have a copy of a Quebec ATT, but someone once posted they listed the Restricted (by serial# or certificate#).
Then again, someone once posted that Quebecer PALers had to write down each used serial at ranges -- and someone from Quebec posted that its not universal.

Kobs
12-30-2014, 09:29 AM
I don't have a copy of a Quebec ATT, but someone once posted they listed the Restricted (by serial# or certificate#).
Then again, someone once posted that Quebecer PALers had to write down each used serial at ranges -- and someone from Quebec posted that its not universal.

We do have to write serial numbers/Certs of the guns we use at the range, cause we have to "justify having the said guns" so if you have 4 handguns 2 AR's you have to shoot each of them at least once a year. One range even asked me to write down non restricted serial numbers

RangeBob
12-30-2014, 10:54 AM
Then again, someone once posted that Quebecer PALers had to write down each used serial at ranges -- and someone from Quebec posted that its not universal.


We do have to write serial numbers/Certs of the guns we use at the range, cause we have to "justify having the said guns" so if you have 4 handguns 2 AR's you have to shoot each of them at least once a year. One range even asked me to write down non restricted serial numbers

By 'its not universal' I meant that:
a) some Quebec ranges have logs for members to write down restricted/prohibited serial numbers, and
b) some Quebec ranges do not ask members to write down serial numbers.

To which you've added
c) some Quebec ranges have logs for members to write down restricted/prohibited/non-restricted serial/certs numbers
[which is new to me]

Your [cause we have to "justify having the said guns" so if you have 4 handguns 2 AR's you have to shoot each of them at least once a year. ]
tis the oft expressed reason.

Battle Beaver
12-30-2014, 01:05 PM
Ok, finally got some info for PEI from a GOC member via PM.

First post updated. I also noted that for Alberta, it seems that newer ATTs to not include Gunsmiths. So as per my scoring method, the Gunsmiths row now gets 1/2 point instead of a full point (because older ATTs still have Gunsmiths). Alberta's score drops from 7.5 to 7.0.

First post updated with new image and link to new PDF (revision 7).

Scott
(Battle Beaver)

Gaidheal
12-30-2014, 01:20 PM
I think on PEI the ATT is valid only for the range listed and I'm not sure if an invite allows you to go without a STATT

I will call the CFO tomorrow (if they're open) and verify

superbad
12-30-2014, 01:45 PM
my att in bc says all ranges, businesses, gunsmiths, border crossings daily from 0 to 0 hours. is a gun show a business?

harbl_the_cat
12-30-2014, 03:30 PM
Alberta ATT from 2012:
Ranges, gunsmiths, border crossings

Alberta ATT from 2014:
Ranges, border crossings

Battle Beaver
12-31-2014, 12:15 PM
Updated first post to revision 8 of the spreadsheet.

Battle Beaver
01-02-2015, 08:27 PM
Updated first post to revision 9.

Changes:
1] Removed "Valid For All Ranges In Province" because as far as I can tell, ATTs for all provinces include that. The only difference is some Provinces require an "invitation" to go to another range (Ontario, PEI, Quebec).
2] Removed "Valid For Ranges in Other Provinces" because this only applies to Alberta, BC and Manitoba because of their geographical location (explained in previous post). Besides, I wasn't scoring for this row anyhow.
3] Rearranged columns/Provinces in WEST to EAST order, moved BILL C-42 column to first column.

Scott

Novix
01-05-2015, 11:43 PM
Just received mine for the CFO
Reason - Raison
Other
To and from all approved ranges/clubs and international border crossings in the
province of Alberta
and then additional conditions read:
The holder must be in possession of the Registration Certificate(s) for the firearm(s) being transported.
Firearms may only be loaded and/or carried on your person while you are actively engaged in target practice or a target shooting competition.
This authorization allows the holder to transport firearms to and from border crossings on condition that the holder is in possession of the
necessary US documentation.

That being said I was absolutely amazed today with the CFO office, I had an issue with the clarity of my membership that was faxed to the CFO. the lady on the phone said it will take an additional 5 business days to process once they received the next copy. I told her the store has sent another fax in this morning, yes today, and I was just confirming that it was al-right. She said they have no idea if it was in yet, I then said ok and that I had issue last week with it, but thank you for your time, she paused then said hold on I'll go check... I'm not kidding... She came back and said she has it but that it was still dark, but with a magnifying glass she could make everything out. This is where I thought it would end for another 5 days... She then said can you hold on and I'll do up your statt and ltatt right now... 15 minutes later I had the email and was off to go get my gun. Simply amazing, especially after hearing some of the issues others have had...

Peace

DeathSpok
02-07-2015, 11:53 PM
Wow, good job on that chart!

I'm just curious, for "To/From Gunsmith" it says "No" for Ontario. So does that mean you don't need an ATT to take your restricted firearm to a gunsmith, or that you can't take your restricted firearm at all to a gunsmith because the CFO won't grant you an ATT? I know the latter case sounds really silly, so I'm almost ashamed to be asking it, but after seeing the state of firearms regulation in this country it's really hard to tell.

Battle Beaver
02-08-2015, 01:17 AM
In Ontario, our ATT (or LTATT, Long Term Authorization To Transport if you wish) does NOT let us take our restricted firearms to and from a gunsmith, that's why it says "NO". If I need to take one of my restricted firearms to a gunsmith, I need to call the CFO to get a special (STATT, Short Term Authorization To Transport) to take it there and back.


Wow, good job on that chart!

I'm just curious, for "To/From Gunsmith" it says "No" for Ontario. So does that mean you don't need an ATT to take your restricted firearm to a gunsmith, or that you can't take your restricted firearm at all to a gunsmith because the CFO won't grant you an ATT? I know the latter case sounds really silly, so I'm almost ashamed to be asking it, but after seeing the state of firearms regulation in this country it's really hard to tell.

Doug_M
02-08-2015, 07:07 AM
Don't know how I missed this thread. Great work OverKill! You should post that chart on the NFA's FaceBook page.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 07:12 AM
In Ontario, our ATT (or LTATT, Long Term Authorization To Transport if you wish) does NOT let us take our restricted firearms to and from a gunsmith, that's why it says "NO". If I need to take one of my restricted firearms to a gunsmith, I need to call the CFO to get a special (STATT, Short Term Authorization To Transport) to take it there and back.

Ah, OK. That makes sense.

So if I understand correctly an LTATT can (but doesn't always) include multiple purposes listed on the same document (not simply taking your restricted to the range, for example). I'd always assumed that taking your restricted to a gunsmith (or for any other purpoose other than going to the range) required a separate STATT rather than being included in the LTATT, which is why I was confused by what was listed in the chart.

Interesting that each province's CFO has so much discretion to make up the rules as they go along. You'd think that since the Firearms Act is a piece of federal legislation that the (application of the) rules would be consistent across the country. But that would make too much sense.

Thanks again for putting this together.

Battle Beaver
02-08-2015, 10:04 AM
Updated first post to version 11 of the chart. Changed the Bill C-42 column "To/From Retail Locations" to YES from MAYBE. Not sure how I missed the following section in the actual bill (C42) before, but that is why I changed it to YES.

(2.2) Subject to subsection (2.3), if a chief
firearms officer has authorized the transfer of a
prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm to an
individual who holds a licence authorizing the
individual to possess prohibited firearms or
restricted firearms, the individual must be
authorized
(a) to transport the firearm within the
individual’s province of residence from the
place where the individual acquires it to the
place where they may possess it under section
17; and

RangeBob
02-08-2015, 11:37 AM
Updated first post to version 11 of the chart. Changed the Bill C-42 column "To/From Retail Locations" to YES from MAYBE. Not sure how I missed the following section in the actual bill (C42) before, but that is why I changed it to YES.

(2.2) Subject to subsection (2.3), if a chief
firearms officer has authorized the transfer of a
prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm to an
individual who holds a licence authorizing the
individual to possess prohibited firearms or
restricted firearms, the individual must be
authorized
(a) to transport the firearm within the
individual’s province of residence from the
place where the individual acquires it to the
place where they may possess it under section
17; and

Bill C-42 allows the buyer to pickup FROM retail locations and homes and post office.
Bill C-42 does NOT allow the seller to deliver TO retail locations and homes and post office.

Battle Beaver
02-08-2015, 12:53 PM
You are correct, I'll update the chart tonight. Thanks!


Bill C-42 allows the buyer to pickup FROM retail locations and homes and post office.
Bill C-42 does NOT allow the seller to deliver TO retail locations and homes and post office.

Foxer
02-08-2015, 02:03 PM
Inevitably there will have to be some tweaking over time in the regs. C-42 DOES allow for that, whereas previously the law really did not.

But I have to say- first bills on gun subjects are notoriously fraught with mistakes and bad ideas, even for the CPC. Look at the first bill to 'kill' the registry and then look at the one that passed (which was about 5 generations later). For a first kick at the can, this is pretty good. And by opening the door to tweaks in the regs at least we won't have to go thru the whole shemozle again to make little changes.

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 02:23 PM
Does anyone know how far C-42 has gotten so far? The Parliament of Canada website (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C42&Parl=41&Ses=2) says that it's gone through second reading, but I dunno how often that is updated.

RangeBob
02-08-2015, 02:25 PM
Does anyone know how far C-42 has gotten so far?
Yes.


The Parliament of Canada website (http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C42&Parl=41&Ses=2) says that it's gone through second reading, but I dunno how often that is updated.
It's usually updated within a business day.
Actually we're still in the 2nd reading debate stage. They started 2nd reading debate, but never finished debate.
Then comes Committee to discuss and tweak it.

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 02:31 PM
Actually we're still in the 2nd reading debate stage. They started 2nd reading debate, but never finished debate.
Then comes Committee to discuss and tweak it.

Oh darn, I thought they'd at least made it through second reading and was just waiting for Committee to start. Oh well.

Thanks for the clarification.

Foxer
02-08-2015, 03:30 PM
Oh darn, I thought they'd at least made it through second reading and was just waiting for Committee to start. Oh well.

Thanks for the clarification.

Pretty much at the end of it - it'll go to committee pretty quick. If you want to get truly annoyed go read what the opposition said during the second reading debates so far. These people are NOT our friends.

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 04:28 PM
Pretty much at the end of it - it'll go to committee pretty quick. If you want to get truly annoyed go read what the opposition said during the second reading debates so far. These people are NOT our friends.

My eyes pretty much glazed over after a few minutes of reading the Members' statements.

The problem I face, and I know that I'm going to take some heat in this forum for it, is that there are multiple issues I care about, and not all of them are supported by the Tories. So for example, while as a legal firearms owner and hobbyist I'm very much in favour and appreciative of the Conservatives' efforts to amend the Firearms Act to make to make it more consistent and logical, I'm also hoping that somewhere down the line we're going to get legalisation and regulation of marijuana in Canada in the same way that alcohol is (although hopefully with fewer taxes), and that's much more likely to happen with a Liberal government.

I guess i just have to decide what's more important to me (along with the rest of the respective Party's platforms - I can't in good conscience vote based on a single issue, unless it's something earth shattering like the Canada-US FTA was).

Sigh, it just ain't easy being a Libertarian :smash:

Foxer
02-08-2015, 04:59 PM
I guess i just have to decide what's more important to me (along with the rest of the respective Party's platforms - I can't in good conscience vote based on a single issue, unless it's something earth shattering like the Canada-US FTA was).

Well democracy is always a bit of an exercise in compromise, it's true. you simply can't make 34 million people happy at the same time. However - it's critical to remember that WE get a rather HUGE say in what policy is. Rememer - not long ago the party was pretty anti-gay, and ran on an agenda to fight gay marriage etc etc. A lot of Conservatives went to the conventions and said "well that's bullcrap - we may not be PRO gay but we're against laws preventing their choices", and the policy changed.

The "CPC' Policies don't belong to the party, they belong to the members of the party and policy conventions are regularly held to fine tune that policy. There's actually a reasonable amount of support for legalizing dope amongst conservatives, and often for much the same reasons as they don't like gun laws that are useless. So, with a little effort that could get put on the table and policy could actually change.

You cant' just sit back and let them choose policy for you - or you'll NEVER have a real voice. Take what they're giving now because it's too late for this election - but pay attention to when policy conventions are coming up and look to have that issue put forward for the future. Policy is what the members make it - and the world is run by those who show up :)

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 05:20 PM
^ Fair point. I really need to be more active than simply showing up on election day, although that's still better than the 38.9% who didn't bother at all in 2011.

I wonder which would be better (or easier) - getting the Tories to legalise pot, or getting the Liberals to support reasonable (to us gun owners) firearms laws? I'm not even going to consider the NDP - I'm not that insane/deluded ;)

Foxer
02-08-2015, 05:35 PM
^ Fair point. I really need to be more active than simply showing up on election day, although that's still better than the 38.9% who didn't bother at all in 2011.


True story, that.

I wonder which would be better (or easier) - getting the Tories to legalise pot, or getting the Liberals to support reasonable (to us gun owners) firearms laws? I'm not even going to consider the NDP - I'm not that insane/deluded ;)

The former. For a few reasons. First - for the CPC, an anti dope policy is basically just based on opinion. Opinions CAN be changed. For liberals, the anti gun stance is pretty much a religion. That's a harder nut to crack. Serious attempts have been made - it's like convincing Bicyclists that cars are just as important and that EVERYONE should follow the rules of the road. There's no chance.

But more importantly - if dope is legal or not it makes very little difference to the CPC core structure and philosophy. They would continue with their agenda either way, which is slightly smaller gov't, lower taxes and less crime. It might even be argued that it would AID those core principles.

But - the liberals are statists. They believe that the state should exercise a great deal of control over the citizens and provide for their needs (thus making them dependant on the state). Firearms ownership completely flies in the face of that principle. People NOT dependant on the police? People ABLE to resist a gov't that went too far? People able to feed themselves and such? None of that jives with the liberal core ideal.

So - while the CPC could change their mind and carry on with virtually no issues, for the liberals changing their minds would involve giving up a significant part of their whole raison d'etre. THEY must control the very things that firearms would allow US to control if they are to achieve the utopian society controlled by the gov't that they envision. Plus it's perceived as a western thing, and they don't really like westerners.

So, there you have it. You would convince the CPC to allow dope LONG before you ever convinced the libs to allow us more freedom with firearms.

DeathSpok
02-08-2015, 06:05 PM
^ Good points all.

I'd also love to see how Junior would react if the Tories suddenly pulled that plank of his election platform right out from under him, lol.

Edenchef
02-08-2015, 09:56 PM
^ Good points all.

I'd also love to see how Junior would react if the Tories suddenly pulled that plank of his election platform right out from under him, lol.
Probably a tantrum or something equally childish.

Cheers!

RangeBob
02-09-2015, 06:12 AM
Pretty much at the end of it - it'll go to committee pretty quick.

As I recall, MP Robert Sopuck (Con) and MP Garry Breitkreuz (Con) split their debate time between them. Garry ended up with 5 minutes that day,
leaving him with 5 more minutes when the House rises again on this issue.

I'm looking forward to Garry saying "Mr. Speaker. I'd like to split two fifths of my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River, five thirty-sixths of my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and the remaining thirty-one thirty-sixths of my time for myself."


If you want to get truly annoyed go read what the opposition said during the second reading debates so far.

http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-42/?singlepage=1



[re the statements of Wayne Easter and PEI CFO Vivian Howard]
Your statements have the tinge of fantasy.
-- Dr. Robert Blane, 1951, "The Man from Planet X"

______________
Max Guevera: Personally I'm more interested in going fast on my motorcycle than giving myself a headache over something I can't do anything about.
Logan Cale: You accept the way things are you're an active participant in making them worse.

RangeBob
02-09-2015, 06:26 AM
the liberals are statists. They believe that the state should exercise a great deal of control over the citizens and provide for their needs (thus making them dependant on the state). Firearms ownership completely flies in the face of that principle. People NOT dependant on the police? People ABLE to resist a gov't that went too far? People able to feed themselves and such? None of that jives with the liberal core ideal.

[Way out of context ...]

We are known around the world as a beacon of peace, democracy, and individual freedom. That stands in stark contrast to the totalitarian regime they seek to impose
-- Steven Blaney, http://www.conservative.ca/cpc/protecting-canadians-from-terrorism/

aiwa
02-09-2015, 08:46 AM
Hmm. I hadn't even noticed the change on my new MB ATT. My old one allowed transport to gunsmiths. Not the new one.

Drache
02-09-2015, 09:05 AM
If Red is Bad and Green is good.

Why is a Range membership required in BC bad whereas a Range membership required in Alberta good?

Battle Beaver
02-09-2015, 09:24 AM
Did you read the note? The info I got was club membership is required for transfers. Any YES or NO entries with notes (special circumstances) are given 1/2 point. Yes, I probably should have made, but it would still be just 1/2 point, the point total wouldn't change. I may change it to red in the next revision (if there is one)


If Red is Bad and Green is good.

Why is a Range membership required in BC bad whereas a Range membership required in Alberta good?

bigbusa
03-28-2015, 09:25 PM
That's a cool chart... Alberta FTW - but I guess us Alberta rednecks MIGHT lose out after C42.

That's a whole lot of red for Ontario/Quebec. Must be rough with all those restrictions being a gun owner over there.

Kind of funny how it's cowboy country out West in general...

Impossible to lose out. even if a club membership is required, you can get a 10$ membership in any US gun club, and it's valid. Us Quebecer's do it all the time.

Swinghandle
04-02-2015, 09:10 PM
good to see it's not all bad. I think recording ser numbers at a range to "justify" having a restricted FA is poor. If you have restricted PAL that should be justification enough. "They" have already deemed a person able to purchase and own.

bjsgear
10-28-2016, 03:51 PM
THIS OLD AND INCORRECT NOW,BEST REMOVE IT

Battle Beaver
10-28-2016, 04:08 PM
THIS OLD AND INCORRECT NOW,BEST REMOVE IT

Yes, in fact it's coming up on 2 years old. The information was correct AT THE TIME IT WAS POSTED.

Still pertinent historical information though. If we deleted/removed every thread on this forum that was old and no longer relevant, there'd be no forum.

Battle Beaver

blacksmithden
10-28-2016, 04:35 PM
We don't delete threads. I think perhaps we should remove it as a sticky though. I'll put in the recommendation.

Battle Beaver
10-28-2016, 10:03 PM
I just realized I had a "final" version of this spreadsheet chart that I corrected when C-42 passed. For some reason, I can no longer edit my first post (too much time gone by?), so I'll post the final chart here for posterity. :)

Looks like the biggest "winners" as a result of C-42 were Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and PEI.

Revision 15 (final):

http://www.battlebeaver.com/files/CanadaATTRules_v15.jpg

PDF download:

http://www.battlebeaver.com/files/CanadaATTRules_v15.pdf

Battle Beaver