Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: After Bill C71

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2

    After Bill C71

    I been reading various forums on obtaining a PAL. Lots of people express concerns about their prior history and PAL eligibility. And these are only the ones who will disclose this info online.

    So my question is, if C71 passes and the previous 5 year background check is abolished and authority is granted to check ones entire life history, aren't some of you concerned that when you go to renew your PAL you'll get refused?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    10,980
    Welcome to GOC!
    Dictionary of the future:
    Global Warming was a popular computer simulation game,
    where the only way to win was not to play.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dorion, Qc
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by hawke5758 View Post
    I been reading various forums on obtaining a PAL. Lots of people express concerns about their prior history and PAL eligibility. And these are only the ones who will disclose this info online.

    So my question is, if C71 passes and the previous 5 year background check is abolished and authority is granted to check ones entire life history, aren't some of you concerned that when you go to renew your PAL you'll get refused?
    Doubt it. This sounds to me like the sort of thing that they would use to deny people already on watch lists but without recent convictions, not bother every "farmer John" who got busted for DUI or whatever in the 80's.

  4. #4
    Senior Member GonZo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    920
    Welcome to the Forum.

    And No I am not worried one bit, I have nothing in there to be worried about and they had the ability to look that far back if they wanted to the whole time anyway.
    "Canadians expend about half a billion rounds of ammunition per year (ammunition import statistics). If guns are the cause of homicide, we're missing 99.9999992% of the time." from Range Bob

  5. #5
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    38,314
    CFO's are already checking back more than 5 years. CPIC doesn't stop at 5 years -- any query by your name will turn up your entire history. CFOs are required by law to only grant a licence if there's not a risk to public safety -- again, they wouldn't stop at 5 years. If someone killed a police officer with a gun 20 years ago before mandatory firearms prohibitions were common, and was out on the street now, do you believe the CFO would say "more than 5 years ago, not relevant" ?

    The only difference will be what PALers write on their application form. So if on your way out of the Canadian Forces twenty five years ago you saw a shrink, you'll have to report that. They'll require you to sign a medical release, and then they'll get the records from your doctor, and ask their doctor to review them and possibly require a series of followup psychological exams.

  6. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    Doug_M (12-11-2018)

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Dorion, Qc
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    CFO's are already checking back more than 5 years. CPIC doesn't stop at 5 years -- any query by your name will turn up your entire history. CFOs are required by law to only grant a licence if there's not a risk to public safety -- again, they wouldn't stop at 5 years. If someone killed a police officer with a gun 20 years ago before mandatory firearms prohibitions were common, and was out on the street now, do you believe the CFO would say "more than 5 years ago, not relevant" ?

    The only difference will be what PALers write on their application form. So if on your way out of the Canadian Forces twenty five years ago you saw a shrink, you'll have to report that. They'll require you to sign a medical release, and then they'll get the records from your doctor, and ask their doctor to review them and possibly require a series of followup psychological exams.
    Again, I very much doubt that they would bother unless you're already flagged for something (suspected gang ties for example). Realistically if they start nitpicking every single application out there they would create such a backlog that the system would pretty much crash on it's own, not to mention the costs would balloon up dramatically.

  8. #7
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    38,314
    Quote Originally Posted by RobSmith
    Realistically if they start nitpicking every single application out there they would create such a backlog that the system would pretty much crash on it's own, not to mention the costs would balloon up dramatically.
    That's one of the pitfalls of Bill C-71.

    Previously, CFOs could change their practices to respond to current events. Reducing some things secretly, while increasing others. e.g. Quebec's CFO decided to do extended reviews of anyone who bought an AR-15. Ontario's CFO convinced all CFOs to look at anyone who bought more than a couple guns a year, to stave off straw purchases. No additional legislation was required, due to the current law's requirement that the CFOs act in ways to deal with public safety.

    But, Bill C-71 micromanages the CFOs, requiring, by law, that they do a variety of things with each application. Things that rarely ever happen, thus wasting their time. For a complete list see the Liberal MP Pam Damoff amendments to the bill.

    So, not only will it take longer unless they hire more staff, but the CFOs also will be unable to change to handle new trends discovered by Guns & Gangs units. At least not in anything resembling a cost effective manor.

    The head of the Canadian Firearms Program said the CFOs could handle the increased workload for the ATT changes. But I don't recall if he said they could handle the increased workload for Pam's stuff.

    My guess is that if they don't increase staff, either they'll skip things that they can skip that are necessary for public safety but are not required by law (e.g. range inspections, public service at gun shows), or they'll backlog processing the applications.

  9. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    RobSmith (12-11-2018)

  10. #8
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hawke5758 View Post
    I been reading various forums on obtaining a PAL. Lots of people express concerns about their prior history and PAL eligibility. And these are only the ones who will disclose this info online.

    So my question is, if C71 passes and the previous 5 year background check is abolished and authority is granted to check ones entire life history, aren't some of you concerned that when you go to renew your PAL you'll get refused?
    No.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isnít hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  11. The Following User Liked This Post By CLW .45

    ruger#1 (12-12-2018)

  12. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    2
    Hmm. Interesting. I have some reservations about applying for mine because of a FAC refusal over 20 years ago. The whole ordeal at that time was quite frankly a Gong Show and left us disillusioned at the system so I left the gun scene all together. I just think the system may have an axe to grind, payback. So what's the worse that can happen...I get refused again. A refusal in not considered a 'prohibition'.

Posting Permissions

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