Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Bob, and everyone's input on this.

    Bob, regarding this passage from your text:

    "the shotgun which breaks down and is carried in a case that resembles a briefcase should not be considered concealed if the carrying case is clearly marked as a gun case"

    ...the short answer seems to be that, considering it can be broken down and I prefer not to carry it through the forest wrapped in canvas (which seems comically cumbersome), that I should carry it in a backpack and label the bag accordingly.

    For instance, I might silkscreen something like "Rifle Bag" onto my Ruger bag.

    (Please feel free to comment)
    Last edited by DarseZ; 11-13-2019 at 06:06 PM.

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    4
    Although it is great to read an actual legal argument rather than us forum folks guessing at it...

    Reading the original case, Felawka was a complete fool. When confronted, he joked that he was "going on a killing spree" and had a live round in the weapon. Probably deserved whatever book(s) thrown at him.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    1,482
    I personally asked the Wpg CFO about carrying an AR7 takedown and was told "unloaded is all that's required"

  4. The Following User Liked This Post By Stew

    Suputin (11-14-2019)

  5. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by DarseZ View Post
    Thanks Bob, and everyone's input on this.

    Bob, regarding this passage from your text:

    "the shotgun which breaks down and is carried in a case that resembles a briefcase should not be considered concealed if the carrying case is clearly marked as a gun case"

    ...the short answer seems to be that, considering it can be broken down and I prefer not to carry it through the forest wrapped in canvas (which seems comically cumbersome), that I should carry it in a backpack and label the bag accordingly.

    For instance, I might silkscreen something like "Rifle Bag" onto my Ruger bag.

    (Please feel free to comment)
    You are WAY overthinking this. Throw the rifle over your shoulder or carry it in a bag. It makes no difference. There is no need for a special bag or a marked bag or anything else. Just carry it in a "bag" or whatever you happen to have handy that day.

  6. #25
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertMcC View Post
    I wear an Orange safety vest walking my dog during hunting season. Just because not every hunter follows the laws and some shoot where ever they please. Actually last hunting season, someone fired 4 shots behind my house.
    Decades ago, Idaho removed the requirement for blaze orange while hunting.

    There was a decrease in the number of hunters shot by others.

    It seems that increasing your visibility tends to increase the likelihood of being seen and shot by those who just canít quite wrap what passes for a mind around the four rules.
    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.

  7. #26
    Senior Member Camo tung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,430
    A scenario that I have heard is a rifle on the rear bench of a vehicle, under a blanket is not considered concealed. If stopped by a LEO and questioned whether there is a firearm in the vehicle, and the answer is "no", and the firearm is subsequently located during a search of the vehicle, that becomes grounds for a concealed weapon charge. The rational being the existence of the weapon was concealed from the LEO.

    I'm not sure how much faith I put in the example and I know of no one who has had this type of interaction progressed through an actual law court. My question would be "concealed from whom" in the OP's instance, on Crown land.
    "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens."

    Ammo, camo and things that go "blammo".

  8. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Camo tung View Post
    A scenario that I have heard is a rifle on the rear bench of a vehicle, under a blanket is not considered concealed. If stopped by a LEO and questioned whether there is a firearm in the vehicle, and the answer is "no", and the firearm is subsequently located during a search of the vehicle, that becomes grounds for a concealed weapon charge. The rational being the existence of the weapon was concealed from the LEO.

    I'm not sure how much faith I put in the example and I know of no one who has had this type of interaction progressed through an actual law court. My question would be "concealed from whom" in the OP's instance, on Crown land.
    A LEO must have probable cause to ask about any firearms in a vehicle. They don't just get to stop you and start asking anything they want. There is this thing called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms" that gives every CDN the right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure.

    IF a LEO stops you for speeding and then starts asking about firearms the correct response would be to ask why you are being asked such questions during a traffic stop? The caveat to any encounter with a LEO is to NEVER lie. That will get you into trouble. However you don't have to answer every question you are asked.

  9. #28
    Senior Member Camo tung's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Suputin View Post
    A LEO must have probable cause to ask about any firearms in a vehicle. They don't just get to stop you and start asking anything they want. There is this thing called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms" that gives every CDN the right to be free from unreasonable search & seizure.

    IF a LEO stops you for speeding and then starts asking about firearms the correct response would be to ask why you are being asked such questions during a traffic stop? The caveat to any encounter with a LEO is to NEVER lie. That will get you into trouble. However you don't have to answer every question you are asked.
    I wasn't trying to turn this into a legal/illegal search discussion. If you say "no" to the question, and a legal search (to clarify) is conducted and the firearm is discovered it has been speculated that discovery would lead to a concealed weapon charge. As noted above the actual definition of concealed (and from whom...LEO's or simply the public's eyes) is as murky as the rest of the legislation.
    "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens."

    Ammo, camo and things that go "blammo".

  10. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SWOntario
    Posts
    2,407
    Where you are matters. Every Province has their own rules for Provincial Crown Land. Some Crown Land, like the assorted Provincial Parks, do not allow firearms at all. Some do not allow firearms except during hunting season(s) with a hunting licence. Some Crown Land has no restrictions. And not knowing which is which is not an excuse.
    "...how to legally carry takedown rifles..." There's no legal difference between a take-down rifle and any other hunting rifle. If it's not legal to carry a regular rifle, it's not legal to carry any rifle. However, the regular FA transport laws apply. It's not concealed if it's in a case and unloaded.
    "...I can transport an NR firearm out in the open..." The NCR is in Ontatrio. The Ontario Provincial hunting regs apply. You must comply with the hunting regs in the Province you're in.
    https://www.ontario.ca/document/onta...ations-summary
    "...depending on how you, a lawyer or a judge interprets it..." Only the courts get to interpret the law. The issue with this case is that the CO's and cops think they can do so. The issue with that is that you get to do what they say until you can get into a court if necessary.
    "...need to put a patch stating..." That's nonsense. There's is no such law.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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