Quote:
Originally Posted by 700-223
Anyone got the specific reference showing it's legal to carry on a trapline and DISCHARGE it there? The comparison may shed some light on this. Does it explicitly say they can be discharged in a trapline or just carried there and imply discharge is permitted?
IMO, our firearms laws are confusing - and this is a feature, not a bug. Nobody here is trying to break the law, just the opposite in fact, this thread started to confirm one reasonable interpretation of the legislation AS WRITTEN is that you could discharge your restricted firearms at home if it is otherwise legal and safe to do so. Not having a clear consensus after 7 pages says more about how our laws are written than the community here. And since it only takes one LEO who doesn't interpret it the way you do to charge you... and, since they no longer go through the training to get their PAL during depot in Regina, this is a real possibility.
OTOH, it was covered in my firearms courses that the only legal place to discharge a restricted is at the range and is something I've heard many times from other RPAL holders. The prudent thing to do is to realize that such an action could lead to charges and even if you are eventually exonerated - the process is the punishment. Absent a statement from a firearms lawyer, the RCMP, or in the PAL education books, I plan on NOT being a test case. We all have too much to lose.
|
If your one of the few who have a wilderness carry permit it is issued for protection and it would be legal to fire it in a case of emergency if needed, the permit is issued in exception to the rule of not being able to shoot anywhere but an approved range. Same as police officers and others who are allowed carry outside the regular regulations. It would silly to grant these exemptions yet not allow them to be fired in the purpose the permit was issued for. This is apples and oranges, Regular RPAL does not allow this and arguing that it somehow does is well whatever. Just ask one of the past executives of our local gun club who used the same argument to have a few friends over to his private acreage and shoot their restricted firearms off their back deck and then post pictures of this activity on facebook where it came to authorities attention. Fortunately the authorities (understanding that they were shooting safely and nobody in the area was in danger along with the fact the authorities and the people shooting were amicably and previously acquainted) were very diplomatic and only warned them to cease, that if it were to happen again their firearms would be seized and they would wind up in court. They were advised by a lawyer familiar with firearms law, who also advises our shooting club on these issues that if they fought it they would lose.
You can interpret this legislation however you want but you should understand how the courts will interpret it which for the vast majority of us is all that matters. You can argue semantics till the cows come home and if you guys want to make a constitutional challenge that may take years and cost many millions of dollars that you are very unlikely to win, in fact you won't win but even on the extremely remote chance you did win, the law then would be subsequently amended to make your challenge redundant anyway..... Go ahead be my guest.