New Range Restrictions Will Apply to Off Duty Leos

[elkhunter11]

Several ranges are going this way.

Vermilion Gun Club
4 hrs ·

VGC gun range Civilian Use Only effective June 3, 2020

Due to the implementation of the new firearms ban and prohibitions announced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on May 1, 2020 the Vermilion Gun Club Executive notified all members of the local Law Enforcement community that the VGC gun range is now a Civilian Use Only range. Civilian prohibited firearms, extended magazines and other prohibited devices are not permitted on the VGC range and property.

To clarify,any member of a law enforcement agency who currently holds a Vermilion Gun Club membership is prohibited from using any firearm and/or device at the VGC range that are now classified as Civilian Prohibited by the O.I.C. Of May1, 2020. This restriction on L.E. Members is in force when they are not participating in a pre-approved/pre-arranged range rental training agreement.

In addition, the VGC now requires that all law enforcement members holding a VGC membership use the gun range as “private citizens” and attend the range in civilian attire. Uniforms are not to be worn when law enforcement members access the range for personal use outside of a pre-arranged training range rental agreement. All posted “civilian range rules” apply when a law enforcement member uses the range as a private citizen.

The only exception to the above noted restrictions for law enforcement training purposes using “civilian prohibited firearms and extended magazines” will be through pre-approved/pre-arranged rental booking of the gun range for sole use of the range for the day by the renting agency.

The procedure to request a rental booking for training purposes is described in full on the club website at vermiliongunclub.ca. Any request for a range rental training agreement must be done by e-mail to the Vermilion Gun Club and must be done well in advance of the requested rental date. All requests are reviewed by the VGC executive before being approved. The current rental rate is $200 per day and will increase for 2021 so that is is comparable with what other gun clubs charge. The rental window is Monday to Friday only, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Range rentals for law enforcement agencies is also limited to the months of May, June, July and August.

This new policy on the use of theVermilion Gun Club gun range by the law enforcement community comes into effect immediately.

Respectivefully, the Vermilion Gun Club Executive

[ghostguy6]

The only exception to the above noted restrictions for law enforcement training purposes using “civilian prohibited firearms and extended magazines” will be through pre-approved/pre-arranged rental booking of the gun range for sole use of the range for the day by the renting agency.

The procedure to request a rental booking for training purposes is described in full on the club website at vermiliongunclub.ca. Any request for a range rental training agreement must be done by e-mail to the Vermilion Gun Club and must be done well in advance of the requested rental date. All requests are reviewed by the VGC executive before being approved. The current rental rate is $200 per day and will increase for 2021 so that is is comparable with what other gun clubs charge. The rental window is Monday to Friday only, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Range rentals for law enforcement agencies is also limited to the months of May, June, July and August.

This new policy on the use of theVermilion Gun Club gun range by the law enforcement community comes into effect immediately.

Respectivefully, the Vermilion Gun Club Executive

Except now they will be booking the range, closing it to the rest of the members and likely will be using tax payers money to do it. If they are going to close the range to all law enforcement it needs it to be an all or nothing approach, no exceptions.

[nick0danger]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Except now they will be booking the range, closing it to the rest of the members and likely will be using tax payers money to do it. If they are going to close the range to all law enforcement it needs it to be an all or nothing approach, no exceptions.

Or they just say sorry range is not available!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Except now they will be booking the range, closing it to the rest of the members and likely will be using tax payers money to do it. If they are going to close the range to all law enforcement it needs it to be an all or nothing approach, no exceptions.

Many ranges are already rented out for LEO training and qualifications, but they did allow off duty LEOs to practise with their service firearms as private members. Now some ranges have banned the use of prohibited or banned firearms by everyone, with the exception of on duty LEOs during official training or qualification.

Or they just say sorry range is not available!

Most ranges do greatly limit rentals, so as not to take away the paying members opportunities. They aren't going to be open to greatly increase the amount of range rental time. And many ranges have multiple ranges, and they only rent out one range , so the paying members still have the use of the other ranges.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Except now they will be booking the range, closing it to the rest of the members and likely will be using tax payers money to do it. If they are going to close the range to all law enforcement it needs it to be an all or nothing approach, no exceptions.

Agreed. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

[calgarychef]

It’s my understanding that cops don’t need an PAL for service guns.
I’d say it’s time to end their practice on private ranges until they do.

[ghostguy6]

That move only hurts a few members of the firearms community and likely those that while are law enforcement, are still supporters of our cause. Lets face it, many LEO's only do the minimum required hours to keep their qualification. Those that go above and beyond shooting on their own time are more likely to support us. For the range closures to have a meaningful effect you would need to close it to ALL law enforcement agencies permanently. Essentially if all ranges did this it would force them to make their own ranges which would cost the government millions. I fear the only way to win this fight is to hurt their pocket books deep enough or if an open rebellion were to start.
Either way it will be funded by the tax payers.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

That move only hurts a few members of the firearms community and likely those that while are law enforcement, are still supporters of our cause. Lets face it, many LEO's only do the minimum required hours to keep their qualification. Those that go above and beyond shooting on their own time are more likely to support us. For the range closures to have a meaningful effect you would need to close it to ALL law enforcement agencies permanently. Essentially if all ranges did this it would force them to make their own ranges which would cost the government millions. I fear the only way to win this fight is to hurt their pocket books deep enough or if an open rebellion were to start.
Either way it will be funded by the tax payers.

I am not involved with that range, but being on the executive of a range, I can offer a possible alternative to your assumptions as to why they brought in this regulation. In order to maintain your range certification, the executive can't knowingly allow banned firearms to be present at the facility. So if the executive receives reports of banned firearms being present at the facility, they have to look into the reports. Being volunteers, the last thing the executive needs is to waste their time looking into these reports, only to find out that the people being reported are LEOs. As such, I can see why a range would implement this type of restriction.

[Trap30]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

It’s my understanding that cops don’t need an PAL for service guns.
I’d say it’s time to end their practice on private ranges until they do.

What critical thinking brought you to this conclusion?

[catnthehat]

Our range rents out a portion to the LEO's, Wardens, a Brinks, etc but we do not
close off the other ranges to members .
If the RCMP are shooting other than in a training of qualification situation they must be in civilian dress and not be using any firearms that are prohibited to civilians , and they must follow the range rules in place .
This policy was in place before the idiotic OIC debacle and I can see no change in the immediate future .
Personally speaking I Could give a dam if they are using suppressed .50's while they are training or full autos , if it's part of their job .
Cat

[lyallpeder]

I think this is the wrong direction. I don’t think banning range members using issued gear is productive. I don’t think F&W, Sheriff, CVI and front line RCMP members are the enemy.

I would support my range not renting it’s facility to an agency because it takes Range time away from members.


I will add if a range board decides that ARs and glocks with 15 round mags are too dangerous for their members to use them then yes they should ban them from their facility.

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by Trap30

What critical thinking brought you to this conclusion?

Police do not need a PAL to carry any of their issued firearms.

[AB2506]

Fair response.

[FishHunterPro]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

It’s my understanding that cops don’t need an PAL for service guns.
I’d say it’s time to end their practice on private ranges until they do.

My old neighbor was an rcmp officer and he told me that he didn’t need the PAL for his service firearm and all ammo had to be issued by the rcmp for that firearm for service and practice .

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by Trap30

What critical thinking brought you to this conclusion?

The Only people to use a range have to have pals .... it’s a privately owned range the members can make rules. How’s that for critical thinking?

[Trap30]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

Police do not need a PAL to carry any of their issued firearms.

I was referring to the second statement. By denying police officers a place to practice you are diminishing community safety. You are trying to bring them into a fight and be used as pawns in a fight they did not start and many do not agree with.

[Trap30]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

The Only people to use a range have to have pals .... it’s a privately owned range the members can make rules. How’s that for critical thinking?

but not well thought out or critical...

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by trap30

i was referring to the second statement. By denying police officers a place to practice you are diminishing community safety. You are trying to bring them into a fight and be used as pawns in a fight they did not start and many do not agree with.

^^^^this^^^^

[Mr Conservation]

Several different agencies rent out our range, and use it to keep their skills sharp. The fees the club gets from the rentals helps to keep the range operational, and helps the club improve the facility for all users - members, guests, and those agencies that have rented the range.

Rank and file law enforcement officers are not our enemy. The Alberta Game Warden Association, a group of professional law enforcement officers, issued a statement on May 18th opposing the ban; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police do not support further firearms restrictions; other Police Chiefs and enforcement agencies have publicly stated they oppose the ban and any further restrictions, as legal firearms owners are not the problem.

Our enemy are politicians like the Turd and his bum boy Bill Blair. We must do everything we can to have these new restrictions overturned through appropriate legal channels, and groups like the CCFR are hard at work to do just that.

Taking out our frustrations by prohibiting law enforcement agencies from renting out our ranges, or not allowing law enforcement officers from using our ranges, may just have an opposite effect than what is intended. We want to keep the rank and file officers on our side, not create an "us versus them" divide.

Mr Conservation

[thumper]

Sounds to me, that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police "appreciate the federal government's commitment to this issue"


May 1, 2020
CACP Statement: Ban on Assault-Style Firearms
On May 1, 2020 the federal government of Canada announced a ban on assault-style weapons in Canada.
The CACP supports improving safety for front-line police officers and the public. We appreciate the federal government’s commitment to this issue.
The CACP’s Special Purpose Committee on Firearms will review the Order in Council that enables the prohibition. While the CACP has advocated for this type of initiative in the past, it will be important for the committee to review the proposed legislation in the coming weeks to determine the impact on public safety as well as the implications for, and expectations of, police services in Canada.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

The Only people to use a range have to have pals .... it’s a privately owned range the members can make rules. How’s that for critical thinking?

If you read the statement again you will see that if the RCMP members are using
Thad range off duty Gary must be in civilian clothes and possess a PAL/ RPAL as range members .
If they are training as part of their courses they don't .
They cannot buy a firearm unless they have the same RPAL/PAL as any other civilian .

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this .
Cat

[Parker Hale]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Except now they will be booking the range, closing it to the rest of the members and likely will be using tax payers money to do it. If they are going to close the range to all law enforcement it needs it to be an all or nothing approach, no exceptions.

Okay, so where in that did it say that the range would be closed to law enforcement? They said if you are going to use the range off duty then you follow the same rules as the civilians and where civilian clothing.

[ghostguy6]

Originally Posted by Parker Hale

Okay, so where in that did it say that the range would be closed to law enforcement? They said if you are going to use the range off duty then you follow the same rules as the civilians and where civilian clothing.

Im saying if you want to stick it to them then the range needs to be closed to law enforcement bookings entirely. If an off duty LEO wants to shoot his non restricted or restricted firearms as a regular member then fine I would encourage that right as a legal PAL/ RPAL holder.
If you are going to extend LEO's the right to book the range so they can use their prohibited firearms then you are not hurting them, in fact you are hurting regular people because taxpayer money will be used to pay the range fees for the group.
Does this make sense?

[Parker Hale]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Im saying if you want to stick it to them then the range needs to be closed to law enforcement bookings entirely. If an off duty LEO wants to shoot his non restricted or restricted firearms as a regular member then fine I would encourage that right as a legal PAL/ RPAL holder.
If you are going to extend LEO's the right to book the range so they can use their prohibited firearms then you are not hurting them, in fact you are hurting regular people because taxpayer money will be used to pay the range fees for the group.
Does this make sense?

I don't think they are trying to "stick it" to anybody, just create a level playing field for all(something that needs to be applied in a lot more places). As for booking the range, I'm sure the owner's of the range have enough sense to find a reasonable balance of time for LEO's training and civilian use. As far as tax payer money goes, that is what funds law enforcement and therefore funds their training.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Im saying if you want to stick it to them then the range needs to be closed to law enforcement bookings entirely. If an off duty LEO wants to shoot his non restricted or restricted firearms as a regular member then fine I would encourage that right as a legal PAL/ RPAL holder.
If you are going to extend LEO's the right to book the range so they can use their prohibited firearms then you are not hurting them, in fact you are hurting regular people because taxpayer money will be used to pay the range fees for the group.
Does this make sense?

So you think it would be better if the Police never practiced or qualified with their duty firearms? Isn't this the same group that constantly questions the proficiency of Police with their duty firearms?

And exactly what good do think it does to "stick it" to the police for Trudeau's firearms ban. How much discretion do you think the Police really have when it comes to not enforcing a legislated law? Police can sometimes use discretion not to charge, but that does not remove their duty to seize a prohibited item. And if they don't seize that prohibited item and then in the rare case it is used in a serious offence, who do you think is then held responsible?

In all honesty your post goes nicely with this week's theme of "international hate a cop week"... so carry on.

[gunluvr]

Originally Posted by ghostguy6

Im saying if you want to stick it to them then the range needs to be closed to law enforcement bookings entirely. If an off duty LEO wants to shoot his non restricted or restricted firearms as a regular member then fine I would encourage that right as a legal PAL/ RPAL holder.
If you are going to extend LEO's the right to book the range so they can use their prohibited firearms then you are not hurting them, in fact you are hurting regular people because taxpayer money will be used to pay the range fees for the group.
Does this make sense?

There's nothing wrong with taxpayer money being used for RCMP group training exercises. We pay when a cop car needs service or gas, and for about anything else for their day-to-day operations.
If a cop doesn't hold a valid PAL or RPAL, he has no more right to use a public gun range out of uniform than anyone else. He wouldn't be given a membership without at least a PAL and has no right to assume he can use it for free, even in uniform.
Private group bookings by law enforcement or anyone else aren't going to hurt the ranges or other members. It's extra revenue.

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by Trap30

I was referring to the second statement. By denying police officers a place to practice you are diminishing community safety. You are trying to bring them into a fight and be used as pawns in a fight they did not start and many do not agree with.

Gotcha. Thanks

[calgarychef]

I’m not suggesting to stick it to the cops at all. As was mentioned above a level playing field makes sense. They should have memberships to shoot individually and dress as civilians. If they want to train “as cops” with restricted weapons then pay to rent the range. And if they want to shoot prohibs ...set up their own range or go to a military base.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I’m not suggesting to stick it to the cops at all. As was mentioned above a level playing field makes sense. They should have memberships to shoot individually and dress as civilians. If they want to train “as cops” with restricted weapons then pay to rent the range. And if they want to shoot prohibs ...set up their own range or go to a military base.

FYI

Mountie pistol is prohibited, the barrel is 102 mm
Carbine is now prohibited.

I guess they could have a rifle and shotgun day...., that is of course if they don't remove the choke from the shotgun

Military ranges no longer rent to Police or do so on a very limited bases.

Also the RCMP does not own any property in the province and it is not authorized to do so; they can rent but can not own. Every RCMP building is either owned by the province or the municipality. The RCMP would love the province to build them a range, actually it was suppose to happen in Fort McLeod. Until such time as that happens, the RCMP are at the mercy of public and private ranges to try and complete their mandatory training.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

I’m not suggesting to stick it to the cops at all. As was mentioned above a level playing field makes sense. They should have memberships to shoot individually and dress as civilians. If they want to train “as cops” with restricted weapons then pay to rent the range. And if they want to shoot prohibs ...set up their own range or go to a military base.

The cost to have all law enforcement in Canada qualify on their prohibited firearms would be astronomical to tax payers. Building ranges, travel across the provinces and country for a simple AQ. Between a couple agencies there thousands upon thousands who carry a prohibited pistol each day. Currently they pay to rent ranges to qualify. Building their own range to do AQ's for all those officers each year is an interesting (and expensive) proposition.

Its one thing to be in the conversation about off-duty officers, but when an agency has to qualify thousands each year, I couldn't imagine the financial burden the taxpayers would feel. Currently a lot of smaller ranges make some extra funds for their range maintenance and keep costs lower for members while renting ranges to LEO's, while also maintaining good shooting experiences/scheduling for its members.