Where is it legal to shoot handguns ?

[coachman]

I have heard for years that trappers in BC could use pistols, I have also heard that you can get a permit to use one in Alberta now if you are a trapper or you work in a remote location where one might be needed for protection (from animals).

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by coachman

I have heard for years that trappers in BC could use pistols, I have also heard that you can get a permit to use one in Alberta now if you are a trapper or you work in a remote location where one might be needed for protection (from animals).

trappers aways cuold get a permit if needed for protection, but most trappers are smart enough that if they need protection they want a bit more than there going to get from a pistol. what most trappers wanted is to carry light pistol for dispatching of animals caught in a trap such as coyotes, wolves, bobcats, ect... are a little hard to deal with alive, and a big rifle ruins pelts I believe that now they can get a permit for this purpose as well as for protection.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

If you consider your back deck as part of your "residence" - which a surveyor will do - then you have not left your residence when you take it onto your deck for cleaning, admiring it, giving it some sun or - shooting it.

It doesn't matter a hill of beans what you or any of us "considers" as part of our residence. It only matter what the courts rule a residence is.

To quote a wise man here, "If you have it, post it. If you don't, please refrain from amateur opinions. K?"

[gopher]

Would it be legal for me to transport my Hand gun to Rockys residence and shoot off his deck?

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by gopher

Would it be legal for me to transport my Hand gun to Rockys residence and shoot off his deck?

No.

[gopher]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

No.

Thought I would throw that out there

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by gopher

Thought I would throw that out there

We need some new 'emoticons'. I am thinking we need a "rhetorical question" one.

[gopher]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

We need some new 'emoticons'. I am thinking we need a "rhetorical question" one.

Grin…….

[Okotokian]

You are only allowed to possess a restricted weapon at your "dwelling house" or at another location "authorized by the Chief Firearms Officer"

There is no definition of "dwelling House" in the Firearms Act, but the Criminal Code defines "Dwelling House" as:



“dwelling-house” means the whole or any part of a building or structure that is kept or occupied as a permanent or temporary residence, and includes

• (a) a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house that is connected to it by a doorway or by a covered and enclosed passage-way, and
• (b) a unit that is designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent or temporary residence and that is being used as such a residence;

I don't think a deck qualifies. Certainly you can't store your restricted firearm (as defined in the act) on your deck. Going on someone's deck isn't Break and Enter. Decks don't seem to be considered dwelling houses or residences in Canadian criminal law.

Don't get me wrong. I think you should be able to discharge your handgun on your own property. I just don't think the example we are talking about here would be held legal in the end. But go for it, perhaps we get a new legal precedent! I just wouldn't risk it myself.

[Pudelpointer]

Curtilage:
The yard surrounding a residence or dwelling house which is reserved for or used by the occupants for their enjoyment or work. It is a term one might come across in a search warrant which calls for a search of the residence its' curtilage of a particular person.


This a Canadian legal definition of "curtilage". In other definitions the test appears to be where you would have an expectation of privacy - your front or back yard or deck may not be considered as such unless you have a fence or hedge or other visible barrier.

Intradasting!

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Pudelpointer

Curtilage:
The yard surrounding a residence or dwelling house which is reserved for or used by the occupants for their enjoyment or work. It is a term one might come across in a search warrant which calls for a search of the residence its' curtilage of a particular person.

I don't remember seeing "curtilage" in the CC nor in the Firearms Act.

Why do you think that is relevant to interpreting the words in the Criminal Code definition?

It's up to each of us to figure out if a deck is "part of" a dwelling. For me, it's pretty obvious. The CFO agreed with me. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree. After all, there's no use setting that kind of startling precedent on AO!

[Bolete]

Originally Posted by lone wolf

Please don't burn me at the stake me for lack of knowledge, however I have a question regarding where (and where not) a shooter is legally permitted to use a handgun for recreational purposes. My understanding was that the use of handguns was restricted to a designated range or shooting facility - true or false ? I am asking because I met a group this afternoon who were shooting handguns (on private property - not theirs) along the banks of the SSR, north of Medicine Hat.

Comments ?

There are a number of people who also collect antique handguns which, providing certain criteria are met, are not restricted firearms.

[220swifty]

Oko, i posted the same defintion, verbatim, in post #50.

Try to keep up, m,kay...

the whole or any part

Now, I know I am just a lowly construction grunt, but to me this includes the deck, as it is permanently affixed to the house, making it a part of the house. Any lawyer worth his salt could argue that should one get charged. My question is if anyone has been charged for this, and what the judgement was?

If anyone has any info on this, it would be interesting to see. This is where the debate would be settled, as it would be a legal precedent, binding all courts at the level of judgement and lower to follow.

I just love how every law is dependent on every word that is written in it.

[rwm1273]

We can all discuss what we interpret the law to be, but once you get charged, it will be the judge who interprets the law for you, and it makes no difference how much salt your lawyer has in his pockets to toss about, if the judge wants to ban you from having guns, he will.

I don't want to derail this thread, but why would anyone risk their guns and their ability to own them by doing something that is in a grey area? I know from experience that there is the law, and then there is the interpretation of the law, and often they don't match.

I had to go before a judge to determine if I could keep my guns. My ex was trying to get them confiscated, and nearly did.

I went to court, and the prosecutor and the police officers who took my guns discussed the situation with my lawyer. All agreed I had not broken any laws, was not a threat to anyone, and the situation was all because of a vindictive ex.

So the prosecutor spoke that the crown had no problems returning my guns. The judge assumed that I had improperly stored them, when the he was informed that they had all been properly registered and stored, and there was no issues with me. The judge then canvased the courtroom to see if anyone was willing to stand up and say I should not have my guns. He asked about 3 times in different ways, and lucky for me nobody stood up, and my ex failed to show up in court. The judge then said he was reluctantly going to let me have my guns back.

Two weeks later my ex tried to get them confiscated again, but this time the police refused to do it.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

Oko, i posted the same defintion, verbatim, in post #50.

Try to keep up, m,kay...

LOL Yeah, but you got it wrong and conceded that it might include a deck.

[Lonnie]

just shoot them in the basement if safe to do so. years a go 22,25, 32, were common indoor guns used a lot for taget practice in basements all over the cuontry

[Bigdad013]

We were shooting hand guns rifles and shotguns at a friends farm 2 years ago. By chance the rcmp showed up, never seen them there before in 30 years of shooting. All he wanted to know was if the handguns were registered. He didn't give a rats ass about us shooting them. We never put other peoples property at risk and were responsible shooters. His reasoning was that, nobody is killing anyone, private property, just some good old target practice and there was no alcohol in site. He never mentioned anything about us not being able to shoot the handguns, so I guess the question still remains.

By the way, all the hand guns were registered to the farm owner, so there was no transporting of weapons which could have been a big problem.