Gun range membership for restricted purchase

[MooseRiverTrapper]

What’s the bare minimum a guy can buy for a gun range membership to meet the requirements for a restricted purchase these days? Anything that can be purchased online?

[Smokinyotes]

My son just did his RPal on Sunday. The instructor told him that a range membership isn’t required just to purchase. I’m not sure if the rules have changed again or not but the last restricted I bought the Alberta cfo wanted the range membership.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

My son just did his RPal on Sunday. The instructor told him that a range membership isn’t required just to purchase. I’m not sure if the rules have changed again or not but the last restricted I bought the Alberta cfo wanted the range membership.

Ya last purchase they wanted proof of membership. Maybe something changed and it’s not required?

[silver]

They will ask for range membership but it is not legally required.

[Mulehahn]

It's not legally required but CFOs won't issue transferswithout proof range membership. There is an associate membership from one of the indoor ranges in Calgary but it's close to $100. Depending on where you live you might be able to join an actual range for not much more.

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by Mulehahn

It's not legally required but CFOs won't issue transferswithout proof range membership. There is an associate membership from one of the indoor ranges in Calgary but it's close to $100. Depending on where you live you might be able to join an actual range for not much more.

With a bit of a fight, you might get it approved by stating you are a 'walk in' member. Some have done it and with the new CFO, it might be easier.

[Mulehahn]

The Calgary Shooting Centre sells an "Associate Membership" for 100 dollars. It qualifies as a legal range membership, you just don't get the extra benefits like the free drop in, lounge and stuff. When I belonged they didn't legally distinguish one Membership from the other for purposes of purchase or obtaining an RPAL. Only what benefits you get when you are there.

You may try to argue your case and I hope the new CFO follows the actual law as opposed to just making up new ones but this was the only way I know.

[st99]

I don't know where you live, but the Valleyview gun range membership is only 50$

[crosman177]

Aheia local or silvercore (online only for Alberta) will be your best cost effective options.

[dgl1948]

I just indicated that I only shot as guest at a couple of ranges and had no problem with my purchase.

[David Henry]

Our local range close to Rimbey offers an associate membership which I believe is $50, this gives you no range privileges but helps with restricted PAL renewals. Blindman Valley Gun Club is the name of the range. D.H.

[-JR-]

To be able to take it home you must prove good standing at a gun range .
The other way is be a gun collector.
But they told me once a collector with the gun i was buying i can not switch back as a shooter.

All the above does not make sense to me because :
a) you have taken a restricted course and should be good to buy.
b) Many people have a range membership ,buy the gun ,then never get the membership again.

[Dick284]

This is a Section 58 provision.
I wonder if our new CFO is following through with this bit of over reach?

AHEIA membership should suffice, if $$ is an issue.

[russ]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

What’s the bare minimum a guy can buy for a gun range membership to meet the requirements for a restricted purchase these days? Anything that can be purchased online?

As already mentioned not really required for RPal, but Nosehills Gun Club is $75 and has a great range out to 1000m IIRC.

[huntinstuff]

Bought a restricted

They asked for my gun club membership

I said it was "pending"

Thats what they wrote on the CFC site webpage. "Pending"

Approved, nothing else, gun is mine, ATT, and no gun club membership.

[Twisted Canuck]

Our new CFO seems to be pretty good. Doesn't try and make up 'laws' that don't exist in the Firearms Act.

I recently transferred a Walther to an old, dear friend as a gift, his first handgun. He's had his RPAL for years, but raising 6 kids never had the time or money for one.

Anyway, I started transfer, he called in his particulars, and when they asked about range membership he said he didn't have one. They gave him the song and dance about it being required. That was the CFC. But, they forwarded to AB CFO for transfer approval.

So, like the OP, my friend started looking for an inexpensive membership. And while he was still looking, the transfer was approved, and I shipped him his new gun. He was not asked by AB CFO to submit proof of membership. They just made sure he wasn't wanted for acts of cannibalism or other crimes, and then did their job.

Tell them you pay guest fees at your local range. You are *NOT* required by the Firearms Act to have a range membership. If they want to argue, ask them to please read you the section of the Firearms Act where it is legally required. They will be unable.

Of course, they can still make your life miserable, so be polite if you decide to go this route.

But as I believe, the new CFO in Alberta seems to have the right attitude that her job is to facilitate legal gun ownership, not impede it.

[MooseRiverTrapper]

I put “walk in the member” got approved.

[pintailslammer]

Originally Posted by MooseRiverTrapper

Ya last purchase they wanted proof of membership. Maybe something changed and it’s not required?

You need a gun club membership to have a restricted
!/2- 3/4 of our range memberships are of that

Pin

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by pintailslammer

You need a gun club membership to have a restricted
!/2- 3/4 of our range memberships are of that

Pin

Could you please provide the section of the Firearms Act that says this please? If you can't find it, that would indicate its not actually the law.

Looking forward to your reply.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by pintailslammer

You need a gun club membership to have a restricted
!/2- 3/4 of our range memberships are of that

Pin

According to the previous chief firearms officer yes, but that was only because like most CFOs, he liked to make up his own regulations. Having met a couple of our former CFOs when dealing with range certifications, I am very glad that we have a new CFO, that isn't a former RCMP officer.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

According to the previous chief firearms officer yes, but that was only because like most CFOs, he liked to make up his own regulations. Having met a couple of our former CFOs when dealing with range certifications, I am very glad that we have a new CFO, that isn't a former RCMP officer.

It’s from Section 58 of the Firearms Act.

Ontario had their CFO taken to task over the requirement, and it was tossed.

It appears the new Alberta CFO is not so willing to make the membership requirement so stringent, but all it takes is her to be replaced by a less amiable pawn, and the games will change. Remember this when election time rolls around, the CFO is a provincial appointee now.

(Holding your nose ballot casting is a reality nowadays)

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

It’s from Section 58 of the Firearms Act.

Ontario had their CFO taken to task over the requirement, and it was tossed.

It appears the new Alberta CFO is not so willing to make the membership requirement so stringent, but all it takes is her to be replaced by a less amiable pawn and the games will change. Remember this when election time rolls around, the CFO is a provincial appointee now.

(Holding your nose ballot casting is a reality nowadays)

The federal legislation allows the CFO to attach conditions to a license or transfer, but the federal legislation does not specify that it is mandatory to have a range membership to own a restricted firearm. When a CFO requires a range membership, it is because that CFO chose to impose that condition, not because the federal legislation requires it. The new CFO seems more concerned with complying with the federal regulations rather than in imposing her own desires on firearms owners, as past CFOs did.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The federal legislation allows the CFO to attach conditions to a license or transfer, but the federal legislation does not specify that it is mandatory to have a range membership to own a restricted firearm. When a CFO requires a range membership, it is because that CFO chose to impose that condition, not because the federal legislation requires it. The new CFO seems more concerned with complying with the federal regulations rather than in imposing her own desires on firearms owners, as past CFOs did.

All well and good till the NDP get elected and she’s let go!

Section 58:

58 (1) A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.

I don’t suppose you’ll burn your pension to fight this in court anymore than I can afford to….. just sayn’

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Dick284

All well and good till the NDP get elected and she’s let go!

Section 58:

58 (1) A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person.

I don’t suppose you’ll burn your pension to fight this in court anymore than I can afford to….. just sayn’

It's times like this, that I am actually happy that I am old and had the opportunity to live the life that I did, because future generations won't have those same opportunities. I carried a 22lr on my bicycle, because I was too young to drive, I legally fired fully automatic firearms in Canada and carried an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine in the truck while hunting coyotes. And there were no worries about the police showing up to ruin a goose hunt or a day of shooting ground squirrels, just because someone heard gunshots.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It's times like this, that I am actually happy that I am old and had the opportunity to live the life that I did, because future generations won't have those same opportunities. I carried a 22lr on my bicycle, because I was too young to drive, I legally fired fully automatic firearms in Canada and carried an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine in the truck while hunting coyotes. And there were no worries about the police showing up to ruin a goose hunt or a day of shooting ground squirrels, just because someone heard gunshots.

Never did the bike thing, but took a .22 on the ETS to my high school, so I could shoot it at the range in the basement of our school, that was in the early 1980’s too.
The future looks stark for sure.

[Twisted Canuck]

Section 58 says may, not shall, apply reasonable conditions which may be 'considered desirable'. Which leaves them all kinds of leeway to make your life miserable , granted. It is not indicated explicitly that range membership is or has anything to do with the conditions of ownership of a restricted. It isn't a prescribed law.

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Section 58 says may, not shall, apply reasonable conditions which may be 'considered desirable'. Which leaves them all kinds of leeway to make your life miserable , granted. It is not indicated explicitly that range membership is or has anything to do with the conditions of ownership of a restricted. It isn't a prescribed law.

Yet there we were, or are, depending who holds the reins.

Ambiguity by legislative charte blanche, another 5-10 of the thousand cuts.

[DRhunter]

I just had my restricted license renewed this month (applied back in November). The CFO office finally did enquire about a range membership, so I bought the claresholm fish and game club membership and then they approved my renewal that day.

DR


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ackleyman]

its not that hard to comply. Your either a target shooter or a collector. Why risk grief ? If your transporting but do not have a range membership and the sharks stop you.......which would be admittedley a very isolated incident, what do you say ? You have a restricted weapon. Not good. if you want to shoot a restricted / handgun join a range......simple

[MooseRiverTrapper]

Originally Posted by Ackleyman

its not that hard to comply. Your either a target shooter or a collector. Why risk grief ? If your transporting but do not have a range membership and the sharks stop you.......which would be admittedley a very isolated incident, what do you say ? You have a restricted weapon. Not good. if you want to shoot a restricted / handgun join a range......simple

Sounds like it’s not required as per the firearms act. I’ve ran into enough fish cops making up laws that is a pet peeve of mine.