Carrying of sidearms

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by Badgerbadger

Imagine, if you will, kids taking their parents pistols, as much as they steal their parents smokes, pills, and alcohol.

You might want to read about accidental shootings in the states, by kids shooting their friends, family members, and themselves. It happens quite a bit.

This isn't even an argument. Look at all the cases in the US of kids shooting themselves or others with a longgun. If we're not seeing that here (to the same extent), why would we all of a sudden see it in handguns that a guy already has locked up safely now (as all FA should be), but could (with an ATC, training & a proficiency test) carry while hunting in the outdoors, where he's already carrying a much more powerful (but clumsy up close) rifle or shotgun? = Safe storage.

But yeah, like some mentioned here, no focus. Some people will argue over anything.

[elkhunter11]

There is another option for carrying a sidearm anywhere that it's legal to carry a firearm, that being to purchase a gun with antique status. I know of a couple of very nice Colt single actions in 38 Special, that come with letters from the authorities verifying their antique status. Of course the fact that they don't have to be registered, and aren't restricted has led to the owners asking for greatly inflated prices.

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by Rockman

But yeah, like some mentioned here, no focus. Some people will argue over anything.

Isn't that the TRUTH! I believe a Moderator just sent out a memo to warn against that plus all the rest of the nonsense that goes on here.

Looking forward to a year of friendly posts where you can express your ideas without being branded a heretic and learning a lot of great stuff form informed posters that hunt and fish as a lifestyle choice.

Happy 2015 to all.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

The wilderness carry permits are not for defence against people guys, com'on!
Two permits, one for big bore guns, one for small bore.
I know Uke Hunter got a trap line not to long ago ( last year IIRC) and acquired his permits very quickly.
Not a big deal,except they won't just issue them to someone like an ordinary Joe who wants to carry a hand gun while hunting.
They have always been available , BTW, very few were issued however.

Cat

I never stated that ATC was for such a thing.

I was responding to his insinuation that firing back with anything was wrong.

While I won't say my opinion on it, he insinuated that the guy firing back was in the wrong while I disagree. Mistaking a person for game and shooting at them should be an automatic seizure of firearms and criminal charges laid.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

This sure strayed for the original question.
A lot of people on here have problems focusing.

Squirrel!

[javlin101]

Originally Posted by bobalong

What has need got to do with it, people do not need 10 rifles, or 10 shotguns, either, so I suppose you feel you should decide for some one else, the amount of all firearms they should own, or carry. I want to carry one, to hunt, if you do not fine, but DO NOT try and decide what my wants or needs are.

I never said I want to decide for you, however I do get a say as to how I keep myself safe. Does agreeing to carry is everyone's right going to make me any safer, i do not think so. So if it came to a vote or supporting a motion to change the laws on this matter I would vote no. That is my right thank you so much!

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Are you suggesting that he was referring to himself when he posted:

Caught that eh ?

[From The Hip]

I dont see any justification for it.My dad can carry a side arm(pistol) as he has his free miners licence....with the idea that he can plug a nasty huge carnivore(bear) from close range when surprised by that carnivore snd he is allowed to pack a side arm.

I am OK with that.

I am not OK with people packing handguns BECAUSE they think they have the right to do so.

FTH

[norwestalta]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

I dont see any justification for it.My dad can carry a side arm(pistol) as he has his free miners licence....with the idea that he can plug a nasty huge carnivore(bear) from close range when surprised by that carnivore snd he is allowed to pack a side arm.

I am OK with that.

I am not OK with people packing handguns BECAUSE they think they have the right to do so.

FTH

Should your dad be any different than a hiker,berry or mushroom picker? I don't think his life is any more valuable than anyone else.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by norwestalta

Should your dad be any different than a hiker,berry or mushroom picker? I don't think his life is any more valuable than anyone else.

Or a fisherman, camper. Their lives are just as valuable.

[bigjohncdn]

Originally Posted by riden

I always thought the ATC was for employment only: trapper, logger etc.

Basically, yes. Pretty much the only ones being approved. Mine was for electrofishing employment.

[bigjohncdn]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Or a fisherman, camper. Their lives are just as valuable.

X2

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

I dont see any justification for it.My dad can carry a side arm(pistol) as he has his free miners licence....with the idea that he can plug a nasty huge carnivore(bear) from close range when surprised by that carnivore snd he is allowed to pack a side arm.

I am OK with that.

I am not OK with people packing handguns BECAUSE they think they have the right to do so.

FTH

I'm getting mixed signals. Why is it OK for your family to pack but not for others? I'd like to think all Dad's lives are equally as valuable as your dad's life.

[Jimboy]

Drug dealers and gangs carry all the time , and shoot each other every second day

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by Jimboy

Drug dealers and gangs carry all the time , and shoot each other every second day

My case in point has always been that Bowhunters would use a Python .357 Magnum for protection against bears and such, but we do not have the right to protect ourselves and carry one.

Criminal would use the same gun to commit felonies, they don't care if they are allowed to carry one or not and they have access to a guns when they want.

Stupidest law, in an over regulated country with a lot of liberal not so intelligent laws.

[From The Hip]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

I'm getting mixed signals. Why is it OK for your family to pack but not for others? I'd like to think all Dad's lives are equally as valuable as your dad's life.

He and ALL holders of a free miners licence are allowed to carry a sidearm and of course they have to pass the appropriate firearms course.Keep in mind I am talking about BC and not Alberta.I did not make up the law nor was it written for my dad's benefit.Miner's get to pack a sidearm for personal safety as it is far faster to draw a pistol when surprised by a bear than to get to a rifle that is strapped to a backpack.

As for hikers/campers/berry pickers they do not enjoy the benefit as miners.Keep in mind the only time a miner can carry is when he/she is working on the mining claim.They dont get to walk around town with and pack a pistol.

FTH

[elkhunter11]

As for hikers/campers/berry pickers they do not enjoy the benefit as miners.

As long as they face the same risks, they should enjoy the same benefits.

[edmhunter]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this is the fact!

[billie]

I believe the difference to most people (and generally what my non-hunting/shooting friends think, in conversation) is "employment" vs "recreation". It could be argued that a person could take a different job, but the recreationalist has a choice to participate or not.

My friends would not care if I carried, but hesitate for persons they do not know.

The other pertinent point they make is their risk perception of proliferation of more hand guns in Canadian society. The US is a case in point and constant reminder of what non-regulated gun ownership and gross quantity appears to mean to society. Criminals don't steal long guns, but hand guns and "black" guns are a target. More guns simply means more opportunity for unfavorable outcomes, whatever that may be. The general public doesn't see any upside because they would never use a hand gun themselves, and the thought of anyone coming to their "rescue" with a gun doesn't offer them any comfort at all.

Laying out specific anecdotes is a mugs' game. There is an equally opposite argument that can be made for each one. Personally, I don't think the public perception is really "Kool-Aid" induced in Canada, rather, it is just logically accepted that the American model doesn't work.

I think most are OK with the status quo in Canada, but a pretty tough crowd to win over if you want to loosen up gun laws. And a politician won't even consider it unless the majority is in favor. Any that say otherwise, I would suggest you check to see if his or her lips are moving .

[elkhunter11]

I believe the difference to most people (and generally what my non-hunting/shooting friends think, in conversation) is "employment" vs "recreation". It could be argued that a person could take a different job, but the recreationalist has a choice to participate or not.

And just how many "trappers" and "miners" actually make their living at these occupations? I know a few trappers that trap as a hobby, and even more that trap just so that they can have a cabin on public land. A lot of miners, are "recreational miners" that do it as a hobby.

[billie]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And just how many "trappers" and "miners" actually make their living at these occupations? I know a few trappers that trap as a hobby, and even more that trap just so that they can have a cabin on public land. A lot of miners, are "recreational miners" that do it as a hobby.

True, but I think it is still seen more as a means of gainful employment rather than recreation. Lots of people have 2 jobs, some even enjoy them (hobby).

Just offering some views from the other side.

[riden]

Originally Posted by billie

True, but I think it is still seen more as a means of gainful employment rather than recreation. Lots of people have 2 jobs, some even enjoy them (hobby).

Just offering some views from the other side.

I think you are 100% correct.

Gun control is only partially about public safety, a great portion of gun control is about "perception". Case in point being the LGR, capped mags and ATT's. Most Canadians are glad such laws exist and are never willing to do more than scratch the surface of the laws, and have no idea if they are effective. Deep down, I doubt they care. They just want to know we have them and are very quick our attribute our lower Canadian gun crime to them.

Just look at the uproar over removing ATT's, it's amazing what you read in the media over that. The level of sensationalism, the statements some CFO's made and were bigger headlines than the bill itself. Politically, this present bill will likely hurt Harper.

Really, I saw a poster where the Liberal Party is arguing removing ATT's will create just what some posters here want.

The gun control debate in Canada is very polarizing and Harper has been accused of being a polarizing PM. I am surprised he has done what he has honestly.

[Redfrog]

"More guns simply means more opportunity for unfavorable outcomes"

Nailed it!!
Same thing applies to automobiles and sex partners, and yet.......

[Chris88CL]

The firearms laws in this country are an absolute joke, whether you want to believe it or not. Heavy restriction of something doesnt make it disappear or become impossible to get. Drugs should be a good example. Cigarettes and alcohol as well. Look at the times of prohibition for example. Telling people they couldnt didnt mean that they didnt.

Criminals will always find a way.

Now lets look at the modern world with random attacks on schools, police officers, government offices etc. The criminals and the bad guys always have had guns, and always will. Why not let the good guys protect themselves, and maybe...just MAYBE you and your family too?

Im all for proper training and annual recertifications etc. But when I think about these random shootings at malls etc, I get goosebumps. What if it was your child shopping one day at that mall? I'd rather not have some crazed lunatic shooting for 5-7 minutes before the police finally arrive and can neutralize the threat. If there's a stranger in there who can certify that they are proficient in the carry and use of a sidearm and they can use that sidearm to either deflect attention away from my child or neutralize the threat themselves, HAVE AT 'ER! Please.

As for wilderness carry, it should be a given outside of city/town limits as long as you are properly trained. A moron with a 12 gauge is just as dangerous as a moron with a sidearm. In many cases, a moron with a long gun is MORE dangerous because of the effective range of the firearms.

Before anyone pipes up and starts on the whole "You just wish you could open carry" garbage, thats not it at all. Im already authorized to open carry.

Not everyone in this world is good, but the good people far outweigh the bad in this country. Why not even the odds? Responsible people wont go pulling their guns for no reason, and those who do should be punished and have their right to carry be removed. Dont punish everyone due to the mistakes of a few.

Thats my humble opinion, like it or not.

[CanuckShooter]

What is to stop you from packing while your out picking berries, fishing or bow hunting [for example]??? Especially when you are aware others are permitted to do so?

It's kind of like speeding, you do it when you need to and there is no penalty unless you get caught.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

What is to stop you from packing while your out picking berries, fishing or bow hunting [for example]??? Especially when you are aware others are permitted to do so?

It's kind of like speeding, you do it when you need to and there is no penalty unless you get caught.

The severity of the penalty is much more serious than for speeding. A criminal record, and having my PAL revoked, as well as a firearms prohibition is more than I want to risk.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The severity of the penalty is much more serious than for speeding. A criminal record, and having my PAL revoked, as well as a firearms prohibition is more than I want to risk.

And how does that balance with risking your skin in grizzly country? It seems kind of funny that the threat of the law would over ride the need to protect our own hides??

[edmhunter]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

And how does that balance with risking your skin in grizzly country? It seems kind of funny that the threat of the law would over ride the need to protect our own hides??

No kidding! I say keep politicians out of our sport, we can manage very well without them! After all, our kind have been doing it for centuries

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Chris88CL

The firearms laws in this country are an absolute joke, whether you want to believe it or not. Heavy restriction of something doesnt make it disappear or become impossible to get. Drugs should be a good example. Cigarettes and alcohol as well. Look at the times of prohibition for example. Telling people they couldnt didnt mean that they didnt.

Criminals will always find a way.

Now lets look at the modern world with random attacks on schools, police officers, government offices etc. The criminals and the bad guys always have had guns, and always will. Why not let the good guys protect themselves, and maybe...just MAYBE you and your family too?

Im all for proper training and annual recertifications etc. But when I think about these random shootings at malls etc, I get goosebumps. What if it was your child shopping one day at that mall? I'd rather not have some crazed lunatic shooting for 5-7 minutes before the police finally arrive and can neutralize the threat. If there's a stranger in there who can certify that they are proficient in the carry and use of a sidearm and they can use that sidearm to either deflect attention away from my child or neutralize the threat themselves, HAVE AT 'ER! Please.

As for wilderness carry, it should be a given outside of city/town limits as long as you are properly trained. A moron with a 12 gauge is just as dangerous as a moron with a sidearm. In many cases, a moron with a long gun is MORE dangerous because of the effective range of the firearms.

Before anyone pipes up and starts on the whole "You just wish you could open carry" garbage, thats not it at all. Im already authorized to open carry.

Not everyone in this world is good, but the good people far outweigh the bad in this country. Why not even the odds? Responsible people wont go pulling their guns for no reason, and those who do should be punished and have their right to carry be removed. Dont punish everyone due to the mistakes of a few.

Thats my humble opinion, like it or not.

Well said, I just like to add when out hiking etc would be nice to lawfully carry, instead of totting a rifle or shotgun, just a convenience.
Was in Alaska in the early 80's and never once witnessed a pistol gun fight yet seen a lot of handguns.

[CanuckShooter]

Well it is kind of absurd....I can pack my 338 rifle no problem, but I can't hang a little handgun off my belt?? What are they afraid of?