A question about selling my pistol?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

Why would I want to argue with someone who isn't rational. You have a personal/uneducated opinion (agenda?). Run with it and see where it gets you.

Your opinion is not going to change the status quo. Why? Because your arguments are all about attitude and not about the public interest/public safety.

Firearms Act (Canada)
Section 3, subsection 2 of the Firearms Act, explicitly exempts the Canadian Forces from the entirety of the provisions of said Act. The military is exempt from many Acts in Canada.

There is good reason for this. Civilians "don't have a clue" (your choice of words) what weapons are available in an armoury, let alone recognize them. It does not further a soldiers effectiveness knowing what you believe to be a requirement (knowing what civilians go through to get a license).

Criminal Code 117.07 exempts "Public Officers" from specified regulations in the Firearms Act. There are many exemptions granted to police (and others who are defined as "Public Officers". The exemptions are deemed necessary in order for them to perform their duties. Civilians "don't have a clue" Check out all the exemptions to the Firearms Act provided in the Criminal Code 117.07. This will probably raise your blood pressure some...be careful.

If a police/military personnel want to own personal firearms, they must abide by the Firearms Act and go through the PAL process.

You don't like it? That's fine with me.

If you are going to use the legislation to attempt to justify why law enforcement does not require a PAL, then do you also believe that the long gun registry, and the recent bans, were justified, because they were enacted by legislation? Just because it is the law, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't necessarily protect the public either.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you are going to use the legislation to attempt to justify why law enforcement does not require a PAL, then do you also believe that the long gun registry, and the recent bans, were justified, because they were enacted by legislation? Just because it is the law, doesn't make it right, and it doesn't necessarily protect the public either.

Good legislation makes sense and there will never be consensus. The legislation does not justify why law enforcement personnel do not require a PAL. It is the job that justifies the legislation and you are introducing a red herring.....the long gun registry. Do not suggest to me what I believe. This is about soldiers and police doing their jobs and in order to do so are provided with some exemptions. Not having a PAL is just a minor thing amongst so many other exemptions that are justified by the job.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

Good legislation makes sense and there will never be consensus. The legislation does not justify why law enforcement personnel do not require a PAL. It is the job that justifies the legislation and you are introducing a red herring.....the long gun registry. Do not suggest to me what I believe. This is about soldiers and police doing their jobs and in order to do so are provided with some exemptions. Not having a PAL is just a minor thing amongst so many other exemptions that are justified by the job.

So what would it hurt to teach the Canadian Firearms course to law enforcement, as part of their firearms training? It might actually help them to understand the legislation better, and avoid some of the issues that have resulted, when officers did not understand the legislation concerning the legal transport of firearms, and seized firearms, that they had no legal right to seize. As to what is good legislation, and what is not good legislation, and what makes sense, is not an absolute, and as you say, there will never be a consensus.
We have had issues with law enforcement at our ranges, because they assumed that they had exemptions, that they didn't actually have. For one, our range approval did not allow firearms to be discharged forward of the designated firing line, and that applied to everyone, until we contacted the CFO, and he approved the exemption for law enforcement. We also had officers that felt that they had an exemption to our range rules, that allowed them to use banned firearms outside of LEO range bookings. They also felt that they had an exemption to carry holstered handguns forward of the firing line outside of LEO range bookings. In both cases, most officers accepted that our rules applied to all members, including them, but a couple of very arrogant officers only complied, after club executives informed them, that they would either comply, or the club would contact their employer, to notify them of the officers failure to comply.
And then are are the officers that take non service handguns to the range, where they and their family illegally fire the handgun, with none of them holding a valid PAL.

[honda610]

When I became am instructor 13 years ago. I was informed by the Aheia reps that they offered the Pal and Rpal course to the Calgary police service. Was told not required by the current chief. This statement came from the retired Calgary police service training officer....welcome to Kanukistan

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

The problem is, they should have to. Period.

100%.

Them not having it would be as dumb as not requiring them to have a drivers license. It's okay, they use the car for work.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So what would it hurt to teach the Canadian Firearms course to law enforcement, as part of their firearms training? It might actually help them to understand the legislation better, and avoid some of the issues that have resulted, when officers did not understand the legislation concerning the legal transport of firearms, and seized firearms, that they had no legal right to seize. As to what is good legislation, and what is not good legislation, and what makes sense, is not an absolute, and as you say, there will never be a consensus.
We have had issues with law enforcement at our ranges, because they assumed that they had exemptions, that they didn't actually have. For one, our range approval did not allow firearms to be discharged forward of the designated firing line, and that applied to everyone, until we contacted the CFO, and he approved the exemption for law enforcement. We also had officers that felt that they had an exemption to our range rules, that allowed them to use banned firearms outside of LEO range bookings. They also felt that they had an exemption to carry holstered handguns forward of the firing line outside of LEO range bookings. In both cases, most officers accepted that our rules applied to all members, including them, but a couple of very arrogant officers only complied, after club executives informed them, that they would either comply, or the club would contact their employer, to notify them of the officers failure to comply.
And then are are the officers that take non service handguns to the range, where they and their family illegally fire the handgun, with none of them holding a valid PAL.

My personal opinion is that military/police would not benefit from the training. They already receive training on weapons/use of force/enforceable Acts. Introducing a training course that is designed specifically for hunters and target shooters does not adequately prepare them for their jobs. As far as laws pertaining to any Acts that are enforceable by police, that is theirs to own and the training to know what those laws are is something that must be provided in house, not a course given to the general populace. So again, I'm not buying that a PAL is necessary or beneficial for military or police for using their service weapons.

As an RSO, everyone on the line is subject to the range regulations and direction from the RSO. Anyone not in compliance or not following the direction of the RSO is going to leave the range. Police included. Range membership may be revoked at the discretion of the range executive.

Your particular range may have rules that differ from other ranges. Your example of a supervised family member (or anyone for that matter) using a firearm without a PAL is not a crime. You are not saying that the owner of the handgun doesn't have a PAL are you? It may or not be a rule at your range but if it isn't allowed I would have to ask how your range attracts new people to the sport?

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Trochu

100%.

Them not having it would be as dumb as not requiring them to have a drivers license. It's okay, they use the car for work.

Using words like dumb doesn't show very well and introducing drivers licenses is another red herring......and I do not need a drivers license to operate a vehicle on private property.

The military does not require that it's vehicle operators hold a provincial drivers license. The military issues it's own drivers license and driver training. They are valid licenses anywhere in Canada and recognized wordwide by countries that are in a SOFA. Applies to civilian pattern (cars, trucks) and military pattern (armoured/military transport) vehicles.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

My personal opinion is that military/police would not benefit from the training. They already receive training on weapons/use of force/enforceable Acts. Introducing a training course that is designed specifically for hunters and target shooters does not adequately prepare them for their jobs. As far as laws pertaining to any Acts that are enforceable by police, that is theirs to own and the training to know what those laws are is something that must be provided in house, not a course given to the general populace. So again, I'm not buying that a PAL is necessary or beneficial for military or police for using their service weapons.

As an RSO, everyone on the line is subject to the range regulations and direction from the RSO. Anyone not in compliance or not following the direction of the RSO is going to leave the range. Police included. Range membership may be revoked at the discretion of the range executive.

Your particular range may have rules that differ from other ranges. Your example of a supervised family member (or anyone for that matter) using a firearm without a PAL is not a crime. You are not saying that the owner of the handgun doesn't have a PAL are you? It may or not be a rule at your range but if it isn't allowed I would have to ask how your range attracts new people to the sport?

In the case of the officer bringing a non service handgun to the range, I was not referring to our range, I was referring to the recent court case where an officer took his family and the firearm, along with his issued firearms to the range, and nobody present had a PAL. He was charged, but because he was a police officer, he was given a conditional discharge to avoid him having a criminal record.

https://strathmorenow.com/articles/n...r-2021-offense

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Trochu

100%.

Them not having it would be as dumb as not requiring them to have a drivers license. It's okay, they use the car for work.

Bingo!

I could give a bunch of first hand examples where LE could have and should have had more training than they did(PAL course or something similar) but did not have it and were completely in the wrong because of it.

Elk had a bunch of similar examples above.

[igorot]

But I am 100% sure this guy needs their RPAL in Canada.

https://www.sealswcc.com/

[honda610]

Simple fact they are taught firearms are weapons....
We are taught they are tools.
I have met rcmp who could not remember how to load a 870 pump shotgun.
Same rcmp training and another officer could not open a lee enfield, Mauser with safety engaged. Could not figure it out. Also 90 percent have no clue what the legal storage or transportation rules are. But hey you can hit the brrrrap switch on a c6 so your good for everything.
I just gave a rpal a month ago to a medic who served in several theaters with our armed forces, his exact words he spent more time operating pistols in the course than with the forces. Take it for what it's worth.
Simple they are trained at rcmp depot with used garbage 9mm smith and wesson pistols and 870. But that makes them a expert. Cnp why doesn't the forces and rcmp issue pal liscence and or similar docs for there experts they train? Because they haven't taken the course and are not qualified. Period give your head a shake.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In the case of the officer bringing a non service handgun to the range, I was not referring to our range, I was referring to the recent court case where an officer took his family and the firearm, along with his issued firearms to the range, and nobody present had a PAL. He was charged, but because he was a police officer, he was given a conditional discharge to avoid him having a criminal record.

https://strathmorenow.com/articles/n...r-2021-offense

Yes I remember that. He said that everyone involved should have known better. If anything, there is now a legal precedent for judges to use in their ruling on similar cases. What happened to the guy who lent the handgun to someone who didn't have a PAL? That piece of the story is missing.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CNP

Yes I remember that. He said that everyone involved should have known better. If anything, there is now a legal precedent for judges to use in their ruling on similar cases. What happened to the guy who lent the handgun to someone who didn't have a PAL? That piece of the story is missing.

The guy who lent his handgun to someone that didn't have a PAL, was another officer, and there no information stating that he was charged, which he should have been. And the officers family members could have been charged as well, since they used the firearms, without being under the direct supervision of a PAL holder. But the fact that the two main parties were officers and the family members were an officer's family, obviously played a part in nobody else being charged, as well as in the conditional discharge. And had the officer had a valid PAL, no laws would have been broken, instead of several people breaking the law.

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by crazy_davey

Outside of work, LEO’s should not be able to buy or possess anything other than what us civilians can buy or own. Should be no different.

Still blows me away that some LEO’s don’t need a valid PAL(or whatever we call it now days) to legally carry on the job.

Some will correct me I’m sure, but I do know for a fact it was this way a few years ago. (Didn’t need a valid PAL to carry a sidearm for duty).

You are 100% correct

Cops do not require a PAL to carry ANY firearm they are issued.

They cannot obtain a firearm for personal use without a PAL.

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by CNP

My personal opinion is that military/police would not benefit from the training. They already receive training on weapons/use of force/enforceable Acts. Introducing a training course that is designed specifically for hunters and target shooters does not adequately prepare them for their jobs. As far as laws pertaining to any Acts that are enforceable by police, that is theirs to own and the training to know what those laws are is something that must be provided in house, not a course given to the general populace. So again, I'm not buying that a PAL is necessary or beneficial for military or police for using their service weapons.

Your personal opinion is wrong. They would benefit from the training so that they understand it when enforcing the laws in place. Trust me, the proper training is not in place. If you think it is, you would be wrong.

Won’t bother going into it further right now. Already derailed the thread.

A bunch of rookies running around the country enforcing laws that they don't understand because they were never trained or can’t comprehend current laws is a problem.

(Not talking military here, just LEO right now)

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by honda610

Simple fact they are taught firearms are weapons....
We are taught they are tools.
I have met rcmp who could not remember how to load a 870 pump shotgun.
Same rcmp training and another officer could not open a lee enfield, Mauser with safety engaged. Could not figure it out. Also 90 percent have no clue what the legal storage or transportation rules are. But hey you can hit the brrrrap switch on a c6 so your good for everything.
I just gave a rpal a month ago to a medic who served in several theaters with our armed forces, his exact words he spent more time operating pistols in the course than with the forces. Take it for what it's worth.
Simple they are trained at rcmp depot with used garbage 9mm smith and wesson pistols and 870. But that makes them a expert. Cnp why doesn't the forces and rcmp issue pal liscence and or similar docs for there experts they train? Because they haven't taken the course and are not qualified. Period give your head a shake.

Sums it up, thanks honda610.

[DonovanHoggan]

Hi Tuffin. Are you still looking to unload the pistol? I'm very interested.

[tullfan]

Originally Posted by DonovanHoggan

Hi Tuffin. Are you still looking to unload the pistol? I'm very interested.

Like a couple people said. I’ll keep it I guess and see what happens. This time if it goes I win’t be able to scratch the itch should I feel it. Many more level heads on here to help guide and direct bad Ideas. Selling now would fit into the bad Idea.
I’ll pass bud. Thanks.
To everyone that chimed in. Thank you. Appreciate the chat. Really, I do.

Tullfan

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by CNP

My personal opinion is that military/police would not benefit from the training. They already receive training on weapons/use of force/enforceable Acts. Introducing a training course that is designed specifically for hunters and target shooters does not adequately prepare them for their jobs. As far as laws pertaining to any Acts that are enforceable by police, that is theirs to own and the training to know what those laws are is something that must be provided in house, not a course given to the general populace. So again, I'm not buying that a PAL is necessary or beneficial for military or police for using their service weapons.

They certainly would benefit from the training. They might actually learn some of the laws surrounding RPALS, PALS, where, when and what can be carried or not be carried or used. You would be surprised how little training if any they receive regarding gun regulations.