New Range Restrictions Will Apply to Off Duty Leos

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

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.

There are a lot of things these public organizations do irresponsibly on the tax payers dime. That is not the problem of private ranges. Maybe they can start lobbying the government for change.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by chuck

There are a lot of things these public organizations do irresponsibly on the tax payers dime. That is not the problem of private ranges. Maybe they can start lobbying the government for change.

Didn't say it was the problem of private ranges. In fact it seems to be a benefit for many private ranges to have the bookings from what I've seen across the country and from talking to several of them. I know the one range locally has been able to put several thousand dollars towards range improvements as a result of the bookings.

My comment was directed at someone who thought that LEO's shouldn't qualify on their prohibited firearms at private ranges at all. I'm all for it, just will be a huge taxpayer burden. We'll have enough in the coming few years I'm sure the extra few billion wont hurt.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

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.

Then perhaps the government should consider these facts when they work towards disarming Canadians? If we have no firearms, then we have no use for ranges, and we will dismantle them and sell off the land, leaving no ranges for LEOs to rent from us.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Then perhaps the government should consider these facts when they work towards disarming Canadians? If we have no firearms, then we have no use for ranges, and we will dismantle them and sell off the land, leaving no ranges for LEOs to rent from us.

Guess so elk. Sorry for the interruption.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Didn't say it was the problem of private ranges. In fact it seems to be a benefit for many private ranges to have the bookings from what I've seen across the country and from talking to several of them. I know the one range locally has been able to put several thousand dollars towards range improvements as a result of the bookings.

My comment was directed at someone who thought that LEO's shouldn't qualify on their prohibited firearms at private ranges at all. I'm all for it, just will be a huge taxpayer burden. We'll have enough in the coming few years I'm sure the extra few billion wont hurt.

Those thousands of dollars start to appear pretty meaningless when ranges lose members or get shut down because we can’t shoot anymore. I do not understand how I can protest a firearms ban and still let that household continue to play in my backyard. Seems counterintuitive and a bit hypocritical. Maybe they should crap in their own flower bed.

In fact, I’m sending a letter to my local range letting them know I will no longer buy a membership as long as Federal LEO’s are allowed to shoot there.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by chuck

Those thousands of dollars start to appear pretty meaningless when ranges lose members or get shut down because we can’t shoot anymore. I do not understand how I can protest a firearms ban and still let that household continue to play in my backyard. Seems counterintuitive and a bit hypocritical. Maybe they should crap in their own flower bed.

Fair enough.

I was obviously looking at this from a different angle (one that knows how the current government doesn't find budgets or accountability important) but I'm essentially just proving the same point that you are saying by talking about how much of a tax burden it would be. I was obviously mistaken of that tactic being used as a protest to the current ban.

Anyways, sorry for the confusion.

[3blade]

I think the OP is more about avoiding confusion regarding who is shooting what, LEOs bringing prohibited firearms on a range at the same time as civilians are there would create endless reports that the executive would have to look into.

Regarding the other side of it, Alberta law enforcement agencies didn’t create this and dont support it. Now I don’t blame them but I think they should suffer the same as the rest of us, no prohib use at all, so they understand the consequences of “following orders” against civilians. No bookings, no uniforms, no special treatment.

The royal gestapo should have been banned from every range in Alberta the week after the high river gun grab, and certainly following the OIC. They absolutely ARE the enemy.

[elkhunter11]

I think the OP is more about avoiding confusion regarding who is shooting what, LEOs bringing prohibited firearms on a range at the same time as civilians are there would create endless reports that the executive would have to look into.

Exactly, just as I posted in post #8.

[Pioneer2]

Originally Posted by Trap30

What critical thinking brought you to this conclusion?

It is true. They can also only buy ammo they use for work 5.56,9mm and 12ga buckshot/slugs .No PAL required.