"Right" to own firearms

Being a hunter and sport shooter I hear and see things on a semi regular basis regarding our "right" to own firearms. Where legally is this defined in any legal document? As far as I know we have the Hunting Heritage act that provincially enshrines our right to hunt within the province of Ontario but out side that I don't know of any concrete legislated "right" to own firearms. We are not the United States, to my knowledge our firearms ownership is a "privilege" not a "right" furthermore, another glaring "right" we don't have is the "right of property" which allows the government in power to confiscate any property at any time through an order in council (usually in the guise of public safety when it comes to firearms) without any compensation.
Am I wrong or misinformed or is there any official documentation regarding Canadian citizens the "right" to own firearms? There may be some obscure document from centuries ago but I don't know if that holds any value in today's political environment. Any clarity on this would be appreciated.

We have the right to complain when the government pisses us off, I think that is our only right in this country.

you have the right to call 911 and file a complaint if your wife and daughter get raped during an home invasion.
it's not even about the right to own firearms or not. it starts with the actual right to defend yourself or your family, and if you do, be sure you will be the one in front of the judge...
in that respect we are even limited in our ability to exercise human rights in this country

There is no right to own firearms in Canada.

Someone is going to disagree with that, resurrecting an old argument originating from Ted Morton: the 1689 English Bill of Rights stated that the "the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law," and this is argued to have been imported into Canadian law via the British North America Act, and then made permanent and irrevocable via Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the courts have ruled that this argument is horse pucky. This was the argument relied on by Bruce Montague's constitutional challenge. The trial judge shot it down in a carefully reasoned ruling, pointing out that S. 26 does not say "all rights not mentioned here also have the protection of the Charter," but merely that the Charter does not negate existing rights not mentioned therein; also, that the wording of the original Bill of Rights expressly allows Parliament to limit that right ("as allowed by law"). The appeals court upheld that ruling without much further comment, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. So that door is shut: it was a bad argument to begin with and the courts have said as much.

The right to own weapons arguably exists in common law. John A. MacDonald argued that this right indeed existed in Canada, as did a number of his contemporaries (one of whom became a Supreme Court justice). But our conception of "rights" and of the role of Parliament in safeguarding them has changed since MacDonald's time. Common law doesn't restrict Parliament's legislative powers, and never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

it's not even about the right to own firearms or not. it starts with the actual right to defend yourself or your family...

---

Untrue. Self-defence is fully recognized as a defence in Canadian law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

....as a defence in Canadian law.

---

so, what are the chances to end up in court as defendant? especially, if you use a firearm to defend yourself...
self defense aside; first accusation will be inappropriate firearm storage (criminal code), because you were able to actually defend yourself!

That's going to depend entirely on the circumstances.

If you were able to defend yourself because you did not store your firearm legally, then you would in fact be guilty of unsafe storage, and self-defence is not a defence to that charge.

The requirement to store a firearm safely does not negate your right to defend yourself.

In Canada you need a license to possess/acquire a gun. We don't have a right to own a gun. If it was a right, we would not need a license. Core rights cannot be licensed.

In terms of guns, there is virtually no such thing as the civilian ownership or use of weapons in Canada. Civilians can (with permission) have firearms. A firearm and a weapon are not the same thing, even though they may be the same object. A Remington 870 in the hands of the police or military performing their duties is a weapon. A Remington 870 in the hands of a target shooter, recreational hunter or sustenance hunter is a firearm. Civilians do not have the automatic right to use their firearms as weapons since we have no "castle laws" here. If we as civilians choose to use an object (gun, baseball bat, frying pan) as a weapon, then we have to answer to something we do have a right to do, which is to use "reasonable force". The Ian Thompson decision is a good read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

A Remington 870 in the hands of a target shooter, recreational hunter or sustenance hunter is a firearm.

---

Any firearm is a weapon under the law, regardless of who possesses it and for what purpose. This is expressly spelled out in section 2 of the Criminal Code (interpretation). If you own a firearm, then in the eyes of the law, you own a weapon.

Civilian ownership of weapons can be seen as a common law right, reflected in the fact that there is in fact no Criminal Code prohibition against owning a weapon. A police officer cannot charge you with owning a weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

The Ian Thompson decision is a good read.

---

The only charge heard in that case was unsafe storage. Reasonable force did not enter into the court decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Any firearm is a weapon under the law, regardless of who possesses it and for what purpose. This is expressly spelled out in section 2 of the Criminal Code (interpretation). If you own a firearm, then in the eyes of the law, you own a weapon.

Civilian ownership of weapons can be seen as a common law right, reflected in the fact that there is in fact no Criminal Code prohibition against owning a weapon. A police officer cannot charge you with owning a weapon.



The only charge heard in that case was unsafe storage. Reasonable force did not enter into the court decision.

---

All very true, Welsh, thanks.

Regarding weapons, what I was perhaps clumsily trying to point out is that whereas in the U.S. there is legislation (2nd Amendment rights, castle laws) that expressly permits civilians to use their guns in defense of person or property under a comparatively broad range of circumstances, we have few such legal protections here. We bear a much higher legal burden if we choose to use a gun against another person, even if we feel it is justified. There's sometimes a lot of brash talk among some Canadian gun owners about their "home defense" guns. Such people need to think twice about whether that flat-screen is worth all the life-ruining fall-out of Daddy having to go away for a while.

The interesting thing about the Thompson case was that the careless use and pointing charges were dropped, not as part of plea, but because the Crown said convictions were not likely. Presumably what the Crown was actually more concerned with was that, had those charges failed at trial, it would have moved the bar in terms of what is considered "reasonable" in Canada.

As I read this, and I get that I am a glass half empty guy, it makes me wonder. WRT the Ian Thomson verdict, which I did not read in it's entirety, leaves loopholes. Most, if not all of us follow all the storage laws pertaining to Firearms and Ammo, and I can assume most vaults/safes/lockers are in basements. I know mine is. So what happens when an armed poo-pump kicks in your back door, well you're another stat on the evening news. However, if your safe storage container/locked ammo vault as well was in your bedroom closet? Where would the charges come from? If you apply the Ian Thomson verdict as precedence, and courts love precedence, meet all the CFO laws, what would be the charge. Now bear in mind you have a dead poo-pump in your kitchen.

I will leave to the armchair lawyers to debate this brain-teaser. Remember, you have meet all the mandated laws, and stopped a deadly threat with equal force.

Are you judged by 12???, option be is carried by six...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

so, what are the chances to end up in court as defendant? especially, if you use a firearm to defend yourself...
self defense aside; first accusation will be inappropriate firearm storage (criminal code), because you were able to actually defend yourself!

---

The chances are excellent if excessive force is used which is very clearly defined in law. It applies to every citizen,including the Police.......especially the Police. Therein lies the great danger in the use of deadly force. It better be justified and it better be ironclad because if it's not............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

... whereas in the U.S. there is legislation (2nd Amendment rights, castle laws) that expressly permits civilians to use their guns in defense of person or property under a comparatively broad range of circumstances, we have few such legal protections here. We bear a much higher legal burden if we choose to use a gun against another person, even if we feel it is justified.

---

Ah, yes, I see your point now. True enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waterrat

So what happens when an armed poo-pump kicks in your back door, well you're another stat on the evening news. However, if your safe storage container/locked ammo vault as well was in your bedroom closet? Where would the charges come from?

---

The basic issue in Thompson was the Crown's belief that he had not kept his guns locked in the safe, but unlocked in his bedside table, based in part on a comment he made to police. He was acquitted because they couldn't prove it.

So in your hypothetical instance in which the only issue is storage, if the safe is in your bedroom and there are no ammo storage questions, and if you didn't make any ill-advised remarks to police, there would likely be no charge. The Crown has to prove the gun was not safely stored.

Welsh would be the one to answer.

We are allowed to defend ourselves with whatever. We aren't allowed to bring guns to knife fights. Its been years since I had to know it but I believe the salient wording is

just enough force as is required to remove the threat.

So to say we cant use a gun is wrong...if I have time to get into my safe, retrieve and load my SG and the threat warrants the use of deadly force...I can.

Kind of crazy I know.
I can keep an Excal Micro within feet of my bed and a baseball bat to make sure he doesn't get back up.....
but a firearm...:)

Anywho it seems theres a misconception about being defenselss or we cant...We can, but only as much force as is warranted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Ah, yes, I see your point now. True enough.



The basic issue in Thompson was the Crown's belief that he had not kept his guns locked in the safe, but unlocked in his bedside table, based in part on a comment he made to police. He was acquitted because they couldn't prove it.

So in your hypothetical instance in which the only issue is storage, if the safe is in your bedroom and there are no ammo storage questions, and if you didn't make any ill-advised remarks to police, there would likely be no charge. The Crown has to prove the gun was not safely stored.

---

This is why,IMHO, it's always better to use a long gun than a handgun due to the different storage requirements. If Mr.Thompson had done that,he likely wouldn't have been convicted of anything.

can anyone explain to me why we are not allowed to use pepper spray for self defense in Canada?
I'm not talking about bear spray on people - I mean the stuff that is somewhat safe, but still quite unpleasant and sufficient to deter the average attacker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

can anyone explain to me why we are not allowed to use pepper spray for self defense in Canada?
I'm not talking about bear spray on people - I mean the stuff that is somewhat safe, but still quite unpleasant and sufficient to deter the average attacker.

---

I don't think it's illegal. My daughter carries Bear Spray with her when listing or showing rural property for sale. Like anything else,it depends on the circumstances when used,the same as a baseball bat,hammer,screwdriver,telephone book,rock,2X4,tree branch.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

can anyone explain to me why we are not allowed to use pepper spray for self defense in Canada?
I'm not talking about bear spray on people - I mean the stuff that is somewhat safe, but still quite unpleasant and sufficient to deter the average attacker.

---

Well you can carry pepper spray to deter a dog attack (posties do carry).If your out walking and somebody demands your wallet while armed with a knife I believe you could use pepper spray.If asked why you were carrying it your answer would be to deter a dog attack. The answer would not be "to use as a weapon if I get robbed".That would open you up to carry a concealed weapon charge, ie you had no intention to use it as a weapon.

The Crown would have to prove "you intended to use it as a weapon".

You can carry a folding buck knife in your pants pocket, if you were ever stopped and searched by the police and asked why you had the knife you don,t say "I need it to protect myself" that would end up in carrying a concealed weapon charge.But you could say
"I use it to cut open oranges".

in a nutshell:

from: http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/02/05/...r-pepper-spray

Quote:

---

"It might be, depending on how strong it is," said Solomon Friedman, Ottawa criminal defence lawyer and firearms law expert.


"I've certainly seen people charged with carrying a concealed weapon."

The murky area can also surround how it's carried and the intent of the person carrying it.

If you are intending to hurt someone with it, or actually do, that is illegal.

Carrying bear spray is legal for use against bears. Carrying bear spray in the city where you're unlikely to see a bear?


You could be charged with carrying a concealed or restricted weapon. And actually using it as a weapon can mean a host of other charges, including assault with a weapon and administering a noxious thing.

It is illegal to carry a product designed for personal protection against a human attack, according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

---

Quote:

---

When it comes to mace, which has a higher concentration of oleoresin capsicum, it is flat-out prohibited in Canada.


Using pepper spray to ward off an attack, like a Gatineau store clerk did in 2012, does not necessarily mean charges if it is a legitimate self-defence.

But in the case where pepper spray was unleashed on a city bus in Nov., two 15-year-old boys faced a combined 18 charges.

The man in the courthouse incident, accused of using Spike dog repellent, was hit with several charges, including carrying a concealed weapon and assault with a weapon.

"I think the big issue is, it's restricted," said  Ottawa Police Const. J.P. Vincelette.

---

Quote:

---

And Mace, a more dangerous substance, is considered a prohibited weapon, which makes it illegal.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, such prohibited weapons can be "any device designed to be used for the purpose of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person by the discharge therefrom of
(a) tear gas, Mace or other gas, or
(b) any liquid, spray, powder or other substance that is capable of injuring, immobilizing or otherwise incapacitating any person.
There can also be provincial restrictions when it comes to pepper sprays.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

It is illegal to carry a product designed for personal protection against a human attack, according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

---

that's exactly what I remember.
those sprays have been used around the world for decades, including some very left leaning European countries.
so one has to really wonder why comparatively safe countermeasures (both for victim and attacker) are illegal under criminal law in Canada.

You need to be careful with anything you have that can be used as a weapon. If you carry a bat in your car and don't ever play ball then you are likely to be judged as being predisposed to use it as a weapon and it being considered a weapon as opposed to the guy who has several bats and a sack full of little league gear in the minivan. Basically you need to make sure that you don't end up being portrayed as person looking to get into a fight. My guns like many others are stored in a triple locked vault in the basement so I would have to rush by intruders on the main floor ( only floor with doors) to access the guns for self defense. Not really of any use in an emergency. Our safe storage laws pretty well prevent firearms to be used in a home invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

so one has to really wonder why comparatively safe countermeasures (both for victim and attacker) are illegal under criminal law in Canada.

---

You can drive yourself nuts wondering why any given provision became law, or you can just accept that it's law. I think pepper spray was caught up in a general wave of prohibitions on easily concealable weapons including stun guns and the like. It doesn't matter anyway, because if a woman carried Mace in her purse she'd be carrying a concealed weapon regardless.

Also, possession of a weapon for the purpose of self-defence in the absence of a specific and unavoidable threat is arguably illegal, based on Supreme Court rulings on self-defence.

Essentially, Canadian law allows you to own a weapon but not with the intent to use it on a person.

The status of pepper spray in the law is weird. The only reason bear sprays and dog sprays are not considered prohibited weapons is that they are not expressly designed to be used on people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Also, possession of a weapon for the purpose of self-defence in the absence of a specific and unavoidable threat is arguably illegal, based on Supreme Court rulings on self-defence.

.

---

In America that would likely eliminate 50% of gun owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Our safe storage laws pretty well prevent firearms to be used in a home invasion.

---

I live i an apartment so no basement to put a safe. I do have a locked gun cabinet in my bedroom with a pistol cabinet on top that is full of ammunition. If i heard someone breaking into my place it wouldnt take me too long to grab my keys off my dresser and unlock my gun cabinet, grab a shotgun, unlock my ammo cabinet and grab a few shells before i was out to the door. Im not saying i would use a firearm in a home invasion situation but our storage laws definitely wouldnt prevent me from doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

You can drive yourself nuts wondering why any given provision became law, or you can just accept that it's law. I think pepper spray was caught up in a general wave of prohibitions on easily concealable weapons including stun guns and the like. It doesn't matter anyway, because if a woman carried Mace in her purse she'd be carrying a concealed weapon regardless.

Also, possession of a weapon for the purpose of self-defence in the absence of a specific and unavoidable threat is arguably illegal, based on Supreme Court rulings on self-defence.

Essentially, Canadian law allows you to own a weapon but not with the intent to use it on a person.

The status of pepper spray in the law is weird. The only reason bear sprays and dog sprays are not considered prohibited weapons is that they are not expressly designed to be used on people.

---

Another thought on pepper spray, usually in a defense against animals, you are generally backing away laying down a fog for the animal to move into. Normally when I've seen PS used again people, it's aggressively sprayed in the assailants face. I've heard it suggested if you're going to do something like that, you would be further ahead to use a Hornet & Wasp spray. Over time the effects of pepper spray will apparently wear off, by contrast H & W spray require medical attention, in order to neutralize its effects. I'll leave to you all, to figure out the advantage of that.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

That, right there, is intent to do bodily harm.

This is why people get charged over what they think is self defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

...
Also, possession of a weapon for the purpose of self-defence in the absence of a specific and unavoidable threat is arguably illegal, based on Supreme Court rulings on self-defence.
...

---

Hence my sentiment with regard to factually excercise the right to defend oneself; i.e. not being allowed to take precautions is practically not all that different than not being at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

In America that would likely eliminate 50% of gun owners.

---

That's what they're afraid of.

Fifty years ago most law abiding Canadians with no history of violence COULD apply and receive a permit to carry a handgun. Back in those days most of us were felt by our government to be reasonable people, who would only use their gun for entertainment such as target shooting, hunting, or protection. Then we proved that most of us were NOT the type of people you could trust to do no harm to our neighbours or our country so our guns were restricted even more.

50 years ago the large urban areas that are now part of our national demographic didn't exist, nor did the spectre of gangs. I am confident to state that the stats will show that crime occurs predominantly in urban areas. And of course we know how the media thrives on those types of stories.
I am still hopeful that going forward that events will occur to revise the Castle Doctrine and become the catalyst for property rights that include firearms rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

I am still hopeful that going forward that events will occur to revise the Castle Doctrine and become the catalyst for property rights that include firearms rights.

---

Until then, the Liberals are happy with the defense that we sit in our bedrooms, loudly signing"Kumbaya" and hope that the robber will put down his gun and join us in song....oh Sunny Days :)

[QUOTE=DGearyFTE;950095]....
And of course we know how the media thrives on those types of stories.
.../QUOTE]
look at the Walid Mustapha Chalhoub case and you know HOW selective our media is - no matter how big the story; it has to support (or at least not contradict) certain propagandistic goals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

I am confident to state that the stats will show that crime occurs predominantly in urban areas.

---

In fact, while the number of crimes is higher in urban areas where the population is higher, the violent crime rate is highest in rural areas and small cities. Large cities are the safest places in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

I am still hopeful that going forward that events will occur to revise the Castle Doctrine and become the catalyst for property rights that include firearms rights.

---

The key roadblock to having property rights in the Charter is the provinces -- constitutionally, property is a provincial concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

In fact, while the number of crimes is higher in urban areas where the population is higher, the violent crime rate is highest in rural areas and small cities. Large cities are the safest places in the country.

---

The most recent Stats Can results show that violent crime and crime related to firearms is on the decline. Remember that even if a firearm is not used in the commission of a crime it is still listed as part of the stat if there is one present at the scene. Statistically it may be safest to live in a large city but I am sure you will have a hard time convincing people that live near Jane and Finch in Toronto or in Ottawa South.
My uncle left Scarborough because gangs had effectivley taken over their neighbourhood that was established in the 1950's.

In direct response to the OP and the issue of firearms it is intersting to note that the Rebel Media is reporting a 250% increase in firearms licenses in Germany post NYE.
At the same time, there is a current petition related to this exact discussion...

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Peti...Petition=e-124

I encourage all to sign electronically

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE;950121....

[URL

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-124[/URL]

I encourage all to sign electronically

---

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

What a novel principle....

This whole Refugee crisis is beginning to be exactly what many predicted and partly what cost Harper his job. The politically correct left ignored the warnings and now events like Cologne are beginning. Google Sweden rapes and see how that is headed. I bet that revered world leader Angela Merkel loses her job over this. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Nazi party surge in Germany over this. They are already lining up to buy pepper spray and pellet pistols. None of this looks good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

The most recent Stats Can results show that violent crime and crime related to firearms is on the decline.

---

This has been true for 20 years, as I've pointed out several times before. Not sure how it applies to my earlier point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

Remember that even if a firearm is not used in the commission of a crime it is still listed as part of the stat if there is one present at the scene.

---

This is a half-truth. A crime will be recorded as a firearms crime if a firearm is the most serious weapon used. For example, a robbery where two men use a gun and a knife is a firearms robbery, not a knife robbery. But a robbery where there is a gun hidden under the counter is not recorded as a firearms robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGearyFTE

Statistically it may be safest to live in a large city but I am sure you will have a hard time convincing people that live near Jane and Finch in Toronto or in Ottawa South.

---

The difficulty of convincing people has nothing to do with reality. In fact, you are at less risk of violence at Jane and Finch than you are in downtown Thunder Bay on a Saturday night.

Its been many years since I strode through Regent Park on a regular basis, or worked plain clothes in Jane and Finch.

Welsh is right, though I'm not sure what nuances are at play. So without getting into hair splitting, or complex, convoluted discussions none of can come close to answering. Perhaps another truth first to serve an illustration.

The safest, and often quietest streets to live on....Are those where theres a Hells Angels club house. Those area's are bad, and while I felt perfectly fine to walk through Regent Park way back in the day and not sure I would today....For the most part people are left alone..

Thunder bay where various socio economic, alcoholismism and what not come into play?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Its been many years since I strode through Regent Park on a regular basis, or worked plain clothes in Jane and Finch.

Welsh is right, though I'm not sure what nuances are at play. So without getting into hair splitting, or complex, convoluted discussions none of can come close to answering. Perhaps another truth first to serve an illustration.

The safest, and often quietest streets to live on....Are those where theres a Hells Angels club house. Those area's are bad, and while I felt perfectly fine to walk through Regent Park way back in the day and not sure I would today....For the most part people are left alone..

Thunder bay where various socio economic, alcoholismism and what not come into play?

---

The reason you felt ok to walk through Regent Park in the old days were because me and the rest of the foot patrol where there on a daily basis. Had no idea you worked plain clothes at Jane and Finch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

You need to be careful with anything you have that can be used as a weapon. If you carry a bat in your car and don't ever play ball then you are likely to be judged as being predisposed to use it as a weapon and it being considered a weapon as opposed to the guy who has several bats and a sack full of little league gear in the minivan. Basically you need to make sure that you don't end up being portrayed as person looking to get into a fight. My guns like many others are stored in a triple locked vault in the basement so I would have to rush by intruders on the main floor ( only floor with doors) to access the guns for self defense. Not really of any use in an emergency. Our safe storage laws pretty well prevent firearms to be used in a home invasion.

---

I disagree that the storage laws exist to prevent firearm use in defence situations. They are designed to prevent unauthorized access to the firearms. If you look at the RCMP storage and transport of firearms website, non restricted firearms have to be stored unloaded and either secured with a secure locking device, or stored in a safe/vault/or a room designed to store firearms. The same applies for restricted firearms. You can also keep the ammo in the same container. You can buy a rapid access pistol safe, store a pistol in it without a trigger lock and place a loaded magazine inside the safe. It is perfectly legal. If you are involved in a shooting make no statements to the police until you have spoken to legal counsel. Advise the police "I fully intend to cooperate with your investigation, but I must speak with legal council first". After that all you give them is name, DOB, and address. Most people are hanged because of comments they made to the police without speaking with a lawyer first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guelph1981

I live i an apartment so no basement to put a safe. I do have a locked gun cabinet in my bedroom with a pistol cabinet on top that is full of ammunition. If i heard someone breaking into my place it wouldnt take me too long to grab my keys off my dresser and unlock my gun cabinet, grab a shotgun, unlock my ammo cabinet and grab a few shells before i was out to the door. Im not saying i would use a firearm in a home invasion situation but our storage laws definitely wouldnt prevent me from doing so.

---

Nothing in the criminal code prevents you from using a firearm to defend yourself if you believe that your assailant is going to use force that would cause grievous bodily harm or death on you. That also applies if you use knives, bats, or your fists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arclight

I disagree that the storage laws exist to prevent firearm use in defence situations. They are designed to prevent unauthorized access to the firearms. If you look at the RCMP storage and transport of firearms website, non restricted firearms have to be stored unloaded and either secured with a secure locking device, or stored in a safe/vault/or a room designed to store firearms. The same applies for restricted firearms. You can also keep the ammo in the same container. You can buy a rapid access pistol safe, store a pistol in it without a trigger lock and place a loaded magazine inside the safe. It is perfectly legal. If you are involved in a shooting make no statements to the police until you have spoken to legal counsel. Advise the police "I fully intend to cooperate with your investigation, but I must speak with legal council first". After that all you give them is name, DOB, and address. Most people are hanged because of comments they made to the police without speaking with a lawyer first.

---

Excellent post and I agree with your summary. The RCMP training videos and manuals all stressed that the storage laws were to help prevent easy access to suicidal people and in domestic situations.

If they had been truly hard on storage you would not be allowed to have a shotgun sitting on your coffee table with a trigger lock on it and unloaded and be legal which is the present situation.

They could have written the law very different "all guns must be in a commercial safe and the room containing the safe must be alarmed" or words to that effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

If they had been truly hard on storage you would not be allowed to have a shotgun sitting on your coffee table with a trigger lock on it and unloaded and be legal which is the present situation.

---

Neither would the rules permit keeping a gun unlocked in remote areas, as they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Neither would the rules permit keeping a gun unlocked in remote areas, as they do.

---

Or for predator control on farms and such like.

But the exceptions to the rule ie remote wildlife areas are not well defined and depending on the LEO you might get charged and you might not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Neither would the rules permit keeping a gun unlocked in remote areas, as they do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Or for predator control on farms and such like.

But the exceptions to the rule ie remote wildlife areas are not well defined and depending on the LEO you might get charged and you might not.

---

As you say Gilroy, the definition of "remote" is not defined. Can I have my rifle/shotgun unloaded and unlocked sitting in the corner of my cabin in case a bear or coyote decided to attack my dog, or myself? My cabin is on a main back road about 6 miles from a town. It's surrounded by bush for a few miles or so, but is that considered remote? My definition is that it is.

Moose.

There are two separate exceptions to the storage requirements.

One is for remote wilderness area.

Second is for predator control.

An example for remote wilderness area would be if you were on Baffin Island and counting snow geese in a survey. You could have a shotgun out without a trigger lock in your tent,with the gun unloaded but ammunition separate.I think this fits the definition.

On the other hand you might leave your rifle in a tent while Moose hunting north of Timmins and your camp is on a well traveled logging road .Your gun gets stolen while your out grouse hunting.I think you might get charged.

In your situation and for most farmers,backwoods people, where there is a threat of predators like coyotes,its permissible to have your gun not trigger locked and unloaded with ammunition stored separate and you would not be charged.Two separate exceptions .