Feds eyeing guns' designed to hunt people' as they ponder possible curbs

[Gun Nut]

The talk now is that they would not ban anything but rather limit or remove ATTs. This was one part of C-71, it brings back the discretion of the CFO of the province to allow people to go to the range, this was the case before it was changed back with Harper as well. The concern is that the CFO can be directed to rescind or not issue ATTs or make it so that long term ATTs would not be allowed, you would have to call in and get one for every trip, this would potentially make it illegal for all use outside of being a safe queen, they would not ban or take them away but you would not be able to legally use them. I see this as an extreme interpretation of the ruling, I think having the ATT as part of the registration of the restricted making the most sense and being the least burden on the system (both the shooter and CFOs office) but the concern is that they can do whatever they want.

We have one time that we can make a real motion on this sort of thing and it comes in October.

You may be right Fox about October, I even went as far as to read up on each parties take on guns. Oddly enough the only statement that impress me at all came from the Peoples Party Of Canada. Unfortunately I don’t think they have much likelihood of forming the government.


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

[trky chsr]

[QUOTE=Fox;1086579]The talk now is that they would not ban anything but rather limit or remove ATTs. This was one part of C-71, it brings back the discretion of the CFO of the province to allow people to go to the range, this was the case before it was changed back with Harper as well.

Nothing changed with Harper. It was always up to the CFO to issue ATT's. The main change Harpers Bill did was change the ATT from a paper slip to part of your PAL, the conditions of the ATT did not change, that was propaganda from the Liberals. You still need to carry the paper stating those conditions which is silly. Just wait until they start prohibiting guns. The Liberals say you will still be able to take them to the range except that range approvals come from the CFO and if your range is not approved for the new prohibited classes created we're out of luck. TC

[rick_iles]

Limiting or removing ATTs would be a direct attack on licences legal gun owners. I can’t see that happening ! But then again.......

[Fox]

Nothing changed with Harper. It was always up to the CFO to issue ATT's. The main change Harpers Bill did was change the ATT from a paper slip to part of your PAL, the conditions of the ATT did not change, that was propaganda from the Liberals. You still need to carry the paper stating those conditions which is silly. Just wait until they start prohibiting guns. The Liberals say you will still be able to take them to the range except that range approvals come from the CFO and if your range is not approved for the new prohibited classes created we're out of luck. TC

Before the change you needed to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport to and from your approved range, any other trips you needed to make a call and get a Short Term Authorization To Transport. This was CHANGED to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport attached to your license (assuming you owned a restricted firearm, this was not included if you only had an RPAL but did not own a restricted). The ATT associated with your license now allows you to transport any restricted firearm to any authorized range you have permission to be at, any gun show, any gunsmith, any store dealing with restricted and home from any of those locations. This was a CHANGE and a significant one.

For example, if you were shooting in a competition at a gun range that was not your home range you would have to call in to the CFOs office and get a short term ATT for each and every gun that was going with you to that shoot, the time was limited to that discussed with the CFO and put on your short term ATT. The changes before C-71 would allow you to simply pack up your guns and head to the shoot as any and all restricted legal gun ranges would be included on your default ATT.

This does allow the CFO significantly more power to remove your ability to shoot.

[Fox]

Limiting or removing ATTs would be a direct attack on licences legal gun owners. I can’t see that happening ! But then again.......

Yes it would be, so it banning 25rd 10/22 mags, re-classifying non-restricted firearms and blanket prohibition of firearms based on zero evidence, but that has never happened before.

[trky chsr]

Before the change you needed to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport to and from your approved range, any other trips you needed to make a call and get a Short Term Authorization To Transport. This was CHANGED to have a Long Term Authorization To Transport attached to your license (assuming you owned a restricted firearm, this was not included if you only had an RPAL but did not own a restricted). The ATT associated with your license now allows you to transport any restricted firearm to any authorized range you have permission to be at, any gun show, any gunsmith, any store dealing with restricted and home from any of those locations. This was a CHANGE and a significant one.

For example, if you were shooting in a competition at a gun range that was not your home range you would have to call in to the CFOs office and get a short term ATT for each and every gun that was going with you to that shoot, the time was limited to that discussed with the CFO and put on your short term ATT. The changes before C-71 would allow you to simply pack up your guns and head to the shoot as any and all restricted legal gun ranges would be included on your default ATT.

This does allow the CFO significantly more power to remove your ability to shoot.

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

[Snowwalker]

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

If you got or renewed your RPAL after the changes made by the last Conservative Government the ATT allowing to transporting was part of the license, if you had an RPAL from before the changes the ATT was not part of the License and would not be till you renewed your RPAL. C-71 removed the ATT from your RPAL.

[jaycee]

That depended on the conditions attached to your ATT. I know some guys whose conditions said any approved range in Ontario but I have also seen others which mentioned the home range and required an invitation to go to another range. Why the discrepancy I don't know but I have seen the above conditions for various licence holders. TC

That is exactly what mine and all our "handgun section members of our club "read, as most of us belonged to "The Ontario Intercounty Handgun League " and we shot at competitions regularly at about 9 or 10 clubs throughout Ontario.
If I remember correctly, to have that condition attached to out ATT, our club had to be registered with the Ontario Intercounty Handgun League as a competing club.
And this allowed us to shoot at the Nationals in Sudbury or Kingston without any worries, several of us also traveled to matches in New York State without problems .
Those were the good old days, been there done that.

[welsh]

Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[trky chsr]

Fact: C-71 does not allow a CFO discretion re ATTs for transport to a range.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

So the CFO no longer issues ATT's or the ATT automatically allows transport to and from your range? Not trying to be argumentative I'm just trying to wrap my head around all of this. TC