Safe Storage

[Species8472]

I'm curious how others interpret the word "remote", as contained within the F.A.

If you can drive there by car, truck, 4WD, or ATV it isn't remote. If you can drive to a boat launch and than get where you are going with out at least one or more significant portages it isn't remote. That's just my anecdotal take. To me 50km down a 4WD logging road is not remote it's just off the beaten path.

Remote implies a degree of difficulty that requires significant effort in order to achieve access. Doesn't even have to be that far as the crow flies just has to be sufficiently challenging. Riding on an ATV or driving a 4WD truck for hours on end is not difficult - just time consuming and is something a decent percentage of people are willing to do. If something is truly remote, in my mind 99.9% of people are not willing to do the work to get there.

Consider the expression "there's a remote possiblity." This basically means almost impossible.

[Bushmoose]

You really think the MNR writes rules vaguely so they can issue more tickets and charge people easier?.

The Safe Storage regulations in the Firearms Act have nothing to do with the MNR.

If you can drive there by car, truck, 4WD, or ATV it isn't remote. If you can drive to a boat launch and than get where you are going with out at least one or more significant portages it isn't remote. That's just my anecdotal take. To me 50km down a 4WD logging road is not remote it's just off the beaten path.

Remote implies a degree of difficulty that requires significant effort in order to achieve access. Doesn't even have to be that far as the crow flies just has to be sufficiently challenging. Riding on an ATV or driving a 4WD truck for hours on end is not difficult - just time consuming and is something a decent percentage of people are willing to do. If something is truly remote, in my mind 99.9% of people are not willing to do the work to get there.

Consider the expression "there's a remote possiblity." This basically means almost impossible.

Because the word "remote" is not defined within the Act, I guess it would all be up to a judge unfortunately?

[Deer Wrastler]

The Safe Storage regulations in the Firearms Act have nothing to do with the MNR.




Because the word "remote" is not defined within the Act, I guess it would all be up to a judge unfortunately?

I was making a general statement that law makers dont purposley make laws vague so they can ticket people and waste their time and money in court. One could argue that keeping the laws vague could lead to less ticketing as well. I just dont support the belief law makers put laws in place to be impunitive on purpose.

[Gilroy]

The Safe Storage regulations in the Firearms Act have nothing to do with the MNR.




Because the word "remote" is not defined within the Act, I guess it would all be up to a judge unfortunately?

Or hopefully never reaches a court with a LEO MAKING A GOOD DECISION RIGHT ON THE SPOT.

[Gilroy]

"The Safe Storage regulations in the Firearms Act have nothing to do with the MNR."

What leads you to this conclusion?

[rick_iles]

"The Safe Storage regulations in the Firearms Act have nothing to do with the MNR."

What leads you to this conclusion?

Still trolling eh Gilly !

[Gilroy]

Still trolling eh Gilly !

It's a upfront question related to his post,your post here is trolling,look up the definition.

[410001661]

It's a upfront question related to his post,your post here is trolling,look up the definition.

I know many cottages and camps that have an old shotgun, or .22 that when the owner is not there is stored in the back of a closet, under the mattress or in the rafters - ammo is stored in another location. I am sure that in the event of anything happening to them they would NOT be reported missing.........why would you report a missing shotgun worth $150 or a .22 worth $60. You are not going to recover it and are only opening yourself up to a world of pain my an over zealous cop.

.........what gun........where??

[Fox]

You really think the MNR writes rules vaguely so they can issue more tickets and charge people easier? That would be a pretty big ethical concern/conspiracy that law makers around the world would have to be in agreement on. The hunting regs in Michigan are vague too, so the DNR must want to punish people and waste their time and money as well?

Laws are left vague because every situation is different and the LEOs need to have wiggle room to weigh each situation accordingly and make an informed decision based on uniqueness of each case. Nobody would read the regs if there was a law for every single situation you could come across, the book would be 9000 pages long. Laws are written to be taken using common sense and for you to be able to grasp the "spirit of the law". Even judges don't all agree on how laws are supposed to be "read".

Things like "Not easily broken in to" is there to be able to charge when they want to. Define this, can you easily break in to it if you only have a foot? Or is easily broken in to include any tools? I was told once the criminal needs a tool that it is not easily broken in to but the definition is up to the person with the cuffs, that is all that is needed. Once they take your guns and arrest you then the onus is on you to get your stuff back and clear your name, innocent until proven guilty is a myth.

[Fox]

Or hopefully never reaches a court with a LEO MAKING A GOOD DECISION RIGHT ON THE SPOT.

Like when they kept a man from going in to his house to get the life saving drugs for his kid until he signed off that they could enter his house to search and take all of his guns that were legally stored based on the definition that is put forward by the RCMP.