Regs test

[finsfurfeathers]

Charged and convicted are entirely different . I've seen and heard of a lot of bogus charges being laid over the years !

Again, this is only one interpretation. You likely can be charged, simply because you were in possession of lead shot. Most offences under the FWCA require the charged person to prove he/she wasn't in violation. The only interpretation that really matters is the JP,s!

Would be hard for a CO to lay a charge when faced with the response given. In any case would make for a good expert witness. I rather take my advice from a Provincial Enforcement Specialist than some guy on the internet.

[rick_iles]

Would be hard for a CO to lay a charge when faced with the response given. In any case would make for a good expert witness. I rather take my advice from a Provincial Enforcement Specialist than some guy on the internet.

Absolutely ! However, his interpretation is still his interpretation ! It has no bearing on the interpretations of individual CO's. They are not governed by his interpretation of the law.

[rick_iles]

The reg says "possess".........

Yea, I just checked on that one. I guess a charge could be laid.

[TPM]

Again, this is only one interpretation. You likely can be charged, simply because you were in possession of lead shot. Most offences under the FWCA require the charged person to prove he/she wasn't in violation. The only interpretation that really matters is the JP,s!

I'd still be nervous carrying lead. " For the purpose of" can be a big gray area. Intent can only be defined by a CO's interpretation of the circumstances and I wouldn't want to have to do any explaining to him or a judge.

[werner.reiche]

Lead shot in possession for waterfowl.
Hunting moose without a license.
Hunting big game without blaze orange.

...if they ran into one of the Pembroke COs.

[seabast]

Lead shot
12 gauge uncassed but not concealed.

[brent]

Why would it have to be concealed ?

[Hunter John]

Hmmm. I don't believe they were breaking any laws and I don't think they intended too but I could see an overzealous CO laying a charge for the 30-30. At the same time I hope that charge would be dismissed in court as I don't believe you can be convicted for something A LEO thinks you MAY do.
You cant be charged for robbing a bank because you have a ski mask in your trunk while parked in a bank parking lot any more than being charged for POACHING moose cause you have a 30-30 stored in the truck box. Interested to see how this plays out.

[finsfurfeathers]

Absolutely ! However, his interpretation is still his interpretation ! It has no bearing on the interpretations of individual CO's. They are not governed by his interpretation of the law.

True however as a Judge relies on precedent in making a ruling would imagine a CO would consider the interpretation of colleague especially if he may have to face him in court. Situations like this is where the interpretation may play out. The possession of lead is obviously not for migratory birds if however you where in the middle of a goose spread in a corn field may have a harder argument to prove.

[Waftrudnir]

Yea, I just checked on that one. I guess a charge could be laid.

Slow down, does this mean one could get charged for having a rifle (locked, encased, out of sight, etc.) in the car while driving through an area with open season for which you don't have a licence/tag for?
I guess if one drives a dead-end logging trail, it's difficult to say they are on the way home, but there could be other legit reasons to go there that have nothing to do with hunting moose (e.g. pulling someone out of the ditch, target shooting, etc.).