doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Canadian & UK Gun Laws

Jim what is not clear from my post is that I did not have to search for examples. These are commonplace occurances, happening daily. I just picked some from the past week.

In the late 1960's we carried our shotguns to high school (out of sight behind the seat) with our waders and decoys in the truck bed for an after school duck hunt. Sometimes, one or more of our teachers would tag along. Fast forward to 1995 when my son was a senior at the same high school. One of his friends was assigned to detention center for the remainder of the semester because one EMPTY (fired) 12 bore shotshell was discovered in his vehicle. Times have not changed, but attitudes have and common sense is now extinct.

I think Smallbore gave a short answer and got it in a nutshell. It is however rather complex and in some cases contradictory. For my sins I was a British Police Officer for over 30 years and had many dealings with Firearms legislation issues. The basic Act is The Firearms Act 1968 but there has been various add on bits since then so that now it defies logic. Firstly, firearms law for England and Wales are the same and that largely applies also to Scotland except for one or two slight variations such as there they have an offence covering the reckless discharge of a firearm and in England we do not, plus another couple of bits associated with older legislation but it is virtually the same all told although they are trying hard to go their own way on firearms legislation which includes a ban on airguns. Northern Ireland has different legislation and they can still own pistols for target shooting whereas we can only own them for the humane despatch of animals; as a slaughtering instrument or to despatch wounded ones and not to hunt with. The Channel Islands are different again and the Isle of Man are also quite different and very liberal in their interpretation allowing far more freedom to its citizens than the rest of the British Isles.

Many odd anomolies exsist such as Smallbore mentions on antique firearms not intended for use. These are usually defined as made before 1939 and where ammunition is no longer readily available. So, a child of five can go and buy a double .577 black powder big game rifle (assuming he gets a lot of pocket money) and walk out the shop with it without committing an offence; no license, no background checks - nothing. But that same child will have to wait until he reaches 18 before he can go and buy and use a low power air rifle. The same kid can play cowboys and indians (do kids still play that?) in the street with a deactivated original colt .45 but but if it's a toy cap fireing gun it would have to be painted with a bright luminious paint or clear plastic. At 14 a kid can apply for a Firearms Certificate for a stalking rifle and go deer hunting alone but would have to wait until 15 to go out alone with a shotgun and 18 to go out alone with a low power air rifle to hunt rats. Now do you see how odd it all gets? There is no lower age for the grant of a shotgun certificate so our 5 year old can, in theory, be issued with one but would have to be accompanied by an adult if he is under 15. He can't buy a shotgun or ammunition though until he is 17 but can be given his own gun at 15. Now, if he doesn't want to bother with a certificate but still wants to go shooting then that's o.k. but he will have to be accompanied by an adult who is also the owner of the land or the person with shooting permission and uses their gun.

I have both a Shotgun Certificate and a Firearm Certificate. If I want to buy another rifle I have to apply to the local poice and a variation to the certificate is made out provided I can show a reason for having it i.e. land to shoot on and the appropriate rifle for the job. Say if I wanted a .50 Cal Browning rifle I would have to show I was a member of a rifle club with a range suitable. Just a bit of form filling and that's it. With my Shotgun Certificate I can own, buy and sell as many as I wish without any further paperwork other than a short note to Police Headquarters informing them of the transaction. Renewals come up ever 5 years for certificates and there is no shooting tests or gun handling tests involved.

Technically we have a right to bear arms in our constitution too but it is somewhat sidetracked by legislation that has slowly crept in since the first Pistols Act of 1903.

GaryW, please p.m. me if you want any more specific information and I will be glad to have a go at explaining it. Lagopus.....

Lagopus, thanks for the post. Your information sure demonstrates how foolish piecemeal legislation can become. If it wasn't about guns and hunting I'd laugh. I am anyway!

Mind you, one might want to be careful about suggesting they rationalize the legislation. No doubt it would end up even more restricted.

I'm curious to know if there is there any kind of growing backlash about the uselessness of it all? What seems to have galvanized Canadians into action is the absolutely clear waste of money on the Registry (Latest estimate $2.7 billion in 15 years) and how that money could have been better spent on traditional policing and social services.

Gary, in the mid 1970's when I was in high school, rifle shooting at the school rifle range was mandatory at the two different schools I attended in those years. Just 20 years later, in 1995, gun owners and hunters had become part of the criminal element in the eyes of many across Canada with legislation enacted to control us that absolutely violates some fundamentals of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that is okay, because we are gun owners.

When it starts to go, it goes fast.

Your second amendment won't matter a tinker's damn if the composition of the US Supreme Court changes much from where it is now. Fast and Furious should be a wake up to millions of Americans about how low the antis will stoop. It is a classic "the means justify the ends!"

Jim, most of the snowshoe hunting hereabouts is plinking head shots with a .22. Those who use shotguns are looked upon as greenhorns regardless of their ages. Hounds rarely. A gut-shot rabbit is a stinking mess. Our rule is that if you don't kill with a .22 through the head, if blood or other is below, it's cleaned right there, you holding the legs, the poor-shot skinning and cleaning, into plastic bag, a fraction of whole animal weight.

As for Canadian regulations, canvasback accurately reflects the contradictions that so often make the law appear as an ass, like the American on my homepage yesterday charged for a pencil drawing his six- or seven-year-old daughter made of a "gun" in school. During exactly 70 years of hunting I've never met a game warden nor seen unwarranted abuse of gunners by misguided or vindictive authorities. It happens, of course, as everywhere.

Canvasback, a lot of the stupidity is written about in the shooting press but that is really preaching to the converted. The last Government we had in were anti fieldsports of any kind and were given a 'donation' to party funds of �1.5 million by an infamous anti hunting group and this led; although that particular Government would never have admitted to it, to quite a bit of anti hunting legislation. This particular Government are pledged to repeal a lot of that but still have a heck of a job sorting out the mess they were left. We did have a couple of shooting tragedies but at least the current lot are saying that no ammount of legislation would have had any effect. Gun crime is a problem here but confines itself to drugs related gangs using illegally held firearms by persons who would not be allowed to own such things anyway. Anyone with half a brain would be able to see that a good deal of the current firearms legislation makes not a jot of difference to armed crime but unfortunately some politicians rely on the gulible in order to win votes. Lagopus.....

Lagopus and smallbore have covered it very well but the intricacies of owner rifles is beyond belief. On your application you have to state the number of rounds you wish to buy at any one time and the number you want to posses at anyone time, if they are 'expanding' and you have to show your certificate if you want to buy heads for reloading. The black powder rules are even more convoluted. Once you have permission to acquire a B/P shotgun, rifle or pistol - yes we are still allowed b/p pistols - single shot M/L or cap & ball revolvers - no cartridges - then you have to apply for a B/P licence from the police. You have to have a special fire proof box - made of ply wood with separate compartments for each tub - a special sealed lid and a padlock to a part of a building. Once you have your licence you FAX it off to the home office to get a RCATD - well something like that - it stands for �Recipient Competent Authority Transfer Document'. This duly arrives in the post and you can then buy your powder and competently transfer it to your wooden storage box.

Even though we have to jump through all these hoops things are on the up. This is from the current BASC magazine by Chief Exec John Swift.

Canvasback's expansion of some things that can happen is true, and I've read of similar abuse of authority incidents in the USA. There are three additional points, however, that can also be highly useful.

1. The vast majority of these incidents have failed to stand in court, establishing a growing list of precedents.
2. Many of these incidents should have been followed up with a formal complaint to Police Services. I know from personal discussions with an officer who had just a frivolous complaint filed against him that the officers do not like these complaints at all, and there is always an investigation.
3. A civil suit can be filed that can really send a message. Your chances in a civil suit are high and made higher if the Police Services rules that the officer should not have laid the charge.

It helps if one has a copy of the Criminal Code for, say, storage laws, shows it to the officer and asks where the violation has occurred. He may have no reply and lay the charge anyway, but the repercussions from Police Services and in a civil court will be ramped up accordingly.

Kirk, your three points are accurate but most of us have better things to do than fight battles in court. And while you are correct on all three points, all three points are only remedied by the same course of action. Going to court. Most of us try to avoid that experience.

I'll give you an example from my personal life. A year after separation from my wife as a result of her infidelities and because I wouldn't just cave on giving her full custody of our son, she made a claim in court that she feared for my safety, as well as her own, with me having access to guns. This despite a lifetime personal record of mental stability, law abiding behavior and gun ownership that goes back decades as well as 35 years of ownership and management of a business.

There is an immediate court order to remove all guns from my home. My lawyer explained we can bring a motion, with accompanying evidence, to have the court order reversed but that will be a $4000 - $5000 legal fee just to get the ball rolling on the motion.

As was evidenced by the offhand way this subject was treated when we did come to agreement on child custody issues, it was clear there was never a concern of safety. It was a negotiating point and pressure tactic.

As citizens, without the power and financial muscle of the state apparatus behind us, defending ourselves from these unlawful attacks is both costly and time consuming. I'm not trying to be the leader of a civil rights movement. I just want to be left to enjoy my lawful hobby and possessions in peace. I suspect most Canadian gun owners, as well as our American, British and Australian friends, feel the same way.