The Great Gun Control Debate

[Shamrock]

I don't understand why there has to be one permit to purchase and one permit to carry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In Canada the PAL has replaced the FAC and the carry permit, which was mostly a money grab anyways. Now a CCW or ATC permit means that you have some training in the use of holsters, your gun and a understanding of the laws around the use of deadly force, it is another step up (actually several) from the current PAL.

 

[Loachman]

I think we will get much resistence from law enforcement as it makes their jobs that m±ch more dangerous.

How?

a clean record does not mean they're anything but clean, just means some of them haven't been caught yet.

The same thing could be said of the police themselves.

And that's a non-player, anyway. Somebody with a criminal record who is willing to continue to break laws is not going to bother jumping through all of those hoops anyway.

Licences are only a requirement for honest citizens. Criminals do not need them.

 

[medaid]

How?

    Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous. Along with drunk driving, door knocks, so on and so forth. It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.

The same thing could be said of the police themselves.
And that's a non-player, anyway. Somebody with a criminal record who is willing to continue to break laws is not going to bother jumping through all of those hoops anyway.
Licences are only a requirement for honest citizens. Criminals do not need them.

Granted on both points. *shrug* just me I guess.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

     Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous. Along with drunk driving, door knocks, so on and so forth. It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.

That's an anti-gun bullshit excuse. One of the requirements of CCW is that you identify when stopped by a LEO. If Canada allowed CCW or ATT3, the cops would probably be more prepared to deal with someone carrying than they are now.............simply because they now expecting it. As opposed to thinking they are stopping a sheeple, and getting ambushed by a 'gangsta'.

 

[TCBF]

We all know that concealed carry is legal in Canada for a select few.  What are the regulations that apply to them?

 

[sharky]

    nULL we live in a country were people are allowed to voice their opinions and don't have to agree with all laws , just follow them.
I happen to love my country but don't allways agree with what happens in it.

 

[medaid]

That's an anti-gun bullshit excuse.

uh huh... we're all so quick to say that it's good and happy, but when have we thought about what the REST of the Canadian public would say? It may be BS to us, but the majority of the Canadian public has to vote for it, and what would they say?

If one can pass the requsite screening for CCW I say let him/her do it.

I'm not an anti-gun nut RG, that's what I said. If it's allowed I'll be one of the first to apply for one.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We all know that concealed carry is legal in Canada for a select few.  What are the regulations that apply to them?

Last I was able to glean was, high up government official (who inevitable hates handguns) and feels he's in danger, or the leader of the Hell's Angels, who was allowed an ATT3 because he was able to prove, to the court, people wanted to kill him. Duuuuhhhh. So a known felon, in charge of the Canadian chapter, of an international criminal organization, can have one. But you and I can't. Typical, twisted Canadian liebral justice appointees, illogical solutions to a cut and dried logical Canadian problem.

 

[TCBF]

... illogical solutions to a cut and dried logical Canadian problem.

- Yes, but: What are the regulations?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

- Yes, but: What are the regulations?

Basically you have to prove that your life is in immediate danger, and that you have enough experience/practice with the firearm to be used. Considering that Chretien wife likely used a "statue" in .38cal, the last requirement seems to been waved on occasion.

For an ATC level I, you need to have your restricted PAL, taken a course like the IPSC Black badge or similar and demonstrated to the local police your ability or have a letter from them.

For ATC level II, you must take a Armed security guard course.

The CFO of each province sets the bar for the permits and it keeps changing, lately the current CFO for BC has decided that semiautomatics are to unreliable for bush carry and only revolvers are allowed,  : This was apparently on advice from the RCMP, who will shortly be replacing all of their pistols with revolvers........

 

[KevinB]

From personal experience even with a Letter from a LE agency and training the CFO will not always grant an ATC...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From personal experience even with a Letter from a LE agency and training the CFO will not always grant an ATC...

Hence the reason in the US for "Shall Issue" If there is no legal reason to bar someone from a CCW, they have to issue it. Those laws were to prevent abuse of power by people who didn't like CCW. I wish there was a way to reign in our CFO's.

 

[redleafjumper]

For an ATC level I, you need to have your restricted PAL, taken a course like the IPSC Black badge or similar and demonstrated to the local police your ability or have a letter from them.

For ATC level II, you must take a Armed security guard course.

The CFO of each province sets the bar for the permits and it keeps changing, lately the current CFO for BC has decided that semiautomatics are to unreliable for bush carry and only revolvers are allowed,  This was apparently on advice from the RCMP, who will shortly be replacing all of their pistols with revolvers........

My BC-issued ATC includes a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol.  I would be interested in the source for that information on semi-autos and policy.

Cheers,

 

[COBRA-6]

It came from the BC CFO, check out www.canadiangunnutz.com, the info is all there...

 

[redleafjumper]

It is interesting that they would even think of saying this when BC conservation officers carry Glock model 22 (.40 S&W).
I had heard there was some ignorant comments about 10mm being somehow inadequate, but I thought that had been sorted out.

My ATCis only a few months old and I had no real trouble, just a long interview.

 

[medaid]

Redleafjumper,

  What was your process for an ATC? If you're not comfortable with discussing it openly, please shoot me a PM, I'm reallt curious and interested!

Cheers!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The change came about shortly after the new acting CFO took charge, no personal agenda there........ :threat:

 

[Loachman]

Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous.

Why?

The people that the police stop who are the most dangerous are the ones that do not need to bother getting concealed carry permits, and carry anyway. Those are the criminals.

The person that goes to all of the time, effort, and expense of acquiring and maintaining a concealed carry permit are not likely to require stopping in the first place and, if they do happen to get pulled over for speeding or something else minor, do you really think that they're going to blow a copper away to get out of a ticket?

Citizens with such permits in the US have lower arrest and conviction rates than the police do. That's right - more cops are arrested and convicted per capita than the ordinary citizens who have CCW permits. There are probably many reasons for this, but a major one is that those citizens do not want to lose their permits. They are actually held to a higher level of accountability than police, as police will generally give their colleagues a break which they would not give to Joe Blow.

Per capita, CCW holders kill more crooks and fewer innocent bystanders than police. Two main reasons:

1.    In most crimes, the initial players are the intended victim and the criminal. The intended victim has no difficulty identifying the criminal, and is usually at very close range. Police arriving during the crime (not terribly frequent) may not have such an easy time identifying the criminal, and should not permit themselves to get as close to the criminal as the intended victim and attacker usually get.

2.    Most police do not shoot anymore than the minimum needed to qualify. Most CCW holders shoot regularly and extensively.

Along with drunk driving,

As previously stated, the vast majority of CCW holders are extremely careful in order not to jeopardize their status. They are far less likely to drive under the influence than a non-CCW holding citizen. As such, they are already far safer, as they are less likely to kill somebody with their larger self-propelled weapon. Also, the CCW holder is less likely to open fire than the non-CCW holder who is carrying regardless.

door knocks,

As we do not need a CCW permit to carry a loaded firearm in our dwelling houses, this is irrelevant.

It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.

Facts do not bear your fears out at all. Hard evidence based on the US experience proves the contrary.

 

[Snaketnk]

Good post Loachman, that pretty much sums up my view on the subject.