Firearms

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

What are some examples of "Non-Restricted" firearms?

You can buy a non-restricted AR or variant as long as it has a barrel length of over 16", so unless it's really important to you to have a CQB size gun I'd go for a non-restricted variant. Lots of manufactures actually make guns for the Canadian market. Ruger does a PC-9 Carbine which uses a Glock 10 shot mag and has a longer barrel so you can shoot and store more easily, also the government isn't interested in them the way they are in restricted.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

What are some examples of "Non-Restricted" firearms?

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a3

This link is overall useful to understand firearm regulations up here.

I just wish I could carry a .357 or similar if I go walking in the forest for defense against animals if needed. Something easily accessed and not worrisome to anyone else I meet (like if I walked on through with a shotgun).

But I can only carry a shotgun on my own property and on Crown land or land where I have permission to hunt by the owner.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

Yeah I wish one day I could use my guns to defend my home if it ever happens but I don't think we will ever get that legally allowed..

You can use as much force is reasonable to defend yourself in Canada and if that means a firearm you can. There is lots of case law regarding instances of people using firearms to defend themselves, in fact there are very few cases of people being convicted when defending themselves.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

You can use as much force is reasonable to defend yourself in Canada and if that means a firearm you can. There is lots of case law regarding instances of people using firearms to defend themselves, in fact there are very few cases of people being convicted when defending themselves.

Even restricted?

But still, for it to be reasonable, at least in my mind, the person would have to barge in with a firearm as well.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

You can use as much force is reasonable to defend yourself in Canada and if that means a firearm you can. There is lots of case law regarding instances of people using firearms to defend themselves, in fact there are very few cases of people being convicted when defending themselves.

That's what I thought as well, but was starting to question myself after reading Narwhal's post. Nice to have an ex police opinion on the subject.

Of course, I suppose still at risk on the "reasonable" definition. If its dark and you can't verify weapon or not, maybe you are not in good shape if they live through it. Still though, if it ever came to it, I'd be looking to get my family out asap and safe. My firearms are useless to me, being stored in a safe in the basement and all. No way I'd have time to get down there, unlock, load and get back up there, in addition to being under pressure and probably fumbling things.

But thanks for the post!

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

Hey guys! I've just grabbed my first gun up here in Canada. It's a Savage MSR 15 Recon

wait, how the hell is that legal in canadia and not NYS? (short stock, 30 round mag)

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

wait, how the hell is that legal in canadia and not NYS? (short stock, 30 round mag)

Note the magazine is pinned/riveted to hold 5 bullets max. That's is the law.

I didn't know NY state laws were bad. That's why the gun selection os like hunting rifles at walmart when I visit haha.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

Even restricted?

But still, for it to be reasonable, at least in my mind, the person would have to barge in with a firearm as well.

You can use anything that is reasonable, a firearm is just that weather non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. As long as the force is reasonable. If you fear for your life or fear that you could be done serious bodily harm then you're justified.

For example, a person who is bigger stronger and clearly capable of overpowering you (they don't have to have a weapon) and whom you feel is likely to do you serious bodily harm or kill you then you'd be justified in using any weapon to defend yourself. What's a weapon? Anything that you use as one. The problem with using a restricted weapon to defend yourself is overcoming the ability to get if out fo safe storage quickly enough to use it against an imminent threat.

The police will have lots of questions. There was a case in Ontario a few years ago where a guy on a farm was having ongoing problems with a group of local assholes, who showed up on his property one night and were throwing petrol bombs at his house. He got his revolver out of his safe and fired a number of shots at them. It was alleged that he was able to get the gun out of the safe and loaded too fast for it to have been stored properly. He was charged with a number of firearms offences, but ultimately acquitted. He was able to explain how he did it and he also had set up security cameras on his property.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

That's what I thought as well, but was starting to question myself after reading Narwhal's post. Nice to have an ex police opinion on the subject.

Of course, I suppose still at risk on the "reasonable" definition. If its dark and you can't verify weapon or not, maybe you are not in good shape if they live through it. Still though, if it ever came to it, I'd be looking to get my family out asap and safe. My firearms are useless to me, being stored in a safe in the basement and all. No way I'd have time to get down there, unlock, load and get back up there, in addition to being under pressure and probably fumbling things.

But thanks for the post!

That's a good point. My ar is in my case with 4 locks plus the cable lock in my kitchen. Gotta admit wouldn't have time but that's because I didn't know you could potentially use it. But this is why I don't like the term reasonable, it's not clear. If I have a AR-15 what is reasonable to use this against? Must the guy have a AR-15 to or just any firearm.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by TheMidnightNarwhal

That's a good point. My ar is in my case with 4 locks plus the cable lock in my kitchen. Gotta admit wouldn't have time but that's because I didn't know you could potentially use it. But this is why I don't like the term reasonable, it's not clear. If I have a AR-15 what is reasonable to use this against? Must the guy have a AR-15 to or just any firearm.

Reasonable is an excellent term, ultimately it would be up to a court to decide but it's your story of what happened in the moment.

The problem with a firearm for home defence in Canada is that unless you are near your safe or guns what are the chances that you can use it to defend yourself. I'd suggest that you should always have something with you that could theoretically be used as a weapon. For example, I always carry a knife as does my wife, it's a tool that I use for various day to day things but I guess if I really needed it then it could be a weapon to, but that's not the reason I carry it.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

wait, how the hell is that legal in canadia and not NYS? (short stock, 30 round mag)

The mag has to be pinned to limit to 5 rounds

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

You can use anything that is reasonable, a firearm is just that weather non-restricted, restricted or prohibited. As long as the force is reasonable. If you fear for your life or fear that you could be done serious bodily harm then you're justified.

For example, a person who is bigger stronger and clearly capable of overpowering you and whom you feel is likely to do you serious bodily harm or kill you then you'd be justified in using any weapon to defend yourself. What's a weapon? Anything that you use as one. The problem with using a restricted weapon to defend yourself is overcoming the ability to get if out fo safe storage quickly enough to use it against an imminent threat.

The police will have lots of questions. There was a case in Ontario a few years ago where a guy on a farm was having ongoing problems with a group of local assholes, who showed up on his property one night and were throwing petrol bombs at his house. He got his revolver out of his safe and fired a number of shots at them. It was alleged that he was able to get the gun out of the safe and loaded too fast for it to have been stored properly. He was charged with a number of firearms offences, but ultimately acquitted. He was able to explain how he did it and he also had set up security cameras on his property.

That's honestly good to hear and comforting. Good to know!

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

That's what I thought as well, but was starting to question myself after reading Narwhal's post. Nice to have an ex police opinion on the subject.

Of course, I suppose still at risk on the "reasonable" definition. If its dark and you can't verify weapon or not, maybe you are not in good shape if they live through it. Still though, if it ever came to it, I'd be looking to get my family out asap and safe. My firearms are useless to me, being stored in a safe in the basement and all. No way I'd have time to get down there, unlock, load and get back up there, in addition to being under pressure and probably fumbling things.

But thanks for the post!

When protecting yourself and your family you need to think outside the box. Calling 911 and getting the tape going is a good start. And unless the police are sitting at the end of your street they could be between 3 and 20 minutes getting to you, yes even in Toronto depending on the time of day, day of the week and how busy they are. Then think about options, nothing says all of your guns have to be stored in one place, and for argument sake the storage requirements are less restrictive for a non-restricted gun than maybe that would be a better choice for home defence, of course that's not the firearms purpose in Canada. But there are also other things that you can use to defend yourself that don't need to be locked up.

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

The mag has to be pinned to limit to 5 rounds

optical illusion

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

optical illusion

They come like that, you usually get a 10 round mag that has a stopper or screw or pin in it to limit the capacity to 5 rounds. I remember getting a pump shotgun years ago that had a piece of dowelling in the magazine to limit it to 3 rounds for bird hunting rules.....in theory you could easily remove it in seconds.

Personally I wouldn't buy a restricted rifle as you need to transport it to an authorized range in a locked case and that's the only place you can shoot it. I'd buy a non-restricted variant (18" barrel) which you can throw in the trunk of your car or backseat and you can use it on your property, crown land or any other property you have permission to use it.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man

When protecting yourself and your family you need to think outside the box. Calling 911 and getting the tape going is a good start. And unless the police are sitting at the end of your street they could be between 3 and 20 minutes getting to you, yes even in Toronto depending on the time of day, day of the week and how busy they are. Then think about options, nothing says all of your guns have to be stored in one place, and for argument sake the storage requirements are less restrictive for a non-restricted gun than maybe that would be a better choice for home defence, of course that's not the firearms purpose in Canada. But there are also other things that you can use to defend yourself that don't need to be locked up.

Yeah I have some other things at my disposal that are within arms reach that could be used in a pinch, though for the record that isn't ahem why they are there.

^

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

What the hell is "crown land?" Is that what we Americans call "public land," with a big dose of oppressive government layered on?

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

What the hell is "crown land?" Is that what we Americans call "public land," with a big dose of oppressive government layered on?

Canada is part of the British Commonwealth, so yeah. When you get charged with a crime the charge is Regina vs. Smith for example. Regina is the Queen/Crown as opposed to The United States or the State of New York vs Smith.

Oh, and for the record. I love the fucking government and the government loves fucking me.

[N54Yankee]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/faq/index-eng.htm#a3

This link is overall useful to understand firearm regulations up here.

I just wish I could carry a .357 or similar if I go walking in the forest for defense against animals if needed. Something easily accessed and not worrisome to anyone else I meet (like if I walked on through with a shotgun).

But I can only carry a shotgun on my own property and on Crown land or land where I have permission to hunt by the owner.

You guys allowed to load slugs in case you run into an angry bear?

[Grumpy Old Man]

Originally Posted by N54Yankee

You guys allowed to load slugs in case you run into an angry bear?

Yup, slugs are commonly used for hunting larger game in Canada, deer, moose and bear. I believe it's popular for defence against Polar Bear as well.....personally I'd rather avoid them though.

[CigarPundit]

Originally Posted by Run Silent

Yeah, so long story short, is that Canada seems to also apply the one rule that causes me to despise any government. That is the rule that I have restrictions on how I can defend myself in my own home.

While I don't agree with restrictions on our 2A rights here in America, I understand that most other countries don't have this right embedded in their founding documents.

Where I get really ticked off, however, is when restrictions are placed on how one is able to defend themselves, regarding firearms or anything else really.

In my location, defense of home is extremely simple. I am allowed to use any and all methods I deem appropriate to stop a threat within my property, including and up to any means of deadly force. Full stop, no other caveats.

So, if someone breaks into my house, I can simply assume they mean to do me harm and shoot them. I don't have to prove I was in danger of any kind nor do I have to prove that I met force with comparable force. They break in, all bets are off and I am in the clear.

As it should be.

Breaking into someone’s home should be an ultra hazardous activity. I’m in the process of selecting my retirement state and planning my retirement home, and one non-negotiable criterion is that the state have a Castle law. Also, it needs to be a Class 3 state. Tennessee is high on the list, but I worry that Nashville is going to turn it purple.