These are taken right from the Canadian Firearms Center's Page.
Can I keep a firearm for self-protection? A licence to acquire or possess a restricted firearm is rarely issued to an individual for the purpose of protecting the life of that individual or others. In Canada, this kind of protection is seen to be primarily the responsibility of the police.
I have heard that with this new Firearms Act that the police can enter my house anytime they want. Is this true? The Firearms Act deals only with inspection powers. Inspections of dwelling are restricted to ONLY those individuals who own prohibited firearms, or more than 10 firearms of any kind, or a collection. An inspector cannot inspect a private residence where there are no prohibited firearms, where there are fewer than 10 non-restricted or restricted firearms or where there are firearms that are not part of a gun collection.
A Firearms Officer cannot enter your house unless you have given them consent to do so, or they have obtained a Search Warrant to enter. A Firearms Officer is required to give you reasonable advance notice of the inspection. You are then required by law to permit a Firearms Officer entry to that part of your house where your firearms are stored. Failure to lend reasonable assistance to a Firearms Officer conducting an Inspection after the required notice has been given is an offence, and could result in the application of a Search Warrant which would then allow the police and a Firearms Officer to enter your house without your consent. The only time a Search Warrant would ever be applied for is in cases where an individual refuses to allow a Firearms Officer to conduct an Inspection after the required advance notice has been given, or in rare circumstances where there is advance evidence that a criminal offence is being committed inside the house.
Is the registration of hunting rifles and shotguns the first step toward their confiscation?Not at all. As long ago as 1977, when the FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) was first introduced in the Criminal Code, opponents argued that it would lead to confiscation of all firearms. That did not happen. Moreover, the FAC-based system became widely accepted by the gun-owning community. Now, licensing and registration provisions have been put in the Firearms Act. This will establish a system to permit the continued use of firearms for legitimate purposes – for example, hunting, target shooting, collecting, farming and ranching. The Firearms Act is about regulation of firearms, not confiscation.
How is the Firearms Act affecting police service and why is the money not being put into these services rather than the Act as a more useful way to fight crime?Much of the firearms related work that your local police once had to do has now shifted to your provincial Canadian Firearms Office, thus freeing up even more local police resources for the general public. Police, including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association, both support the Act as a means of helping them share information fast concerning the misuse of firearms.
My ViewsFirst Point: LOL! Like there is a Cop on every corner to protect us here. A check of the local crime/murder/assualt stats will show that Calgary, and indeed a lot of the rest of Canada is NO safer than the USA. They have NEVER issued a permit for self defence against criminals, only against animals (bear mainly), and then only if you work a certain % of the time in bear country, and don't mind waiting 3 years to have your permit processed.
Yesterday the news ran a spot about personal protection devices. The police said that even using this little noisemakers was ill advised, since it could "anger" your attacker into hurting you. Like they weren't intent on that in the first place. Carrying knives/pepper spray is also a no no, although if you were a clip knife, it is "grey area" law. God help you if you cut somebody who is attacking you - you'll be doing time, no question - it's happened already.
The calgary city police always suggests to "do whatever your attacker wants, no matter what it is", and they ALWAYS publicly bash anyone who fights back successfully, stating that "odds were against this type of defence working, and odds were for you being hurt more". What BS. I've been in this situation twice: both times the guys were drugged up - like logic applies to criminals.
Second Point: If you own more than 10 guns as of Jan 1 2001, or ANY Pistols or restricted Rifles (Ar-15 is only restricted left - everything else is a prohibited weapon now), you are open to search. Sure they say you can deny the firearms officer access, but the last guy that tried this here got EVERYTHING he had confiscated the next day when the officer came w/police and search warrant. This person had broken no laws and had all guns/ammo locked in a 4000$ vault.
Third Point: ROFL! I've had to turn in 3 firearms as of when c-17 came in to effect in the early 90's, all of them Shotguns (2 SPas 12's and a stree sweeper). More gov't lies.
Fourth Point, my personal Fav: Total lies. The police assosiation flip flopped over a year ago, and is actively against the new laws because
A: It will do nothing to make policing safer, only more dangerous, since many non-criminal owners will resort to hiding their guns, and take an adversarial attitude to police when they wouldn't have before. Also, since criminals won't bother registering their guns, only law-abiders, wtf good is it doing?
B: It will take far more $ and man hours for the police to back up the firearms guys who will be checking virtually everyone who owns more than 10 firearms (average per household here is 5+, so at least half have 10+, since half households have zero).
You think you have it bad down south?
Here is the link if you want to read it yourself, just be prepared to vomit.
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/ [This message has been edited by Gman (edited 12-09-2000).]
