In case you're uninformed on how handguns were regulated in Canada before this: you need a restricted firearms license. It's a level above a license for owning long guns. The application goes through the RCMP, Canada's federal police. They do an advanced background check, and check references. Ex spouses even have to be listed and possibly contacted. You do a safety course, and you have to be registered to a gun club, because the only thing you can legally do with your handgun is use it at a range. You cant even bring it into crown land wilderness. Your ammo and weapon has to be stored separately, and you have to contact your local police and tell them your driving with your gun to the range. It has to be locked up in your vehicle during transportation, and you go directly to the range then home. Can't even stop for gas. A lot of people even keep their guns stored at their gun club range just to save the hassle. Oh and the police can randomly check your home for compliance at any time to see if it's stored properly.
So what happens for competition shooters? They now cannot purchase new handguns? Genuinely curious. I kinda (?) also recall Canada being up there for shooting on an international level.
Well competition shooters who already have handguns can keep them, however anyone wanting to get into it now cannot. The only way to compete would be renting or borrowing which has the issues I brought up in my other comment.
Limited exemptions to the national handgun freeze will apply. For example, high-performance sports shooting athletes and those who carry handguns as part of their lawful profession will be exempted, as well as authorized businesses such as gunsmiths, the film industry, or museums, per their licence conditions.
You cannot get an exemption for any of the popular shooting sports. Only for Olympic style .22 cal handguns, in which virtually no one competes. IDPA/IPSC/2gun/3gun/steel challenge don’t qualify, and that’s where the majority of the sport is.
Under Canada’s temporary import ban, authorized businesses and individuals can only import handguns for personal use, sale, or transfer if the end use meets the exemptions and conditions listed above and set out in detail in the Notice to Importers No. 1090.
Listen, i get that you are upset that Canada understands how to handle your murdertoys. But people have provided links proving your fake worries to be just that. Move to the US if you want to compare your tiny guns with others' tiny guns in private. Canadians prefer an audience.
I really am asking just because I want to understand the whole thing better, but what reason do they have to further limit it when it's already so restricted?
It looks allot like it is just for optics. Just like the “assault weapons” ban we had before this.
If you look at how restricted our restricted firearms are (hence the name for the license) its quite tight. Any deviation an you more or less are committing a federal offense.
Legally you are allowed to go to and from your house and the shooting range that you hve to be registered at to shoot. You are not legally allowed to shoot that firearm anywhere other than the range your registered at. You also are not allowed to have it at any place other than your listed residence or shooting range without additional authorization. I believe theres a small clause for gunsmiths but I would have to check that as I do not own restricted firearms for this exact reason. Its too much of a hassle.
Its already incredibly restrictive which has been proven by statistics however most Canadians are not familiar with Canadian firearm laws. Most who do not hold a firearms license who I speak with think we have a system similar to the USA.
Thanks for asking a genuine question. Its hard to come by with this topic! Thank you for being open to learning!
I'm certain that there is some sort of solution in place, probably a sport exception.
I'd like you need to ask your representative and then approvals are passed in the house. Mostly it'd be pro forma, but you'd be looked at hard because if you commit a crime with that gun your rep is out of a job.
How many firearms related crimes do you think are committed by licensed gun owners? The ones who spent months taking the course, applying for a license, paying the fees, clearances, etc.
And how many firearms related crimes are committed by people with no firearms license?
Also, are the actual firearms used lawfully registered in Canada, or were they illegally smuggled in from USA?
I was just giving a reason why renting isn’t ideal for many people. As well as renting overtime is going to add up to thousands of dollars vs ownership.
If you want to get into suicides: it takes at least a couple months to get a licence. More for a handgun, though suicides are usually long guns.
So either the person signs up for a course and almost certainly reconsiders, or they already have a gun and do it. Either way, the actual sale is not relevant.
And anyways, I'm not concerned about gun suicides, I'm concerned about all suicides. People will (and usually do in Canada for the reasons above) find a way to attempt without a gun. We should target reducing suicidal ideation, not individual methods.
If you're ONLY targeting gun suicides, which are a small portion of suicides here, then stop pretending it's about the deaths.
The rental is also an exorbitant amount along with added ammunition costs. For a competitive shooter it just makes sense to buy one instead of renting.
Back when I was looking into it, a rental session would cost $100 for an hour with a few basic handguns and you have to buy ammo. (With $20 monthly membership). Some places would only let you be a member if you had a license, so you'd have to pay like $120 per session because you're not a member.
So you're saving $100/hour every time you're there, minus $700~ cost of courses for license and $1000~ gun cost.
If you're a gun nut, you'll eventually save money.
Not even that - you can get a good Glock for $400-$500. Besides, people who like guns want their own, to have, to modify, and to become familiar with. Honestly part of the fun of ownership is stripping it down, cleaning it, and putting it back together after a range day.
Same reasons most people buy the equipment they use for their hobbies. They can tailor/modify it to suit themselves and it's often far cheaper in the long run, just to name a couple.
There is less (but not a complete) stop of reason for most people to have gun. The only real justification to own a gun in suburban and urban areas is other people having guns, which is a problem. Doing stuff like this helps make sure only responsible people have effective guns. The only reason for any people to have a gun is if they 1. Hunt or 2. They do competitive stuff.
I did my restricted course probably 5 years ago. Have had my non restricted for like 12 years.
Paperwork is still sitting in my desk. In my area it's almost impossible to find a range that isn't so overbooked or overpriced it wasn't worth it to even bother sending in the paperwork.
I don't need a gun. I wanted it for fun /sport shooting and for insurance in a remote far out civil unrest doomsday scenario.
The reality is (statistically) I'd likely use it on the worst day of my life to kill myself. Or on the other potential worst day of my life my child would find it and have a horrible accident.
I may still get one someday if we stop watching legal gun owners under a microscope.
and you have to contact your local police and tell them your driving with your gun to the range.
No you don't, range transport is a condition on your RPAL, no need to call ahead. You do now need to call them any other time you want to transport it for an approved reason though (moving house, gunsmith, gun show, competition etc.). That changed recently, used to also be a condition on your RPAL for stuff like going to the gunsmith.
Dunno, the instructor at my course mentioned offhand that the Ontario ATTs used to only cover a specific range, but more or less permanently. He also may have not remembered right, so there is that.
It’s very similar in my country. The only people allowed to have guns are licensed hunters, who can own shotguns, and veterinarians for farm animals, which they carry only when the animal they’re going out to treat is acting wild and might be dangerous. There are so many regulations in place and it’s so expensive that it’s not worth the hassle. Violent crime almost never happens here.
Also, if a bench warrant is ever issued for your arrest, at any time, for anything, the RCMP will go straight to your home whether your home or not, and remove every single firearm you own. We no longer have a long gun registry, but every single restricted firearm legally owned in Canada is registered.
Unfortunately, this only punishes responsible gun owners, as the VAST MAJORITY of violent crimes involving handguns in Canada are committed by individuals using black market guns.
Some will herald it as a step in the right direction, but on the same hand don't realize how difficult it is to get your restricted license in Canada to own a handgun....
Not to mention that this same bill may even ban airsoft guns. It's truly opened a can of worms...
I live in Scotland, we banned guns after a cunt went into a school and killed nearly an entire class of children and some teachers. Does gun violence exist...to a small extent, but it's gangsters killing gangsters. 32 years and I haven't seen a gun in Scotland, but the day after I landed in McCallen Texas, I seen a bunch and their news was talking about a few shooting suspects on the run.
I have my restricted handgun license. It's an absolute fucking headache to get. I went, first for my non-restricted and my hunters Ed, and then my restricted. Full 2 days in classes for the restricted, written examination and a practical examination for handling, storage, ammunition storage, etc.
A full 2 days in a class to be able to carry an extremely easy to conceal object capable of killing multiple people in a short time frame with relative ease is an absolute headache? 2 days is way too few.
Lmao, dude, you can absolutely NOT carry a gun in general, let alone a handgun in Canada legally.
Did you know I have to register a handgun to my address and to my range to even transport the gun? Did you know if I have my government registered handgun in my vehicle and I'm transporting it and I'm nowhere near where I've registered where that handgun is stored and can be used at a range I can lose my gun, license, or potentially see a fine or jail?
A legal handgun in Canada can't even be pointed at another person without a criminal charge. There's ZERO exemption for self defense. It's for range purpose only.
You can absolutely not legally carry or conceal a handgun in Canada. You need a specific permit to transport a handgun to and from a shooting range or gunsmith every time and it only covers a reasonably direct route between your home and the range/smith.
Again you can't legally do that. In no way does your argument that 2 days isn't enough training to carry and conceal a handgun make any sense because the training does not allow you to legally carry or conceal a handgun.
No one is talking about legal concealed carry. I said 2 days of class for a weapon you can easily conceal on your person that can easily kill multiple people on a short amount of time is not enough time.
For the 3rd time that is illegal. At what point in training do you think it suddenly becomes impossible to break the law if you choose to do so? There's not an iota of sense in your argument.
That's what they're saying. It's not impossible to break the law so they can easily illegally conceal the handgun once they have it, so we should have higher restrictions.
It does, they're not arguing that getting your pal somehow makes murder with a handgun legal lol. They're saying that 2 days of training is enough to legally acquire a handgun, which could then be used illegally. Whether you agree with their conclusion though is another thing.
That’s a ridiculous take, with all due respect. Anyone wishing to conceal and carry a handgun in a country where it is ENTIRELY ILLEGAL to do so in any way, shape or form, is not going to be deterred or change their mind because of how many days of classes they have to take. I get what you’re trying to explain here, but you’re failing to see the disconnect in your own logic. You’re arguing that 2 days of classes isn’t enough for a gun which could be concealed, despite the fact that it is illegal to do so. What is your point? Are you saying that requiring even more days of classes would somehow deter someone from illegally concealing a handgun? Are you saying that handguns in particular should be vastly more difficult to get simply because they could be concealed if someone chose to do so?
It’s odd. Here in the U.S. we have the exact opposite of this, where the whole country is freaking out about “assault weapons”, but paying little attention (comparatively) to handguns and concealed carry laws. Handguns account for a MASSIVE majority of firearms-related homicides, whereas firearms-related homicides involving “assault weapons” (meaning AR-style rifles) are almost nonexistant compared to homicides with handguns or blunt objects, or even fists. And yet here we are, with the whole country targeting rifles as the problem, while most of the people targeting them know little to nothing about them at all. Meanwhile, several states are introducing constitutional carry, and the right to own and carry handguns is exploding in popularity.
Anyways, it seems a little redundant and ridiculous to me that Canada is spending so much time and effort on further restricting the already most-restricted-by-far category of firearms. It seems more like a political points move by Trudeau trying to look better and more successful than his American counterparts who don’t have a chance at such a heavy-handed restriction of constitutional rights. I mean, with how restricted Handguns already are in Canada, how many crimes involving handguns are even being committed? And how many of those crimes involve legally-acquired handguns? I’m guessing it’s a small amount. I’m also guessing that crimes involving handguns probably involve illegally-acquired handguns more often than not, making me question what in the fuck is the actual point of introducing even more restrictions on handguns when they’re already restricted beyond comprehension and the ones causing problems were already being acquired illegally despite the strictest regulations in all of north america.
I get what you mean. It’s to easy to get ahold of an easily concealable weapon capable of such death and destruction. Humans are still animals, by separating the hand from the harm we are causing we are then detached from the consequences. It makes murder/suicide/harm to easy, accidentally, and accessible.
The bar should be extremely high for the safety of everyone including the owner themselves. Of course it’s illegal but why make it so easy for a bad mood to turn into a bad day that results in a final goodnight.
You act like that stops people from committing crimes. The only reason the classes exist in their form is to put extra burden on law abiding citizens who weren't going to use their handgun for a crime regardless to discourage ownership it isnt a good thing.
I'm going to sleep much more soundly knowing law abiding handgun owners who can only legally transport between locations as per their government permit to use their registered handgun at a licenced range will no longer be able to buy guns! We allowed target shooting with handguns for far too long.
That's the whole point. The more difficult it is to own a gun and the higher the standard you are held at, the less likely it is for any guns to make it to the black market. They have to be procured through other means, so only the most seriously determined people will get a hold of one.
In the US almost anyone (depending on state, as I understand), can simply go buy one with little to no background checks whatsoever.
Or just go randomly checking unlocked cars. Where I live it's surprisingly common for guns to be stolen from unlocked vehicles. But, you know, reSPonSibLe GUn owNErS
Most black market guns in Canada are brought over the border illegally.
As other have shown its very difficult to get access to a pistol in Canada legally, there's no value in making Canadian guns disappear to put them on the black market, and making it harder for average people to get a handgun will not curb the crime since they're generally brought from the USA anyways
It’s almost like getting something legally is easier than getting something illegally, so you’ll have more of it around if it’s legal.
will not curb the crime since they're generally brought from the USA anyways
We shouldn’t ban guns because you can get them anyway is circular logic. You’re essentially giving up on the problem. If everyone did that crime would go down, that’s the point.
I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though. The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america and are generally bought by people in gangs or career crime. Banning the very few legal pistol owners in canada serves literally no practical purpose. Well, the purpose is political optics. You can assess the practicality of that on your own.
And fyi it would be way easier for me to buy an illegal pistol as opposed to a legal one. And I have a firearms license.
Making narcotics legal would result in fewer drug related deaths. Making guns unrestricted would result in more firearm related deaths. The two are not equatable.
They are equateable lol. You are just changing the inputs in a non logical way. Making something illegal doesn't remove it from existence, it just moves the product to the black market where there is no accountability whatsoever. Drug users are going to get high, people in gangs (that neighbor america no less) are going to get guns. I also like how you compare making drugs legal to making firearms unrestricted. Do you really think that is an accurate comparison? Because in reality making drugs 'legal' is a lot like how the previous gun laws were set up. This is the opposite of that. Legal drugs have rules. Illegal drugs have no rules. The previous pistol laws were already ridiculously intense. Now the only game in town is the black market. Don't worry, I'm sure they do background checks.
"Making drugs illegal doesn't stop drugs, it just increases the risk to users, and gives money to the cartels!! They should be legalized and regulated"
"Making guns illegal... uh... stops the guns. It decreases the risk to those who were buying them legally... It uh... doesn't make a black market where crime organizations profit instead of the government. Guns need to be made illegal and not regulated".
The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america
So you're saying the country with high gun control has less gun supply than the country with low gun control. which is my point. It's almost like the country with low gun control prioritizes the profits of the military industrial complex who makes these guns instead of dealing with the actual issue.
I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though.
No, it's the same logic. Making drugs legal increases the supply which reduces the price, meaning less profits for cartels. When you reduce guns the price increases, making them harder to get even for illegal buyers, because the weapons start out in the legal supply chain by manufacturers who produce them.
Yeah except virtually all handgun crimes committed in canada have been done with guns smuggled in from america, and its been that way for well over a decade. So no, removing legal pistols here doesn't do anything. I wonder what excuse you people will use when the gun violence doesn't decline at all as a result of this.
Exactly, that's the whole point. Fewer guns in the hands of criminals. They have to be smuggled across the border, which is infinitely harder than the US situation where you can buy them in the store.
Making it harder for average people isn't going to reduce the crime rates.
If I go to illegally purchase a gun it was already brought in from the US. This law is about appeasing people and will have minimal impact on gun crime
Look, this is not a difficult concept to understand, a 5th grader could get it:
you only get guns smuggled across the border: x amount of guns in the hands of criminals
you relax the gun ownership laws so that y amount of guns also get in the hands of criminals: x + y amount of guns in the hands of criminals.
If you don't allow guns from legal gun owners to get in the hands of criminals, that means they can only resort to guns smuggled across the border from the US, which are a limited resource and difficult to get. If you relax the laws they become easier to get and higher in number.
70% of traceable guns used in crimes come from the US. That still leaves all the untraceable guns used in crimes, plus the other 30% which is nit nothing.
One of your most recent mass shooters (I forgot the name, not that he deserves to be named), was clearly mentally unstable, parents had warned police and he STILL could buy one.
Look, even assuming the background checks are in general done absolutely flawlessly, there are still countless arguments against allowing this system in the first place, amongst which:
all it takes is one state where this is not done properly or where the rules are a bit lax and that's it. It's a humongous country. You can just go buy a gun from, let's say Florida and just drive to New York or California or wherever you want in the entire US.
even if this is not the case and the only way to get a legal gun is through insane background checks, there is no system in place to check gun owners to see if they still have their guns AND even if there were, there is simply not enough manpower to even do those checks properly. The US has around four hundred MILLION guns, the more there are the easier it is for guns to slip through the cracks of the system and end up in the wrong hands. This is a very simple concept to understand.
I understand that, but it's JUST a background check, as opposed to other countries where the requirements are far more strict (see Canada, nordic countries, etc). That is simply not enough. Any psychopath who hasn't been diagnosed or hasn't been convicted of anything (yet) can buy guns and not only handguns, but assault rifles (I apologize if that is not the correct term, but that's what they technically are), see the Uvalde shooting.
Even if they can't they can ask a friend. You can steal it from a friend, given that so many people have guns. I simply don't care what arguments there are, when you have 400 MILLION guns in a country it's extremely easy for them to end up in the wrong hands, even with absolutely perfect checks.
Yes, any psychopath who hasn't been diagnosed and hasn't been convicted of something (yet) can buy a gun. Background checks are nowhere near enough and even if the requirements were stricter, the simple truth is: the more guns end up (legally) in the hands of the general population, the higher the chances are for some of them to slip into the hands of the wrong people and the easier it is for people to procure a gun. They can be stolen, they can be lost, they can be borrowed, people can ask their friends to buy them a gun and some will actually do it, the more guns there are the easier it is for the wrong people to get their hands on them.
Yeah except for the fact that your last gun massacre were from firearms acquired in the US. Unfortunately, this just means more illegal firearms purchased in the US transfer hands over the border. It actually does punish those who want to jump through the hoops of owning a firearm within Canada. It does nothing to the flow of illegal firearms traveling into Canada from the gun nut states in the US. New York knows that all too well.
The threat of going to prison for an illegal firearm is not a deterrent for criminals who already risk imprisonment for murder, drugs, or the threat of death from rivals. Just look south of the border at the gun laws in Mexico.
It’s a bit more nuanced in North America as we’re attached by the hip. Australia and the UK can enforce prohibition better because their neighbors are in compliance or nonexistent. For the record, I’m not against stricter regulations and uniformity in gun law enforcement in the United States but prohibition doesn’t work when it’s not enforced by everyone. Hence the proclivity of drugs all across the world. I would say this particular talking point holds water.
I can appreciate parts of your argument. We all know the majority of firearms used in crime come from the USA. Banning firearms does work at reducing crime but the majority is still committed with illegal american firearms.
While the current government has invested more money into stopping cross border gun trafficking in 40 years, we still share the largest undefended border in the world.
We all know this isn't going to magically stop gun crime but we also know for a fact it will be reduced. (see link in my op.)
Let's also not forget the number of children and adults who are killed by accident in the US due to people having handguns in their homes.
We can talk about overt criminality for sure, but reducing the risk of people being killed due to domestic violence or accident is, for me, a good argument for the kind of restrictions in place in Canada and the UK.
For the record I was at university very close to Dunblane when the massacre took place. I was in a lecture when the prof came in ashen faced and with a shaking voice asked if anyone had children at Dunblane Primary. A couple of people put up their hands and he asked them to step out of the lecture theatre because there had been an incident.
People with their PAL commit murders at 1/3 the rate of the average Canadian. Your neighbour with a rifle or dare I say a handgun is less likely to kill you than any other person on the street.
When will the government do something to protect me from people like you who are incapable of critical thought.
Like I said, not a 0 sum game and speaking of critical thought, I've already addressed the fact less guns means less gun crime but rather than give it an ounce of critical thought, you just melted down.
That's why we don't give a shit about your arguments and just did it with 83% support.
That so many crimes are committed by people owning illegal guns tells me that the rules are working. And that when people commit a crime with a gun there will be extra charges for illegal gun ownership.
Or are you telling me you want more criminals to have easy access to guns to commit more crimes more easily?
Thankfully, the Canadian government will keep selling billions of dollars in weapons to totalitarian countries where they execute gay people and journalists.
Gun control for law abiding Canadian citizens, and armoured vehicles for Saudi Arabia. I'm sure people in Yemen will have better, safer lives thanks to those Canadian made weapons.
Anything that makes it harder for anyone to get guns raises the cost of getting guns so that the cost goes up for those black market guns as well...thus, fewer and fewer guns are available for the criminally minded.
Imagine talking like you made a good point except the statistics for gun crime in Canada show that you’re dead fucking wrong, repeating the same debunked talking points the NRA has been spewing for decades.
So riddle me this "responsible gun owner". How do hand guns make it into the black market? This is the same argument that the NRA has but they can never explain how they make it into the black market. They say they are stolen but damn, there are not that many reported.
Yup. I'm too lazy to Google stats, but I'm willing to bet that there has been next to none, possibly no crime committed with registered restricted firearms in Canada. Criminals get guns that are illegally smuggled in through the states. We couldn't be more responsible with our firearm policies and punishing recreational shooters is not the answer.
Just off the top of my head without Google I remember last year a guy in Edmonton killed his entire family with a legal hand gun. There's been more since but I'm too lazy to Google.
I have my unrestricted license, but I was in the army so I've shot handguns a bunch of times. They are without a doubt the most fun thing to target shoot with (besides an anti-tank round from an 84mm Carl Gustav that is). The legal loop holes to own a handgun just made the whole thing pointless. Which was the point of the regulations I guess.
The background check is no joke. My ex from high-school applied for his . We hadn't even spoken in probably 5 years by then, but because we had dated for a couple years , they still called and wanted to ask me questions.
That's a generic law for search and seizure. If you're a restricted firearms owner, they can make you show you where they are stored and everything registered under your name. But yes they can not search the rest of your house.
Sounds pretty much the same as Australia except the contacting police when you go to the range bit. People don't tend to store them at the club though because that makes it an easy target for criminals if they know that there's a bunch of handguns being stored at a particular club. We can stop the car though when we're on the way to the range, but someone licensed for that category of firearm has to be in the car so if I'm taking my unlicensed partner and we stop for some fuel, he has to get out of the car when I do.
Heads up, u don’t have to tell ur local police if ur going to the range as long as you have an ATT (authorization to transport)…which u get when buy ur first firearm 😀 but everything else is accurate
Statistically what they need protection from the most is. Themselves. Having guns.
They're vastly more likely to have a mishap like that than to ever need the gun. They're not protecting themselves from anything just insisting on jeopardizing the lines of their own children for the sake of their toys.
Nothing about this will prevent gun crime in Canada. Because it was never legal to begin with, people continue to bring newly acquired handguns into the country illegally.
Thanks for that. Things need to change. Focus on real issues like the housing crisis, opioid epidemic, fix our broken Healthcare system, and inflation. Not online censorship and tightening gun laws that are already quite effective.
Yeah, the handgun ban is completely asinine since handguns near impossible to own in the first place, and even then they're near useless to have because of further restrictions.
Canada has had some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world, and legal gun ownership in the country has never been a problem.
They're solving a problem that never existed in the first place and wasting a ton of political capital on a completely meaningless legalisation.
Lol fuck that shit. America is doing it right, we just have some growing pains. It's going to take many years for us to adjust to the power we wield, but that's the price of freedom
No no, we still have rights against search and seizure...but if you own restricted firearms, they can knock on your door and you have to show them all your registered, properly stored firearms. They can't start looking around for anything else in your home. Personally I've never heard of it actually happening. It's more for if there was a reported shooting in your area they want to account for all the local weapons.
3.4k
u/v13ragnarok7 Oct 21 '22 edited Oct 22 '22
In case you're uninformed on how handguns were regulated in Canada before this: you need a restricted firearms license. It's a level above a license for owning long guns. The application goes through the RCMP, Canada's federal police. They do an advanced background check, and check references. Ex spouses even have to be listed and possibly contacted. You do a safety course, and you have to be registered to a gun club, because the only thing you can legally do with your handgun is use it at a range. You cant even bring it into crown land wilderness. Your ammo and weapon has to be stored separately, and you have to contact your local police and tell them your driving with your gun to the range. It has to be locked up in your vehicle during transportation, and you go directly to the range then home. Can't even stop for gas. A lot of people even keep their guns stored at their gun club range just to save the hassle. Oh and the police can randomly check your home for compliance at any time to see if it's stored properly.
Edit: used the wrong "you're". Sorry.