# Concealed carry on Post/Base



## chrs_0331 (15 Aug 2011)

Most of us carry off base due to some of the areas that we live around. But why not on base? We handle weapons everyday for training and guard duty. So why can't we, the Soldiers in the Military protect ourselves and loved one on base? There would be alot less shootings, rapes and theft. We need to stand up for our rights not just off base but on base as well.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2011)

Seriously?  You think there's that many shootings and rapes on bases?   ???

"Most" of us carry off base?  I'd be willing to be that "most" of us don't.

 :


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Aug 2011)

I have a feeling that chrs_0331 is an American soldier who doesn't realise this is a Canadian site.  He uses US phrases such as S1, part of his name "0331" is a USMC MOSID for machine gunner, and finally Canada does not use the phrase Concealed Carry, but rather Authority To Carry (ATC).


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2011)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that chrs_0331 is an American soldier who doesn't realise this is a Canadian site.  He uses US phrases such as S1, part of his name "0331" is a USMC MOSID for machine gunner, and finally Canada does not use the phrase Concealed Carry, but rather Authority To Carry (ATC).



Seen.  Still don't think soldiers should be "carrying" on base.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Still don't think soldiers should be "carrying" on base.



Why not?


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Aug 2011)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that chrs_0331 is an American soldier who doesn't realise this is a Canadian site.  He uses US phrases such as S1, part of his name "0331" is a USMC MOSID for machine gunner, and finally Canada does not use the phrase Concealed Carry, but rather Authority To Carry (ATC).



I have a feeling he should be called something else...... :


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Aug 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Why not?



Just personal opinion.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Aug 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Why not?


I don't know about any of you, but I had to deal with a drunk soldier with a 12 guage years ago. Drunk soldiers & guns  = trouble.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Aug 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Why not?



I personally don't see the need. Firearms in your house is one thing, I have no issue with that. The PMQs are not Kandahar, we don't need leg rigs with a Browning 9mm wherever we go.


----------



## mariomike (15 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Firearms in your house is one thing, I have no issue with that.



Neither do I. None at all. Not any more. Not since I retired. Now, I could care less what people have in their homes.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't know about any of you, but I had to deal with a drunk soldier with a 12 guage years ago. Drunk soldiers & guns  = trouble.



Non starter. If you had an ATC for concealed carry you would not be allowed to drink and carry.

I have met some shit heads (in and out of uniform) that I would not trust with a sharp knife, nevermind a firearm (while unsupervised). Typically these people would not be going through the trouble of getting an ATC in the first place or would be screened out from getting it.

Considering how seriously the threat of an active shooter on a base seems to be taken, having a system in place to let some soldiers concealed carry makes sense to me.

Any abuse or misuse of any ATC/CCW would be severely punished, but I doubt it would happen often, if at all.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> we don't need leg rigs with a Browning 9mm wherever we go.



By definition ATC/CCW implies that others would not see it. So no leg rigs.


----------



## Stoker (15 Aug 2011)

I seriously doubt the military on base or anywhere else in Canada will ever allow CCW to its members or citizens. I have carried CCW on a number of occasions, lots of responsibility but no big deal. Its too bad we can't here.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Aug 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> By definition ATC/CCW implies that others would not see it. So no leg rigs.



ATC may or may not be concealed.  The majority of ATCs are for remote areas and the restricted weapon must be carried openly.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> ATC may or may not be concealed.  The majority of ATCs are for remote areas and the restricted weapon must be carried openly.



True, but for what we are talking here (ATC Lv 3/CCW) the idea is that it _should_ be concealed.

And yes Chief, although I am a proponent of responsible individual being allowed CCW/ATC, I do not see it happening here in Canada, ever.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Aug 2011)

Honestly I felt safer living in the PMQs than I do living out on the economy! I don't even live in a bad area but I still worry more about my car getting smashed/broken into than I ever did on base.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2011)

Canadian law allows for then issuance of a carry permit for the defense of life, sometimes called the ATC level III (Level I is wilderness carry and Level II is armoured car guards) CCW was fairly common in Canada till the 70’s and all banks were required to have a gun on the premises. Funny how people forget that. Apparently Alberta is still issuing ATC’s for Diamond and Bullion dealers. The CFO’s purposely attempt to block people from obtaining a ATC and refuse to document what exactly the requirements are, making it difficult to meet them. I am a proponent of ATC/CCW and was planning on getting my Utah CCW until they blocked non-residents. I have two daughters that’s enough reason for me.

 Back on subject, considering the current threats both the US and Canadian military faces, I find it odd that more firearms and ammunition are not required on base. To be blunt it’s likely an attacker is less likely to meet armed resistance on a US army base than most of the surrounding civilian areas. The current thinking is the Base perimeter provides the protection along with gate guards and the MP as the first armed responders, not sure if they carry rifles in their vehicles and don’t expect that to be divulged either. Personally I think it’s inadequate. Each unit on base should be tasked with providing a armed guard duty, either at unit HQ, guard hut or wherever large groups of personal assemble (mess halls, etc). Weapon don’t necessarily need to be loaded, but the guard armed, issued sufficient ammo and equipped with combat gear, including radios that allow them to coordinate their response. 
Comms would likely be handled by the BHQ and MP’s who would direct the response and reposition guards as required to any incident of identified threat. All of the above would require a switch in mind think and I think it would be easier to do it now will we are filled with combat veterans who have experienced an enemy that will exploit any weakness exposed. Changing the mind think of the Base staff and senior leaders would be the most difficult part of the exercise.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Canadian law allows for then issuance of a carry permit for the defense of life, sometimes called the ATC level III (Level I is wilderness carry and Level II is armoured car guards) CCW was fairly common in Canada till the 70’s and all banks were required to have a gun on the premises. Funny how people forget that. Apparently Alberta is still issuing ATC’s for Diamond and Bullion dealers. The CFO’s purposely attempt to block people from obtaining a ATC and refuse to document what exactly the requirements are, making it difficult to meet them. I am a proponent of ATC/CCW and was planning on getting my Utah CCW until they blocked non-residents. I have two daughters that’s enough reason for me.



Back in the 80's and 90's when I still did a lot of handgun/rifle shooting the rumour mill was there were about five or so people in Canada still allowed concealed carry usually because they had been threatened by criminal groups (mafia, OMGs). How true the rumour is, I have no idea.



> Back on subject, considering the current threats both the US and Canadian military faces, I find it odd that more firearms and ammunition are not required on base. To be blunt it’s likely an attacker is less likely to meet armed resistance on a US army base than most of the surrounding civilian areas. The current thinking is the Base perimeter provides the protection along with gate guards and the MP as the first armed responders, not sure if they carry rifles in their vehicles and don’t expect that to be divulged either. Personally I think it’s inadequate. Each unit on base should be tasked with providing a armed guard duty, either at unit HQ, guard hut or wherever large groups of personal assemble (mess halls, etc). Weapon don’t necessarily need to be loaded, but the guard armed, issued sufficient ammo and equipped with combat gear, including radios that allow them to coordinate their response.
> Comms would likely be handled by the BHQ and MP’s who would direct the response and reposition guards as required to any incident of identified threat. All of the above would require a switch in mind think and I think it would be easier to do it now will we are filled with combat veterans who have experienced an enemy that will exploit any weakness exposed. Changing the mind think of the Base staff and senior leaders would be the most difficult part of the exercise.



Whole heartily agree with you. Our bases are woefully undefended and one of these days we may end up paying for it. And if I remember correctly, one of the targets of the "Toronto 18" was a military base in southern Ontario, so its not as far fetched as some people think.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2011)

One of the FOI's in Ontario a few years ago mentioned 13 permits in Ontario, most likely Judges, crown prosecutors. My wife was offered a Crown prosecutors job in Malaysia, it comes with an automatic permit to carry. for good reason, if they can't bribe you they will try to kill you there.


----------



## Armymedic (15 Aug 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The PMQs are not Kandahar, we don't need leg rigs with a Browning 9mm wherever we go.



I have seen those leg holsters in Kandahar; and after seeing and hearing about some of the most outstanding weapons handling that goes on there,  it is my personal opinion that everyone will be safer if anyone who is carrying the metal paperweight called the Browning, should just leave them locked in their respective CQ's.

That being said, just because we are soldiers, does not automatically mean we are safe with firearms.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Whole heartily agree with you. Our bases are woefully undefended and one of these days we may end up paying for it. And if I remember correctly, one of the targets of the "Toronto 18" was a military base in southern Ontario, so its not as far fetched as some people think.



I would not go so far as to say "woefully undefended". The threat of an active shooter on a CFB (terrorist or disgruntled soldier) has been recognized and IARD training is now part of the MP QL3, as well as ongoing qualification for the MP trade at large. 

Still, I would feel much better if select individuals were encouraged to carry loaded while on duty.

But hey, as a reservist I don't spend much time on bases, my exposure is limited at best.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> I have seen those leg holsters in Kandahar; and after seeing and hearing about some of the most outstanding weapons handling that goes on there,  it is my personal opinion that everyone will be safer if anyone who is carrying the metal paperweight called the Browning, should just leave them locked in their respective CQ's.
> 
> That being said, just because we are soldiers, does not automatically mean we are safe with firearms.



Relentless loading and unloading is bound to cause issues, not the least is bullet setback.  Load it while pointing into a container/ballestic mat, place in holster, leave there till duty is finished and clear in the direction of container/mat. A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:



Just don't try any funny stuff with a stapler...


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Just don't try any funny stuff with a stapler...



No gun involved in that incident! All you risk by waiving a stapler around is a tasering and positional asphyxia.  >


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Relentless loading and unloading is bound to cause issues, not the least is bullet setback.  Load it while pointing into a container/ballestic mat, place in holster, leave there till duty is finished and clear in the direction of container/mat. A properly maintained gun in a proper holster is perfectly safe, apparently the police do it all the time, mostly without incident.  :nod:



The other big difference is that the Police use a DOUBLE ACTION Modern Pistol.....


The BHP may be a good pistol for what it was built for, but It's time to upgrade our Sidearm to something a little bit more modern.... Why the Army has not followed the Navy and MP's and just gotten Sig Sauers is beyond me.... (Or Glock, or S&W M&P's or whatever else....)


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Aug 2011)

Well, funny you should mention the action in reference to it being somewhat safer. There were no BHP NDs during my tour (where I was) But there were 2 Sig NDs. Just saying that there's more important things than action when determining how safe it is to carry a pistol. 

Any decent pistol is perfectly safe to carry. Leave it loaded unreadied in the holster and it's less dangerous than a baton. I can think of few situations where you'd need your pistol readied (kinetic ops aside).

I Love my BHP. As long as the mags aren't eff'd. Nice and simple.


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Aug 2011)

Tommy said:
			
		

> The other big difference is that the Police use a DOUBLE ACTION Modern Pistol.....
> 
> 
> The BHP may be a good pistol for what it was built for, but It's time to upgrade our Sidearm to something a little bit more modern.... Why the Army has not followed the Navy and MP's and just gotten Sig Sauers is beyond me.... (Or Glock, or S&W M&P's or whatever else....)



*CAUTION:  Derail Imminent!*

With proper mags and decent barrels there is nothing wrong with the BHP.  The Sig et al are not designed for nor do they perform as well under Big Army field conditions.  For Naval boarding parties, MP's and SOFCOM pers the Sig is ideal.  But for mud rolling Army dudes, the BHP is more reliable (when fed by proper magazines) than the fancier pistols.  Perhaps a modernized BHP with a rail and the addition of a DA/SA trigger is what is required.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Aug 2011)

The BHP suffers one major design defect and that is the crossbar (can't think of the correct name) that is in the frame, once that goes it's difficult to replace. The current BHP's the army has could use a better safety. 

If  I was to replace the current sidearm with a Sig, I would take the Sig 2022 over the 226, a tad lighter, less wear issues on the frame, easily replaceable hammer box. The French police think highly of them. 

I have my own 226 and BHP, love them both, but can see the limits in both designs.


----------



## cupper (16 Aug 2011)

Not to stir the pot, but :stirpot:

One glaring argument against the policy of carrying personal weapons on base is Major Nidal Hassan, of Fort Hood infamy.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Aug 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> I Love my BHP. As long as the mags aren't eff'd. Nice and simple.



Yep, the mags are the biggest issue I've run into. Old mags = stoppages. I used to run a whole mag worth of rounds (cocking not firing) pointed into a clearing bay to check my mags every couple months overseas, to make sure there were no misfeeds as 95% of the time, it was a mag problem that caused a double feed.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Not to stir the pot, but :stirpot:
> 
> One glaring argument against the policy of carrying personal weapons on base is Major Nidal Hassan, of Fort Hood infamy.



The same example can be used to argue the opposite.


----------



## cupper (17 Aug 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The same example can be used to argue the opposite.



True. Unfortunately true.

However, it does assume that a rational person would think twice about doing such things when facing the prospect that your targets are packing. And it can be argued quite easily that Hassan was not a rational person.

And that same logic also creates problems for law enforcement responding, when you can't distinguish a "well meaning" bystander from the actual perpetrator.

Shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, I read an interview with a person who had attended the event who was carrying. HE pulled the weapon, started looking to see who was doing the shooting, and then realized that he had just made himself a suspect and potentially on the receiving end of incoming rounds from some other well meaning but misguided individual.


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> True. Unfortunately true.
> 
> However, it does assume that a rational person would think twice about doing such things when facing the prospect that your targets are packing. And it can be argued quite easily that Hassan was not a rational person.
> 
> And that same logic also creates problems for law enforcement responding, when you can't distinguish a "well meaning" bystander from the actual perpetrator.



If a few people were carrying the perpetrator would be one of the dead people on the floor by the time law enforcement got there... Lucky for them, there would be a lot less dead people to sort out.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Shortly after the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, I read an interview with a person who had attended the event who was carrying. HE pulled the weapon, started looking to see who was doing the shooting, and then realized that he had just made himself a suspect and potentially on the receiving end of incoming rounds from some other well meaning but misguided individual.



I would like to see this interview, not to say you are bullshitting, but to read his exact quotes and lines of thinking and whatnot. I personally don't agree wtih that line of thinking at all. By the time law enforcement got there, the guilty b*****d would again be on the floor, and since no other threats were around I am sure the hero of the day would have had lots of time to holster is weapon before any SWAT teams stormed the room and shot the man with the smoking gun.


I know it sounds like I am pro-CCW or whatever, maybe I am, but I'm not sure enough about it to proclaim so, but I just thought I'd point out what crossed my mind about your points.


----------



## S.Stewart (17 Aug 2011)

I don't think we need conceal weapons permits, honestly it prevents some idiot from getting road rage and just happening to have his weapon on him. Canadians have gone this long without such permits in recent years, the ******* world has not exploded in such some sort of post apocalyptic horror that we need it now, this is my opinion as someone who has a firearms licence, and owns firearms. Plus the idea of of protecting one's self and others on the street as it was put it, base or other wise just sits wrong, I just get the impression of too many idiots who are legal gun orders trying to interfere with matters that should be handled by the police. There is a reason we don't have it, it is simply not needed, may things like conceal and carry permits are a factor is the difference in gun murder rates between here and the states...food for thought. 

Considering our police officers don't carry weapons off duty, I have no idea why the hell I would need to carry around a handgun, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't live in enough fear to deem it needed, and I live in the city and I am you know a female who likes the night life, and one who does go out by herself.


----------



## RCR Grunt (17 Aug 2011)

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

Wouldn't you rather have the _option_ of carrying?

A properly administered and implemented CCW program would not turn this country into the wild wild west.

The real reason, I would imagine, for the dramatic difference in gun related murders between us and our neighbours to the south are the difference in the availability/accessibilty of firearms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2011)

Indictment rates for CCW permit holders for firearm related offense in the US are around 1% of total. The number of incidents caused by people using their concealed firearms and causing issues is statistical insignificant. Meanwhile the FBI estimates that firearm owners thwart approx 2 million crimes a year.

The whole ‘road rage, streets running with blood” is poppycock scare mongering. Being a permit holder does not protect you from the laws of the land and you will be subject to an investigation anytime you draw your firearm whether you fire or not. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but a high number of incidents are resolved by the permit holder drawing the gun, at which point the bad guy hoofs it out of there.

As for their homicide rate, the US adds about 2-3 million new guns to the market every year (for around 300 million+ guns) and the North American civilian and police market consumed 12 billion rounds of ammo in 2008-2009. Canada has somewhere between 7-30 million legally made/imported guns, not counting smuggled. Between Canada and the US there are slightly less than 10,000 homicides a year involving guns. So you do the math as to how many bullets per homicide and what percentage of firearms are involved in a homicide.


----------



## Greymatters (17 Aug 2011)

Out of curiosity, is the level of crime increasing on bases and posts?  Im wondering what the justification would be for increased carrying of firearms, other than personal preference...


----------



## cupper (17 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I would like to see this interview, not to say you are bullshitting, but to read his exact quotes and lines of thinking and whatnot.



No prob, I'll see if I can track it down.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I know it sounds like I am pro-CCW or whatever, maybe I am, but I'm not sure enough about it to proclaim so, but I just thought I'd point out what crossed my mind about your points.



I can go either way on the issue, just that living down here, you hear all sides of the argument. And some on the pro side tend to make their arguments in rather counter productive ways.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Aug 2011)

When I am in civvy clothes I think it is ridiculous. But when I am in uniform I feel a bit naked without a gun. Never had cause to use one out of the Army. Seems like a waste of time and money. I don't carry bear spray either. But hey if you have a permit I don't really care what you put in your pants.


----------



## Dissident (17 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> When I am in civvy clothes I think it is ridiculous.



I always find that argument (and it's derivative) interesting.

Does the uniform have special powers? Are you a different person in and out of uniform?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I can go either way on the issue, just that living down here, you hear all sides of the argument. And some on the pro side tend to make their arguments in rather counter productive ways.



As do the antis, and quite often they can be more extreme and hyperbolic. Six of one, half dozen of the other.



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> When I am in civvy clothes I think it is ridiculous. But when I am in uniform I feel a bit naked without a gun. Never had cause to use one out of the Army. Seems like a waste of time and money. I don't carry bear spray either. But hey if you have a permit I don't really care what you put in your pants.



It is only ridiculous to those that don't want it. On the other side of the coin, those that do, could say (but seldom do) that you are ridiculous because of your beliefs. 

It's a useless statement.


----------



## Thompson_JM (18 Aug 2011)

Slight Derail, back to my point, 

I only used the Sig as an example since the CF tends to like to buy only one type of something... So I could see them going with Sig's since they already own them...

If I had my say, I would replace the BHP (Which I never said was a bad pistol... Just that there are more modern better options out there...) with the Glock.... It's as simple if not more so, then the BHP, and also very very reliable.  

I will say for the record however, that I do not have enough knowledge on the reliability of Glock Magazines to say yay or nay with them... 

I will agree with Snaketnk that when the Mags and Pistol are in good condition the BHP is awesome. I would own one civy side if I had the money around to buy one... 

And for the record I am Pro carry. 

Canada needs to pull its head out of the Sand and give the inherent right to self defense back to the law abiding good citizens of this country.


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2011)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Canada needs to pull its head out of the Sand and give the inherent right to self defense back to the law abiding good citizens of this country.



When did we ever have the right to self defense in the sense of being able to carry firearms for purposes other than hunting?

Check that. Not sure if I understand the comment. :-\


----------



## chrisf (18 Aug 2011)

FYI there was a time when citizens were permitted to own and carry guns for their defense.

I have a deactivated .22 revolver, it had been found in my grand parents basement about 15 years ago. Had to be deactivated as it was unregistered and fell rather firmly in the banned firearm class. It had been bought for my great grand mother by my great great grand mother as a gift when she moved from her relatively small town to Toronto for a period around the turn of the century.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Aug 2011)

There's a few scenarios I can think of where I would LIKE to have the option to carry. With that said however, I'd much rather any CCW program be VERY limited in scope. I personally would not want anyone carrying unless they are HIGHLY professional in their skills and drills, and willing to spend the time and money to maintain that standard. 

Even in the CF, I would venture to say that most have little experience with pistols (other than CANSOFCOM, and anyone else that regularly trains with or carries them) beyond pumping a few mags through a BHP.  Wearing a cool uniform does not an expert make...


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> market consumed 12 billion rounds of ammo in 2008-2009.... slightly less than 10,000 homicides a year involving guns. So you do the math as to how many bullets per homicide and what percentage of firearms are involved in a homicide.



Based on these stats, we really shouldn't be issuing gun permits to anyone. 1.2 Million bullets per homicide. Figure that the victim would have gotten away after the first reload, or maybe the 200th. ;D


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2011)

Personally if i gets to the point where I feel I have to carry a firearm to feel safe while going around my community, I want to talk with the government about getting a refund on my tax dollars that are paid to support the police and public safety agencies.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Wearing a cool uniform does not an expert make...



It doesn't??


----------



## Silverfire (18 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Based on these stats, we really shouldn't be issuing gun permits to anyone. 1.2 Million bullets per homicide. Figure that the victim would have gotten away after the first reload, or maybe the 200th. ;D



Your math is a touch off, you're assuming that all bullets purchased are used in homicide. You need to remember to factor in legal purchases for hunting, firing range, etc. ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Aug 2011)

I'm going to find out where The Patriots of BC stand on this issue on my way down to the Inner Harbour to chuck some tea in the drink. I can't wait to restore democracy and regain control of my province. Hopefully there will be pipe bands  iper:

One if by land, two if by BC Ferries (but don't worry if it's two, because they probably can't afford it)

http://www.patriotsofbc.com/index.html

Control your government - regain control of your province!

There are many voters in this province, who are disgusted with the lack of acceptable choices at election time.
It is serious enough that many people qualified to vote, don't bother doing so because no matter who gets elected,
the results are always the same. The reason that we are always ignored is that we can't address our politicians with one voice - we are not unified in action, the only thing that we are unified in, is the subject and substance of our complaining. Well, British Columbians,

HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO HAVE A SAY!

The U.S. have their Tea Party Movement which has greatly influenced both, the Republicans and the Democrats. Their President has had to change course on many of his plans and is now listening very closely to what the movement wants.

We, British Columbians, being Canadians, are too easy going and are generally too lazy to do anything but complain about what we don't like about our government. The H.S.T. referendum campaign may have been enough to show us that we can do something to correct what we don't like.

Let's hope that the people stayed mad enough to vote against the H.S.T., not because it's a bad tax but because we need to teach the politicians who they work for and who they MUST listen to. We need to RESTORE DEMOCRACY!


----------



## mariomike (18 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> <snip> and all banks were required to have a gun on the premises. Funny how people forget that.



"( Bank manager ) Elwood  grabbed a fully loaded .38 calibre revolver that was kept in the teller's drawer and set off in pursuit. The robber attempted to commandeer a car parked in front of the bank. The manager charged out of the bank and emptied the five shot revolver at the robber, but all the bullets missed."

"Although the banks don't appear to have taken security very seriously, they did issue handguns to bank staff with the expectation that if there was a hold-up, they would shoot back. There were enough young Second World War veterans in the workforce at the time to ensure that at least some staff would know how to use them. There was even a secret downtown firing range in the old Bank of Toronto building where managers and tellers were expected to practice regularly. This ended only in the late 1950s after a bank staff member was killed by a ricocheting shot meant for a robber.": *
http://www.emcperth.ca/20110526/Lifestyle/Bank+robbers+riveted+Canada's+attention+in+the+'50s

* Edit to add
May 19, 1955. Toronto Dominion Bank at Dundas and McCaul.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2011)

I am not convinced that a concealed carry permit is required in Canada. In fact, it could cause the unecessary deaths of innocent people, and those are usually the young.

I'm not convinced it could or would be well administered, not am I convinced that safeguards as to WHO gets to carry would be stringent enough.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that a concealed carry permit is required in Canada. In fact, it could cause the unecessary deaths of innocent people, and those are usually the young.
> 
> I'm not convinced it could or would be well administered, not am I convinced that safeguards as to WHO gets to carry would be stringent enough.



Agree completely!


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2011)

Nor do I have much faith in law enforcement....not the street cops but the bureaucrats.


----------



## cupper (19 Aug 2011)

Silverfire said:
			
		

> Your math is a touch off, you're assuming that all bullets purchased are used in homicide. You need to remember to factor in legal purchases for hunting, firing range, etc. ;D




Noooooo. Really? :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that a concealed carry permit is required in Canada. In fact, it could cause the unecessary deaths of innocent people, and those are usually the young.
> 
> I'm not convinced it could or would be well administered, not am I convinced that safeguards as to WHO gets to carry would be stringent enough.





			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Agree completely!



CCW could also be the cause of a lot less crime and personal injury just as well. Both sides of the equation can be stated with equal vigor and conviction. If you need convincing or educating, the Great Gun Control Debate  is a good place to start as any. 

I'm glad you have so much faith in those (us) that feel it is just another tool. Not some big scary boogieman. No one would be forced to CC, only those that wanted to and passed, probably, very stringent training and screening.

I have no heartache with those who don't wish to protect themselves from armed and dangerous people. However, no one should have the right to take that decision from me...........because they don't like it, are scared of the prospect or think it's not needed.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> CCW could also be the cause of a lot less crime and personal injury just as well. Both sides of the equation can be stated with equal vigor and conviction. If you need convincing or educating, the Great Gun Control Debate  is a good place to start as any.
> 
> I'm glad you have so much faith in those (us) that feel it is just another tool. Not some big scary boogieman. No one would be forced to CC, only those that wanted to and passed, probably, very stringent training and screening.
> 
> I have no heartache with those who don't wish to protect themselves from armed and dangerous people. However, no one should have the right to take that decision from me...........because they don't like it, are scared of the prospect or think it's not needed.



What he said.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What he said.



Concur with above.


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am not convinced that a concealed carry permit is required in Canada. In fact, it could cause the unecessary deaths of innocent people, and those are usually the young.
> 
> I'm not convinced it could or would be well administered, not am I convinced that safeguards as to WHO gets to carry would be stringent enough.



What he said. What she ( Moe ) said.

Like _I_ said, now that I am retired and no longer respond to "unknown problem" calls inside people's homes, I no longer worry about what weapons they keep inside them. I could care less about that _now_.

We here on the internet all have our opinions. We can "educate" and entertain each other - even add and deduct points.
But, when it comes to advice on personal safety issues, I give the last word to our police and emergency services professionals.


----------



## ballz (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> But, when it comes _real_ advice on any personal safety issues, I give the last word to our police and emergency services professionals.



I think if you look at it that way, we wouldn't be allowed to do anything period. From a police officers shoes, he's going to be safer if all firearms were illegal and we had to use plastic cutlery. The reason we have police is so that we don't have our rights and safety tread upon, and the whole point is to be able to do that efficiently (and yes, safely for the police officer) with as few restrictions (laws) as is possible / reasonable.

Contrary to popular belief, no police force has supported the LGR (I know that the LGR is not the topic, but its relevant). That would be just as much of a conflict of interest as the CF saying "we don't support the mission in Afghanistan." Only various related _associations_ have made those statements, and they happened to receive donations some companies that hold a financial interest in seeing the LGR continue.

Now, I had with an RCMP officer, a self-declared pencil pusher (now, because he's been in for a long time) about registering Restricted weapons. He thought the LGR was stupid, but didn't think registering Restricted weapons was... ??? 

His explanation was 1. If they go to a house and run a check and see they have Restricted weapons, it does raise a flag and give us that extra sense of good intel and 2. It prevents people that are only casual about owning restricted firearms from obtaining them. His example was the man sitting across the table from me, a law-abiding retired teacher who is now mayor of the town, who had previously said "I'd like to own a pistol but I couldn't be arsed to go through all the BS."

It's not a bold prediction to say that if Canada had CCWs, the police would certainly be able to search that up when going on a call to the persons house or pulling them over for speeding. Or that argument #2 would apply, because God knows you would have to go through an awful lot to get one (and rightfully so).

So my return questions for this RCMP officer to his points were

1. Why on earth does a law abiding citizen who has gone through all the proper channels that YOU decided deemed him "safe" with a firearm, suddenly raise red flags as if he is "unsafe." He has done EVERYTHING that YOU asked of him, and yet you are still discriminating against him. And they wonder why firearm owners and police have reached a divide in this country.

2. WHY is stopping "a law-abiding retired teacher who is now mayor of the town" from buying a pistol considered a success? Please explain to me how you have prevented a crime?

These two arguments from an RCMP officer to me, show a lot about where Canada stands with guns. A law-abiding citizen who legally owns a Restricted weapon is literally viewed the same as a criminal with a history of violent crime, and keeping firearms out of a good person's hands is considered successfully preventing a crime, as if the minute his hand got a hold of it he would suddenly become "a criminal with a history of violent crime."

To me, it's the anti-Americanism brought on by an inferiority complex that runs so deep in Canada that has driven us to this point. The US, IMO, is at the extreme end of the "lack of gun control policies" spectrum. So naturally we, as Canadians, had to do the Canadian thing and go right to the other extreme of the spectrum, and I really wonder if we'll ever get back to somewhere that makes any sense whatsoever. A CCW-type thing in Canada is a friggin' pipe dream.


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Contrary to popular belief, no police force has supported the LGR (I know that the LGR is not the topic, but its relevant).



The Boards, Associations, and Chiefs _are_ the police forces ( services ).
"Joint Statement on Firearms from the Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB), the Canadian Police Association (CPA), and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP): Representing the police boards, police officers and police leaders from across Canada":
http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/883/CAPB_CPA_CACP__joint_statement_on_firearms_final.pdf


----------



## Container (19 Aug 2011)

They don't speak for me.....but we were told that we aren't allowed to comment.

I think that speaks for itself. Of course this shouldn't be taken as an endorsement either way.

However, police officers are not to rely on the results of checks but to be vigilant either way.....so.....


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> However, police officers are not to rely on the results of checks but to be vigilant either way.....so.....



Same as paramedics - at least in Metro.
They are not permitted to "delay service" ie: not immediately enter a scene and make patient contact unless:
1) There is use of weapons at scene.
2) There is continuing violence at scene.

This must be based on specific ( they put it in red bold underlined capital letters ) information.
Other than case 1 or 2, with or without police, they have to go inside without delay.

Even if they had access to a gun registry - which EMS never did - it would not make any difference to how they respond to calls.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> What he said. What she ( Moe ) said.
> 
> Like _I_ said, now that I am retired and no longer respond to "unknown problem" calls inside people's homes, I no longer worry about what weapons they keep inside them. I could care less about that _now_.
> 
> ...



Yup.

'To serve and invesigate.'

'Call 911. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.'

None of this is meant to slag LEOs (other emergency services don't enter into the equation), but until every person is issued a personal constable as a body guard, they can't help you in most situations.

The normal advice, to curl up in a fetal position and give them what they want, is not the way I will live my life.

Feel free to live your life like a sheep, if that is how you want to do it. I refuse to allow low lifes the chance to decide how I live mine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The Boards, Associations, and Chiefs _are_ the police forces ( services ).
> "Joint Statement on Firearms from the Canadian Association of Police Boards (CAPB), the Canadian Police Association (CPA), and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP): Representing the police boards, police officers and police leaders from across Canada":
> http://www.cacp.ca/media/library/download/883/CAPB_CPA_CACP__joint_statement_on_firearms_final.pdf



You better look into exactly who the CACP really is before you start using their propoganda as backup for your arguements. They are a lobby group of Chiefs that don't represent the rank and file. They are led by the biggest anti of all, your own Bill Blair, that uses the organization as a personal pulpit. 

From an article in McLeans: '“led by organizations of police chiefs”—i.e., political advocacy groups that claim to represent police chiefs, and that have a strong interest in the naïve citizen (or the naïve reporter) confusing them with the police qua police.'

Also: John Jones, an ethics advisor to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, quit because of the association’s incorrigible addiction to questionable corporate donations. 

As Christie Blatchford wrote in the Globe at the time:

"Dr. Jones and the members of the ethics committee were in Montreal in August for two days of meetings around the CACP’s annual conference when they learned about Taser’s sponsorship and that of others, including a joint Bell Mobility-CGI Group-Techna donation of $115,000, which went toward the purchase of 1,000 tickets at $215 each to a Celine Dion concert on Aug. 25."

They also receive donations from CGI Group Inc, a major, long-term firearms-registry contractor. Wonder what happens to those?


If you're going to bring your horse to the race, make sure it's not a gluebag.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> But, when it comes to advice on personal safety issues, I give the last word to our police and emergency services professionals.



When it comes to advice on our rights as citizens, I will rely on the best rational argument rather than an appeal to authority.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The normal advice, to curl up in a fetal position and give them what they want, is not the way I will live my life.
> 
> Feel free to live your life like a sheep, if that is how you want to do it. I refuse to allow low lifes the chance to decide how I live mine.



Yup.


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You better look into exactly who the CACP really is before you start using their propoganda as backup for your arguements. They are a lobby group of Chiefs that don't represent the rank and file.



The chiefs do not represent the rank and file. The boards do not represent the rank and file. But, the Canadian Police Association ( CPA ) does. 
They signed the same "propaganda" that the boards and chiefs did.

"The Canadian Police Association (CPA) is the national voice for 41,000 police personnel across Canada. Membership includes police personnel serving in 160 police services across Canada, from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal and provincial police services, and members of the RCMP, railway police, and first nations’ police personnel.":
http://www.cpa-acp.ca/about/index_e.asp


----------



## Container (19 Aug 2011)

> "During Parliamentary hearings into the long-gun registry, the President of the Canadian Police Association, Charles Momy, admitted that less than 1 per cent of his association’s membership responded to a survey on the long-gun registry. (House of Commons Public Safety Committee, May 13, 2010)"




And its stats like that make we wary of any statements by any "associations". Legal or otherwise.


----------



## mariomike (19 Aug 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> And its stats like that make we wary of any statements by any "associations". Legal or otherwise.



Like I said, the Registry never did me any good.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> But, when it comes to advice on personal safety issues, I give the last word to our police and emergency services professionals.


I'm sorry, I usually make an active effort at ignoring your posting internet links in each and every thread....but are you suggesting that being an ambulance driver makes someone an expert to be listened to on concealed weapons issues??  WTF?!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The chiefs do not represent the rank and file. The boards do not represent the rank and file. But, the Canadian Police Association ( CPA ) does.
> They signed the same "propaganda" that the boards and chiefs did.
> 
> "The Canadian Police Association (CPA) is the national voice for 41,000 police personnel across Canada. Membership includes police personnel serving in 160 police services across Canada, from Canada's smallest towns and villages as well as those working in our largest municipal and provincial police services, and members of the RCMP, railway police, and first nations’ police personnel.":
> http://www.cpa-acp.ca/about/index_e.asp



Make a point will you. Try a personal perspective without all the links. Really, can you make a post without one? Google Fu is not the end all to be all. If every opinion you have comes from your surfing capabilities it really isn't yours, is it.

My Charter Rights won't be infringed by your ability to post links.

BTW, if you'd done any amount of surfing, to find a broader opinion than your own, you'd find the rank and file was under a gag order, promoted by their associations. The rank and file, that don't agree with you are in the thousands, as proven by the survey they participated in and that some were disciplined for. Use your magic and look it up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Aug 2011)

So let me get this straight, I am supposed to limit my options to protect myself and my family by legal means because of a fear that you have that I or some other licensed and permitted person might do something wrong, despite documented evidence that over an 18 year period of record keeping only around 1% of people similarly permitted are indited on firearm offenses. Talk about allowing rather paranoid imagination to run legislation.

The law to carry exists here, make the requirements and training clear, reasonable for a licenced firearm owner to obtain and make the responsibilities under law clear. Going by the US example between 4-55 of the population at most will seek permits, mostly likely less.


----------



## cupper (19 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> When it comes to advice on our rights as citizens, I will rely on the best rational argument rather than an appeal to authority.



I will defer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight, I am supposed to limit my options to protect myself and my family by legal means because of a fear that you have that I or some other licensed and permitted person might do something wrong, despite documented evidence that over an 18 year period of record keeping only around 1% of people similarly permitted are indited on firearm offenses. Talk about allowing rather paranoid imagination to run legislation.
> 
> The law to carry exists here, make the requirements and training clear, reasonable for a licenced firearm owner to obtain and make the responsibilities under law clear. Going by the US example between 4-5% of the population at most will seek permits, mostly likely less.


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2011)

I'm currently living in a permissive open carry state (no special permit required to carry in plain site, you own one, you can carry it anywhere with very few restrictions) and I do not feel any safer than I do in other states I travel to where they are restricted from open carry.

And I would prefer to see someone carrying than not knowing if they are or not.


----------



## Container (23 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm currently living in a permissive open carry state (no special permit required to carry in plain site, you own one, you can carry it anywhere with very few restrictions) and I do not feel any safer than I do in other states I travel to where they are restricted from open carry.
> 
> And I would prefer to see someone carrying than not knowing if they are or not.



I find that interesting- you've been in the military for this long and you see firearms as more than tool with a specific use? This isn't a jab. I'm just always surprised. I can do more damage with my Dodge Ram than I can with a Glock 19. I just dont look as good doing it.

Eh. To each his own I suppose- Im not uncomfortable with firearms being around at all. If a stringent check and course was in place it would be no different to me than carrying a leatherman. And its not like everyone would carry.


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> I find that interesting- you've been in the military for this long and you see firearms as more than tool with a specific use?



Not sure what you mean by that.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> I can do more damage with my Dodge Ram than I can with a Glock 19. I just dont look as good doing it.



That's part of the point I was making, it doesn't take someone carrying a firearm to do major bodily harm. For me, it makes no difference either way, I don't feel any safer, I don't feel any less safe. (And now I have earthquakes to deal with ;D )

And believe me, they have a hard enough time driving here in good conditions. Throw in even a little bad weather and anarchy erupts. :rofl:



			
				Container said:
			
		

> Eh. To each his own I suppose- Im not uncomfortable with firearms being around at all. If a stringent check and course was in place it would be no different to me than carrying a leatherman. And its not like everyone would carry.



I fully agree. Just that I think I would prefer open carry with limitations to concealed carry if Canada were ever to expand the range of those permitted to do so. There will also still be a need for concealed carry, but that's mainly where we are now anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2011)

Once again people are confusing _their_ comfort levels with _my right_ to defend myself.

I don't care if people are uncomfortable with the idea of me carrying a firearm. The matter is, _do I feel comfortable enough carrying it and using it, competently, if I have to?_

Your comfort level does not usurp my right to self defence.


----------



## LineJumper (24 Aug 2011)

Dunno, the only things that should stay concealed on base (or anywhere for that matter) is some horribad tattoo and the one eyed trouser trout.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your comfort level does not usurp my right to self defence.



I think the issue here isnt your comfort level but competence level.  You may have experience and wisdom with your weapon, but you know as well as I do that there are many out there who would be comfortable carrying, but would overestimate their own competence in weapons handling.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think the issue here isnt your comfort level but competence level.  You may have experience and wisdom with your weapon, but you know as well as I do that there are many out there who would be comfortable carrying, but would overestimate their own competence in weapons handling.



You're right, and my solution would be this as a minimum to maintain a CCW. Annual renewal of your CCW via handling test and range test, paid for by user fees and adminstered by an RSO at firing ranges (anyone who has a handgun registered right now MUST be a member of a range anyway, unless they are registered as a collector in which case they wouldn't want to carry their weapon anyway). It *should* take very little red tape, and most of the work delegated to competent people (RSOs at legit firearm ranges), all paid for by the people that want a CCW, not taxpayers. This, of course, is in addition to having to have a PAL-Restricted, etc which is already in place.

I don't honestly care if it's concealed or not concealed, being able to carry it would be nice. I probably wouldn't carry, but if we get to the point that I can carry, then that probably means I don't have to have a Restricted firearm at home double-locked and stored seperate from ammo, therefore rendering it useless in the case that I need it.

See when it comes to gun control in Canada, you've pretty much got to argue for the most extreme things (CCW) to accomplish anything (being able to store it in a matter that actually makes it useful...).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I think the issue here isnt your comfort level but competence level.  You may have experience and wisdom with your weapon, but you know as well as I do that there are many out there who would be comfortable carrying, but would overestimate their own competence in weapons handling.



Your statement is a red herring. It has been stated many times by the pro side that a person would be properly trained and tested prior to being issued a CCW.

The fact remains, people's fear of the unknown does not equate to trampling another person's rights to self defence by the most efficient means possible.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your statement is a red herring. It has been stated many times by the pro side that a person would be properly trained and tested prior to being issued a CCW.



If we already had a program in place, with proven regulatory and enforcement experience, I would agree.  But a new program is going to be just as susceptable to 'grandfathering' and 'exceptions for persons with appropriate experience and prior occupation' as any other security-related process out there.  Thus I have my doubts about whether a high enough standard of training and testing can be implemented or maintained.  

Regarding fear of the unknown, cant disagree there.  There will always be those who will fear a CCW, or weapons, period.  The public would demand some sort of public oversight and access to records of incidents to overcome their fears and prove them unjustified.  

What would you propose is a high enough standard of training and testing?  Would a probation period be suitable as well?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

To start, being able to complete the same course of fire as most LEO do perhaps. There are many CCW courses already in place in various States that could be looked at for comparison.

I don't think a probation period would be necessary. You follow the law or you don't. There is no way they would be able to enforce it anyway.

Canadian law already allows for ATC-2 (wilderness carry, hard to get) and ATC -3 (concealed everyday carry, almost impossible to get) without the need for the above mentioned scenarios. Issuance is up to the discretion of the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO).

A compromise in the middle may be a starting point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2011)

Good detail, recceguy - wpn std = LEO std makes sense (I know, giving it the kiss of death as a regulation/law). 


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't think a probation period would be necessary. You follow the law or you don't. There is no way they would be able to enforce it anyway.


How about a "you screw up in the first x months, you get a bigger punishment" (like higher fines in school zones), or anytime you screw up, you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good detail, recceguy - wpn std = LEO std makes sense (I know, giving it the kiss of death as a regulation/law). How about a "you screw up in the first x months, you get a bigger punishment" (like higher fines in school zones), or anytime you screw up, you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?



How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?

There are a million scenarios (drinking while carrying, carrying in gun free zones, etc) without trying to determine a COA that the authorities might use.

First we need regulations that will impose a "will issue" on the CFO.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?


Short and sweet.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> First we need regulations that will impose a "will issue" on the CFO.


Indeed.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> you get the big hammer because of the increased responsibility you carry?



I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that. I don't think taking away someone's ATC would be enough, I think they should have to pay out of the pocket severly if they are caught intoxicated at a bar "wavin' it in the air like they just don't care." This is in addition to losing their ATC for 3 lifetimes.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> How about, as it should be, you screw up, you lose your ATC?



This would have to be a minimum.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that.



So they would have to be bonded?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think if you are willing to take on that responsiblity and the public offers you that trust, then yes, you should have to pay dearly for breaking that. I don't think taking away someone's ATC would be enough, I think they should have to pay out of the pocket severly if they are caught intoxicated at a bar "wavin' it in the air like they just don't care." This is in addition to losing their ATC for 3 lifetimes.
> 
> This would have to be a minimum.



Which is why I said:



> There are a million scenarios (drinking while carrying, carrying in gun free zones, etc) without trying to determine a COA that the authorities might use.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which is why I said:



Ah sorry, misinterpretated that part as meaning something completely unrelated.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> So they would have to be bonded?



Say again?


----------



## Dissident (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Say again?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surety_bond


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

Well then yes, obviously, we are all "bonded" by the law. 

No different than how I have to "pay" for a speeding (dearly too, according to the only one I've gotten) or pay for driving intoxicated.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well then yes, obviously, we are all "bonded" by the law.  No different than how I have to "pay" for a speeding (dearly too, according to the only one I've gotten) or pay for driving intoxicated.



Its actually quite different.  If you get caught violating a speeding law, they write you a ticket and maybe you'll pay.  If its a camera, its up to them to prove it was you driving or if they can prove you owned the vehicle.  If you dont pay, they might catch you when you need to renew your insurance.  Until then you can still drive.  You move and noone knows where where you are.  You can pretend you never got the notice or forgot about the ticket.  In the end you might pay $100-200.  At court you can plead the fine is a hardship and might get it reduced to $50.  

Being bonded has much more serious consequences if violated.  If this were an actual CCW with all the associated security and laws, I believe you would immediately lose your license and your bond, which can be up to $10,000 or more.  You would not be able to work or carry without breaking additional laws that are criminal code violations.  You can lose any security clearances you have.  They have your name and personal information and will pay you a visit if they get a report of you carrying or working without your license.  Big difference!


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

Well then no, that is not what I meant at all. Stopping them from being allowed to work? We don't do that to some of the worst criminals in our system, and for good reason.

i meant to just treat it like a normal criminal offense to "drink and carry," with fines/punishments, one of which is an automatic lifetime ban from a CCW. But TOUGH sentences, since the public has entrusted you with a license to carry a firearm and expects you to be responsible with it.

When I meant "pay dearly" I meant like $5,000 - $15,000 fines, criminal record, probation, house arrest, jail time... etc, all depending on the seriousness of the offense. 

I doubt many people would go down to George Street for a few drinks with their pistol if they knew they'd be facing a $10,000 fine and 6 months probation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

MOST legal firearms owners in this country are already well ahead of the general population when it comes to complying with the law. While I'm sure someone will break the terms, I doubt it would be enough of the norm to substantiate this tangent.

You simply have to look at the archaic laws and endless intrusions that we have to endure simply to own a firearm to confirm that.

The idea of making hypothetical cases and fines against CCW holders is outside the realm of reality, before we even have the ability to carry.


----------



## cupper (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well then no, that is not what I meant at all. Stopping them from being allowed to work? We don't do that to some of the worst criminals in our system, and for good reason.
> 
> i meant to just treat it like a normal criminal offense to "drink and carry," with fines/punishments, one of which is an automatic lifetime ban from a CCW. But TOUGH sentences, since the public has entrusted you with a license to carry a firearm and expects you to be responsible with it.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think you still don't understand. It's not a fine, or penalty. It's money you need to pay upfront.

A bond is an insurance policy that you need to purchase to cover potential damages, losses, lawsuits, failures to meet obligations, etc. that may occur in the regular performance of your job, running your business, etc. 

It is fairly common in the construction industry, security and investigation firms, even cleaning companies.

Most contracts where there is a potential for big losses due to negligence, or failure to meet obligations, etc. require some form of bond be made or cash equivalent be held in trust that would cover the potential losses. Most companies that engage in work where bonding of employees are required would need to have their workers complete background checks, and possibly training before the can be bonded.

The bond itself may cost $10,000 but usually covers losses for significantly more. The cost is usually a small percentage of the potential loss.

If you were not able to obtain a bond as a requirement of your employment, you wouldn't be employable. If it was a requirement for a CCW, you wouldn't be able to get through the CCW permitting.


----------



## Greymatters (25 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The idea of making hypothetical cases and fines against CCW holders is outside the realm of reality, before we even have the ability to carry.



In my example, I took the case of a bonded locksmith and fit in CCW, just to give an idea of how the bonded concept would apply.  Its all theoretical so yes I could be completely out in left field for a future CCW.

edit - hit the wrong button, sorry


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> In my example, I took the case of a bonded locksmith and fit in CCW, just to give an idea of how the bonded concept would might possibly apply.  Its all theoretical so yes I could be completely out in left field for a future CCW.



TFTFY. Let's not carried away too far just yet 

Anyway folks. We're way off track and this discussion more properly belongs in The Great Gun Control Debate thread.


----------



## ballz (25 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually, I think you still don't understand. It's not a fine, or penalty. It's money you need to pay upfront.
> 
> A bond is an insurance policy that you need to purchase to cover potential damages, losses, lawsuits, failures to meet obligations, etc. that may occur in the regular performance of your job, running your business, etc.
> 
> ...



It's still a bad idea... This is about crime and your right to defend yourself, not corporate law.

If you have to post a 10,000 bond to own a CCW, you are basically paying 10k for the right to defend yourself with the most efficient means possible, plus all the other fees you will continue to pay (annual testing, renewal, registration, etc). You wouldn't be getting your 10k back unless you decided you didn't want your CCW correct? Well I'd be wanting to keep my CCW until I keeled over, so I'd be kissing that 10k good-bye. Also, not many people can afford that, and your right to defend yourself shouldn't come down to your chequing account.

I honestly don't understand how a corporate solution got brought into a criminal law debate.

EDIT: And I agree a lot of these posts need to be moved to the Great Gun Control Debate


----------



## cupper (25 Aug 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> It's still a bad idea... This is about crime and your right to defend yourself, not corporate law.
> 
> If you have to post a 10,000 bond to own a CCW, you are basically paying 10k for the right to defend yourself with the most efficient means possible, plus all the other fees you will continue to pay (annual testing, renewal, registration, etc). You wouldn't be getting your 10k back unless you decided you didn't want your CCW correct? Well I'd be wanting to keep my CCW until I keeled over, so I'd be kissing that 10k good-bye. Also, not many people can afford that, and your right to defend yourself shouldn't come down to your chequing account.
> 
> ...



But still you buy car insurance. Same thing.

And I suspect that the $10000 is just a number used as an example.

It would probably fall more in line with the price of car insurance or homeowner's insurance. Basically covers your butt if you somehow screw up and take out an innocent bystander rather than the perp. Or mistakenly use deadly force only later to discover that the other guy had no weapon.

It's all moot anyway as we've all pointed out, in that there is no way they will change the laws to expand CCW anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2011)

Move your discussion to the previously before mentioned link please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

