For those that carry Guns and Overlanding

[PPCLI_Jim]

It's weird up here in Canadaland, I admit. I have to take the good and bad. As a retired soldier, the thing I learned with military laws "they dont have to make sense to be in the book". I am allowed to be victimized but not able to protect myself to the furthest extent, yup. Canada, thank you British influenced law system gone redneck.

 

[waveslider]

That's interesting. Requiring someone to receive training in order to defend themselves seems a bit overbearing. Can you carry a baseball bat concealed in public in Canada or something silly like that?

Does anyone understand the logic or history behind the training requirement? Did Canada have an extreme problem with accidental/unintentional firearm injuries somewhere that would have called for training? Which seems like the only logical cause for required training. FYI - non-logical reasons abound and aren't worth exploring in my opinion but perhaps we would find the answer in that discussion. Did someone make a case that this training would solve a known problem?

Are there other parallels that can be drawn in Canada. For (extreme) example, do they require training before someone is allowed to- say - walk up a flight of stairs in public or something like that. Maybe that's a bad comparison but I would assume more people die from falling or getting fallen on than accidental/unintentional firearm deaths? Ladder training? I'm just searching for a touchstone for why anyone would think the firearm training would improve something (vs. the number of people beaten or killed due to lack of available defense capability).

 

[MOguy]

That's interesting. Requiring someone to receive training in order to defend themselves seems a bit overbearing. Can you carry a baseball bat concealed in public in Canada or something silly like that?

Does anyone understand the logic or history behind the training requirement? Did Canada have an extreme problem with accidental/unintentional firearm injuries somewhere that would have called for training? Which seems like the only logical cause for required training. FYI - non-logical reasons abound and aren't worth exploring in my opinion but perhaps we would find the answer in that discussion. Did someone make a case that this training would solve a known problem?

Are there other parallels that can be drawn in Canada. For (extreme) example, do they require training before someone is allowed to- say - walk up a flight of stairs in public or something like that. Maybe that's a bad comparison but I would assume more people die from falling or getting fallen on than accidental/unintentional firearm deaths? Ladder training? I'm just searching for a touchstone for why anyone would think the firearm training would improve something (vs. the number of people beaten or killed due to lack of available defense capability).

It isn't about safety or saving lives it is about power and money. If ladder safety could be turned into a this party vs that party we would be talking about that. The Politicians what controversy and division so we feel we need them to represent our way of thinking. Us needing them equates to power for them. The media likes it because they can sensationalize it and sell headlines, mo money.

 

[brentbba]

Would that imply that UNTRAINED people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves in the manner they see fit?

Defend or purchase? To answer your question directly, not at all, just that some training is better than none IMHO and that's just me. I took a full day class before even considering purchasing my first handgun. Here in Commifornia, you have to take a simple little 35 question test based on a DOJ pamphlet before purchasing a handgun. It's all common sense safety, etc. but personally I'd like to know that the purchaser knows at least the basics of gun safety and handling and the simplest of laws., not that it applies to criminals. If training is a bone to throw to the 2A haters, so be it. We require 30 hours of class and behind the wheel training before you can get your drivers license here...and people driving cars kill more people than people with guns!

 

[waveslider]

Defend or purchase?

I was making the assumption that in order to defend yourself with the method of choice you would first need to purchase it. Did I miss something in the distinction between the two that caused you to call that out? Maybe I misunderstood.

ome training is better than none IMHO and that's just me

Hard to argue that point. But there's quite difference between advocating for the benefits of training vs. advocating for the legal requirement of training. I wasn't sure if you were the former or the latter.

Sadly, I'm quite familiar with the silly gun laws in California, although I admit I've since lost some of the details when I left.

It's all common sense safety, etc. but personally I'd like to know that the purchaser knows at least the basics of gun safety and handling and the simplest of laws., not that it applies to criminals.

Agreed, it would be better to know that people understand some basic firearm safety. Which is why I feel kids could benefit from it being taught in school just like any other danger avoidance lesson. That kind of goes without saying actually. But in the panoply of human to human interactions the statistics would imply that we should be far more concerned about our safety record with a great number of other things before we would logically say "ok, now that we have ALL of these other things that accidentally kill people with regularity under control, let's turn our attention to reducing accidental gun deaths". I have personal anecdotal information to support that but reciting it would only serve to water down the actual data that supports that statement. To your final point, if we are requiring this training under the guise that somehow it will reduce criminal activity involving firearms, well, that's just crazy talk.

We require 30 hours of class and behind the wheel training before you can get your drivers license here...and people driving cars kill more people than people with guns!

Not sure I understand your comment here. It could be interpreted as equating firearms and motor vehicles and justification for requiring training for both. (Which for the record I would consider a false equivalence) Or it could be interpreted as an indication of the lack of efficacy of training since we do all this training and certification and people still accidentally kill people with vehicles. Can you clarify?

 

[NevadaLover]

If training is a bone to throw to the 2A haters, so be it. We require 30 hours of class and behind the wheel training before you can get your drivers license here...and people driving cars kill more people than people with guns!

Got to disagree here, the problem with "a bone to throw to the 2A haters" is it never ends! like the saying goes "give them an inch, they will take a mile", give them required training then they want required safe storage, then required registration, then required confiscation, it will never end with these morons until we become like australia and england, NO thanks!!

 

[MOguy]

Defend or purchase? To answer your question directly, not at all, just that some training is better than none IMHO and that's just me. I took a full day class before even considering purchasing my first handgun. Here in Commifornia, you have to take a simple little 35 question test based on a DOJ pamphlet before purchasing a handgun. It's all common sense safety, etc. but personally I'd like to know that the purchaser knows at least the basics of gun safety and handling and the simplest of laws., not that it applies to criminals. If training is a bone to throw to the 2A haters, so be it. We require 30 hours of class and behind the wheel training before you can get your drivers license here...and people driving cars kill more people than people with guns!

I am 52, I started shooting when I was 6. I spent over a decade in the Army. I spent a day draining for a conceal carry permit. If I have more training then the next guy does that mean I should have more rights than other US citizens?

 

[brentbba]

Good point. Do I need free speech lessons to get a rally permit? Who gets to control the training requirements?

Why don't these chumps just go to a nation that's setup the way they like, instead of ruining this one. Canada and saudi arabia are nice this time of year.

A rally doesn't kill people. Cars and gun is different in my mind.

We require more training to drive a car than we do to own a gun. Even the most basic training is better than nothing. I hate what Commifornia is doing to us law abiding gun owners. They throw up as many roadblocks as possible...still won't stop a criminal. Surprised they haven't proposed a training class yet! Again, just more road blocks and cost to a legal law abiding owner.

 

[MOguy]

A rally doesn't kill people. Cars and gun is different in my mind.

We require more training to drive a car than we do to own a gun. Even the most basic training is better than nothing. I hate what Commifornia is doing to us law abiding gun owners. They throw up as many roadblocks as possible...still won't stop a criminal. Surprised they haven't proposed a training class yet! Again, just more road blocks and cost to a legal law abiding owner.

in the United States we have a constitution that guarantees us rights. Do you understand why this is?

 

[dwh]

in the United States we have a constitution that guarantees us rights. Do you understand why this is?

Canada has a constitution as well. Though it's a bit more complicated than ours. Though they don't have a "Bill of Rights" as we do (ours didn't either at first...it was added later), their constitution has "Civil Rights".


They even had a revolution.

Well... technically three and the first two were called rebellions.

 

[SigSense]

Hemifoot: Are untrained people permitted to vote? Are untrained people permitted to read the internet? Are untrained people permitted to a jury of their peers? The list goes on....

 

[MOguy]

Canada has a constitution as well. Though it's a bit more complicated than ours. Though they don't have a "Bill of Rights" as we do (ours didn't either at first...it was added later), their constitution has "Civil Rights".


They even had a revolution.

Well... technically three and the first two were called rebellions.

That is Canada, they have their law's and offer certain rights to their people as do we. Regardless of what the county's laws are or the rights the people have they should be respected by both the people and their government.

 

[robert]

That is Canada, they have their law's and offer certain rights to their people as do we. Regardless of what the county's laws are or the rights the people have they should be respected by both the people and their government.

The underlined part may be part of the issue- does their government grant them rights or does it recognize that certain rights are inalienable i.e. Natural Law. I'm asking here, I don't know as I haven't looked into it.

Unfortunately, I think the founding fathers assumed a lot, specifically that we wouldn't become a nation full of retards who react, losely translated as "think", emotionally instead of rationally. It's pretty apparent that the founders used as plain a language as was common in their day when writing public documents, especially given that most of the authors of our legal documents were well educated and wrote in the fancier style of educated men for their journals and other writings- modern day critics can't seem to grasp that concept. Additionally, the term "reasonable" is used a lot in legalese, especially when it comes to things like self defense, i.e. what would a reasonable person do, and yet the concept of what is reasonable has been distorted into some grotesque caricature of what it once was.


JMHO and I'm no lawyer or historical expert but I do know how to read.

 

[PPCLI_Jim]

It is too wishy washy to come out and state we have inalienable right to life and to defend ourselves. That is why WE must keep a force escalation matrix in our minds up here. Simply the act of LOADING a rifle is enough to be thrown in jail. Usually the charges start with insecure ammo or FA storage, then your life spins out of control. I hate the fact that the criminal element gets more freedoms than a person defending his life is the guilty one up here. BUT thats a completely different topic. Up here in Canada it's one set of laws nationwide , so we NEVER have a LEO stating "that may be there but not here". [Unless we mention Quebec the redhead cousin of English Canada]. This differs from the states where in places one must neuter a rifle in order to own it, where theres one set of magazine restrictions that go coast to coast not county to county. This thread is supposed to be about bringing a FA when overlanding , I do AND I carry insurance in case i need to use it. I thought thats was what this is about. Being aware of local law is the issue.

 

[waveslider]

It's been a while since I've done it, but I frequently traveled to Canada to hunt and am familiar with the process for bringing firearms into Canada. But what's the reverse process? Meaning: Canadians bringing their FA into the US and then back again?

Any Canadians that have done it? I'm curious as to what hoops we force you to jump through.