Bow or Gun? NF

[dave524]

I can't cut and paste, still after installing Chrome. UGGGG.

 

Google "what's the definition of a firearm in Canada?" It is fairly clear, has a barrel and can propel a projectile that can cause bodily harm. That is fairly clear. The RCMP can change legislation now? They are the enforcement branch I thought not the legislative branch. I'm not saying they don't have a hand in drafting the law, they don't make them just enforce them. I have been told that a few times by Johnny Law.

 

Johnny Law needs a refresher course, they are pretty much judge and jury too .

[Big Cliff]

I can't cut and paste, still after installing Chrome. UGGGG.

 

Google "what's the definition of a firearm in Canada?" It is fairly clear, has a barrel and can propel a projectile that can cause bodily harm. That is fairly clear. The RCMP can change legislation now? They are the enforcement branch I thought not the legislative branch. I'm not saying they don't have a hand in drafting the law, they don't make them just enforce them. I have been told that a few times by Johnny Law.

Perhaps you have already tried this but: drag your cursor over the text you want to copy and highlight it; press "Ctrl" and c (together) Put your cursor where you want the text to go and press "Ctrl" and v (together). I do it all the time and it works ok for me.

[G.mech]

I can't cut and paste, still after installing Chrome. UGGGG.

 

Google "what's the definition of a firearm in Canada?" It is fairly clear, has a barrel and can propel a projectile that can cause bodily harm. That is fairly clear. The RCMP can change legislation now? They are the enforcement branch I thought not the legislative branch. I'm not saying they don't have a hand in drafting the law, they don't make them just enforce them. I have been told that a few times by Johnny Law.

 

 

 

Kind of hijacking the thread here but Johnny Law may not have been 100% clear in his explanation to you... The RCMP do not have the power to change the law (ie the Firearms Act) but they can change regulations made under it since they have been afforded that power by the Act itself. The 'Act' is the law and any change to an Act must go to the Legislature or Parliament. Most Acts dictate what body has the power to make and change the 'Regulations' under each act. For example:

• the OMNR&F has the power to revise their fishing and hunting regulations made under the Fish and Game Act without the Act having to be changed itself.
• The Occupational Health and Safety Act rarely changes but the many Regulations made under it are changed quite frequently by the MOL.
• The MOT can change many traffic Regulations without the HTA being changed.
• The TSSA is given authority under the B&PV Act to make and ammend regulations under it.
• etc.etc

 

By Definition:

 

 

Act: Also called a statute. A bill is enacted or becomes an Act (i.e., law) when it is passed by the Legislative Assembly after its third reading and receives Royal Assent.

 

Regulation: A law that is made by a person or body whose authority to make the law is set out in a statute. Usually the authority is given to

the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Sometimes the authority is given to a Minister of the Government or to another person or body.

Regulations are considered "delegated legislation" because the authority to make them is delegated by the Legislative Assembly in a statute. A regulation deals with topics related to the statute under which it is made; the purpose of a regulation is to provide details to give effect to the policy established by the statute. The process for amending a regulation is usually shorter than the process for amending a statute.

Edited January 18, 2017 by G.mech

[dave524]

 

 

 

Kind of hijacking the thread here but Johnny Law may not have been 100% clear in his explanation to you... The RCMP do not have the power to change the law (ie the Firearms Act) but they can change regulations made under it since they have been afforded that power by the Act itself. The 'Act' is the law and any change to an Act must go to the Legislature or Parliament. Most Acts dictate what body has the power to make and change the 'Regulations' under each act. For example:

• the OMNR&F has the power to revise their fishing and hunting regulations made under the Fish and Game Act without the Act having to be changed itself.
• The Occupational Health and Safety Act rarely changes but the many Regulations made under it are changed quite frequently by the MOL.
• The MOT can change many traffic Regulations without the HTA being changed.
• The TSSA is given authority under the B&PV Act to make and ammend regulations under it.
• etc.etc

 

By Definition:

 

 

Yes , and there is also the oft used " Order in Council " that makes changes behind our backs. In the case of the RCMP and the Firearms Act ,they are running roughshod over the wording and what they are allowed to do as if they have their own agenda. Case in point here is this airbow being prohibited as it is a bullpup design while I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a Norinco T97 semi auto bullpup design in 5.56 mm. as an unrestricted firearm , also the current situation with the CZ 858 Spartan, some engraving makes it prohibited while previous unengraved models are not , defies logic and the wording of the act.

[G.mech]

 

Yes , and there is also the oft used " Order in Council " that makes changes behind our backs. In the case of the RCMP and the Firearms Act ,they are running roughshod over the wording and what they are allowed to do as if they have their own agenda. Case in point here is this airbow being prohibited as it is a bullpup design while I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a Norinco T97 semi auto bullpup design in 5.56 mm. as an unrestricted firearm , also the current situation with the CZ 858 Spartan, some engraving makes it prohibited while previous unengraved models are not , defies logic and the wording of the act.

 

 

I agree 100%, they are certainly stretching things in a lot of these 'interpretation' cases and I am not defending them. Some call it 'bullpup' others use a very slightly different word.

[dave524]

Any firearms owners thinking about jumping on the O'Leary bandwagon think again, he is not our friend

 

"Kevin O'Leary (CPC Leadership hopeful) throws AR15 owners under the bus in a podcast interview June 13, 2016 During the interview he makes comments about the AR15 "there is no need anybody to have that" and " you would never hunt with it, you would only use it to kill people.." "that is a weapon that is just used to kill everybody in the room! Who should have that? Nobody! " "unless you are an accredited law enforcement officer, what the hell are you doing with that rifle?"

[FloatnFly]

I find it scary because like Old Ironmaker said , it can cause more damage than a pellet gun or .22 at close range and no licensing is required. And from what I can see, at 450 fps it's considerably more powerful than the old fashioned crossbow.

And don't get me wrong, I too find our firearms regulations completely screwed up. Like you said, it's hard to get an answer from the people who should know. As an example, replica firearms that can't fire at all are prohibited under the Criminal Code. Yet air soft hand guns that look identical to a real hand gun with an fps of up to about 360 fps can be bought at Canadian Tire or online without issue.

 

450fps while fast, is kind of where bows are headed now, top end crossbows are hitting around 410 fps, and are much narrower than the old ones

 

for instance compare the width of these 2 models of barnett bows under full load

 

compared to

[John Bacon]

Any firearms owners thinking about jumping on the O'Leary bandwagon think again, he is not our friend

 

"Kevin O'Leary (CPC Leadership hopeful) throws AR15 owners under the bus in a podcast interview June 13, 2016 During the interview he makes comments about the AR15 "there is no need anybody to have that" and " you would never hunt with it, you would only use it to kill people.." "that is a weapon that is just used to kill everybody in the room! Who should have that? Nobody! " "unless you are an accredited law enforcement officer, what the hell are you doing with that rifle?"

I would need more information to determine that he is anti-gun. Supporting the ban on one particular weapon does not mean that he wants to ban all guns.

[dave524]

I would need more information to determine that he is anti-gun. Supporting the ban on one particular weapon does not mean that he wants to ban all guns.

 

An AR 15 is only different from any any other semi auto in appearance, it is black and plastic and to the masses it looks scary mainly because of media hype, the more common Remington 742 is available in much more powerful chamberings and not restricted. restricting a firearm on appearance is not permissible in my books, Pretty much all firearms enthusiasts are also card carrying Conservatives, not unlike NRA members in the States are typically diehard Republicans, O'Leary has been outed on all Canadian Firearms forums and website, he is pretty much DOA IMHO.

[John Bacon]

 

An AR 15 is only different from any any other semi auto in appearance, it is black and plastic and to the masses it looks scary mainly because of media hype, the more common Remington 742 is available in much more powerful chamberings and not restricted. restricting a firearm on appearance is not permissible in my books, Pretty much all firearms enthusiasts are also card carrying Conservatives, not unlike NRA members in the States are typically diehard Republicans, O'Leary has been outed on all Canadian Firearms forums and website, he is pretty much DOA IMHO.

 

Doesn't the AR15 also accept clips which facilitate quick reloading during a mass shooting? I agree that restricting a firearm based on appearance is not logical; but restricting it because it uses clips does seem logical.

 

Based on Google images, the Remington 742 does not accept clips.

 

I am not entirely convinced that AR15s are restricted because they are scary looking.

[dave524]

 

Doesn't the AR15 also accept clips which facilitate quick reloading during a mass shooting? I agree that restricting a firearm based on appearance is not logical; but restricting it because it uses clips does seem logical.

 

Based on Google images, the Remington 742 does not accept clips.

 

I am not entirely convinced that AR15s are restricted because they are scary looking.

 

Actually the 742 does accept clips, an aftermarket clip that fit both the 742 and it's companion version the 760 pump action built on basically the same receiver accepted 8 rounds and is now prohibited as it can be used in the semi auto 742, while still legal for the 760 as it is a manually operated action. Confused eh

[ChenDirit]

Bows and crossbows are quiet and, thus, better for ambushes. Arrows can be recovered and reused. Bows are easier and cheaper to produce than firearms. Bows like the English longbow are more accurate over greater distances than a musket in the hands of a well-trained archer. I love hunting with a bow. I always search for new places to hunt with the bow on https://archerytopic.com/. I like being silent during the hunt because it is easier to meet a wild animal. Shooting with the rifle once means that all of the animals will run away.

Edited October 27, 2022 by ChenDirit

[Terry]

The question was do you consider a compressed air fired crossbow a bow or a gun 

but always great do drag up a five year old thread 

[glen]

The air bow was all hot air.  
i shot one but never bought one. Didn’t see a need for it.