Biggest "surprise" at your CCW class

^^ Read canadian gun laws and you'll answer that question yourself. And what do you know about Quebec City?

What canadian gun law will make all canadians safer CCWers? I'm not going to look it up, you are trying to prove that point, I'm not going to do it for you.

That fact that your gun laws practically prohibit you from CCing means that you can't possibly do it safer because you can't do it at all.

Am I wrong, can you CC in Quebec City?

Quebec City is the place where CC is the least likely to happen. Quebec is the emotional part of Canada, if you see what I mean.

Canadian gun owners would be safer CCWers THAN THE JOE EVERYBODY WHO NEVER SHOOTS HIS CCW PIECE (that's what you didn't understand about my first post) because they actually have to take multiple classes, pass multiple exams, to be able to have a firearms licence and to own firearms. Those of us who have restricted licences and have and shoot handguns do so a lot more frequelntly, because for us it's not a right, more like a privilege (we need to have a transportation permit to go to the range), so each and everyone of us handgun owners shoot, and shoot frequently our handguns.
And those of us who use them in competitions need to have a black badge, it is a formation that allows you to carry your handgun on your belt during a competition, it basically forms you better than the police officer who carries his gun everyday on the street, and I'm serious.
Firearms safety is of course mandatory, if you brake a rule, it's not complicated, you get kicked out of the club. To own and shoot guns in Canada you need to meet a certain standard.

Artiz said:

To own and shoot guns in Canada you need to meet a certain standard.

Click to expand...

I do not have a horse in this race, but I would not be proud of this fact if I where a Canadian (which is why I immigrated to the USA and not Canada).

If you have to meet a "certain standard" (other than not be a felon) in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom, what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?

Men are either free or they are enslaved - there is no middle ground.

Another Canadian here...

Indeed, for handgun owners in Canada to be permitted to own a handgun, they need a "reason". Typically this reason is "competition". "Self Defense" is not an acceptable reason to the powers that be.

I don't think that having to pass a couple courses where I must identify a few gun parts and recite a few mantras regarding gun safety and the laws of the land would make us any safer CCWers than the average US citizen. The existence of these requirements is not a thing to be celebrated. You've drunk the kool-aid if you believe they are.

The reason I don't think these courses improve safety is clear in this thread. Again and again, people are telling stories of folks who got their incompetent asses coached and coached until they were damned near forced to pass the course. My observations in my own firearms courses have not been materially different.

The gun control regime in Canada is not something to be celebrated. It's something to continue to agitate for the abolishment of. Nothing more.

Gun control laws only apply to the law abiding. Criminals don't register firearms or take courses. That is all that needs said.

J

If you have to meet a "certain standard" (other than not be a felon) in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom, what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?

Click to expand...

See, you got that wrong. Here we are talking about owning firearms, not self defence. The lawfull possession of firearms has nothing to do with self defence, you can't use self defence as a reason to own firearms, period.

Artiz said:

RC45 said:

If you have to meet a "certain standard" (other than not be a felon) in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom, what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?

See, you got that wrong. Here we are talking about owning firearms, not self defence. The lawfull possession of firearms has nothing to do with self defence, you can't use self defence as a reason to own firearms, period.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Now I do have a horse in the race...

Again, if you have to meet a "certain standard" in Canada to be permitted to protect yourself and freedom (ie excercise the Right to Keep and Bear Arms), what other rights are only reserved for the privileged few?

I believe you have "got it wrong" - as we are talking aboutowning firearms, for whatever reason - whether self defense, artists or sport shooting reasons - heck, I own and carry because I can, no other reason.

I don't live in Canada because you are not permitted to defend yourself and your freedom.

Having to meet certain standards does not make Canada safer or free'er.

Men are either free or they are enslaved - there is no middle ground.

If a heavily tattooed individual in a 50 Cent t-shirt

Click to expand...

If you see someone wearing a tank top, pants under his butt and held up by a hand at his crotch, and sneering at the world from under a bandana, you can not in all seriousness tell me he's on his way to a lucrative job interview for his coveted career as an investment banker.

Click to expand...

That's current fashion in many neighborhoods. Shall we just assume that everyone who dresses like that is probably a criminal? What about leather biker jackets or ripped blue jeans? What about people in track suits, with gold figaro chains, slicked-back hair, and Bronx accents? The TV and movies tell me that the aforementioned styles indicate someone who is a criminal or troublemaker. And I learned in church that kids wearing heavy metal band t-shirts are all devil worshippers.

But because I know people who wear their pants low, people who wear ripped jeans and leather jackets, people who wear track suits and gold chains, people with lots of tattoos, people who wear heavy metal t-shirts... I know all of that is BS.

Someone wearing their jeans low and a 50 Cent shirt is no more "criminal-looking" than someone in khakis and Ralph Lauren polo shirt.

This is criminal looking.... maybe...

The biggest surprise at my class?

I'd have to say it was just before class started. The big ol grumpy range master announced his daughter would be teaching us for the day and not him. It was a very pleasent surprise when a very beautiful 20 something lady came in and introduced herself. Boy was it hard to pay attention that day. LOL

RC45, the problem here is that the system would rather you to be dead than explaining that fatal bullet wound your attacker got when you defended yourself.

Of course, it's not because we can't carry that we can't actually defend ourselves, the charter of rights and freedom is still there, and the criminal code gives you the right to use as much force as needed to defend yourself, your family, property, and this includes deadly force. Weather or not you use one of your firearms to defend yourself is a matter of knowing your rights, and knowing what the justice system is able to do to destroy your life. We have strict laws that cover the storage of your firearms, what the police and the justice system tries to hide is that when you're at home, your guns are not in "storage" mode, they're in "use" mode. If you have to use your guns to defend yourself, the rest depends on you, if you know your rights, if you know the law, those who don't are those who get their guns confiscated and their lifes destroyed by the legal system. As gun owners, we have the duty to know the law better than the police, I do know my rights and firearm laws better than any police officer in this city, because they actually don't know anything about our gun laws and that's why so many gun owner's lifes are destroyed each year.

Artiz said:

RC45, the problem here is that the system would rather you to be dead than explaining that fatal bullet wound your attacker got when you defended yourself.

Of course, it's not because we can't carry that we can't actually defend ourselves, the charter of rights and freedom is still there, and the criminal code gives you the right to use as much force as needed to defend yourself, your family, property, and this includes deadly force. Weather or not you use one of your firearms to defend yourself is a matter of knowing your rights, and knowing what the justice system is able to do to destroy your life. We have strict laws that cover the storage of your firearms, what the police and the justice system tries to hide is that when you're at home, your guns are not in "storage" mode, they're in "use" mode. If you have to use your guns to defend yourself, the rest depends on you, if you know your rights, if you know the law, those who don't are those who get their guns confiscated and their lifes destroyed by the legal system. As gun owners, we have the duty to know the law better than the police, I do know my rights and firearm laws better than any police officer in this city, because they actually don't know anything about our gun laws and that's why so many gun owner's lifes are destroyed each year.

Click to expand...

I understand the position you folks are in.

That is why I proudly call Texas home. If some bad guy is standing in my kitchen threatening my family, he better have made peace with his maker.

artiz said:

Canadian gun owners would be safer CCWers THAN THE JOE EVERYBODY WHO NEVER SHOOTS HIS CCW PIECE (that's what you didn't understand about my first post) because they actually have to take multiple classes, pass multiple exams, to be able to have a firearms licence and to own firearms.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, why didn't you just say that in the first place?

About the average joe part, I did get it, that's why I asked if there wasn't an average joe element to the canadian would-be CCWer group. Moving on...

It is also interesting to hear 7X57chilmau's take on it.

I don't think that having to pass a couple courses where I must identify a few gun parts and recite a few mantras regarding gun safety and the laws of the land would make us any safer CCWers than the average US citizen.

Click to expand...

I think the our disconnect stems from the fact that here, it is a right and all types of people with all different levels of skill and interest take part. While there, due partly/largely to the laws and their severity, only the most serious shooters are even willing to mess with the hassle.

Anyway, if Canada ever does pass CCW laws like we have here, I would be willing to bet that the floodgates would open (so to speak) and you would have just as many ridiculous stories as we read about here.

Your RTKA is no more infringed by licensing laws, than your 9th Amendment right to drive a car is infringed by licensing laws that require a drivers license. The same can be said about freedom of the press.

Click to expand...

There's a major difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. First off, I see no mention of driving in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated as one of our God given rights, to not be infringed by a government in any manner.

What permit is required to post a handbill stating whatever you wish? None that I know of. Newspapers and magazines (the readable type) aren't taxed in any state I know of either.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, the Second Amendment does not mean you can go where you want, when you want and do what you want with a firearm. This kind of thinking is childish and unrealistic, unless one moves to the far reaches of Siberia.

Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about doing anything they want with a firearm other than the demand that as a free man or woman, they be allowed to carry and have available a weapon with which to defend themselves if the need arises. I fail to see why that should be prohibited by a government that claims we have rights, the scenario you describe better fits a dictatorship than what our form of government is supposed to be.

There's a major difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. First off, I see no mention of driving in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated as one of our God given rights, to not be infringed by a government in any manner.

Click to expand...

Surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself knows what the 9th amendment says.

The biggest surprise I had with the class was the shooting. It was too easy. But the fact that I used a brand new gun that I had only shot once... maybe the shooting requirements were not such a bad thing. I had been shooting all my life to that point, but I had just bought a new GP100 and wanted to shoot that one.

Personally, I don't see hitting a man sized target at 7-yards demonstrates a great deal of firearm shooting proficiency. At that range, I could probably use a rock and hit it 50% or more of the time. We were told not to bunch all our shots in one area of the target as they counted "holes" to grade you. One big hole was "one shot". If I did it again, I would probably use a 22 pistol and do smiley faces with my holes.

Surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself knows what the 9th amendment says.

Click to expand...

Ninth Amendment, U.S. Bill of Rights:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how this Amendment gaurantees us the "right" to operate a motor vehicle...unless you are implying that driving a car is a "right not denied or disparaged" because it is not listed in the Constitution or BOR. If that is the case, I would have to disagree with you. Driving is a privelidge, it is neither necessary nor mandatory for maintaining life, as rights are. I no more have the "right" to drive than I have the "right" to fly a plane. Hence why your license is granted after passing certain qualifications, and can be revoked for failing to maintain those qualifications. The Second Amendment (Constitutionally) cannot be granted or revoked...seperating it from a privelidge and making it a right.

I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I fail to see how this Amendment gaurantees us the "right" to operate a motor vehicle...unless you are implying that driving a car is a "right not denied or disparaged" because it is not listed in the Constitution or BOR. If that is the case, I would have to disagree with you. Driving is a privelidge, it is neither necessary nor mandatory for maintaining life, as rights are. I no more have the "right" to drive than I have the "right" to fly a plane.

Click to expand...

The act of driving does not fit under most definitions of the word "privilege".

Why don't you google the right to drive and look at some of the legal arguments for it? You'll see that this is far from a black and white issue.

Hence why your license is granted after passing certain qualifications, and can be revoked for failing to maintain those qualifications. The Second Amendment (Constitutionally) cannot be granted or revoked...seperating it from a privelidge and making it a right.

Click to expand...

Then by your reasoning, concealed carry is a privilege in most states and in some states, gun ownership in general.

For me it was the difference in laws between counties that are only a few miles apart. In one county a LOE does not need to take the class or the shooting part to gain a CWL, only fill out the application. He also may carry concealed anywhere at anytime in that county. Across the river in a different county, the same LOE has to take the class, shooting part, fill out the application, and can only carry concealed when off duty, never in a bank, bar, Gov. building, or any "prohibited location".

I also didn't know that with a CWL I no longer need a pistol permit to buy a pistol, and there is no longer a restriction on how often I can buy a handgun. It is 3 per 90 days without the CWL.

I guess the biggest surprise was the other people in the class. Everything from a 22YO female, to a 77YO man, varied races and backgrounds. Most never owned a gun before. I ended up staying after class and helping three of the people in the class learn to properly clean and care for their handguns, as well as working on sight picture and shooting form. Everyone in my class passed.

t2e

About the average joe part, I did get it, that's why I asked if there wasn't an average joe element to the canadian would-be CCWer group. Moving on...

Click to expand...

The average Joes in Canada are hunters, they don't want to mess with restricted stuff ans such, in fact they call us handgun owners "crazy people" (I accept the fact that the hooks and loops we have to jump trough each year is frightening, maybe handgun owners are really a crazy bunch of people in the end... hell yeah we are! ), so they're not going to be carrying a handgun anytime soon, or not so soon. The safest and most respectable gun owners I know are handgun shooters, the "Joe everybody I'm sighting my rifle once a year to hunt, and that 5moa is good enough" are the ones who make us look bad.

The act of driving does not fit under most definitions of the word "privilege".

Why don't you google the right to drive and look at some of the legal arguments for it? You'll see that this is far from a black and white issue.

Click to expand...

I will. I'd be interested to see how this is considered a "self-evident right" and not a widely accepted privelidge.

Then by your reasoning, concealed carry is a privilege in most states and in some states, gun ownership in general.

Click to expand...

Sadly, it is. Firearms ownership is no more a "right" in California, for example, than driving is a "right" anywhere else. See what I'm getting at? Unfettered, accepted action = right. Licensed, restricted action = not a right...because obviously "privelidge" isn't the correct word to be using.

I agree with those that say that, to be consistent, one must either oppose all state licensing or accept it. State licensing represents a government official deciding what you may do. I oppose it.

On topic, my instructor has a standard joke when someone shoots well. He points to where one of the staples tore out of the target way down in the corner and says loudly, "What about this one?"

Quote:
There's a major difference between the right to keep and bear arms and the privilege of being allowed to operate a motor vehicle. First off, I see no mention of driving in the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated as one of our God given rights, to not be infringed by a government in any manner.
Surely a constitutional scholar such as yourself knows what the 9th amendment says.

Click to expand...

A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required, for example, it costs you not a cent to voice your opinion, etc. In order to drive a motor vehicle you have to follow the various regulations put in place by state or local authorities. You have to have an operators license, vehicle license, insurance, even pay a tax placed on fuel for the vehicle. They didn't license horses and buggies when the constitution was ratified did they?

The ninth amendment certainly was a wide open blanket statement to allow rights that hadn't been thought of at that time, but driving a vehicle has never been considered a "right" by any government. You have a "right" to walk anywhere that the owners of the land allow access.

A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required, for example, it costs you not a cent to voice your opinion, etc. In order to drive a motor vehicle you have to follow the various regulations put in place by state or local authorities. You have to have an operators license, vehicle license, insurance, even pay a tax placed on fuel for the vehicle. They didn't license horses and buggies when the constitution was ratified did they?

The ninth amendment certainly was a wide open blanket statement to allow rights that hadn't been thought of at that time, but driving a vehicle has never been considered a "right" by any government. You have a "right" to walk anywhere that the owners of the land allow access.

Click to expand...

That was much more eloquent than I could have managed, thank you sitckhauler. I'll try to remember your first sentence; "A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required." Excellent defenition.

When we were practicing for the qualification shoot we were practicing at less than 15 feet on a standard silhouette. I was keeping all of my shots CM but the instructors kept telling me to shoot slower. Seems to me so long as I was in the qualification numbers the faster the better but I guess they were concerned with qualification not speed.

That was much more eloquent than I could have managed, thank you sitckhauler. I'll try to remember your first sentence; "A right is something that you can engage in where no compensation for the action is required." Excellent defenition.

Click to expand...

My pleasure, I loved the disparaging crack from the other dude belittling my grasp (or lack of it) of the constitution. I'm hardly a scholar, but I can read and comprehend pretty well most of the time.