Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Discussion for firearms and less-lethal equipment.
User avatar
ryan.p
Rookie Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:18 am
Contact:

Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby ryan.p » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:55 am

As of Sep 2, 2015 the new provisions for a restricted ATT came into force. A huge step towards eliminating useless paperwork and red tape for legal firearm owners. From my understanding, it combines a LTATT into your restricted license for 5 or 6 activities in which you may need to transport your restricted firearm. Hopefully this will severely restrict the CFO's arbitrary power to push their own agenda's forward.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/noti ... 09-eng.htm

Question, does this eliminate the need for a club sponsor an ATT entirely? From how I read the act, it would. It would also help to encourage "guest" shoots at ranges by eliminating the paperwork required for the club to sponsor the ATT?
| Now on board with VanB's 5 step program |

User avatar
polarbear
King Poobah
Posts: 1662
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:44 am
Location: Quebec
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby polarbear » Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:58 am

If you already had an ATT, then the condition has been added to your PAL. If you did not have a current ATT, like myself due to a move to a new province, then you do not have the ATT condition added to your PAL.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/noti ... 09-eng.htm
POLICE OFFICER

User avatar
Longarm9
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby Longarm9 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:50 pm

polarbear wrote:If you already had an ATT, then the condition has been added to your PAL. If you did not have a current ATT, like myself due to a move to a new province, then you do not have the ATT condition added to your PAL.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/noti ... 09-eng.htm


It should remove the requirement since that was never written into law, that was CFO's acting arbitrarily. From what I understand, most of their arbitrary powers have been revoked and they may only issue a prescribed set of conditions to licenses and may only use prescribed considerations in issuing PAL/ATT's.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." -John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby Bitterman » Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:07 pm

ryan.p wrote:As of Sep 2, 2015 the new provisions for a restricted ATT came into force. A huge step towards eliminating useless paperwork and red tape for legal firearm owners.




Or not...

'Looks like now I need to call and get an STATT every time I want to take my wife's pistol to the range.

Prior to Sept. 02 LTATT's were worded such that they authorized transport of all restricted firearms/prohibited handguns "registered to the ADDRESS of the authorization holder"

The new rules/six conditions only apply to restricted firearms/prohibited handguns registered to YOU.


Then again... Apparently the LTATT I have an the moment will remain valid until it expires. So I guess until then I'm good to transport my wife's pistol.
So in fact now we have TWO systems of ATT... LOl.
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

melom
Seasoned Member
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby melom » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:11 pm

Bitterman wrote:
ryan.p wrote:As of Sep 2, 2015 the new provisions for a restricted ATT came into force. A huge step towards eliminating useless paperwork and red tape for legal firearm owners.




Or not...

'Looks like now I need to call and get an STATT every time I want to take my wife's pistol to the range.

Prior to Sept. 02 LTATT's were worded such that they authorized transport of all restricted firearms/prohibited handguns "registered to the ADDRESS of the authorization holder"

The new rules/six conditions only apply to restricted firearms/prohibited handguns registered to YOU.


Then again... Apparently the LTATT I have an the moment will remain valid until it expires. So I guess until then I'm good to transport my wife's pistol.
So in fact now we have TWO systems of ATT... LOl.


Something that the CFO's have arbitrarily added, along with changing the wording to "most direct route possible" from "in all the circumstances, reasonably direct."

There are legal challenges brewing...

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby Bitterman » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:51 pm

melom wrote:
Something that the CFO's have arbitrarily added, along with changing the wording to "most direct route possible" from "in all the circumstances, reasonably direct."

There are legal challenges brewing...



In practical terms... The new rules aren't something I'm worrying about.
I'll continue as I always have... The "reasonably direct"/"most direct route possible" thing isn't something I'm going to sweat.
In 30 years of having some form of ATT (used to be called a C301 or "permit to convey") I have NEVER been asked by ANYONE to show it.
Other than the odd RIDE check and a couple of traffic stops to/from the range I've never had an encounter with police where I was transporting restricted firearms and it became an issue.
Call me naïve, but I really don't think the average cop on the street cares too much about hassling the lawful gun owner.
Hell... For the last few years I haven't even kept a paper copy of my ATT in my range bag.
I have a .pdf copy in my phone...
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
HiPowered
Veteran Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Re: Bill C-42 ATT Condition

Postby HiPowered » Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:42 am

Bitterman wrote:
ryan.p wrote:As of Sep 2, 2015 the new provisions for a restricted ATT came into force. A huge step towards eliminating useless paperwork and red tape for legal firearm owners.




Or not...

'Looks like now I need to call and get an STATT every time I want to take my wife's pistol to the range.

Prior to Sept. 02 LTATT's were worded such that they authorized transport of all restricted firearms/prohibited handguns "registered to the ADDRESS of the authorization holder"

The new rules/six conditions only apply to restricted firearms/prohibited handguns registered to YOU.


Then again... Apparently the LTATT I have an the moment will remain valid until it expires. So I guess until then I'm good to transport my wife's pistol.
So in fact now we have TWO systems of ATT... LOl.


Depends on your province. All of my old LTATT's (Alberta) only required you to have a copy of the registration certificate for the firearm. Could be borrowed from anyone, from whatever address.

This kind of sucks. Yes, it's unlikely that I'll ever have to worry about being checked - but I don't judge whether to do things on getting caught, I judge them on their legality.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest