By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open.
The license is valid for three years. Read More: Regulations for Making a Silencer. Sound moderators, commonly known as suppressors or silencers, for firearms are prohibited in Canada, although you can own and transport them in some cases, for example, if you have grandfathered privileges or own a transportation business and have the correct carrier license.
Claire is a qualified lawyer and specialized in family law before becoming a full-time writer. Less muzzle rise, less sound and less concussive effect also help a shooter improve accuracy. No, they do not. Their issued weapons are government property and remain so when they leave the services. If they are doing a long range shot for a specific target, they will be carrying probably 40 to 50 rounds about 8 to 10 lbs of. But they will also be carrying around — rounds 5. The bullet is used against armored personnel vehicles and is used in the M2, M3 and M85 machine guns.
But yes, a black pack will be hotter in the sun. Not just for your gear either, think of your food and drinking water.
Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. View Full Version : Let's talk about supressors. Yesterday I made a post about how some people are angry at the idea of a mandatory firearms safety course.
I proposed the idea of using this to leverage a "Supressor Safety Course" into the framework of the impending Common Sense Firearms Act that was just announced on the 23rd. This theoretical course would allow those who complete it to possess and acquire supressors, perhaps as an endorsement added onto their PAL, perhaps as an independent certificate.
The response I got made it seem like the very idea was offending. So my question to you the people is this: Do you support the idea of making a concerted effort to add the ability to take a Supressor Safety Course to the Firearms Act? Currently it is impossible, full stop not possible no way, for civilians to possess, acquire, or use supressors.
Ergo, it seems to me that gaining the ability to do so after completing a safety course would count as an overall victory for us. We gain the ability to use supressors, we lose perhaps some of our sense of being strong independent firearm owners. Am I wrong? Please discuss. I think it would be great if we could use suppressors; but a safety course? The safety and usage aspect of firing a gun with a supressor is no different than firing one that has no supressor Why have a course?
Because tax money and "public safety" spin? I'd sign up for the course in a heartbeat. It doesn't quite fit in the magwell, see? Probably best to thread a cable lock through it to transport it as well:rolleyes:. The good ol document: Beat me to it:. Interesting push at this time, I'm always up for a new letter writing campaign. First I want to see what shakes down out of the new proposals by Minister Blaney, and get ourselves organised, but I can't see why this wouldn't be near the top of our "want" list.
If it literally saves one ear. I think a safety course for people using them is a good idea. It also helps people understand how they work and the dangers of failing to maintain them. I have seen someone improperly mount a 5. The only reason supressors are illegal in Canada is someone marketed them to law makers as a tool for crime.
They have lots of legit uses. What is the difference in the course books - one extra chapter? Never mind the extra money someone new would have to spend just get an RPAL. I know it's not very manly to suggest this, but wouldn't reading the owner's manual cover that?
A course- No. Use should be attached to a RPAL. I would support the use for several reasons. I would be for it! It would be far better if we could.
Less range noise and better for the ears. As sad as it is, fewer people today seem to be able to read it seems literacy is an endangered species today and getting people to read the basic care and maintenance of something wrongly perceived as an attach and shoot accessory is going to be near impossible.
The thought of yet another government course is repulsive, but sadly I think necessary. Sad but true, there's a reason manufactures put manuals with products, usually in several languages.
Warnings and safety guidelines. I cut yesterday's range trip short because of a local event going on less than a mile away. Everything legal and all, but no need to provoke 10, campers with a 7mm and a short barreled farting in their general direction.
There is no valid argument that I know of against the use of suppressors, but many for it. If we had the oppotunity, why wouldn't we pounce on it. That's how politics works, isn't it? I'm not a fan of another safety course but would be willing to take it if having the ability to use a suppressor was on the table. Having used cans down south I fully appreciate their usefulness in protecting our hearing.
They are legal for hunting in the UK. I can see the advantage there. You are far less likely to wear ear-pro in the bush trying to sneak up on an animal. Why tie to RPAL and restrict to ranges? Great for horse hunting too, less likely to spook and buck. I'm sure somebody will correct me, but isn't using a supressor in a crime a separate charge already? So if it's already an offence to use in a crime, why not open it for legal use?
I mean it makes sense that once it is illegal to commit an act, we don't have to make it double-secret illegal to possess and use the item safely. Like guns. Like magazine and length restrictions, could we go about this incrementally? Redefine "noise suppressing device" to exclude anything not attached to a firearm, then permit them for certain uses, ever expanding that until they're unregulated?
Fix the law by a thousand penstrokes? I'm sorry but that particular point makes no sense Not trying to offend others. Right now they are considered to be a prohibited device. I Would think they would only bring them down 1 level to start. The gov works in baby steps. Also I would think that they would only be allowed at gov approved ranges. Maybe the range rents it to you to use while your there. Another tax income source.
I'm just being realistic in how the gov operates. Though , Ya never know. This is an awesome article, 25 pages, but worth it. I wonder if the article could be or is being re-sent to the gov.
I hope so, Anxious to see what develops in the fall. Permit ranges to set up suppressing booths like they do elsewhere? Unfortunately, today, such might be a prohibited device [ c below]. If we can get fined for NOT wearing a seat belt or helmet while driving or a PFD while in a boat or not wearing steel toe boots, hard hats, safety glasses etc.
I guess some folks hearing is of a much higher value than that of the less favored masses? Within the same scope of personal protection equipment, one could also argue that wearing earplugs or muffs could be a hindrance and even a danger to a hunter. Imagine being in the bush with ear-pro on, you don't hear the bear approaching behind you I agree, the argument could be made to that effect.
Hence we ought to get the ball rolling with an exemption. Then permits to put them on our muzzles, then hunt with them, then completely deregulate their manufacture, possession and use. I wonder if as many silencers go missing as handcuffs. I'm dead against any talk of legalizing suppressors. As soon as you get the govt comfortable with the idea, they would be mandated at all ranges except those far away from anywhere.
0コメント