TargetTalk

v76 wrote:I can't even... I just literally quoted the part of the law that says you don't need a PAL for those kind of guns and you're still saying you're right. That plus the way you replied to people on this post is why i'm pissy.

And to add to the argument: i dont think all airguns should be legal to own without a license. Maybe a bit more leeway in regard to 10m ap but not the rest. That said, I genuinely wish you good luck influencing and/or going into politics.

Arguing on the internet... Rover had it right!

I don't even understand why you're arguing. I don't give a damn about Muzzleloaders. Yes. Some Muzzleloaders (flintlock, matchlock, or wheellock) don't need a PAL. All others do.

But that's not the point of the discussion.

WTH does it have to do with addressing the 500 fps or 5.6 joules definition of firearm that affects air weapons? Or the fact the RCMP publishes interpretations that clearly don't match the code?

Or is this pointless diversion simply an obvious example that exemptions already exist?

I don't think AP or AR should be without controls either.

But an air weapon course (like the one the FQT has a training book for), power limitations that match the international standards for competition weapons, and transportation rules equal to non-restricted weapons for AR and AP.

Training and materials devoted only to target competition could mean many more people in the sport too. I know a few who refuse to get involved because of the hunting part of the firearms training.

Gerard wrote:A valiant effort though Victor, you tried. Some folks don't bother reading all the words we put in front of their eyes. Pity luthier isn't easier to predict when that might happen.

Haha, indeed. And he did it again...

I hope you're doing well Gerard, it's been a long time! Still shooting as much?

Doing well enough, and hope the same for your adventures.

I've not been training in AP since the fall of 2013 unfortunately. Still intend to get back into it at some point, but while my shoulder and then elbow are injuries have healed I'm still not strong enough to put in the sustained hours every week and get my scores up. The odd time I put in a 60 shot session I'm scoring around 90%. But lately I've converted my Pardini K12 to temporary carbine duty with a 3x scope and a night vision monocular on the back of that, something quiet and not overly powerful to use on the rat epidemic around the house. I made a plastic grip to plug a wire stock into, and converting back to the competition grip is a matter of a couple of screws and one bolt and a couple of minutes so not a big deal. It was the most precise and otherwise appropriate tool for the job and really wasn't getting a lot of use as a pistol lately, though I have tried it at field target events a couple of times.

Most of my shooting is with a QB78D which I modified extensively and use for HFT once a month or less. I practice with it at home at 10 metres a bit. Shooting a rifle is relatively easy, certainly no arm or shoulder strain. It's surprisingly accurate after all the labour I put into it, delivering groups about the same as the Pardini but at considerably higher power. I'm scoring over 95% in our informal HFT matches, on targets between about 12 and 40 metres. My son is getting to be a decent shot as well. He's 10 and really enjoying his little 2240-based carbine, hitting the steel every time and occasionally even knocking the targets down, though he's a bit too wobbly to consistently hit the little knock-down holes at greater distances.

Haha I wished I had 1% of your skills and ingenuity. Rat dispatching seems like a fun HFT practice too. Haru is already 10... time flies! Did his interest in the olympic shooting grow a bit?
That damn shoulder! You were on a great path. Hopefully this forced rest will strengthen your other shooting skills.

I know. I'm constantly reminded of that little moment in Basil Fawlty's wretched life where he says...
http://youtu.be/Lle9QD93kA0
It's alarming how quickly the years go by, how fast he grows. He's not into anything serious with shooting, no, just enjoys plinking most of all (especially dynamic stuff like a pop can or a CO2 cartridge) then the more formal scoring rounds are second fiddle with him. We tried some targets at 75 yards (68.5m) a couple of months ago and he managed to put a few on paper. He mostly likes hanging out with his papa, so if i enjoy shooting so does he.

Unfortunately our local club has no range now. Got closed and is either torn down already or soon to be, condos moving in where the Richmond Sportstown complex has been for many years. It was a shabby little range with a floor that bounced, but now we don't even have that. So nowhere but home to shoot anyway. I have my 10m range with the trap hanging off the edge of the roof, shooting from the workshop out through the bathroom window. I just maintain my eye and trigger more now with the rifle, not so much working on my pistol stance. The Webley pistols get more of my pistol time. Lots of challenge there.

v76 wrote:Haha, indeed. And he did it again...

I see I'm amongst the mature adults here. /sarc

But in all seriousness you should challenge Gerard. He told.me that not a single AP shooter at his club kept their AP at legal sub 500 fps speeds. shooting sports.

Perhaps he can provide the reasons that you were demanding of me.

Then perhaps the discussion could be how we all work together to promote and grow target shooting sports by getting the federations to promote ranges and the law to be less restrictive.

SlartyBartFast wrote:I see I'm amongst the mature adults here. /sarc

You protest against V76's persistence on the muzzle loader question, while apparently still ignoring your own oversight regarding the law. You stated this:

SlartyBartFast wrote:All matchlock, flintlock and wheel lock long guns or guns produced before 1898 are antique. All others are nonrestricted and require a PAL.

This is obviously untrue. Anyone is allowed to own or even to manufacture a muzzle loading pistol or rifle.in Canada without a PAL or RPAL. Of course reasonable conditions still apply. Can't shoot one in the street. Can't carry one on your person as a potential weapon just the same as we can not do so with any other firearm or airgun. But with reasonable precautions and firing in a safe way at a proper location a brand new muzzle loader is just fine without a license. You can rail against V76 correcting your misperception of the law, but then your above comment regarding maturity seems to be misdirected.

Gerard, actually I was only referring to long guns as muzzle loading handguns are a can of worms (exceptions!) in themselves. Made before 1898, some handguns are antiques, after that, they are restricted or prohibited depending on barrel length. But I was only using it as an example of the bipolarity (and complexity!) of our laws, which our friend here didn't understand, or, it seems, everything else that was said, especially in his own opinion column.

Smarty: I don't need to challenge Gerard since you just proved for the n'th time that you don't know the most straightforward law of the Firearms Act.
You're right, we can definitely move on from this topic now, let's focus on promoting the sport. What did your local government officials or the FQT had to say about changing this law when you approached them about it? What about the medias?

Gerard wrote:This is obviously untrue. Anyone is allowed to own or even to manufacture a muzzle loading pistol or rifle.in Canada without a PAL or RPAL.

I was wrong stating all muzzleloaders after that date. But I thought I had corrected myself. Perhaps I was unclear, perhaps what was in my head no longer matched what I wrote. But I'm certain I've been clear the last time I re-iterated the RCMP text. Continuing to discuss to clarify your own positions instead of jumping to mock me might have arrived at an amicable resolution quicker.

But you're both still partially wrong. Your statement I've quoted is patently false. And yet I'm the one being called names and being denegrated for not readin and not understanding.

That's the point I keep hammering on. You're both as guilty of what you blame me for. Not reading far enough.

Only matchlock, flintlock, and wheel-lock muzzleloaders are without an PAL requirement. I just took my PAL recently. The percussion cap muzzle loader was there as a PAL covered rifle. The RCMP text is quite clear.

v76, nice insult. Amazingly, discussing one's opinion on a discussion forum seems to earn me the title "Smarty". I understand FULLY how complex the laws are. And you mocked me on AP being useful at greater than 500fps. According to Gerrard every member of his club shot at greater than 500fps.

And you suggest that I approach the top of the totem pole publicly and politically first? How likely would that be of attaining success?

I'm willing to admit to the fog of text communication and perhaps posting without rereading my post thoroughly. So far, you seem to doing you best to ratchet the animosity UP with name calling and an abject refusal to either try and see my point or calmly explain yours without name calling. Are you willing to back down with your attitude as well?

Personally, I'm more interested in a healthy environment for shooting sports than I am about on-line egos (mine or others).

Hey, the smarty thing was my autocorrect, so no insult intended. I've been quite polite and no, I'm not partially wrong on this point, which sparked the useless arguing.

And you're still proving your lack of understanding of the law. Not sure if that came from a personal conversation you had with Gerard but let's get to it: it's not illegal to shoot at higher than 500fps without a rpal. You could go up to 520fps with a 7gr pellet. My point, which went over your head the first time, is that there is no proven advantage score-wise to this an it all boils down to personal opinion.

I'm not suggesting you do anything, I'm asking what you're doing to change things, as you keep saying this is for the whole community. Your point is crystal clear and was made a looooooong time ago by other people: the law is stupid. Unfortunately, it is not changing in our favor, especially in North America.

My point in all this is that there is no reason for this crusade: your target ap will be as accurate as 500fps as it will be at 530fps with a 8gr. For everything else, I don't mind needing a PAL and wouldn't want easy access to powerful guns only because they are air-powered. I think promoting the sport (more ranges!) rather than working against laws is a much better project and will be much more satisfying. 10m AP league in Montreal could def be great.

No insult taken on "Smarty" then. However, seems you're still talking down to me. I'll continue to try and ignore that and ascribe no intended malice.

v76 wrote:And you're still proving your lack of understanding of the law.

As to my misunderstanding of the law I'm waiting for anyone else to quote and actually read the whole law. Think you can read the following with an open mind:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-f ... re-eng.htm

Percussion cap long guns and muzzle-loading black powder handguns made after 1898 are not considered antiques even if they are copies of an earlier antique model. Newer percussion cap long guns are classified as non-restricted firearms; newer handguns, including matchlock, wheel lock and flintlock handguns made after 1898, are classified as restricted if their barrel length is over 105 mm (about 4 inches), or prohibited if their barrel length is 105 mm or less.

That's in the page that you accuse me of not reading fully. That is EXACTLY the quirk that I was pointing out and I'm being told I'm wrong about and that I can't read.

Please explain what I'm not understanding. Instead of putting me down, blaming me for making this an "opinion column", tell me what I've got wrong.

So, read the above and tell me how I'm wrong in telling you and Gerrard that it is wrong to say all muzzleloaders can be purchased and owned without a PAL or RPAL. According to the above, newer muzzle loading percussion cap long guns and ALL muzzleloading handguns produced after 1898 are subject to PAL and RPAL regulations and restrictions.

My friend has percussion cap rifles and a percussion cap revolver. They were purchased with PAL and RPAL respectively and the revolver is a registered restricted weapon. Just as the RCMP page ways they should be.

v76 wrote:it's not illegal to shoot at higher than 500fps without a rpal. You could go up to 520fps with a 7gr pellet.

To import an AP capable of shooting above 500fps, it is necessary to have it detuned and verified on import. As soon as you adjust it above that point, you've turned the AP back into a restricted firearm as per the law.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-37

Certain weapons deemed not to be firearms
(3) For the purposes of sections 91 to 95, 99 to 101, 103 to 107 and 117.03 of this Act and the provisions of the Firearms Act, the following weapons are deemed not to be firearms:
(d) any other barrelled weapon, where it is proved that the weapon is not designed or adapted to discharge
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.

So adapting an AP to shoot greater than 152.4 m per second clearly breaks the criminal code definition. And notice that contrary to how the RCMP interpretation says AND for velocity and energy, the criminal code only requires OR. So when I load my toy AP & AR that are advertised at 495fps with hyper-velocity pellets advertising a 20% gain in velocity I'm breaking the criminal code.

I'm open to being shown how/where I'm wrong. Refer back to the text of the Criminal Code and Firearms Act as necessary.

v76 wrote:My point, which went over your head the first time, is that there is no proven advantage score-wise to this an it all boils down to personal opinion.

No, it did not "go over my head". And it's insulting that you continue to say that in that fashion. It seems to be the "personal opinion" of may of the AP & AR manufacturers. And in another thread there was a link to the ideal ballistic speed which was greater than 500fps.

Regardless. If it's better below 500fps, all the better. But let's make acquiring the pistols easier and avoid possible criminal prosecution of AP owners. Which is my main point that you seem to be ignoring.

v76 wrote:I'm not suggesting you do anything, I'm asking what you're doing to change things, as you keep saying this is for the whole community. Your point is crystal clear and was made a looooooong time ago by other people: the law is stupid. Unfortunately, it is not changing in our favor, especially in North America.

Well, you have been telling me to do things. Such as get back to you after I speak to the media. And no my point is not to whine that the law is stupid. It's to make it so the law isn't stupid. The gun owners associations could make real incremental changes if they put their minds to it by being approachable by politicians and went looking to make friends and allies instead of, it seems, always looking to define who is our enemy.

And ignoring the law and keeping your head down will only result in the law becoming worse and us losing what freedoms we have left.

v76 wrote:My point in all this is that there is no reason for this crusade: your target ap will be as accurate as 500fps as it will be at 530fps with a 8gr. For everything else, I don't mind needing a PAL and wouldn't want easy access to powerful guns only because they are air-powered. I think promoting the sport (more ranges!) rather than working against laws is a much better project and will be much more satisfying. 10m AP league in Montreal could def be great.

Again, I'm not against the PAL requirements. Neither do I want to make acquisition of powerful weapons easier simply because they are air powered. It's the RPAL requirements and the hunting association to get the PAL that I, and others, object to. And some of the others want nothing to do with learning about or handling powder fired (cartridge) firearms or handling cartridges a further impediment to getting a PAL for AR.

The Olympic target shooting community wielded enough influence to exempt competition target pistols from prohibited status. The same IMO kind of separate classification is necessary for AP & AR.

Yes I want to see more ranges in Montreal. And some competitions. But as soon as an anti-firearms type gets wind of the illegal pistols, that's the end of the promotion or the end of ranges. Or do you like operating under the table and hoping that everyone keeps telling the same half-truths in the hope the law doesn't come down on our heads?

There are politicians that listen, the CSSA and NFA news feeds talks about them all the time. And the long-gun registry was repealed. Showing that laws can go both ways.

If the previous was too long:

v76 wrote:I'm not partially wrong on this point, which sparked the useless arguing.

Can you buy the following without a PAL:
http://www.dantesports.com/en/shop/thom ... nter-xt-1/

No. You cannot.
Because it is produced after 1898, and is neither a flintlock, matchlock, or wheel-lock.

Making your following statement wrong:

v76 wrote:I don't see people lining up to buy muzzle loaders either, and those are legally obtainable without a firearms license (all of them are considered antiques, which is laughable).

Notice you said _ALL_.

I await your apology.

SlartyBartFast wrote:But let's make acquiring the pistols easier and avoid possible criminal prosecution of AP owners. Which is my main point that you seem to be ignoring.

Can you link to any case where a competitive air pistol owner has been subject to even mild harassment by the RCMP for having a 10m AP which shoots at over the pair of limits, 5.7joules and 500fps? I've not heard of such a case, but perhaps it has happened. It seems so unlikely as to be laughable that anyone with such a pistol would use it in a 7-eleven holdup or violent assault. Not exactly suitable for 'brandishing' in a threatening manner, as people seeing such airguns would more likely think they were being threatened with some sort of elaborate kid's toy or perhaps a science fiction fan prop. They don't look even remotely like firearms. It'd take a particularly stupid and misguided individual to bring RCMP attention to such a pistol. In a way, it seems similar to the case with cannabis use in Canada. Or at least around my end of the country. Police here tend to ignore the stuff when it is found in small quantities. People regularly smoke it in front of the art gallery, in 'protest' gatherings (420?), with police presence being quite normal and no one getting arrested or suffering a confiscation unless they're being idiots and getting violent or otherwise violating the laws of the land. The dope itself gets ignored, because, as police have often stated, they have more important work to do. Chasing after 10m AP owners because they may be 10% over the limits seems to be in a similar class of offence. Who cares? Not the police.

My apologies for getting it wrong on the 'all muzzle loaders' thing. It's really not an area of interest to me, so my ignorance is purely a matter of not giving a rip about the subject and over-simplifying based on that fact.

SlartyBartFast wrote:If the previous was too long:

v76 wrote:I'm not partially wrong on this point, which sparked the useless arguing.

Can you buy the following without a PAL:
http://www.dantesports.com/en/shop/thom ... nter-xt-1/

No. You cannot.
Because it is produced after 1898, and is neither a flintlock, matchlock, or wheel-lock.

Making your following statement wrong:

v76 wrote:I don't see people lining up to buy muzzle loaders either, and those are legally obtainable without a firearms license (all of them are considered antiques, which is laughable).

Notice you said _ALL_.

I await your apology.

Yep, all long guns of the said types, which was cleared up a post after, seeing as you wanted to talk further about it. And I thought you didn't care about this... Neither do I! I think everything has been said, years ago about the law: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Commi ... rms1-e.htm .I'm out, thanks for the workout and sorry if you feel badly about this. Good luck in your endeavors.