North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
First-time licence applicants must pass the Canadian Firearms Safety Course before applying for a Possession and Acquisition Licence. After the in-class instruction, you will do a written and practical test.
Anyone 12 years or older can take the CFSC. Children under 12 can take the course, but only for educational purposes. They will not do the written or practical exams. To get a Minor's Licence to borrow and use non-restricted firearms, the minor must be between 12 and 17 years old.

Here is the course manual.
Canadian Firearms Safety Course

In order to sell a gun I have to ensure the buyer has a valid PAL. To do this I phone a computer data base to "register" the sale. I can just pass guns to family members as long as they have a PAL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Plainsman... Correct.

Look at the bill name in the House right now about gun control. It is called "PROTECT OUR CHILDREN ACT". I has nothing to do with "protecting" children. It is all gun reform bills. They need to add in GUN REFORM TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN if they want to be honest. Because look what I stated above about how they could actually protect children. NONE OF THAT IS IN THIS BILL. So the honesty in the name of the bills is gone. This goes for both sides. But all it will be is... REPUBLICANS don't want to protect our children with this bill. Because of the name of the bill. Anyways... it shows you dishonesty with out elected officials. HENCE is why we have the 2A. Like you mentioned it is there not because of hunting. But to stop a government that starts to get too big and not do the will of the people. JUST LIKE THE FOREFATHERS DID... when the UK was over reaching and not listening to its people....ie: 13 colonies. The well armed and regulated millitia defeated the over reaching government.

Anyways....

Canuck.... Please let me know what your license class was about and the exam as well. Because that is one thing that people keep talking about is "license people" who want guns. Well... what does the class teach? Is it gun safety or storage? I am curious.

Because like I talked about with Driver's Licenses. They teach you to follow laws (speed, traffic signs, etc). They teach you about DUI's and impaired driving.... But guess what... we still have speeding deaths, traffic sign violations that cause death, inattentive driving (cell phone usage) deaths, DUI deaths, etc. We have UNLICENSED DRIVERS who are driving and cause deaths. BTW... do you know that on average 1 out of 8 drivers in the USA don't have insurance. So making people have insurance... WONT DO A THING AS WELL.

Again... I would like input on what the classes teach and what do they test on?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 · (Edited)
Canuck.... you posted that while I was typing..

THANK YOU.

So what the class you are required to take and pass an exam on is the same as any HUNTER SAFETY COURSE in the USA. (i helped teach it for a few years). Teaches you about different guns, how to use them, safety, safe storage... only difference is the "restricted" portion. Which we don't have any "restricted" firearms.

So maybe we should offer these classes... IN SCHOOLS??? I remember back when I was in high school ( 25 years ago) I took a class called "Conservation". It was apart of the AG department. We learned conservation practices and what not. But also had a WEEK long class (1 hour a day so 5 hours of education) and it was to obtain your ADVANCE HUNTER EDUCATION card. Which is what you need if you want to hunt in western states or some other states. It is an endorsement that should be on your DL once you pass the test. But it was offered in school. I wonder how many Dem's would be all for a class like you mentioned taught in schools??? I mean why not teach gun safety and handling in schools. I mean if it "helps" with mass shootings not to take place... TEACH IT IN SCHOOLS. Correct?

Because right now to be able to hunt in most states (big game) for a resident you need a hunters ed certificate until you are 17 or 18. In most states. So offer this class to Jr. or Sr. Correct? Makes sense doesn't it? THIS IS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE STATE.

Again... Thank you for your input on this. This way when people in the USA discuss these topics we have a better understanding (hopefully) and can be more educated when we discuss it.

EDIT: BTW... most Drivers License courses are offered thru schools in many many states and smaller communities. So to say why would you want to teach it in schools.... Well you do it for DRIVING. Or they offer it during the "summer". Just things to think about and debate.

BTW... If they want to make it just like Canada where you need a license...ie: Hunter Safety... well most hunters have taken that course and should be grandfathered in. ALSO think what it could do to the hunting community...IE: help it grow!!! Maybe get more people out hunting.

Last side note..... What people dont know is that money from every sale of a gun or ammo goes to a federal conservation programs. eliminate guns and ammo sales.... what will happen to conservation and GREEN money.... yeah something to think about that they dont talk about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
Chuck,
I did not have to take the course as I was grandfathered under the law when it came into efect. People who had long histories of safe gun ownership received the Possesion Licence without taking the course. The course focuses on safe use and storage of firearms.
Again, here is the course manual. If you scroll through the Table of Contents you will get a clear picture of what they teach and test you on.
https://bcfirearmsacademy.ca/wp-con...non_restricted_resticted_how_to_buy_a_gun.pdf

As a kid the Hunter Safety Course we had to take was similar with respect to gun types and safety. It was a different time. I used to take my shotgun to school a put it in my locker so I could go duck hunting during my lunch break and right after school.

Edit: Chuck you posted when I was typing this time! A lot of our highschools had rifle ranges (.22 cal ony) in their basements!! A few still have them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
I mean why not teach gun safety and handling in schools. I mean if it "helps" with mass shootings not to take place... TEACH IT IN SCHOOLS. Correct?

Bang on Chuck...no pun intended.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Canuck..... sorry didn't talk about the Accusition license....

I have kind of talked about that. Which in MN you are required to get before you purchase a hand gun or AR style weapon. IT IS FREE OF CHARGE and the Police Department that is handling them has 7 days to deny or accept the application. You can also fight the denial if you think it was unfair... IE: they just denied you with out a cause (which some people will argue could happen). Anyways... will the feds have enough funding to LOCAL PD to do this? Especially when some are screaming... DEFUND THE POLICE. Police, FBI, etc are already backlogged on many things because of FUNDING.

Like I mentioned with the already NICS check that happens now when you purchase a firearm is BACKLOGGED. Not enough agents to process the paperwork. Also.... WHAT IF SOMEONE LIES ON THE PAPERWORK??? You know... like the PRESIDENTS SON... Hunter Biden. This goes into how the courts DONT HAMMER PEOPLE ENOUGH!

So our court system is too soft on criminals.

So do we have a gun problem or a court system problem??? Things to think about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
Canuck....

Back in high school for me. We had them in our vehicles so when after school we took off to go hunting. Also i think it was my So. year of school the wrestling team did a "calander" with the starting squad all on horseback and had guns...ie: think of a western style poster. That would never fly today at all.

I brought up the teaching safety in school as away to get people licensed. Do you think that the Democrats screaming for gun control and even for the "licensing" of gun owners go for it to be taught in school??? It is something to bring up when they talk about it. Ask them if it will help curb gun violence.... why not teach it at schools???? It does make sense. But I know exactly where that conversation will go... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Matthew Yglesias: The flaw in the progressive stance on guns (msn.com)

This is a good read and shows you some of the same things I have mentioned. You know DEFUND POLICE... yet want more laws. Judges not following thru with sentencing and what not.

More laws wont matter if you dont have people to enforce them.

Here are some "clips" from it:

In Philadelphia, for example, progressive District Attorney Larry Krasner has deprioritized gun possession charges altogether, holding that they fuel racial disparities and mass incarceration. At the same time, national Democrats are arguing more forcefully than ever for stricter gun laws. The last time this was actually successful, back in the 1990s, it was part of a seamless web of tough-on-crime politics — the assault-weapons ban was in a comprehensive crime bill that included hiring more police officers and provisions to build more prisons and make prison sentences longer.
Fulminating at congressional inaction in the face of spree killers may be satisfying and even necessary. But it is unlikely to persuade them to change the law. Continuing to insist on new rules while shying away from enforcing existing ones, meanwhile, burns credibility with conservative voters, who see a left that’s eager to penalize their hobby and reluctant to punish criminals.
If progressives want to make guns harder to get but don’t want to prosecute those who have guns illegally, then … it’s almost as if they’re inviting a future in which only outlaws will have guns.
It talks about how being hard on petty crimes (shop lifting, minor drug procession, theft, counterfeit bill passing, etc) actually helps with illegal gun ownership. But think of how the dynamics have shifted when the death of Brown in Ferguson (hands up dont shoot lie) and that happened because he was disobedient for a petty crime.... Floyds death... again tragic but was because of enforcing a petty crime. Yet enforcing these crimes they find many illegal weapons. Then if the courts actually follow thru with sentencing.... guess what less illegal gun ownership.

But with what has happened the past about 3 years regarding to crime and lack of enforcement because of BLM, ANTIFA, DEFUND movements... look how crime has skyrocketed. With that you have people who see the only way to protect themselves is...GUN OWNERSHIP.

Anyways this is an actual good read.

BTW.... Talking about gun buy back programs.... Last time a major one happened... guess what happened to those weapons... WOUND UP IN THE HANDS OF CARTELS AND CRIMINALS.... people remember operation fast and furious. It isn't just a movie title.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Another thing to discuss or think about.

I already brought up about the "age" thing. You know how some liberals last election cycle were talking about making the legal voting age to 16.

Anyways..... 18 you can vote and also go into the military. They also think that kids in elementary school should be able to choose... IF THEY WANT A SEX CHANGE. Let that sink in. Old enough to request major physical changes to your body that hasn't gone thru puberty yet... but at 18 you cant own a firearm.

I mean honestly let all of this sink in.

Again this isn't meant at a jab at any of the people on this board who lean left or affiliate with liberal. I remember Ken talked about some of this and disagreed. But these are our elected officials who think this way.... some teachers (i am sure very few).....parents.... etc. they think that it is OK for someone who is 12 or younger to go thru sex change or have puberty blockers..... yet they can't go out and use or purchase a fire arm. They are mature enough to know what sex they want to be... but not mature enough to own a fire arm.

Anyways.... things to discuss with others and things to think about.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
Some reasonable thoughts Canuck and Chuck. Canuck perhaps we debate because of a difference in the thoughts of a Canadian liberal (at least you) and some American liberals who have hijacked the democrat party. You would teach a young person to engage the safety of their 12 gauge when no shooting at game. OUR modern libers would teach them to engage the safety before using as sex toy. They really are a pack of sick puppies currently controlling the direction of our democrat party. Simply look at Chucks information about gender redirection for children. I put that right up there with Hitlers atrocities.

Please give this some seriouse thought: yes there are more guns today, but years ago nearly every home had a gun. More guns available with no restrictions yet less violence. Canuck. Chuck, and myself we all have stories of how free we were in the past and non of us would think of seriously harming anyone.

In the past we had conflicts that often ended in fisticuffs, but when that was over it was over and we didn't plan retribution. Perhaps pent up frustration is part of the problem. I remember one coach who woukd grab two boys, take them to the gym, put boxing gloves on them, and tell them get it out of your system, and when this is over its over or your out. If it was important to learned to stick up for yourself. If it was petty you learned to keep your mouth shut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
A good little read about what I have talked about to a certain extent about how DA's and Judges are not helping the situation.

Cities with mass gun violence aren’t cracking down on gun crimes (msn.com)

Now this has been a problem for YEARS... You can't blame it on Biden. The justice system for years have been light on federal and state level gun crimes. But in this article they give recent numbers to show you.

If Congress first wanted to actually do something... PUT PRESSURE ON JUDGES AND DA's TO GO AFTER GUN CRIMES.

Here is a good stat from the article....
A Justice Department study published in 2019 showed that only 7% of federal prisoners who were in possession of a firearm at the time of their crimes had purchased the gun from a licensed firearm dealer. Half of federal prisoners who’d carried guns during their offenses had either stolen their firearms or bought them on the black market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
So a bill just got voted on to make it 21 to purchase AR-15's. So again... if someone isn't responsible enough to own an AR-15 at 18 years of age. Are they responsible enough to be in to the Military? Responsible enough to vote? I would even say responsible enough to drive full time? Many states have a provisional drivers license until age of 18. 18 and under licenses have certain restrictions...some are night driving, number of non family occupants, etc.

I mean honestly this is a discussion to have with people and our elected officials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
656 Posts
That approach sure seems to work with training young drivers.
The gun lobby has to be seen as doing something. So do background checkers, red flaggers, social services and psychological services (not sure what you call them in the US). Everyone has to have a hand in solving the complex issues that seem to spur crazy shooters. I for one have no real ideas as to what should be done, but I know something has to be done. When people talk about defunding the police, I interpret that to mean that some of the budget being used to put cops on the street needs to be re-directed to include social and psychological practitioners working hand in hand with the cops on the street. Not taking money away from the police force.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,336 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
Canuck....

Agree about everything needs to be looked at when talking about this. My point I am making is that in one breathe people are saying someone is responsible enough to make life changing decisions or operate something that is deadly for them and others. While in the next breathe they say they are not responsible enough to own something that again is deadly. See the issue. Then they say that at a certain age they are responsible enough to elect people who make laws, policy, spending for a whole nation. It doesn't make sense.

BTW... you know someone who is 12 years old can buy a car if they have the cash. They can buy one but not use it until they are 16 and licensed. Does that even make sense. They just can't enter into a contract (loan) for anything until 18. So again... at 18 you are responsible enough for contract law but not responsible enough to own a brand of firearm. It doesn't make sense... does it???

Now you talk about red flag laws. I am back and forth on this one. The reasoning is because I have seen many vindictive people out there. Honestly look at what just was televised for everyone to see.... Depp vs Heard trial. Now I honestly think both are very toxic people. But it shows you how someone would "abuse" the system. how about someone who is "transitioning" and their parents or someone thinks it is wrong. They can go and try to file a red flag. How about if someone said.... I am going to quit my job and just travel the country in a van for awhile. Someone might think... OMG... and go file a red flag on them. Even though they might have been hating the job for years and years. You see... red flag laws are all good but could be used in a bad way.

Like I have stated.... my twin brother is handicap both physically and mentally. Now would that mean growing up if some doctor thought... well he might have a violent episode so that home better not have a firearm in it. Even though he is physically handicap a doctor could have done this. So my dad, myself and my older brother might never be able to own a fire arm. So again.... it is a fine line.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
Chuck red flag laws on the surface look reasonable, but are ripe for abuse. To many people already intrude into our lives. Who decides the criteria for a red flag. Liberals shoukd be concerned too. You don't need a gun to be a danger to society. A liberal hates you and he makes an accusation. A conservative hates you and he makes an accusation. He or she may say they heard the liberal say if county commissioner X votes for Y the next time I see him on the street I am going to run over him.

I cant remember who said it but it was along the lines of " he who gives up freedom for security deserves neither". Every time the media hypes a shooting its for political reasons. They want to control every aspect of our lives, but it's easier if they disarm the peasants first. Most people have knee jerk reactions, not real solutions. Bring back peer pressure in the form of public disgrace, not trying to figure out who triggered them.

Edit: I just now received an alert that the left is bringing back the old tired lie about "cop killer bullerts". They need to decide if they love or hate cops first.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,851 Posts
The only thing McConaughey got right is this should not be a partisan issue. Both parties shoukd support the second amendment. Both parties should value all human life. Both parties should support enforcing the laws we have. Both parties should be concerned about black on black murder. Both parties are negligent.
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top