Any inside information on what was going on?

I find it interesting that only two got charged with " Unauthorized possession of Firearm." That usually means they are not licensed to possess firearms. Since they seem to be talking about restricted or prohibited firearms: Does that mean that rest all had R-PALS? I can't imagine what the prohibited devices might of been, definitely not silencers, maybe over capacity magazines, or possibly illegal ammunition. I don't see any amount for the number of firearms, perhaps everyone had one. I just notice on my original entry it said there were 28 firearms..

You stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

When officers arrived in the community north of Orangeville, Ontario, they heard the sound of gunshots from a large field on County Road 17.

The officers later entered a building and charged 17 people with 28 firearms and weapons-related crimes.

The officers also seized eight firearms that they found at the scene.

So if there was a house with a gun safe all would be seized right and added to tally ?

Good job by the Dufferin OPP to arrive on scene of active shooting and arrest 17 people and charge with 28 firearm offences. I wonder if these OPP could have served a search warrant to the 70 year old Norfolk gunsmith without killing him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

All the charges seem to me to be pretty light. There weren't any "unlawful possession" or "unlawful transport" charges laid. There should have been a bucket load more than what there were.

---

There was 2 of them charged with unlawful possessions , one of them was even for a restricted or prohibited firearm.
Plus one of them was with the wording which likely means -no ATT /not authorized location for use of a legal firearm.That person seems to have 2 legal guns,used wrongly.

Somehow i think -one "supplier"was fully legal,but was using his/her guns where he/she should not be using them/allow others to use them.
Two of them seems to have something illegal/restricted, they brought it/them to the site traveling in the same vehicle together-thus being charged for the conveyance also.

The rest seems to be casual shooters.

Unless some criminal background-it seems a stupid New year celebration ,which should never happen.
Bragging-peer pressure-show off attitude-and likely a whole lot of booze(whiskey would be my bet)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js4fn

When officers arrived in the community north of Orangeville, Ontario, they heard the sound of gunshots from a large field on County Road 17.

The officers later entered a building and charged 17 people with 28 firearms and weapons-related crimes.

The officers also seized eight firearms that they found at the scene.

So if there was a house with a gun safe all would be seized right and added to tally ?

---

You can expect that all guns the home would be seized. It would make sense to take all the guns away from liquored-up goofs shooting up the countryside not just the ones they were shooting at the time.

Slightly off-thread so I’ll apologize, BUT…why should it be illegal to shoot handguns on your own farm ? But legal to shoot targets with magnum rifles ?

It shouldn't be and wasn't prior to late 1990's. But now the laws says you cannot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Slightly off-thread so I’ll apologize, BUT…why should it be illegal to shoot handguns on your own farm ? But legal to shoot targets with magnum rifles ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Slightly off-thread so I’ll apologize, BUT…why should it be illegal to shoot handguns on your own farm ? But legal to shoot targets with magnum rifles ?

---

I think the reason is that handguns are too easy to hide and too convenient to shoot or threaten someone with, Also they appear to pose a problem from law enforcement because of their low visibility and their handiness in the commission of crimes. A person heading down the street to the bank, with pistol in his belt, hidden by his jacket is not like to garner much attention. If the same person headed down the street to the bank with a magnum rifle in hand I suspect, it wouldn't belong before he garnered the attention of law enforcement. I believe that was the reason for restricting handguns use to pistol ranges, where their movement and use could be monitored. Who would image using a handgun, afield for hunting game. I would, in my youth I found them quite effective in polishing off cottontails on the run.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

It shouldn't be and wasn't prior to late 1990's. But now the laws says you cannot.

---

Was it the late 90's or late 80's? When was the law changed? I've owned handguns for over 30 years and can't recall a time when shooting anywhere else but a range was legal.

Late 1990's changed by the Liberals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

Was it the late 90's or late 80's? When was the law changed? I've owned handguns for over 30 years and can't recall a time when shooting anywhere else but a range was legal.

---