Permit To Carry

Just got done renewing my permit to carry a concealed weapon - it's nice now that it can be done over the internet - a permit is good for 5 years - if you open carry you don't need a permit - few people actually open carry because it is a lot better if others don't know if you have a gun on you - if you have a weapon concealed on you or if you have one in your car you need a permit - why do I carry a weapon? - in today's environment you never know what some crazy guy is going to do and I want to be able to defend myself - what do I carry? - a 38 Special with hollow points plus p load -

It’s good that you have an option to defend yourself. Unlike here, we are sitting ducks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom gobble

It’s good that you have an option to defend yourself. Unlike here, we are sitting ducks.

---

Yet we banned all the scary guns and gun violence is only up. 2 dead in Keswick 2 dead on Jane another dead over their . Only a matter of time until they start up their movements on more restrictions . Pick on the minority and the majority will just do as they do. After this latest double murder I'm sure gun crimes up 100% in the region.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

Joe, good choice on the side-arm, I assume it is a J frame? I would consider rubber bullets to be my first choice to reduce legal liability in case of incorrect target acquisition.

I wish we had the choice for a concealed carry up here but at the same time I am glad we do not. An armed civilian population is more of a danger to itself and no match for a professional standing army, unfortunately our military is another area that suffers from far little funding leaving Canada very reliant on your government for protection. At least Trump is pro military, in that regard Canada will benefit as a side-effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

J

........ leaving Canada very reliant on your government for protection. At least Trump is pro military, in that regard Canada will benefit as a side-effect.

---

I wouldn't hold my breathe counting on that. The only way America would commit their military to the defense of Canada would be if an enemy had literally already invaded this country (easier than you think for a committed military) and was a clear and present danger to America. Of course,for Canada,the damage will have already been done.

Is there some type of competence test involved ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The only way America would commit their military to the defense of Canada would be if an enemy had literally already invaded this country (easier than you think for a committed military) and was a clear and present danger to America. .

---

From the west isn't Alaska in the way, over the pole wouldn't that trigger a NATO response, you got the states on the south, and from the east any attack literally would be seen from miles away. Think invasion is highly unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longpointer

Is there some type of competence test involved ?

---

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by longpointer

Is there some type of competence test involved ?

---

The application has a number of questions as to wether you have a criminal record or mental problems - also has references required from people other than immediate family members - if you submit false information you could be convicted of a crime - as far as using the weapon there is no tests required - as long as you can aim and pull the trigger your good to go -

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve owned a home in Florida for a long time. Please stop spewing garbage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

---

This is the problem with gun ownership in Canada also, it is far too easy and cheap to get a gun and that is reflected in disrespectful behaviour by some (certainly not all) gun owners. I have been out hunting with guys who have no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. If the civilian gun courses included more field work and be more expensive this would create a much more responsible gun owner population.
Mathew McConaughey speaks of creating a more responsible gun population in order to avert the antis from eroding our gun privileges, until the testing standards are raised I doubt the occurrences of irresponsibility will change.

^^ like. Most of my neighbors/friends in Florida are retired Military/Law Enforcement. I think they know how to use a firearm:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

From the west isn't Alaska in the way, over the pole wouldn't that trigger a NATO response, you got the states on the south, and from the east any attack literally would be seen from miles away. Think invasion is highly unlikely.

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

---

LOL, I've read the theories from the US Army War College lesson plans. Without a very strong military deterrent force, Canada really is a sitting duck. By the time NATO and/or the UN was finished their dithering and wringing of hands,the damage would be done. Our cities would look like Gaza and Beirut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregger17

You got a pulse?...here's your permit.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’ve owned a home in Florida for a long time. Please stop spewing garbage.

---

FFF's statement is partially correct. In Florida, you do need a pulse. You don't need a permit.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...ry-in-florida/

Quote:

---

In 2023, Florida eliminated its law that required a person to get a permit, background check, and safety training before carrying a hidden, loaded firearm in public.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

This is the problem with gun ownership in Canada also, it is far too easy and cheap to get a gun and that is reflected in disrespectful behaviour by some (certainly not all) gun owners. I have been out hunting with guys who have no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. If the civilian gun courses included more field work and be more expensive this would create a much more responsible gun owner population.
Mathew McConaughey speaks of creating a more responsible gun population in order to avert the antis from eroding our gun privileges, until the testing standards are raised I doubt the occurrences of irresponsibility will change.

---

X2
Alas some irresponsible characters DO stain this reputation, and the public outcry is always many times stronger then the fact may be-i tend to believe, irresponsibleness is present as much as in any other sport.
Yes-in Europe,many countries have similar solutions(safe handling trainings and tests)some even annually-before hunting season.
Can not pass-can not hunt.

More and more states are doing away with the permit system all together - our constitution gives a citizen the right to bear arms so why is a permit to exercise a constitutional right required - there are laws that suppose to prevent convicted felons from owning guns - gun ownership is very important - ask any Oct 7 victim in Israel - their government disarmed the people and they were sitting ducks - remember - one guy with a gun came change the course of history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

This is the problem with gun ownership in Canada also, it is far too easy and cheap to get a gun and that is reflected in disrespectful behaviour by some (certainly not all) gun owners. I have been out hunting with guys who have no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. If the civilian gun courses included more field work and be more expensive this would create a much more responsible gun owner population.
Mathew McConaughey speaks of creating a more responsible gun population in order to avert the antis from eroding our gun privileges, until the testing standards are raised I doubt the occurrences of irresponsibility will change.

---

Cheap and easy? Back in the 1970's you could walk into a Canadian Tire, plunk down a150 bucks and walk out with a winchester 12ga semi automatic. No firearms course, no hunter safety course and no permits. All that and we didn't have near the gun problems back then. Don't blame the guns or access to them. Blame the decline in Canadian society.

The firearms course teaches the elements you list as missing... " no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. " Sure, field work might help, but I suspect the people that you hunt with that are problematic would be problematic with additional training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Cheap and easy? Back in the 1970's you could walk into a Canadian Tire, plunk down a150 bucks and walk out with a winchester 12ga semi automatic. No firearms course, no hunter safety course and no permits. All that and we didn't have near the gun problems back then. Don't blame the guns or access to them. Blame the decline in Canadian society.

The firearms course teaches the elements you list as missing... " no concept of arc of fire, fire and movement, or trigger management. " Sure, field work might help, but I suspect the people that you hunt with that are problematic would be problematic with additional training.

---

The current civilian courses do not teach the elements to the degree I am referring to, in the field with a practical test, its not possible to do so in two days inside class room/range. I do recall seeing pictures of arc of fire, I have no recollection at all learning about fire and movement, and trigger management while mentioned in class was largely ignored during the hands-on dry fire class training. Problematic people can be trained as many times as it takes, its all about the training not the individual.

In totality, I am referring to the concept of gun owners taking more responsibility for the legislation before the anti's do. If we as a group lobby the government to create more restrictive controls there would be less reason for the anti's to say 'you cannot control yourselves therefore we are going to do it for you' by removing your privileges. The government will just listen to the group with the most voting cards in hand, and looking back historically, the government has taken the 'lose privileges' approach.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

More and more states are doing away with the permit system all together - our constitution gives a citizen the right to bear arms so why is a permit to exercise a constitutional right required - there are laws that suppose to prevent convicted felons from owning guns - gun ownership is very important - ask any Oct 7 victim in Israel - their government disarmed the people and they were sitting ducks - remember - one guy with a gun came change the course of history

---

In my opinion the failure was their own government for taking away gun rights and at the same time not funding the military to create a rapid response unit. This flaw was exposed and attacked.
When I was in the UK the British army had a section (eight soldiers) on standby with a dedicated helicopter 24hrs a day, there were three sections that took rotating shifts, the helicopter was stationed on base right beside the mess hall, that was durring the first gulf invasion.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ou-

Boy I have issue with this approach - the antigun group has one agenda - that is to take away everyone's guns - period - by agreeing to more restrictive gun laws all you are doing is making it easier for them to attain their goal - gun owners need to join forces and fight any more restrictive gun laws and do every possible to get rid of the laws now on the books - remember - an armed society is a free society - everyone should have the right to protect themselves and their families -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marker

In totality, I am referring to the concept of gun owners taking more responsibility for the legislation before the anti's do. If we as a group lobby the government to create more restrictive controls there would be less reason for the anti's to say 'you cannot control yourselves therefore we are going to do it for you' by removing your privileges. The government will just listen to the group with the most voting cards in hand, and looking back historically, the government has taken the 'lose privileges' approach.

We as a group of gun owners can take action to create more restrictive ownership rules to hedge against losing our privileges. We can ask ourselves, do we want tighter gun ownership rules, or do we want to lose our privileges. The Liberal government has made it clear they want to take away privileges, our only mechanism to control this is to control ourselves.

---

Can't disagree more. The policy of acquiescence and appeasement is exactly what has gotten Canadian gun owners to the point where we now find ourselves. Instead of continually cowering in fear behind these policies hoping we'll only get beaten a little bit,we have no choice,now,but, to go on the offensive against all forms of Liberal "little bitism". That entails an active campaign to eliminate all regulations which have been enacted since the very beginning including The Firearms Act,it's add-on useless regulations and amendments and to amend the Criminal Code to make interferring with all things firearm related except criminal use,a very serious offense as a deterrent. No more "Nice guy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Can't disagree more. The policy of acquiescence and appeasement is exactly what has gotten Canadian gun owners to the point where we now find ourselves. Instead of continually cowering in fear behind these policies hoping we'll only get beaten a little bit,we have no choice,now,but, to go on the offensive against all forms of Liberal "little bitism". That entails an active campaign to eliminate all regulations which have been enacted since the very beginning including The Firearms Act,it's add-on useless regulations and amendments and to amend the Criminal Code to make interferring with all things firearm related except criminal use,a very serious offense as a deterrent. No more "Nice guy".

---

All regulations and laws other than criminal use? Welcome to Fantasy Island.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

All regulations and laws other than criminal use? Welcome to Fantasy Island.

---

Yep, it ain’t gonna happen !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

All regulations and laws other than criminal use? Welcome to Fantasy Island.

---

Yeah,I know. All I'm saying is the 15 volumes of that useless Firearms Act could be replaced with a simple 3 page document that says (1) Take a course in safe handling. (2) Have a background check to get a PAL. (3) Buy whatever your heart desires that's legal to shoot. After all,the license and background says you're good to go. All the rest is superfluous bullshyte.

Can't wait to see the face on the punk when Granny pulls her .44 Mag out of her purse and says "make my day !".