Transfer SD FA to Sport

[JS4]

1.) The licencing of a self defence firearm is more onerous and restrictive than the other licence types. This implies that the lawmakers were intending to make it difficult to use a firearm for self defence. If you are allowed to use a sports weapon (which is easier to obtain) for self defence, then the more onerous conditions for an SD licence would be redundant and useless. It seems like the intention of the legislation was NOT to allow a sports weapon to be used for self defence. When it comes to an actual court case, I believe the courts will care about the intention of the law and are likely to rule against the use of a sports weapon for self defence. In fact, they may possibly see this as a deliberate avoidance of the legal route to owning a self defence firearm - which would go very badly for the person involved.

How does the FCA make it more onerous to get a license for SD?

Both applications need motivations and in fact the S16 license is (on the face of it) more onerous because you require an endorsement too. That is an extra which is not required for a S13 license.

2.) People often rely on the wording of the act that says that a sports firearm may be used for any legal purpose. I don't believe that this includes self defence. Shooting somebody is either assault or it is murder (depending on the outcome). These are both illegal acts. The law DOES condone these acts in cases where they were carried out to defend the life of an innocent person, but it does not change the fact that shooting somebody is fundamentally against the law. Therefore, I don't believe that the wording of the act justifies the use of a sports weapon for self defence at all.

Is self-defense not a legal use all of a sudden?

Turn it around - can you use your SD firearm for sport shooting or is it limited to being used for SD?

Both S13 and S15/16 have the same wording regarding the use of the firearms.

Obviously, all of this is just my opinion - and it differs from the opinions of the vast majority of contributors to this forum. But until there is a test case in the courts, we will never know for certain what the law thinks about the issue. At least my approach never risks being prosecuted.

Nope, your approach still risks being prosecuted by an over-zealous or bored prosecutor - not much can guarantee against that IMO.

Sure, a test-case in the courts may clear it up once and for all for the doubters but it is not a pre-requisite for clarity. The law thinks what it says and what is written. Simple.

[PCfanatic]

1. Yes. Unloaded means no ammo in the gun - either in the chamber or the magazine. Empty mag is fine though.

2. No, not as far as I know. I think it says something about storing and transporting rifles with the bolts removed, but I don't know exactly what it says, so I would need clarifying!

Thanks Toxxyc.
I thought I was being ignored

[Lemming]

Hi again,

JS4: An SD licence requires more frequent justification (5 years not 10). It needs a motivation as to why there are no possible other means to protect yourself. All you need for a section 16 licence is to compete with the firearm. Why would the law require the sports weapon to be unloaded ... it is because they do not want you to use it for self defence. Why bother creating an SD licence category (with more restrictive conditions in terms of relicencing term) if you can just bypass the law by using a sports weapon? I am afraid that doesn't make sense - and I very much doubt that the people who drafted the bill would have been so stupid as to leave such an obvious "loophole" unless they intended that you NOT be allowed to use a sports weapon for self defence. I know we all want to hear the message that it is OK to use a sports gun for SD - but I am afraid that in my opinion it just doesn't fit the way the law has been framed.

Skaaphaas: Have you ever considered that (by definition) half of all the lawyers in every court case lose? Just because a lawyer has an opinion, or believes he has chance of being able to defend it in court, does not make it right. I know because I have done this many times for my work with lawyers - and just because an interpretation seems right to you doesn't mean that the judge will agree with you. I have been very surprised at the way in which the judge can interpret something completely differently.

But I would be very interested in the opinion of all of any lawyers on the forum who have stated their opinions on the issue. I searched the forum and was unable to find any. If you could, I would appreciate it if you could point me to a message of this sort...

Thanks
Steve

[Nas]

Would carrying and using your loaded sports firearm for SD not be premeditation? Carrying your SD FA for SD is NOT premeditation as this is its "legal" purpose. The purpose of a sports FA is for sports use only.
What happens if I'm carrying my sports FA and have to use it at say 22:00 surely NO range is open at that hour? How would you explain why you carrying your Sports FA instead of your SD then?
It might be "easier" to explain using your sports FA AT HOME for SD, as there could be 101 different reasons. But what reason would you have for carrying and using your sports FA when you out at night?
Better get Johnnie Cockran on your legal team! Lol!

[Skaaphaas]

Fuck it. Do as you all please.

[Toxxyc]

<stuff>

First, the sport gun has to be STORED unloaded, and that's it.

Secondly, getting a licence for a sport or hunting FA is a lot harder to do. SD is quick and easy. You say you can't defend yourself with anything else and you get it. Hell, guys on here get it with half a page's worth of scribbles. I just went through a Sec 16 licence app. 47 pages was my app long. 47, and it was still not enough, as I was called up to request an endorsement letter for my specific firearm (as in, serial number and everything recorded on it).

And don't underestimate the stupidity of the people who drafted the bill. Seriously, don't. It's the same people who keep throwing expired, 21-year-old statistics from a different country, different law, different scenarios and different guns in the faces of all legal gun owners daily, despite them being told their "facts" are about as useful as an ice cube on the North Pole.

I also have a counter question. You're on the range, busy with your shoot. A BG with a gun comes up over the hill, demanding guns, phones, wallets, phones, etc. etc. You're on the firing line, a loaded gun in your hand. Will you now be ILLEGALLY shooting him if you shoot him with your sport gun? Take note - you didn't carry it there. It was in a sports bag, intended for SPORT use. It was stored unloaded, but the RO gave you the "Load and make ready" command. How the hell does that logic work? Or will the sport shooting guy be, according to your logic, now a "murderer" because he defended himself and go to jail?

[Psychosis]

First, the sport gun has to be STORED unloaded, and that's it.

Secondly, getting a licence for a sport or hunting FA is a lot harder to do. SD is quick and easy. You say you can't defend yourself with anything else and you get it. Hell, guys on here get it with half a page's worth of scribbles. I just went through a Sec 16 licence app. 47 pages was my app long. 47, and it was still not enough, as I was called up to request an endorsement letter for my specific firearm (as in, serial number and everything recorded on it).

And don't underestimate the stupidity of the people who drafted the bill. Seriously, don't. It's the same people who keep throwing expired, 21-year-old statistics from a different country, different law, different scenarios and different guns in the faces of all legal gun owners daily, despite them being told their "facts" are about as useful as an ice cube on the North Pole.

I also have a counter question. You're on the range, busy with your shoot. A BG with a gun comes up over the hill, demanding guns, phones, wallets, phones, etc. etc. You're on the firing line, a loaded gun in your hand. Will you now be ILLEGALLY shooting him if you shoot him with your sport gun? Take note - you didn't carry it there. It was in a sports bag, intended for SPORT use. It was stored unloaded, but the RO gave you the "Load and make ready" command. How the hell does that logic work? Or will the sport shooting guy be, according to your logic, now a "murderer" because he defended himself and go to jail?

Would you be in trouble if you stabbed the BG? Surely you would since the knife you used wasn't licensed for SD right?

pppffffft!

SD is SD, irrelevant of the impliment used.

[MarkR]

Nas, Toxxyc's scenario is spot on. I think you'll find that all those on GS who at one time or another edc a Sec. 15/16 licenced fa, also have a Sec. 13 licence. You have therefore satisfied all the criteria for owning and using a fa for SD and can therefore use any of your legally licenced fa's for any legal purpose no matter what section they have been licenced. I think by intentionally licencing a fa for Sec. 15/16 instead of Sec. 13 when you know you're intending to use it for SD 'cos you think the process is less onerous, is probably going against the spirit in which the law was intended. If you have a Sec 13 licence and justifiably use any of your licenced firearms I don't think any judge worth his salt is going to question why you used the oss licenced one and not the sd licenced one.

[Gunservant]

This thread is going for fail. It takes a special kind of mental warp to interpret legal use of lethal force as being less legal because the object used in the application of said lethal force is licensed under a different section of the FCA than what the interpreter is comfortable with.

Think about this then: what if you shoot an attacker with an unlicensed gun you took off of him? You sure are in trouble now especially since you may not have a valid competency for that specific weapon.

[OCP]

To the legal minds that provide valuable and insightfull information and feedback - your input is very much appreciated!

I understand from this thread and others how I keep mixing up FCA and SD laws - please bear with slow non-legal people like me who are slowly learning the error of our interpretations ;-)