I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.
It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread 'unrestricted gun rights' movement is here.
How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don't own any myself.
For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there's a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)
If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there's a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.
Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.
Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.
I also didn't mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don't have a social circle is wonk to me.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they're bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
In signing, the references are saying that "I have known this person for three years and don't believe them to be a high risk for violence." One might argue that if you don't know two people who don't consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn't have firearms.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it's a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren't a right in Canada - they're a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it's restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it's not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn't more than twice as high as Canada's rate.
Well, a lot of FOSS advocates are also cyberanarchists. I personally am leaning somewhere towards that, where while I oppose viruses, I don't know if I agree writing one should be illegal.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin--it's why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
Gun advocates don't give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin–it’s why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
I've never seen a FOSS advocate argue that all software should legally be required to be FOSS. Would that include server-side code? Instead they oppose IP protection, so that anyone could simply crack your software and freely distribute it.
Gun advocates don’t give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
"Most FOSS gun advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin"
Because, you know, owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
