Campaign #8b - (Committee) Transportation

The next campaign directed at Committee focuses on the changes to Authorization to Transfer. C-71 eliminates most of the conditions attached to a license (electronic ATT's) and reverts back to the old system. As well it completely eliminates electronic conditions and automatic ATT's for collectors. It is nothing more than an exercies in paperwork with no public safety benefit while wasting additional resources. As always, do your best to make this email your own and to personalize it. That includes modifying the generated subject line as well.

If your computer does not have an email app installed then you will need to copy/paste into your web email (use the "Copy to Clipboard" button below), or simply use your cell phone. A full list of the recipients' email addresses are at the bottom of this page. If you use Outlook you may need to change the commas separating the email addresses to semi-colons.

Campaign #8b Email

Dear SECU committee members:

The Authorization to Transport (ATT) mechanism was designed for an era without licensing, prior C-68 and the Firearms Act it created. With specific licensing for possession and acquisition of restricted firearms (RPAL) introduced in bill C-68, ATT's were not supposed to be part of the Firearms Act. They were redundant. However, they made it into the bill and consequently the Firearms Act.

Nonetheless, the Firearms Act clearly states where an individual with an RPAL should be authorized to transport prohibited (12.6 only) and restricted firearms. Sections 19(1)(a) through 19(1.1) list the following locations:

- target practice/competition at an approved club or range (must include all approved shooting clubs and ranges located in individual's province)
- an approved place of instruction in the use of firearms as part of the CFP Restricted Firearms Safety Course
- a change of residence
- to a peace officer or chief firearms officer for registration or disposal
- to a business for repair, storage, sale, exportation or appraisal
- to a gun show

Section 19(2.1) states if the license is renewed an ATT must be issued, and adds to the above list "to a port of exit" and "from a port of entry".

Section 19(2.2) states if a prohibited (12.6) or restricted firearm is transferred an ATT must be issued, and adds to the above list authorization to transport the firearm from where it was acquired to the individual's home.

These are the standard authorizations that every individual with an RPAL gets if they request it, renew their license, or transfer a firearm. Being standard, these authorizations were added to an RPAL as an electronic condition with the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act of 2015. That is to say, if you have an RPAL you have these conditions and do not need to request and carry a separate piece of paper. This saves tax payers money and limited government resources while continuing to restrict the movement of prohibited (12.6) and restricted firearms.

Bill C-71 creates a requirement for individuals wishing to transport their prohibited (12.6) and restricted firearms to request an ATT, separate from that which is attached to their licence, for the following locations:

- to a peace office or chief firearms officer for registration or disposal
- to a business for repair, storage, sale, exportation or appraisal
- to a gun show
- to/from a port of entry/exit

Section 19(1), which stipulates ATT's are issued "for any good and sufficient reason" and "without restricting the generality" of the above listed destinations, is unchanged by C-71. Therefore the bill adds unnecessary cost and waste of government resources while providing the exact same restrictions on movement of prohibited (12.6) and restricted firearms as before. It is literally an exercise in paperwork with zero change as to where an individual is authorized to transport their firearms.

Also, the changes to ATT's in C-71 remove all ATT's as a condition of a license for individuals licensed to own prohibited (12.6) and restricted firearms as a collector. It requires collectors to request an ATT for any destination. Yet collectors hold the same RPAL as non-collectors and have the same qualifications to hold that license. Their restricted and prohibited (12.6) firearms are no different than the restricted and prohibited (12.6) firearms owned by non-collectors with an RPAL. What public safety benefit or issue is this addressing?

Finally I would like to point out the absurdity of removing the ability to take one's restricted or prohibited firearm to a peace officer or chief firearms officer for registration or disposal. The goal of disposal is to remove a restricted or prohibited firearm from circulation. The goal of registration is to take a restricted or prohibited firearm that is outside the law and bring it into compliance and into the hands of a responsible licenced owner. Should not hurdles in doing such be removed? What public safety benefit is gained by making this more difficult? What about a licensed handgun owner suffering from depression who just wants to responsibly dispose of their firearm? There is no public safety benefit to be gained here.

It bears repeating, the changes to ATT's in C-71 are nothing more than an exercise in paperwork with zero change to where an individual generally may be authorized to transport their firearms while increasing cost and possibly harming public safety.

Yours sincerely,

Cc: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Office of the Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety
Hon. John McKay, M.P., House of Commons
Julie Dabrusin, M.P., House of Commons
Pam Damoff, M.P., House of Commons
Peter Fragiskatos, M.P., House of Commons
Michel Picard, M.P., House of Commons
Sven Spengemann, M.P., House of Commons
Mark Holland, M.P., House of Commons
Pierre Paul-Hus, M.P., House of Commons
Blaine Calkins, M.P., House of Commons
Glen Motz, M.P., House of Commons
Matthew Dubé, M.P., House of Commons

List of Recipients' Email Addresses,,,,,,,,,,,,