To what end?
I’ve seen enough troops do stupid things without supervision or control that the potential fallout isn’t worth it. Yes a few people can ruin it for everyone. Want proof? Look at the fall out over the airborne regiment and the current sexual misconduct issues plaguing the CAF. This has potential to be exponentially worse. Plus with all the mental health issues we are dealing with I’m not sure this is a good idea. And how many weapons and mags would get “lost”. The paperwork to deal with this would be stupid. And people expect LEOs to have firearms in public. They are used to it. They are likely less inclined to be comfortable to know soldiers have prohibited weapons in their homes.
I would be ok if a troop signed out a weapon for his own range time. Pick it up, go to the range, shoot all they want then return to the vault. No reason to bring it home.
Unless we have an immediate need and we don’t, we shouldn’t just do it “because”.
Why does everything have to be controlled to the Nth degree? Maybe the issues we are facing is due to the fact we don't trust our troops and refuse to treat them like responsible adults? If there is such a large lack of trust in any particular individual that we can't trust them with a weapon, with or without supervision then what are they doing in the Profession of Arms? The paperwork doesn't have to be stupid even though the CAF would likely make it so because we are such a risk adverse hidebound organization which is afraid to take any potential risks.
I am not saying we should or shouldn't do it, simply that as per the example I quoted in the first place it could be done fairly easily if the CAF wished to.
Without ammunition, either.
Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home. With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central...
In the current iteration that is the deal. Before 2007 every soldier was to have a crate of the current issue ammo sealed and ready to go for the event of war.
That doesn't stop them from shooting their service rifles on their own time and it is actually encouraged. It also doesn't stop them from acquiring their own personal ammo if they so wished as well. Not to mention the fact they can keep their service rifles after they are discharged should they wish (small administrative fee and they take the full auto bits out).
Misleading to say it does not apply. It does not apply when on duty. When off duty, it does.
It is not misleading it is very clear as to what the firearms act applies to. Again if the CAF provided permission for soldiers to use the CAFs service rifles on their own time, it would be legal as the firearms act doesn't apply to the CAF. That is not your own personal weapon, and it would be subject to approval from the CAF for such activities. I don't see the CAF doing this at any point in the future, simply that they could if they so wished.
'Binding on Her Majesty
- 3 (1) This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
- Marginal note: Canadian Forces
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), this Act does not apply in respect of the Canadian Forces.'
Several "gun lobby" groups filed a Federal Court request for an injunction against the May 1st, 2020 "assault-style firearm" OIC, which was heard by Associate Chief Justice Jocelyn Gagné. One of their arguments is that the OIC impacts the ability for LEO and CAF members to practice on their own time with their own AR-style firearms. The Crown contended that the LEAs and CAF already provided what their agencies believed to be ample on-duty practice and qualification opportunities to meet their legally defensible competency requirements. The Judge agreed - end of that argument.
Until there is a post-OIC officer-involved shooting in Canada where an inquest calls into question the competency of that officer and their agency's qualification standards, we are stuck with what we have. We can argue until we are blue in the face that LEOs and CAF members need more practice but it will fall on deaf ears. Training costs money.
100%, but their arguments were based off the civilian ownership of said firearms. This would not be ownership in any way shape or form, and would actually be the CAF providing practice/training by allowing you to do so on your own time.
I am not surprised that argument fell flat for the OIC. You would basically have to have the government admit that their training is incompetent to be able to win.