Authorization to Transport

An ATT (Authorization to Transport) is a page printed off at a Provincial CFO (Chief Firearms Office) and mailed to any owner of a Restricted or Prohibited firearm that requests one.  Its purpose is to grant permission to the owner to transport his or her firearms to the range.  The thing is, the only place you’re allowed to shoot Restricted or Prohibited firearms is at a range.  Why do we need a piece of paper allowing us to do the only thing that we’re allowed to do with these particular firearms?

The gun control advocates would have you believe that your streets are safer because of these pieces of paper.  They claim that they (the ATTs) prevent firearm owners from taking their Restricted or Prohibited firearms anywhere else other than the range.  This is absolutely true… if you’re a law abiding citizen.

Criminals, on the other hand, generally are not considered law abiding citizens.  They do not buy their Restricted or Prohibited firearms from a licenced dealer, but rather the trunk of a car in some dark alley.  They do not register their firearms and they certainly do not apply for ATTs to transport them to and from the range.

So what exactly are these ATTs doing to help protect the public?  That’s right, you guessed it, nothing.  It is nothing more than a wasteful display of bureaucracy in an attempt to make the government appear to be serving some useful purpose in the protection of its citizens.

A Private Member’s Bill was recently introduced in Ottawa called C301.  It was a revision to the Firearms Law to repeal the wasteful Long Gun Registry and do away with the useless ATTs; as well as a few other things.  It was shot down primarily because the Government still foolishly believes that ATTs still serve some useful purpose.

I’m sorry, but issuing a piece of paper that allows a legal firearms owner to do the only thing he or she was allowed to do in the first place, is not a useful purpose.


5 Responses to Authorization to Transport

  1. […] only be used at, and transported to and from, an approved range.  On top of that, you also need an ATT (Authorization To Transport) from the local Firearms Office to do […]

  2. Bill Gibbons says:

    useless rules. What would it take to get rid of these rules? Will we ever see a majority Conservative government that actually has the will to get rid of C301 and ATTs?

    Finally, if the Wild Rosa Alliance even windf power in Alberta, will they be able to confer the right to bear arms to Albertans without federal intereference?

    • gunningforthetruth says:

      It would take a majority Conservative Government and a lot of time, money and effort to reverse the majority of Canada’s useless gun control laws. Ideally, I’d like to see a complete overhaul of these laws starting with the complete removal of Bill C-68. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the Conservatives want to do this however – they may not be our enemies, but they are certainly not our friends. They are simply the least “anti-gun” party that we have to work with. Something like the WRP from Alberta as a federal party would be our best bet. Lets see how things shape up for them provincially and if all goes well, perhaps we can start something Canada wide.

      The WRP can’t confer the right to bear arms any more than our federal government can take that right away from us. We, as human beings, have the RIGHT to live and, by logical deduction, have the right to prepare for such an event in which our lives may be in jeopardy. Just because it is against the law to carry tools for self defense does not mean that we don’t have the right to do it. However, I DO NOT advocate the breaking of ANY laws and strongly discourage anyone from doing so.

  3. Doug Christie says:

    I have recently suceeded to deactivate my Jager AP-80 after fighting the regisrty ” people ” for two years in court (in not one of the 15 or so appearances did I ever see them ?????? ). I was asked the other day what might the conseqenses have been if I never showed up ? Just the fact that my 22 semi-auto pop can plinker even made the pro-hib list is perposteres and then take into cosideration the lost time from work and transit costs just to appear in court , well need I say more ? The firearm in question was bought with an FAC however after re-registering in 2004 it took the CFC 5 plus years to advise me that I was a criminal ! A-men to your artical and a nice comparison to auto licencing. Please don’t mind the spelling it’s early – cheers

  4. MrJohnson says:

    ATT makes no sense or purpose at all. If I’ve already been granted a RPAL, shouldn’t that be sufficient? What’s is an ATT proving or allowing? Some other gun laws in Canada make stupid sense but ATT makes none.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: