Nope. It was just ATF and US Customs being jerks. Remember, they don't need a reason to deny import (technically they do but in the real world they do as they please). The Single stack mag was HK's way of appeasing the ATF by saying 'See? Even the regular double stack assault rifle magazines won't fit here. It's a SPORTING rifle!'. Pure politics, but nothing technically that's in any law or regulation.

No concealed carry at all. Off-duty police officers can carry their issued firearm in civillian clothes, but they CANNOT carry a personal firearm. The gun laws apply to everyone equally.

There is such a thing as bush carry of handguns for prospectors or trappers who are working in remote areas and carry enough equipment that a rifle or shotgun is impractical. What you have to understand here is that doesn't apply to most people. It's almost exclusively people working in truly remote areas in the North - equivlent to being in a remote area in Alaska, not your local woods. That said, for hikers and campers on crown (publically owned) land in rural areas where it's legal to discharge a firearm, it's not uncommon to carry a shotgun or rifle. In fact I sell alot of breakdown .22 rifles and pistol grip shotguns for that.

Nothing like Castle Law. If you shoot someone in your home, you're going to have to prove it was literally a life or death situation, and that you had the firearm stored legally when they entered your home. Most of them time, criminal charges will be laid. Self-defense against other people is not a legal reason for owning a firearm in Canada. The only legal reason to own a gun for self defense in this country is for large 4-legged animals in rural areas, and that means a long gun.

You really have to understand that there's a very different gun culture here than in the States. In the States, it seems to me that most people own a gun for self defense, and it's legally and socially acceptable to shoot someone if you're threatened. Here, guns are for hunting and target shooting. There's a growning tactical / self defense market here (which I attribute to the American influence), but shooting someone here is neither legally nor socially acceptable.

I'm a product of that culture myself - I'm a soldier, I've been overseas, I've seen people die, but nothing I own is worth killing someone over. If they want my TV, they can have it. I keep my guns trigger locked, in safes, in a separate room, with the ammo in locked in separate cabinets. If someone breaks into my house, I'm more likely to call the cops than get a gun. Even walking around downtown late at night, I've never felt like I needed to be carrying a gun. If it was legal to carry a gun or keep one in the home for self-defense, I might do it, but most of the time I probably wouldn't. Maybe that'll come back to bite me in the ass someday, but I'm honestly not upset that I can't. Frankly, working in a gun shop, talking to lots of gun owners, tends to make you think it's not a bad thing that most people don't have immediate access to firearms.

I feel like I should clarify alot of what I just said. I'm not condemning the US, or US gun owners. We have a different gun culture, because we have a different culture. We have substantially different demographics, less violent crime (which I think has more to do with differences in our drug laws than our gun laws), and a tenth the population that the US. I probably have less need to own a gun for self defense than most Americans, and I'm not saying that Canadian solutions would work in the States any more than American ones would work up here. I do, however, find the contrast very interesting.

Hmm, interesting Nyles. Thanks for the response. So do y'all have a hunting culture?

And I can understand what you said about working in a gunshop. Good points all around.

It's like a said to a coworker the other day - "You know, even though I'd never buy one, I do like tactical guns.... I just really hate the guys we sell them to."

And we definitely have a hunting culture. It's changing, as I mentionned, but the majority of people I sell guns to don't even HAVE a restricted class liscense. And it's not because they're any harder to get.

Im more into tactical stuff, as i find it more practical also. Not every acessory is useless. Most help with one thing or another.

I wont go tactical on a .22 though, like those more classic, and prefer my shotguns with a traditional style stock becaue they point better and more naturally but i like synthetic, extended tubes, ghost rings, etc.

Nyles, my only PROBLEM with what you said is that you assume that Americans will kill over 'stuff' (TVs, bicycles, cars.) That's not true. Only in a few states are we allowed to use deadly force to protect property. ALL places (even the people's republic of Kalifornia) have codified that you can use deadly force to protect human life, whether against a human attacker or animal.

So even if it's illegal to walk around with a loaded gun on the street - the law here (CA) states that if you see an axe murderer about to execute someone in the street, you CAN lock, load and SHOOT him.

So are you telling me that to protect human life is NOT an acceptable usage of a firearm in Canada?

That's the difference, and I'm not surprised that CANADIANS have that warped view of Americans. The Media has constantly put out a drumbeat that Americans are 'cowboys' who will shoot anything that moves for any stupid reason.

I've always summed up my view on tactical firearms with the mantra of "ugly firearms for ugly things."

Pretty much, yeah. There was a fellow out in Ontario who was charged with unsafe storage, careless use of a firearm and brandishing a firearm after shooting at someone who was in the process of firebombing his house. The careless use and brandishing charges were dismissed, and he ended up being acquitted of careless storage, but the Crown alleged he couldn't have accessed the firearm that quickly if it was stored properly. Point being, while TECHNICALLY our laws allow for self defense, in practice you're going to get charged with something.

And I guess it's absolutely fair to say I might have a biased view of Americans. I was under the impression that Castle doctrine or stand your ground meant you were legally able to shoot someone breaking into your house, whether or not they were actively threatening your life. I stand corrected.

Well if they are forcing their way in, I know that under Texas' Castle Doctrine it would be within my legal right to use force. Personally, I would try to warn them that I'd use force if they didn't leave before I actually did anything, but I don't have to.