Restricted, prohibited guns could be carried on P.E.I., warns official

Teresa Wright
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

FILE PHOTO - Weapons and drugs seized by Charlottetown police after a high-risk vehicle stop in Winsloe.

P.E.I.’s chief firearms officer raises concerns over proposed federal government changes

Ottawa’s proposed changes to firearms legislation could possibly mean owners of restricted or prohibited guns would be permitted to carry them around at will, says Prince Edward Island’s chief firearms officer.

Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes, as the province has not been consulted on the proposed federal Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. But from what she has read in media reports, Hayward says she is concerned over the proposed easing of restrictions for firearms transportation.

“(It’s) just basically one step away from the U.S.-style having the gun on their hip authorization to carry, which people in this country don’t have,” Hayward said.

Currently, gun owners in P.E.I., Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick must apply for an Authorization To Transfer (ATT) if they wish to carry a restricted or prohibited gun from one location to another.

Restricted firearms are mainly handguns while prohibited firearms are mostly assault rifles and some handguns with smaller calibres and smaller barrels.

An ATT is required to take restricted and prohibited firearms anywhere whether it’s from the shop where they are purchased to the new owner’s home, to a repair shop or to gun range.

There are also a number of places where these types of weapons are not permitted.

The proposed new federal law would “end needless paperwork around Authorizations to Transport by making them a condition of a license,” according to a federal government news release.

Hayward says she is concerned this will eliminate the requirement for ATTs altogether, which could allow people who own restricted guns to legally carry them around anywhere, any time.

“Right now, there are offences in the Criminal Code for being in an unauthorized place with a restricted firearm. There are multiple offences,” she said.

“You would never be able to convict somebody and say, ‘What are you doing at this shopping mall with a restricted firearm in your vehicle?’ It would no longer be an unauthorized place because they would no longer have an ATT. I see huge implications for the police.”

Members of both the RCMP and the Summerside police contacted by The Guardian declined to comment, as full details have not yet been released to law enforcement officials.

“We recognize the desire to find solutions for streamlining firearm regulations, but we also have to balance that with public safety considerations,” said Summerside Police Chief Dave Poirier.

A spokesperson for Public Safety Canada said Friday all safe transport and storage requirements will continue to apply.

“…including that firearms must be transported to an authorized location such as a shooting club, and the firearms owner must take the most direct route,” said Jean Paul Duval of Public Safety Canada in an e-mail to The Guardian.

“As the minister has said, we are pursuing common sense measures that cut red tape, while ensuring Canadians are kept safe.”

This was one of a number of changes to firearms laws announced earlier this week by Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney.

Other changes include creating a grace period for gun licence owners to renew their licence, so they would no longer face possible jail time as a result of the expiry.

Also, firearms safety courses will be mandatory for first-time gun owners and firearms prohibitions for those who are convicted of domestic violence offences will be strengthened.

Currently there are 2,891 registered restricted and prohibited firearms in P.E.I., according to RCMP statistics. The vast majority of these are handguns, but there are also 14 submachine guns and 12 machine guns owned and registered on the Island.

The elimination of the long-gun registry does not permit police to record how many non-restricted firearms someone owns, but there are a total of 6,194 firearms licences in P.E.I., including restricted and prohibited licences.

The majority of gun owners in P.E.I. are between the ages of 40 and 69, according to the RCMP data.

twright@theguardian.pe.ca

Twitter.com/GuardianTeresa

Organizations: RCMP, Public Safety Canada

Geographic location: P.E.I., Prince Edward Island, Ottawa Ontario Quebec Nova Scotia New Brunswick Summerside

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Darren
    August 03, 2014 - 11:27

    Why is the file photo a picture of illegal weapons? Are you trying to link legal firearm owners and criminals? PEI is not friendly to firearms owners. Your CFO does not seem to know her job either and should be replaced. You are not paid to think CFO do the job you were hired to do!

  • Chris
    July 29, 2014 - 17:48

    I suggest Ms. Vivian Hayward be fired from her position as Chief Firearms Officer. Not only does she not know the laws she's charged with enforcing, she didn't have the wherewithal to check both the existing laws, or the proposed changes, before making a statement.

  • Kirk Bellamy
    July 29, 2014 - 06:56

    Reading the comments here it is nice to see that the majority of people hold the same opinion that the current red tape in the current firearms legislation is ridiculous. Ms. Hayward, I would suggest that you educate yourself before issuing contradicting statements. You state that this puts us one step away from anarchy while you follow-up with admitting that you are not familiar with the proposed changes. I find this contradiction in logic to be far beneath the standard that I would expect from someone who holds your office. To the Guardian editor, the picture you've chosen for this article is prejudicial at best. To equate legal firearm owners with the illegal activity credited to this photo is inflammatory and disingenuous. Being a resident of PEI, I find this article embarrassing.

  • Mo Hepworth
    July 28, 2014 - 18:10

    she should be removed from office and charged with the act of sedition. She is doing nothing except trying to use fear to keep her job.

  • Terry
    July 28, 2014 - 17:12

    Scaremongering nonsense. 1) the proposed changes do not change who is permitted to own, and where they are permitted to take the guns. They eliminate the need for the CFO to issue a piece of paper which is always issued, and which permits the gun owner to take the gun to where they are already allowed to take it. 2) Tell me about all the crimes committed with all these legally registered and own "MACHINE GUNS" (scare quotes". Uh.... none. Not only that, they are probably not machine guns, but normal semi-auto rifle modifications thereof. I'll tell you what really scares the CFOs. The knowledge they that 90% of their job is useless pushing of paper, and the remainng 10% is harassing people who obey the law. As more and more people figure this out, this job can be downsized or eliminated. Criminals don't use ATTs. They don't register their (90% smuggled) guns, and they know the CFO exists.

  • Peter
    July 28, 2014 - 16:01

    After reading this story, and all the comments posted so far, I'll be waiting and watching carefully, VERY carefully, for Vivian Hayward (P.E.I.’s chief firearms officer) to publicly offer an apology, and an acknowledgement that she doesn't know zip about what is actually going on around her.

  • Bill Meeker
    July 28, 2014 - 15:54

    There are a lot of stats spouted here without any attribution at all and no way to know how truthful they are. I would say that 99.9 per cent of gun owners do go ballistic when gun ownership is mentioned and a full 100 per cent of "gunners" are just as likely to commit a crime as non "gunners" contrary to what KJQ would have us believe. I also read somewhere that 65.8 per cent of gun people have their fire arms stored in an unsafe manner and 80 per cent of "gunnies" let their kids play with loaded firearms. I also read a recent study that the last people who would help police nab a robber were gun owners despite the fact they portray this macho image of law and order. One new study out of Harvard I believe, says that at least 70 per cent of gun owners have a problem filling out all the forms that are required to possess a gun. Now that is scary.

    • Peter
      July 28, 2014 - 16:27

      And just what country were these studies carried out in?

    • Steve
      July 28, 2014 - 16:56

      I love the comment. "I read somewhere that 65.8%...." Nice fake stat. Very precise. Next time you want to throw fake statistical numbers around just say 65%. It's more believable or you can provide links and sources of your so called stats. Steve

    • Ian
      July 28, 2014 - 17:22

      You are totally trolling to annoy people, i also read a study, one that says 90% of all people who make up stats and percentages about studies that are too lazy to list sources are probably just full of it.

    • George Frederick
      July 29, 2014 - 09:58

      You destroy your own argument against gun owners with your use of unverifiable figures, and "facts" from unknown articles and studies that you seem to recall from having read somewhere at some time. For real facts about gun ownership and gun laws in Canada, try reading Dr. Caillin Langmann's peer reviewed and published study in an actual scientific journal. It has real facts and figures relevant to the Canadian situation, unlike your dubious numbers which apparently you don't know much about, anyway.

    • George Frederick
      July 29, 2014 - 10:01

      You destroy your own argument against gun owners with your use of unverifiable figures, unattributed facts and articles you think you recall, from somewhere, sometime. Try reading Dr. Caitlin Langmann's peer reviewed, factual and published study of gun laws in Canada.; because who knows where you got your dubious numbers and "facts" from; I certainly don't, and apparently neither do you.

    • Tim McNamara
      July 29, 2014 - 11:41

      Bill, I don't know where you get your "statistics" but what you say is pure nonsense. And Bill, Harvard is an American university so they are using data from US studies, not Canada. Also, what does gun ownership have to with criminal behavior? I'm a "gunnie" and I don't let anyone play with my firearms, especially children. Bill, I believe that 100% of non-gunnies have the IQ of a cow pattie and you have just proved my point.

    • Shroud of Turnip
      August 17, 2014 - 18:05

      No one "plays" with loaded firearms jackass. I've been a law abiding range officer for over 15 years. I've performed citizen's arrests working in the security industry and once as a private citizen aiding the police. The liberal government has driven a wedge between law abiding gun owners and unionized, goose stepping police forces who believe in a friendly version of totalitarianism. The changes to the law are minor and only reduce duplication in several areas and in fact AUGMENT training requirements. The fact that gun law in Canada falls under the CRIMINAL CODE, I can assure you that we gun owners take it very seriously. You don't like guns- don't buy one, keep licking Vivian Hayward's boots to a parade glossed sheen...

  • randi
    July 28, 2014 - 15:39

    Pure unadulterated politics ----------on her part. Who appointed her???

  • Captian Canuck
    July 28, 2014 - 12:33

    My, my. There sure is a lot of people who WANT to have guns. Sure is telling of the maturity and psychological state of the average joe. Sad sad sad. I'll stick to my Duke-Nukem n00b cannon thankyouverymuch.

    • Ryan R
      July 28, 2014 - 14:20

      First off, the news articles name is inaccurate. The new legislation that is slated to go forward in or around September has nothing to do with carrying restricted firearms. There has always been an option for individuals to carry a restricted firearm, although it's rarely ever granted to someone. The proposed legislation does nothing to affect this at all, period. What it does aim to change is not having to obtain an authorization to transport paper if a licenced person who already owns restricted firearms wants to take them DIRECTLY to and from an approved shooting range, gunsmith, or border crossing. This has been an issue for firearms owners like myself for sometime. For example, I like to shoot my restricteds several times a year, but not enough to warrant getting a pricey club membership - I rather pay for a guest entrance fee instead. But because I'm not a member at the club, I have to get a short term ATT to be allowed to legal bring my firearms there. One of the reasons allowing people to own restricteds is to target shoot. When I called the CFO to get the short term ATT I was denied because I wasn't a member of the club, even though the club and it's members were inviting me to come and guest passes are welcome. It is because of this I am glad to see ATTS go. If a legal firearm owner wanted to go on a shooting spree, they already have access to their firearms, and a piece of paper wouldn't stop them from doing so. Another concern cited by the CFO is it prevents people taking their firearms everywhere or being turned away at the range and having to drive back home, or leaving them unattended. There are already rules against this. The new legislation will make the ATT a condition of the licence, and still only allows owners to transport directly to and from an authorized place. Once again the article mentions 'carrying', there is no carrying involved, only transporting - the two words are not interchangeable and make a huge difference in public interpretation. Lastly, the CFO should resign after this shameful act of trying to incite fear. This is obviously done to try and keep her job secure.

  • Mark
    July 28, 2014 - 12:07

    The CFO of PEI is commenting based on her reading of media reports? And no offer to resign for incompetence? The RCMP and local police demonstrated more sense, waiting to comment until they had read the actual proposals. For the reporter... my recollection is that ATT is an authorization to "Transport" (i.e. take a pistol to the range and back home) as opposed to "Transfer" which is more normally used to describe a sale but hey, maybe it's different in PEI where the CFO is clearly making it up as she goes. Ms. Hayward's assertion that we are "one step away" from open/concealed carry as in the US is wrong and would be pathetic if it wasn't designed to instill fear. There is already a provision in law for an "Authorization to Carry" or ATC, issued to security guards, to trappers and others who come into regular contact with dangerous wildlife as part of their jobs, and rarely to individual citizens where the police agree that they cannot protect them adequately. Anti-gun agitators will be amused to learn that the late Mr. Trudeau (whose regime cheerfully imposed so many odious restrictions on OTHER people) apparently applied for an ATC class 3 as a private citizen, and was declined.

  • Allan Young
    July 28, 2014 - 11:58

    Oh for goodness sake! If you're wondering why gun owners hate the CFO, this is why. The new legislation proposes merely eliminates the PAPERWORK. All of the rules of transportation still remain - which means you can't drive around with restricted/prohibited guns willy nilly, they still need to only be transported to authorized places - obviously a piece of paper is NOT NEEDED. The fact that this CFO is fear-mongering and trying to justify her useless job explains quite clearly why her job is just a waste of taxpayer's money.

  • Simple Compromise
    July 28, 2014 - 10:29

    I'm very surprised at the number of people posting here. It seems everyone has a gun but me. (My choice) What I don't understand is why all of you gun owners aren't speaking out to simply do something about automatic weapons which are at the root of the real problem. Ban them, if need be. Nobody needs one for target practice, which is what most people say they do with their guns. Nobody needs one for hunting. That's not a sport it's just a massacre when the animal has no chance. Nobody NEEDS one for their collection. It's a compromise that is fair for both sides of the argument.

    • Dave
      July 28, 2014 - 12:46

      They are banned, I don't know why you think they aren't? Clearly you have been mislead. That is actually the reason people are so upset here, the CFO of PEI is deliberately trying to mislead people as well.

    • bryan
      July 28, 2014 - 13:00

      How is it that automatic weapons are a problem. IIRC such have been banned in Canada since 1934. Hunting, target shooting, competition, and collection are all legitimate reasons to own firearms. Perhaps we should ban the already banned if that makes someone feel safer. The net result of the proposed legislation is to cut red tape and save the government money. Rules around safety and use have not changed, welcome to the electronic age. Doing away with challenging the proficiency testing simply means people in remote areas will hunt and use firearms without licensing as the cost and time would be prohibitive. How does this improve safety? Another purpose of the legislation is too curb individual and political interpretation by un- elected bureaucrats. While the FA, Bill C68 is flawed, some say purposely, to allow this....the proposals begin to address needed changes without the expense and time to write replacement legislation.. People 40-69 years old who have gone to the trouble to comply with unnecessary law to own firearms are not a demographic to be feared. If people fear firearms it is because of a Hollywood action movie image portrayed by the media or criminals. Neither of those groups have anything to do with licensed gun owners. The unjustified incitement of fear by the provincially appointed bureaucrat (CFO), serves to show that the position is unnecessary, unsupervised, and well past its expiry date.

  • Randdon
    July 28, 2014 - 09:59

    So Vivian, if you didn't know much about the proposed changes, why are you interviewing and spouting nonsense about something you have no knowledge??

  • JC
    July 28, 2014 - 08:11

    Clearly an attempt to justify her job, Most law abiding Canadians having guns are treated like criminals WE USE THEM FOR SPORT not to commit crime, the ATT's ate just a restraint that we have to ask for from a CFO on a power trip, it has nothing to do with public safety.The changes will focus on Criminals now those who actually COMMIT the crimes and it will stop spreading the blame on all gun owners, LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS

  • George
    July 28, 2014 - 00:38

    If the CFO doesn't understand the difference between Authorization To Transport and Authorization To Carry, she clearly shouldn't have her job.

  • John Thunderbird
    July 27, 2014 - 23:47

    I see nothing has changed since 1987. Simply marking time until the pension clock strikes. Good people bearing the brunt of it. Again.

  • C.Tremblay
    July 27, 2014 - 22:26

    Well I was going to post a pro-gun rebuttal, but it would appear we are well covered on this front... :D Good work guys!

  • Ward
    July 27, 2014 - 21:58

    Wow talk about a CFO being bitter about getting their powers cut down from making stupid requirements. No where near being like the US. There will still be there requirement to be disabled and in a case to go to the range. Get off your Liberal high horse.

  • Paul Keating
    July 27, 2014 - 21:22

    Ignorant CFOs like this are the reason the Public Safety Minister is taking the decision making power out of their hands.

  • Ronnie
    July 27, 2014 - 19:29

    "Members of both the RCMP and the Summerside police contacted by The Guardian declined to comment". That would have been a good option for the CFO.

  • KJQ
    July 27, 2014 - 19:24

    I think she wants to give the Ontario CFO a run for his money on making up the most outrageous inflammatory statements with no basis in reality to scare the public. The proposed change does not affect the limited places one can take a restricted/prohibited firearm, nor how one can store or transport one. It is merely changing the ATT from a paper carried by the firearms owner to an electronic entry on one's record in the Canadian Firearms Program electronic system. It's like changing the provincial law to say you don't need to carry a paper copy of your proof of car insurance with you. That wouldn't mean you don't need car insurance any more. All the processes are still going to be there, just no piece of paper to wait days in the mail for - over the phone electronically done.

  • Dave
    July 27, 2014 - 19:12

    She is the Chief Firearms Officer for PEI,and all she knows of this is from media. Seriously?? Done this job for how many years now and don't know how to find about proposed amendments. Harper is right, she should be replaced.

  • Dave
    July 27, 2014 - 19:00

    WOW,just WOW. She came out of left field with this. Complete fabrication and sensationalism. There is nothing in the proposed changes like this. Can anyone tell that one of the proposed changes will see the Federal gov't replacing provincial CFO's, meaning........Ms Hayward will be out of a plumb job. I wonder if that is her real motivation.

  • Garth Staples
    July 27, 2014 - 18:56

    From my concerned statement in the e-edition to an avalanche here I am encouraged. Let contributors however beware the Guardian and the CFO will find ways not to repent for this yellow journalism and public servant disdain for the unsuspecting public.

  • J Hawk
    July 27, 2014 - 18:54

    There is nothing in these change that have any negative effect on guncontrol in this country. Are any of you obtuse enough to believe that a piece of paper somehow causes a firearm to defy the laws of physics rendering it unmovable? At ATT is a ridiculous paperwork exercise that has zero positive effect on public safety, it is not needed.

    • @ J Hawk from retired cop
      July 28, 2014 - 07:55

      @ J Hawk an ATT does not render a firearm unmoveable, but it does make it an arrestable offence to have one in your possession in absence of an ATT. Giving police this little extra authority enhances public safety when, for example, some nutbar wants to go on a shooting spree at a mall or school.. just having the gun in his car without the ATT is an arrestable offence. If we remove this law, then we are removing/seriously restricting police authority in some dangerous situations and are hindering their ability to intervene and save lives. (and don't say things like that never happen in PEI, cause I have seen first hand that they can and sometimes do...)

    • @ retired cop
      July 28, 2014 - 10:23

      @ retired cop. There are tons of other charges you can lay depending on the situation; careless use and storage of a firearm, pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace, possession of a firearm without a licence, occupying a vehicle with a firearm, possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, altering a serial number on a firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and recklessly discharging a firearm and those are just out of the latest paper clipping. Do you really need the ATT one on top of that?

    • Dave
      July 28, 2014 - 10:25

      @ "supposed" retired cop...............that is simply untrue. The transport laws are clear, trigger locked, in a locked case. If it is out of the case anywhere but your home or range, you have broken the law. The law also says you must take a direct route back ad forth to the range. .....So....when cops see people with handguns at malls......they ask if he has an ATT??? C'mon, you're not a cop, and never were.

    • Jeff
      July 28, 2014 - 10:40

      The ATT is still gonna be there, just combined with my PAL. Still only able to take restricted & prohibited fire arms to designated places. Hence nothing really changes except I don't have to wait for the CFO to issue me that piece of paper. And in some cases through out Canada CFOs have refused to give ATT's dispite court order. Seemingly above the law.

    • Allan Young
      July 28, 2014 - 13:03

      @retired cop - The transportation rules have NOT been changed. The useless piece of paper is being removed that's all. You still can't drive around with a restricted/prohibited gun - obviously you can enforce that rule without a piece of paper. Does a bad driver need to carry a piece of paper for you to fine him for impaired driving?

  • Bill Meeker
    July 27, 2014 - 18:45

    Man, there is nothing like a story on guns and gun ownership to bring the whackos coming out of the woodwork. Judging by many of the comments on this story from"responsible" gun owners, anger management is not one of the criteria to owning a gun. There is nothing like very angry people who are unable to control that anger and who have access to guns to make me sweat.

    • Garth Staples
      July 27, 2014 - 18:59

      Apparently you are not angry by incorrect information and the reporting of it!

    • J Hawk
      July 27, 2014 - 19:00

      Let me apologize for gun owners, but it is very difficult to constantly battle people who have clearly no knowledge of the subject, but have no compunctions about having an opinion, Just as some are quick to accuse gun owners that vociferously defend themselves and their sport as somehow dangerous, and untrustworthy, in fact as a group gun owners are some of the most responsible people in the county.

    • Jamie Smith
      July 27, 2014 - 20:12

      Bill, your transparent attempt to make us out to be who we are not is not welcome, not helpful and not even the truth. The "angry people who are unable to control that anger and who have access to guns" you mention are the people the new regulations aim to target. Not the millions of us (yes that is factual, not hyberbolic) of us legal firearms owners who have been punished for decades for the action of one man and his horrific crime.

    • JOHN J
      July 27, 2014 - 21:01

      Nice name calling

    • j Carlton
      July 27, 2014 - 21:38

      naturally people are angry when their rights are being negated and they are misrepresented by an agendized media and police force. Is that what Canada has become? A nation of serfs being spoon fed propaganda? Lord I hope not...now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the pistol range to exercise my rights.

    • Joe
      July 27, 2014 - 22:03

      I am one of those People you try to vilify. I'm not angry but assertive and prepared to address this vilification. Over the last 20yrs, we are better organized and tend to surround the wagon when an anti spreads lies and misinformation about our sport. True story, over 10yrs ago, I was physically disabled by an impaired driver that crashed his car into my car. Am I angry at cars, do I want cars restricted, do I want Corvettes/Porsche's banned,? Nope.

    • JOHN J
      July 28, 2014 - 06:37

      The CFO is another high paying government job that shouldn't be there , they contribute nothing to our society or economy.

    • Andrew Spencer
      July 28, 2014 - 07:29

      If gun owners were as evil as you make us out to be, there wouldn't be any anti-gun folk.

    • Glenn
      July 28, 2014 - 09:19

      Wow... if anything you should be angry at the laws that have been put in pace to persecute and criminalize the innocent.. Look at the truth of Canada's 'gun control' bullshit bulletin.rightsandfreedoms.org/download/ Get issues 116 and 117 read the two part article by Todd Brown. That will be a start of your education regarding the farce that has been going on for far far too long. You should be ashamed of yourself in the meantime.

    • KJQ
      July 28, 2014 - 09:42

      @ Bill Meeker: That's a fine sounding argument except for one teensy fact - lawful firearms owners are 3 times LESS likely than non-firearms owners to commit any type of crime, including violent crime. So even if we are/were "angry people with guns", this would just be proof that we are far better at anger control/management than our non-firearms owning neighbours. So people like yourself are actually far more likely to harm a fellow citizen than we firearms owners are.

    • bob
      July 28, 2014 - 19:17

      You're right," whackos" do come out of the woodwork, not to add to the discussion but just to add a stupid comment about gun owners. If you're sweating just reading about someone defending his point, i bet you're not going out much. It's a discussion, i don't see anyone using foul language,or threats. Why don't you go back to watching " the sound of music" where everything is nice and peaceful for you so you will not break into a sweat Bill

  • Eric
    July 27, 2014 - 18:13

    Legally we're allowed to carry an unloaded XCR rifle on my back and loaded magazines on my hip. No paperwork, no ATT, far more powerful. But that's foolish. We don't want American style rules. We want common sense in our sport & hobby. That means I don't need a piece of paper to tell me what my license already did.

  • Jonathan
    July 27, 2014 - 17:59

    Just like in the US with guns on there hips?? The only difference is IT HAS TO BE LOCKED IN A CASE, HAVE A TRIGGER LOCK AND THE BARREL AND AMUNITION IN AN OTHER CONTAINER!! AND BE OUT OF SIGHT.

  • kevin
    July 27, 2014 - 17:37

    Yes carry anywhere as long as it has a trigger locked is in a locked case not stored with your ammo and is in your truck, but she makes it seem like people will be able to strap pistols to there hip. I wonder what here reaction would be if she knew that you can walk around with a loaded non restricted as long as it's in sight and there is no local bylaws

  • Tyler
    July 27, 2014 - 17:21

    And honestly, the entire restricted firearms transport process is based on trust. The government trusts us to transport out firearms according to the restrictions in the law, and we do so. The only thing stopping us from breaking the law is a moral choice. (Something criminals are not capable of). So then, look at the statistics, how many people out if the millions of lawful firearms owners do you hear about breaking these laws beside known criminals? Ok, now how many people to you hear about that get arrested for impaired driving? Now, where does your prejudice lie again?

  • Barry Shanks
    July 27, 2014 - 17:21

    When has it ever been the job of the CFO to voice public concern about anything. There job is to police the existing law that is in action no more. If the man who's job it is in Ottawa to make law and to change law decides to do so it is not a concern of any CFO to make public a remark in any way. I worked for the Liquor Board for many years and when the Board made changes to the Liquor Act it was just to bad if I did not agree I would have been fired if I made my option public in the news.

  • Barry Shanks
    July 27, 2014 - 17:19

    When has it ever been the job of the CFO to voice public concern about anything. There job is to police the existing law that is in action no more. If the man who's job it is in Ottawa to make law and to change law decides to do so it is not a concern of any CFO to make public a remark in any way. I worked for the Liquor Board for many years and when the Board made changes to the Liquor Act it was just to bad if I did not agree I would have been fired if I made my option public in the news.

  • Andrew Spencer
    July 27, 2014 - 17:07

    Well, if nothing else, The Guardian has to be happy with the huge number of visits this page has been getting. Good to sell advertising and all, eh? On to the topic at hand: the PEI CFO has demonstrated that she is unfit to comment publicly, when she states that she has not read the changes to the regulations. Second, the regulations simply remove the requirement to obtain what us essentially a "hall pass" from the CFO to take restricted firearms to a gunsmith or a range. All of the other provisions remain. I can empathize with the CFO: with the elimination of the "hall pass" she may not know how to fill the extra time on her hands, and her office may have to justify its existence. She is worried about her job! A bureaucracy, once entrenched, needs to find ever-increasing ways to remain relevant. The editor may wonder about the overwhelming number of comments taking Ms. Hayward to task for her fear mongering and ignorance. He or she should know that because of the de facto criminalization of firearms ownership under the Liberals' Bill C68, Canadian gun owners find themselves in a position where we must be fully conversant around the laws governing our sport. More so, it would seem, than the bureaucrat tasked with the enforcement of those laws. It is time to eliminate CFOs.

  • Bill
    July 27, 2014 - 16:36

    That'll be the day :) At least I would feel safe doing my day to day work then. Perhaps the provincial cfo is also forgetting the interoffice poster her colleagues and her made a few years back. "Wanted; guns or else!" It was a bold attempt at taking firearms from civilians back then, and it's that's still their mission today. It might not be soo bad if the peace officers actually performed their duties, yet all they are constantly doing is asking the public for help. It's pretty sad when you report a crime, don't get a file number let alone their name or business card, and they don't want to take or even look at untouched physical evidence. Guess they'd just rather ask the public for help, so why not let us help, and carry for our protection!

  • Jeff
    July 27, 2014 - 16:27

    They are getting rid of 1 piece of paper. Really nothing else changes except our tax dollars will be wasted a little less. Really can't believe the Guardian would publish such garbage. Worried bout it ending up like the U.S........well media lying to the public is the best way to start!!!

  • Mike Yakey
    July 27, 2014 - 16:15

    Lies and fear mongering. The new proposed changes simply attach the ATT to the RPAL instead of making them separate documents. Otherwise the transport restrictions remain EXACTLY THE SAME.

  • Csaba Hollo
    July 27, 2014 - 15:59

    A totally irresponsible article, and an even more irresponsible comments by the PEI CFO. The reason she spouts such drivel is because she knows that she will not be challenged on it. Law abiding gun owners can only hope that these paper crime mavericks will be shown the door by the Public Safety Minister and outed for what they really are - mouthpieces for the Canadian Association for Chiefs of Police, and the Coalition for Gun Control.

  • Adam
    July 27, 2014 - 15:28

    Ms Hayward's fears are largely grounded in job security, with these proposed legislative changes making her and her colleagues redundant. The fact of the matter is that people with loaded restricted firearms are walking about every day, even onto school campuses and shopping malls: police officers and cash in transit guards. And there has just been a multiple stabbing spree in Abbotsford--remember that no permit is needed to carry knives home from a department store.

  • David Anderson
    July 27, 2014 - 14:35

    Apparently Vivian Hayward believes that a magic piece of paper is all that prevents responsible, licenced firearms owners from running amok in public. If she has such a low opinion of the character of gun owners despite all evidence to the contrary, I would say she is unfit for her position of CFO. Gun owners have suffered for years under the arbitrary and capricious dictates of CFOs in every province. That is why the Federal government is looking at ways to constrain their powers and reduce useless bureaucracy. Ms. Wright could be the poster child for bureaucratic abuse.

  • Canuck
    July 27, 2014 - 14:23

    Thanks to these new developments I'm going keep my pistol in my trunk 24/7 for emergencies. I can always just say, "hey I'm going to a gunsmith" or "I'm on my way to the range".

    • ian
      July 27, 2014 - 21:14

      Before "new developments" people could do that...it is called breaking the law. Long term att have been around for ages. This just attaches ot to a condition of the "restricted liscence" that allows you to biy pistols in the first place.

  • Sean
    July 27, 2014 - 14:20

    "Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes". Clearly. Odd how you know very little yet you have a lot to say..Perhaps doing your job correctly means not reading newly proposed legislative material?

  • Joe M.
    July 27, 2014 - 14:03

    Could someone get me the statistics on how many crimes have been stopped because the CFO refused to issue an ATT to a liquor store or 7-11? Criminals do that right? Apply for RPALs? Pass daily background checks? Legally purchase handguns? Follow all transportation regulations and apply for an ATT to wherever they plan to commit a crime? Anybody...?

  • Gareth Driscoll
    July 27, 2014 - 13:55

    I find it offensive that a government employee in a position of power has the ignorance to suggest to the general public (who may have no idea of what's in the firearms act) assumptions that do nothing but monger fear. The safe storage laws and locations permitted to fire restricted/prohibited firearms as well as the SERIOUS penalties for violating them still apply. An ATT is not an ATC and the suggestion that it is is ridiculous. This is not America and it never will be. This level of incompetence and ignorance demonstrated by a high ranking government employee should result in termination. All these changes suggest is that we no longer have to call the cfp and ask for a piece of paper, but instead it would be attached to our licence. Less hassle for everyone and all of the other rules and penalties remain in place. Fire the cfos.

  • Joe
    July 27, 2014 - 13:52

    "Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes" Sounds like the CFO doesn't know very much about the Canadian Firearm Act, you should read it again!

  • Mike
    July 27, 2014 - 13:38

    Wth? These changes would make no changes other then attach a piece of paper to a peice of plastic and chicken little is screaming the sky is falling? This is why the CFO"s are being reigned in from creating arbitrary rules with real heavy duty criminal penalties for law abiding citazens. Funny how the courts can rule a drug dealer whom carries an illegal gun illegally and faces a mandatory minimum sentence is "cruel and unusual punishment" but law abiding gun owners we should throw away the key.

  • Liars
    July 27, 2014 - 13:24

    CFOs need to be fired. They demonize and attack legal law abiding gun owners at every turn, lambasting them for the latest gang related violence using illegal smuggled guns from America. They serve no purpose.

  • dave
    July 27, 2014 - 13:19

    "Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes, as the province has not been consulted on the proposed federal Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act" She has no common sense whatsoever!!!

  • Bob Richards
    July 27, 2014 - 13:17

    This is fear mongering at it's worst. This so called CFO should read the firearms act. Firearms owners are the safest, most responsible people in Canada. They have to be, as the police check them (according to the cops themselves) thousands of times a day. For example, firearms owners simply want the ability to move their firearm from their house to the range, or to a gunsmith, in a locked container in their vehicle, without waiting for a piece of paper every time they do it. That is worlds away from walking down the street with a gun on your hip as this article states.

  • Bryan Bolivar
    July 27, 2014 - 13:11

    ‎In response to the article dated July 27,2014 regarding the proposed common sense changes to the firearms act; Despite the fear mongering statements by the PEI CFO, there is nothing in the statements from Minister Blaney that would allow carry or transport to a location authorized for use of restricted firearms by the most direct route from the residence of a licence holder. Carrying a gun "to the mall" or similar un-authorized location is not suddenly being allowed for by these proposed changes. It would be best for all to actually review the statements of the minister before commenting. ‎Especially a person in the position of Chief Provincial Firearms Officer. Bryan Bolivar Midhurst, Ontario

  • Charles
    July 27, 2014 - 13:03

    It sounds like some (Vivian Hayward) is a little miffed that someone went above her head to make better firearms laws. To get back she decided to scare the citizens of P.E.I.

  • K Williams
    July 27, 2014 - 12:55

    "Vivian Hayward says she knows very little about the changes, as the province has not been consulted on the proposed federal Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act. But from what she has read in media reports, ". Seriously? I don't k of what changes there will be, but I'm going to create widespread fear and panic over licensed, Background checked, permitted firearms owners carrying their privately owned private property without an additional permission slip. Vivian, stop taking orders from the CFGC and use you brain to think for yourself.

  • Yendor
    July 27, 2014 - 12:46

    HYPE and NONSENSE! Average death statistics from Stats Canada, Canadian Medical Association Journal, MADD Canada, Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation:` Smoking contributes to more than 37,000 deaths a year in Canada. Medical errors contribute to between 9,000 and 24,000 deaths in Canada a year. Estimated minimum of 1,082 deaths and approximately 63,821 injuries from alcohol impaired motor vehicle crashes. OxyContin and codeine abuse cause an average 550 deaths a year in Ontario alone. Stabbing deaths = 185 Shooting and gun related deaths = 178 Beating deaths = 115 Strangulation deaths = 43 Burning and suffocation combined deaths = 15 Other homicide methods combined deaths = 25 Undetermined deaths = 17 The Government of Canada's Canadian Firearms Program spends $84 million in tax dollars on gun control and restrictions for law abiding firearms owners. How much do you think the Canadian Government spends on prevention for all these other preventable death causes?

  • Shooter
    July 27, 2014 - 12:44

    Another tarnish to The Guardian's name. The first sentence of the article is blatantly false, and mentioned nowhere in the new proposal. This article should have never been printed, your main source is someone who freely admits they know nothing about the new legislation. The change means you are simply required to keep one less document in your range bag, the laws for safe transport and approved areas for discharge of restricted firearms will remain the same. Further, if the laws did change and we we're allowed to carry firearms, why would that mean that Canadian streets would become a bloodbath? Licenced restricted firearms owners are already the safest and most responsible private citizens in this country. Could someone please explain to me how we all become blood-thirsty gangbangers the minute we are given the added responsibility of carrying in public? Also why is a public servant allowed to comment on proposed legislation anyway, and be so horribly misinformed? She should be fired for her baseless fear-mongering. As for your 52nd state comment Don, WAAAH GUNS BAD! AMERICA BAD!... Great, now go back and sit at the kids table. People like you need to wake up and realize that you know nothing about firearms legislation in this country, and stop basing your national identity off of the fact that we aren't USA. Finally, Guardian, what's up with the picture? You know that this change is for licenced gun owners right? not drug dealers? A quick search of your firearms related articles shows a definite anti-gun bias.You should print a retraction for this travesty of attempted journalism.

  • Hmmm
    July 27, 2014 - 12:42

    ... restrict the ability of CFOs to make arbitrary decisions. .. think maybe she's scared of losing her power?

  • Donald
    July 27, 2014 - 12:38

    I find the remarks offensive and false, and as well find this fear evoking,And a senior official making them,should be held accountable for them, Perhaps the justice minister will care to comment on her statement to see if it reflects the ministers position?

  • John
    July 27, 2014 - 12:37

    She haven't been consulted or seen the changes but she will still go to the media and fear monger. Wow. How does she have a job still?

  • TM Jones
    July 27, 2014 - 12:33

    Let's see if I have this right. By her own admission Ms. Hayward says she knows very little about the proposed changes, relying instead on hysterical and inaccurate media reports.. If this is the level of critical thinking skills possessed by the CFOs in this country, no wonder gun owners feel victimized.

  • Darren Priestley
    July 27, 2014 - 12:29

    Criminals do not follow the law that is all one has to remember in the gun debate . The minister is on the right track .

  • Dana
    July 27, 2014 - 12:24

    This might be the MOST biased , fear mongering article I've ever read . The proposed changes in no way allow gun owners to carry ANY firearm on their person . For the uninformed , these changes simply remove the need to apply , and wait for the CFO to send me a piece of paper saying I can legally take my purchased firearm from the sellers hand to my home , or the gun range or the gunsmith etc . I still have to transport my firearm ( restricted ) locked and UNLOADED in my vehicle . For a CFO , of all people to suggest this in any way will allow us to carry a loaded firearm on our person is such a bold faced lie I'm ....I don't know .... To all of you non gun owners reading this . You are being manipulated , do some research ( something the Gaurdian should also try ) and see for yourselves . You might actually ask yourselves why the provincial CFO , a non elected , highly paid bureaucrat , is doing trying to scare the bejesus out of people with outright lies , while being paid with your tax dollars . To the Gaurdian , you should be ashamed of yourselves , this is not reporting . Fear mongering propaganda is the domain of supermarket tabloids ....give your heads a shake .

  • Derek
    July 27, 2014 - 12:14

    Wow. This is reporting? Shouldn't reporting be based on facts? I will never read this paper again.

  • ian
    July 27, 2014 - 12:10

    Fear mongering CFO concerned about her JOB. beaurocrats trying to keep needless work for more beaurocrats!. It doesnt allow you to drive anywhere it acts as a long term ATT(which we already have) and allows for "ALL APPROVED RANGES IN ALBERTA". thats right all APPROVED ranges. This cfo just wants her job security and will fear monger public to get it. Criminals dont use an ATT anyway, nor do they follow her rules or requests. Its not the law abiding people need to worry about, its criminals who dont give a crap what the law is.

  • GingerBeardMan
    July 27, 2014 - 12:09

    Not only should the CFO lose his job over these blatant lies and fearmongering...so should Teresa Wright for being stupid and naive enough to print it. They should both be ashamed of themselves, but they aren't intelligent enough to process such an emotion in a situation like this.

  • Crystal Power
    July 27, 2014 - 12:07

    Have you ever stopped by a grocery store to get milk and something to eat after playing golf or tennis? If your a competition shooter and do this the cops could make an example out of you! Stop the insanity. Criminals don't care how many dam laws you create.

  • Brent K
    July 27, 2014 - 12:07

    I know a 12 year old girl that has a better understanding of Canadian Firearms Law than the CFO in PEI. That is a sad fact.

  • Matt
    July 27, 2014 - 12:03

    Baseless fear mongering. If the ATT is made part of a restricted firearms licence, then that's all that happens. All of the restrictions and provisions of the ATT don't magically disappear. You still would only be allowed to take the firearm to places you are legally allowed to (gun ranges, gun smiths, etc.) by the most expedient route. You admit you know very little about the changes, then proceed to completely fabricate a story about what you think will happen with the changes you know little about. As I said, baseless fear mongering. I'm glad CFO's carte blanche to insert their own rules is being curtailed with people like this in the position.

  • Ian McDowall
    July 27, 2014 - 12:03

    Fear mongering CFO concerned about her JOB. beaurocrats trying to keep needless work for more beaurocrats!. It doesnt allow you to drive anywhere it acts as a long term ATT(which we already have) and allows for "ALL APPROVED RANGES IN ALBERTA". thats right all APPROVED ranges. This cfo just wants her job security and will fear monger public to get it. Criminals dont use an ATT anyway, nor do they follow her rules or requests. Its not the law abiding people need to worry about, its criminals who dont give a crap what the law is.

  • Ian McDowall
    July 27, 2014 - 12:02

    Fear mongering CFO concerned about her JOB. beaurocrats trying to keep needless work for more beaurocrats!. It doesnt allow you to drive anywhere it acts as a long term ATT(which we already have) and allows for "ALL APPROVED RANGES IN ALBERTA". thats right all APPROVED ranges. This cfo just wants her job security and will fear monger public to get it. Criminals dont use an ATT anyway, nor do they follow her rules or requests. Its not the law abiding people need to worry about, its criminals who dont give a crap what the law is.

  • Paul
    July 27, 2014 - 11:55

    Oh no!Law abiding gun owners can carry their firearms without an ATT!!! Oh the humanity!

  • Geoffrey
    July 27, 2014 - 11:46

    WOW! I'm very surprised about how many comments are pro gun and pro freedom. I thought Islanders were way more whipped than that. This makes me feel much better about our Island. Everyone is always cursing about the Harper government, but they keep doing great things. Responsible people should be allowed to carry guns and Vivian Campbell is worthless and should be fired immediately. We need more freedom!

  • Shawn Bevins
    July 27, 2014 - 11:46

    The guardian should retract this story. It is filled with inacuracies and outright lies. An ATT is an authorization to transport not an ATC which is an authorization to carry. Just goes to show that CFO's know nothing about the firearms act. Total incompetency!

  • Ian Sutherland
    July 27, 2014 - 11:17

    It's hard to believe Mrs Hayward has any understanding of the current Gun Laws. A CFO should be aware of current rules and also aware that the ATT piece of paper is nothing more than a redundant duplication of restriction. I would suggest that her comments are meant to be fear mongering in response to her empire being attacked by the federal government. She and other CFO's across the provinces are about to have their powers of arbitrary law making limited and this will reduce their need to process considerable unneeded paperwork. Their bureaucracies will shrink along with their funding which will rightly be redirected towards chasing criminals rather than making life difficult for law abiding gun owners. There is no factual evidence to back up her claims that an ATT makes the world any safer. There is no easing of restrictions, just elimination of useless paperwork processing. Imagine if you have a drivers license and you have to call each time you want to drive the car...that's basically what the CFO demands with this ATT process. Each time you call you can wait up to 90 minutes on the phone to get permission to use your license. Imagine the bureaucracy and empire she has built and the cost to run it.

  • Chesney Sporks
    July 27, 2014 - 10:57

    Gun laws in the UK are incredibly restrictive, but they don't have ATT's. If you don't keep your firearms secure, wherever they are, you are in a lot of trouble. You are not permitted to simply leave your guns inyou car while you go shopping and I would assume that the same kind of rules would apply here. To say that Canada will suddenly turn into the Wild West simply because some paperwork no longer needs to be filled out, is preposterous.

  • Matt
    July 27, 2014 - 10:49

    Waitwaitwait....so.....some mentally stable, RCMP approved, doctor approved, x wife approved, criminal record checked daily, law abiding person could have their handgun or restricted rifle secured with a locking device AND locked in a lockable, sturdy, opaque caseAND locked in their trunk, and they could go to the mall? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WILD WEST! BLOOD RUNNIGN IN THE STREETS! CHEMTRAILS!!!!!!!!!

    • m
      July 27, 2014 - 12:21

      people like you make me sick. i bet you think everyone who own a gun is a blood thirsty phyco dont you? well do i have to remind you that cops carry guns, police officers are normal people that carry guns for protection, we should be able to also. and WTF do kids have to do with anything?? you have to go through a few month process before you can even own any guns and a simple parking ticket can put you at risk of loosing handguns.

    • D King
      July 27, 2014 - 12:45

      Exactly! lol

    • D King
      July 27, 2014 - 12:52

      I Can't believe the CFO is so irresponsible, she should be fired. Sounds like another anit-american, pro communist dictator to me. And why do the antis always say it'll be American style wild west with blood in the streets? I've spent a lot of time in the states an you know what? I've never been shot and I've never seen anyone else get shot but I sure have seen lots of folks carrying guns. Imagine that! Take Maine for example, some of the most lax gun laws in the US and when was the last mass shooting in Maine? exactly! Common sense people, c'mon.

  • Ron H
    July 27, 2014 - 10:46

    I feel you have degraded your paper's reputation with this terrible article. The CFO of your province should be fired for making such fear mongering remarks with no basis in fact.

  • Jim Pook
    July 27, 2014 - 10:04

    Vivian Hayward is doing nothing but fear-mongering. With views like this, she has no right to be a CFO and should be fired immediately. Since the Liberals introduced C-68, the Firearms Act of 1995, lawful gun owners have been under constant attack by govenment and police. Their eventual goal to eliminate public firearms ownership in Canada. While the proposed changes are a good first step to sane gun laws, it is time for Prime Minister Harper to make good on his promise to rescind C-68 and write a common sense firearms law.

  • frequent tourist
    July 27, 2014 - 09:51

    Apparently the CFO's tongue is hinged at both ends like Anne's for such utter lying. And forked tongue as well. As someone who is supposed to be familiar with the Firearms Act, an expert if you will, there is so much that is blatantly contradictory\wrong to even the day to day operations of her duties. Any other agency or business would be forced to conduct a competency investigation of public comments such as this And yes, the attached picture is more than a little prejudiced and smacks more of tabloid journalism than stating the facts in an unbiased manner for the reader to decide.

  • Frosty One
    July 27, 2014 - 09:50

    A Politician will lie to you to get your vote. A Police Officer will lie to you to deny you your rights. The CFO is a Politial Police Officer. You do the math.

    • LaserGuy
      July 29, 2014 - 10:37

      Hey! I like that.. And your absolutely right. I hope Ontario's 'Political' CFO Chris Wyatt, reads all the comments here before he opens his mouth with the same usual B.S. I'm going to be in PEI this weekend, and finding out the inhabitants of this beautiful Island think the same as I do, is very reassuring. Plan to have fun, and no I will not have any of my 'restricted' firearms with me.

  • James Smith
    July 27, 2014 - 09:41

    I've always had a good experience with the CFO in PEI. But this junk. If she read a single media report about the PSM's changes she would know that this was not even a STEP towards carrying a restricted firearm anywhere somebody wants. One word for hoplophobes including Don in the comments: EDUCATION.

  • don morris
    July 27, 2014 - 09:27

    What utter fear-mongering nonsense by the PEI CFO, no wonder Harper wants to restrict their authority. He should lobby Provincial governments to get rid of this unnecessary and costly civil servant whose work does absolutely nothing to create a safer Country. When any politician,and the CFO is certainly political, starts to spout about "U.S. style" anything, whether it's gun laws or medicare, you know facts have gone by the wayside in favor of propagandizing and fear.

  • don
    July 27, 2014 - 09:20

    all we have to do is add the blue line to our flag and we will be the 52 state and it is coming. and we will have more murders by guns and the sad part is it will be done by kids.

    • Jamie Smith
      July 27, 2014 - 09:43

      Don - maybe you don't realize that in Canada, shooting sports are second only to fishing in popularity. Five times as many people shoot here than play hockey or golf! And we're the lowest-cost to insure because we are so safe. In fact, if you read the proposals, they cover removing guns from those who commit domestic violence. How does that equate to more murders? Do you work at the CFO?

    • scott
      July 27, 2014 - 16:43

      It's hard for Don to work when he lives in moms basement and she supports him.

  • George Frederick
    July 27, 2014 - 09:15

    What a load of bald faced fear mongering. The CFO is as a drowning man grasping at straws. To put her and her comments in perspective, you have to realize that she has been part of a small cabal of petty bureaucrats who have been able to arbitrarily exercise an enormous amount of power over a captive segment of the populace due to one unnecessary sentence in a poorly worded law. And now, that their self perceived right to lord that power over people is being threatened, they are starting to invoke all kinds of bogeymen in an attempt to hold on to that power. With the proposals the government wants to introduce, all that will change is that people will no longer have to grovel to a CFO for permission to do what the law says they are allowed to do. They will still only be allowed to be at certain locations with their firearms, they will still have to secure and transport them the same way, and, the exact same penalties for violations will still exist. The only difference would be that they didn't have to ask a petty fief lord for his/her permission to do what the law allows them to do. And, it most certainly is not one step away from people walking around with guns on their hip; what utter hyperbolic hogwash.

  • fmpsportsguy
    July 27, 2014 - 09:02

    Anyone else find it odd/hypocritical that with the number of unsafe storage charges on the rise, the harper government and so called "responsible" gun owners are not calling for severe penalties and ownership bans for these "irresponsible" gun owners? Sure make it easy to get a gun, but if your gun is stolen....

    • GingerBeardMan
      July 27, 2014 - 12:01

      Unsafe storage 'charges'? They are just that...charges. Doesn't mean the person is guilty of an offence. It's an automatic charge any time something happens involving firearms...most of the time it is bogus and the person being charged isn't actually guilty of anything.

    • Tyler
      July 27, 2014 - 17:12

      Storage crimes on the rise? Cite your evidence. Otherwise you're just adding to the growing pile of lies and unfounded hysteria the anti-gun movement has to rely on, like this article!

  • Benjamin
    July 27, 2014 - 09:00

    “(It’s) just basically one step away from the U.S.-style having the gun on their hip authorization to carry, which people in this country don’t have,” Hayward said." Wow.....just wow.... these utterly useless CFOs really has to go..... “You would never be able to convict somebody and say, ‘What are you doing at this shopping mall with a restricted firearm in your vehicle?’ I have a question for you dear CFO, had a single criminal ever applied authorization to transport their firearms to drug deals, ever? If a legal gun owner has his firearms tripple locked(trigger lock, locked case, locked car) stopping for some coffee before shooting range, what's your issue? Go catch some real criminals, what a utter incompetency you have showed.

    • Richard Wakefield
      July 27, 2014 - 09:58

      Why is it you people always compare us to the US and not the Swiss? The Swiss are issued firearms, like the SA and handguns, by their government. Why are we less trustworthy than the Swiss?

  • Netghost
    July 27, 2014 - 08:58

    The concerns of the CFO are based on hysterical presumptions. In fact, anyone transporting a restricted firearm will be required to produce the special RPAL licence. Not just anyone will be able to transport a restricted firearm. In almost all cases where a firearm crime is committed it is by a person with no license in possession of a black market gun. Licensed firearms owners are very, very rarely involved in violent crimes. The CFOs are a redundant position created to maintain the gun registry. With that gone keeping them is a waste of taxpayer's money.

  • Seriously
    July 27, 2014 - 08:35

    Is it necessary to have empty vials of drugs, a bag of heroin or cocaine and brass knuckles in a story about changes to gun regulations? Does The Guardian actually believe that only drug dealers and thugs would be affected by changes to gun regulations. Changes to gun regulations will not affect criminals because since they ARE CRIMINALS they will not be worried about breaking another law. Law-abiding gun owners do not peddle drugs or use brass knuckles. Guardian, could you at least try to pretend that you are presenting a fair and unbiased representation of the facts?

  • SamD
    July 27, 2014 - 08:05

    Wow! ... "Vivian Hayward (P.E.I.’s chief firearms officer? ) says she knows very little about the changes"....so why the fear mongering? POLITIC's plain and simple. Scare the public needlessly to stir up votes for "someone's" party with SPECULATION not the LAW or REALITY. Petty and demonstrates poor judgement for any official to do that.

  • anothertaxpayer
    July 27, 2014 - 08:01

    What an irresponsible and stupid comment to make from someone in such a position and can only be meant to be scare mongering. No level of government in Canada has the stomach to allow "Joe Public" to carry a concealed or restricted firearm to get groceries or pump gas, and this individual knows it. The Canadian public has enough sense to know we don't need or want that, and would never stand for it.

  • SlyFox
    July 27, 2014 - 07:51

    More fear mongering .This change is to let registered gun owner transport their gun to and from the range with out getting a special permit every time.We as citizens should be more concerned about the criminals with guns who do not follow any laws when it comes to firearms.

  • Chicken little
    July 27, 2014 - 07:39

    Firearms officer says the sky has fallen with respect to proposed changes to gun regulations while admitting she knows very little about the new rules. She also acknowledges that her information is based primarily on what she has read in the media. We all know that everything we read in the media is 100% accurate 100% of the time. Meanwhile police agencies that will actually be responsible for enforcing the regulations take a measured approach and say let's wait and see what the new proposals are before commenting. The fear mongering and vilification by the media of law-abiding hunters, marksmen and gun collectors by people with little or know knowledge of the sports is getting tiresome!

  • Jamie Smith
    July 27, 2014 - 06:55

    I have had nothing but positive relations with PEI's CFO office and am troubled with some of what is said here. Removing needless and burdensome paperwork is a LONG WAY from being one step from carrying guns on our hips! The same transport restrictions will apply. IE: handguns will still need to be not loaded, locked, inside a locked container and in the trunk while in transit to where it is LEGAL to shoot them. To say I will be walking downtown with it on my hip is an outright LIE and not a position worthy of the office of the CFO. Actions of this type are likely precisely why the Federal Gov't is taking back its own powers that have been delegated and standardizing the CFO offices across Canada. Under the current system to have a handgun repaired at a gunsmith I have to contact the CFO and ask permission to do so. I have to specify which firearm, what date, what time of day etc. Same if I loan the firearm to another valid license holder. Unnecessary paperwork to do legal activities. If I have a valid license to own it that should be enough to operate it in any legal way. These proposed changes, as BRIEFLY mentioned in the article, are actually the 1st changes we've had in decades that actually make the public safer and not just added burden to firearms owners. By that I draw attention to the fact that the Federal Govt want to remove firerams ownership from those who commit domestic violence. This is great news! Take guns away from violent people and stop punishing legal owners. How can the CFO be against that?