The Silvercore Podcast with Travis Bader

Canadian lawyer Ian Runkle of the popular YouTube channel "Runkle of the Bailey", answers questions posed by Silvercore Club members. This is a remarkable opportunity to hear an extremely well versed lawyers thoughts and opinions on matters of particular interest to Canadian firearms owners.

Learn More about Silvercore

What is The Silvercore Podcast with Travis Bader?

The Silvercore Podcast explores the mindset and skills that build capable people. Host Travis Bader speaks with hunters, adventurers, soldiers, athletes, craftsmen, and founders about competence, integrity, and the pursuit of mastery, in the wild and in daily life. Hit follow and step into conversations that sharpen your edge.

Kind: captions
Language: en-GB

I'm Travis Bader
and this is The

Silvercore Podcast.

Join me as I discuss
matters related to

hunting, fishing, and
outdoor pursuits with the

people in businesses that
comprise the community.

If you're new to
Silvercore, be sure to

check out our website,
www.Silvercore.ca where

you can learn more about
courses, services, and

products that we offer.

As well as how you can
join The Silvercore Club,

which includes 10 million
in north America wide

liability insurance, to
ensure you are properly

covered during your
outdoor adventures.

In this episode, I sit
down with a lawyer, Ian

Runkle and ask firearms
related questions,

which came directly from
Silvercore Club members.

There is a ton of great
information crammed

into this podcast that
you won't want to miss.

Backed by very popular
demand, I'm again,

chatting with Ian
Runkle, Canadian lawyer

and host of the Runkle
of the Bailey YouTube

channel, which deals
with legal commentary,

heavily leaning towards
issues of interest to

the firearms community.

Ian doles out countless
hours of high quality

content and has a Patreon
account where he can

support us endeavor
and get the inside

scoop at the same time.

If you haven't checked
out Ian's work,

there will be links
in the description.

I highly recommended.

Welcome back to The
Silvercore Podcast, Ian.

Oh, thank you for
having me back.

It's always a
good time, so.

Man, I had so much
fun speaking with

you in episode 43.

And even though we
spoke for quite some

time, I felt like we're
still just scratching

the tip of the iceberg.

Oh, firearm law is
such a, uh, it's such

a complicated and kind
of broken area that

there's so much to it.

I mean, it's, uh, I
kind of fell in love

with it because I was
in law school, uh,

and started shooting.

And I, just because law
school is stressful.

I remembered I enjoyed
it as a kid, but I hadn't

really kept up with it,
but I needed a hobby.

So I started that and
then I thought, I don't

want to be the guy who
blows up his legal career

by getting himself into
some sort of trouble.

So I'd better actually
go and, uh, figure

out what the law is.

So I don't run into it.

And at first I
thought, I don't

understand this at all.

This is making no sense.

And later as I dug
into it more, I went, I

think I'm understanding
it just fine.

It just makes no sense.

Yeah.

That's kind of the
conclusion I've

come to as well.

And I don't have any
legal degree, but I

have heard, being a
firearms instructor

and being in the
industry since about 94.

I tend to hear the same
questions coming up

over and over again.

And you probably see
the same thing as well.

Yep.

And I try my best to sort
of answer some of them.

I, uh, I have the
optimistic notion

that some of my videos
might settle some

of these debates.

Um, it's overly
optimistic, but I am glad

every time I see one of
these fights starts up

and somebody goes, no, we
got an answer for this.

Here's a video.

Yeah.

Well, in preparation for
this podcast, we thought

it'd be kind of fun to
provide Silvercore Club

members an opportunity
to ask questions

and we could just
generally discuss it.

And Ian, you
graciously obliged.

Yep.

I see there's a whole
bunch of questions here.

I can sort of dive into
them or let you ask the

ones that are most sort
of key on your mind here,

but, uh, yeah, there's
a lot of questions that

sort of keep coming up
and a lot of them are

fairly complicated when
it gets down to it.

I'll try to be kind
of clear and concise

as much as possible

Well, you know what
I thought it would

be kind of fun was we
can generally speak

about the question and
kind of discuss it.

And if you have, for a
lot of these, I do know

that you already have
content in long form on

your YouTube channel.

And what I'll do is I'll
break them each one down.

And if we feel like,
Hey, we're getting a

little bit far into this,
we'll just put a link

over and the listeners
can go check it out

on The Runkle of the
Bailey YouTube channel.

Sounds good to me.

All right.

So the first one is a
really, really easy one.

Um, I'm sure no
one's ever asked

this one before.

Of course I'm
being facetious.

Are Canadian gun
owners permitted to

defend themselves
with their firearms?

And if so, in
what situations?

So this gets real
complicated because, uh,

self-defense law is what
lawyers like to call

highly fact-specific,
which means it comes

down to the very
precise elements of,

you know, of moments.

So what is valid
self-defense, uh, at

one point might have
been a serious criminal

offense, four or five
seconds previous.

Um, as an example, you
know, if you think of

somebody who's got a
knife and they're 45 feet

away and you're standing
there with a rifle and

the rifle is drawn on
them, the standard sort

of, uh, you know, the
Tueller drill and all

of that, those assuming
you're talking about

a holster pistol, you
can, you're effective at

a much closer distance
if you're drawn on

somebody, but you know,
they've got a knife and

you're standing there.

It would you know, a
court would probably

not be okay with you
pulling the trigger

on them if they're
just standing there at

that 45 foot distance.

But they lean in and
start a charge and the

equation changes and the
court would be much more

likely to find that that
was a reasonable time

to pull the trigger.

Uh, the problem is,
is that when you

get into highly fact
specific things, people

want simple answers.

Like I can do this
at this point.

The general sort of
rule is if you've got

another option, take
that other option.

Um, there are plenty
of cases where people

have used firearms
in self-defense and

been acquitted, but
keep in mind being

acquitted at trial is
incredibly expensive.

Um, you know, if
you're thinking about

somebody leaving with
your TV or your truck,

I guarantee you it's
cheaper to just buy a

new truck, you know.

No kidding.

So, you know, that
trigger pull ends up

being possibly the most
expensive decision you

would take in your life.

And, you know, it
could also cost

you your freedom.

So if you have
another option, take

the other option.

And if you're ever in
court, in this situation

and you never want to
be in the, in court,

being able to articulate,
here's why I couldn't

do anything else.

You know, you know,
if you say like, and

couldn't, and didn't want
to, or different things

like the guys leaving
with my TV, I don't want

them to leave with my TV.

I like my TV, but I
can, you know, I'm

still gonna be alive.

But if the guy's coming
after me with an ax, you

know, then it's like,
well, I can't leave out

the back door because
that'll take too long.

I got to fiddle with
the back locks and

you know, the guy's
coming after me.

I don't have time.

You know, I tried telling
him to, you know, to

stop, he kept coming.

I had the firearm in
hands, you know, that's

itself, a use of force
and a show of force.

And he kept coming.

You know, I, I tried
everything I could, this

was my last, last option.

That's always going to
be a better position,

but there's, there's
never any guarantees.

Um, sometimes those
cases surprise me

in both directions.

You know, I see
situations where I think.

You know, in case
law, I think this was

a good use of, you
know, self-defensive

force and the court
says we disagree.

And sometimes I think,
well, that was pretty

shaky and the courts
says nah, that was fine.

Um, judges are people
too, as much as we love

to think of the law as
sort of this machine

where you plug things
in and the right results

come out, um, sometimes.

Not always.

And there's sort of
a school of thought

that basically says
sometimes decisions get

made for reasons that
are more complicated

than you think.

Like the judge just
takes a dislike to you

or something like that.

Um, and that can
shade how they look

at the evidence.

So if you have
another option, take

the other option.

And I know that doesn't
make a whole lot of

people happy about, you
know, a lot of people

would like me to say, oh,
well, you know, go ahead.

But you don't ever
want to be hiring

somebody like me.

And especially not
if there's a body,

like that's, that's
a bad place to be.

Um, I have
represented people.

Who've used defensive,
you know, force in

defense and just about
everybody says they

wish it never happened.

No kidding.

So, and that's including
people who really had

no choice, you know,
that's including people

who were cornered, who
had no other option.

They're still like, I
wish I could think of

some other way that that
could have gone because

I don't like the outcome.

And that's people who
win people who, you know.

Well, when in one respect
the win, the fight,

but maybe not the full
battle, the next eight

years of your life in
criminal and civil.

Well, uh, Marie
Henein, who's a

lawyer who I've got
tremendous regard for.

Uh, she, uh, did a talk
and one of the things

she was saying, and I
really liked this line

is, you know, as a
defense lawyer, we're

never going to be able
to put you back where you

were before it happened.

But we can try to put you
in the sort of best place

going forward, but you're
always going to be worse

off just by having gone
through the process so.

That's a good point.

Um, you know, if the
guy's walking away with

your TV and you let
him walk away with your

TV, you're not ending
up being charged most

likely, and that's a
much happier place to be.

Yeah.

No I agree with
you on that one.

When, uh, armored car
guards, they're carrying

firearms, they're
using that firearm for

protection of their life
and they are civilians.

They don't have
any police powers,

anything else.

And I know the training
system that they go

through, they try
and simplify it as

much as possible.

Obviously it's not
a, uh, not from a, a

lawyers perspective,
but they say weapon,

intent, delivery system.

They take these
three pieces.

There needs to
be a weapon.

There needs to be actual
intent and there needs

to be some mechanism
for delivery and the guy

can have a weapon and
intent, but no means of

actually doing damage.

Yep.

And that was one.

And the other one was,
um, and reasonable.

If I'm recalling this
correctly, reasonable

grounds to believe that
your life or life of

a third party is an
imminent danger of death

or grievous bodily harm
and no less violent

means available, like
leaving or letting them

walk away with a TV.

Yeah.

And you know, I, this
one is always especially

hard for farmers
because you know, in

my house, you know, a
TV's a valuable object.

There's various things,
but you'd be hard pressed

to walk out with more
than say a few thousand

dollars worth of stuff.

Um, you know, vehicle,
you're probably

getting into the five
digits of, you know,

but they're old cars.

I'm not, I'm not the sort
of guy who likes to roll

around in a Mercedes.

That's never been me.

Right.

But you know, you get
onto a farm property

and you're talking about
six-figure pieces of farm

equipment that somebody
might be stealing

or damaging in the
course of stealing it.

You know, somebody going
out there with, you know,

an all to steal or with
some sort of drill to

steal gas out of a big
piece of farm equipment,

uh, might be costing a
huge amount of damage.

And if he takes that
equipment out of

line, uh, before a key
portion of, you know,

the season that could
ruin somebody, right?

It's, you know, harvest,
you've got a narrow

window if somebody taking
your equipment out.

So these get to be hard
considerations, but the

law doesn't typically
weigh money, very

highly, they weigh life.

And so I might not say
necessarily weapon,

although a weapon is a,
a sort of major factor,

but like credible threat
to life or the like,

because somebody may not
need a weapon for that.

True.

Um, you know, if you've
got somebody who's built,

you know, they're an MMA
fighter sort of build,

uh, they may not have a
weapon, but if you are

80 years old and this guy
is going to come and lay

a pummeling on you just
with fists and boots,

uh, you could very well
die from that right.

That's and so there's
size considerations

at play there's
age considerations,

gender, build, all
of these things.

Training, if you're
aware of it, you know,

it might be that somebody
you've had a dispute with

somebody online, they
show up at your house

and you know, this guy
is, you know, serious

ex-military and you're
not, you know, that may

weigh into it right.

You know, are you
going to win a

hand-to-hand transaction?

And what kind of
damage are you

likely to sustain?

Because the court doesn't
want to see lethal force

used, unless there's
a risk of you being

killed or seriously,
seriously, injured.

You know, not just this
is going to hurt, but

this may affect you going
on, you know, in future.

So, but the real simple
rule of thumb is just if

you've got other options.

And frankly, if you're
still thinking about

this question, like if
this question of, can I

shoot this guy is really
even something that could

enter into your head.

The answer should be
no, you know, find

another solution.

Um, the times when
sort of it tends to

be more justified are
somebody's charging you

with a weapon and you
don't have time for this

kind of introspection.

It's just going
to happen.

And yeah, I really wish
I could give a simple

answer to this one, but
there just isn't a simple

answer other than, even
if you win, you're going

to hate the result.

So if at the point
where you'd be okay with

spending the rest of
your life in jail pulling

that trigger, that's
probably the point where

you start to hit uh,
legal justifications.

Uh, because otherwise,
you know, you're talking

about somebody crippling
you or, uh, you know,

or murdering you.

Wow.

Thank you.

Yeah, like I say, not
an easy one at all.

No, it's, uh, it's one
of the more complicated

and difficult areas of,
you know, of law and

it's always going to
come down to arguments,

um, sometimes over
really subtle things.

You know, did the guy
actually start to charge

forward when you pulled
the trigger or was he

just standing there?

Um, did he have a
knife versus not?

Uh, sometimes people
think they see a

knife and they don't.

Um, so that becomes a
thing because mistakes

are relevant, you know?

And the question of how
sure am I about this, is

a good question to ask.

I will tell you you're
in a much better

situation in terms of a
self-defense argument.

If that guy has a knife
versus if you're like,

well, I thought he had
a knife, but he didn't.

Right.

You know, um, all
of these get to be

interesting questions
and, um, and the

crown tends to be very
willing to proceed

with charges in these.

Uh, I just recently did a
video where a woman who,

uh, she was apparently
beaten quite badly,

you know, broken ribs
could barely breathe.

Uh, she manages to
get ahold of a knife

in the course of this
altercation and stabs

the guy once in the
leg and he dies and,

but she had serious
injuries and she was

almost certainly smaller
than this guy was, you

know, and this guy,
you know, has a record,

all of this stuff.

They still charged
her with murder.

They didn't proceed
with the charges to

trial, but she spent
a month in jail.

Wow.

You know, and think
about you as an

ordinary person.

Like what does a
month in jail do?

Um, your job, they're
not going to stick around

with you, you know, for a
month while you're facing

murder charges, you're,
it doesn't matter how

much your boss likes you.

They don't like
you that much.

They will drop.

Your social
network, the gossip.

Yeah.

Well, and I mean,
you know, that'll

get reported in
the news as well.

So any time anybody
looks you up, which

employers do all the
time, they're going

to see murder charge.

That'll be a big thing.

Um, your, your, you know,
your landlord, probably

not so keen on you
missing a month of rent.

So lots of people sort
of get out in a situation

like this and they
find that their life

is entirely destroyed.

You know, hey, you've
got bail on murder.

Um, your friends don't
want to talk to you,

your job isn't going to
take your phone calls.

They're telling
you you're banned

from the site.

Um, your landlord has
evicted you and thrown

your stuff in a dumpster.

You know, so.

Massive.

Yeah, lots of
people are like.

Life altering.

Hey, I won in the
self-defense case,

but I ended up
homeless for awhile.

That kind of thing.

Yeah.

Good point.

So we have another
person who says that

they own firearms that
have been prohibited

by the recent ordering
council prohibition

that they're moving.

And they've asked for
an authorization to

transport, but the
firearms program,

isn't giving them
an ATT for that.

I don't know if this is
typical or just happens,

is this one individual,
but they want, yeah.

Sometimes people are
being able to get ATTs.

Often the CFO is saying,
no, you don't need one.

Uh, we're not going
to give you one.

Um, really, if you can
try to press them to

give you an ATT anyway,
because the circumstance

that may come up is
let's say you're moving

and the police say, Hey,
you've got this firearm,

it's a restricted
firearm, or it's a

prohibited firearm,
where's your ATT?

Um, you can't show one
and they go, great,

you're in custody while
we figure out the ins

and outs of the order
and counsel, um, there's

actually an amnesty
order that went with it.

And one of the things
that it provides for is

transporting a firearm
to where it's going

to be stored, pending
whatever disposition.

So that would, would
seem to include moving.

You know, if you're
moving house, you

obviously can't leave
it there, but I you're

going to want it
to read the amnesty

order very carefully.

Because one of the
things that says is

can't be in a vehicle
with, ammunition.

Hmm.

Now most people who
are moving, are moving

everything all at once.

Right.

You write a big moving
truck, you throw all

your stuff in there.

And I don't know anybody
who doesn't, who shoots,

who doesn't have at
least some ammunition

on hand at all times.

Right.

Because if you
decide, Hey, I want

to go to the ranch.

You want to be able to
just grab your ammo and

go, you know, the gun
store is not always open.

And you know, often
if I'm going to the

range, it's like 8:00 AM
head off to the range,

spend the day shooting.

Uh, you don't want
to go 8:00 AM drive

to the gun store,
pick up ammunition,

drive home, pick up
your restricted's.

Yeah, that doesn't
make sense.

So, um, this whole thing
of you're driving your

prohibited firearms.

They can't be in the same
truck as the ammunition.

You've got to make
some separate trip.

And for some people,
this has been a big deal.

I've talked to people
who were like, listen,

I'm moving from British
Columbia to Manitoba.

What do you mean I got
to take two trucks?

Yes.

It's a terrible
amnesty, it's was really

poorly thought out.

Um, honestly, as with a
lot of these things, it

seems like they don't
have anybody in the room.

Who might be affected by
these things or who even,

you know, has experience
with shooting, who could

say, wait a minute guys,
what about this problem?

So, um, it is
possible to move

them without the ATT.

Um, you will, however
want to make sure that

you are careful in
reading the amnesty.

The other thing is if
you own some of these

firearms that are
prohibited by the OIC,

you may also own other
restricted firearms.

In which case, like,
what is the harm of them

adding the prohibited
firearm to the ATT.

You know, oh we're
listing 10 firearms

that you're moving,
but we're not going

to list that 11th one.

I know.

I think there, there
might be a fear

that they're getting
trapped into something

by legitimizing it
by issuing an ATT.

I don't know.

Yeah.

I don't know
either, it's.

It doesn't make sense.

It's unnecessary.

But just having
that piece of paper

can protect you
from an officer who

doesn't necessarily
follow the law.

You know, I am not
always the hugest fan of

police, but I recognize
that most police aren't

trying to be bad guys.

There's very few police
out there who are

like, I am a bad guy.

Right.

What there's a lot
of is police who are

trying their best
to deal with a giant

catastrophe of laws.

Um, you know,
they, haven't gone

to law school.

They've taken a much
shorter course, and that

course includes all the
other things in policing.

You know, how to deal
with evidence, how

to talk a guy down.

If he's looking like
he's going to be violent,

how to use force, if
he's being violent,

um, you know how to
talk to a grieving

widow, how to talk,
you know, all of these

things are in policing.

And so they only get
a little bit of the

law and they can't,
they don't have time

to follow up with all
of the developments

because you know,
something like the order

in council comes up.

Well, they've got
paperwork to report that,

you know, what happened
on that file, where they

went and somebody's dog
bit somebody else, you

know, they got write
down a report about

this noise complaint.

They got it, you know,
all of these things.

So they just, they're
trying their best.

But they may
not understand

what's going on.

And so they may see
prohibited firearm,

no ATT, uh, and you
might get it sorted

out, but you might
get it sorted out like

six hours from then.

And you know, when you
think you're trying to

move across the country
and six hours you were

spending in a cell.

No, thank you.

So make it easy for them,
make it easy for them.

Yeah.

I would love to see
the, uh, I mean, even

if the CFO would do
something like just,

here's a letter on our
letterhead that we'll fax

you saying, we are aware
this person is moving.

This firearm here is why
they don't have an ATT.

Please present this
to any officer.

And here's a number
to call us if

there's a problem.

Something like that
would make people's

lives easier, but
they, I'm not aware of

anything like that so.

You know, uh, running
a firearms business

for quite some time
now and dealing with

the firearms program
and you're getting a

different answer from
five different people if

you phone five times on
the same day, I started

just requesting emails.

Can you just email me?

Right.

Yeah.

And you know, sometimes
they do sometimes.

Yeah, not a problem,
I'll give you an email.

Here's a, here's
a response.

Um, I know some people
will record their

conversation just as
something in their back

pocket that they have.

And I think with a
single party consent law,

that's a permissible.

But I agree having
a piece of paper or

something unofficial
letterhead, man,

that'd be a good,
easy, wouldn't it?

Yeah.

Just something where you
can present it to them

and say, you know, cause
saying, hey, I talked

to this Runkle guy and
here's what he said.

Right.

Well, the officer
doesn't know me and

doesn't care and quite
possibly, he doesn't

like me if he does know.

So, you know, it's uh.

C'mon now.

Well, I mean, police
have varying opinions

of defense lawyers.

There's lots of police
out there who will

say like, you know,
if I get in trouble,

I want a good defense.

Uh, we recognize that
we're all parts of the

system and so forth.

And we may have
individuals that we

don't like, or that
they do like better.

Um, but there's some
officers and there's

some defense lawyers, you
know, who just don't like

the other side right.

Yeah, I've seen that.

And so you never
know, right?

It's uh, I will say,
you know, if I'm being

stopped by the police
at a traffic stop, I

don't go, hey, I'm a
criminal defense lawyer.

Keep that little
tidbit to yourself.

But, uh, yeah, you never
know what they're going

to think of, hey, I
talked to a lawyer and

this is what they said.

Um, it's not going to
be a whole lot of value.

Next.

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

No problem.

I was just saying
the next one we have

here is one that I've
actually seen a video

on, on your channel
and we'll make sure we

link that over as well.

Actually a number of them
on the list here, but

I've heard this question
over and over again.

And it's about, is my
firearm considered loaded

if I have, let's say a
side saddle or a little

sleeve or sock on the, on
the stock where I can put

ammunition in storage, is
that considered loaded?

And this is one of these
things where it's, I

can't give a 100% answer,
however I can give a,

a pretty good answer.

One that I'm pretty
confident in, but

the court could
go the other way.

Um, now interestingly,
there isn't actually

a definition of loaded
in the appropriate

regulations.

There's a definition
of unloaded.

Okay.

So firearm has
to be unloaded.

And presumably that
means not anything other

than this definition,
but it says in respect

of a firearm means
that any propellant,

projectile, or cartridge
that can be discharged

from the firearm is not
contained in the breach

or firing chamber of
the firearm, nor in

the cartridge magazine
attached to or inserted

into the firearm.

Now, in terms of a
sidesaddle, a sidesaddle

isn't typically
considered a cartridge

magazine because the
cartridge magazine

is something that
feeds into the sort

of the firing path.

And I'm just trying
to see if I can

pull up the actual
definition of cartridge

magazine here, but.

Generally.

Like a side saddle
doesn't feed into the

firearm, except possibly
by action of your hand.

And if we're including
action of your hand

in the whole equation
there, then everything

is a cartridge magazine
because your pocket,

you can, you know,
a side saddle just

like your pocket.

Right.

And if every container
is a cartridge

magazine, then we end
up into a horrible

land of everything
in the world is bad.

I got a bag
of chips here.

Cartridge magazine.

If we're going to
consider, you know,

operation of the hand
to be, I could fit

a whole lot of .22,
you know, cartridges.

You know,.308,
.223, whatever you

want to talk about.

Certainly, you know, more
than 10, more than five.

So is this a
prohibited device?

I can't see the court
ever wanting to get

into that scenario.

Yeah, that gets pretty,
pretty crazy, pretty

quick, doesn't it?

Yeah.

And so they say cartridge
magazine means a device

or container from
which ammunition may

be fed into the firing
chamber of a firearm.

Uh, I would sort of
say that the proper

interpretation of that
would be by action of

the firearm, which,
you know, you moving

a bolt would count.

Um, these, uh,
semiautomatic

action would count.

Uh, but not you
physically moving

it a cartridge
with your hands.

Um, now I can't say that
for certain, because a

court could say could go
in some weird direction,

but if they do, they're
going to enter into

crazy town land where we
suddenly banned you know,

backpacks and Ziploc bags
and all sorts of things.

And there's going to
be a YouTube video

all about that.

If they go over
there, I'm sure.

Oh it would just
be like, they have

really screwed up.

But, uh, the other
sort of interesting

question is, let's say
you've got yourself a

cartridge magazine and
you know, I'll show the

pin just in case the
RCMP is watching, pinned

magazine here folks,
not a, not an unpinned.

Um, but let's say
you take this and you

decide to duct tape
it to your firearm.

Would that count as
attached to or inserted

into the firearm?

A court could say yes,
on a very technical

reading, I'd say the
proper interpretation,

and one that I'd hope
a court would go with

would be to say no.

When they say attached
to are inserted into,

they mean in a way, uh,
it seems clear to me

on reading this, that
they mean in a way where

it's actually completing
the firing path.

Mhmm, yeah I'd think so.

But I mean, I also have
like a 10/22 with a

backpacker stock that
has a little compartment

that opens up where you
can store magazines.

Right.

That's into the firearm,
but it's not into the

firearm in a way that
allows for firing or

feeding or the like, so.

What a quagmire.

I think, I think properly
a court should interpret

this as unloaded, but
I put that at like

80% in terms of if
that question ends up

in front of a court.

Um, so yeah.

Definitely,
maybe, I love it.

Yep.

It's that's the situation
we end up with a lot,

um, side settles,
I'd say like 95%.

Um, yeah, 95% sure
that the court would

find it to be fine.

Well, next one was
about loaded firearms

in a vehicle.

Of course you can't
have a loaded firearm

in a vehicle in Canada,
but what about, let's

say your doing some
target shooting or your

hunting, and you wanted
to use the hood of your

vehicle as a steady rest.

So this is going to
depend on your province

and you're going to
have to read your

provincial regulations
because lots of them

have different rules.

In some provinces, for
instance, um, discharging

a firearm within X many
meters of a vehicle,

is itself an offense.

And so it isn't the
fact that you're

using it as a rest.

In fact, if you were
using a rock next to the

vehicle as a rest, they'd
still go after you.

Um, but.

Interesting.

Some places say things
like not inside or

on a vehicle and what
they meet, what they're

probably trying to
capture in terms of the,

on a vehicle is like
somebody who's riding

in the bed of a truck.

Right.

But the on seems
to me that it would

probably capture
using it as a rest.

I can't sort of give
a, a blanket answer

here because we got a
whole lot of provinces.

I haven't even read
all of the different

provinces hunting
rules, but check

your regulations
real carefully.

Um, you don't
want to mess with

fish and wildlife.

They actually tend to
have some pretty giant

fines available to them.

And so you get people
going, you know, what

do you mean the fish
and wildlife guys want

20 grand in fines.

And it's like,
well, that's what

they're asking for.

People may get lesser
fines than that, but they

tend to come in asking
for real high numbers.

Yeah.

And they got teeth too.

They seem to be
able to get what

they're asking for.

They have a lot of
powers of searching.

And so they'll often
get warrants to say

like, hey, we want to
go and look through

somebody's house,
looking for, you know,

any poached animals and
those kinds of things.

So, um, you never
really want to be

on the receiving end
of a home search.

They're very stressful.

They're very
invasive and yeah.

Okay.

Well, what about the
next one talking about

replica firearms and
this person's a little

bit confused over what a
replica firearm might be.

So replica firearms
currently are basically

things that closely
resemble with near

precision an actual
firearm, but are not

themselves firearms.

And when I say actual
firearm, I mean,

something that really
exists in the world.

So if you design
something that, uh, looks

like, um, you know, some
fictional like the, uh,

the rifle from halo say.

You know, which
is a firearm that

doesn't exist, it's
a fictional item.

So if you have something
that replicates that,

you're not looking at a
replica firearm, because

it's not a real firearm.

Um, even though it might
look like it could be a

firearm, you know, you
can design something

that looks like it.

You know, that looks like
a handgun, but so long

as it doesn't look like
a handgun that actually

exists in the world.

Okay.

It's going to be fine.

Um, near precision is,
gets to be a matter

of debate, you know,
what does that mean?

Although the courts
in terms of import

rules have said like
colour probably isn't

enough to do it.

Um, but like size might
be, uh, there's all sorts

of things that factor
into it, including, you

know, coloration, size.

Um, does it have
moving parts?

Does it have
branding on it?

Um, does it, uh,
does it have the

same sort of weight?

Does it have, you
know, all of these

sorts of things and
it ends up being kind

of a judgment call.

Okay.

But, uh, the not a
firearm part is kind

of critical here
because most people

don't understand
what firearm means.

There's two sort
of steps of gun.

Step one is, can it
shoot a projectile

through a barrel that
can cause serious

bodily injury or death?

So pellet guns and
airsoft guns and

paintball guns are all
firearms under this

definition because they
can put your eye out.

Right.

We, we really have
the, put your eye out

test in Canada, but
a lot of these things

are what I call 84 sub
three firearms, which

means you don't need
a license for them.

And they don't count
as a firearm for

certain purposes of the
criminal code, but they

do for other purposes
of the criminal code.

And it's very
complicated.

So, um, this is why a
nail gun, for instance,

doesn't count as a
firearm, you know, when

you're going to the Home
Depot to buy one, but it

would count as a firearm
if you were to use it

to rob a convenience
store, you know.

Or if you actually go
and, you know, drive

nails into somebody
that would be, you know,

using a firearm on the
person, discharging a

firearm with intent to
wound, kind of thing so.

Okay.

Um, yeah.

So airsoft guns,
you know, currently,

although the government
is trying to change

this, uh, airsoft
governance currently

avoid being called
replicas because they

are actually firearms.

Right.

They can discharge a
projectile, they got

a barrel and it can
cause bodily harm.

Ralphie and Randy
must have written

that one, I tell ya.

Uh, just complicated
laws and working

in ways that maybe
people didn't expect.

I remember picking
up some, uh, ASP,

uh, training guns.

It just rubber basically.

And they're, they're
bright red and being

told at one point
that those are replica

firearms and there's
some debate over it.

Eventually we got them
all and everyone agreed

that they probably aren't
replica firearms, but it,

it seems to be something
that comes up and down

over the years, what's
replica and what isn't.

And that's, uh, uh,
the points you raised

are interesting.

Uh, well, and I get,
uh, sometimes people

who are, uh, uh,
so they do leather

work for instance.

And so they want
to import like

blue guns, right.

Just, you know, they
don't want an actual

gun, but they want to be
able to make a holster

for a particular gun.

You know, a customer
says, I have this gun,

I want a holster for it.

And the leather
workers, like I don't

shoot, I don't have
any interest in it.

Please don't
send me the gun.

But they look at
ordering, you know, a

blue gun to match the
shape just so that they

can, you know, craft the
leather holster around

it, which often involves
like soaking and pressing

and, you know, forming.

Yep.

And, uh, you know, and
you might not want w

wet leathers sitting
against your, you

know, precious gun.

So sometimes these get
seized at the border,

not withstanding the fact
that, you know, when I

say blue gun, they're
named this because

they are bright blue.

That's right.

And you know, when you're
looking at them sort of

front on, they don't have
like a, they've got sort

of a barrel protrusion,
but it's solid.

You know, if somebody's
pointing a gun at me

and I'm looking at it
and it's bright blue

and there's no actual
hole in the barrel, I'm

kind of thinking I'm
not super concerned.

Maybe they'll hit me with
it and that would hurt.

But, um, you know, I'm
not thinking that they're

going to shoot me with
this thing, but sometimes

those get seized.

Well, what about, okay,
I'm looking at the next

two questions and I'm
thinking that they might

be even easier to answer
just by pointing people

over to your YouTube
channel for the next two,

which is what's happening
with the ordering council

fires prohibition.

And the next one after
that is what are the

main points of concern
regarding the proposed

BC firearms law?

So the OIC prohibition
is currently a,

there's a court battle
going on on that one.

It's a civil case.

And so the civil
cases tend to last

just about forever.

Um, they asked for an
injunction against the

order in council being
in effect, um, that was

not granted, which is
not terribly surprising.

And injunction is a, an
extraordinary remedy.

Um, that's sort of the
language of the court.

It's an unusual remedy.

There might be a
better, there might be

a reapplication on that.

I can't say for
certain, um, when, and

if the amnesty starts
looking like it's going

to run out, because
then you might start

talking about, you
know, about additional

harms, but that one's
going to be locked

in court for a while.

Main points of concern
regarding the BC

proposed firearms law.

Oh man, there's a
whole lot of these.

Um, one of the big ones
is basically that they

want to reimplement
a lot of the criminal

code provisions.

And they want to
do so in slightly

different language.

So what that means is
you end up with two

slightly different
wordings that you have

to comply with both.

And that becomes
a big problem.

Um, in some cases it
may be very difficult

to travel legally with,
uh, with your airsoft

guns, um, is, may end up
shutting down a number

of fields and so forth.

There's a whole lot
of issues, but I

think I did several
videos on this so.

Yeah, you did.

Kind of a, this one is
going to be a bit of a

longer one that I, you
know, that I can say.

I'm just, the problem
is really that they're

trying to reimplement a
lot of the firearm laws

and they missed certain
critical exceptions.

And that means that
as a result of it, the

whole law doesn't do
what they need it to do.

Um, there's a big place
where they use firearm

and what they mean is
like real steel, you

know, your .223, your
.308, but they don't

realize that that
also includes airsoft.

So it's going to
end, you know, pellet

guns and so forth.

So it's going to end
up causing a whole lot

of problems I don't
think they meant to have

or meant to include.

Well, it seems to
me that they're

just going to create
loophole city here.

If they have two
competing laws

or legislation
or regulation.

The problem is, is
that they're not, um,

they're not sort of
loopholes in the way that

benefits anybody here.

They're loopholes in
the sense of, uh, they

can create ways where
you might think you're

in compliance with the
law, but you're only

in compliance with one
out of two laws so.

Okay.

Um, brass knuckles.

Okay.

So brass knuckles are
illegal, uh, why are

carabiner's and Eskimo
Ulu, or scissors held

backwards, not illegal?

So, um, if we look
at the criminal code,

it's got an interesting
sort of provision for

prohibited weapon.

So primitive weapon is
any sort of flick or

gravity knife or anything
like that, or any weapon

other than a firearm
that is prescribed to

be a prohibited weapon.

And so something, these
things are not designed

to be weapons and unless
they're being used as

weapons, um, they're
not going to count

as prohibited weapons
simply because of that,

not withstanding the
fact that they may be

very similar in design.

Um, I found some
things that are used

as massage tools.

And they're actually
basically like a metal

band that fits over your
hand and it's intended

for sort of rubbing.

Okay.

But you could absolutely
punch somebody in

the face with it.

Totally.

Um, similarly I found
some things that were,

uh, for climbing rigging,
and they're basically

like a flat metal plate
with a series of holes

in it that would be
in some sizes fit just

fine in your fingers.

And you know, they're
intended, you attach

carabiners to them
so that you can have

one rope sort of
splitting off to five.

Right.

Um, but I'm looking
at these things going,

those are brass knuckles,
but because they're not

designed as a weapon,
they wouldn't count.

Um, the Ulu's actually
interesting because the

Ulu isn't sort of a, a
flat metal bit, that's

like a blunt thing.

It's a, a sharp object
and there's actually

a provision in the
primitive weapons

thing for uh, if you've
got a blade that is

perpendicular to the
handle, but the Ulu is

actually specifically
excluded from that.

Interesting.

So an Ulu is not covered
by that, which I think

is probably because they
said, Hey, wait, Canada's

got Inuit and the Ulu is
a traditional, you know,

all purpose tool for the
Inuits and I own one.

They're a fantastic,
you never really realize

how useful they can
be until you have one.

So I'm glad they
were accepted.

Well, it's kind of
weird because from my

understanding, it's only
if they are made out

of metal and they're
the brass knuckles.

If you make them out
of wood or carbon

fiber or hard plastic.

Yeah.

They phrase the
law very weirdly.

Um, so stone is fine,
plastic is fine.

You know, there's all
sorts of people with

acrylic knuckles.

Now, of course, the
wrinkle to that is that

Canada very much limits
what you can do in terms

of carrying weapons
in the first place.

Right.

So possession of a weapon
for purposes of dangerous

for the public peace,
which typically the most

carrying of weapons,
they will say falls into

that category or carrying
a concealed weapons.

So there's lots of people
who are like, Hey, um,

you know, the police
arrested me and these

are plastic knuckles.

So they're illegal.

I'm like, yes.

And the officer, you
know, laid the charge of

possession of prohibited
weapon on you that one's

not going anywhere,
but the carrying a

concealed weapon and
possession of weapon for

purposes of dangerous
in the public peace.

And maybe in some
cases, the assault

with a weapon, all
of those have legs.

So you can own plastic
knuckles if you just

want to keep them on a
shelf, because they're

an interesting curiosity.

Stick 'em in your pocket.

If I ever.

Nope.

If I ever sort of
redesigning in terms

of my recording space
set up, I have an

idea for setting up
sort of shelves with,

uh, with neat items.

I might get some acrylic
knuckles just to put

them there on display as
like, here's the thing,

but you wouldn't want
to carry them around.

It's a good way to
get to yourself.

Uh, it's sort of the
play stupid games

side of things.

Well, the next one's,
uh, the age old one about

suppressors as safety
equipment, like what

would it take in Canada
to have suppressors

recognized as safety
equipment, like in

many other countries?

Um, real long shot would
be, um, so real long

shot would be, uh, say
if the court were to

find that it was a, a
charter violation on the

basis of life, liberty,
security the person.

I don't put good
odds on that.

I think that the court
would likely say, ah, no.

Um, more likely what
this will take is a

government that actually
cares enough to do it.

And it would be a little
bit politically difficult

because of course, uh,
you know, once the, uh,

once the government says,
hey, uh, you know, we're

going to reverse this.

The opposition parties
are going to say,

hey listen, um, you
know, look at what

they want to do.

They want to, uh,
you know, we're going

to have, you know,
these ninja assassins

on our streets.

Same old game.

No we're not.

Same old game.

Yeah.

All right.

Uh, what about, this
was an interesting one,

why are 32, .32 and .25
calibre handguns illegal

when the law leaves out
that decimal place and

list 32 and 25 calibre
without the decibel?

Well, that one is
largely because, um,

it's ultimately going
to be, uh, the court

is going to say, hey,
this is what they meant

in terms of that law.

Um, there, to my
knowledge, there aren't

any, you know, 32
calibre rifles out there.

Right.

Um, I, somebody
could build one.

Yep.

But it also talks about,
you know, handguns

in and nobody I think
would want to shoot a 32

calibre handgun so yeah.

Yeah.

That'd be a big honking
handgun for sure.

Yeah.

The .32 makes a
lot more sense.

Okay.

Um, gun racks from the
firearms act, it looks

like gun racks are legal,
provided a license PAL

holder is in the vehicle
and the non-restricted

firearm is unloaded.

Would there be charges
for disturbing the

public peace if he drove
around with guns in

a gun rack like that.

And uh, it says, yeah,
and if so, how could

that act be disturbing?

Yeah.

Well, um, so the
criminal code provisions

for a public peace,
um, and I'm just sort

of look, there's two
sort of things to

worry about there.

One is possession of
weapon for, you know,

purposes dangerous
to the public peace.

Okay.

Um, it really depends on
why you were doing that.

And, uh, so I don't know
that, uh, you know, that

that would necessarily
count, um, that to me,

it's, it really depends
on why you're doing it.

Like if you loaded up
a rifle in your gun

rack and then drove to
your ex's house and,

you know, with whom
you were having an

acrimonious relationship
and hung out.

Outside, you know, your
ex's house, just making

sure she sees your
rifles in the gun rack.

I could absolutely see
them charging you for

that, but let's say
it's hunting season and

you're driving around the
back roads and you got

a gun in the gun rack.

I think that they'd
have a very hard time

making that case.

So, um, we get into
some edge cases though,

where let's say that
you're loading up your

stuff to go to the back
roads, but you live

in downtown Toronto.

And so you're driving
your truck out of

downtown Toronto with
a rifle and the gun

rack and the cop pulls
you over because you're

in downtown Toronto.

I think that they would
try to find anything they

could to charge you with.

Even if it didn't stick.

Now, people sort of
say, well, causing

a disturbance, uh,
that's the appropriate

sort of criminal code
section here, uh, cause

there's possession of
weapon for purposes of

dangerous, the public
piece that might.

Um, causing a disturbance
wouldn't and that's

because they have
everyone who is not

in a dwelling house,
causes a disturbance

by fighting screaming,
shouting, swearing,

singing, or using
insulting or obscene

language, by being
drunk or impeding or

molesting other persons.

You're not going to
count under that or b.

Openly exposes
or exhibits an

indecent exhibition
in a public place.

So if you're playing porn
out in public, that's

not going to cover it.

Uh, loiters in a public
place and in any way,

obstructs persons who are
in that place again, not

going to cover it and d.

Disturbs the peace and
quiet of the occupants

of the dwelling house by
discharging firearms or

other orderly conduct in
a public place or various

other things, not going
to be covered by that.

So it doesn't cover
all disturbances, it

covers certain, very
specific disturbances.

Um, so there's nothing
inherently wrong

with a gun rack.

It's also often
not the best way

to go about things.

Um, for one thing.

Situation dependant.

To note, you're
advertising a little

more than you have to,
then you need to, and,

you know, criminals
have been known to

check out people's cars
to decide if they want

to hit their house.

Sure.

And so, you know, if
you've got a gun rack

in the back of your car
that tells them, hey,

I got firearms here and
lots of gun owners think,

hey, you know, if the
criminals know I have

guns, they're not going
to break into my house.

Not really because
criminals always

want to avoid you.

They're going to wait
until you're not at home.

Right.

And if you've got
guns, you probably

also have a day job.

And so, you know, you're
not at home all the time,

while you're at work.

Um, we always have this
notion that criminals

are breaking in at night,
you know, in the cover

of darkness, Very rarely.

Right.

When they like to
work is during working

hours, same time you're
at work because then

you're not at home.

Quite often, I've seen,
uh, people looking a

little sketchier than you
think they would for what

they're trying to do,
but they're got a colored

shirt on and a pair of
jeans and carrying around

and awake in a Watchtower
and knocking door to

door to see who opens up.

And they got the cover
of spreading the word.

But if nobody opens
and there's a knock

on the back door.

I think most of those
guys are, you know,

Jehovah's witnesses,
but it wouldn't surprise

me if somebody had
tried pretending to

be one and wasn't.

I've seen a
couple of those.

But I've seen people come
up to my door and they're

just like, oh, does you
know, does Joe live here?

And it's like, well,
no, obviously you're

not going to random
doors asking for Joe.

Um, this very much seems
to me to be a, you know,

and then they're going
down to the next door.

Like nobody goes door
to door, looking for

their friend, you
know, I was like, this

was somebody sketchy
seeing if I was home.

Yep.

So, uh, is it true that
there are some firearms

that do not require
a firearms license

if they are antique?

Yes.

Um, so antique firearms,
the general category

of them, uh, don't need
a firearms license.

You can buy them without
one, but now people

get confused on this.

They confuse
antique with old.

And in fact, I've heard
of at least one instance

of an antique store owner
who did not understand

the distinction and
sold an old gun that

was not an antique gun.

Oops.

And.

Yeah.

So, you know, I wasn't
involved in that file.

It's not a file that I
was, you know, directly

connected to, but I
heard about it through

sort of the grapevine
and you know, that

is a bad scenario.

So you want to go and
check your regulations

very carefully.

Um, some antique firearms
will come with a, like

a certification from the
chief firearms officer

saying, hey, we've
considered this one, it

is a certified antique.

That's not
actually necessary.

Um, that's just
sort of them giving

their opinion.

And if they're wrong on
that, that's actually

on you, you know.

Interesting.

And if, uh, if they're
right on that one,

then, you know, great.

But if you have a
firearm where you don't

have that letter, but
it actually meets the

antique standards,
you're you're good.

Right.

So there was actually a
case, um, not long ago,

I covered it on, in a
video, but a guy who was

sort of a bad dude, he's
involved in, you know,

I think it was a drug
trafficking stuff that

they also found, but they
wanted to convict him on

possession of a handgun
without a license.

And they couldn't
because it was an

antique firearm.

Interesting.

This guy either was
the luckiest criminal

on the planet or else
the best researched

criminal on the planet.

He did some homework.

I mean, it may be,
but I suspect he just

lucked into this.

Wow.

That's some, that's
some dumb luck for sure.

Well, maybe, you know,
somebody's stolen

antique or, you know,
the guy acquired

it from somewhere
else or whatever.

Yeah.

So next one is going
to interesting.

It's the, uh, Butler
Creek 10/22 magazines.

Person says it can't
be purchased in Canada

anymore apparently due
to a police bulletin.

Is this legal and what
should be done if someone

owns those magazines and
these are the 25 round,

uh, Butler Creek, mags.

So basically the police
have taken the, uh,

the view that because,
uh, somebody possesses

the, uh, or because
these things also fit

into the charger pistol
that they're designed

for the charger pistol,
even ones that were

actually manufactured
before the charger

pistol was an idea.

So they say, you know,
because of that, they're

saying, oh, well that
limits them to, to 10.

Um, I have some issues
with this interpretation.

However, I wouldn't
own one of these.

And the reason why is
because as much as I have

some issues with this
interpretation, until

a court sorts it out
these are very legally

perilous things to have,
because let's say you're

found with one and they
decided to charge you.

It could cost you a
whole pile of money.

Now, typically what's
happened is, um, they

don't really want Joe
average, who has one

of these magazines
to, to be the poster

child for running this.

So I've seen a number
of cases where they've

arrested people who've
had these and the case

ends up getting resolved
for, we're not giving

you your magazines
back, but we're also

dropping the charges.

Don't expect that to be
the case though, because

there's no reason why
they couldn't say we're

going to trial on this.

You know, it's going
to cost you a whole and

defending this properly,
like mounting a proper

argument on this one is
going to be expensive.

You're going to need
expert witnesses.

You're going to need,
um, historical evidence.

You're going to need
all of these things.

Like, you know, uh,
bringing in patents,

for instance, would be
highly relevant here.

You know, the patent
for this magazine

predates the charger
pistols existence.

Um, are we talking
about time machines?

I don't like the argument
they're making, but

getting into a legal
fight with the RCMP

is much expensive.

And we'll also, you know,
they're playing like

their stakes in terms
of this is if they lose,

nobody is out anything.

Right.

If you lose and you're
running this, um, your

stakes are you get
a firearm ban, you

lose all your guns.

You might see jail time.

This is playing a game at
the world's worst casino.

Hmm.

Good point.

Uh, okay, this next one
is kind of interesting.

Why can I legally load
more than 10 9mm rounds

in a Glock 22 magazine
and shoot it in my

9mm Glock, but I'd be
breaking the law if I

loaded more than 10 in
a Glock 17 magazine.

So this is sort of the
interesting wrinkle

of the cartridges of
the type for which

it is designed.

Okay.

So, um, I own a SIG
P226, and if you get

the 40 calibre magazine
for that, uh, it will

hold slightly more than
10 cartridges of 9mm.

And in fact it feeds
9mm, just fine, but

because that magazine
is designed for the

40 calibre cartridge,
it's allowed to hold

10 40 calibre rounds.

So it's all of this
is that the law was

designed fairly terribly.

Um, there's all sorts
of ways that they

could have designed
it much more sensibly,

but they didn't.

And I mean, that's just
the long and short of it.

Is what it is.

Yeah.

Perfect.

So here's one about an
ATC or an authorization

to carry person says
why won't the RCMP

issue an authorization
to carry for protection

of life, the legal
framework exists, but

it seems illusory.

And I mean, it really
kind of is because we say

that this is available,
but they grant it to

just about nobody.

There's like a
handful in existence

at any given time.

Um, you could count
them on the fingers of

a very clumsy carpenter.

So yes, give, they
won't usually give

straight answers
about how many there

are, where they are.

They will never give
straight answers

about who they are.

Um, so we have theories
that, you know, there are

various connected people.

But one of the elements
of this is basically uh,

that they have to certify
the police protection

is not sufficient.

Right.

Well, when they put in
the test, basically,

can you get the police
to sign off that

they are not able
to do their jobs?

You know, how often.

It's not going to happen.

Does that happen?

Right.

You know, it's like
asking a carpenter,

hey, listen, I need you
to put it in writing

that you do not know
how to build a house.

Right.

It's not going to happen.

Yeah.

So absent very
unusual circumstances.

They're just, they're
going to say no.

We're good enough.

I remember many
moons back.

We had an individual
who was applying for

the ATC and went through
training with us.

He made it pretty far up
into a point where the

firearms program turned
around and delayed it

for quite some time.

Then he came back, says,
okay, tell you what,

we'll give it to you,
here's your last hurdle

you have to go through.

We want the chief of
police in your area to

sign this letter saying
that police protection

is not adequate.

And he says, well,
what if I just get it

from a police officer?

Nope.

It's gotta be from
the chief in, in your

area saying,police
protection's

not adequate.

And of course,
no, chief's gonna

sign off on that.

And what do they say,
when seconds count,

the police are minutes
away, but apparently

afterwards, one of the
firearms officers told

this fellow, he's like,
you know, you had us

go in there for a bit.

And I think you're one
of the closest that

you've been able to get
to get an, an ATC, which

is a little telling if
that actually was what

was relayed over to the
mindset of, of the issue.

Yeah.

I mean, it's basically
just impossible.

It's a game.

Yeah.

So, I mean, they say
it's available, but

the standards they
apply to it are just

so far out there that,
uh, nobody succeeds.

Fair enough.

Uh, why are some
knives illegal to

import, but not illegal
to own in Canada?

So there's a lot
of knives that, uh,

basically the CBSA
imposes a fairly

restrictive view of
what's coming, you know,

but the problem is that
they don't seem to apply

these same standards to,
you know, nice stores

or big corporations,
because there are some

knives that are actually
pretty much, you know, I

can't see a way that they
would be legal to own

in Canada, but you can
get them at Home Depot.

And I have seen people
charged over these where,

you know, they say, hey,
I got this knife at,

you know, Home Depot,
why is this prohibited?

And it's like,
well, because it is.

Like, you know,
and so you end up

arguing, you know, on
sentencing or something.

Hey, listen, he got
this at Home Depot,

you know, we've got his
credit card statement.

Here's where it shows
that he bought it there.

You know, this guy
shouldn't be punished

or at least not
punished very strongly,

but it's weird.

And I mean, I think
the solution to that is

really to stop worrying
so much about what

style of knife it is.

Hmm.

It's weird that
I can own a, you

know, a big machete.

Cause of course you
can right there,

there, excellent
yard work tools.

I've got a couple of,
uh, kukri's rather than

machetes, but when I
go to do yard work and

I need to trim back
a tree 100%, like.

Yeah.

It is the thing to
use, but you can't own

a little tiny knife
that flicks open.

And, you know, when
you think about it,

there's all sorts of
circumstances where

these things make sense
to have um, if you're

doing anything that is
fiddly, it's really nice.

If you can have a knife
that opens one handed.

Totally.

Uh, you know, or if
you're up on a ladder,

for instance, you know,
you want your, your

gripping on, you need
a knife, you can open

the knife and then, you
know, use the knife.

You know, having to
use two hands when

you're up on a ladder
is not necessarily

the greatest thing.

Um, you know, if you're
off doing all sorts of

things, there's just
times when you don't

want to have to, you
know, to fiddle with it.

They're always, you know,
they're thinking of like,

you know, fifties era,
you know, movies of like,

you know, sharks versus
jets and people pulling

out their switchblades.

Well, I'm sorry,
you know, the, the

switchblades, aren't
the main concern

at this point?

No.

So but our laws are
really based with a

whole lot of, uh, you
can see that they had

fear of like fifties era
gangsters and that they

had fear of, you know.

Those greasers.

Yep.

Well, and the, uh,
you know, and ninjas,

there's a big worry.

Ninja's yes.

About ninja's in our law.

Stealth assassins.

Yeah.

Yup.

So, I mean, a lot of
these rules just, they

don't make any sense.

That's uh, I wish I
could say that I had

a good reason for it.

I got to wait.

I'm just trying to
remember back to like

grade 12 physics here,
but a flick knife

is something that's
supposed to open with

centrifical force, right?

Yeah.

Well, isn't centrifical
force an implied force

and I'd have to look
this up, but I think

centripetal force would
be the force that would

actually open that knife.

I wonder if.

Yeah, the uh, I mean,
without getting into

the physics arguments
about one versus the

other, the court is
going to understand

what this means.

Right.

Totally.

Understand what
is intended.

The really weird thing
about that is that it's

determined by how hard
you can flick something.

And so the courts had
to grapple with just how

hard is that because like
I could build a machine

that could probably
flick the blade off of

a fixed blade knife,
you know, that could

just spin it and then
stop fast enough that

the fixed blade knife
blade would be sheered

off by the forces.

Um, you know, if we're
talking about machine

assistance, that there
is no knife that opens

that can't be opened
by that means because,

you know, you could
put tremendous force

on things with that.

It's limitless.

Yeah.

You know, you fire
it into a centrifuge.

Did you put a hard brake
on it, you're going to.

It'll open.

Yup.

It'll open or it
might shatter into

pieces, but if it
survives, it'll open.

Yeah.

Um, so they've said it
as the standards of a

person has to do it.

So basically you got
to find a human being

who will open it.

Well, they've said it
doesn't matter which

person, you know, you can
go and shop around for

a really strong person.

Well, I'm sitting
here, you know, I've,

I've got skinny arms.

I am not, you know,
a bodybuilder.

I'm not what, so I
buy a knife and I'm

trying to see, hey,
is this knife legal?

There's only so much
force I can, you

know, impart on this
knife to test it.

Right.

And there's methods
that of flicking it.

That'll open it more
reliably than others.

And you know, I might
not know these methods,

so I might buy a knife
and think it's perfectly

legal, but it turns out
that the police force

has a guy who is the
strongest guy who they've

specially trained to be
their knife opening guy.

It's like, why is the
standard for when a

knife is legal, based
on the arm of some

dude I've never met.

So arbitrary.

It's like, you know,
we've moved away

from measurement
systems based on some

dead King's thumb.

But now, you know,
in order to measure

a knife's legality,
I need to find the

strongest man on the
planet and ask them to

open my knife for me.

I'm pretty sure he'd
be tired of, you know,

tired of fielding those
requests that people

were actually doing that.

So it's such
a weird test.

It makes no sense.

Okay.

Well, what would
happen if someone

used dog spray on a
human in self-defense.

Now this one, you know,
sometimes people say,

hey, dog spray becomes a
primitive weapon if you

spray somebody with it,
and that's not the case.

Um, if you spray a
dog spray because

it's not designed for
people and you gotta be

careful because there
are some dogs sprays

that say works on dogs
and also people, in

which case it would be
a prohibited weapon.

Uh, but you know, let's
say, we assume that it's

just a strict dog spray
or strict bear spray.

Well, it doesn't, it
can't transform into

being a prohibited
weapon in that sense.

However, um, they will
probably charge you

for, you know, assault
with a weapon, uh,

possibly depending on
the scenario, carrying

a weapon, possession
of weapon for purposes

of dangerous of public
peace, public carrying

concealed weapon.

Um, it really depends
on the self-defense

scenario, too.

Like, let's say you're
walking along and you

know, some guy jumps
out of the bushes and

you spray him and you're
walking in a place where

there's lots of dogs
and the police roll up.

They find this guy and
he's clawing at his

eyes and, you know,
which he probably isn't

cause the dog sprays
aren't that effective,

but let's say he's
really having a bad day.

He has an asthma attack,
he's in the bushes and

they find he's got a
kit with, you know, duct

tape and bleach and you
know, whatever else.

Right.

Um, the police would
probably say, you

know what, we're good.

Right.

You know, we don't need
to proceed here, but

I say only probably
because I don't know.

Um, but it's basically
the same as if you use

any weapon, you know, or
any object, you know, if

somebody broke in right
now and I don't know

what to sort of grab,
you know, maybe I ended

up grabbing a glass or
a bottle or something

and heck I've got a.

How about that
microphone right there?

Microphone might not
work all that well,

but hey, I got a jar
of pickled onions.

Well, if I threw
that jar, it might

do some damage.

They could charge me with
all sorts of things on

that, you know, in terms
of assault with a weapon.

And so, I got a plastic
skull back there

maybe that will work.

That'll do some damage.

Well, here's the last
one and it's kind of

an interesting one,
is a zap strap or

zip tie considered a
legal, secure, locking

device for a firearm?

And this one is one
secure locking device

says that a device that
can only be open to

released by the use of
an electronic, magnetic

or mechanical key, or
by setting the device

in accordance with an
alphabetical or numerical

combination or that when
applied to a firearm

or sorry and that would
apply to a firearm,

prevents the firearm
from being discharged.

So secure locking
device, it doesn't

seem to qualify because
it doesn't have an

electronic magnetic or
mechanical key or a code.

You know, you'd
have to cut it off.

And you might say,
well, isn't that better?

Let's say, you know,
we're envisioning not

a plastic zip tie, but
let's say we envision

like a strip of hardened
steel and something

where you actually, you
know, you pull it tight

and at the end of it,
you drop a weld on it.

So it's, you know,
even more tough.

And let's say this.

Totally.

This steel is, you know,
let's say it's a good

quarter inch thick.

You had to bend
it physically with

tools to block.

The courts have said,
basically, even if

your storage is better,
then the regulations,

you still have to
meet the regulations.

Right.

So I do a video sort
of talking about that

a little bit, where
I talked about John

Wick's firearm storage,
where he's got his guns

buried under a concrete
floor, and the case

law suggests that's
probably not good enough.

Now, if he takes that,
wooden, you know,

there's a cheap sort
of wooden box in there.

Once he digs out the
concrete, if he puts a

padlock on that, he's
probably good even

without the concrete.

But you know, this
means that our laws

are often very dumb.

I, they're designed
badly, but, uh, the other

thing that is always
super ironic about this

is that if you go to
a courthouse and you

see them dealing with
firearms in court, um,

one of the things the
court doesn't want to

deal with is, you know,
the actual, that one.

So, you know, they
don't want to deal with

a combination lock.

Right.

Sorry my, uh, thing is
hunting for, for focus

here, because then they
got to remember all

these combinations or
if they're keys, they

got to remember, where
did we put our keys?

Right.

And, you know, they
want something that

just comes in a bag of
a hundred or 500 that

they can just reuse.

And you know, it doesn't
cost them a whole lot

because think of how
many, how much these

would end up costing.

You know, I've seen
files with, you know,

somebody brings in 75
rifles, these ain't

cheap, you know, and it
adds up with a court.

So let's, so they
don't want that.

So what do they use?

Zip ties.

Interesting.

But the court has
different exceptions

that apply.

Uh, nobody's going to
go and charge a clerk of

the court for securing a
firearm with a zip tie.

That sounds like an
interesting case law.

Um, nobody would,
no , like you would

be, the police officer
that wanted to, uh, to

bring that would be mad.

Like they'd just be
completely insane.

Just bonkers.

So, and I don't think
that they could make out

that case in law, but,
uh, ultimately the rules

for the court, because
lots of people say,

of course it's valid.

I see them doing
this in court all the

time, of course that
means it's valid.

Well, that doesn't mean
it's okay for you to do

what your house or on the
way to the range, you've

got different rules
you've got to follow up.

That's a good point.

So.

So unless they were able
to get a zip tie that had

some sort of a key that
would open it up then.

Well, I mean, that's
basically what a

cable lock is right?

Right.

Totally.

Sort of metal zip
tie with a key.

Totally.

Interesting.

So out of all of
those questions that

we're asking, thank
you very much, Ian.

I mean, that's a.

Oh happy to, these

are always sort of fun
questions they're, it's

a, it's a weird and
fun area of the law.

And I'm sure some of
them you've been asked

over and over again.

Yep.

And the other sort of
thing I'll do at this

point is given my usual
warning, don't take any

of this as legal advice
because any of this

stuff could expire as of
when I'm done saying it.

Right now.

Um, and I mean, bill
C-21 will change some

of the things that
are going on here.

Um, all sorts of things
can change really rapidly

and your situation may
be different sometimes.

So it's always best,
if you're looking at

contemplating, you want
to do something, talk

to a lawyer that you
can tell about your

specific scenario,
as opposed to general

information about the
law that I can give here.

Um, I just don't
want somebody to be

like, well, Runkle
said this is fine.

And it's like, Hmm,
no Runkle was asking

some questions or
answering some questions.

I'm not your lawyer.

We're just discussing.

I'm a lawyer,
not your lawyer.

Well Ian, thank you very
much for being on this

Silvercore Podcast again.

Thank you for having
me, as I said, it's

always a blast, so.

I love it.

All right.

Well, let's see.

Um, that was pretty good.

You had, well, you had
some pretty interesting

takes on a lot of these
things and got me to look

at things differently
than I have before.

And I like that.

Well, a lot of these
are questions that

I've sort of had to
think about before.

I mean, just about
every, not all of

these, but just about
every one of these

has in some fashion,
uh, showed up in a

criminal case somewhere.

Right.

Um, some of them are very
niche cases that I don't

think, I don't think
are going to come up.

I haven't seen the
side saddle one come up

where somebody has been
charged with that, for

instance, but I've seen
some really bad charges.

Um, I saw somebody
charged with possession

of a firearm for
something that was

welded shut and like
no portion of it moved.

It had welds
all through it.

Wow.

And it was just
like, this is

obviously not a gun.

That didn't stick did it?

No.

It did not.

But, uh, yeah.

You know, I was wondering
about the, so federal,

provincial, municipal.

Federal can make laws,
provincial can make

laws, municipal can
make laws, but not one

of those can make laws
that can, uh, be less

than the one above it.

If I understand
it correctly,

correctly right?

Yeah, it's, so this
is getting into the

issue of sort of
federal paramountcy.

And so what that
means is basically

where there's two laws
that are in conflict.

Uh, and it's a federal
law and a provincial

law and municipal
laws are a subcategory

of provincial law.

Um, they're sort of
their own weird thing,

constitutionally
speaking, but, uh, the

federal law trumps,
however, most people sort

of have a different idea
of what conflict mean.

So let's say for
instance, that the

federal law says,
um, you cannot

transport a firearm
by a vehicle period.

And the provincial law
says you can transport

a firearm by vehicle
only if you have, you

know, a particular permit
issued by the province.

You know, this is pure
hypothetical's, these

are not real laws.

This is just, and
people say, well,

this is in conflict.

Well, what the
court would say

is no, it's not.

It's entirely
possible for you to

follow both laws.

You just don't drive
your car, you know,

with the, uh, with
the firearm in it.

And people say, well,
what if it's the opposite

where the province is
saying that you can't

drive the car at all?

You know, can't transport
by vehicle at all.

Still the same result.

They'd say, listen, you
know, not withstanding

the fact that the federal
government says, this

is a requirement that
you have a license.

They don't guarantee
that you can, they just

say it's an offense to
do so without a license.

So now the province says
it's an offense to do

so regardless, but you
can certainly follow

both laws just by not
having a gun in the car.

So that's kind
of its own.

Uh, but let's say you've
got two things where you

say, for instance, um,
the federal government

says you must do a
particular thing.

And the provincial
government says, you

must not do a provision
or a particular thing.

You know, there, you
cannot follow both.

Right.

And so they'd say,
well, the federal

government rule trumps.

Well in British
Columbia, we've got

provisions for disabled
individuals to be able

to hunt from a vehicle.

Yeah.

Which seems to me,
if you're hunting

from a vehicle,
wouldn't that be less,

loosening, a federal
requirement saying you

can't have a loaded
firearm in a vehicle.

I don't know.

The thing is is that
they don't really let the

province, I mean, I had
problems with this when

I was in constitutional
law because you know,

when you're sitting there
and you're envisioning,

like, let's say the
federal government says

you need a license to
transport a vehicle or

a firearm in a vehicle.

And the provincial
government says you

can't transport a
firearm in a vehicle.

Um, typically the
way they've had, they

will interpret that as
just don't transport a

firearm in a vehicle.

But to my mind,
it seems like the

federal government
very much wants to

make that possible.

That's their notion of
how the law should work.

But they don't that
isn't typically how the

courts have gone with it.

Now these are not
typically in firearm

related scenarios.

These are typically in
things like business

regulations, and
there's a couple of

reasons for that.

One big businesses
tend to be better able

to bring court cases
because they've got the

dollars for the lawyers.

Totally.

You know, you or me,
if somebody says,

Hey, do you want to
spend $80,000 taking

something to court?

We're like.

See ya.

Where am I going
to find 80 grand?

Right.

That's not pocket change,
but if you're Microsoft

and it's, hey, this is
going to cost 80 grand.

It's like, well, okay,
that's less than we

spend on toilet paper
in a year or so.

And it might literally
be less, you know,

for some of these big
major companies, you

know, Walmart might
actually spend that

kind of big money on
toilet paper across all

of their stores across
all of these countries.

So, you know, you might
literally be talking

about butt wipe money
for some of these guys.

Totally.

Can you tell me
about your, uh, your

Patreon account?

How does that work?

So basically
people can sign up.

It's a way for sort of
recurring donations.

Um, YouTube is kind
of erratic in terms

of how much, you
know, ad revenues

bring in and so forth.

So it provides
some stability.

Uh, it provides that
I know that, um, you

know, as part of trying
to get the channel

going properly, uh,
I've needed to talk to

a lawyer because I am
a lawyer, but I don't

do all areas of law.

And one way that lawyers
can get themselves

into real trouble is
by assuming, hey, I can

just do stuff outside
of my area, no problem.

But when you start saying
things like, hey, is

that something I can do?

You got to know you've
got sort of a consistent,

uh, you know, income too.

So you can say like,
Hey, if I, if I'm um,

I also signed up for
a better, uh, legal

research tools so that
I can get, because

there's a lot of firearm
cases that are just not

available on CanLII.

And I wouldn't be able
to talk about them if

I didn't have access
to some of those tools.

Right.

But at the point where
you're signing something

saying for the next year,
I'm going to be spending

X much per month.

You want to be able
to say, I have some

expectations of what sort
of income I might have.

Totally.

Yeah, I guess those
weapon offences.

You don't want to be
sitting there with, you

know, no revenue and a
whole lot of expenses

Yeah, those manuals
and the resources,

they're not cheap.

I get those weapons,
offenses annual books

that are put out by the
law society or whoever

I get those . Sent over,
it costs a little bit.

Little expensive.

Yeah!

Costs a bit to keep
these things going.

Yup.

Well, and you know,
other things like, you

know, um, I'm planning to
apply in the near future

for a firearm business
license and talking

about this for awhile.

Yeah.

Just sending in that
form is thousands

of, you know, is
more than a grand.

That's right.

Um, so lets me do
stuff like that.

It lets me, uh, I've got
some stuff I've picked

up that I plan to test.

I'm getting, uh, molds
for ballistic gelatin.

Uh.

So cool.

So, uh, I was trying to
develop my own mold, but

I think I'm probably just
going to go and buy one,

but, um, you know, uh,
one of the things I want

to test is that often
the test for if something

is a firearm, is can
it cause serious bodily

injury or death, which
is, does it, uh, you

know, the sort of eyeball
test, but the eyeball

test, uh, you gotta have
an eyeball that's in

an appropriate medium.

So I'm, the game plan is
I want to sort of take

this, put it in a mold
and sort of surround it

with ballistic gelatin
for here is flesh

around skull, around
eyeball sticking, you

know, and then scoop
out the eye sockets and

plunk in a pig's eye.

And then I can do
proper testing of

here's what happens
when we shoot this

projectile at this face.

You know.

You're going to have
to name that skull

Ralphie or Randy, or
if you haven't already.

Uh, I, I was asking
for suggestions.

I got a whole
lot of good ones.

I haven't sort of
settled on one at this

point, but, uh, there's
a whole lot of good

suggestions out there.

I will have to
sort of, uh, go

through all of that.

Um, but I mean, also
things like, uh, just

getting a torso shape
for ballistic gelatin

because often we're sort
of shooting ballistic

gelatin at a block.

Right.

And I think that there's
useful things to that,

but a torso shape has,
um, some interesting

elements to it because
sometimes I see people

shooting at a block.

All of the expansion
happens outside

of the body.

Right.

You know, you've got
things that expand

late and it might have
a really impressive

expansion pattern,
but you go, well,

that happens after the
bullet has left the,

you know, the body, um.

That's pretty exciting.

Stuff like that.

I'd also like to try to
do things like get a pig

carcass and try to embed
ribs in it and so forth.

Just to see if I could
do a, I want to sort of

do a test side by side.

Right.

Of like, here's what it
looks like when there

are bones in there versus
here's what it looks

like otherwise, you
know, what difference

does that make?

Um, especially with
small calibres, because

if you look at .22 going
into ballistic gelatin,

it, you know, it makes
a nice, neat pattern.

And from seeing files
where people have

been shot with .22's
um, often the pattern

is not so neat.

You get people who
are shot, like, you

know, entry wound
here, exit wound here.

Right.

And you're going well,
that doesn't happen if

you're just making an arm
entirely at a ballistic

gelatin, because what
ends up happening, you

know, it goes in, it
bounces off the bone,

it deflects weirdly it
hits it again and comes

out and makes a weird
sort of staple shape.

Um, I've seen even
weirder, exit entry

wounds, uh, one with a
entry wound, you know,

under the chin exit
wound out near the wrist.

Really?

They must have had
their hand up or

doing something funny.

You'd think, but it's
just, um, sometimes,

and it's very weird
scenarios, but you get

sort of bullet tunneling
where they start to

tumble through the body.

And they go in weird
ways and being able to

sort of play around with
that would be at least

interesting to see.

You know, talk about some
of these things and just

heck just for my own,
you know, own interest,

being able to say, hey,
listen, you know, people

say, Hey 20, the, uh,
the whole is a 22, a

sufficient defensive, you
know, cartridge, which I

think most people would
say no, but there are

still people who say,
yes, it's just fine.

Um, how does it do
against something of

sort of skull density?

You know, they say,
well, so long as your

shot placement is good.

It'll be fine.

Well, is it.

Yeah.

You know, and that's the
age old question, what

calibre is the best.

And you're going to have
a whole bunch of opinions

on it because there
you've got the scientific

side and the theory,
all of the physics and

it makes perfect sense,
but then everyone's a

little different people
are moving and then you

start to look at the
statistical analysis

of, uh, where it lands.

So, yeah, 22,
absolutely perfect.

Is it your, would that
be my first choice?

Well, no, but I it's
going to kill you just

as bad as a bigger
round if placed in

the right place.

Most of the time, if
you're talking about

defensive handgun,
use people don't have

time to go shopping.

Right.

Even if you've got
somebody kicking down

your front door, like
let's say you make

it to your gun safe.

You're probably grabbing
the first thing where

you can get a gun and
ammunition together for

it at the same time.

Um, you know.

.22 will do the
job just fine.

Well, and most
defensive firearm use,

involves not pulling
the trigger at all.

Uh, when you actually
look into the, you

know, the research
on that often, it's

just, I have a gun
it's enough, you know?

Cause you think about,
you know, I was talking

earlier about the
burglar wants your TV

while he might want
your TV real bad, but

probably not that bad.

And he wants to
do harm to you.

You know, even if he's
somebody like you get

into a fight online,
you know, you, somebody

says, hey, you know,
this is what the law is.

And I say it actually
isn't nieces, I'm going

to come to your house and
I'm going to kill you.

And he shows up out
of the, you know,

outside and he's
kicking down my door.

People don't typically
have that much

commitment, you know, a
lot of the time if they

see a weapon they're like
you know, I've kind of

had a change of plans.

I really like the fight
of getting into, the idea

of getting into a fight
with a 120 pound guy.

I don't like that
idea so much now

that you got a gun.

Right.

Um, I mean, this
is why cops carry

firearms, in large part.

The whole, even if
the cop never draws

the firearm, simply
having it on their

hip is a tremendous
disincentive to doing

violence to the cop.

That's their very, very
first stage on their use

of force continuum is
their officer presence.

Yep, officer presence.

Just being there.

And officer presence, you
know, the uniform does

some stuff cause there's,
some people are gonna

say, hey, you know what?

It's a big deal.

If I take a swing
at this guy.

But I mean, the
officer isn't just

present as like random
dude in a uniform.

It's also that, you
know, they've got the

baton, they got the
pepper spray, they

might have a taser,
they got a handgun,

you know, that takes
some commitment to say,

I want to go get into
a fight with the guy,

with all these weapons
and some training.

And the radio to
call in all the

backup in the world.

Yeah.

So all of this stuff
is, uh, you know, you

just, it's hard to say,
but, uh, but yeah, in

terms of the Patreon
there's all sorts of

things I would love to
be able to play with.

Um, high-speed cameras
would be fantastic

for looking at
some of this stuff.

I want a Phantom
camera so bad.

The thing is, I just
can't justify it at.

Only a hundred grand.

Come on.

I mean, you can get
used ones for like

low five figures.

See, you've
been shopping.

I have, but at the
same time, like low

five figures is still
a lot of dollars right.

It's still low
five figures, yes.

And you know, so if
you're, if you're

considered and you
know, I don't just

want one because it'd
be fun to play with

I mean, absolutely.

It would, but things
like, um, ranges

get asked, you know,
well, what about

ground strikes?

It'd be really great
to be able to take

one of those cameras,
build a protective

enclosure for it.

And then, you know,
take it somewhere where

I know that it's a
safe area, you know,

a, uh, a box canyon or
something like that.

And see what happens
on ground strikes.

You know, what is this
actually doing in terms

of the ballistics?

Because you know,
maybe they're right.

Maybe these things
are a major danger to,

you know, the public.

But maybe they're
just full of crap.

So I would love to be
able to go and do videos

on stuff like that.

Like here is what is, you
know, going on with this.

Um, if I get the business
license and can look at

some of these things,
one, because one of the

things people always ask
me is, um, there's this

knife I'm looking at
online, is it prohibited?

Right.

Well, the knife itself,
you know, it's really

hard to evaluate that
without actually having

the knife in your hand.

And the knife itself
might be 80 bucks.

Yep.

But the risk of ordering
that knife might be

way bigger than that.

So if I've got the
business license and it

allows for prohibited
weapon import, I can

say, hey, listen,
I'm importing this

knife for the purposes
of, you know, the

firearm business.

And then I could
do some things like

that, you know?

Um.

Well, there's the
other side as well,

that once you've made
that investment, it's

done, you can't do
anything with it.

And especially like with
firearms, if a prohibited

firearm gets imported
and a prohibited firearm

is put into a business
inventory, become dead.

They can be traded or
sold to other businesses

or museums, but they
can't go to individuals.

And I'm saying like,
let's say a grandfathered

prohibited firearm
that an individual

could otherwise have.

So there's that
cost as well.

It's not like it's
something you can

sell again afterwards,
at least not easily.

I mean,

it's, it's a sunk cost.

Like if I go and
somebody says, Hey, is

this knife prohibited?

And I get it and go,
yeah, it totally is.

Um, at the end of the
day, the result of

that is I've got, you
know, I've spent money

on something that will
never go anywhere.

And in fact, you
know, I might, after

I'm done with it,
I'd have to basically

say, you know what,
it's not worth keeping

this thing around.

Let's just take it to
the, uh, the grinding

wheel out back, and
just sort of feed it

in until it's a stub.

Right.

So, you know, but
that sort of expense

is something that I
can only do if I have

some sort of, uh, some
sort of accounting

where I can say, hey.

You need that.

Yeah.

And I, and I think
people want to see

that and I'm, oh, like.

Yeah.

I'm not like John Q
bad-ass, I'm not going to

be going and reviewing,
like, this is the best

tactical sling, because
quite frankly, I would

not be the guy I can
tell you, you know,

10 or 15 people who
are absolutely the guy

for that on YouTube.

Um, but I can look at
something and go, is

this legally interesting
and talk about, you

know, what are the
laws around this?

And I don't think
there's a whole lot

of, of that out there.

So that's something I'd
love to be able to do.

I think you should
raise a price for your

Patreon membership,
it's really low.

And I mean, for what
people are getting

in the content that
you're producing.

I mean, the thing is, is
I've got different tiers.

People can sort of sign
up on, you know, what

they can afford and what
they, what they think

it's worth to them.

Sure.

I don't really want
to be, uh, the other

thing is I've had
people who, you know,

I had somebody sign up
and say, Hey, I signed

up, but you know, this
low tier and you know,

but money is tight and
I'm like, okay, don't.

Right.

What do you mean?

I'm like, if you're
telling me money is

tight, like, you know,
feed your family first.

This is entirely
a luxury thing.

It's, you know, I'm
going to be okay.

I'm not going to starve
to death or whatever.

Um, as much as I have big
dreams for what might,

you know, might happen.

Um, even just like in
terms of being able

to afford things like
a high-speed camera,

that's a big dream.

Right.

You know, even just
like, if I take an entire

year's income, could I
afford something like

that even used, you
know, that's a big dream.

Right.

Totally.

Um, but it's, these
are dreams, right?

Feed your family
first is, uh.

And then feed
these dreams.

Well, Ian let me,
I think we should

wrap it up there.

We'll just keep this a
real short after chat.

And I just wanted to
make sure people had an

idea of what the Patreon
account was about and,

uh, what they can expect
to see in the future,

because man, you must be
like the energizer bunny.

You're pumping out
so much content and

good quality content.

It's uh, it's impressive.

Well, I, uh, I set a goal
of trying to get one out

per day or other day.

I don't always meet it,
but that's the goal.

And I'll tell you,
um, sometimes it's,

it's tough because,
you know, you want

to put out an hour of
content because you're

looking at a long video.

It probably takes three
or four hours to get

that, you know, get
that down to a place

where I'm happy with it.

Easily.

And, you know, and
that's, I don't

have a whole lot
of fancy graphics.

I don't have a whole
lot of fancy editing.

I'll cut out parts
where I'm like, no,

I was rambling here.

That's stupid.

You know, cut that
out and rerecord it.

Yeah.

Um, but you know, I don't
have a whole lot of, if

I wanted to step up my
production values, I'd

probably have to step
down my, uh, my rate.

And maybe at some
point, I'll go back.

If I get better at
editing, I might go

back and revisit some
of my videos that are

particularly important
or ones that are lasting

legal principles and
do like, here's a

shiny version of this.

Yeah.

That's a good idea.

I'd love to see something
like this used and create

case law off of Runkle
of the Bailey YouTube.

I know of there's at
least a few times where

people have, other
lawyers have sent my

videos to prosecutors
to say, hey, look,

you've got the law
wrong, here's a guy.

And you know, it's not
just me saying it just

because I think this
because he recorded

this three months ago.

So clearly this is
his interpretation,

he walks through it.

Watch the video.

I haven't heard back yet
in terms of results on

those, but I am following
up on some of them.

I mean, often results
are sort of slow.

Sure, sure.

But, uh, yeah, no.

That's kind of the dream
and I've already, there's

already places where I've
made it an impression on

the legal system as it
were, you know, sort of

carved my, uh, my name
in the Runkle V Alberta

case is, is still cited.

It was cited.

Uh, not that long ago
in the decision off,

out of the east coast.

Right.

That's always nice
when you're like, Hey,

I was able to pick
this fight and it, you

know, it had an impact.

Um, but.

It feels good.

Yeah.

I mean, I say
pick this fight.

It was really, they
changed the rules

and I was like, I'm
not having this.

Right.

So.

Decided not to back down.

Yeah.

So yeah, that's, that's
where I like to be.

That's a, it's always
nice to know that you're

making a difference
in some fashion.

Totally.

Well, Ian, thank you.

Thank you for having
me, as I said, it's

wonderful being

More episodes

Chapters

What is The Silvercore Podcast with Travis Bader?