I took a look at the web page.
Originally Posted by peter nap
Here's the current text, right from the VAC website:
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, except commercial sporting firearms ammunition; explosives, explosive substances and firearms of all types are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
Using my best guess as to what the editing conventions are, strikeout means delete, underline means add, it appears that the final text would read:
No person shall bring into or have in any forest any explosive or explosive substance, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition. Explosives and explosive substances, other than lawfully possessed firearms ammunition, are prohibited in any portion of a forest assigned to the Department of Forestry, for administration as a recreational area.
There is no mention of "firearms" without "ammunition" directly after. I suppose by default as with all laws, barring the prohibition thereof, it is legal, so by removing the prohibition of firearms, it is making them legal. Prohibiting explosives could be interpreted to include ammunition, so that is probably why they specifically exclude ammo from the rule.
It is probably good to keep with that convention, I would rather just remove the text prohibiting firearms, than to replace it with text that specifically allows them. Why break with convention for just this one circumstance?
I'm confused as to why the last sentence in the proposed change about CHPs doesn't show up in the text that is on the LIS.