The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[suffolkowner]

The accused killed someone with a firearm during a spontaneous confrontation. That's the basis of the 2nd degree murder charge. Self-defence is something that can be raised at trial by the defence. Then, the Crown has to prove the contrary.

Remember, too, that there is a clear political bent against firearms use for self defence against people. In the days and months following the May 2020 OIC and both iterations of Bill C-21, the PM and Ministers Blair and Mendicino have all said that "we don't arm ourselves for defence against our fellow citizens" or words to that effect. So, my guess is that this isn't as clear-cut as initial reports make it out to be. So, yes, it's possible the Crown thought "let's err on the side of politics, lay the charge and let the courts decide". A lateral pass of a political football.

I'm going to postulate that it's unlikely, as a PAL holder, that the accused was a sh!trat, But there is definitely a lot more to this that we don't know yet.

It shouldnt really be that way IMO. This charging people for fun that the Crown/Police engage in because their are no consequences to them shouldnt be the default position and it really shouldnt when its clear that this individual was being attacked. I dont think prior history should limit or even enter into the discussion of your self defence claims or ability. This guy will likely get off like most do but at what cost and to what purpose? What public good is being served by the charges?

I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught. Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?

 

[BrianWL]

It shouldnt really be that way IMO. This charging people for fun that the Crown/Police engage in because their are no consequences to them shouldnt be the default position and it really shouldnt when its clear that this individual was being attacked. I dont think prior history should limit or even enter into the discussion of your self defence claims or ability. This guy will likely get off like most do but at what cost and to what purpose? What public good is being served by the charges?

I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught. Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?

rather doubt laying the charge was a fun filled activity. think the problem is the law as it stands is not clearly defined and there are a lot of moving parts, and we don't know what actually happened minus whatever the homeowner/accused's lawyer is saying, which will only be in favour of his client. i do not know what happened here, but history tells us that most home invasions (not all) are connected to some sort of criminal activity. maybe not here, we will see. personally, i support stand your ground. shit rats should be shitting their pants prior to kicking in someones door with a gun in hand. but. that would also quite likely lead to people shooting the paper delivery guy who mistakenly chucks the paper against some uber stand your ground person............

 

[suffolkowner]

rather doubt laying the charge was a fun filled activity. think the problem is the law as it stands is not clearly defined and there are a lot of moving parts, and we don't know what actually happened minus whatever the homeowner/accused's lawyer is saying, which will only be in favour of his client. i do not know what happened here, but history tells us that most home invasions (not all) are connected to some sort of criminal activity. maybe not here, we will see. personally, i support stand your ground. shit rats should be shitting their pants prior to kicking in someones door with a gun in hand. but. that would also quite likely lead to people shooting the paper delivery guy who mistakenly chucks the paper against some uber stand your ground person............

I dont care if the defendent had a criminal past they are still in their home.

Its FUN because its not done seriously or with any concern for the consequences or any repercussions to the officers or prosecuters at best/worst if its a high profile case with a good lawyer the public pays out but the vast majority of cases dont involve that

What I understand about this case is that, please correct me if I am wrong

up to 5 people attempted to do something
2 may have stayed in the vehicle and up to 3 entered the home
at least 1 of those 3 was armed and unlicensed, status of firearm unknown
1 of those individuals fired the weapon inside the home
1 of those individuals was killed in the course of the events
the defendent was a licensed firearm holder and was charged

 

[Haggis]

I think the guy has a RPAL(?) Im not sure what that means exactly if you get charged with a crime you dont lose your PAL do you lose your RPAL? One can be a criminal and have a license as long as you dont need to get caught.

The PAL is one document (card). That card allows you to possess/acquire either non-restricted and/or, if qualified, restricted firearms. If your PAL is seized/revoked/cancelled, you lose all possession/acquisition privileges.

Is there any information out there on how many PAL/RPAL's are refused and/or taken away and why?

In 2020 there were 1112 refusals. The most common reasons were the individual presented a risk to themselves or others or provided false information.

 

[suffolkowner]

The PAL is one document (card). That card allows you to possess/acquire either non-restricted and/or, if qualified, restricted firearms. If your PAL is seized/revoked/cancelled, you lose all possession/acquisition privileges.

In 2020 there were 1112 refusals. The most common reasons were the individual presented a risk to themselves or others or provided false information.

yes but people seem to be under the impression that it happens and Im not so sure it does or under what conditions . eg if yoyu are charged

 

[Halifax Tar]

Charging the person who is acting in self defence has two serious knock on effects. It tells the public to lay down and take it no matter how long it takes LE to respond, and it reinforces the criminals in a belief that they can get away with anything as no one will defend themselves.

 

[Good2Golf]

Have there been any charges announce to those who (allegedly) broke into the home (or those who allegedly aided in the commission of a criminal offense)?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Have there been any charges announce to those who (allegedly) broke into the home (or those who allegedly aided in the commission of a criminal offense)?

You mean the 'victims?'

 

[Haggis]

Have there been any charges announce to those who (allegedly) broke into the home (or those who allegedly aided in the commission of a criminal offense)?

Yes. One "victim" was arrested at the scene and charged with break-and-enter and unauthorized possession of a firearm.

 

[BrianWL]

I dont care if the defendent had a criminal past they are still in their home.

Its FUN because its not done seriously or with any concern for the consequences or any repercussions to the officers or prosecuters at best/worst if its a high profile case with a good lawyer the public pays out but the vast majority of cases dont involve that

What I understand about this case is that, please correct me if I am wrong

up to 5 people attempted to do something
2 may have stayed in the vehicle and up to 3 entered the home
at least 1 of those 3 was armed and unlicensed, status of firearm unknown
1 of those individuals fired the weapon inside the home
1 of those individuals was killed in the course of the events
the defendent was a licensed firearm holder and was charged

i think you have the known numbers correct. what you and i do not know, is what actually transpired before, during and after. as i already stated. i believe someone kicking in your door with the intent of harming someone inside should be fair game. its just not the case in Canada. self defence is case dependent, and when not clear - its left to the judge to figure out. shit day if buddy did the right thing, but the right thing to do, if something else was involved that won't be heard until trial.

 

[suffolkowner]

i think you have the known numbers correct. what you and i do not know, is what actually transpired before, during and after. as i already stated. i believe someone kicking in your door with the intent of harming someone inside should be fair game. its just not the case in Canada. self defence is case dependent, and when not clear - its left to the judge to figure out. shit day if buddy did the right thing, but the right thing to do, if something else was involved that won't be heard until trial.

I just dont think the majority of the cases that I read about should be going to trial at all. At some point we should figure it out and its not as complicated as some make it out to be. Its just another case of misplaced priorities of our justice system resulting in the opposite outcomes that I at least desire.

You can add to the above known suppositions that the defendent fired once and the intruder fired multiple times. I am curious what story the crown is going to try and sell to the jury that would even matter

 

[Eaglelord17]

I lost all faith that this country would treat someone who defended themselves with a firearm fairly after what happened to Ian Thompson.

Right now the onus to protect is all about the criminals and keeping their sorry lives intact rather than the victims who are suffering from said criminals misdeeds. Illegal possession of a firearm and using it in the commission of a crime should be a minimum sentence to life in prison. If you get shot or killed well committing that crime we should be thanking the individual responsible for ridding our society of that menace rather than charging them with anything.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most of the recent self-defense precedent in Canada involves bad guy vs bad guy. There are a few that don't like Ian Thompson, a case that should have never happened in my opinion.

 

[suffolkowner]

Theres also the case of the guys breaking into someones safe while he was away where he was charged with unsafe storage or something.

 

[Haggis]

Theres also the case of the guys breaking into someones safe while he was away where he was charged with unsafe storage or something.

A little short on details.

Unsafe storage or transportation is a common charge because not a lot of LEOs understand safe storage and transportation laws as they are somewhat convoluted. I was told by one police officer that firearms and ammunition could not be transported in the same vehicle. Yet the regulations allow ammunition to be both stored and transported with a properly secured firearm.

I carry a copy of the storage and transportation regulations in my range bag for ready reference.

Gun owners sometimes do sink themselves by not properly unloading firearms before transporting them. Charges have been laid for owners having overlooked a chambered dummy round or failing to remove a magazine containing ammunition. In those two instances, a trigger lock was used. That's why I use cable locks through the magazine well and ejection port exclusively.

 

[suffolkowner]

A little short on details.

Unsafe storage or transportation is a common charge because not a lot of LEOs understand safe storage and transportation laws as they are somewhat convoluted. I was told by one police officer that firearms and ammunition could not be transported in the same vehicle. Yet the regulations allow ammunition to be both stored and transported with a properly secured firearm.

I carry a copy of the storage and transportation regulations in my range bag for ready reference.

Gun owners sometimes do sink themselves by not properly unloading firearms before transporting them. Charges have been laid for owners having overlooked a chambered dummy round or failing to remove a magazine containing ammunition. In those two instances, a trigger lock was used. That's why I use cable locks through the magazine well and ejection port exclusively.

The guy was in Florida or something and stayed there for the entirety of his case until it was dropped. They tried to break in with torches etc..Figured someone here would remember it. Wasnt to long ago.

Point is firearms owners always seem to be targets. Even when there are more obvious criminals to pursue.

I dont generally take my firearms anywhere except the odd hunting trip. They are all at friends now as it has been over a year and I still havent got my renewal

 

[Haggis]

You can add to the above known suppositions that the defendent fired once and the intruder fired multiple times. I am curious what story the crown is going to try and sell to the jury that would even matter

The Crown can't sell anything as a story that is not supported by evidence. Judges and juries are not stupid.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Crown can't sell anything as a story that is not supported by evidence. Judges and juries are not stupid.

Up until a few years ago, I might be more believing of the “not stupid” part

Nowadays?

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Crown can't sell anything as a story that is not supported by evidence. Judges and juries are not stupid.

True but there is also punishment by process. Ian Thompson is still the perfect example of this, still being dragged through the court system well the scumbags who attempted to murder him and his family were already out. Plus the 60k in legal fees incurred to defend himself in court.

You don’t always need to be found guilty to suffer in this country.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The guy was in Florida or something and stayed there for the entirety of his case until it was dropped. They tried to break in with torches etc..Figured someone here would remember it. Wasnt to long ago.

Point is firearms owners always seem to be targets. Even when there are more obvious criminals to pursue.

I dont generally take my firearms anywhere except the odd hunting trip. They are all at friends now as it has been over a year and I still havent got my renewal

Yea I remember that case, took the thieves 3 days with saws, sledge hammers and power tools to break into his vault and he got charged with unsafe storage. You want to talk about a hostile Crown towards legal gun owners, that case and Ian Thompson case are prime examples. both people involved had even worked with police and law enforcement.