- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
That 'truth' is not a truth for Canada. Straw buys are extremely rare in Canada. In the front and out the back is more an American problem.mrcpu said:
The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
Jake138 said:
I think it has been before the SCC and found to be reasonable in the interest of public safety. It certainly must have been tested by now. There is a clause in the Trudeau constitution that says everything in the constitution has reasonable limits, plus there is the Not-with-Standing clause.
The Lords Day Act (not allowed to be open for business on Sunday) was enforced for about 80 years before it was challenged by Big M Drug mart ... And found to be unconstitutional for being inconsistent with sect 2....
Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
- Reaction score
- 6,064
- Points
- 1,160
mrcpu said:
One cold is not called an epidemic. I said it is much less a problem here. I didn't say it doesn't happen.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,034
- Points
- 1,160
This is turning into a gun/trespassing/race issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/shooting-biggar-sask-sparks-debate-right-to-defend-1.3718700
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/fsin-calls-fatal-shooting-of-22-year-old-in-farmyard-a-crime-based-on-race/ar-BBvzc4O
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/shooting-biggar-sask-sparks-debate-right-to-defend-1.3718700
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/fsin-calls-fatal-shooting-of-22-year-old-in-farmyard-a-crime-based-on-race/ar-BBvzc4O
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I fail to see the race link but there's not enough info being released. Ultimately a home owner doesn't get to chose the race of a trespasser/attacker so on the location of the incident alone, I'd have to call "BS".
HOWEVER I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
HOWEVER I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,034
- Points
- 1,160
mrcpu said:
A bit off topic but there were some facebook screen shots about one of the accused (which apparently were removed pretty quick but not fast enough) posting about going out to rob people and I think something about guns too.
I know if a car full of young adults who were drinking all day (assuming it would be pretty obvious) pulled up to my farm and asked for "help with a flat tire" I'd probably tell them to get off my property too after informing them I would call a tow truck. Way too many cases of people getting robbed and assaulted in circumstances exactly like this story reads.
Marni Soupcoff: Justice finally prevails for Bruce and Donna Montague
Marni Soupcoff | August 18, 2016 |
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-justice-finally-prevails-for-bruce-and-donna-montague
Sometimes justice really does prevail. Or some semblance of it does, anyway, even if it takes far too long to arrive and can never fully make up for all the pain and suffering experienced along the way. There had already been plenty of suffering for Bruce and Donna Montague, who live in a log home outside Kenora, Ont., when they sought to stop the province of Ontario from seizing and selling their home: Bruce had already spent more than half a year in jail and lost his ability to work in his chosen profession, and the federal government had already taken more than $100,000 of the couple’s property, which amounted to their life savings.
Why? Bruce, a talented gunsmith and principled opponent of the complex licensing and gun registration laws that came into effect in Canada in 1995, had purposely let his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate expire as an act of protest. Apparently believing that the jail time and $100,000 in property wasn’t payment enough for this victimless crime, the province of Ontario sued to seize the Montagues’ house — which also housed Bruce’s gunsmith shop — claiming the property was an “instrument of crime” or “proceeds of crime.” The accusation was unfair, disproportionate and ultimately curious given that the only party that ended up being enriched by Bruce’s transgressions was the government itself.
But, again, sometimes fairness does win out, even if it takes more than a decade to do so. This summer, the Montagues finally won back from the government some of the respect they always deserved. Faced with the couple’s unwavering determination to stand up for their rights — and the rights of all Canadians — the government of Ontario finally backed down. The Montagues will keep their home (which Bruce built with his own hands), and unlike many other unfortunate victims of civil forfeiture abuse in Ontario, who are subjected to gag clauses that prevent them from warning others about the injustices they have suffered at the hands of government, the couple will be free to tell their story.
It might appear that the result was inevitable given how clearly out of proportion the government’s punitive measures were to the severity of the crime. Sadly, that is not the case. The Montagues might easily have been overwhelmed, as others have been, by the severity of the challenge they faced and the disparity in their resources against those of the government. However, they happen to be an unusually moral and vocal couple, and stubbornly put their principles above their personal interests. With the help of the non-profit legal charity, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), they pursued the case both in court and in the court of public opinion, despite the heavy toll. For most Canadians, landing on the wrong end of a government civil forfeiture attempt — which can happen even to individuals who, unlike Bruce Montague, have never been suspected of, let alone convicted of, a crime — is unlikely to end happily.
more on link
Marni Soupcoff | August 18, 2016 |
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-justice-finally-prevails-for-bruce-and-donna-montague
Sometimes justice really does prevail. Or some semblance of it does, anyway, even if it takes far too long to arrive and can never fully make up for all the pain and suffering experienced along the way. There had already been plenty of suffering for Bruce and Donna Montague, who live in a log home outside Kenora, Ont., when they sought to stop the province of Ontario from seizing and selling their home: Bruce had already spent more than half a year in jail and lost his ability to work in his chosen profession, and the federal government had already taken more than $100,000 of the couple’s property, which amounted to their life savings.
Why? Bruce, a talented gunsmith and principled opponent of the complex licensing and gun registration laws that came into effect in Canada in 1995, had purposely let his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate expire as an act of protest. Apparently believing that the jail time and $100,000 in property wasn’t payment enough for this victimless crime, the province of Ontario sued to seize the Montagues’ house — which also housed Bruce’s gunsmith shop — claiming the property was an “instrument of crime” or “proceeds of crime.” The accusation was unfair, disproportionate and ultimately curious given that the only party that ended up being enriched by Bruce’s transgressions was the government itself.
But, again, sometimes fairness does win out, even if it takes more than a decade to do so. This summer, the Montagues finally won back from the government some of the respect they always deserved. Faced with the couple’s unwavering determination to stand up for their rights — and the rights of all Canadians — the government of Ontario finally backed down. The Montagues will keep their home (which Bruce built with his own hands), and unlike many other unfortunate victims of civil forfeiture abuse in Ontario, who are subjected to gag clauses that prevent them from warning others about the injustices they have suffered at the hands of government, the couple will be free to tell their story.
It might appear that the result was inevitable given how clearly out of proportion the government’s punitive measures were to the severity of the crime. Sadly, that is not the case. The Montagues might easily have been overwhelmed, as others have been, by the severity of the challenge they faced and the disparity in their resources against those of the government. However, they happen to be an unusually moral and vocal couple, and stubbornly put their principles above their personal interests. With the help of the non-profit legal charity, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), they pursued the case both in court and in the court of public opinion, despite the heavy toll. For most Canadians, landing on the wrong end of a government civil forfeiture attempt — which can happen even to individuals who, unlike Bruce Montague, have never been suspected of, let alone convicted of, a crime — is unlikely to end happily.
more on link
Governments are vindictive to their citizens by nature, democrat ones more so because we expect better. Civil forfeiture, like all things government designed has morphed from a way to punish the worst criminals to a way to check the errant citizens. They worked far harder on punishing Montague than any of the Ponzi schemers that Ontario has caught.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
GAP said:
I don't have a problem with the government taking a drug dealer's sportscar that he bought with drug money. I do have a problem with them going after someone's home that was bought/built with LAWFUL INCOME from BEFORE he broke the law. Absolute, unadulterated BULL CRAP. Whomever started that action should be held accountable. They should be sued into poverty and be forced to lose their own home to pay for damages. Maybe then bureaucrats will think twice about their actions before launching such an immoral act.
- Reaction score
- 2,468
- Points
- 1,190
Jarnhamar said:
Lightguns said:
Were they really being vindictive, or were they just applying the laws as they are written?
Mr. Montague broke the law by allowing his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate to expire.
I'm not speaking out against the justness of this law or gun laws in general, but just because a lot of people disagree with the law, doesn't mean we stop enforcing it.
A lot of people disagree with the prohibition against marijuana; do the people on this forum think that all those people running illegal dispensaries should have their property and their businesses returned to them?
"But drugs hurt people, Mr. Montague wasn't hurting anyone." Again, laws are meant to be both preventative as well as punitive. Now, you don't have to agree that the law to understand the Government's actions. In their eyes, and the eyes of many pro-gun control Canadians, unregulated guns (and those business that support them) create a dangerous environment. If the government waited until harm was done, then they would have failed in applying one of the mandates of the law.
I'm personally happy that Mr. and Mrs. Montague we're able to walk away from this mess, with their heads held high to boot. However, I believe it to be disingenuous to insinuate that everyone from the government involved, form the police who showed up at his door, to the crown attorneys, were being vindictive.
mrcpu said:
1. Ok then, I'm going to build a house from scratch using my LAWFUL INCOME. Then, I'm going to run a drug dispensary/sweatshop/bawdy house from my basement and living room. When the cops come to shut me down and seize my property, I'll make sure to show them you're argument.
I mean, once something has been designated as "Legal", it can't possibly become "Illegal", am I right mrcpu?
Also, as the last three sentences in your statement... wow... just wow.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Lumber said:
The problem with your analogy is that he was a licensed gunsmith operating a legal business. IF, in your analogy you are operating a Health Canada licensed dispensary or a City of Toronto licensed massage parlor and your legitimate business is following all the laws while you pay off your mortgage, then there is ZERO morality to going after your home if, at a later date your license to operate expires or is revoked.
I am serious that there should be accountability for bureaucrats, police, and crown prosecutors. In our society today as it exists police can and DO lay charges they know won't stick to punish people they feel need a smack down. Those charges ultimately can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against, not to mention the costs to tax payers.
At some point, individual people in positions of authority need to be held financially accountable for their actions when they abuse that authority.
- Reaction score
- 2,468
- Points
- 1,190
mrcpu said:
Laws change. Standards of morality change. One of the ways we keep everyone on the same page is by having licences and permits which expire and must be renewed. It allows the government to make sure everyone is on the same page. Was this case overkill? Hells yes it was. But I got no sense of anyone in the government being overzealous, vindictive or cruel. Just a long string of people doing their jobs and following the rules. Bureaucracy sucks but it isn't malicious.
mrcpu said:
For the parts that I did not highlight, I agree 100%. I can't stand how we put people away for 10 years for theft over $5000, but that politicians and other lofty members of the business community get away with a slap on the wrist.
As for the stuff in yellow, leveraging on what I said earlier in this post, with people just doing their jobs, I think you're straying into tin-hat territory here. Can I get a "amen" recceguy?
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,034
- Points
- 1,160
Lumber said:
Yes. When you compare the severity of the crime, especially the lack of victims, to what he went through then absolutely. Do you really think having the government take your home, a home you built yourself, because a license expired is proportionate? When drunk drivers who kill people are able to get their license back and drive again, let alone keep their house.
This isn't the first person/family to go through this, it's sounds in the same ballpark as a SLAPP lawsuit. One of the hallmarks (or whatever it's called) about punishments is public deterrence. Enforcing a gag order on people who are put through this ordeal isn't exactly public deterrence in the context that it's out there for people to see.
Punishment is out of proportion to the crime.
If possessing pot was legal with a license and someone let their license expire in a form of protest and they suffered through the same level of shit that this guy did then yes they should.
- Status
Similar threads
