Weapons prohibition

[jsine]

Hello everyone, I just have a quick question.  I've done some searching and I believe I'm not starting a duplicate thread, but if I am I apologize.  I made some mistake in the past and ended up with a 10 year firearms prohibition.  I've just spoke with a lawyer to get the ball rolling to try and get it lifted so I may apply for a position as an combat engineer.  I was just wondering if anyone else has had this problem and did get it lifted for employment with the military.  Thank for reading.

Jordan

 

[brihard]

I've never heard of it happening for someone joining the CF. The criteria for lifting a weapon prohibition are quite strict, and with good reason. "I want" does not normally satisfy.

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

I've seen this request be shortly entertained, if the person was able to get a letter from the CF stating that the prohibition holds them back from being employed.  Note, the CF WILL NOT provide this letter.
Even if the prohibition is lifted, it does not mean you will be granted the required reliability status.

 

[cupper]

Wouldn't this fall under the same situation as the guy in another thread who is still under suspension and paying fines for his DUI? An outstanding legal obligation that needs to be fulfilled?

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

Wouldn't this fall under the same situation as the guy in another thread who is still under suspension and paying fines for his DUI? An outstanding legal obligation that needs to be fulfilled?

If the ban is removed, he has fulfilled what was required since the ban is no longer required.

 

[brihard]

I've seen this request be shortly entertained, if the person was able to get a letter from the CF stating that the prohibition holds them back from being employed.  Note, the CF WILL NOT provide this letter.
Even if the prohibition is lifted, it does not mean you will be granted the required reliability status.

Out of curiosity, in the past what circumstances allowed people to get such a letter that the CF will not provide? Did they used to do so?

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

Out of curiosity, in the past what circumstances allowed people to get such a letter that the CF will not provide? Did they used to do so?

To Clarify, the request was shortly entertained by the judge, "you get me a letter saying this ban prevents you from being gainfully employed and I'll lift the Ban."  Whereas the CF will not provide a letter because your not an applicant that has completed the process and is thus eligible to be gainfully employed... because you have the prohibition.  It's kind of like a catch 22 I guess.

 

[JorgSlice]

What gets me is 10 year weapon prohibition... I went to High School with a "gangsta" type guy who had a 2 year prohibition handed to him for being caught with a telescopic steel baton. To be handed a 10 year prohibition is a pretty big deal.

If you couldn't be trusted to handle firearms or other weapon-type objects (Whether prohibited or not), how does one expect you can join the military and be trusted?

Sorry but I don't like this, not one bit.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sorry but I don't like this, not one bit.

Agreed. It has to be a serious offense to have a 10-year weapons prohibition. Just because you want to join the CF, isn't an easy way out of your legal commitments.

 

[jsine]

Thanks for all the quick responses.  As for the severity of my crime and being trusted with a firearm.  I have no violent crimes and nothing to do with a firearm.  When I was a teen I was charged with trafficking, the prohibition was mandatory with the charge.  It wasn't my intent to piss anyone off with this topic, I just wanted to see if anyone had gone through something similar.

 

[Scott]

No one's pissed off, they're just saying they have some reservations about someone with a ten year ban. If you can't see the reasoning for that then you have issues.

You've got some advice here, I suggest you look into it.

I'd also suggest being prepared to have to live with decisions you made. One possibility might be missing out on a career with the CF. Even if you get the prohibition lifted you still have a long hill to climb because you'll have to explain yourself at some point - and there are loads of applicants who do not have trafficking charges on them.

Good luck.

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.

 

[brihard]

The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.

Care to elaborate?

 

[PuckChaser]

I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.

Everyone stands a chance. But you take 2 people with the exact same files, only one of them with a trafficking conviction, who do you think is going to get picked?

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

Everyone stands a chance. But you take 2 people with the exact same files, only one of them with a trafficking conviction, who do you think is going to get picked?

I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.

 

[Scott]

I'm also curious about what part the Charter has to play in this.

 

[JorgSlice]

I find these topics very interesting.  The Charter of Rights has a big part to play in all this.  Despite common opinion, get it lifted and you stand a chance.

The Supreme Court already ruled that the mandatory Weapons Prohibitions were deemed NOT to violate the Charter's protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.

You can't, or you won't? Big difference. Simple answer is, they'd take the one without the charge. 'tis life.

 

[The_Green_Basterd]

The Supreme Court already ruled that the mandatory Weapons Prohibitions were deemed NOT to violate the Charter's protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

You can't, or you won't? Big difference. Simple answer is, they'd take the one without the charge. 'tis life.

Its not the weapons ban, it's once it is over it can not be used against you.  You can not be punished again for something you have done your time for.  I wont get into time and distance between unlawful activity, but once you have done your time, you nave done your time.  The caveat is, "legal obligation."  If your weapons ban is over, than it's over, you can apply and if you do well on the CFAT, score well on the interview and you score within what everyone else that's gets selected score, you will get picked up.  The exception to this would be crimes of a, "serious," nature, (Murder, sexual crimes, crimes against children) will impace if you can get reliability status as well as time and distance from the crime.

 

[Scott]

Wouldn't a criminal record go along with a conviction for trafficking?

Loads of places won't touch someone with a record and loads more would use it as a tool to weed out applicants. At the very least he'd have additional steps to take just to apply.

 

[PuckChaser]

I really wish I could answer that, but I won't.

You're posting all around the forum on every thread about criminal convictions with a "holier than thou" attitude that you know it all but "can't" tell us. Unless you're going to put up some information for us to believe you, we're all going to go with the common sense answer that a serious criminal conviction can harm your chances of getting into the CF. The only case I can see is if someone was convicted, did their time, and received a pardon. After all, isn't the question on the form "convicted of a criminal offense for which a pardon has not been granted"?  You're pushing all this information to people that their criminal convictions aren't a big deal when applying to the CF, so when they walk into a recruiting center they have a nonchalant attitude about it. There are consequences to people's actions, and the CF shouldn't be a dumping ground for people who can't get a job anywhere else because they have a serious criminal offense on their record.