Spiderfish

CC s. 86(1) and 86(2) appear to be the sections that would apply to improper storage of ammunition. 86. (1) Every person commits an offense who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. (3) Every person who commits an offense under subsection (1) or (2) (a) is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment (i) in the case of a first offense, for a term not exceeding two years, and (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offense, for a term not exceeding five years; or (iii) is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction. The decision to charge summarily or by indictment would be at the discretion of the prosecution. I have searched for an example of someone who has been charged and convicted by indictment for simple improper storage of ammunition, but have been unable to find an example. Do you have a cite you could provide? If mandatory minimums were established for indictable offenses, logic would dictate that this would be a deterrence from prosecuting licensing and minor storage infractions by indictment, as a 3 year mandatory minimum could be easily argued as “cruel and unusual punishment” and would be easily defeated as such by initial judgement or under appeal. Also, I am curious as to why this ruling was brought down now, if an amendment is in second or third reading that will remove these onerous sections of the Firearms Act and offer protection to legal gun owners. Why did the SCC not take this into account?

I thought you were worried about an increase in gun crime in this country... I would have suspected that those who are worried about increased gun violence who have shown support for stricter gun laws would welcome this legislation.

Claiming this legislation is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the charter is disingenuous at best, and proposing such to lend support to their ruling is bogus. Believe me, as a gun owner I value protection from laws that could be used potentially as a violation of rights. In this case, I am not at all concerned as there appears to be no credible evidence that this legislation could be used as such. A third of the justices could also not see how any hypothetical scenario put forward to support the ruling could be credible. I agree, the fact that this is an election year will likely temper Harper from going there. Perhaps this is why we are seeing the SCC so willing to engage in the manipulation and direction of government social policy recently (of course, SCC justices would never base judicial action on personal social motivations).

If you are unable to understand that simply storing ammunition in the wrong room is an offense that neither has ever been, or can be prosecuted as an indictable offense, then there is no point continuing to debate. Manufacturing a circumstance where someone could or would be sentenced 3 years for improper ammunition storage is so far detached from legal precedent, it strains credibility.

The 3 and 5 year mandatory minimums are never and have never been handed out for minor gun licensing and handling infractions as they are prosecuted summarily. The mandatory minimums only apply to indictable offenses. Basically what one third of the SC justices said is that they should not be second guessing the choices of our elected representatives when it comes to the matter of drafting public safety policy, and using non-credible hypothetical situations to support such an action is dubious. The SCC seems to be daring the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause with rulings such as this.

A couple of other quotes from the minority justices in the ruling stood out to me:

I thought the minority SCC justices summed it up well:

I thought that as well. Maybe the fact that their has never been even one single case of a minor licensing or storage offense ever being prosecuted as an indictment was taken into consideration when drafting the legislation. Not at all, see above.

Minor gun related cases are prosecuted summarily, not by indictment, which means a maximum sentence of 1 year. Summary offenses are not affected by the mandatory minimum.

As does baseless speculation.

Has there been something released determining that this shooting was racially motivated? What happened to Mr. Scott appears to be an indefensible case of murder, however immedtiaely jumping to the conclusion that his death was the result of a racist police force seems a bit premature.

For sure it's different now. I have been in the trades for 23+ years and can confirm without question things have changed. I know and have worked with many females who decided to pursue a skilled trade. They are making great money on par with their male co-workers.

Only if there were an equal number of male and female applicants. WCR already established that there are significantly more males applying than females. It wouldn't be blanaced proportionally to the ratio of male vs female applicants. Actually, 4:1 ratio is very closely proportional to the ratio of male to female applicants.

That has not been my experience with FutureShop. I would agree however that stock was marginally better in the past and gotten worse in recent years.

And my bet is that when you walk into the shiny new Best Buy looking for one particular item and it's not on the shelf, the pimple-faced dept. manager will still tell you to go order it online instead. They might even let you borrow one of their demo computers to place your order...and more than likely they will recommend that you have it delivered to the store you are standing in so you can come back and pick it up. Future Shop (and by extension, Best Buy) have lost all concept of what the purpose of a bricks and mortar store is. They screwed themselves, and the people that worked there.

And yet she's begging for a lifeline from the same moderator 2 pages later after getting confused by irrational responses she posed to her opponent about his age and then trying to recover with insult. Seems there's plenty of baiting, sarcasm and insult to go around, no doubt the result of basing the foundation of one's arguement on emotional reaction rather than the object of the debate.

I don't want to speak for WCR, however it seems likely this would not be a subject of interest. Gender denotes all genders, the impression I get is that she is looking for subjects particular to only the female gender. I suspect male involvment would not necessarily be welcome as evidenced in her attempt to start a woman specific topic and her subsequent criticism of the resulting male input: If responses to such a topic is going to be greeted with accusation and contempt, things will likely go off the rails fast, as they have with this thread. Even the moderator trying to figure out what she is looking for to try and accommodate is met with contempt... It's reactionary crap like this that is the main reason I post very little on this site any more. If a simple request for clarification is met with such blunt close-mindedness, imagine what reponse to actual measured debate would look like. Actually, no need to imagine, just review the last few pages of this thread.

No, it's not about that. I've just noticed that there's a lot of paranoia from some about how they think our rights are in jeopardy and may be destroyed through C-51 and how we have to fight to prevent this at all costs, however when the discussion turns to the increased terrorist threats and what should be done to prevent potential attacks, some of these same people take on the attitude that we don't need to worry about perceived threats and that inflating the perceived risk and reacting to it is foolish. Seems like these people are falling into their own trap to me. There seems to be quite a bit of unmitigated fear and paranoia, as well as inflated rhetoric around this issue from both sides of the spectrum.

If perceived terrorist threats or potential attacks aren't considered actual threats which warrant additional measures of prevention, would this also apply to perceived or potential rights violations? Why be concerned with something that hasn't happened yet.

My observation is not in regards to the bill itself, but in regards to your arrogant assumption that the majority of Canadians are generally misinformed and stupid because they don't share your Orwellian predictions that you believe are an inevitable result of the bill.

Sure, if any scope has been blown out of proportion, it's the reaction to a simple request to show one's face when obtaining citizenship. It's not really that outrageous a requirement. I agree context is everything, although I suspect this is a concept the opposition has a hard time comprehending.

It's not really that difficult, pretty self explanatory actually. I certainly do not believe that a sound election strategy is to strip Canadians of their rights and freedoms, and I think Harper is smart enough to understand that this would not be an efficient platform on which to base an election. I also have a little more faith in the voting public than you and believe that if this is supported by the majority of the public, it's because people feel it's necessary, not because they're stupid and full of fear.

Not to the point you do.

Or imply that the majority of Canadians are a society of mindless oafs being controlled through fear by Harper to achieve his grand Orwellian plan to strip all freedoms from the citizens that have been given to us and fought for by our brave, intelligent ancestors before us. Tin hat doesn't even come close, better get out the mylar space blanket.

I agree, the ridiculous statement about soldiers...with guns...in the streets... did not do the Liberals any favours 10 years ago. The ridiculous statement saying that "we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a ‘none is too many’ immigration policy toward Jews in the ’30s and ’40s being used today, to raise fears against Muslims today" is equally if not more outrageous and will definitely do JT no favours either. The only difference is that no one has taken him seriously up to this point so the damage may be minimal because it's about on par with what we have come to expect out of him.