Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional in gun

[Argus]

It's a difficult situation. Any policy or regulation made for >ALL< cases will inevitably be grossly unfair in at least a few. You need a mechanism for stepping outside the one-size-fits-all rules now and then. The problem is that judges have demonstrated in the past a striking laxness in punishing gun offenses. I remember one particular case where known criminals, gang members, were stopped by police near Cornwall, and a loaded UZI was found in the car. The police charged them, and the judge gave them a fine and let them go. It was because of cases like that the government put mandatory minimums into place. The real question here, if the facts are believed, is why the Crown didn't plead this down. It seems an unfair charge on the face of it. Why did the Crown want to slam him into prison for three years? What is missing from this story?

The right way to go is to have judges punish those who are in possession of illegal restricted weapons, not register rifles. But judges, by and large, have seemed amazingly sympathetic to such people in the past.

I've already given my opinion in the past, that there ought to be a minimum 1/5/10 year sentence on 1st/2nd/3rd offense for buying or unauthorized possession of a restricted weapon. And those sentences should be doubled up where the offender has a criminal record for violence. That will inevitably lead to a few cases of grossly disproportionate sentences, but it will save lives and lower the number of restricted weapons out there among the criminal population. So in cases like that, you just have to say "Do it."

[Guest Derek L]

It's a difficult situation. Any policy or regulation made for >ALL< cases will inevitably be grossly unfair in at least a few. You need a mechanism for stepping outside the one-size-fits-all rules now and then. The problem is that judges have demonstrated in the past a striking laxness in punishing gun offenses. I remember one particular case where known criminals, gang members, were stopped by police near Cornwall, and a loaded UZI was found in the car. The police charged them, and the judge gave them a fine and let them go. It was because of cases like that the government put mandatory minimums into place. The real question here, if the facts are believed, is why the Crown didn't plead this down. It seems an unfair charge on the face of it. Why did the Crown want to slam him into prison for three years? What is missing from this story?

The right way to go is to have judges punish those who are in possession of illegal restricted weapons, not register rifles. But judges, by and large, have seemed amazingly sympathetic to such people in the past.

I've already given my opinion in the past, that there ought to be a minimum 1/5/10 year sentence on 1st/2nd/3rd offense for buying or unauthorized possession of a restricted weapon. And those sentences should be doubled up where the offender has a criminal record for violence. That will inevitably lead to a few cases of grossly disproportionate sentences, but it will save lives and lower the number of restricted weapons out there among the criminal population. So in cases like that, you just have to say "Do it."

It’s quite simple why the Crown didn’t bargain down, what with the recent cases involving the fellow who fired warning shots at arsonists or what might come out of the recent shooting of the two RCMP members in Northern Alberta…….It creates precedent …….If they don’t throw the proverbial book at this fellow fooling around with a loaded, illegal firearm, the next time the Crown charges a licensed fellow with a loaded handgun in his night table they’ll be kneecapped………Ahh Canadian gun politics 101.

[Tilter]

Add this to the file of activist judges that should be fired outright.

The police were executing a search warrant for illegal firearms. The guy was found waiving around a loaded illegal firearm. If anything, three years is too lenient.

If the guy was waving a weapon he's lucky to be alive.

Don't think this is over--- this guy will serve his time in JAIL & tey should throw the "judge" in with him

[Tilter]

Careful, so could you be...

Custody is not necessarily possession. He did not possess anything anymore than you are in my house and possess my remote.

Securely stored is not his problem.

Loaded but not his , not illegal possession or a loaded firearm.....what facts ?

If he had it in his home it's them same as being his--- if it was loaded in his home there is still a possible 10 year sentence for that. I assume this was a handgun--- still under the same laws as in the firearms act---

[Tilter]

Politicians should be completely removed from the sentencing process. They offer absolutely nothing of value, and the last thing we need is a politician thousands of miles away deciding the outcome of a trial without hearing a word of testimony or reviewing a shred of evidence.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is an utter abject failure.

It would have cost about 1/4 of a million dollars to throw this guy in jail for three years, and quite likely deprived the government of a bunch of tax revenue as well. And he would likely pose a bigger risk to society after being immerse in prison culture for 3 years, and making a new group of friends and associates there, then he his now.

The politicians make the law.---- Shake your head---- this the type of thing that gets the Police officers and a lot of cretins that think they are special, killed.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Tilter

[olpfan1]

If he had it in his home it's them same as being his--- if it was loaded in his home there is still a possible 10 year sentence for that. I assume this was a handgun--- still under the same laws as in the firearms act---

it was his cousins apartment...

[The_Squid]

Holding someone else's gun in a private home. No crimes were being committed with the gun. No previous criminal record. How is this worthy of 3 years? Idiocy.

[Smallc]

Absolutely stupid. This is the kind of case that proves the necessity of the courts.

[Guest Derek L]

Holding someone else's gun in a private home. No crimes were being committed with the gun. No previous criminal record. How is this worthy of 3 years? Idiocy.

I admittedly don’t know all the facts of the case, but on the surface, he probably doesn’t even deserve jail time, but, If a licensed gun owner’s home was broken into and an improperly stored handgun stolen, then used to commit a murder, should the licensed gun owner be charged?

[The_Squid]

I admittedly don’t know all the facts of the case, but on the surface, he probably doesn’t even deserve jail time, but, If a licensed gun owner’s home was broken into and an improperly stored handgun stolen, then used to commit a murder, should the licensed gun owner be charged?

Improper storage, yes.

There should not be a 3 year minimum sentence though.

[capricorn]

Holding someone else's gun in a private home. No crimes were being committed with the gun. No previous criminal record. How is this worthy of 3 years? Idiocy.

I see this as someone immature doing a stupid thing and being in the wrong place at the right time. I bet the guy has now learned a thing or two about gun laws, and that's a positive outcome. Let it be a lesson to him and hopefully house arrest will distance him from the bad influence of gangsta types in his environment. Maybe then he can concentrate on completing his education and being a father present for his child.

[Keepitsimple]

Lets keep in mind that 3 years is actually closer to 10 months if you behave yourself - and certainly if you are a first time offender. It's not the sentence that matters - it's the time you serve. You can be released into the community as early as after serving 25% of your sentence. I can see this lamebrain serving time in a minimum security facility (away from the maniacs) and getting out pretty quickly. That's what sentencing conditions and parole should be about - the guys who deserve a chance get it - the ones who don't, don't. I think Canada - and Toronto in particular has made it very clear that playing with loaded, illegal hand guns is more than just stupid - its totally unacceptable to society.

[Smallc]

Actually, depending on if this is counted as a violent crime, the new minimum sentence serving period is 2/3 of the time you are given. It remains 1/3 for non violent crime.

[Guest Derek L]

Improper storage, yes.

There should not be a 3 year minimum sentence though.

So legal guy gets improper storage, but the kid fooling around making pictures for Facebook gets nothing?

Let’s use a more fitting example, I’m walking around the inside of my house with a legal, loaded, holstered handgun and my next door neighbour see’s this and calls the police……..What do I get charged with? Contrast this with the kid in the OP.

[The_Squid]

So legal guy gets improper storage, but the kid fooling around making pictures for Facebook gets nothing?

When did I say he gets nothing? I said 3 years was way too excessive.

Let’s use a more fitting example, I’m walking around the inside of my house with a legal, loaded, holstered handgun and my next door neighbour see’s this and calls the police……..What do I get charged with? Contrast this with the kid in the OP.

Why would you be charged?

[Guest Derek L]

When did I say he gets nothing? I said 3 years was way too excessive.

Fair enough...What should he get, in your opinion?

Why would you be charged?

Carrying/handling a loaded, restricted firearm not at a gun range. Also, storage laws relating to the ammo…At a minuim, I’d likely get a year’s probation and a ten year ban on owning firearms, not too mention my estimated ~50k worth of firearms seized without compensation.

[olpfan1]

I don't see any point in owning a hand gun anyway, they really should be banned

[Sa'adoni]

Why? These idiots like to brag before they do it. You guys all screamed about the gun reg , but this happens and it is ok. I read a article today about how the left hates guns umless they are pointed at a con.

Still the guy will need to pay $631 or at this rate 50-60 thousand dollars in order to get his record struck for posing with the cool gun 8 to 30 years from now just to travel to the US. Hold on, sorry Canadian pardons don`t mean anything in the US.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Sa'adoni

[The_Squid]

Fair enough...What should he get, in your opinion?

Community service? Probation? Firearm ownership ban?

Not 3 years in jail.

Carrying/handling a loaded, restricted firearm not at a gun range. Also, storage laws relating to the ammo…At a minuim, I’d likely get a year’s probation and a ten year ban on owning firearms, not too mention my estimated ~50k worth of firearms seized without compensation.

Ok. Excessive? Or part of the bargain when you own rstricted firearms? You tell me.....

[Guest Derek L]

Community service? Probation? Firearm ownership ban?

Not 3 years in jail.

Ok. Excessive? Or part of the bargain when you own rstricted firearms? You tell me.....

That's my point, if you back to where i posted:

It’s quite simple why the Crown didn’t bargain down, what with the recent cases involving the fellow who fired warning shots at arsonists or what might come out of the recent shooting of the two RCMP members in Northern Alberta…….It creates precedent …….If they don’t throw the proverbial book at this fellow fooling around with a loaded, illegal firearm, the next time the Crown charges a licensed fellow with a loaded handgun in his night table they’ll be kneecapped

I admittedly don’t know all the facts of the case, but on the surface, he probably doesn’t even deserve jail time, but, If a licensed gun owner’s home was broken into and an improperly stored handgun stolen, then used to commit a murder, should the licensed gun owner be charged?

I’ve owned, been issued as a sidearm, competitively shot and have safely & legally handled handguns for nearly 35 years and I’d get a record……This bozo’s punishment should be greater than what I’d get as a legal owner for one simple reason.

If he get’s a mere slap on the wrist with an illegal firearm, the precedent that would set would allow myself (and all other legal owners), with the later example I cited, to have any charges dropped.

[Guest Manny]

If he get’s a mere slap on the wrist with an illegal firearm, the precedent that would set would allow myself (and all other legal owners), with the later example I cited, to have any charges dropped.

One problem with mandatory minimums is, the judge dose not have those options so they will prefer to entirely dismiss the case. That means ironically mandatory minimums could result in letting more "criminals" go, being unable to assign reasonable punishment proportional to the case.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Manny

[guyser]

If he had it in his home it's them same as being his--- if it was loaded in his home there is still a possible 10 year sentence for that. I assume this was a handgun--- still under the same laws as in the firearms act---

Reading comprehension is key.

Read the article and then come back, obviously you haven't

[Guest Derek L]

One problem with mandatory minimums is, the judge dose not have those options so they will prefer to entirely dismiss the case. That means ironically mandatory minimums could result in letting more "criminals" go, being unable to assign reasonable punishment proportional to the case.

Fair enough, but my point still stands…….if they don’t give him something for being a goof, the next time a legal gun owner is being goof, you can expect the legal owner to get even less…….It truly is a slippery slope….

[Guest Peeves]

One problem with mandatory minimums is, the judge dose not have those options so they will prefer to entirely dismiss the case. That means ironically mandatory minimums could result in letting more "criminals" go, being unable to assign reasonable punishment proportional to the case.

A good point if judges get to interpret the sentencing.

That's the problem I have with the death sentence. Given the choice, some juries might let someone off rather that a sentence of death.

Still, the judge should administer the law and let an appeal deal with the issues.

I don't think 3 years was necessarily right, but the judge was wrong too in my opinion.

I see too many cases where the judge giving a sentence takes in too many variables in order to minimize the sentence.

That's what brought the mandatory sentences to the fore, blame the judges. They were and continue to try to write the laws as their conscience applies instead of sticking to the law as written.

[g_bambino]

AND judges all too often try to set the laws rather than administer them.

What part of the constitution did the judge set? As far as I knew, the Charter existed before this judge mentioned it in her ruling.