Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional in gun

[Smallc]

So what? Its not a perfect system, and no system with humans involved ever will be. I still find the courts to be the most competent branch of government, and just about the only one that has any interest in standing up for the rights of Canadians.

And there's a reason for that - the people in the courts are professionals at what they do. That isn't necessarily so in Parliament or Cabinet/Crown. Argus is worrying about things that almost never occur.

[Guest Derek L]

And this is why it's ridiculous to get into speculation about the judicial decision making in a fabricated story. You don't seem to understand how judicial reasoning works. The case in the OP is not going to be precedent for "all minor firearms offenses." You've criticized one aspect out of all of the factors in the story, which is meaningless on its own. It's a part of the entire story and list of facts that make up this particular case.

At the end of the day he was charged, tried, and convicted of a crime. He just wasn't given the ludicrous mandatory minimum because the judge believes it is unconstitutional. The offender still has a criminal record now and has been sentenced for a firearm offense.

So you don’t know what lead police to bust down the door?

[cybercoma]

So you don’t know what lead police to bust down the door?

Do you? The article says the police were looking for someone else.

[Guest Derek L]

Do you? The article says the police were looking for someone else.

No I don’t, that’s why I asked……..The judge states that a “reasonable person knowing the circumstances of this case” would agree that three years is harsh………I ask, who/what/why were the police busting down the door ? This guys cousin, the alleged owner of the gun, was he the person in question?

[cybercoma]

I don't know and I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the sentencing. The police very likely had the right to enter the home. I mean it's possible the defense dropped the ball, but if the cops weren't supposed to be there, the case would have been thrown out.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't know and I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the sentencing. The police very likely had the right to enter the home. I mean it's possible the defense dropped the ball, but if the cops weren't supposed to be there, the case would have been thrown out.

If the police suspected a firearm present, they don’t require a warrant………My line of questioning stems from what facts indicated to the judge that this guy was just goofing off and not directly associated with “organised crime”………Where did the gun “owner” get the gun? Did he steal it? Was it smuggled into Canada? Was it used in a crime? -OR- did he find it or was given it by a grandfather that never registered it?

If it was the later, I can see giving the fellow a “slap on the wrist”, but if it were the former, well I’d tend to disagree with the judges sentence………My point is, the facts of the case should be made public prior to writing off this judge or mandatory sentences.

[cybercoma]

You'll need to find the court transcripts or the judicial reasoning for those answers. This is what I mean about particular circumstances of every case. All of those things you mention need to be considered. News reports don't give all of the facts of the case, just what they feel is most pertinent.

[Guest Derek L]

You'll need to find the court transcripts or the judicial reasoning for those answers. This is what I mean about particular circumstances of every case. All of those things you mention need to be considered. News reports don't give all of the facts of the case, just what they feel is most pertinent.

I agree, most media organizations tend to sensationalize news stories to go along with their own political agendas………That said, if it was a couple of young guys that had Grand-Pa’s WW II service revolver and were fooling around that is obviously different than a couple of young guys with ties to organized crime……..In this yes, I agree mandatory minimums wouldn’t work……Just as if the police responded to an elderly ladies home and found an unlicensed firearm that was her late husbands……Obviously you’re not going to throw the old lady in prison.

In cases such as the OP, if it were not really an issue (like being Grand-Pa‘s gun), or in the examples I outlined, I’d think a variable fine would suffice in all actuality.

[cybercoma]

I agree, most media organizations tend to sensationalize news stories to go along with their own political agendas………That said, if it was a couple of young guys that had Grand-Pa’s WW II service revolver and were fooling around that is obviously different than a couple of young guys with ties to organized crime……..In this yes, I agree mandatory minimums wouldn’t work……Just as if the police responded to an elderly ladies home and found an unlicensed firearm that was her late husbands……Obviously you’re not going to throw the old lady in prison.

In cases such as the OP, if it were not really an issue (like being Grand-Pa‘s gun), or in the examples I outlined, I’d think a variable fine would suffice in all actuality.

And this is why I'm so against mandatory minimums. It's not just this case, but any case. Parliament can't foresee all circumstances and ought not be issuing one-size-fits-all legislation. The professionals with years of legal experience (you don't become a judge out of high school) ought to be weighing the facts of any given case and determining sentencing thusly. The major problem with the Omnibus Crime Bill, for me anyway, is that mandatory minimums are a key component.

[Guest Derek L]

And this is why I'm so against mandatory minimums. It's not just this case, but any case. Parliament can't foresee all circumstances and ought not be issuing one-size-fits-all legislation. The professionals with years of legal experience (you don't become a judge out of high school) ought to be weighing the facts of any given case and determining sentencing thusly. The major problem with the Omnibus Crime Bill, for me anyway, is that mandatory minimums are a key component.

And as I’ve said prior (Omnibus Crime bill thread?) that I to disagree with stringent mandatory minimums for all crimes except ones of a violent nature, and as I’ve stated earlier, most of the Crime agenda is purely optics in most cases to satisfy a certain part of the base……….That’s why I laugh when some predict a Nazi like police state coming out of the Harper “regime”…………Half the bloody party are lawyers, that know how the law works……….Optics pure and simple :

i.e. the next time a judge hands out a light sentence in a high profile case in which the public is demanding blood, the public’s wrath will be directed towards said judge as opposed to various levels of Government……….In a sense, all mandatory minimums will do is place more accountability on Judges and allow Government to follow the example of Pontius Pilate

[WWWTT]

I don’t know, hence why I asked the question. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion or are you just trolling?

Yes I have a great deal to add.

Already have and will continue to do so.

Unfortunetly what I have to add does not fall into line with your line of view so therefore(according to you) I am trolling.(good luck with that one by the way)

You seem to be sliping in and out of a fabricated/hypothetical scenario and its confusing to follow.

Try sticking with the facts we know

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I have a great deal to add.

Already have and will continue to do so.

Unfortunetly what I have to add does not fall into line with your line of view so therefore(according to you) I am trolling.(good luck with that one by the way)

You seem to be sliping in and out of a fabricated/hypothetical scenario and its confusing to follow.

Try sticking with the facts we know

WWWTT

Are you a self appointed moderator? Cybercoma and I have been having a civil, adult conversation on the topic, but if you’re having a problem following, I apologise but I don‘t feel responsible to ensure equal understanding to all comprehension levels……Perhaps reading our discussion might allow you a better understanding of our differing viewpoints, but personal jabs add little and come across as rather childish and immature.

[WWWTT]

but personal jabs add little and come across as rather childish and immature.

Oh my appologies,I didn't notice that this forum belonged soley to you and Cybercoma

How about adding some links to back up your claim that half the conservative party are "bloody lawyers that understand how the law works".

Are you implying that these "lawyers" are in fact acting for the bennefit to forward and advance Canadians rights and privelages?

Or are these alleged lawyers(half of the conservative party) attempting to further their agenda?

Lets get some others involved into this debate and make it a real forum!

Buddy!

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Oh my appologies,I didn't notice that this forum belonged soley to you and Cybercoma

I never said that it did. I’m sorry if you feel left out.

How about adding some links to back up your claim that half the conservative party are "bloody lawyers that understand how the law works".

Here's a link to the CPC caucus:

http://www.conservative.ca/team/our_MPs/

As for the Cabinet, the following have law degrees:

Robert Douglas Nicholson

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay

Minister of National Defence

The Honourable Vic Toews

Minister of Public Safety

The Honourable Tony Clement

President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

The Honourable James Michael Flaherty

Minister of Finance

THE HONOURABLE PETER VAN LOAN

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

The Honourable Christian Paradis

Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

The Honourable Lisa Raitt

Minister of Labour

The Honourable Diane Ablonczy

Minister of State (Foreign Affairs)

The Honourable Joe Oliver

Minister of Natural Resources

The Honourable Edward Fast

Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway

The Honourable Bernard Valcourt

Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie)

honourable mention to :

THE HONOURABLE MAXIME BERNIER

Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) *Studied law

The Honourable Julian Fantino

Associate Minister of National Defence * Career in law enforcement

That’s most of cabinet, with most of the higher profile positions filled by occupants with law degrees…..You can go through the caucus.......

Are you implying that these "lawyers" are in fact acting for the bennefit to forward and advance Canadians rights and privelages?

Not anymore or less than any other politicians

Or are these alleged lawyers(half of the conservative party) attempting to further their agenda?

Of course.

Lets get some others involved into this debate and make it a real forum!

Buddy!

WWWTT

Again, I’m sorry you don’t feel involved in the forum as is…….Perhaps others find chiding of people’s opinions and adding little, other than threats to contact moderators, none too appealing.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Derek L

[olpfan1]

never trust a lawyer, no wonder the cpc is so corrupt

[Guest Derek L]

never trust a lawyer, no wonder the cpc is so corrupt

Are you suggesting all the above Ministers are corrupt? What with them being lawyers and all, I’d think you’d have something to back up said claim………

[olpfan1]

Are you suggesting all the above Ministers are corrupt? What with them being lawyers and all, I’d think you’d have something to back up said claim………

rofl I see 9 names on that list who've been caught in scandals, lying, affairs, so id say yes to those 9

[Guest Derek L]

rofl I see 9 names on that list who've been caught in scandals, lying, affairs, so id say yes to those 9

Who?

[olpfan1]

Who?

Mackay, Toews, Clement, Fantino, Bernier, Van Loan, Raitt,

flaherty, oliver

[Guest Derek L]

Mackay, Toews, Clement, Fantino, Bernier, Van Loan, Raitt,

flaherty, oliver

What have those listed members been charged or censured with?

[olpfan1]

What have those listed members been charged or censured with?

This is where I have to ignore your question cause you don't have to be charged or censured to be known as corrupt

You support these people so its no surprise that you defend them

defending corruption tsk tsk tsk derek

Edited February 19, 2012 by olpfan1

[Guest Derek L]

This is where I have to ignore your question cause you don't have to be charged or censured to be known as corrupt

You support these people so its no surprise that you defend them

defending corruption tsk tsk tsk derek

Oh, so none of them have been tried in court, and convicted, of those accusations you paint them with?

So this is really just your (and others) opinion of said Ministers?

So no real evidence I suppose………Do you have Parliamentary Privilege?

[olpfan1]

ok, I'm not going to feed the troll this time

feed yourself

[Guest Derek L]

ok, I'm not going to feed the troll this time

feed yourself

Didn’t you just interject in this discussion with libel accusations of “corruption” then offer no evidence to support your claims?

[WWWTT]

Are you suggesting all the above Ministers are corrupt? What with them being lawyers and all, Id think youd have something to back up said claim………

Fantino has made the claim that the Canadian constitution does get in the way of law enforcement.

Which clearly proves he is biased!(cop is not a lawyer by the way)

And then there's Tony Clement.

My brother went to U of T faculty of law with him and according to my brother he was a weasel!

Aswell you failed to disclose what type of law these individuals practised,or probably do not know,and in doing so may be implying something different.

WWWTT

Edited February 19, 2012 by WWWTT