Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Derek 2.0]

Sorry pal but you are just wasting a lot of time going in circles. I was clear at the start, as was the SC, that the potential for being indicted for something as non criminal as inadvertent improper storage of a gun, and the ammo, was in contravention of the charter. Please try and catch up or just leave it alone.

So you won't be stating which Bill you claim was quashed, nor the text of it that you suggested contained a portion pertaining to regulations for the storage of ammo...............

[On Guard for Thee]

So you won't be stating which Bill you claim was quashed, nor the text of it that you suggested contained a portion pertaining to regulations for the storage of ammo...............

You want the actual number of the bill...boy you are flailing now. Go look it up. You should be able to find it easily as its not long ago the SC ruled on the matter.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Looks like Harper is not getting the message from the Supreme Court. The SC has just shot down mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mandatory-minimums-for-gun-crimes-struck-down-1.2325934

Do you agree with this decision?

The policy needed to significantly deter gun crimes would be on of absolute intolerance. No excuses, no hesitation. Punishment must be brutal and immediate for those who buy, sell or smuggle restricted weapons. That would be many, many years in prison at hard labour.

One of the failures of the Harper government is that it has not made proper use of prisoners for this purpose. Time in prison should not be spent in relaxation but in brutally hard work which benefits and profits the state.

[WWWTT]

Time in prison should not be spent in relaxation but in brutally hard work which benefits and profits the state.

Sounds like you have conservative values

WWWTT

[Argus]

Which is why it was found to be unconstitutional, for the umpteenth time.

You miss the point, for the umpteenth time.

[On Guard for Thee]

You miss the point, for the umpteenth time.

You may have some sort of point of your own, I am only referring to the SCs point.

[Argus]

You may have some sort of point of your own, I am only referring to the SCs point.

The SCs point was that mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional so long as the legislation is properly tailored to make unlikely scenarios much MORE unlikely.

[GostHacked]

How many gun crimes are committed in a Federal prison?

Does that prevent people from being killed in prison? How many non-gun crimes take place in prison?

[Civis Romanus sum]

Sounds like you have conservative values

WWWTT

I have patrician values.

[On Guard for Thee]

The SCs point was that mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional so long as the legislation is properly tailored to make unlikely scenarios much MORE unlikely.

Now ur gettin it. Just more sloppy legislation from the Harper camp.

[dre]

A person who likes to carry a gun around is as dangerous as they get.

I like carrying guns around sometimes and have absolutely no criminal record, and have never hurt anyone in my life beyond the odd fist fight when I was younger. Your statement is just flat out stupid.

As far as I'm concerned if they get caught a second time put them in prison for life. And no, I donl't give damn about the economics of it.

And thats exactly why emotional knee-jerk reactionaries need to be as far away from the formulation of public policy as possible.

[dre]

The policy needed to significantly deter gun crimes would be on of absolute intolerance. No excuses, no hesitation. Punishment must be brutal and immediate for those who buy, sell or smuggle restricted weapons. That would be many, many years in prison at hard labour.

Problem is this has been shown to be ineffective in reducing gun crime, and it generates hardened criminals.

Criminals dont plan on getting caught. Increasing a prison sentence from say 3-10 years has no deterent effect what-so-ever, and it increases the rate of recidivism. Your post is just a pap-smear of emotional garbage. And your nonsense about forced labor camps belongs in the Soviet Union 80 years ago.

But yeah... If Canadians want MORE gun crime, then you and Argus should run the show.

[Keepitsimple]

Now ur gettin it. Just more sloppy legislation from the Harper camp.

It goes much deeper than that - as expressed by the minority opinion. They have used unreasonable "reasonable hypotheticals" for a hybrid law to completely remove prosecutorial discretion - discretion that has been in use since 1995 with no such cases ever being indicted. Just imagine if this approach was applied to abortion as an example. One of the pillars of NOT introducing restrictions on abortion is that "doctors simply will not perform late-term abortions". But hypothetically, they could........so you can clearly see where "hypothetical" activism could go. Be careful what you wish for.

Yes On Guard - the SCC has ruled - we all know that. But it has consequences if you can think beyond your delight at seeing "Harper's Law" rejected.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

It goes much deeper than that - as expressed by the minority opinion. They have used unreasonable "reasonable hypotheticals" for a hybrid law to completely remove prosecutorial discretion - discretion that has been in use since 1995 with no such cases ever being indicted. Just imagine if this approach was applied to abortion as an example. One of the pillars of NOT introducing restrictions on abortion is that "doctors simply will not perform late-term abortions". But hypothetically, they could........so you can clearly see where "hypothetical" activism could go. Be careful what you wish for.

Yes On Guard - the SCC has ruled - we all know that. But it has consequences if you can think beyond your delight at seeing "Harper's Law" rejected.

It does not take away prosecutorial discretion at all. It only limits it to protect from those hypotheticals the broadness of this law could create. Trying to use abortion law as a parallel just doesnt fit. Dr.s perfor very few late term abortions, and then only when its due to some form of medical condition. Laws against abortion were thrown out, in large part, because they simply put women in danger. And that wasnt hypothetical.

[Rue]

Toad Brother your response to me is not how plea bargaining works. If a crime has dual procedure, i.e., summary,indictable. when the crown and defence lawyer plea bargain and the offence would be one the Chief Justice envisioned, the plea bargaining necessarily only deals with summary length sentences, the crown does not have the ability to jump to and threaten with indictable length sentences. Its not how the law works or how sentencing works.

As I said the only issue with the law is how it was written not its intent and it will be rewritten. Minimum sentencing is not by itself unconstitutional it can'tbe. Common sense would tell you if it was, no legislator can define a sentence of any kind only the courts can which is not the case and the decision did not say that-it did not take away the right to the legislator's right to define the amount of sentence and that is why in this case to second guess the legislator, it had to invent a ridiculous scenario which will be addressed in the next draft of the law. The Supreme Court was wrong. Dead wrong. The time to question the length of a sentence is AFTER an actual conviction is rendered-then and only then and in that case the formula is to look at the range of sentence, determine whether it a first, second or multiple repeat and the nature of the crime, i.e., amount of violence and harm done.

The court jumped the gun assuming it would be used in a particular scenario. Even if it as right, it should have waited for that scenario to actually arise before reducing the sentencing not striking out the entire law.

As for the person who suggested longer sentences do not deter crimes, let him provide the proof when he makes such an assertion.

As for Dre's idiotic attempt to take the thread personal and make it about himself or herself or itself,it again shows an inability to discuss a legal issue without becoming emotionally attached to it. This issue has nothing to do with Dre.Laws are not determined because Dre thinks he is wonderful, a social role model, a great person and carries a gun since he raised the issue not me no I do not think society is not safer when Dre has and in fact I would say I don't think he should have guns or for that matter tooth picks or anything with a sharp edge.

Thank you that last remark was a public service message to show how silly it was for him to inject himself into the thread.

This thread is about the legislator having the right to define sentence levels. Of course it does.There is ample legal precedent for minimum sentences and stiffer sentences for those committing crimes with dangerous weapons and its done to provide society a message to think twice when using dangerous weapons.

No sane person should have a problem grasping that an assault rifle does not belong in the hands of Dre or anyone else.

No sane person should have a problem grasping that police have enough pressure and any help in discouraging people to use dangerous weapons if for no other reason as a show and sign of solidarity with their lives being put on the line.

One last thing. I commend Derek's patience. He was dead on about the law not standing alone in regulating ammo. Derek clearly read the law..

This law will be rewritten. The decision is bizarre and actually time consuming. Its a slap on how the law is worded, not on its intent to increase the length of sentence and I personally believe the Chief Justice was dead wrong and should have deferred to the expert on criminal law on her bench to take the lead in writing the decision as custom usually dictates and if anything in her dissent merely ask for clarification in the wording, not strike the entire law out.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Rue

[Civis Romanus sum]

Problem is this has been shown to be ineffective in reducing gun crime, and it generates hardened criminals.

It has NOT been shown to be ineffective at all. You are taking a general consensus that overly harsh punishments do not significantly decrease crime and applying that to a specific situation where its applicability is questionable..

Increasing a prison sentence from say 3-10 years has no deterent effect what-so-ever,

It has the effect of keeping dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous people in prison and away from me and my family.

And your nonsense about forced labor camps belongs in the

Soviet Union 80 years ago.

A number of nations have hard labour laws today, including democratic nations.

[jacee]

A person who likes to carry a gun around is as dangerous as they get. I thought three years was too low. I like the UK version of 5 years for the first offense. As far as I'm concerned if they get caught a second time put them in prison for life. And no, I donl't give damn about the economics of it.

The economics are certainly interesting, though.

I'm not sure who posted this earlier and I can't find it now, but it's sure food for thought:

Cost of jailing one person for one year was stated as approx. $113k.

That means about

SIX of us work all year to pay the taxes that keep that one person in jail.

Except the wealthiest, of course.

Everyone knows that the wealthiest people don't pay taxes.

But they are often the ones who lobby for harsh prison terms ... that the rest of us have to bust our butts to pay for. :/

.

Edited April 19, 2015 by jacee

[On Guard for Thee]

It has NOT been shown to be ineffective at all. You are taking a general consensus that overly harsh punishments do not significantly decrease crime and applying that to a specific situation where its applicability is questionable..

It has the effect of keeping dangerously stupid and stupidly dangerous people in prison and away from me and my family.

A number of nations have hard labour laws today, including democratic nations.

Like China maybe, how about N. Korea. Oh yeah and there is also the US.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I like carrying guns around sometimes and have absolutely no criminal record, and have never hurt anyone in my life beyond

the odd fist fight when I was younger.

There are specific legal and acceptable reasons to 'carry guns around' and this legislation is unrelated to them.

If, on the other hand, you are saying you like to illegally carry weapons around then I'd suggest you belong in prison.

[webc5]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Potential argues can be advanced about Canada's prostitution provisions regarding the mandatory minimum for the purchase of sexual services are unconstitutional, because sex work is not inherently exploitive. Is my analysis wrong?

[On Guard for Thee]

I've been thinking about this for a while. Potential argues can be advanced about Canada's prostitution provisions regarding the mandatory minimum for the purchase of sexual services are unconstitutional, because sex work is not inherently exploitive. Is my analysis wrong?

I havent heard a lot on this issue myself of late, other than that the same groups who represent the people who brought the case against the previous law that was struck down by the SC unanimously, claim the current law is equally as unconstitutional. I know that a large group of TO city councillors petitioned Wyne to refer the case to the Ontario Appeals court, but she claimed it was a federal issue. I suppose we will have to see what happens when a case is tried.

[Civis Romanus sum]

I havent heard a lot on this issue myself of late, other than that the same groups who represent the people who brought the case against the previous law that was struck down by the SC unanimously, claim the current law is equally as unconstitutional. I know that a large group of TO city councillors petitioned Wyne to refer the case to the Ontario Appeals court, but she claimed it was a federal issue. I suppose we will have to see what happens when a case is tried.

Premier Wynn referred it to the legal people at the Attorney General's office who told her it was their judgement that it was entirely constitutional and that she had no option but to enforce it.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Civis Romanus sum

[webc5]

Check that; he Attorney General of Ontario said there was no clear unconstitutionally of the bill. Remember these were the same people that said the last prostitution laws were constitutional.

[Keepitsimple]

Rosie DiManno, writing for The Star (yes, I know the irony) - expresses the puzzlement of many:

Supreme Court judges’ gun ruling shows they fooled themselves with pretend offender: DiManno

In the wake of Thursday's shooting spree in Toronto, Canadians have been reminded of the high court’s bizarre ruling on gun sentences, writes Rosie DiManno.

It was the lethal gun violence — acts too numerous to chronicle here — that had the public and politicians clamouring for stricter gun-crime laws. That campaign had been led, in its earlier days, by no less a liberal lefty than mayor David Miller, who tirelessly lobbied Ottawa.

And Ottawa responded, with mandatory minimums on sentencing — three years for illegal gun possession, five years for possession by individuals with repeat weapons offences.

But the Supreme Court of Canada ignored all the reality, cleaving instead to the hypothetical, an utter invention because no one in the circumstances posited — law abiding, licensed, unlocked firearm, readily accessibly ammunition — has ever been prosecuted by way of indictment as opposed to summary conviction, thus facing only a fine, not a jail term.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/04/18/supreme-court-judges-gun-ruling-shows-they-fooled-themselves-with-pretend-offender-dimanno.html

[On Guard for Thee]

Check that; he Attorney General of Ontario said there was no clear unconstitutionally of the bill. Remember these were the same people that said the last prostitution laws were constitutional.

Its about as silly as the war on drugs. Decriminalize it, and move on.