Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[On Guard for Thee]

So do I, which is why there is no way in hell anyone would ever be so charged.

So I take it from that comment that you do in fact support the SC ruling in this matter. We knew youd come around.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, the NRA encourages all people to carry firearms. They believe that if everyone wore their 'hog' around all the criminals would be killed.

They just take them from you at the door to their convention. They may be a weird bunch but they arent that stupid.

[ToadBrother]

....The reference opinion on Senate reform doesn't count either, because I don't think anyone can read the Government's submission and come away thinking that the Government was even serious. It can be construed as a defeat for Harper, I suppose, since it threw out his own attempted Senate reform legislation, but was there anyone that seriously thought that legislation would ever stand up to a constitutional test? So that leaves a few rulings like the Tories' "tough on crime" reforms, which have little or no academic support, and do raise constitutional issues.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think the Government intentionally produced a spurious and unsupportable submission. I think Harper wanted off the hook for the last bastion of the Reform Party's platform; Senate reform. The Tories' efforts even to that date had been half-hearted and viewed as Constitutionally fault, and I think Harper wanted the anchor of Senate reform permanently abolished from the Conservatives' future platforms. What better way to do that then to deep six the whole policy set piece by constructing a ridiculous argument and throwing at the Supreme Court, knowing full well that it was doomed.

It's a four for one victory:

1. Harper rids the Tories of one of the final Reform atavisms. The Triple-E Senate is dead dead dead.

2. He gets to cast the Supreme Court as the villain, always important in the longstanding strategy dating back to Preston Manning's days of posing as the victim of evil Liberal elites. This one is great for fundraising.

3. He screws over his successors. With the Senate reference opinion locked into the Constitutional structure, the likelihood that Trudeau, Mulcair or anyone else actually achieving meaningful Senate reform all but evaporates, and they in their turn, should they be PM, will be forced as he was to use the century-and-a-half old system of appointing members of the Red Chamber.

4. It actually locks the Constitution Act, 1982 more firmly in place, because the reference opinion will be a major precedential ruling informing all future questions on Constitutional reform. Whether its republicans want to throw out the Monarchy, or reformers wanting to alter the way Governor Generals and other major offices are chosen, they will find the high court's ruling locks them into an incredibly difficult task. To put in another way, the Senate reform opinion shuts the door, locks the lock and throws away the key, and brings to a close a half a century of constitutional wrangling.

[dre]

So do I, which is why there is no way in hell anyone would ever be so charged.

Then amend the law to make sure those things cant happen, and the courts will uphold it. It will stupid a stupid law that will accomplish little or nothing but at least it will be constitutional then.

[Spiderfish]

That's far from true, quite the opposite in fact..........the "exemption" for legal gun owners will be implemented once C-42 receives Royal Assent in the coming month(s).

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?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Spiderfish

[ToadBrother]

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?

Because the Supreme Court has absolutely no power to review bills (including amendments) that have not received Royal Assent... in other words have become law. While any legislation is before Parliament, it is solely and completely Parliament's concern.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ToadBrother

[On Guard for Thee]

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?

Your logic may dictate this, but actual statistics say otherwise.

[Derek 2.0]

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?

I never suggested that someone has been convicted for solely improper storage of ammunition.....quite the opposite in my reply to Jacee........as there is next to no regulations encompassing the storage of ammunition outside the relationship to a firearm(s)

Improper storage of firearms, likewise possession of a prohibited device (any firearm sans licence for example) there are a myriad of examples of Canadians charged and convicted.......One of the most egregious examples would have to be that of Ian Thomson.......for a result of.

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.

Logic would dictate......alas the drafters of the Firearms Act, in countless examples, were devoid of logic.....One of the poorest pieces of legislation made into law in Canadian history, rife with contradicting and poorly defined wording.

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 have no idea.........perhaps they felt the C-42 would never be made into law?

[ToadBrother]

Your logic may dictate this, but actual statistics say otherwise.

Don't get sidetracked. The Court is not working outside its mandate to review hypothetical abuses of the law. This theory that the Supreme Court should only be reactive is a theory without merit.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't get sidetracked. The Court is not working outside its mandate to review hypothetical abuses of the law. This theory that the Supreme Court should only be reactive is a theory without merit.

In this case the SC simply upheld an Ontario appeals court ruling dating back to 2013. I get the idea there are some on this thread that think the SC (or more specifically Bev M) just sit around waiting to pick apart the latest leg. Harper tries to pass. Apparently they dont actually understand how it works..

[Argus]

Probably become most of them think like you, and base their opinion on emotions, and dont really know anything about which policies are effective in reducing crime rates and recidivism rates.

Ahhh, so yours is the mature view. Pat them on the back, and hey, they probably won't rape or beat or murder anyone else once you've wagged your finger sternly at them, but if they do, well, it probably won't be you anyway, right?

[jacee]

Ahhh, so yours is the mature view. Pat them on the back, and hey, they probably won't rape or beat or murder anyone else once you've wagged your finger sternly at them, but if they do, well, it probably won't be you anyway, right?

Do you know anything about

"which policies are effective in reducing crime rates and recidivism rates." ?

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ahhh, so yours is the mature view. Pat them on the back, and hey, they probably won't rape or beat or murder anyone else once you've wagged your finger sternly at them, but if they do, well, it probably won't be you anyway, right?

Sarcasm seems to be the basic level of your argument. I guess when all the links showing actual statistics that show how MMS dont work, you have not much left but silly comments like lets start shooting people on sight. BTW how exactly do you see that actually working...cop walks up to a guy and asks do you have an illegal firearm in your possession, guy says oh yeah, cop shoots guy. I dont ever want to live on your street.

[Spiderfish]

I never suggested that someone has been convicted for solely improper storage of ammunition.....quite the opposite in my reply to Jacee........as there is next to no regulations encompassing the storage of ammunition outside the relationship to a firearm(s)

There are a few here who are suggesting that storage of ammunition in the wrong room will result in a minimum sentence of 3 years in jail. I certainly was not suggesting you were among them.

Once again, as has already been pointed out here, if the courts didnt make this ruling you could have found yourself off to jail for 3 years for having the ammo in the wrong room. The court has to look at the issue not from the perspective of what hasnt happened, but what could happen.

Improper storage of firearms, likewise possession of a prohibited device (any firearm sans licence for example) there are a myriad of examples of Canadians charged and convicted.......One of the most egregious examples would have to be that of Ian Thomson.......for a result of.

This definitely was an egregious case, however if I understand correctly Mr. Thompson was acquitted.

Logic would dictate......alas the drafters of the Firearms Act, in countless examples, were devoid of logic.....One of the poorest pieces of legislation made into law in Canadian history, rife with contradicting and poorly defined wording.

I fully agree with your assessment, the fact that it is so poorly drafted is precisely what makes gun charges so easily defensible. It's unfortunate that this fact also dilutes it's strength when it comes to convicting the real bad guys, thus the appetite for stronger sentences for actual gun crimes.

[Spiderfish]

Your logic may dictate this, but actual statistics say otherwise.

Logic by definition and nature is independent of subjectivity or perspective. It's not my logic.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Spiderfish

[On Guard for Thee]

Logic by definition and nature is independent of subjectivity or perspective. It's not my logic.

Logic is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

[Spiderfish]

Logic is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Sorry...no

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry...no

Dont be sorry, you have a right to your opinion, however flawed. Logic is a product of premise. If you start off on the wrong foot you likely will end up there. Only logical.

Edited April 17, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[nerve]

I tend to agree. Mandatory sentences, however, are a response to the public's perception of injustice in the way judges were handling violent offenders. The public wants violent offenders, particularly those who use firearms, harshly dealt with. Judges didn't seem to be doing that. That's why mandatory sentences came in.

I'm not sure what your alternatives are to 'concentrating criminals' or to the present programs in prison. You don't make that very clear.

This sort of thing has been the mantra of the Left for a very long time. It unfortunately revolves around the believe that all criminals can be talked into being upright members of society, that if we explain to them that beating people to death or raping them is bad, they'll stop doing it.

Oh, do I exaggerate? Only in that I'm taking the opposite tone you are. You're not incorrect in that social intervention CAN have a major impact on the likelihood of some people resorting to or reverting to criminal behaviour. Where you're wrong is in assuming that's workable for all criminals.

If we exclude sudden explosions of violence by crazy people or those driven to crazy violence by romances gone bad, The majority of the worst crimes in our society are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. These are the serial rapists, the drug dealers, the street gang members who beat, rob and intimidate those around them. These are the people who most need to be dealt with harshly, because you're sweet talking social worker is not going to have much impact on such hardened men.

And how do you provide criminals with a stable life? None of the rest of us are guaranteed such a thing. You can try and get them to treat their addictions, for one, but many of them don't want them treated, and often enough the personalities which got them addicted in the first place are likely to make kicking that addiction successfully unlikely. There are also attitudes, the same attitudes which caused them to drop out of school, that got them to steal, that had them taking the easy way all their lives. You often can't reform those attitudes.

Criminals are in public before they are caught. If it is a petty crime leave them in the public. Get them the supports they need. Insure they pay restitution or repair the damage they did to society. Sitting in a jail cell doesn't fix the problem. It is like saying talk to the hand for months or years, it is an insane notion. (The whole basis of probation)

The whole premise is removing anomie. However if your address the issue causing anomie, and reduce alternity through conflict theory benefits, you actually correct the problem instead of "removing the potential for a while".

1. anomie, also spelled anomy , in societies or individuals, a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals. The term was introduced by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his study of suicide.

Get them into positive environments not master slave situations, this is suppose to be a free society, the model of "good government" is not based upon violating peoples fundamental human and charter rights. It is sick. It is a socially imbedded disease to have punishment akin to fixing issues. Why am I not allowed to beat the crap out of someone myself if they do something I don't like. Its not acceptable. Why should it be acceptable for government to control people through violence if it isn't required, or people aren't actually endangered.

At no point did I say all people who are accused of crimes.

I said petty vs. serious crimes.

I think a chunk is just jerks in government positions abusing power positions. Or people of influence using the law to abuse people who transgress against them.

There are serious criminals though, and these peoples shouldn't be in a prison either. They should be exported to a new place or given the option of taking the death penalty if they don't want to be new pioneers. Screw jail sentences everyone one should be life for serious criminals.

The laws in Canada need an overhaul though. It makes sense that unjustified intentional killing, or other human rights violations such as rape, maiming, contamination with life threatening disease, mass destruction or injury with intent, causing death through malicious acts with intent, etc.. should be a get out of Canada card and to Northern Penal Colony, or Anticosti Island etc...

The aim of government should be creating stability through providing people with opportunities to be included in society - not criminalized and effectively removed from society. You don't get rid of criminals by criminalizing them. Adding massive cost barriers to access to equality is just nonsensical.

It is safe to say the conservative government is about destroying peoples lives to exact revenge on people who are likely just a result of a bad upbringing, drug addiction, lack of education and a bad media culture that glorifies crime and criminal culture.

They want criminals, so they make them. It is political.

First off the government should be managing the economy directly for the unemployed and insuring that a command economy works for some resource sectors, so people will be able to work in resource industries, that they will get the training for things like mining, agroforestry, oceanic resources, oil/gas, etc… The problem is that government is broke because it sold all the money makers to private interests that make billions off public resources. The government sold the means of creating wealth, so it can't provide a means of creating wealth to the people.

Hence the problem, people won't accept nationalization of the source public wealth so government is doomed to debt. The whole basis of taxes is to take from people to pay for stuff, but the tax and spend is more spend than tax creating a debt burden on the public while allowing a middle class to exist.

People outside the middle class or upper class are living in conditions that create hardship, then government creates more barriers for access to equal access to government. It strips peoples rights and forces them to effective slavery for survival. People who have had their rights violated and are being treated as trodden lumpen bodies instead of citizens then have nothing to lose.

The other chunk of course is people who don't get what being criminalized will do to them, there are substance abusers, and uneducated people who just don't get it, they are within a habitus that doesn't provide them a top down view, it doesn't even provide them a bottom up view, they don't see the big picture.

---

The bottom line is society needs to improve and get better. You can only do that by improving peoples conditions of life.

At the end of the day most petty crime doesn't matter, the legal costs are often more than replacing what was stolen or damaged, it would be more effective for the government just to provide a fat check for 100 or 200 dollars or however much the damage was than spend 40,000 dollars on delaying someones life and violating their rights.

Meanwhile 10,000 of that could be paid to get people a trade or some useful skill so they can contribute to society.

Its just idiotic strategy.

The problem is the culture, people are bastards who are sick and want to ruin peoples lives because they are sick.

Edited April 17, 2015 by nerve

[Derek 2.0]

There are a few here who are suggesting that storage of ammunition in the wrong room will result in a minimum sentence of 3 years in jail. I certainly was not suggesting you were among them.

Fair enough, I must have misunderstood your post. With that said, from reading the various sections of the Firearms Act (including the portion you quoted), its easy to understand the confusion.......the legal nuance as to why I can keep my Beretta Centurion legally locked up in a bedside safe with loaded mags versus someone illegally keeping a 60 year old Cooey 39 in their basement unlocked with a brick of 22 Hornets in a box in the attic.........likewise, why a rural rancher or farmer can keep a loaded semi-auto mini-14 next to the front door, but a hunter or camper can only keep a loaded firearm in bear country if they're sleeping in a tent, but not a motorized vehicle.........clear as mud.

This definitely was an egregious case, however if I understand correctly Mr. Thompson was acquitted.

Right, but only after being put into the poor house with legal fees.....

I fully agree with your assessment, the fact that it is so poorly drafted is precisely what makes gun charges so easily defensible. It's unfortunate that this fact also dilutes it's strength when it comes to convicting the real bad guys, thus the appetite for stronger sentences for actual gun crimes.

Preaching to the choir here.........that's why the legal ownership of firearms should be decriminalized, with reasonable accommodation in the form of licencing, separating the criminal element and gun crimes within our legal framework.....

Bill C-42 will address some of these issues.........and it appears the SCC has nixed further legal tools to address the criminal element........so here we are.

[Spiderfish]

Dont be sorry, you have a right to your opinion, however flawed.

Listen... at risk of contributing to your thread drift, logic is not based in opinion. The fact that you are not aware of this makes me wonder why I am even wasting time responding.

[On Guard for Thee]

Logic by definition and nature is independent of subjectivity or perspective. It's not my logic.

Trying to apply any sort of logic when you obviously have not read or understood the parts of the proposed law that cause the SC to throw it back (i.e. 3 years for improper storage) is destined to be a fail from the start. Only logical.

[On Guard for Thee]

Listen... at risk of contributing to your thread drift, logic is not based in opinion. The fact that you are not aware of this makes me wonder why I am even wasting time responding.

Apparently because you dont understand how logic can be flawed.

[Rue]

I have now read the full decision and its bizarre. First off the Supreme Court's expert on Criminal Law in his dissenting opinion is as insulting as I have ever read on of these Supreme Court Judges ever be to his fellow peers. Wow. trust me it was rude. He basically called his Chief Justice a moron and jack ass. Lol I don't think they will sit next to one another on the bench.

Ouch.

Secondly I do not for the life of me understand the hypothetical scenario posed by the Chief justice to say the law could be cruel and inhumane and therefore must be struck down. The Crown has the option to go with a summary procedure to prevent from happening the very hypothetical scenario the Chief Justice stated as her justification for striking down the minimum sentence she did as cruel and inhumane. She seems to have ignored that.

Let's be clear as long as the legislators use a sliding scale of minimum to maximum on a sentence..... as long as they build in that scale so that a first time offender is given the lower end of the scale and only a repeat offender the higher end of the scale....that prevents the law from being unfair and that has always been the process we use in criminal law sentencing.

Until now the Supreme court questioned the amount of sentence just how it would be applied.

It certainly is a new approach to say-hey I find your law cruel and inhumane even where it has a sliding scale of application and to do that create a hypothetical that MIGHT happen. First off if and when it happens, that's the time to then question it as cruel and inhumane. Until then to speculate it might happen is very bizarre. Secondly its even more bizarre because as I said the Crown would use a summary procedure to avoid the very hypothetical the Supreme Court feared might happen which is why their Criminal law specialist on the bench made a scathing dissent calling the Chief Justice in effect a moron.

What is cruel and inhumane? Well to start with, torture of course. Simply the length of a jail sentence? No. That is pushing it. You have to relate the length and type of sentence to the nature of the crime and only where the length and type of sentence is outrageously out of line with the type and nature of the crime does the court step in and then not to throw out the law, simply reduce the sentence which it always has the discretion to do. In this case its hard to know why the Supreme Court feels the minimum sentence for using a weapon is out of line with the nature and type of crime.

In many states in the US and in Europe, using a weapon in a crime increases the minimum sentence and this is built in aas a deterrence to prevent using weapons.

The decision is confusing because it seems to be Harper in theory could go back, re-write the law to say pretty much the same thing with different wording, and then the Supreme Court could not call it cruel and inhumane-to do that he would simply make it clear that the hypothetical the Supreme Court speculated would be treated by summary not indictable procedure.

Again let's be clear what happened. The law already prevents the hypothetical the Supreme Court feared might happen in the future and assures that in such cases, a summary procedure would be used to avoid it from happening.

Weird weird weird. I predict the law will be redrafted.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Rue

[ToadBrother]

Look I am all for courts taking an activist approach but this is not the kind of law you would do it with. Civil rights cases yes. This? Its about using a weapon when committing a crime.

And that doesn't have potential civil rights ramifications? Did you read the part of the ruling that suggests that the Crown could use the threat of the harsher sentence in a plea agreement?