ToadBrother Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 We arent just talking about one guy that thinks some prohibited weapons are cool. You refused to defend the policies you support with anything but emotional platitudes. You refuse to answer empirical evidence showing those policies will not work, or may in fact make the problem worse and waste a whole lot of money. And you refuse to explain why we should be doing any of this NOW when our current policies have already been shown to be extremely effective in reducing gun crimes. I'm rather curious as to what Argus thinks MMS is going to accomplish, considering crime rates have been dropping for years? Does he think it will accelerate the drop in violent crimes? Is he just desirous of a system more built on retribution, a sort of a return to traditional notions of imprisonment? Frankly I think defending MMS is just a proxy for what opponents of these rulings really don't like; and that is that the Supreme Court dares to question Parliament. Everyone once in a while, a Tory will say what they really think; that they believe in the notion of Parliamentary supremacy, and that no court in the land should ever dare to question any elected body. Several posts back, someone brought up R v Morgentaler, with an argument that essentially boiled down to "the Supreme Court should defer to Parliament". That is what this debate is really about. I doubt Argus is that emotionally invested in minimum sentencing requirements, and I'm sure he is as aware that there is little or no academic backing for the concept that they prevent crime. This is really about a traditional view of Parliament versus the reality of the division of powers that were formalized post-1982. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) How about 3 years for having the ammo improperly stored. And would you hold the merchant who sold the ammo responsible as well. There are no requirements for the storage of ammo (other than the physical relationship to a firearm), nor does one need a license to possess ammo (only purchase). Edited April 18, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 There are no requirements for the storage of ammo (other than the physical relationship to a firearm), nor does one need a license to possess ammo (only purchase). Thats exactly the relationship I am talking about. Again, as has been pointed out numerous times here, its unlikely someone getting busted for that, but it just needs to be take out of the bill. More importantly of course is the infectivity of MMS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Thats exactly the relationship I am talking about. Again, as has been pointed out numerous times here, its unlikely someone getting busted for that, but it just needs to be take out of the bill. More importantly of course is the infectivity of MMS. What needs to be taken from the Bill? There are no requirements, currently or proposed, encompassing the storage of ammo. Right now, per the current Firearms Act (Federal Law) any and all gun related crimes are felonies, or federal crimes and are already subject to federal prosecution and punishment.............likewise, the reason in the recent ruling, the SCC didn't object to MMS, but the use of summary prosecution/convictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 What needs to be taken from the Bill? There are no requirements, currently or proposed, encompassing the storage of ammo. Right now, per the current Firearms Act (Federal Law) any and all gun related crimes are felonies, or federal crimes and are already subject to federal prosecution and punishment.............likewise, the reason in the recent ruling, the SCC didn't object to MMS, but the use of summary prosecution/convictions. They struck down the law precisely because it sought to prosecute people by indictment and hence the concern, for one, that improper storage of ammo could result in such a charge, solely at the discretion of prosecutors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 And the point that has been made here is that you dont do it with MMS either. They do in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 A 10k fine and 3 months in jail isnt a slap on the wrist. It's a slap on the wrist to the kind of people who tend to walk around carrying illegal weapons. And as I pointed out you are going to be jailing a lot of people have never commited any real crimes at all. It's hard to express just how little I care about that. If they want to carry an illegal gun around, I want them in prison for as long as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 They struck down the law precisely because it sought to prosecute people by indictment and hence the concern, for one, that improper storage of ammo could result in such a charge, solely at the discretion of prosecutors. There are no storage of ammo laws absent a firearm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 You keep ignoring the fact that prisons are schools of crime that make people more dangerous. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 There are no storage of ammo laws absent a firearm..... Correct. The poit being someone who has a gun and ammo, ad its stored too close. Do you get it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 They do in the UK. Naw, that would be because, not unlike us, they have a lot of hoops you have to jump through to get a gun in the first place. Thats the system that really works, not MMS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 I'm rather curious as to what Argus thinks MMS is going to accomplish, considering crime rates have been dropping for years? Does he think it will accelerate the drop in violent crimes? Is he just desirous of a system more built on retribution, a sort of a return to traditional notions of imprisonment? If you make it prohibitively dangerous to own a 'cool' hand gun and walk around with it, there'll be less arrogant little snots who think they're tough and use it against people who 'diss' them. The drop in violent crime has to do with the drop in the number of young men out there, who are traditionally the ones who commit violent crime. So that is no reason to believe humanity has changed and we no longer need strong deterrents or punishments. The fact is the people these policies are aimed at are basically scum. See the shooting in Toronto the other day as an example. If we had a more reliable judicial system I'd be fine with simply executing them after a brief trial. They're useless to society and will likely always be a menace to it. http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/video?playlistId=1.2331449 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Correct. The poit being someone who has a gun and ammo, ad its stored too close. Do you get it now. No, I don't get your point, as someone won't be charged solely for improper ammo storage........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Naw, that would be because, not unlike us, they have a lot of hoops you have to jump through to get a gun in the first place. Thats the system that really works, not MMS And yet the have MMS too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 And yet the have MMS too. Well we dont and have an ever decreasing crime rate to boot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 No, I don't get your point, as someone won't be charged solely for improper ammo storage........ They could be charged, they just wont go to jail for 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 They could be charged, they just wont go to jail for 3 years. Under what law? If a gang member in Surrey has a box of ammo in his car, sans both a gun and license, there is nothing said person can be charged with under current and proposed Canadian laws, outside of perhaps conditions relating to the terms of parole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Under what law? If a gang member in Surrey has a box of ammo in his car, sans both a gun and license, there is nothing said person can be charged with under current and proposed Canadian laws, outside of perhaps conditions relating to the terms of parole. No idea where the heck you are trying to come from with that little scenario. One more time, if you store a gun, properly, but store the ammo improperly, you could be indicted under the bill and that is one of the reasons the SC struck it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 No idea where the heck you are trying to come from with that little scenario. One more time, if you store a gun, properly, but store the ammo improperly, you could be indicted under the bill and that is one of the reasons the SC struck it down. No you can't, not under the current laws or any proposed laws......as there are no rules or regulations regarding the storage of ammo devoid of a firearm, namely if the safe storage requirements of a firearm are met. If you feel different, provide the laws that you say exist (they don't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Well we dont and have an ever decreasing crime rate to boot. Yes, we do. This particular law was not invalidated because MMS was deemed unconstitutional, but because some narrowly defined hypothetical situation might render it constitutional. The law will be changed and put back in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Yes, we do. This particular law was not invalidated because MMS was deemed unconstitutional, but because some narrowly defined hypothetical situation might render it constitutional. The law will be changed and put back in place. The law is are already there. The expansion of allowing prosecutorial discretion to allow for indictment leading to the MMS is the portion that was struck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 No you can't, not under the current laws or any proposed laws......as there are no rules or regulations regarding the storage of ammo devoid of a firearm, namely if the safe storage requirements of a firearm are met. If you feel different, provide the laws that you say exist (they don't). Its like pulling teeth here. Why do you keep saying devoid of firearm...maybe go read the wording of the decision, or at least those of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 Its like pulling teeth here. Why do you keep saying devoid of firearm...maybe go read the wording of the decision, or at least those of the majority. I have, as said several times, despite your inane repetition, there are no ammo storage regulations (devoid of a firearm) currently or proposed........If you feel there are (which there aren't) by all means post them, likewise the portion of the decision (that you wrongly) feel includes laws that don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 I have, as said several times, despite your inane repetition, there are no ammo storage regulations (devoid of a firearm) currently or proposed........If you feel there are (which there aren't) by all means post them, likewise the portion of the decision (that you wrongly) feel includes laws that don't exist. Not my job to do your research, or understand it for you. Give you a hint though, check out R. v Nur 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted April 18, 2015 Report Share Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) Not my job to do your research, or understand it for you. Give you a hint though, check out R. v Nur 2015. I'm not asking you to do my research........I already fully understand the topic. What is being asked of you is to support your claim (which you can't). Here is the SCC judgment, by all means provide the text that you feel supports your point. I'll await your cited reply. Edited April 18, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.