Liberals want Handgun Ban

[TCBF]

"Just wondering how he stored it. As I only have a Steal lock box bolted to my floor. Do you need more?"

If you in fact own firearms AND a computer, you have NO excuse - BLOODY NONE - for not looking up your storage and transport requirements on the justice website:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-11.6/SOR-98-209/index.html

So:

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS


5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.


(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.


(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting."

Notice that that is 'storage'.  If you are cleaning it, dry firing it, or just plain studying it (looking at it) it is in 'use'.  A firearm in use does not have to meet storage requirements - BUT, you cannot pull 28 guns out of your room/locker/closet/safe, take the locks off/put the bolts in and lay them on your floor, you must be in control of any firearms that are not stored.  

Police will always lay charges against the owner as a matter of political policy.  One owner was charged after a B&E crew left his guns on the floor of his house after giving up on trying to pry the trigger locke off.  Once the judge found out that the doors to his house were locked before the B&E, he threw out the careless storage charges.

If ytou are charged, go thriough the NFA or CSSA to find a lawyer familiar with fighting and winning firearms cases.  The vast majority of these cases are winnable.

But, having said that, it is best to obey the storage and transport regulations to the letter.  It will make your lawyers job much easier.

Tom

 

[Bobbyoreo]

I do have all that trigger lock and everything, just was interested if maybe there was something new. That and I wanted to know if the weapon in case was not locked up or did they break into his safe, and in that case how can they charge him. Thats all...sorry if I made it look as I never looked anything up there big guy!!!

:threat:

 

[midgetcop]

I thought this was covered in the guns and gangs thread, however midgetcop if you had actually READ that article you would have  seen a picture of the damage done to his 1700lb CONCRETE AND STEEL SAFE, and that it took TWO days for the theives to bust into it.  It even mentions that TPS had INSPECTED and APPROVED  of the set-up.  So IMHO its not up for debate, the guy had his guns stored properly, they (TPS) need to charge someone, and he just happens to be an easy target.  The theives in question just happened to be incredibly determined to get into the safe. 

Of course I read the article. Did you??

You'd notice in this direct quote from the article:

He said he had a permit issued by federal firearms officials and the permit was displayed beside the safe.

(bold mine)

I'm not saying that this guy will get convicted. I'm not even sure what the specific charges are. I'm just saying that whether he's telling the truth is up for debate.

 

[48Highlander]

You'd notice in this direct quote from the article:
(bold mine)

I'm not saying that this guy will get convicted. I'm not even sure what the specific charges are. I'm just saying that whether he's telling the truth is up for debate.

So you're saying he went through the trouble of buying and installing a 1700lb safe....but he decided not to get a permit.

I dunno, doesn't seem very logical to me.

 

[midgetcop]

As much as I support all police services, my sense (and thats all that is) is that this warrent is politically motivated (lets go after gun owners so we have a legit excuse to disarm them) and not the decision of the TPS.

Could be. We probably won't find out either, because it doesn't sound like buddy's coming back across the border any time soon.

 

[midgetcop]

So you're saying he went through the trouble of buying and installing a 1700lb safe....but he decided not to get a permit.

I dunno, doesn't seem very logical to me.

Listen, I'm not saying that he DID or DIDN'T have a permit. My point (and my original point all along, and I think I've been quite clear) is that WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

PLEASE READ POSTS CAREFULLY BEFORE POSTING A REFLEX-RESPONSE.


Personally, the only real problem I have with this guy is that he decided to store a small arsenal in an apartment that he didn't use. With no one living there, it doesn't really matter what kind of safe buddy is using, if someone is determined enough to bust into it they'll have all the time in the world to get to it.

 

[TCBF]

Some interesting technical aspects to this.  Even if the physical aspects of the storage were by the letter of the law, the documentation must be current as well.  Note that there are differing regulations regarding individuals and businesses, as well as different requirements for non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms - including place of storage. 

"The Firearms Act is no more complicated than the Income Tax Act"  - Former Leeds-Genville MP.

"Personally, the only real problem I have with this guy is that he decided to store a small arsenal in an apartment that he didn't use. With no one living there, it doesn't really matter what kind of safe buddy is using, if someone is determined enough to bust into it they'll have all the time in the world to get to it."

As an individual, this pushes the envelope if he or someone else did not actually live there - I doubt he could claim "Seasonal Residence"  ;D

BUT, On the other hand, if this was a storage site for firearms used IAW his business license, other aspects apply. 

Tom 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Personally, the only problem I have is with people who elect to commit crimes, regardless how easy an opportunity an innocent person presents.

 

[midgetcop]

Personally, the only problem I have is with people who elect to commit crimes, regardless how easy an opportunity an innocent person presents.

Blaming criminals is a moot point that (I thought) goes without saying.

But gun owners that present an 'easy opportunity' or not usually innocent, but wind up getting charged with a firearms offense.

With gun ownership comes rules, regulations and responsibility. I don't see the problem with that.

 

[TCBF]

Me neither, but let's do it fair across the board.  If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime - let's charge the car owner.

Tom

 

[midgetcop]

Me neither, but let's do it fair across the board.  If someone steals a car and uses it to commit a crime - let's charge the car owner.

Tom

That analogy would work if I were advocating charging the gun owner with the later crime committed (and I'm not).

I'm merely supporting the current laws we already have concerning responsible ownership for any firearm. I've never heard of any gun owner in Canada who has been charged with first/second-degree murder because their gun had been stolen. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[TCBF]

That wasn't my point - but I should have been clearer.  If someone is killed in the commision of a crime with a stolen gun and a stolen car, the car owner is considered a victim - the gun owner is almost considered an accessory.

Let's focus on the pukes who commit the crimes.

I know this will limit the number of pukes in circulation, and they are - after all - the grease that keeps the legal industry turning and the lawyers in their hookers and SUVs, but, lets just try locking them up until they are done.

For once.

I mean, what do we have to do to lock them up?  Catch them selling wheat to the USA?

Tom

 

[dutchie]

That analogy would work if I were advocating charging the gun owner with the later crime committed (and I'm not).

TCBF - you beat me to it. But since I had this ready to post, here is my $0.02:

I think the point, which appears to have been slightly missed by you (midgetcop), is that the criminal who uses the gun in a crime is the SOLE PERSON responsible for the crime. The fact that he had to steal his tools to ply his trade only adds to HIS rap sheet, it does not create a criminal offence in the secondary victim (gun owner).

Improperly storing your firearms is a completely seperate issue, and is a total red herring when discussing cupability surrounding a violent crime.

 

[midgetcop]

TCBF - you beat me to it. But since I had this ready to post, here is my $0.02:

I think the point, which appears to have been slightly missed by you (midgetcop), is that the criminal who uses the gun in a crime is the SOLE PERSON responsible for the crime. The fact that he had to steal his tools to ply his trade only adds to HIS rap sheet, it does not create a criminal offence in the secondary victim (gun owner).

Improperly storing your firearms is a completely seperate issue, and is a total red herring when discussing cupability surrounding a violent crime.

Jesus H. Christ, do you guys even read what I type??

I never said that the gun owner was partly responsible for the later crime. Never once. You even *quoted* me saying the exact opposite.  :

And I understand that improperly storing firearms is a separate issue. Coincedentally, it was *the* issue that we were discussing before getting sidetracked here.

 

[midgetcop]

That wasn't my point - but I should have been clearer.  If someone is killed in the commision of a crime with a stolen gun and a stolen car, the car owner is considered a victim - the gun owner is almost considered an accessory.

As I said before, I've never heard of a gun owner being charged as an accessory. I've heard of them being charged with firearm offences (i.e. storage). Please feel free to present any examples if I am wrong.

Let's focus on the pukes who commit the crimes.

I know this will limit the number of pukes in circulation, and they are - after all - the grease that keeps the legal industry turning and the lawyers in their hookers and SUVs, but, lets just try locking them up until they are done.

For once.

I mean, what do we have to do to lock them up?  Catch them selling wheat to the USA?
Tom

I wholeheartedly agree. But only point being that we can't absolve gun owners from any kind of care and responsibility. I think that people have been taking that out of context, as if I were trying to imply that a gun owner is legally "responsible" for a crime commited with a stolen weapon. No, I don't mean that. I mean hold them accountable under the current laws we have concerning safety, storage, etc. 

 

[TCBF]

I agree completely.  Responsibility and accountability are cornerstones of the Recreational Firearms Community. 

It is the Demonization by the politicians and community 'activists' (many of whom are anti-cop as well) that goads us.

Stay safe.

Tom

 

[dutchie]

Listen, I'm not saying that he DID or DIDN'T have a permit. My point (and my original point all along, and I think I've been quite clear) is that WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

PLEASE READ POSTS CAREFULLY BEFORE POSTING A REFLEX-RESPONSE.


Personally, the only real problem I have with this guy is that he decided to store a small arsenal in an apartment that he didn't use. With no one living there, it doesn't really matter what kind of safe buddy is using, if someone is determined enough to bust into it they'll have all the time in the world to get to it.

&

Blaming criminals is a moot point that (I thought) goes without saying.

But gun owners that present an 'easy opportunity' or not usually innocent, but wind up getting charged with a firearms offense.

With gun ownership comes rules, regulations and responsibility. I don't see the problem with that.

No one is arguing FOR irresponsible gun ownership, so I can only assume that these 2 posts of yours were intended to show that the gun owner is somehow partly responsible. If your saying that the theft had absolutely NOTHING to do with the end crime, then fine, I'll accept that. But by bringing up the issue of responsible gun ownership in a topic about violent gun crime, it leaves the impression that you assign some blame to the gun owner. I do not - he is a victim of theft, nothing more.

 

[midgetcop]

&

No one is arguing FOR irresponsible gun ownership, so I can only assume that these 2 posts of yours were intended to show that the gun owner is somehow partly responsible. If your saying that the theft had absolutely NOTHING to do with the end crime, then fine, I'll accept that. But by bringing up the issue of responsible gun ownership in a topic about violent gun crime, it leaves the impression that you assign some blame to the gun owner. I do not - he is a victim of theft, nothing more.

No, I've said now multiple times that the theft has nothing to do with further crimes, other than that the owner may possibly face charges in relationship to the storage of said firearms. I brought up the Toronto Star article in response to someone else's comments on safe storage, and then it seemed to offshoot from there because some posters have assumed that I was taking a position that I wasn't.

Nothing I have said has blamed gun owners for anything other than their storage techniques/handling. Nothing I have said has connected gun owners to violent crime. Look at the very quotes you bolded in red.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...and just like the other gun threads, thats a wrap.

Between the 100's of pages on gun control, etc. every viewpoint possible has been brought up so therefore we are now just wasting our time and energy trying to keep things civil.....and I don't like wasting my time.
Thank you.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Was asked via PM to post this link which the user says has some relevance, I have not looked at it yet but here we go.....
Quote,
After the thread was locked, I discovered this piece in the NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200601120827.asp

What I found interesting (and might have added to the debate) is the real life observation that the crime and murder rate in Texas declined after carry permits were re introduced in 1996.