Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[Halifax Tar]

i wonder how they determined that the firearm was stored properly vs so many other cases weve seen in the headlines over the years?

Do you know what is a legally acceptable way to store a bog standard .12ga ?

 

[suffolkowner]

Do you know what is a legally acceptable way to store a bog standard .12ga ?

Is that what was used?

 

[OldSolduer]

Do you know what is a legally acceptable way to store a bog standard .12ga ?

No I don’t actually. I’d like to know.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Is that what was used?

No idea, but seeing as they were able to get a firearm out and discharge it so fast leads me to believe it was probably something similar.

 

[suffolkowner]

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.

 

[suffolkowner]

No idea, but seeing as they were able to get a firearm out and discharge it so fast leads me to believe it was properly something similar.

my comment is more to vent on the number of times firearms owners are charged with respect to storage where one i wonder how the police could determine that and two in particular that guy who had thiefs break in and try to get into his safe with a plasma torch or something like that.

 

[Halifax Tar]

my comment is more to vent on the number of times firearms owners are charged with respect to storage where one i wonder how the police could determine that and two in particular that guy who had thiefs break in and try to get into his safe with a plasma torch or something like that.

Look officer, there is the slide lock on the floor with the key in it and the and same for my ammo "locker", key still in it door open.

Perhaps we are also seeing some LEOs come to the side of average citizens now too. I am hoping they also recognize that our laws can put too much onus on the victim to play by the rules when their attacker is not.

 

[suffolkowner]

Look officer, there is the slide lock on the floor with the key in it and the and same for my ammo "locker", key still in it door open.

Perhaps we are also seeing some LEOs come to the side of average citizens now too. I am hoping they also recognize that our laws can put too much onus on the victim to play by the rules when their attacker is not.

thats my thought but i dont really like being at the whim of the police being influenced by public opinion that much or whether they got a good sleep last night or not

Look at the Peterborough situation. Charges dropped.

 

[IKnowNothing]

No idea, but seeing as they were able to get a firearm out and discharge it so fast leads me to believe it was probably something similar.

The Catch-22 in the whole thing.

You and I disagree on the reasonableness/ desirability of true US castle doctrine - but I think there's a massive opportunity for a well intentioned political push to legislate away the "loopholes" that judicial activists use to go after home owners (PAL holders or not) in self defense situations.

I agree (and have posted to effect) in the principles of self defense requiring a fair degree of restraint and discretion on the part of the defender, and shouldn't allow carte blanche for escalation or an "advance to contact" so to speak. That being said- the degree to which pacifist judges have set the table so that "too much" preparedness can be construed as a breach of Section 88 Possession with a Dangerous Purpose, or that active deterrent use can be found as breach of Section 86 Careless use is absolute horseshit. Restraint on actually using force is one thing. Forcing people to play chicken and not prepare/ready themselves until an obvious threat is closing on them something else entirely.

Case in point- due to the layout of my home, and the positions of my neighbour's homes I'm really not comfortable with the arcs from my bedroom to door to deal with any intrusion, so I'm considering getting a Byrna. Common sense would say that should be favourably looked on by the law, less of an escalation, can defend without killing, etc. But nah- purchasing it expressly for said purpose violates section 88.

 

[Eaglelord17]

My preferred method of storing a firearm for self defence was just having a gun in a safe with the ammo right by it. Quicker than multiple locks and still meets the legal requirements.

You and I disagree on the reasonableness/ desirability of true US castle doctrine - but I think there's a massive opportunity for a well intentioned political push to legislate away the "loopholes" that judicial activists use to go after home owners (PAL holders or not) in self defense situations.

I agree (and have posted to effect) in the principles of self defense requiring a fair degree of restraint and discretion on the part of the defender, and shouldn't allow carte blanche for escalation or an "advance to contact" so to speak. That being said- the degree to which pacifist judges have set the table so that "too much" preparedness can be construed as a breach of Section 88 Possession with a Dangerous Purpose, or that active deterrent use can be found as breach of Section 86 Careless use is absolute horseshit.

Case in point- due to the layout of my home, and the positions of my neighbour's homes I'm really not comfortable with the arcs from my bedroom to door to deal with any intrusion, so I'm considering getting a Byrna. Common sense would say that should be favourably looked on by the law, less of an escalation, can defend without killing, etc. But nah- purchasing it expressly for said purpose violates section 88.

I don’t buy that interpretation. Considering one of the valid legal uses of a firearm is self defence (one of the 4 listed for restricted firearms, it is reasonable to believe that those also apply to non-restricted firearms) it is also valid to have a reasonable plan for potentially using it.

That is not possession for a dangerous purpose, intending to use legally acquired property for legal reasons (self defence) isn’t a dangerous purpose.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No I don’t actually. I’d like to know.

A judge and two highly experienced lawyers could not figure it out in one high profile case and that was in courtroom setting with a lot of time to think about things.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have a safe that is fingerprint activated.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I have a safe that is fingerprint activated.

I wish.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I don’t buy that interpretation. Considering one of the valid legal uses of a firearm is self defence (one of the 4 listed for restricted firearms, it is reasonable to believe that those also apply to non-restricted firearms) it is also valid to have a reasonable plan for potentially using it.

That is not possession for a dangerous purpose, intending to use legally acquired property for legal reasons (self defence) isn’t a dangerous purpose.

This very much a case of the legal landscape as you think it should be running up against the legal landscape as it it.

Listing home defense as your reason to apply for an NR PAL is one of the best ways to make sure that you're denied.

There's a whole rats nest of intermingled precedent- R v Nelson, R vs Sulland, R v Kerr, R v. Macdonald, and now R v Khill that illustrate that it's not as simple as the bold, that the imminence of the threat when you armed, the use of the item pre-threat, and your behaviour leading up to the confrontation all play a role in both the success of your self defense argument for the use of force, and the whether or not you're exposed to other breaches

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wish.

Not that expensive. https://www.amazon.ca/Biometric-fin...d836dae082379a931&qid=1773934035&sr=8-23&th=1

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not that expensive. https://www.amazon.ca/Biometric-fingerprint-Silent-Backlit-Keypad/dp/B0F7LDLRLW/ref=sr_1_23?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Q4Enq1a_eGv_DNUqbRWsZr1GTd4imUd3yT4mYNzJLBOAsTDqsxkOsaUl83hqDXUG2k9bfU4iyrKrI1SZ61EHggUEaDp1EyaMT9Wrd4QOmeXuF67lkqsz69iQ9Lr1WaBRrtfCyrtMvepdhKo1wRUslF2oKfM5QHSJOS0lOJzS4oBic6EQ0cFfMAPvbC4bIA-thFsj7i3rbVzc2aNgf49yS5qoWsPX2U_OCOSDtBlxPBdFm2K-AtVAtlfUICgmcb9l4ynDQInlvXCIIVELs80yz4JlKNCZ9s9Z3YbCUiqGRyM.-Cxf5nJDHlTB2ZCHoEDxUCmmnZKO1ZI1ynI9NpfGU3Q&dib_tag=se&gad_source=1&hvadid=788579170507&hvdev=c&hvexpln=0&hvlocphy=9001577&hvnetw=g&hvocijid=17020746123253944086--&hvqmt=e&hvrand=17020746123253944086&hvtargid=kwd-638513916&hydadcr=7582_13858357&keywords=biometric+gun+safe&mcid=b146f65def84314d836dae082379a931&qid=1773934035&sr=8-23&th=1

I'm gonna need it bigger than that lol

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This very much a case of the legal landscape as you think it should be running up against the legal landscape as it it.

Listing home defense as your reason to apply for an NR PAL is one of the best ways to make sure that you're denied.

There's a whole rats nest of intermingled precedent- R v Nelson, R vs Sulland, R v Kerr, R v. Macdonald, and now R v Khill that illustrate that it's not as simple as the bold, that the imminence of the threat when you armed, the use of the item pre-threat, and your behaviour leading up to the confrontation all play a role in both the success of your self defense argument for the use of force, and the whether or not you're exposed to other breaches

Not to mention your social media history. The less you talk about your plans on any social media (including here) the better.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm gonna need it bigger than that lol

You don't need them all to be quick access.

 

[Halifax Tar]

This very much a case of the legal landscape as you think it should be running up against the legal landscape as it it.

Listing home defense as your reason to apply for an NR PAL is one of the best ways to make sure that you're denied.

There's a whole rats nest of intermingled precedent- R v Nelson, R vs Sulland, R v Kerr, R v. Macdonald, and now R v Khill that illustrate that it's not as simple as the bold, that the imminence of the threat when you armed, the use of the item pre-threat, and your behaviour leading up to the confrontation all play a role in both the success of your self defense argument for the use of force, and the whether or not you're exposed to other breaches

How very Canadian, we list it as a valid reason. But if you dare pick it you will be denied.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Not to mention your social media history. The less you talk about your plans on any social media (including here) the better.

Yup- as it speaks directly to intended use. I thought about that before posting about the Byrna- but realistically if push comes to shove and it's relevant (an activist Crown/ Judge wants to push Sec 88) I'm going to be hooped. Hard to justify why 7 firearms for recreational purposes and all their ancilliary equipment are stored in one room, and one firearm for recreational purposes is in my bedside table.

How very Canadian, we list it as a valid reason. But if you dare pick it you will be denied.

I don't believe we do- everything I've seen is to the contrary. A firearm legally owned for a lawful purpose can be used opportunistically for self defense (if it was legally stored), but it's not seen as a valid reason for ownership

"An example of the interview questions would be "why do you want to own a firearm". Your answers to these interview questions are important. For example self defense is not a valid reason for owning firearms in Canada. Your only valid reason for wanting a Possession and Acquisition Licence is target shooting or hunting."

Getting your gun licence in Canada (PAL)

A firearms licence in Canada is known as a Possession and Acquisition Licence or PAL. There are 3 classes of the Possession and Acquisitio...

www.canadagunclub.com