Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 146000 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 347,646
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,127
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #800 on: April 26, 2020, 09:46:45 »
Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.

Thousands each for a retainer alone.

Before the pandemic hit we were complaining about an over burdened justice system.
During the pandemic we started releasing prisoners due to Covid fears
[ Judges release growing number accused of violent crimes due to COVID-19 fears
https://globalnews.ca/news/6788223/coronavirus-prisons-inmates-released/ ]
So we charge a couple of tone deaf guys with weapon charges.


Interesting comment in the above story
Quote
One is the accused getaway driver for a recent Toronto murder attempt. Another allegedly pistol-whipped and Tasered two in Ottawa over a drug debt. A third was allegedly involved in a Toronto strip mall shooting.

Great people to let out of jail.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,566
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #801 on: April 28, 2020, 12:39:22 »
Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.

This is a specific internet offence. High bar.
Theoretically they can’t be found guilty to a crime that doesn’t fit the facts. So there’s that ...
« Last Edit: April 28, 2020, 12:47:21 by CloudCover »
... Move!! ...

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #802 on: April 29, 2020, 06:15:51 »
Any competent defense lawyer should be able to shred this one, but not before costing these two a pretty hefty sum.

They should sue the cops who charged them. It is malicious prosecution, and harassment to law abiding citizens who have committed no illegal act. Not the best choice at the moment, however they did not commit a crime. Hell you can walk into that store and buy one yourself if you want to with no restrictions whatsoever. Once the cops knew it was a airsoft gun and they had not done anything wrong they should have been let go. The cops also knew this didn't qualify for the charges as to quote the article "Investigators don’t believe there was ever a threat to public safety".

These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 249,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,115
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #803 on: April 29, 2020, 10:00:52 »
They should sue the cops who charged them. It is malicious prosecution, and harassment to law abiding citizens who have committed no illegal act. Not the best choice at the moment, however they did not commit a crime. Hell you can walk into that store and buy one yourself if you want to with no restrictions whatsoever. Once the cops knew it was a airsoft gun and they had not done anything wrong they should have been let go. The cops also knew this didn't qualify for the charges as to quote the article "Investigators don’t believe there was ever a threat to public safety".

These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.

Sounds like a case of "because we (think we) can".
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline LittleBlackDevil

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
  • Hostium acie nominati
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #804 on: April 29, 2020, 10:03:57 »
These cops let their egos get before their jobs and it is disgraceful.

Not necessarily. A lot of police forces have "policy manuals" on stuff like this. The officers may well have felt they had no choice.

I remember many a conversation I had with police back when I was still a prosecutor, wherein I would demand to know why they laid a charge when there was clearly no evidence of an offence and the response was, invariably, "because I would get fired if I didn't".

Offline LittleBlackDevil

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
  • Hostium acie nominati
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #805 on: April 29, 2020, 10:12:12 »
This is a specific internet offence. High bar.
Theoretically they can’t be found guilty to a crime that doesn’t fit the facts. So there’s that ...

Yes, there is pretty clear case law out there that there needs to be solid proof of an actual dangerous purpose. It is well-established that "a purpose suspected to be dangerous to the public peace" is not enough. That said, these guys should still hire a lawyer, because if they want to be assured of walking away without their lives destroyed they need someone who really knows the law, not someone who knows how to use google.

Offline LittleBlackDevil

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 151
  • Hostium acie nominati
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #806 on: April 29, 2020, 10:16:24 »
Before the pandemic hit we were complaining about an over burdened justice system.
During the pandemic we started releasing prisoners due to Covid fears
[ Judges release growing number accused of violent crimes due to COVID-19 fears
https://globalnews.ca/news/6788223/coronavirus-prisons-inmates-released/ ]
So we charge a couple of tone deaf guys with weapon charges.

It's worse than that, I've seen cases of people being charged for coughing, like this one: https://globalnews.ca/news/6793781/stratford-covid-19-cough-assault-lcbo/

And yes, I can confirm that this man was actually charged, just can't find a news article that confirms that.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 253,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,980
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #807 on: April 29, 2020, 11:47:38 »
Sounds like a case of "because we (think we) can".

Putting it in context days after a mass shooting in the Province, I’d assess these two AirSofters as idiots who were stupid for doing a trunk-to-trunknexchange of what looks to 99.999% of the population to be a real, menacing weapon. I don’t think existing case law would immediately exonerate them.  I do think it was stupid of them, that some citizens were ‘reasonably concerned’ enough to call HPS, and that the PCs took action and passed the responsibility to judge accordingly to the judicial system. I don’t see where it’s not working. Will it cost them to go to court for an appearance (where I honestly think the Judge will give them a speech for a lesson then acquit them)? Yes.  Would any of us firearms owners have ever done the same, real weapons or airsoft?  I’d like to think not. They need a lesson, and it can also be a positive opportunity to note that legal firearms owners don’t do this kind of stupid stuff.

Regards
G2G

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 249,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,115
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #808 on: April 29, 2020, 12:52:44 »
Undeniably they are a pair of idiots, but if that were illegal prison building would be our number one industry.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,997
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #809 on: April 29, 2020, 19:16:56 »
Putting it in context days after a mass shooting in the Province, I’d assess these two AirSofters as idiots who were stupid for doing a trunk-to-trunk exchange of what looks to 99.999% of the population to be a real, menacing weapon.
There is a small, rebellious segment of legal gun owners who are openly self righteous and will challenge the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to prove a point. These are the types which will transport an unloaded non restricted in the back seat of their car hoping to get pulled over so they can educate Barney Fife on gun laws.

I don’t think existing case law would immediately exonerate them.
  Case law is a guide to be followed by judges and not a line in the sand to never be crossed.  Yes, it creates precedents, but so does stupid behaviour on the part of the accused.

I do think it was stupid of them, that some citizens were ‘reasonably concerned’ enough to call HPS, and that the PCs took action and passed the responsibility to judge accordingly to the judicial system.
I violently agree with that.
I don’t see where it’s not working. Will it cost them to go to court for an appearance (where I honestly think the Judge will give them a speech for a lesson then acquit them)? Yes.
Depending on the delay before this comes in front of a judge and how the Crown presents the situational factors will determine if your belief comes true and they are excoriated or they are used to set an example 'pour encourager les autres".

Would any of us firearms owners have ever done the same, real weapons or airsoft?  I’d like to think not. They need a lesson, and it can also be a positive opportunity to note that legal firearms owners don’t do this kind of stupid stuff.
And that will be re-tried in the media as a "soft on gun crime" sentencing.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 347,646
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,127
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #810 on: April 29, 2020, 19:42:24 »

Federal government could act on gun control as early as Friday: sources

Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has a list of 11 firearms he wants to see banned
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-gun-control-friday-1.5549969


World wide pandemic.
Economy is taking a crap kicking.
Mass shooting with illegally smuggled guns
Perfect time to push the banning of 11 (?) types of firearms.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 37,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 439
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #811 on: April 29, 2020, 19:56:14 »

Federal government could act on gun control as early as Friday: sources

Public Safety Minister Bill Blair has a list of 11 firearms he wants to see banned
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-government-gun-control-friday-1.5549969


World wide pandemic.
Economy is taking a crap kicking.
Mass shooting with illegally smuggled guns
Perfect time to push the banning of 11 (?) types of firearms.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Online dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 338,949
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,035
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #812 on: April 29, 2020, 21:55:22 »
Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 347,646
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,127
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #813 on: April 29, 2020, 21:59:18 »
Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.

Semi-automatics with magazines
Semi-automatics without magazines that hold over 5 rounds
Guns with flash hiders
Guns with pistol grips
Guns with plastic parts
Shotguns that hold over 3 rounds
Pump action guns that hold over 5
Bolt actions with detachable magazines
Guns with folding stocks
Lever action guns that hold over 5 rounds
Semi-automatic pistols maybe for the bonus?

There are no wolves on Fenris

Online dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 338,949
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,035
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #814 on: April 29, 2020, 22:00:26 »
Don't forget any rifle that is black.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,114
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #815 on: April 29, 2020, 22:46:18 »
Curious to see what the 11 firearms are.

AR-15
Mini 14
CZ Scorpion
Swiss Arms Classic Green
Beretta Cx4 Storm
Robinson Armament XCR
Sig Sauer SIG MCX
SKS
BCL 102
WK 180-3
DERYA
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,277
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #816 on: April 30, 2020, 03:35:52 »
That would cost me 5 firearms at least.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 19,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #817 on: April 30, 2020, 06:07:15 »
Not necessarily. A lot of police forces have "policy manuals" on stuff like this. The officers may well have felt they had no choice.

I remember many a conversation I had with police back when I was still a prosecutor, wherein I would demand to know why they laid a charge when there was clearly no evidence of an offence and the response was, invariably, "because I would get fired if I didn't".

Well then the 'policy manual' needs to be changed. The officers have unions to protect them, and they have a responsibility to the public and to the government. Laying charges they know don't apply to punish by process the individual is a crime against the individual and the officer laying the charge should be liable for any and all expenses/damages occurred by the defendant. I don't accept the 'just following orders' excuse. Didn't work for the Nazis at Nuremburg and it doesn't work for my police who I hold to a infinitely higher standard.

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,114
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #818 on: April 30, 2020, 06:57:32 »
That would cost me 5 firearms at least.


Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 744,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,114
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #819 on: April 30, 2020, 07:47:37 »

Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.


More information came out today, apparently of the 11 types 9 of them cover over 1500 variants. I was wrong on the SKS but it appears the hit list also includes the M14 and VZ. Anything over 20mm metric and 10000 joules are gone that includes all sorts of tactical shotguns and the .50 BMG.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,076
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #820 on: April 30, 2020, 12:22:44 »
10 000 J is not quite 7400 lb f; from a cursory search didn't see much other then a .50 BMG that exceeds that.  Are those not already controlled/banned?

Also found some countries have minimum requirements for hunting purposes based on the size of the animal, which makes sense but never thought about it.

I don't think any of these bans are going to really do much when we live within driving distance of the world's biggest arms exporter, but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 347,646
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,127
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #821 on: April 30, 2020, 12:26:47 »
Quote from: Navy_Pete
but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.

Bears.



Looks like Cabellas yanked their Mini-14s.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline my72jeep

  • It is the duty of all canadians to be prepared to defend thier country
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 38,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,060
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #822 on: April 30, 2020, 17:19:10 »

Yep I'm going to lose 26 at least.
I won’t say numbers as some have met the Plummer or at least supply’s from his truck. But my wife and I are about to take a financial hit.
MA Davidson CD
Wawa,Ont.
Army.ca coin #53

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 347,646
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,127
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #823 on: April 30, 2020, 18:59:59 »
LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-lies-and-subverts-democracy-to-push-his-anti-gun-agenda

LILLEY: Trudeau lies and subverts democracy to push his anti-gun agenda
Brian Lilley

Justin Trudeau is about to sell the confiscation of private property and the outlay of close to $1 billion to do it as a matter of public safety.

That’s nothing but an outright lie.

“We have long been committed to strengthening gun control in this country,” Trudeau said on Thursday.

“Including, banning military style assault weapons. There is no need in Canada for guns designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time.”

That statement is supposed to make you feel good, it is supposed to make you feel safe, that our political leaders are doing something to stop gun violence like the gang shootings in cities across the country or the massacre that just occurred in Nova Scotia.

Neither the Prime Minister’s words nor the actions he is about to take will help with any of that.

The massacre in Nova Scotia was carried out by a man who never had a gun licence but had a stash of illegal weapons — one traced to Canada, the others from the United States.

The gun violence we see in our streets is similarly carried out mostly by gang members who don’t follow the law, smuggle guns from the U.S. and don’t bother with things like licences.

So, what will the Trudeau government do? They are about to pass a government order, not even legislation but a simple order, banning a whole series of rifles that are currently legal in Canada.

“There is a large consensus by Canadians who want to see less violence and fewer deaths from gun violence in this country,” Trudeau said.

Nice words but the reality is these actions won’t do a thing to stop gun violence in Canada.

Taking rifles used for target shooting by licensed gun owners won’t stop the violence committed by gangs who used smuggled handguns to protect their drug trade.

That’s what these orders will be, a seizing of rifles, many without any history of use in crime in this country. There won’t be any move on taking guns away from criminals or stopping the smuggling at the border.

In fact, in the last election the Liberals pledged to spend $600 million to pay for the rifles they are going to confiscate, which is far more than the amount of money they are giving to the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with gun smuggling. The government’s multi-year guns and gang strategy allocated $86 million over five years to deal with the number one source of crime guns, the border.

The number of rifles that will fall under this ban would be difficult to estimate, but one industry source estimates there are more than 83,000 AR-15 type rifles in Canada. This is a rifle that has been legal in Canada for more than 40 years and, despite its notoriety in the U.S., has no history as a crime gun in Canada.

This is not about safety, it is the Trudeau Liberals using hundreds of millions of tax dollars to enact their agenda and they are doing it without Parliamentary oversight. There will be no bill to debate, no votes to be had.

According to the story planted with friendly media, the ban will happen through a cabinet order — in other words government fiat, no accountability.

Even if you are no fan of guns, every Canadian should be outraged that our democracy is being subverted and that their government is lying to them about what their actions will accomplish.


blilley@postmedia.com
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 128,341
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,480
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #824 on: April 30, 2020, 19:49:36 »
but generally speaking can't see any reason someone would need a grenade launcher or anti-material sniper rifle.

Well, the government is coming to confiscate our weapons, we've been forced into segregating ourselves and it's basically illegal to protest this all across the country, and the media (who this government is constantly trying to control and recently gave boatloads of cash to which even they didn't want because of partisanship) is saying this decision is based around "science" ...


Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?