Self Defence in Canada (split from Gun Control 2.0)

[PPCLI Guy]

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

Unless I am right out to lunch, a trigger lock is sufficient for NR. I chose to also secure them in a safe,

 

[suffolkowner]

Unless I am right out to lunch, a trigger lock is sufficient for NR. I chose to also secure them in a safe,

if you have coyotes or greater it doesnt have to be anything

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Unless I am right out to lunch, a trigger lock is sufficient for NR. I chose to also secure them in a safe,

In a safe there is no requirement for a trigger lock. If you take a closet and modify it for firearm storage and strengthen it, then that can count for safe storage as well. There was some case law on that point quite sometime ago.

Keep in mind that if a gun is in "use" ie you are cleaning or admiring it, then neither Transport or storage regs apply at that moment.

 

[RangerRay]

In a safe there is no requirement for a trigger lock. If you take a closet and modify it for firearm storage and strengthen it, then that can count for safe storage as well. There was some case law on that point quite sometime ago.

Keep in mind that if a gun is in "use" ie you are cleaning or admiring it, then neither Transport or storage regs apply at that moment.

"Your Honour, at the exact time the two dirtbags, er...defendants, broke into my house at 3 am, I just happened to be cleaning my gun!"

 

[OldSolduer]

"Your Honour, at the exact time the two dirtbags, er...defendants, broke into my house at 3 am, I just happened to be cleaning my gun!"

I have insomnia

 

[Lumber]

In a safe there is no requirement for a trigger lock. If you take a closet and modify it for firearm storage and strengthen it, then that can count for safe storage as well. There was some case law on that point quite sometime ago.

Keep in mind that if a gun is in "use" ie you are cleaning or admiring it, then neither Transport or storage regs apply at that moment.

You know, when it comes to safes, they can be "key-lock" safes, and the regulations don't actually state anywhere as to where the key must be located once the safe is locked. It just says the container must be one that is difficult to "break into". So, conceivably, you could lock it and then just leave the key in the lock. That would make it easy to "open" but wouldn't make it any less easy to "break" into.

"Your honour, I didn't break into the container, I unlocked it!"

 

[Jarnhamar]

so I'm considering getting a Byrna.

This one looks fun - until the judge nails you for having a replica assault-style weapon.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

In a safe there is no requirement for a trigger lock. If you take a closet and modify it for firearm storage and strengthen it, then that can count for safe storage as well. There was some case law on that point quite sometime ago.

Keep in mind that if a gun is in "use" ie you are cleaning or admiring it, then neither Transport or storage regs apply at that moment.

I know all of that. I am just a belt and suspenders type of guy

 

[Eaglelord17]

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

You don’t list reasons for owning a non-restricted, that is only for Restricted licences. My argument is there is all sorts of valid reasons to own a firearm, personally I hunt, target shoot, and collect. Self defence is also a acceptable reason otherwise it would not be part of the law. Since you don’t need to actually state a reason for owning a non-restricted I wouldn’t be going into it with them. You aren’t limited to only one reason, and the reasons you do own may change with time and needs.

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.

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

I wouldn’t trust everything they say 100%. Considering collecting, live stock protection (which has important exemptions in the firearms act such as allowing you to have a loaded firearm nearby), etc. isn’t even in their list, they are missing some big ones.

You don’t need to justify how you store anything as long as it is within the legal limits. Self imposed restrictions will do nothing to save you if you actually do defend yourself, look at Ian Thompson where he was 100% justified in all his actions yet still was punished by process.

 

[Haggis]

Despite the wording of the Criminal Code and Firearms Act, previous Liberal governments have re-affirmed their policy position that self-defense is not an acceptable reason for owning a firearm in Canada.

Justice Minister Allan Rock and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair were very clear in their public statements to that effect. I would be shocked beyond imagination if that sentiment were to change with this government.

 

[Halifax Tar]

"Your Honour, at the exact time the two dirtbags, er...defendants, broke into my house at 3 am, I just happened to be cleaning my gun!"

I'm going to memorize this, thank you lol

Might even get it tattooed on my arm.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Despite the wording of the Criminal Code and Firearms Act, previous Liberal governments have re-affirmed their policy position that self-defense is not an acceptable reason for owning a firearm in Canada.

Justice Minister Allan Rock and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair were very clear in their public statements to that effect. I would be shocked beyond imagination if that sentiment were to change with this government.

Sentiment and legality are two very different things. These are also the same people that believe we don’t have property rights in Canada and that no one needs to own a firearm in the first place.

Is it something to publicly exclaim to the world? Likely not the best idea (just as letting everyone and everything know your a firearms owner in the first place is generally a poor idea). However that still doesn’t mean it isn’t legal.

Realistically self defence is the best justification for owning a firearm, everything else can be justified away.

Hunting? You don’t need anything more than a muzzleloader for that (or even just bows and crossbows). Collecting? Why does it need to be live to collect it? Target shooting? Heres a bb gun/bow/crossbow.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You don’t list reasons for owning a non-restricted, that is only for Restricted licences. My argument is there is all sorts of valid reasons to own a firearm, personally I hunt, target shoot, and collect. Self defence is also a acceptable reason otherwise it would not be part of the law.

Respectfully, it seems you don't understand what I'm discussing and can't get passed inserting your opinions on what should be in place of what is. The status quo is that you can be completely justified in your use of a weapon (firearm otherwise) in self defense, and acquitted on those charges- WHILE STILL being found guilty of possession for a dangerous purpose it is found that you possessed said weapon specifically for use on a human (ie. planned/prepared self defense).

• I can legally by guns and/or baseball bats.
• In an emergency I can use guns/ and or baseball bats for defense.

But Canadian legal precedent expressly denies that I can own guns/and or baseball bats for the planned purpose of defense.

I don't agree with it, but it is reality.

Tackling that, and other ancillary use of force decisions that pacifist judges have effectively legislated with to enforce their collective peace doctrine are a very real avenue for the legislature to enable citizens to protect themselves without even touching firearms law specifically.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Respectfully, it seems you don't understand what I'm discussing and can't get passed inserting your opinions on what should be in place of what is. The status quo is that you can be completely justified in your use of a weapon (firearm otherwise) in self defense, and acquitted on those charges- WHILE STILL being found guilty of possession for a dangerous purpose it is found that you possessed said weapon specifically for use on a human (ie. planned/prepared self defense). I can legally by guns and/or baseball bats. In an emergency I can use guns/ and or baseball bats for defense. But Canadian legal precedent expressly denies that I can own guns/and or baseball bats for the planned purpose of defense.

I don't agree with it, but it is reality.

Tackling that, and other ancillary use of force aspects that pacifist judges have effectively legislated with to enforce their collective peace doctrine are a very real avenue for the legislature to enable citizens to protect themselves without even touching firearms law specifically.

You could be charged yes. A conviction would be unlikely unless the Crown can prove a “dangerous purpose” beyond self-defence. The legality turns almost entirely on intent at the time of possession/use, not the mere presence of firearms.

A private setting/residence doesn't shield conduct from being “dangerous to the public peace” when you're looking at meeting elements of the offence, but keeping a firearm for lawful storage or self defence is generally not considered a dangerous purpose.



The real punishment is when a home owner lawfully uses a firearm for self defence and is still dragged through the court system costing them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer and court costs. Meanwhile buddies taxes, in small part, will probably go to paying for the criminals lawyer.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Respectfully, it seems you don't understand what I'm discussing and can't get passed inserting your opinions on what should be in place of what is. The status quo is that you can be completely justified in your use of a weapon (firearm otherwise) in self defense, and acquitted on those charges- WHILE STILL being found guilty of possession for a dangerous purpose it is found that you possessed said weapon specifically for use on a human (ie. planned/prepared self defense).

• I can legally by guns and/or baseball bats.
• In an emergency I can use guns/ and or baseball bats for defense.

But Canadian legal precedent expressly denies that I can own guns/and or baseball bats for the planned purpose of defense.

I don't agree with it, but it is reality.

Tackling that, and other ancillary use of force decisions that pacifist judges have effectively legislated with to enforce their collective peace doctrine are a very real avenue for the legislature to enable citizens to protect themselves without even touching firearms law specifically.

‘Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose

• 88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
• Punishment
  
  (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
  • (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
  • (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.’

Explain to me what part of possessing a firearm for self defence falls under a purpose dangerous to the public peace (considering the law specifically mentions self defence as a legal reason to own) or for committing a offence.

Having a firearm in your own personal residence (or even in the woods for defence against animals) for self defence is not dangerous to the public peace in any way. Nor is using one in self defence a intent to commit a offence as self defence is legal in Canada, provided you only intend to use reasonable force as provided by law.

Will they charge you? Maybe. Likely still wouldn’t get anywhere other than bankrupting you. And at the end of the day if I need to defend myself or my family (which I pray never happens) I will gladly take a kangaroo court and jury by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@Jarnhamar @Eaglelord17

I'd encourage you to read the decisions in R v Macdonald 2014 and R v Kerr 2004 and how they narrowed the Sulland precedent

Absent an immediate and unavoidable threat, possession of a weapon intended for potential use on a human is likely a breach of S.88.

The way it's taught is a baseball bat- that technically buying a bat and putting it behind the door "just in case" is a crime as soon as you do it. The same applies to firearms.

Again- this isn't the way I want the law to read. But the head in the sand approach doesn't advocate for change.

 

[Eaglelord17]

@Jarnhamar @Eaglelord17

I'd encourage you to read the decisions in R v Macdonald 2014 and R v Kerr 2004 and how they narrowed the Sulland precedent

Absent an immediate and unavoidable threat, possession of a weapon intended for potential use on a human is likely a breach of S.88.

The way it's taught is a baseball bat- that technically buying a bat and putting it behind the door "just in case" is a crime as soon as you do it. The same applies to firearms.

Again- this isn't the way I want the law to read. But the head in the sand approach doesn't advocate for change.

‘The fact that an accused possessed a weapon for a defensive purpose is not itself determinative of guilt or innocence under s. 88, and it is also clear that actual use of a weapon in a manner which is dangerous to the public peace does not establish that the weapon was possessed for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.’

Reading those two cases doesn’t support your argument that possession of a firearm for self defence is a crime under s. 88. Again considering it is written into the law as a legal reason for possession of a firearm I think that counter acts that.

S 88 also requires you to have the weapon on you, so if your walking around with a loaded weapon on you for no actual threat, chargeable.

If you happen to have your firearms legally stored and you have a plan to access them in case of emergency that isn’t a S88 offence.

 

[Jarnhamar]

@Jarnhamar @Eaglelord17

I'd encourage you to read the decisions in R v Macdonald 2014 and R v Kerr 2004 and how they narrowed the Sulland precedent

Absent an immediate and unavoidable threat, possession of a weapon intended for potential use on a human is likely a breach of S.88.

The way it's taught is a baseball bat- that technically buying a bat and putting it behind the door "just in case" is a crime as soon as you do it. The same applies to firearms.

Again- this isn't the way I want the law to read. But the head in the sand approach doesn't advocate for change.

That's not how section 88 works in practice. The Crown still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the purpose of possession was dangerous to the public peace, not just that the object could be used that way.

R v MacDonald 2014 didn't create a blanket rule that keeping a weapon for potential self defence is automatically (or likely) a section 88 offence. The courts have consistently held that lawful possession with a plausable defence purpose is not enough on it's own to prove a dangerous purpose. Look at R v Felawka 1993 and R v Khill 2021. The analysis turns on intent and reasonableness in context. Not a prohibition on defensive readiness. R v Kerr 2004 actually supports intent must be proven and not presumed.

The baseball ball bat behind the door analogy is an oversimplification. The courts look at all the circumstances. You're not getting charged for having a baseball bat behind your door. Even a gas station Katana behind your door is just there.

 

[IKnowNothing]

‘The fact that an accused possessed a weapon for a defensive purpose is not itself determinative of guilt or innocence under s. 88, and it is also clear that actual use of a weapon in a manner which is dangerous to the public peace does not establish that the weapon was possessed for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.’

Reading those two cases doesn’t support your argument that possession of a firearm for self defence is a crime under s. 88. Again considering it is written into the law as a legal reason for possession of a firearm I think that counter acts that.

I suspect that's because you stopped reading too early - the literal next line (emphasis mine)
"Where an accused is found to have possessed a weapon for a defensive purpose, it is only where the attack is completely inescapable that possession of a weapon to thwart the attack is not possession for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. "

and further down (again, emphasis mine):

"To avoid importing an objective element into a purely subjective approach, the concept of a “purpose dangerous to the public peace” needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of s. 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing harm to persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons or property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but does require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.

Here, the elements of s. 88(1) have been established. The accused possessed the “shanks” for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, since he intended to use them to harm another person or persons. Self-defence does not negate the mens rea of s. 88(1); rather it is a justification for conduct that would otherwise attract criminal liability. An accused can be excused from criminal liability under s. 88(1) where possession of a weapon is necessary for defending himself. On the facts of this case, the defence of necessity is made out. The accused possessed the weapons to defend himself against an imminent attack and had a reasonable belief that the circumstances afforded him no legal way out"

S 88 also requires you to have the weapon on you

Nope. "carries or posesses" - legal possession under the Criminal Code expressly identifies both active/actual possession and constructive possession, defined as:
"For the purposes of this Act,

(a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person;"

"At common law, possession requires control[4] as well as knowledge.[5]

The statutory requirements of s.4(3) mean that the totality of evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control."

, so if your walking around with a loaded weapon on you for no actual threat, chargeable.

100%

If you happen to have your firearms legally stored and you have a plan to access them in case of emergency that isn’t a S88 offence.

Very, very, situational to my understanding.

• Living rurally, and "opportunistically" grabbing your predator gun? Probably fine
• Keeping your 36 gun safe in the bedroom, or office or wherever and opportunistically being able to access it in time? Probably fine
• Not having a safe and keeping your only guns trigger locked whereever you can find space for them in the bedroom (closet, under the bed), and being able to opportunistically access one in time? Probably fine

But

• Having all of your guns but one in a safe, gunroom etc. while having a trigger locked cruiser under the bed with a couple of shells in the night stand "just in case"? Based on Kerr you're in constant violation of S.88. Absent an identifiable immeminent threat there is no "self defense" to be argued, your purpose for that firearm is shooting people.

It's not like you're going to be charged out of the blue, but should the intrusion come... for the love of god don't admit that it was in your room "just in case".

 

[Eaglelord17]

I suspect that's because you stopped reading too early - the literal next line (emphasis mine)
"Where an accused is found to have possessed a weapon for a defensive purpose, it is only where the attack is completely inescapable that possession of a weapon to thwart the attack is not possession for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. "

and further down (again, emphasis mine):

"To avoid importing an objective element into a purely subjective approach, the concept of a “purpose dangerous to the public peace” needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of s. 88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing harm to persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons or property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but does require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.

Here, the elements of s. 88(1) have been established. The accused possessed the “shanks” for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, since he intended to use them to harm another person or persons. Self-defence does not negate the mens rea of s. 88(1); rather it is a justification for conduct that would otherwise attract criminal liability. An accused can be excused from criminal liability under s. 88(1) where possession of a weapon is necessary for defending himself. On the facts of this case, the defence of necessity is made out. The accused possessed the weapons to defend himself against an imminent attack and had a reasonable belief that the circumstances afforded him no legal way out"

Nope. "carries or posesses" - legal possession under the Criminal Code expressly identifies both active/actual possession and constructive possession, defined as:
"For the purposes of this Act,

(a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person;"

"At common law, possession requires control[4] as well as knowledge.[5]

The statutory requirements of s.4(3) mean that the totality of evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control."


100%

Very, very, situational to my understanding.

• Living rurally, and "opportunistically" grabbing your predator gun? Fine
• Keeping your 36 gun safe in the bedroom, or office or wherever and opportunistically being able to access it in time? Fine
• Not having a safe and keeping your only guns trigger locked whereever you can find space for them in the bedroom (closet, under the bed), and being able to opportunistically access one in time? Fine

But

• Having all of your guns but one in a safe, gunroom etc. while having a trigger locked cruiser under the bed with a couple of shells in the night stand "just in case"? Based on Kerr you're in constant violation of S.88. Absent an identifiable immeminent threat there is no "self defense" to be argued, your purpose for that firearm is shooting people.

It's not like you're going to be charged out of the blue, but should the intrusion come... for the love of god don't admit that it was in your room "just in case".

My actual line if I ever had to defend myself from any sort of threat is ‘speak to my lawyer’. Don’t say a word to the police, say nothing until properly counciled. If they wish to make some sort of example of you (not saying they will, just that they might) it doesn’t matter if you actually broke the law or not, punishment by process is unfortunately a thing in this country.

Self defence doesn’t mean shooting people. It means using reasonable force to stop being attacked as per Canadian law. It isn’t a intent to harm or shoot anyone, it is the intent to stop being harmed. One of the case law cited in that 2004 case mentioned specifically that someone defending themselves from attack isn’t dangerous to the public peace, they are protecting the public peace (not going back through it again). Basically the law is as clear as mud on all it, likely intentionally so.