Gerald Stanley; charges he improperly stored 7 guns

Agreed, under most circumstances. What is wrong with calling people what they want to be called, not what you want to call them? Seems fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

If everyone’s skin were a little thicker, the world would be a better place.

---

And a lot less “ Lieberal “ !!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Who the F____ cares what anyone is called - grow some skin. Technically anyone not living in Africa (first nations included) is an immigrant. If we want to be absolutely politically correct we should all be referred to (except for those actually still living in Africa - they are just Africans) as Peripheral Africans (just made that up).

---

I've been called a whole lot worse by a lot better people and I've been kicked out of better places,too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I've been called a whole lot worse by a lot better people and I've been kicked out of better places,too.

---

All I know is that Armageddon is coming fast when you start quoting Pierre Trudeau.Help,help, the sky is falling.

Mike Pal, if what you say is true about a deal. Isn't the deal likely to include a revocation of his firearm licence, leaving his livestock to the mercy of predators? In such a case, where he lives virtually in isolation, is the court likely to take that into account? After all this guy was about his own business until he was intruded upon. From what I've been able to read there appears to be an on going problem of similar intrusions and the RCMP appear to be stretched to thin to do much about them. I suspect, in his case, Stanley was found not guilty of murder by a jury, who were actually his peers ( farmer experience the similar instants of thievery), and they were out to deliver a clear message.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Mike Pal, if what you say is true about a deal. Isn't the deal likely to include a revocation of his firearm licence, leaving his livestock to the mercy of predators? In such a case, where he lives virtually in isolation, is the court likely to take that into account? ]

---

Shouldnt be a problem? His wife can get her PAL (if she doesnt already have it?) VIOLA! easy fix. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Shouldnt be a problem? His wife can get her PAL (if she doesnt already have it?) VIOLA! easy fix. :thumbup:

---

If there is a reason for a person in the same household to not have firearms then they can deny a firearms license to another person in that house as there would be a case that the person who cannot have firearms who have access anyway due to the family member with a license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

If there is a reason for a person in the same household to not have firearms then they can deny a firearms license to another person in that house as there would be a case that the person who cannot have firearms who have access anyway due to the family member with a license.

---

I don't think so,Fox,unless you can show us where it says that in law. That would mean that every Canadian who had a family member with run-ins with the law could be denied PAL/RPAL because of them? That's guilt by association and,as such,illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I don't think so,Fox,unless you can show us where it says that in law.

---

Fox is correct. The police have broad discretion to deny a PAL/RPAL to any person if they deem granting a licence to be a public safety concern. This certainly applies to people living with a person who is under a prohibition order.

Also, people seem to have forgotten that Stanley says he never wants to touch a gun again.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

My guess is Stanley might sell the farm and move away from that life. I wouldn't want to live where my safety is in joeperdy from retaliation and not being able to defend myself. I would be moving away from the reserves.