Gerald Stanley; charges he improperly stored 7 guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Unfortunately the possession of a loaded rifle found sitting between his legs in the vehicle would have been made had he lived. And, they're not talking about what the intent was to have said loaded gun in the vehicle when they were just to ask for a spare tire.

---

I just read the entire Judge,s charge to the jury on this one and the following is Mr Stanley,s account of that gun

"He says that he reached into the vehicle with his left hand to attempt to shut off the vehicle. As he did so, he moved what he then thought was a metal bar but which he now believes was the barrel of the damaged .22"

There is a second reference to the gun from a female in the truck owned by the deceased in reference to the rifle as she testified for the Crown.

"She does not recall a firearm in the vehicle and does not recall the incident where Mr. Cross tried to break into a red half-ton by striking it with a .22 calibre rifle.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoe

From the local press out there:

[COLOR=#333333]A rifle barrel with five bullets in its magazine and one in its chamber was also found at the scene beside Boushie's body

This is why I am a Libertarian now. I always thought I had the right defend my property. You do not in Canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. With all the political interference into court matters, I wonder if Mr. Stanley will have the 'book' thrown at him, with maximum sentencing or will he able to plead them out.

This whole affair is a good catalyst to get 'Castle Doctrine' enacted here..





http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...guns-1.4538790

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I just read the entire Judge,s charge to the jury on this one and the following is Mr Stanley,s account of that gun

"He says that he reached into the vehicle with his left hand to attempt to shut off the vehicle. As he did so, he moved what he then thought was a metal bar but which he now believes was the barrel of the damaged .22"

There is a second reference to the gun from a female in the truck owned by the deceased in reference to the rifle as she testified for the Crown.

"She does not recall a firearm in the vehicle and does not recall the incident where Mr. Cross tried to break into a red half-ton by striking it with a .22 calibre rifle.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoe

From the local press out there:

[COLOR=#333333]A rifle barrel with five bullets in its magazine and one in its chamber was also found at the scene beside Boushie's body

---

The facts of the case will not actually be known to anyone that was not there and the details given to the jury not known to anyone outside of those in the court room.

I saw the picture about the "black box" he had his revolver in, they claim it was illegal storage. If there was trigger lock on the gun and a pad lock on the black box then it was totally legal, but legal storage seems to be something that can never be understood by anyone hired by a Canadian police force, I could go on about what police officers have told me about shooting and legal/illegal practices but you would not believe me so I will not bother.

I am honestly surprised there is no charge for illegal discharge of a restricted firearm, as that was already confessed to.

I was told when taking my firearms safety course, if you ever need to grab a gun for any reason, grab a non-restricted. If you grab a handgun to go out and pop a raccoon getting into your chicken coop and someone sees you and calls the cops your days of owning firearms can be over, you grab a shotgun and you are perfectly within your rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The facts of the case will not actually be known to anyone that was not there and the details given to the jury not known to anyone outside of those in the court room.

I saw the picture about the "black box" he had his revolver in, they claim it was illegal storage. If there was trigger lock on the gun and a pad lock on the black box then it was totally legal, but legal storage seems to be something that can never be understood by anyone hired by a Canadian police force, I could go on about what police officers have told me about shooting and legal/illegal practices but you would not believe me so I will not bother.

I am honestly surprised there is no charge for illegal discharge of a restricted firearm, as that was already confessed to.

I was told when taking my firearms safety course, if you ever need to grab a gun for any reason, grab a non-restricted. If you grab a handgun to go out and pop a raccoon getting into your chicken coop and someone sees you and calls the cops your days of owning firearms can be over, you grab a shotgun and you are perfectly within your rights.

---

In the judge's instructions to the jury, he stated that there was no dispute that Stanley was legally justified in defense of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The facts of the case will not actually be known to anyone that was not there and the details given to the jury not known to anyone outside of those in the court room.

I saw the picture about the "black box" he had his revolver in, they claim it was illegal storage. If there was trigger lock on the gun and a pad lock on the black box then it was totally legal, but legal storage seems to be something that can never be understood by anyone hired by a Canadian police force, I could go on about what police officers have told me about shooting and legal/illegal practices but you would not believe me so I will not bother.

I am honestly surprised there is no charge for illegal discharge of a restricted firearm, as that was already confessed to.

I was told when taking my firearms safety course, if you ever need to grab a gun for any reason, grab a non-restricted. If you grab a handgun to go out and pop a raccoon getting into your chicken coop and someone sees you and calls the cops your days of owning firearms can be over, you grab a shotgun and you are perfectly within your rights.

---

I agree with you and the fault lies partly in the wording for firearms storage which is difficult to understand.The underling principle in the storage law had nothing to do with preventing theft of firearms but more to do with preventing suicide and accident,s. Police officers are very badly trained with respect to firearms laws and many members of the public have suffered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

In the judge's instructions to the jury, he stated that there was no dispute that Stanley was legally justified in defense of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

---

That statement is like a light in the dark, and gives me some hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

In the judge's instructions to the jury, he stated that there was no dispute that Stanley was legally justified in defense of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...a-jurors-shoes

---

Although this was true and he was justified, it still does not mean that he did not commit a crime with regards to use of that handgun where it was not legal to do so. If you were justified in using your rifle to kill a bear coming into your home but you lived in the suburbs of Ottawa you may still run into issues using that rifle in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Although this was true and he was justified, it still does not mean that he did not commit a crime with regards to use of that handgun where it was not legal to do so. If you were justified in using your rifle to kill a bear coming into your home but you lived in the suburbs of Ottawa you may still run into issues using that rifle in that case.

---

But it shows why he wasn't charged with illegal discharge of a restricted firearm that is all I was trying to show you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

But it shows why he wasn't charged with illegal discharge of a restricted firearm that is all I was trying to show you.

---

I understand, but I am still surprised is all. One judge saying one thing does not stop a prosecutor charge someone if they believe it would pass muster with another judge.

He was justified getting his pistol but the prosecutor could still claim that this does not remove the legal requirements for discharge of restricted. I am just surprised that they are bringing up a pistol in a case but not one that was actually used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

I donated a little bit to his legal fund today on Gerald Stanley's go fund me page. He is gonna need lots more money to see this through .and ya, they will nail him with something that's for sure.

---

I also donated a little. I think this is an immensely worthy cause!