Gerald Stanley; charges he improperly stored 7 guns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

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

---

Me too!!! As did my hunting buddies!!

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.

---

What authority are you referring to, with”illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

What authority are you referring to, with”illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”.

---

Restricted firearms have limitations on where they can be legally shot,below is a link, feel free to read it.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Restricted firearms have limitations on where they can be legally shot,below is a link, feel free to read it.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm

---

There’s no offence of “illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”.. there’s nothing in your site that indicated any authority for such a charge.
The restrictions you speak of are those that are related to licensing, and reasons for possession of restricted firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

There’s no offence of “illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”.. there’s nothing in your site that indicated any authority for such a charge.
The restrictions you speak of are those that are related to licensing, and reasons for possession of restricted firearms.

---

Under "Permitted purposes for a restricted firearm", you get your license with the purpose of target shooting or collecting, if you are target shooting you can only legally shoot it at a certified range, you cannot legally shoot it in your back yard.

Rick, I am just surprised that he was not charged for shooting a restricted firearm outside of a legal certified range, that is all.

I really do not care what your opinion is on the wording.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Under "Permitted purposes for a restricted firearm", you get your license with the purpose of target shooting or collecting, if you are target shooting you can only legally shoot it at a certified range, you cannot legally shoot it in your back yard.

Rick, I am just surprised that he was not charged for shooting a restricted firearm outside of a legal certified range, that is all.

I really do not care what your opinion is on the wording.

---

They can’t lay a charge that doesn’t exist, or they no doubt would have!!

1. The new self defence provisions of the criminal code can be used to justify or excuse discharging a restricted firearm regardless.

2. That the charge to the jury says the was no dispute over justification for the warning shots does not mean that firing warning shots is deemed justified; it means only that this was not a point of contention at trial.

3. The storage charges were laid way back, so the contention that this is some kind of payback is silly.

4. Stanley's defence raised no self defence arguments and relied entirely on a claim of accident.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

They can’t lay a charge that doesn’t exist, or they no doubt would have!!

---

Boy , you have some nerve! arguing with out resident expert on everything/anything discussed on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

1
3. The storage charges were laid way back, so the contention that this is some kind of payback is silly.

---

Silly? The crown was going after 2nd degree murder. They didn't get a conviction and instead, they got their fingers slapped with the "not guilty" verdict. This incident happened over a year and a half ago, the crown had plenty of time to bring any frivolous storage charges forward long before now. The fact that they are doing this now, I think, shows their true colours and intent. Theyre scrambling to get something to stick to save face and appease the liberals and first nations people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Silly? The crown was going after 2nd degree murder. They didn't get a conviction and instead, they got their fingers slapped with the "not guilty" verdict. This incident happened over a year and a half ago, the crown had plenty of time to bring any frivolous storage charges forward long before now. The fact that they are doing this now, I think, shows their true colours and intent. Theyre scrambling to get something to stick to save face and appease the liberals and first nations people.

---

They did bring the charges forward long ago. They are just now coming to trial.

This is typical in a situation like this. The more serious charges are heard first, and separately, to avoid having evidence on minor charges prejudice the more serious charges.

If these charges had just been laid in response to the verdict, there would first have to be a preliminary hearing. Criminal charges don't go direct to trial. The process takes months, at least.

So yes, silly.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk