If the Crown has one shred of credibility and integrity,they should recognize that these charges will be seen as vexatious and frivolous bringing the administration of justice into disrepute and immediately request a "stay" or a complete withdrawal.
Printable View
If the Crown has one shred of credibility and integrity,they should recognize that these charges will be seen as vexatious and frivolous bringing the administration of justice into disrepute and immediately request a "stay" or a complete withdrawal.
Nicely put....I think that since Mr Stanley has the funds (over $220K generated thru the 'GoFundMe' initiative), his lawyer will seek to plead it out and the crown will be happy to resolve it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Of course they will have to get the deal approved by Mr. Trudeau first..LOL...
If a person is home can he not have his restricted firearms out of the safe .say for cleaning or just looking at. .not sure how Thu can make unsafe storage stick
Stanley was not in his home at the time of the incident. According to his own testimony, his guns were in storage per the legal standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Not in his home? What do you define as his/my home? If I remove my pistol from it's locked case in my basement is it still in the home? If I take it out to the shed to clean it because of the solvent smell, is it still in my home?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
If I have control of my pistol in a place where it is legal to remove it from it's locked case, how do storage laws apply.
Something that should be pointed out. As strange as it may seem to people, in Provinces other then Ontario, people do shoot restricted firearms on "PRIVATE" ranges.
Stanley was outside, i.e. not in his home. He was working on a fence. His handgun and ammunition were in a shed. He intended to use the Tokarev for some target shooting after finishing his work on the fence.
This is his own testimony.
A firearm is considered stored when it is not in use, either present use or immediate use. This is the case law standard. We had a previous thread on this.
Since Stanley was working on a fence and did not intend to use his gun until that task was finished, his guns were not in immediate use and therefore stored.
Whether they were stored safely is an open question, but there is no doubt that they were stored.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
To say we are having a discussion on the legal requirements of what happened on his own private property is the problem. The guns laws are designed to ensure they side with the government control over your right. Those rights in this case, is the legal right to defend your property (which you do not have in Canada), let alone to brandish a firemen in defence of your property (not a self defence situation).
The second issue is the right to defend your life (not in this case), without limitations, while someone is on property or home. All these rights have limitations and allow the police the powers of arrest and let the crown sort it out.
This is what is wrong with Canada today, you used to have those rights. You do not anymore. Your rights all belong to government and they are granted back to in Privileges. Those privileges are subject to a judicial review, instead of being a right you have.
When reading the transcript of the Judge's charge to the jury,it must be noted that he said,quite specifically,that Mr.Stanley's possession of his pistol for self defense was not in question. That ought to put the "speculation" from armchair lawyers in perspective.
Line 052, I dare say, most voters do not want property owners to have the right to shoot others because they are on, or to protect their property. Protect a life absolutely , all can agree with that , but to protect 'stuff' , most would not.
OR, did that statement mean that the firearm possession was not germane to the charge being heard at that time??Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21