https://oodmag.com/new-laws-take-effect/
Hunting and firearms groups fear that the new law, which does not allow hearings or appeals, will allow targeted complaints.
Printable View
https://oodmag.com/new-laws-take-effect/
Hunting and firearms groups fear that the new law, which does not allow hearings or appeals, will allow targeted complaints.
Court of Star Chamber courtesy of The Liberal Party of Canada.
So in no mixed words, we the people are now under another liberal dictatorship when our only right is to suffer from the oppression the government bestows on us. No appeals, no justifications, no burden of proof, no court of law. This is pure evil. I believe the American revolution was fought over this fact and kicked the Brits to the curb.
Guilty until YOU prove your innocent.
Temporary licence suspension ("Yellow Flag" law)
Former Bill C-21 introduces a temporary licence suspension regime under the Firearms Act. This is also known as the "Yellow Flag" law. When the law comes into force:
A CFO must temporarily suspend an individual's licence for up to 30 days when they have reasonable grounds to suspect the person is no longer eligible to hold a firearms licence (e.g. suspected of illegally reselling firearms)
During the temporary suspension period the licence holder will be allowed to keep their firearm(s), but will not be allowed to use, acquire, or import any firearms. If the licence holder does not follow these restrictions their licence can be revoked
The individual's use, acquisition and import privileges will be reinstated once the suspension period has elapsed or earlier if the CFO is satisfied that the reasons for suspension no longer exist
Any member of the public may contact a CFO with information about a licence holder if there are concerns related to eligibility or public safety.
There is no big deal here, if a citizen makes a complaint the CFO simply has the authority to suspend the a license for UP TO 30 days. A local firearms officer will investigate the safety issue and if it is bogus then the license is re instated.
The whole trick here for me is that the complainant SHOULD be invited into a Police Office and should be videotaped and the whole safety issue should be spelled out and recorded.
The complainant should be cautioned before submitting their statement that the matter will be FULLY investigated and IF they are found to be knowingly making a false allegation in relation to a firearms owner a possible charge of public mischief. This will take the steam out of the nasty neighbour complaint or ex companion type of complaints.
Unfortunately there seems always to be a hands off approach, let them complain and then if it does not pan out forget about any blow back.
I like the approach if it turns out to be bogus the gun owner victimized pushes for public mischief charges and if there is a conviction gets to sue for damages.
Public mischief
140 (1) Every one commits public mischief who, with intent to mislead, causes a peace officer to enter on or continue an investigation by
(a) making a false statement that accuses some other person of having committed an offence;
(b) doing anything intended to cause some other person to be suspected of having committed an offence that the other person has not committed, or to divert suspicion from himself;
(c) reporting that an offence has been committed when it has not been committed; or
(d) reporting or in any other way making it known or causing it to be made known that he or some other person has died when he or that other person has not died.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits public mischief
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
If the complaint is phoned in anonymously how can you charge the person with public mischief? Any person with a grudge or who believes that firearms are only for the military or police can phone 911, crime stoppers or the non-emergency number of local police, mention the word gun and/or stranger and hang up.
The police will attend and the legal owner will be approached for no cause. The wrong officer showing up unannounced might just try to escalate the situation if he is not comfortable with "private ownership" of scary looking plastic stocks.
Not saying all police act or feel this way but we all know there is the chance of an officer playing the heavy and trying to intimidate.
If anyone says this would never happen in Canada they are probably selling unicorn horns on the black market because they are living in a fantasy world.
John
I would hope that an anonoymous call would be given a lot less credit than one that can be verified. As it stands right now anyone can make a "swat" call and you have a problem at your front door.
Most cop's with an ounce of common sense or experience are not going to go to crazy for a caller who cannot be vertfied as they would have nothing to base the suspension on except that call, a Chief Firearms Officer is not suspending anybodies license on that information.
Roger Kotanko's friends and family would beg to differ. Let's not forget about the Jonathon Logan incident in 2004. That one cost a fellow I knew his promotion and eventually,his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Roger Kotanko,s case is very different and you should well know that and bears little reference to this provision.
https://torontolife.com/deep-dives/p...a-gun-control/
I can find nothing of Jonathan Logan in 2004 to comment.
Anonymous calls have to be attended to regardless if its about an individual or an address. It doesnt take much for an overzealous cop to escalate a situation. Imagine if this happened the day before you leave for moose hunting? Your season becomes redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Gilroy, agreed "most" cops use common sense as do most legal civilian gun owners. The problem is the 1/10th of 1% on either side. Someone has a bad day, poop happens, the wrong stance is taken by one side or the other and the situation which should not have been happening in the beginning escalates. Humans being humans, some are going to stand up to police if they feel they are being unjustly accused of a non- existent crime, especially if they know there rights.
John
Totally agree brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjyb
https://www.simcoe.com/news/case-aga...e05e323e2.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
The resulting law suits were filed against the OPP,the teacher and school board. They were eventually settled in seven figures paid by the Ontario taxpayers.
The Kotanko case was completely botched from the get go. It goes to graphically illustrate how out-of-control investigations and arrests can get through over zealousness. No way in h-e double hockey sticks should Roger Kotanko have lost his life. Incidents like these will occur,again,when laws like these are enacted without checks and balances in place to ensure due process doesn't go off the rails with the same results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Well brother you dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Please carefully watch the 4 minute video of these OPP officers just trying to do their jobs and one dying. Your citizen with his SKS and twenty round clip believed he was in the right, now he is off to jail for life.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ence-1.7505817
I'm painfully aware of the video,especially,after twice being in the exact same situation,thankfully with different results. There,but,for the Grace of God........Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
All I'm saying is that every situation is different.
And how,s that new law would have helped in this situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Suspension of home owners PAL would have 0 effect on his mental state/access to guns