Printable View
I recently came across an eye catching wooden gun cabinet- yes there was a lock on the door- but the door was lined with a large class case which would be easy to break into. For the record I store all of my firearms in a metal gun safe- ---My question is this -if you have trigger locks on your firearms- would these wood gun cabinets be considered legal or not.Attachment 36400
Being kept in a traditional gun cabinet that could easily be compromised is not acceptable if no other security is used, but, as long as you have a means of disabling them - ie trigger lock, removal of bolt, etc, everything is good.
Given the above criteria, a person could hang them in the front picture window if they chose too. So yes, the wooden cabinet is perfectly fine, and legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
I say legal because it is under lock and key, but like you said i would put trigger locks on all firearms that can be accessible .
It's a beautiful piece of furniture. Trigger locks are your best friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by stilchen67
Out of site out of mind works for me, legal yes but temptation for some.
This is display and not storage, no ammo can legally be with it and the cabinet cannot be easily broken in to, once you need a tool to break into it then it is no longer easy. Yes legal but you cannot have the ammo with it, was looking at making some shadow boxes for some very old guns but not being able to display the old ammo and boxes hurt that idea.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...posage-eng.htm
Yes, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by stilchen67
My better half and I were talking about it yesterday, we are considering using something like that.
You people are all fools. Don't you know that having your guns easily accessible/visible means your wives can keep track of how many and what they look like? Rookies.......
Hey Foxy, What if you pulled the bullets and dumped the powder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
This, my friends, is a smart man!Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
That IS a locked container,therefore,it's storage as defined,not "display". Ammo may also be stored with them inside the locked container. As you cited,needing a "tool" (anything used as a tool) to break into a container negates the "easily broken into" clause of the storage regs. The OP is GTG as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Our last house had big beams with a 14' ceiling . I hung some old single shot 22, 12's and barrels (no stocks) on them. Took pictures for the local cfo to approve. One night a cop who was delivering a ticket made me borrow a ladder and tools so he could hand them in.......
What was that all about? Gotta be a hell of a story with this one.LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by patvetzal
I would argue that any cabinet with a window would be considered easily broken into. I am quite sure I could easily gain access with a quick kick or elbow to the cabinet window of the unit the OP has shown, no tools required. The NFA also states that unless a window is barred, it is considered to be not secure.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
There are no actual definitions in the regulations as to exactly what is considered a secure locked room, receptacle or container (any place with an unbarred window is NOT).
As well, they also mention that a typical locked closet is not considered secure even if the hinge pins must be removed to gain entry.
We receive many calls on this. Some people think a locked closet is considered secure, as described in section 5(1)(b)(iii) above.
However, if the locked closet can be easily opened by removing the pins from the hinges, then the closet may not meet the standard of being a “room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.”
https://nfa.ca/legal-issue/safe-and-...cted-firearms/
As I mentioned previously, just trigger lock or remove the bolts before putting them in a cabinet with a window.
A "barred" window applies to exterior building construction,not a storage case. What section states specifically that a locked closet is considered unsuitable? Look hard because you won't find any. Remember,the OP is dealing with non-restricteds. Although not defined,this was addressed by the Ontario Superior Court in R vs Barnes where the accused was acquitted on a charge of unsafe storage of non-restricted,restricted and prohibited firearms after a raid on a Toronto apartment owned by Henry Barnes (aka Johnny Sombrero) where all his firearms were stored in old metal school lockers in a locked bedroom. This case set a precedent because the Crown was very reluctant and declined to appeal,so,it stands to this day. Like already mentioned,trigger locks are our best friends. If there's any doubt in the minds of Police,this brings any question to a screaming halt,even if they're simply leaning against a wall or standing in a corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
Yes he is, and that is why I the material I referenced came from the the link entitled Safe, And Legal Storage Of Non-Restricted Firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
No one said all locked closets are unsuitable. The article said some locked closets may not be suitable, given certain circumstances. The Non-Restricted article I linked says a closet falls under section 5(1)(b)(iii) of Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms, which includes firearms "stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into". It also states;Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
"We receive many calls on this. Some people think a locked closet is considered secure, as described in section 5(1)(b)(iii) above. However, if the locked closet can be easily opened by removing the pins from the hinges, then the closet may not meet the standard of being a “room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.”
Why would this apply only to building construction and not a gun cabinet? Where does it say gun cabinets are exempt? It doesn't. The law is very ambiguous in its terminology. Although the NFA does state "There are no actual definitions in the regulations as to exactly what is considered a secure locked room, receptacle or container (any place with an unbarred window is NOT)."Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I'll take my cues from the NFA, as I'm sure they deal with the storage issue, and all the associated charges by various crown attornies across the country on a regular basis, and have a good understanding of how these laws are usually interpretted by judges.
It's legal until they get stolen, doesn't matter how secure it was. You could have a bank vault in your house and if someone drilled the locks over the weekend and stole the guns you would be charged with unsafe storage.
No you would not !!Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Well people have been charged in fact there was the famous case in Toronto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Mike Hargreaves, ring a bell??
Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Unfortunately that is often the case. It seems almost automatic for an improper storage charge to be laid against the gun owner when there is a theft, regardless of the circumstances or how ridiculous it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Any of the cheap gun storage case can be broken into under 30 seconds, they even teach you how on youtube.
Just under 2 minutes for a pretty rugged looking safe.
https://youtu.be/B8ViUdd-2LM
Those tin 22 gauge looker safes take about 30 seconds.
This is not true. Man you need to,adjust your tinfoil hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
The heart of the issue in the Johnny Sombrero case was whether a padlocked school locker constituted secure storage. Since the lockers in question were already in a locked bedroom, it is evident that this locked room on its own was not considered secure storage. As stated in the relevant evidence of the judgement:Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The guns in issue were housed in metal cabinets in a locked bedroom.
The judgement reads:
I find that the cabinets in which the defendant's prohibited firearms were stored fall within the definition of a safe. Both of the lockers in which the prohibited firearms were stored were made of steel. Each cabinet was securely locked: one by a key and a padlock; the other by a locking system that uses a key to unbolt rods in the door from the frame of the unit. Indeed, despite their disagreement on other issues, the Crown and the defence expert both accepted that the units were securely locked. The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was non-compliance with the regulation. The charges are dismissed.
http://firearmslaw.ca/wp-content/upl...-Judgement.pdf
Incidently, I noticed in reading the judgement that a person called upon as an expert for the defence, referenced the same NFA article, "Safe Storage Of Non-Restricted Firearms", that I have previously quoted from. That being the case, it would seem that the information the NFA presented has merit in a court.
The kindly Judge did us a huge service with that ruling. Now,let's just hope that it stays that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
This is direct from the " CDN. FIREARMS CENTER "
Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms
5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.
Display of Non-Restricted Firearms
8 An individual may display a non-restricted firearm only if it
(a) is unloaded;
(b) is rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device or is in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) is not displayed with and is not readily accessible to ammunition that can be discharged from it.
There have been cases of individuals charged with unsafe storage, but there may have been other circumstances involved, and also some overzealous cops have charged owners with same only to have these cases thrown out or discharged because of lack of knowledge by the cops in laying these charges.
Charges dropped in Mike Hargreaves unsafe storage case ...Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
https://www.reddit.com/r/.../charges...nsafe_storage/
Feb 24, 2014 - CGN is buzzing on news that the Crown after 11 years has finally decided not to pursue the unsafe storage charges against Mike...
Please read the RCMP link, if you can see them then they are displayed, if you take out the glass and put in a piece of plywood they are stored, not worth my energy going over this, that is why I posted the link, it has all of the details there, anything more feel free to call the RCMP.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
There was another poster asking about pulling the bullets and powder, essentially dumb rounds, it is possible but not with the guns I wanted in a shadow box, rimfire.
Is it your position that storing non-restricted firearms in a glass front container is illegal? If so,you've completely misinterpreted what the OP is asking and the way the RCMP website is worded. As long as his firearms are trigger locked or there's a cable or chain through the trigger guards,he can store them in that type of case as illustrated until hell freezes over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Question YES or NO was he first charged..
Seems was correct. I accept your apology! Seems like usual I was correct. Thank you very much for proving it.
Now I realize reading is probably not your strong point. But it [COLOR="#000000"]took him 11 YEARS to have the charges dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Reading isn't your strong point is it? But I accept your apology just buy me breakfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
Fortunately, or unfortunately, words like readily, securely, accessible, reasonably, etc are subjective terms which may be, or will be, interpreted by a particular judge. One person's version of secure.....
I've dealt with a particular ministry for long enough to know that the definition of 'secure' has come down to a point where the actual construction of a lock has determined whether charges were laid or not. If you think 'secure' means less than three seconds with a screwdriver to break a lock.......think again.
My two cents.
trigger locks only take a couple seconds to remove.
https://youtu.be/P397UsoyNBc
I read that if you had a bank vault and people broke into your house and drilled it open and stole your firearms, the police would charge you with unsafe storage of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Then I said this is not true....and it isn’t. Since the stupidity of the Hargreaves case, I think people generally know it doesn’t fly in court. Remember, the OP is asking about a see through display case here anyway.
You have posted in other threads some somewhat “exaggerated” legal interpretations of current laws suggesting a measurable level of paranoia around guns and law enforcement. I think you need to relax, hence the comment regarding a tinfoil hat.
Get it?
Delmer and Jaycee have already posted good info and the upshot is, you can keep guns in a glass fronted cabinet as long as the guns themselves are trigger-locked or disabled by removal of the bolt.
Remember, there are two Criminal Code offences relating to unsafe storage (and I think this is in the NFA link Delmer posted but I'm too lazy to re-read it).
The one people are always playing Internet lawyer for is 86(2), which is storage contrary to regulation. To convict, the Crown has to show that the firearm was stored (or displayed) in a way that contravenes a specific regulation. With respect to the glass-fronted cabinet on its own, the clear breach of regulation would be that it is easily broken into.
The other is 86(1), careless storage. For this, they don't have to show that a firearm is stored in a way that is counter to regulation; they just have to show that it was stored in a way that departs from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances. The courts deem that firearms are inherently dangerous and that a reasonable person knows this. Hanging a trigger-locked gun in your picture window (as someone suggested tongue-in-cheek above) could easily lead to conviction under 86(2).
I don't believe needing tools is relevant. If someone has seen case law containing that interpretation, please let me know what it is ... I think the distinction would be that if one has to bring tools to the scene for the purpose of breaking in, then the container is not easily broken into. But breaking glass with whatever lies to hand is not going to qualify.
Some food for thought:
1. a man in Alberta was convicted under 86(1) (the reasonable care standard) after storing his guns in a bedroom closet secured by a padlock. The particular closet and padlock were deemed too flimsy to qualify as reasonable care, without concern for the regulatory standard of "easily broken into."
2. a woman in Saskatchewan was convicted (can't remember which section) after storing a rifle overnight in a locked car, on the reasoning that car windows are easily broken (and tempered glass is much harder to break than the ordinary glass in a glass cabinet).
You have been asleep for a decade havent you.
Mike Hargreaves, ring a bell??
He had a bank vault it took thieves 3 days to cut through while he was away he was charged with UNSAFE STORAGE. He lost his guns and spent 11 years fighting in court. His guns were destroyed.
Apology accepted
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
Mike Hargreaves, a former Toronto-area gun-safety instructor and collector. Over the Christmas holidays in 2003, while Mr. Hargreaves was visiting his son in Florida, thieves worked to open the 770 kilogram concrete and steel safe he had had installed in his north Toronto apartment. For nearly two days, burglars used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open the vault, before they could make off with 35 high-powered handguns and rifles worth more than $40,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilly
You gotta love YouTube,eh? There's everything from defeating gun locks to Timothy McVeigh building removal techniques. What next? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired
And you will be fine to store on your wooden cabinet
I also found this for you guys to read
: The Toronto Sun
DATE: 2006.02.05
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
BYLINE: MARK BONOKOSKI, TORONTO SUN
COLUMN: Page Six
WORD COUNT: 774
ILLUSTRATION: photo by Mark Bonokoski Retired Toronto cop Ed Binstead is a firearms expert who still shoots in competitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF A SAFE'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR STORING LEGAL HANDGUNS, EX-COP ED BINSTEAD WOULD LIKE CHIEF BILL BLAIR'S OFFICE TO TELL HIM WHAT IS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the robbery of Mike Hargreaves' north Toronto apartment splashed onto the headlines -- his mega-heavy, 770-kilo concrete-and-steel safe having been relieved of 35 high-power weapons, including a Glock handgun used last September in a triple homicide involving suspected gangbangers -- retired Toronto detective Ed Binsted dashed off a letter to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
And, in that letter, he asked a simple question.
If Hargreaves, a respected gun collector and firearms instructor, can find himself being charged with the unsafe storage of his legally registered weapons when it took the thieves two days of heavy slogging with blow torches and sledgehammers to breach a vault that surpassed absolutely all requirements, then what kind of storage would the chief define as "safe?"
Not only was it a simple question, it was a good one -- especially since it was coming from a cop who is not only a firearms expert himself, but had almost 33 years' experience on the Toronto force (including being in charge of gun registration), with his last assignment being a fraud investigator at 41 Division.
Ed Binsted, however, whose years in fraud made him wise to the implications of putting anything down on paper, was certainly expecting an answer from the chief's office. But an answer in writing would be a long shot.
And he was right.
Nonetheless, he crafted his letter methodically.
"The reason (Mike Hargreaves') story is so disturbing," Binsted wrote to the chief, "is because I also own firearms and keep them in a vault-type safe for safekeeping. "Is this not a safe way to store firearms?" he asked. "If it is not, then please advise a better way, or one that would be acceptable to the police, that would not result in charges being laid if the guns were stolen.
"I have represented the Toronto Police department in many shooting competitions throughout Canada and United States and still participate as a retiree," he wrote. "I am quite familiar with the Firearms Act and the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with firearms, since I was in charge of gun registration back in 1975.
"Being an investigator, I learned what evidence is required in order to prove a case, and how the evidence can be presented to be acceptable to the court," he wrote.
"The picture in the paper of (Hargreaves' apartment) indicated that (it) was ransacked and the door on the vault had been peeled off and was laying on the floor.
"What I fail to see is how an investigator can have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the guns were stored unsafely unless he was present when the break-and-enter occurred and witnessed the unsafe storage of the guns himself before the theft," he wrote.
"The Firearms Act is an act under the Criminal Code of Canada and it is not a reverse-onus act. The Crown must prove that the guns were unsafely stored. The accused does not have to even get into the witness box to testify that they were safely stored," he wrote. "The officer must prove that they were unsafely stored and without an eyeball witness this would be impossible.
"A first-year law student would get a not guilty verdict without breaking a sweat," Binsted opined. "I feel that the officer who laid the information on the unsafe storage charge has left himself liable to a civil prosecution for malicious prosecution.
"In any event," Binstead wrote, "I await your reply as to a better way to store firearms other than a vault or safe."
The Canadian Firearms Centre, on behalf of the federal department of justice, puts out pamphlets concerning what is legally required for the storage of restricted and prohibited weapons such as handguns. And it is nothing compared to the lengths to which Mike Hargreaves went to store his handguns.
Under federal law, all that is required is that the handgun be unloaded and inoperable -- either through a trigger or cable lock -- and then locked in "a sturdy, secure container or room that cannot easily be broken open or into."
And that, basically, is the barest of minimums required, with a locked metal briefcase enough to legally pass as a "sturdy, secure container."
Safes and vaults -- with the thinnest of metals passing muster -- are the next step up, but are not legally required unless the gun owner wishes to store his ammo with his guns.
Mike Hargreaves' vault, by comparison, was a steel-and-concrete fortress so heavy that it would equal the weight of an Asian water buffalo.
"That's why I wanted a reply in writing," said Binsted, a member of two gun clubs. "I wanted to pass the information on to the members of my clubs."
A reply in writing, however, was not about to happen.
What Binsted got, instead, was a letter from Supt. Bob Clarke, executive officer in Chief Blair's office, indicating that his correspondence had been received.
And then he offered this. "While it is not our practice to comment on the validity of charges presently before the courts," Clarke wrote, "I invite you to telephone me to discuss other issues outlined in your letter."
Binsted, being an ex-cop with almost 33 years on the force, also knows a thing or two about phone calls. "When it comes to phone calls, you can always deny later on that you said what is claimed," said Binsted. "That's the problem with phone calls."
Nonetheless, with no other option, Binsted is going to take up Clarke's invitation to make that call. As soon as he finds his tape recorder.
Quote:
"A first-year law student would get a not guilty verdict without breaking a sweat," Binsted opined. "I feel that the officer who laid the information on the unsafe storage charge has left himself liable to a civil prosecution for malicious prosecution.
As I have mentioned before, charges have been laid by "overzealous cops " and as in Mike Hargreaves case, the charges have been dropped.
Makes you wonder if this cop had an axe to grind?
Now he will no doubt find himself in court facing malicious prosecution charges, he and anyone else involved.
Well,he should. The Oath of Office every Police Constable takes is quite specific "to enforce the law without fear,favor or malice aforethought......." When law enforcement enters the political process,there's enough clear evidence of conflict of interest and every LEO needs to realize that they can be held personally civilly liable for every tort committed by being over-zealous. It doesn't happen often enough and it most certainly should.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
An older gentlemen in my home town insists on keeping his guns in a wood cabinet with a glass door. During a recent visit I helped him install some unobtrusive trigger locks and made sure the ammo was locked up so he's legal. He hasn't shot the guns in years but likes to look at them and remember his younger days.
Just to let you see the difference - most of my rifles and shotguns are stored in a closet in one of my unused bedrooms - most of my ammo is also stored there - handguns are all over the place - some in a downstairs closet or in the kitchen cabinet - one on top of the refrigerator and one in my van - one 22 with a scope in laying on the bed of another unused bedroom so I can open the window and shoot any squirrels at my bird feeder - one deer rifle is leaning against the corner of the den - still there from hunting season - there are no kids living with me so I ain't worried about any kid getting at these weapons - a couple of the handguns are loaded - crossing that border sure makes a difference -
It sure does....but I'm not so sure it's for the better. A little fear is a good thing, sounds like some U.S. Citizens have forgotten how deadly guns can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
*sigh*....ok, calm down and take a breath GWQuote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Now, go back and re-read my posts. Pay special attention to my last one. I referenced the case, so yeah, I am aware.
Yelling insults and getting your panties in a knot doesn’t make you right. Me disagreeing with you doesn’t make me right. It’s the internet and everyone is entitled to call others out on their bs. You AND me.
the “apology accepted” comments are juvenile and condescending.
Some members should go back and reread the Forum RULESQuote:
Originally Posted by dilly
GUIDELINES:[COLOR=#000000]
[COLOR=#000000]Offensive language, including all racial, ethnic or sexual slurs, [COLOR=#000000]as well as personal attacks, including name-calling and insults directed at other forum members is prohibited.[COLOR=#000000]
[COLOR=#000000]3(a). Personal insults, inappropriate or offensive content, the incitement of violence, or disrupting behaviours, which are detrimental to discussions in the forum will not be tolerated.
I know the moderatators are busy, but they should crack down on these types of posts, it's happening more often now.
Nice. Kudos to you for helping him out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
A single instance of someone being charged in 2003 does not prove that every time guns are stolen, the owner is charged, which was your original claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Let it go.
Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
IMO every firearm owner has the responsibility to not only comply with the storage regs but to exceed the minimum requirements. The intent of the regs is to prevent accidental injuries or use of the weapon in a crime. I don't know about you, but I would feel pretty crappy if someone was killed as the result of my rifle not being stored properly and that I didn't take adequate steps to secure them. It's been pointed out in this forum how easily a vault or trigger lock can be defeated so at least use 2 methods to secure your guns.
As for protection from prosecution goes, forget about common sense. The police, politicians, and prosecutors all want to appear tough when it comes to guns, so they will consider anything to lay a charge. Even if you're innocent, they don't care about you or your rights. Expect the worst!
As for the OP's question, if you really want to use a glass wooden case, for goodness sakes, don't make it easy for someone to gain access to your guns. The best way is to make them inoperable e.g. remove the bolt or action. Don't rely on a trigger lock.
Every "travelling man" on the job thereby breaches his oath of office from day one and they definitely enter the political process.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I know Mike personally and there was a axe to grind as he was a defense expert witness in many trials and made some enemies as a result.I also know he was a marked man for other reasons.In this particular case probably the incompetence of the investigating officer played a big part also.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
I am sure we all would feel bad if someone stole one of our guns and used it in a horrible crime..... but lets not blame the gun owner, lets put the blame where it truly belongs........................................... ..... and that is with the thief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
I used to keep my guns in a display case similar to what the OP asked about. This is going back about 25 years now. At the time I asked a few cops I knew to visit my home once to inspect the setup. They were impressed with the craftsmanship/wood and display. They gave me the thumbs up on it, unfortunately society has scared me or has me so worried that I now have them in a secure room in a safe out of view/sight. What a shame. I ended up turning my display case into a nice looking bookshelf. :(
Completely agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Hargreaves is frequently referenced in safe storage discussions. Glossed over is that his apartment was in a Toronto Housing Community subsidized building in a known gang area, Hargreaves didn't live there and he rented the unit specifically to store firearms. His case is hardly proof that every time guns are stolen the owner is charged. In the intervening 14 years there have been many gun thefts where owners were not charged providing they established having met the legal storage requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Completely agree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badenoch