Gerald Stanley; charges he improperly stored 7 guns

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..

Quote:

---

Stanley is now scheduled to face the improper firearm storage charges in North Battleford Provincial Court on March 19.
Scott Spencer, Stanley's defence attorney during the murder trial, said he will again represent Stanley.
The charges are tied to seven of the 10 firearms found by the RCMP during a search of the Stanley farmhouse and shop two days after Boushie was shot.

---

Quote:

---

Friedman said it's possible Stanley could come to a plea agreement with Crown prosecutors before his court date.
And if he doesn't?
"In my experience, somebody living in a rural property who's otherwise licensed but they haven't complied with the letter of the law when it comes to storage, they tend to be looking at non-jail sentences, anywhere from a discharge to a suspended sentence, maybe a fine."

---

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

Now,watch the political interference. You just gotta know the fix is in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Now,watch the political interference. You just gotta know the fix is in.

---

Not guilty of murder, but he'll swing on the rope for spitting on the sidewalk. You know that is exactly what is about to happen.

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.

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 see they tried to get his 'GoFundMe ' page taken down. His is taking more donations than the victims (?) 'GoFundMe' page....go figure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02...ys_a_23358697/

I have yet to hear the facts in this case in a clear and concise manner.From the snippets on the news reports Stanley was protecting his property either a truck being stolen or an ATV. Then he was protecting his wife being run over.The gun fired accidentally but on being tested was found to be working well.The deceased were looking for help with a flat tire.

If any of you have a link for a recording of the court proceedings please post it.

In the meantime the Crown can appeal the acquittal and I am sure that if there are any grounds this will happen.

Since the Crown wasn't successful in getting a conviction for murder, I'm sure it will become "death by a thousand cuts". I'm curious if any alcohol related charges were laid against the people operating and riding in the car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I have yet to hear the facts in this case in a clear and concise manner.From the snippets on the news reports Stanley was protecting his property either a truck being stolen or an ATV. Then he was protecting his wife being run over.The gun fired accidentally but on being tested was found to be working well.The deceased were looking for help with a flat tire.

If any of you have a link for a recording of the court proceedings please post it.

In the meantime the Crown can appeal the acquittal and I am sure that if there are any grounds this will happen.

---

Looking for help with flat tire? No. The deceased was a member of an intoxicated group joy riding for the better part of the afternoon on a rim and no muffler. The Stanley farm was the second property they attempted to steal from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

Since the Crown wasn't successful in getting a conviction for murder, I'm sure it will become "death by a thousand cuts". I'm curious if any alcohol related charges were laid against the people operating and riding in the car.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

If any of you have a link for a recording of the court proceedings please post it.
.

---

some printed facts that didn't come out till after the verdict, after the outrage by our politicians;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...rald-1.4520214;

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!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchhunter

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.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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.

---

OR, did that statement mean that the firearm possession was not germane to the charge being heard at that time??

The instruction in the charge simply reminds the jury that the Crown did not contest that point and it has no bearing on their decision.

It is not a legal ruling on self defence.

If it were, this would open a clear avenue of appeal, because had the Crown contested this point, the decision would be the jury's to make.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I see this going the same route Ian Thomson's case went.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchhunter

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

---

He did not have his restricted firearm out to look at it or clean it, he was shooting it, which is not legal unless you have a certified range on your property.

Therefore, there would be something illegal that he was doing, irrelevant of what the other judge has said.

Think about it, you can legally take your non-restricted out and look at it and clean it at your home in the center of Toronto, you go out on your lawn and start blasting away you are going against the laws.

BTW, to jaycee, I am speaking to the basis of my licenses and the information given to me by the instructors and backed up by the legal reference to those of the RCMP based on legal use of a restricted firearm, feel free to go out and do whatever the heck you want, I was told if I ever needed a gun to leave the restricted in the safe and save myself years of litigation. Ian Thompson from the Niagara area is a prime example, used his pistols, I just assumed they would be charging him with everything possible and hoping something sticks.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt...elf-with-a-gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

He did not have his restricted firearm out to look at it or clean it, he was shooting it, which is not legal unless you have a certified range on your property.

Therefore, there would be something illegal that he was doing, irrelevant of what the other judge has said.

Think about it, you can legally take your non-restricted out and look at it and clean it at your home in the center of Toronto, you go out on your lawn and start blasting away you are going against the laws.

BTW, to jaycee, I am speaking to the basis of my licenses and the information given to me by the instructors and backed up by the legal reference to those of the RCMP based on legal use of a restricted firearm, feel free to go out and do whatever the heck you want, I was told if I ever needed a gun to leave the restricted in the safe and save myself years of litigation. Ian Thompson from the Niagara area is a prime example, used his pistols, I just assumed they would be charging him with everything possible and hoping something sticks.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt...elf-with-a-gun

---

I guess you missed the part about Thompson being acquitted. Furthermore, he was never charged with “illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”. There is no such offence.
There is a huge difference between discharging your firearm in your back yard in Toronto, as you posted, and in rural Saskatchewan, where your nearest neighbour is miles away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I guess you missed the part about Thompson being acquitted. Furthermore, he was never charged with “illegal discharge of a restricted firearm”. There is no such offence.
There is a huge difference between discharging your firearm in your back yard in Toronto, as you posted, and in rural Saskatchewan, where your nearest neighbour is miles away.

---

It is still not legal to discharge a restricted outside of a certified range, period.

He was acquitted, but how long did that take him? Almost 3 years, but yet he was not charged for grabbing the non-restricted, just the restricted firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It is still not legal to discharge a restricted outside of a certified range, period.

He was acquitted, but how long did that take him? Almost 3 years, but yet he was not charged for grabbing the non-restricted, just the restricted firearm.

---

Well Fox, you are wrong. Firearms charges are found in the Criminal Code. Let me know when you find the charge you keep harping about !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

I see this going the same route Ian Thomson's case went.

---

That will depend on whether the Crown has tangible evidence re how his guns were stored.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

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

---

Thanks for clarification. All firearms were good and properly stored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

That will depend on whether the Crown has tangible evidence re how his guns were stored.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

There is a picture of his closet, they have an evidence tag on what looks like a gun case, they may just have been grasping at straws and depending on political pressure this could drag on for a good long while.

If he did things like many farmers I know and just have the guns tucks in corners of his shops and garages then there is not much he can really do to explain that away, unless he goes into the provincial hunting and protection of his farm against wild animals, which there are laws for in Ontario but unaware of them for Sask.

Provincial law can't nullify the Criminal Code. The exceptions for predator control are quite clear.

Given the number of charges I would expect the Crown has something solid here.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Provincial law can't nullify the Criminal Code. The exceptions for predator control are quite clear.

Given the number of charges I would expect the Crown has something solid here.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

No doubt, there are things that have not been included in this list (may be part of the charges just not listed) that I am sure he will have the book thrown at him for. They list storage violations but this could always expand.

In Ontario though you can have firearms unlocked and in the open for the purpose of predator control as long as the ammunition is not "readily available" but that builds in grey area and probably does so on purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

There is a picture of his closet, they have an evidence tag on what looks like a gun case, they may just have been grasping at straws and depending on political pressure this could drag on for a good long while.

If he did things like many farmers I know and just have the guns tucks in corners of his shops and garages then there is not much he can really do to explain that away, unless he goes into the provincial hunting and protection of his farm against wild animals, which there are laws for in Ontario but unaware of them for Sask.

---

Most information I have found supports your position,here is a copy of a post I found on this topic which seems well informed IMHO

"With the exception of laws respecting National Parks, National Defence property, and federal Crown land, no other Acts of Parliament or regulations made under Acts of Parliament apply to the loading, handling, and discharging of firearms generally. Section 29 of the Firearms Act prevents anyone from operating a shooting range unless the shooting range is approved by the applicable provincial Minister. A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.

What is "a regular and structured basis"? These terms are not defined in the Firearms Act or the various Regulations under the Firearms Act, so we must turn to their ordinary dictionary meanings. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines "regular" as "arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances" or "recurring at short uniform intervals" or "used, done, or happening on a habitual basis; usual". "Structured" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English as "constructed or arranged according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to". Until someone is charged with operating an illegal range and the definitions tested in Court, that is the best we can do.

In Ontario, the main Act which regulates firearm use in the Province is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997. Most of its provisions deal specifically in the use of firearms for hunting; the only provisions which is of general applicability to our question are s. 9(2) which prohibits the possession of any firearm in a Provincial Park or a Crown game preserve, except in certain prescribed circumstances and s. 17(1) which prohibit having a loaded firearm in a vehicle. Outside Ontario, reference would have to be made to the applicable Acts of the legislature of the Province in question and of any regulations made under such Acts.
...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

In Ontario though you can have firearms unlocked and in the open for the purpose of predator control as long as the ammunition is not "readily available" but that builds in grey area and probably does so on purpose.

---

That's an exception in the Firearms Act. It's not Ontario law.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote,”A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.”

This deals with commercial shooting ranges, where competitions and shoots are ongoing, not a range set up in a farmers back 40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

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.

---

I agree, can you imagine how Mr Stanley is going to live with this death on his conscience until he dies. Also the thought that at any time somebody may seek revenge,how safe will this make him feel for his family.Terrible tragedy for all concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Quote,”A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.”

This deals with commercial shooting ranges, where competitions and shoots are ongoing, not a range set up in a farmers back 40.

---

Are you taking the position that one can set up a range in a farmers back 40 and fire off a restricted firearm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Are you taking the position that one can set up a range in a farmers back 40 and fire off a restricted firearm?

---

I’m saying there is no offence of “illegal discharging of a restricted firearm”. There are no regulation that require the discharge of a restricted firearm only at a sanctioned range.
The only charges that would apply, are careless use of a firearm, if there was evidence to support “careless”. Note that section says nothing about that class of firearm in particular, but any firearm.
So, to answer your question, if an owner of a restricted firearm were to set up a range on his property, there is no offence provided all safety concerns were met. I am speaking of rural property obviously.
If you can remember an offence for simply discharging a restricted firearm in a place other than a range, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

OR, did that statement mean that the firearm possession was not germane to the charge being heard at that time??

---

Possibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Are you taking the position that one can set up a range in a farmers back 40 and fire off a restricted firearm?

---

Let's put it this way,who is going to call the cops on their own property? Are you going to call them on yourself? There's no law that says you can't build your own range providing you don't bother others and it's built safely. Really,all that's needed is an adequate backstop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I agree, can you imagine how Mr Stanley is going to live with this death on his conscience until he dies. Also the thought that at any time somebody may seek revenge,how safe will this make him feel for his family.Terrible tragedy for all concerned.

---

One of these hooligans was punching his wife in the face. Under these circumstances I would live and Sleep soundly for the rest of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Section 29 of the Firearms Act prevents anyone from operating a shooting range unless the shooting range is approved by the applicable provincial Minister. A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.
...

---

Well I guess you never check your rifle is still zeroed after the trip to camp. Or head down to the back 40 with a target or a box of clays.

Shooting clays in a field...Illegal discharge.
Check your rifles zero at camp...Illegal discharge.
Shoot the rifle out behind the barn....Illegal discharge.

Glad we don't have to live in your self imposed draconian world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Well I guess you never check your rifle is still zeroed after the trip to camp. Or head down to the back 40 with a target or a box of clays.

Shooting clays in a field...Illegal discharge.
Check your rifles zero at camp...Illegal discharge.
Shoot the rifle out behind the barn....Illegal discharge.

Glad we don't have to live in your self imposed draconian world.

---

No, like I said earlier, that Regulation is for formal ranges, like a gun club etc., where shooting is ongoing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

One of these hooligans was punching his wife in the face. Under these circumstances I would live and Sleep soundly for the rest of my life.

---

Not sure where you get your misinformation.

Per Stanley's own testimony, his wife was not even nearby until after the shooting.

Are you just making stuff up, or are you falling for stuff other people make up because you're too lazy to read the news?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
Section 29 of the Firearms Act prevents anyone from operating a shooting range unless the shooting range is approved by the applicable provincial Minister. A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.

---

In the concession that we live in, between myself, neighbors to the right of us , the farm the our 1 acre lots were part of , and the farm behind us, there are guns constantly being shot off, rifle and shot guns, [ target practice,] especially the farm behind us his son shoots his black powder cartridge guns off on most weekends, they do have a range up to 200 yards.
Nothing is ever or has ever been said, no one has ever complained as we all know each other.

Also as the crow flys, exactly 1,221.63 yards away in the next concession, a cop lives there , also no complaints from there either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

One of these hooligans was punching his wife in the face. Under these circumstances I would live and Sleep soundly for the rest of my life.

---

It was a drunken teenage female hooligan in this case and not worth the cost of a life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Well I guess you never check your rifle is still zeroed after the trip to camp. Or head down to the back 40 with a target or a box of clays.

Shooting clays in a field...Illegal discharge.
Check your rifles zero at camp...Illegal discharge.
Shoot the rifle out behind the barn....Illegal discharge.

Glad we don't have to live in your self imposed draconian world.

---

We are talking about restricted firearms in this debate,please stay awake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

In the concession that we live in, between myself, neighbors to the right of us , the farm the our 1 acre lots were part of , and the farm behind us, there are guns constantly being shot off, rifle and shot guns, [ target practice,] especially the farm behind us his son shoots his black powder cartridge guns off on most weekends, they do have a range up to 200 yards.
Nothing is ever or has ever been said, no one has ever complained as we all know each other.

Also as the crow flys, exactly 1,221.63 yards away in the next concession, a cop lives there , also no complaints from there either.

---

Refer to post above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Refer to post above.

---

Did you actually read your own post ?
Section 29 of the Firearms Act prevents anyone from operating a shooting range unless the shooting range is approved by the applicable provincial Minister. A shooting range is defined in the Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations as "a place that is designated or intended for the safe discharge, on a regular and structured basis, of firearms for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions." Again it is of note that the section makes no distinction based on the class of firearm and applies to all firearms of any class, including non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. A person cannot therefore shoot any firearm, even on their own property, if it is done on a regular and structured basis for the purpose of target practice or target shooting competitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

It was a drunken teenage female hooligan in this case and not worth the cost of a life.

---

The "drunken teenage" part would have been realized after the fact? I also understand there was a group of these "drunken teenage hooligans" on site and not behaving in an exemplary fashion? This man was defending himself and his family from the threat of serious bodily harm. The facts learned "after" the shooting have nothing to do with the perceived threat "prior" to. You should know this, you were a cop?

Very good discussion. Sorry to butt in. Just a quick comment. I never could understand why someone would put themselves in such a bad situation. I have several restricted firearms, if I thought my family’s well-being was at risk, the last thing I would grab is a restricted firearm! Why bother! You will always end up in a lengthy legal battle. Personally, the first thing I would grab is my trusty old shotgun loaded with buckshot. Just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Very good discussion. Sorry to butt in. Just a quick comment. I never could understand why someone would put themselves in such a bad situation. I have several restricted firearms, if I thought my family’s well-being was at risk, the last thing I would grab is a restricted firearm! Why bother! You will always end up in a lengthy legal battle. Personally, the first thing I would grab is my trusty old shotgun loaded with buckshot. Just my two cents.

---

X2. Multiple targets with one or two shots sure works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

X2. Multiple targets with one or two shots sure works for me.

---

It makes no difference what class of firearm you grab, you had better be damned sure your ducks were in a row........remember....”I feared for my life.”

What I find interesting is that Stanley made no self-defence arguments, instead claiming that the shooting was entirely accidental -- yet his supporters universally justify the shooting as self defence.

Seems to me the subtext is, nobody believes it was an accident.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What I find interesting is that Stanley made no self-defence arguments, instead claiming that the shooting was entirely accidental -- yet his supporters universally justify the shooting as self defence.

Seems to me the subtext is, nobody believes it was an accident.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

From everything I have read, a self defence defence would have likely failed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

No, like I said earlier, that Regulation is for formal ranges, like a gun club etc., where shooting is ongoing.

---

Was commenting on Gilroy's post with "Section 29".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

We are talking about restricted firearms in this debate,please stay awake.

---

The section "Makes no distinction between Non-restricted, Restricted....."

Maybe you need to read what you post.

Read the complete section you posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Seems to me the subtext is, nobody believes it was an accident.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

I suppose it is possible :ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Was commenting on Gilroy's post with "Section 29".

---

Ah.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

X2. Multiple targets with one or two shots sure works for me.

---

I can still find the loading recipe for 12 gauge rock salt in the back of one of my manuals...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Ah.....

---

No problem..beers and cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I suppose it is possible :ninja:

---

Or people are just sick of the trash getting away with too much for too long, and figure they got what they had coming.

Not saying the youths are trash, just that people are getting fed up with vandals, thieves, and people with no respect for other people property.

I am sure like most "kids", they would have settled down and got on with life after the wild oats where gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

What I find interesting is that Stanley made no self-defence arguments, instead claiming that the shooting was entirely accidental -- yet his supporters universally justify the shooting as self defence.

Seems to me the subtext is, nobody believes it was an accident.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

Regardless whether it was self defense or an accident, the outcome was morally justified. The punk got what was coming to him? End of story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

I am sure like most "kids", they would have settled down and got on with life after the wild oats where gone.

---

You havent been to very many northern reserves have you? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

You havent been to very many northern reserves have you? ;)

---

Hay river, Uranium City, Fort Mac, Fort Chip, Fort Mckay. No not many, but enough.

What would you have me say....The Truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

It makes no difference what class of firearm you grab, you had better be damned sure your ducks were in a row........remember....”I feared for my life.”

---

Yep! They're the first and ONLY words out of your mouth until you sit down with a lawyer and NEVER shoot at an escaping crook even he's got some of your stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

What would you have me say....The Truth?

---

The truth will set you free! But in this case the liberal snowflakes would label you a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

The truth will set you free! But in this case the liberal snowflakes would label you a racist.

---

I always found the Elders to be smart and very nice people. But the truth of it is scary. The wife of the owner of the cafe across from my school summed it up to cold hard facts once. She said there was nine kids in her family, but she is the only one that graduated high school, and lived to be over 38 years old. All three of her brothers died in prison or were killed on the streets.

Says her husband saved her, because she loved him enough to leave her family and move off the Reserve. His family found a family for her to stay with. Because of that she stayed in school.

These were not kids out for a joy ride. They were 2nd generation adult criminals on a drunk drive tour to steal from people they think are trespassing on their native land and impotent to stop them from doing whatever they want.
John

Relax. When Castro returns from his vacation in India he will don traditional Indian headgear and cry on camera. That will solve all problems. Honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Not sure where you get your misinformation.

Per Stanley's own testimony, his wife was not even nearby until after the shooting.

Are you just making stuff up, or are you falling for stuff other people make up because you're too lazy to read the news?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

I misunderstood what I had read Welsh. I made an error and for that I apologize. Yes , the 2 women were beating on his wife after Bushee was shot. Not lazy nor trying to spread mis information. You could of simply pointed out my error instead of coming off as a jerk with a bad case of Sandy vaginosis;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

The section "Makes no distinction between Non-restricted, Restricted....."

Maybe you need to read what you post.

Read the complete section you posted.

---

Merely pointing out that Fox was on the right track your going to get in bother if your firing off a restricted weapon other than a range and not in your back 40.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Merely pointing out that Fox was on the right track your going to get in bother if your firing off a restricted weapon other than a range and not in your back 40.

---

Ok. I'll take that a face value. Point out the rules for ranges, to round out the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Regardless whether it was self defense or an accident, the outcome was morally justified. The punk got what was coming to him? End of story!

---

Both parties are at fault.
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Both parties are at fault.
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.

---

There was no murder? Mr. Stanley was found not guilty, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Both parties are at fault.
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.

---

There might have been a murder if the land owner never had a gun for self defense. It better to read about a dead thief trying to rob someone, rather a dead innocent farmer shot and killed during a robbery. The farmer should be awarded for his bravery, but this is Canada where the victims become the criminals......

Given that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone intended to murder Stanley, that's a stretch.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

There was no murder? Mr. Stanley was found not guilty, right?

---

'Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

There might have been a murder if the land owner never had a gun for self defense. It better to read about a dead thief trying to rob someone, rather a dead innocent farmer shot and killed during a robbery. The farmer should be awarded for his bravery, but this is Canada where the victims become the criminals......

---

Rewarded for his bravery, where was the act of bravery displayed?

I personally don,t buy the hang fire theory and think he mean to kill the victim (yes the dead guy).I also don,t believe it was any accident,the shot was to well placed.Mr Stanley did not explain why he felt the need to turn off the car engine,in fact its contrary to what he said was his intended purpose to fire a few shots and chase off the suspects.Two had already run off and the victim was trying to drive off,he should have let him drive off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

'Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'

---

Gilly, are the nurse's letting you play on the computer again? Thank you for the explanation of the word "murder". Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of murder. That means, in my layman's thinking, there was nothing unlawful about what he did? yes? No? There was no "murder", no man slaughter, no crime!

Now go get your bedtime snack before the attendant locks up the fridge for the night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Rewarded for his bravery, where was the act of bravery displayed?

I personally don,t buy the hang fire theory and think he mean to kill the victim (yes the dead guy).I also don,t believe it was any accident,the shot was to well placed.Mr Stanley did not explain why he felt the need to turn off the car engine,in fact its contrary to what he said was his intended purpose to fire a few shots and chase off the suspects.Two had already run off and the victim was trying to drive off,he should have let him drive off.

---

He said very plainly he though his wife had been run over by the car and was trapped under it .that's why he panicked and tried to turn off the car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dutchhunter

He said very plainly he though his wife had been run over by the car and was trapped under it .that's why he panicked and tried to turn off the car

---

"I feared for my wife's life" is all the justification needed to use deadly force. Never mind the "accidental" shooting,he could have popped the driver,outright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

"I feared for my wife's life" is all the justification needed to use deadly force. Never mind the "accidental" shooting,he could have popped the driver,outright.

---

Except that he did not use this defence.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

So police can do it lawfully
Soldiers (like me), can do it lawfully

But Citizens..do not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

'Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.'

---

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

---

How do you charge an individual for improper storage of a firearm in a remote or isolate circumstance when any or all of his firearm might be the needed for predator control? When livestock are threaten you don't have the time to fiddle with security locks and search to come up with the right ammunition, as would be the case if you own a number of firearms. Whatever firearm you happen to lay hands on has to be ready to do the job.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
-Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Except that he did not use this defence.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

That's a very good question, isn't it? Why the he** not? Instead of a trumped up trial,it would have generated a Coroner's Inquest which would have answered far more questions than create more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

That's a very good question, isn't it? Why the he** not? Instead of a trumped up trial,it would have generated a Coroner's Inquest which would have answered far more questions than create more.

---

Because he would then have to explain how he arrived at that belief given that not one person, Gerald Stanley included, reported seeing Mrs. Stanley anywhere near the truck.

The story that he believed his wife had been hit by the truck was used to argue for lawful excuse for negligence. A moment of unfounded panic.

You can't use a moment of unfounded panic as the basis of a self defence claim.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Gilly, are the nurse's letting you play on the computer again? Thank you for the explanation of the word "murder". Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of murder. That means, in my layman's thinking, there was nothing unlawful about what he did? yes? No? There was no "murder", no man slaughter, no crime!

Now go get your bedtime snack before the attendant locks up the fridge for the night.

---

I Like That, Very Good! :) :goodstuff::goodstuff::goodstuff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Gilly, are the nurse's letting you play on the computer again? Thank you for the explanation of the word "murder". Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of murder. That means, in my layman's thinking, there was nothing unlawful about what he did? yes? No? There was no "murder", no man slaughter, no crime!

Now go get your bedtime snack before the attendant locks up the fridge for the night.

---

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

---

A jury says he did not commit murder. As a former police officer, I would think you would honour that decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

---

Murder has to be culpable. Apparently the jury didn’t find him culpable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

---

Pack a big lunch, it'll take you all day! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

---

ROFL! That's why the nurses tie the bed sheet knots behind your wheelchair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Pack a big lunch, it'll take you all day! :p

---

I would love to come as well. ...as long as you are gonna take us for some tasty trout like the ones in ur avatar. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

---

Good thing you are not on the jury. No bias there at all. Knowing only the tiniest fraction of the facts - how did you arrive at this conclusion when 12 jurors thought otherwise? Glad I was never a perp on your beat - you seem to think you know the case better than the 12 jurors who actually heard the evidence. Types like you are are the ones who invented drumhead trials and lynch mobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

I would love to come as well. ...as long as you are gonna take us for some tasty trout like the ones in ur avatar. Lol.

---

The more, the merrier! Gilroy n I go back aways. Harmless fun and I love getting under his skin!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

The more, the merrier! Gilroy n I go back aways. Harmless fun and I love getting under his skin!

---

X2. Most of the time,it's the only entertainment we have around here between him,fishermccann and Welsh.LOL

We aim to please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

The more, the merrier! Gilroy n I go back aways. Harmless fun and I love getting under his skin!

---

Have you noticed that it is very easy to do !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

X2. Most of the time,it's the only entertainment we have around here between him,fishermccann and Welsh.LOL

---

Till they agree with your option and then you just feel strange..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

The more, the merrier! Gilroy n I go back aways. Harmless fun and I love getting under his skin!

---

I hear ya and agree. I would love to share a few pops and some fishing time with all the members here. If we all agreed all the time this place would get boring pretty quickly.. we all would all do well to remember it is our love of the outdoors and related passions that brought us here and we likely have more in common than not.
I know I can be salty and abrasive at times as can other members but it's really not personal , heck this is only the internet and none of it is actually real. Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Till they agree with your option and then you just feel strange..

---

I agree with you.LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

I hear ya and agree. I would love to share a few pops and some fishing time with all the members here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I agree with you.LOL

---

Sounds like Gilroy's buying...that's one way to get people to drink with you.....LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Sounds like Gilroy's buying...that's one way to get people to drink with you.....LOL

---

He is Scottish and therefore cheap so I don't believe he will buy squat, he'll he will likely ask me to share a ride up and not offer any gas money, nevermind beer money. As long as he brings bail money and a befuddling kit we will be ok, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

X2. Most of the time,it's the only entertainment we have around here between him,fishermccann and Welsh.LOL

---

Sorry, Trimmer, but you're wrong there. I'm not amusing at all. At least that's what my kids say.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Not all Scotts are cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

He is Scottish and therefore cheap so I don't believe he will buy squat, he'll he will likely ask me to share a ride up and not offer any gas money, nevermind beer money. As long as he brings bail money and a befuddling kit we will be ok, I guess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Not all Scotts are cheap.

---

Yes I have known a few scotts in my youth. They were very generous young ladies..:shy:

A few drinks, dinner, and a rattle at the old tin can.:happy:

Ok, group hug everyone and let's move on? There's lot of arguing to get done yet! Now, where was I?

Roger that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

You better hope I never escape from here LOL.

No buddy in IMHO Mr Stanley did commit murder,his woes are far from over.

---

Just because YOU believe that to be true doesn't make it true.
I think if the crown went for Manslaughter or negligence causing death they likely would of succeeded but proving 2nd degree murder under those circumstances was tough if not impossible.

The Crown did go for manslaughter.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

closure:

Quote:

---

The Crown says it won't appeal the not-guilty verdict for a Saskatchewan farmer who was accused of fatally shooting a young Indigenous man in the head.

Last month, a jury acquitted Gerald Stanley of second-degree murder in the death of Colten Boushie, who was 22 and from the Red Pheasant First Nation near Biggar.

The Crown says a verdict can't be appealed because people don't agree with it or because there may be questions about the investigation.

---

Sounds like they were just waiting for the majority of the noise to die down, and let the subject go.

The lack of an appeal is not surprising because the grounds for appeal were not very strong. There has been some suggestion that the Crown erred in failing to object to problems at trial that might have given rise to an appeal. No objection, no appeal.

The unsafe storage charges still stand.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The unsafe storage charges still stand.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Those charges will likely disappear,too. Everyone in government at both levels just want the whole thing to "go away."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Those charges will likely disappear,too. Everyone in government at both levels just want the whole thing to "go away."

---

Not so sure. The left leaning agenda driven grave dancers aren't done yet and Trudough and his Min of Justice smell votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Those charges will likely disappear,too. Everyone in government at both levels just want the whole thing to "go away."

---

Yes, with the meetings at High River, the politicians being harassed, the RCMP in the hot seat, the natives getting restless, I'm sure a lot of people want to just make this go away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Not so sure. The left leaning agenda driven grave dancers aren't done yet and Trudough and his Min of Justice smell votes.

---

If that's what Trudeau and his Ministers are smelling out of this fiasco,they really don't know shyte from toothpaste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Those charges will likely disappear,too. Everyone in government at both levels just want the whole thing to "go away."

---

Stanley has pleaded guilty.

$3,900 fine, forfeiture of all firearms, and a 10-year prohibition order. This is in line with a joint submission by Crown & defence.

Guess those charges didn't go away. Imagine that.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Stanley has pleaded guilty.

$3,900 fine, forfeiture of all firearms, and a 10-year prohibition order. This is in line with a joint submission by Crown & defence.

Guess those charges didn't go away. Imagine that.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

The fine, hopefully won't be an issue since there is quite a sizable amount donated to the Go Fund Me account set up for the family. You donated to that didn't you A.J.?

The fine was $3,000, by the way. That's a typo.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Trudough has bigger problems stacking up since that debacle. The India tickle trunk tour/vacation and the BC/Alberta NDP fued. He is also no doubt worried about losing Ontario and Auntie Wynne who held his hand and got him elected. He now needs to prioritize his screw ups.
I doubt Stanley even wants to pickup a firearm again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I doubt Stanley even wants to pickup a firearm again.

---

According to his lawyer, he never wants to touch a gun again.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

According to his lawyer, he never wants to touch a gun again.


Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

---

Not sure I would either.

Not as outrageous as first appeared...he was charged with improper storage of 7 guns...fine $3000 = $430 each....

Then they tacked on an additional $900 for a victim surcharge... one has to wonder..there was no victim in regards to those guns.

Quote:

---

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are a J. Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle; a .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle; a.22-calibre bolt-action rifle; a Winchester 1200 shotgun; a Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle; and a Winchester 1894 rifle.

A previous charge relating to a Ruger Blackhawk .45-calibre handgun was dropped.

The Tokarev pistol Stanley testified he was holding when it went off and killed Boushie is not among the guns listed.

A prosecutor for the Crown said none of the guns were disabled.

---

Yea..storing your guns like this will get you in trouble...ahh the good old days :)

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4581894.152140410...ng?imwidth=720

Now being

Quote:

---

"banned from owning firearms for 10 years after he pleaded guilty Monday to improper storage of firearms" .

---

is an excessive sentence, IMO, for just a storage violation. Especially after the court heard that the guns were typical farm guns, tools used for varmint control and hunting.

I guess they wanted to send a message...but the optics are clear, this trail, although separate legally, was tainted by the first trial...

Note that this excessive sentence was a joint submission to the court.

That means Stanley's lawyer sat down with the Crown in advance and worked out a sentencing proposal both sides thought fair.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Not as outrageous as first appeared...he was charged with improper storage of 7 guns...fine $3000 = $430 each....

Then they tacked on an additional $900 for a victim surcharge... one has to wonder..there was no victim in regards to those guns.



Yea..storing your guns like this will get you in trouble...ahh the good old days :)

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4581894.152140410...ng?imwidth=720

---

All fines have a victim surcharge applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

All fines have a victim surcharge applied.

---

Yea I know..it just that 30% resonates more when the fine is $3K....I guess since he might be able to get compensation for being a victim when the trespassers go to trail, it may all pan out....LOL...(can you imagine the uproar) ...LOL....

Its too bad the farmer ran for his gun and didn't just lay a good old fist beating on the Indian.A lot less grief for everyone and the guy would be alive with few bruises.

First Nations. Indians are from India. Try not to be like the Neanderthal on the R word infomercials. # NoGoodWay

[QUOTE=MikePal;1058066]Now being is an excessive sentence, IMO, for just a storage violation. Especially after the court heard that the guns were typical farm guns, tools used for varmint control and hunting.


Yeh all them farmers need a Tokarev pistol,for varmint control and hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

First Nations. Indians are from India. Try not to be like the Neanderthal on the R word infomercials. # NoGoodWay

---

Amazing......but not surprising !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magic

Its too bad the farmer ran for his gun and didn't just lay a good old fist beating on the Indian.A lot less grief for everyone and the guy would be alive with few bruises.

---

The new politically correct term is now "indigenous" right up there with "personhood" and "peoplekind". ROFLMFAO!!

Hopefully we "adults" can teach our children and grandchildren better terms than Indian.

The most respectful name is that which they call themselves. In America,they still prefer "Indian". In Canada,it's First Nations. The politically correct names that particularly irritate are the ones given to them by politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

The most respectful name is that which they call themselves. In America,they still prefer "Indian". In Canada,it's First Nations. The politically correct names that particularly irritate are the ones given to them by politicians.

---

Such as "indigenous people," presumably?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Isn't it still called "Indian Affairs" and the "Indian Act"....therefore governance over "Indians" ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Isn't it still called "Indian Affairs" and the "Indian Act"....therefore governance over "Indians" ?

---

Yeh the Act came into force in 1867,most of us have evolved using better terms,some have not.

Their TV network is called APN for Aboriginal Peoples Network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Yeh the Act came into force in 1867,most of us have evolved using better terms,some have not.

---

There is a difference in evolving and being brainwashed by the Liberal agenda...if the Act of Parliament still call them Indians...they're Indians.

Who the F____ cares what anyone is called - grow some skin. Technically anyone not living in Africa (first nations included) is an immigrant. If we want to be absolutely politically correct we should all be referred to (except for those actually still living in Africa - they are just Africans) as Peripheral Africans (just made that up).

Who cares? Well obviously the people who are being called names they do not like. Should you not respect their wishes? Only the ignorant still call the Inuit, Eskimos.

Context grasshopper. A subforum on an obscure hunting site - who cares. It's the internet. You are a socialist leech with a bad case of male white guilt syndrome. I'm a red neck capitalist pig oppressing the proletariat. Nobody cares and other than the few people who I know personally here I don't care what who calls me what or what they think of me. Either way always fun to emerge from my under my bridge and post something that I know will draw you out from under your bridge.

If your life is about insulting others , that is a very sad life indeed. How do you know I am white? Back under your bridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

If your life is about insulting others , that is a very sad life indeed. Back under your bridge.

---

Context again. It's the internet - if you feel qualified to judge my life on the basis of a few posts - have at it - don't give a rip. In the context of this thread it is just you and only because of the big red staple's easy button on your forehead.

When you say things like ' who cares', it shows your true character, even in just a few posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

If your life is about insulting others , that is a very sad life indeed. How do you know I am white? Back under your bridge.

---

You do know you called Magic a "Neanderthal" right?

I just laughed when I read that.He can call me whatever. I have some friends from India and that's what they say when asked where they're from. Or thy say from Asia.Cowboys didn' t call them those awful first nation people they called them injuns

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onelessarrow

You do know you called Magic a "Neanderthal" right?

---

I said try not to be like the Neanderthal. I did not call him one. I did that on purpose so I could not be accused of name calling.

If everyone’s skin were a little thicker, the world would be a better place.

Agreed, under most circumstances. What is wrong with calling people what they want to be called, not what you want to call them? Seems fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

If everyone’s skin were a little thicker, the world would be a better place.

---

And a lot less “ Lieberal “ !!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Who the F____ cares what anyone is called - grow some skin. Technically anyone not living in Africa (first nations included) is an immigrant. If we want to be absolutely politically correct we should all be referred to (except for those actually still living in Africa - they are just Africans) as Peripheral Africans (just made that up).

---

I've been called a whole lot worse by a lot better people and I've been kicked out of better places,too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I've been called a whole lot worse by a lot better people and I've been kicked out of better places,too.

---

All I know is that Armageddon is coming fast when you start quoting Pierre Trudeau.Help,help, the sky is falling.

Mike Pal, if what you say is true about a deal. Isn't the deal likely to include a revocation of his firearm licence, leaving his livestock to the mercy of predators? In such a case, where he lives virtually in isolation, is the court likely to take that into account? After all this guy was about his own business until he was intruded upon. From what I've been able to read there appears to be an on going problem of similar intrusions and the RCMP appear to be stretched to thin to do much about them. I suspect, in his case, Stanley was found not guilty of murder by a jury, who were actually his peers ( farmer experience the similar instants of thievery), and they were out to deliver a clear message.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Mike Pal, if what you say is true about a deal. Isn't the deal likely to include a revocation of his firearm licence, leaving his livestock to the mercy of predators? In such a case, where he lives virtually in isolation, is the court likely to take that into account? ]

---

Shouldnt be a problem? His wife can get her PAL (if she doesnt already have it?) VIOLA! easy fix. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Shouldnt be a problem? His wife can get her PAL (if she doesnt already have it?) VIOLA! easy fix. :thumbup:

---

If there is a reason for a person in the same household to not have firearms then they can deny a firearms license to another person in that house as there would be a case that the person who cannot have firearms who have access anyway due to the family member with a license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

If there is a reason for a person in the same household to not have firearms then they can deny a firearms license to another person in that house as there would be a case that the person who cannot have firearms who have access anyway due to the family member with a license.

---

I don't think so,Fox,unless you can show us where it says that in law. That would mean that every Canadian who had a family member with run-ins with the law could be denied PAL/RPAL because of them? That's guilt by association and,as such,illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I don't think so,Fox,unless you can show us where it says that in law.

---

Fox is correct. The police have broad discretion to deny a PAL/RPAL to any person if they deem granting a licence to be a public safety concern. This certainly applies to people living with a person who is under a prohibition order.

Also, people seem to have forgotten that Stanley says he never wants to touch a gun again.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

My guess is Stanley might sell the farm and move away from that life. I wouldn't want to live where my safety is in joeperdy from retaliation and not being able to defend myself. I would be moving away from the reserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

My guess is Stanley might sell the farm and move away from that life. I wouldn't want to live where my safety is in joeperdy from retaliation and not being able to defend myself. I would be moving away from the reserves.

---

He already did sell the farm.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk