This Should send a message to the Government of Quebec and the Federal Liberals

https://www.richmond-news.com/less-t...ine-1.23554750

Less than 20 per cent of long guns registered in Quebec ahead of Jan. 29 deadline

MONTREAL — Quebec's attempt to establish a firearms registry is facing resistance, and with a January deadline looming, less than 20 per cent of the long guns believed to be in the province have been declared.

Pro-gun activist Guy Morin is calling on the public to "wait until the last minute" to comply with the law. The spokesman for Tous contre un registre quebecois des armes a feu (All Against a Quebec Gun Registry) said in an interview Friday his hope is either the registry will be abolished or so few people will register that it "cannot be enforced."


The government has put the number of long guns — mostly shotguns and rifles — in Quebec at roughly 1.6 million. But since the registry opened last January, only 284,125 guns had been declared, Public Security Department spokeswoman Louise Quintin said.

Morin, whose group last month cancelled a plan to hold a rally at a memorial site for the 14 women killed at Ecole Polytechnique, said Quebec's law is an affront. "We are Canadian gun owners, and this is insulting to us," he said. "Why do we have to register here when everywhere else in the country, you don't have to?"
The federal Liberals introduced the Canada-wide long gun registry in 1995, saying it would cost roughly $110 million. The figure multiplied and ended up costing taxpayers many times that before the Conservatives abolished it in 2012.
Following pressure from gun-control groups, Quebec passed a law creating its own registry in 2016. The government has given gun owners until Jan. 29, 2019 to register their firearms or face penalties of up to $5,000.
Quebec initially said its registry would cost $17 million and another $5 million annually to maintain. Quintin said in an email that the budget for setting up the registry is now set at $20 million.
Public Security Minister Genevieve Guilbault told reporters this week the government is hoping it does not have to resort to fines. "Yes, there are fines that can be applied for people who don't fulfil their obligations," she said. "But you know, before the repression part, I prefer to focus on the prevention part," she added, encouraging people to register their guns over the Christmas holidays.
Canadian law classifies guns in three categories. Prohibited guns such as automatics and restricted guns such as handguns must be registered with the RCMP. Long guns — rifles and shotguns that are mainly used for hunting and sport shooting — no longer need to be registered in Canada, except in Quebec.
Canadians have been debating the value of the long gun registry for years. The Ontario Superior Court ruled in 2014 against a constitutional challenge to the Conservative law abolishing the registry, saying "there is no reliable evidence" the decision "actually has, or will, increase the incidence of violence or death by firearms."
Morin said there was never a proper debate in Quebec about the registry because gun control has been a highly sensitive issue in the province since the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique shootings. "The anti-gun lobby is hiding behind those victims," Morin said. "There is no one at the political level who wants to displease these people."

Heidi Rathjen, co-ordinator of PolySeSouvient, a gun-control group formed after the 1989 Polytechnique massacre, lobbied for the creation of the Quebec registry. She rejects arguments it is a waste of money, pointing to provincial police statistics showing 80 per cent of firearms seized during crimes over the past 20 years were long guns.
Rathjen said a registry is essential because guns cannot be controlled if the government doesn't know how many there are and where they are.
"We've had the democratic debate," she said. "The bill was passed. This is now a question of whether or not the current government will yield to the pressure of a minority or will uphold the law."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

https://www.richmond-news.com/less-t...ine-1.23554750

Less than 20 per cent of long guns registered in Quebec ahead of Jan. 29 deadline


MONTREAL — Quebec's attempt to establish a firearms registry is facing resistance, and with a January deadline looming, less than 20 per cent of the long guns believed to be in the province have been declared.

Pro-gun activist Guy Morin is calling on the public to "wait until the last minute" to comply with the law. The spokesman for Tous contre un registre quebecois des armes a feu (All Against a Quebec Gun Registry) said in an interview Friday his hope is either the registry will be abolished or so few people will register that it "cannot be enforced."


The government has put the number of long guns — mostly shotguns and rifles — in Quebec at roughly 1.6 million. But since the registry opened last January, only 284,125 guns had been declared, Public Security Department spokeswoman Louise Quintin said.

Morin, whose group last month cancelled a plan to hold a rally at a memorial site for the 14 women killed at Ecole Polytechnique, said Quebec's law is an affront. "We are Canadian gun owners, and this is insulting to us," he said. "Why do we have to register here when everywhere else in the country, you don't have to?"
The federal Liberals introduced the Canada-wide long gun registry in 1995, saying it would cost roughly $110 million. The figure multiplied and ended up costing taxpayers many times that before the Conservatives abolished it in 2012.
Following pressure from gun-control groups, Quebec passed a law creating its own registry in 2016. The government has given gun owners until Jan. 29, 2019 to register their firearms or face penalties of up to $5,000.
Quebec initially said its registry would cost $17 million and another $5 million annually to maintain. Quintin said in an email that the budget for setting up the registry is now set at $20 million.
Public Security Minister Genevieve Guilbault told reporters this week the government is hoping it does not have to resort to fines. "Yes, there are fines that can be applied for people who don't fulfil their obligations," she said. "But you know, before the repression part, I prefer to focus on the prevention part," she added, encouraging people to register their guns over the Christmas holidays.
Canadian law classifies guns in three categories. Prohibited guns such as automatics and restricted guns such as handguns must be registered with the RCMP. Long guns — rifles and shotguns that are mainly used for hunting and sport shooting — no longer need to be registered in Canada, except in Quebec.
Canadians have been debating the value of the long gun registry for years. The Ontario Superior Court ruled in 2014 against a constitutional challenge to the Conservative law abolishing the registry, saying "there is no reliable evidence" the decision "actually has, or will, increase the incidence of violence or death by firearms."
Morin said there was never a proper debate in Quebec about the registry because gun control has been a highly sensitive issue in the province since the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique shootings. "The anti-gun lobby is hiding behind those victims," Morin said. "There is no one at the political level who wants to displease these people."

Heidi Rathjen, co-ordinator of PolySeSouvient, a gun-control group formed after the 1989 Polytechnique massacre, lobbied for the creation of the Quebec registry. She rejects arguments it is a waste of money, pointing to provincial police statistics showing 80 per cent of firearms seized during crimes over the past 20 years were long guns.
Rathjen said a registry is essential because guns cannot be controlled if the government doesn't know how many there are and where they are.
"We've had the democratic debate," she said. "The bill was passed. This is now a question of whether or not the current government will yield to the pressure of a minority or will uphold the law."

---

So there is approximately 1.3 million firearms that are not as yet registered. If we allow a figure of 3 firearms per person. That means roughly 434,000 individuals who would be subject to a fine of $5000 come January 29, 2019. That should be worth something in the order of $ 2.2 billion if fines when collected, that would be quite a cash cow for the Quebec government, if they are able to collect all of it. I have to assume gun owners can challenge the fine in court. I can’t imagine how tied up the court system will be with gun owners fighting the fine. I was under the impression that democracy was all about protect the rights of minorities. It will be definitely interesting to see how this plays out.

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

I will be honest If I lived in Quebec I would not register and I would continue hunting.

I would never put myself into a position where I was charged with a firearms infraction. I would register and then work to remove that government that allowed it to happen. Fighting a government in court would likely bankrupt most people. Our judiciary all the way to the SCC is packed with left leaning activists who feel entitled to create laws.

I would just move out of Quebec.

Than the registry will not go away. A major reason the LGR had so many problems is because less than half of the firearms were registered.
Quebec cannot give you a criminal charge just fines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I would never put myself into a position where I was charged with a firearms infraction. I would register and then work to remove that government that allowed it to happen. Fighting a government in court would likely bankrupt most people. Our judiciary all the way to the SCC is packed with left leaning activists who feel entitled to create laws.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Than the registry will not go away. A major reason the LGR had so many problems is because less than half of the firearms were registered.
Quebec cannot give you a criminal charge just fines.

---

Help me out here, so you don’t register your guns and they fine you $5000. You pay the fine and you still refuse to register your guns. What then?


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

Just like the RCMP could not toss thousands of Canadians in jail the Quebec Police will not. You have to fight back.

Did you think that the LGR went away only because Harper wanted it to go away? It was largely possible because those that did not register which amounted to more than half help to make it possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Help me out here, so you don’t register your guns and they fine you $5000. You pay the fine and you still refuse to register your guns. What then?


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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I will be honest If I lived in Quebec I would not register and I would continue hunting.

---

Easy to say when your a non-resident....

What a futile effort for the police to try and find 1.3 million non-compliant guns...even with the outdated data from the previous registry, they have no way of knowing where the guns are if the owner says he sold them. They will only find the odd ones during searches and those discovered during spot checks during hunting season.

I think the majority of firearm owners are calling the 'political' bluff and will never register there LGRs....much like they did during the original registry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

What a futile effort for the police to try and find 1.3 million non-compliant guns...even with the outdated data from the previous registry, they have no way of knowing where the guns are if the owner says he sold them. They will only find the odd ones during searches and those discovered during spot checks during hunting season.

I think the majority of firearm owners are calling the 'political' bluff and will never register there LGRs....much like they did during the original registry.

---

There was no effort to enforce the federal lgr. If Quebec decides they want to pursue non-compliance due to the fact of a 5000.00 fine, it wont be hard at all to have spots checks during hunting season and hitting all the hunting camps they want. Very easy from someone on the outside looking in claiming they would not register. I bet a 5000.00 fine during deer season would change alot of peoples minds...lol. I'm sure it would be a great lesson in front of your kid your taking hunting, to be issued a 5000.00 fine....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I would never put myself into a position where I was charged with a firearms infraction. I would register and then work to remove that government that allowed it to happen. Fighting a government in court would likely bankrupt most people. Our judiciary all the way to the SCC is packed with left leaning activists who feel entitled to create laws.

---

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

I would never put myself into a position where I was charged with a firearms infraction. I would register and then work to remove that government that allowed it to happen. Fighting a government in court would likely bankrupt most people. Our judiciary all the way to the SCC is packed with left leaning activists who feel entitled to create laws.

---

I absolutely agree. Any charge like that by any jurisdiction can and will come back to bite you on the a** later in ways you just can't imagine. The ONLY way to beat a leftist government is at the ballot box and let's face it,a politician is a politician is a politician. In the end,the ONLY thing they understand is election defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I absolutely agree. Any charge like that by any jurisdiction can and will come back to bite you on the a** later in ways you just can't imagine. The ONLY way to beat a leftist government is at the ballot box and let's face it,a politician is a politician is a politician. In the end,the ONLY thing they understand is election defeat.

---

Exactly....a provincial charge, regardless of the fine, would automatically trigger an investigation by the CFO. Your chances of having your firearms licence revoked would be pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Help me out here, so you don’t register your guns and they fine you $5000. You pay the fine and you still refuse to register your guns. What then?


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

---

Some folks like to keep battering their heids off a brick wall.Register the stupid guns and that way you not driving around or walking around waiting to get stopped and asked that awkward question.I know of guys that lost their guns going north for Moose hunt,got stopped in a spot check and lost their gun and their trip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Some folks like to keep battering their heids off a brick wall.Register the stupid guns and that way you not driving around or walking around waiting to get stopped and asked that awkward question.I know of guys that lost their guns going north for Moose hunt,got stopped in a spot check and lost their gun and their trip.

---

I know someone who had a break-in their home and had guns stolen. The home owner was charged with unsafe storage, lost a couple guns and cost him more than all his guns worth x2 in court. All because he decided he wouldn't register his rifles, he paid dearly even though he was the victim of a break-in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Some folks like to keep battering their heids off a brick wall.Register the stupid guns and that way you not driving around or walking around waiting to get stopped and asked that awkward question.I know of guys that lost their guns going north for Moose hunt,got stopped in a spot check and lost their gun and their trip.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

I know someone who had a break-in their home and had guns stolen. The home owner was charged with unsafe storage, lost a couple guns and cost him more than all his guns worth x2 in court. All because he decided he wouldn't register his rifles, he paid dearly even though he was the victim of a break-in.

---

The "I ain't registerin' my guns" crowd doesn't understand how fast that can happen,the same way the "I ain't lockin' my guns up" crowd don't get how fast needing Police at your house for something really bad and subsequently getting caught like a rat in a trap can happen,either.
O-O-O-P's ain't gonna cut it.

What if someone from Quebec borrows a gun from a friend in Ontario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

There was no effort to enforce the federal lgr. If Quebec decides they want to pursue non-compliance due to the fact of a 5000.00 fine, it wont be hard at all to have spots checks during hunting season and hitting all the hunting camps they want. Very easy from someone on the outside looking in claiming they would not register. I bet a 5000.00 fine during deer season would change alot of peoples minds...lol. I'm sure it would be a great lesson in front of your kid your taking hunting, to be issued a 5000.00 fine....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

What if someone from Quebec borrows a gun from a friend in Ontario?

---

As long as your tin-foil hat fits, I'm sure the police will believe you....

You could have a bank vault and if someone got in you would be charged exactly the same and this has happaned. A fellow in Toronto had an actual bank vault. Thieves spent 2 days to break in and he was still charged with unsafe storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

I know someone who had a break-in their home and had guns stolen. The home owner was charged with unsafe storage, lost a couple guns and cost him more than all his guns worth x2 in court. All because he decided he wouldn't register his rifles, he paid dearly even though he was the victim of a break-in.

---

Ok not sure exactly what you mean. I have lent out guns and have also borrowed some, so it is very possible for someone who lives in Quebec to have borrowed a gun from in a friend in Ontario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

As long as your tin-foil hat fits, I'm sure the police will believe you....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

What if someone from Quebec borrows a gun from a friend in Ontario?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

You could have a bank vault and if someone got in you would be charged exactly the same and this has happaned. A fellow in Toronto had an actual bank vault. Thieves spent 2 days to break in and he was still charged with unsafe storage.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Ok not sure exactly what you mean. I have lent out guns and have also borrowed some, so it is very possible for someone who lives in Quebec to have borrowed a gun from in a friend in Ontario.

---

I'm not lending you bail money?

This is not a criminal law in Quebec it is the equivalent of a parking ticket just more expensive. Second as I stated doews this mean people in Quebec can no longer borrow a firearm from someone in another province.

You do realize that part of the reason the LGR was able to be defeated was because many had not registered their guns. If you registered u supported it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

I'm not lending you bail money?

---

add to this ....If I remember correctly there was about 25% non-compliance in Que with the original registry....so the amount of firearms in the province is far greater that the 1.6 million they had originally registered.

Quote:

---

Quebec's Public Security Ministry says that 311,451 of the province's non-restricted firearms, which include hunting rifles, carbines and other long guns, have been registered so far.

That's up from 294,125 before the holidays, but is still less than 20 per cent of the 1.6 million firearms that were registered in the province when the federal registry was in effect.

Ministry employees were at a gun show this weekend in Longueuil, south of Montreal, providing information and paperwork to gun owners so that they can register by the Jan. 29 deadline.

Firearms can be registered by mail or online. The process is free. Once the weapons are registered, gun owners will have 90 days to affix a serial number to them.

Steve Torino, the director of security for the Lower Canada Arms Collectors Association, which put on the exhibition, says that the percentage of gun owners in compliance is likely even lower than 19 per cent.

---

It looks like less than 20% have re-registered their firearms this time around .....that indicates a huge non-compliance with this new registry. Apparently they aren't to worried about getting a fine. Which is $500..... to a max of $5000.

AND the Indigenous have been told they have to comply...HaHa....that'll be a non-starter.

It must be fun hunting in Quebec with an unregistered gun. Your head would be in a swivel watching for any LEO to show up........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

It must be fun hunting in Quebec with an unregistered gun. Your head would be in a swivel watching for any LEO to show up........

---

Probably much like here...haven't seen a CO in 22 yrs....after awhile you stop looking behind every tree.... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

You could have a bank vault and if someone got in you would be charged exactly the same and this has happaned. A fellow in Toronto had an actual bank vault. Thieves spent 2 days to break in and he was still charged with unsafe storage.

---

Mike Hardgreaves was the one that was charged in this incident.I know the man and he is a great guy,has a lot of knowledge on firearms and had been declared as an EXPERT for court purposes.Because he testified against the CROWN and for the defence he had a target placed on his back by the powers that be.When his apartment was broken into which was a Subsidised Ontario Housing Unit in a gang plagued area the powers that be decided that he should be charged,even although as you say the thieves had to work on the safe for several days with cutting torches.IMHO it was a complete disgrace this man was charged.He could have fought these charges and won but decided to go to the USA and was head of security for a few gated communities down there.The CROWN came to their senses awhile ago and dropped all the charges and the warrant for him was cancelled.IT should never have happened and he is owed compensation for his forced exodus to the USA.

Its actually to bad he did not fight these charges because it would have FORCED THE COURTS to give definitive decisions about exactly what exactly is Safe Storage. We would all be better off because right now any ill informed police officer can lay, lay charges.

This case is a perfect example where the firearms community should have gotten behind this man,financially backed him up and took the government to the wall.Unfortunately somebody else will have to be charged and take up the fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Probably much like here...haven't seen a CO in 22 yrs....after awhile you stop looking behind every tree.... :)

---

You likely won’t, hunting behind your house. We’ve been checked three times by COs and twice by the police....
Hunting in NW Ontario, there’s an excellent chance you will be checked by COs......and that’s a good thing !!
It’s not just being checked hunting one needs to be concerned with....

I thought eventually the charges were dropped after fighting for several years.

But regardless as I said you could store your firearms in fort Knox and if they were stolen you would be charged with unsafe storage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Mike Hardgreaves was the one that was charged in this incident.I know the man and he is a great guy,has a lot of knowledge on firearms and had been declared as an EXPERT for court purposes.Because he testified against the CROWN and for the defence he had a target placed on his back by the powers that be.When his apartment was broken into which was a Subsidised Ontario Housing Unit in a gang plagued area the powers that be decided that he should be charged,even although as you say the thieves had to work on the safe for several days with cutting torches.IMHO it was a complete disgrace this man was charged.He could have fought these charges and won but decided to go to the USA and was head of security for a few gated communities down there.The CROWN came to their senses awhile ago and dropped all the charges and the warrant for him was cancelled.IT should never have happened and he is owed compensation for his forced exodus to the USA.

Its actually to bad he did not fight these charges because it would have FORCED THE COURTS to give definitive decisions about exactly what exactly is Safe Storage. We would all be better off because right now any ill informed police officer can lay, lay charges.

This case is a perfect example where the firearms community should have gotten behind this man,financially backed him up and took the government to the wall.Unfortunately somebody else will have to be charged and take up the fight.

---

Thousands hunted in Canada with being registered in the LGR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

It must be fun hunting in Quebec with an unregistered gun. Your head would be in a swivel watching for any LEO to show up........

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Thousands hunted in Canada with being registered in the LGR

---

So, what’s your point ? Thousands drove impaired last year as well and got away with it. It just takes one slip and you are in a world of hurt !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

there’s an excellent chance you will be checked by COs......and that’s a good thing !! It’s not just being checked hunting one needs to be concerned with....

---

That will have to be explained to me....what difference would it make whether everyones gun is registered or not ?

If it had not been for the thousands refusing to register the LGR would most likely still be around. You can thank all those who refused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

So, what’s your point ? Thousands drove impaired last year as well and got away with it. It just takes one slip and you are in a world of hurt !!

---

Never once had a CO ask for registration permits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

If it had not been for the thousands refusing to register the LGR would most likely still be around. You can thank all those who refused.

---

BS, if it wasn't for Harpers Conservatives it may still be around.

It was also due to non compliance less than 50% of guns were registered. If everybody had followed suit it would have been a bigger political battle.

NB, NS and Ontario CO's were told not to even bother with asking for registration permits.

If you really think it was all Harper I have some land you can buy really cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

BS, if it wasn't for Harpers Conservatives it may still be around.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Never once had a CO ask for registration permits

---

There were lots of guys checked at game stations by COs who just happened to be accompanied by OPP. They did check registrations and firearms licences......guns were seized, firearms licences were revoked....not to mention the court dispositions. As far as noncompliance being the reason the lgr was killed...well, that’s just plain BS. I did not agree one bit with the lgr, but as Terry said, You would be a complete idiot to put yourself in a position of getting any firearms related charges....but many were, and many paid the price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

It was also due to non compliance less than 50% of guns were registered. If everybody had followed suit it would have been a bigger political battle.

NB, NS and Ontario CO's were told not to even bother with asking for registration permits.

If you really think it was all Harper I have some land you can buy really cheap.

---

Your tin-foil hat needs to be adjusted Mr Philadelphia lawyer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

It was also due to non compliance less than 50% of guns were registered. If everybody had followed suit it would have been a bigger political battle.

NB, NS and Ontario CO's were told not to even bother with asking for registration permits.

If you really think it was all Harper I have some land you can buy really cheap.

---

The reason COs didn’t ask for certs, was they didn’t have that authority under the Act.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That will have to be explained to me....what difference would it make whether everyones gun is registered or not ?

---

Exactly Mike....what real difference did it make to have your guns registered? Except for the fact that it was the law, and you risked losing your guns, firearms licence, etc.. The registry did make it easier for police to return guns found piled up in some crack house someplace !!

If you did not register your guns, and were found not to have done so, you deserved whatever punishment you received. Every hunter I have ever hunted with, registered theirs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

That will have to be explained to me....what difference would it make whether everyones gun is registered or not ?

---

Although I am not an Ayn Randian per say, she does provide plenty of food for thought, from her novel, Atlas Shrugged, page 411. It part of a dialogue a government official makes to the hero of her story. A reason why governments busy themselves creating so much useless and unnecessary legislation.


“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone (government)? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, ... that’s the game, and once you understand it you’ll be much easier to deal with.”


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, ... that’s the game, and once you understand it you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

---

That's what I'm finding amusing about some of the posts....the fact that the government says we must obey under threat of a fine is bad enough, but then it appears that some firearm owners then jump up on the band wagon and question those 'free thinkers' that decide to be non-complaint. Solidarity is sadly lacking here, even if you don't participate at least respect those that are putting up the fight. If they have less than 20% compliance with a law...it may raise a few eyebrows in places that need to look at the law.

I admire those that flout stupid laws, especially the Indigenous community in Que for standing their ground and are, I believe, refusing to comply. It will be great to see them take it to Courts and have it tested. If they succeed it will make it easier to have the law repealed. Civil disobedience can be effective.

So for Lefties Civil disobedience is OK for any other issue but not for anyone else. Got it, now I understand it's a two tier system.

I know a few LEO's who hunt not one ever registered, in fact back home I don't think I knew a single person who registered I know a few here in Ontario. None in Quebec, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

If you did not register your guns, and were found not to have done so, you deserved whatever punishment you received. Every hunter I have ever hunted with, registered theirs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

So for Lefties Civil disobedience is OK for any other issue but not for anyone else. Got it, now I understand it's a two tier system.

I know a few LEO's who hunt not one ever registered, in fact back home I don't think I knew a single person who registered I know a few here in Ontario. None in Quebec, Alberta or Saskatchewan.

---

A lot of hunters could not register because they had no POL. They decided that once their FAC had expired they could not or didn,t want to pass the Canadian Firearms Course .

Some of the comments about being charged with unsafe storage need a little more ‘splainin for this guy. Why would someone who stores their gun in a locked safe sold for that purpose be charged ?
Assuming of course that the LEO’s didn’t have any prior issue with the guy,

I find it enlightening, that some long time members of this forum would advocate breaking any laws, as that is expressly forbidden in the rules of this site........ In fact it is the number 1 rule, Solidarity? I back no one who knowingly breaks the law to make a point. Don't like a certain law, work to get it changed, otherwise you are just a criminal, no better than the gun totting bangers that your always complaining about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Some of the comments about being charged with unsafe storage need a little more ‘splainin for this guy. Why would someone who stores their gun in a locked safe sold for that purpose be charged ?
Assuming of course that the LEO’s didn’t have any prior issue with the guy,

---

Play on the opposite side of the law and find out what happens. LEO's charge who they want and let the courts sort it out whether your guilty or not. Some guys are very green to how they think all police work....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

I find it enlightening, that some long time members of this forum would advocate breaking any laws, as that is expressly forbidden in the rules of this site........ In fact it is the number 1 rule, Solidarity? I back no one who knowingly breaks the law to make a point. Don't like a certain law, work to get it changed, otherwise you are just a criminal, no better than the gun totting bangers that your always complaining about.

---

Fish man is correct regarding the forum rules. As for never backing anyone who breaks a law to make a point - in a hunting context I would agree. There are cases however where civil disobedience should be supported - not too long ago slavery was legal and those working the underground railway would have been criminals back in the day. All the various "Jim Crow" laws also come to mind. Let's not even talk about Prohibition that my grandparents suffered under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

As for never backing anyone who breaks a law to make a point - in a hunting context I would agree.

---

Gun registration is about property rights not hunting....

Supporting in principle people who challenge bad laws thru civil disobedience is a cornerstone to a good democracy. Whether you comply with a bad law or not is a personal choice and if you willing to face the ramifications of your actions all the power to you.

There is a difference between advocating breaking the law and morally supporting those that do.... as is the case with the Natives that are not going to support the Que gun registry. Take the law to the courts and let them decide if the politicians have the right to make you register your guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Gum registration is about property rights not hunting....

---

Your dentist might disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Supporting in principle people who challenge bad laws thru civil disobedience is a cornerstone to a good democracy. Whether you comply with a bad law or not is a personal choice and if you willing to face the ramifications of your actions all the power to you.

---

As I more less stated in my post civil disobedience should be supported in some cases.

Here's the article that lays out the problem with the Registry for the Indigenous of Quebec...

At least they can now put it forward to Shamus O'Tool ..the new minister of Everything Indigenous :)

Quote:

---

Sioui said he wasn't surprised but was "disappointed" Quebec acted unilaterally.

"Even the Supreme Court of Canada was extremely clear - in at least two cases - that federal and provincial governments need to do their best to consult with First Nations and to ensure that the application of laws (affecting us) is acceptable," he said. "All that was left out."
Sioui said the federal database was a failure for aboriginal people because most of them didn't register and were criminalized as a result.

He said hunting rifles move around often on reserves, between family members and friends, and the federal law wasn't adapted to the realities and lifestyles of Canada's natives.

Moreover, Sioui says the regulation of firearms is a federal jurisdiction and Coiteux needs to explain to community leaders how Quebec's new law relates to Aboriginal Peoples across the country.

Sebastien Grammond, a University of Ottawa law professor and an expert on aboriginal legal issues, said provinces and the federal government have the legal right to legislate for the control of firearms.

"There is no doubt a province can create its own registry," he said.

Sioui maintains a better approach would have been to grant First Nations communities the power to create their own registry - an idea the provincial government rejected.

---

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec...2946298http://

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Play on the opposite side of the law and find out what happens. LEO's charge who they want and let the courts sort it out whether your guilty or not. Some guys are very green to how they think all police work....

---

Thus my comment about LEO’s not having an axe to grind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Thus my comment about LEO’s not having an axe to grind.

---

If you actually think all LEO's play by the book and treat everyone the same and fair, you sir are sadly mistaken...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

If you actually think all LEO's play by the book and treat everyone the same and fair, you sir are sadly mistaken...

---

".....without fear,favor or malice aforethought" went out the window with quota hiring and dumbed down qualifications to suit the multicultural agenda. Canada is in a lot worse shape,now, than has ever been in history.

Seems I should have put this here after reading...... and on and on the media go with the fear... and the conclusion ... ban semi's of course. Well to be expected when Ryerson is a partner... Blair is the "hero" of the left that will save them from mass shootings.... they start with handgun and "assault" go to automatics, bring up antiques, lie about the catalogue in the 70's and by the time they draw their conclusion all semi's need to be banned .... :whacked:

https://theconversation.com/should-c...irearms-109536



The federal government has asked Bill Blair, the minister of border security and organized crime reduction, to consider whether Canada should ban handguns and “assault-style” rifles.

The media has focused mostly on the possibility of banning handguns. The idea of outlawing assault-style weapons, however, deserves more attention because this proposal could help avoid mass shootings but is extremely controversial among firearm owners.

The federal government’s engagement paper on possible new gun legislation notes that Canada’s current firearms legislation contains no definition of an assault rifle.

The paper instead offers an illustrative description from the United States Department of Justice: “In general, assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire.”

This definition suggests that the federal government is considering a ban on many semi-automatic rifles — that is, guns that can be fired each time the trigger is pulled. Such guns are distinguishable from manual action firearms that require shooters to use a mechanism to reload guns after each discharge, thus limiting rate of fire, and from fully automatic firearms that continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed.

Canada has long prohibited the possession of automatic guns.

Some semi-automatic firearms are non-restricted, meaning they can be used for hunting and only require purchasers to obtain a basic possession and acquisition licence.

Other semi-automatic guns are classified as “restricted” weapons. Such guns must be registered and are usually only fired at shooting ranges. Owners must possess a different licence and must have authorization to transport such firearms from one location to another.
Historical context of Canadian gun control

The interest in stricter regulations for semi-automatic firearms, particularly guns based on modified military weapons, reflects historic changes in gun design, marketing and ownership in Canada.

At the beginning of the 19th century, long guns were generally single-shot, muzzle-loaded, smooth-bore weapons that were slow to load, inaccurate beyond approximately 100 metres, and often misfired.
An antique 1876 lever-action rifle. (Shutterstock)

In the mid- to late 19th century, however, breech-loading guns replaced muzzle-loaded weapons. New ammunition and rifled barrels made guns more accurate at long ranges. Manufacturers also developed firearms with magazines that could hold several rounds of ammunition to allow more rapid firing. Typically, these guns used “lever action” or “bolt action” designs to load fresh cartridges into the chamber of the barrel.

When many Canadians think of a hunting rifle, what comes to mind is one of these guns, such as a lever-action Winchester rifle. Generations of Canadians used such guns to hunt deer, moose and other game.

Historic department store catalogues suggest that the popularity of semi-automatic guns among hunters is quite new. Stores like Eaton’s, Simpson’s and Army & Navy sold mostly manual-action firearms.
Eaton’s catalogue, winter 1934-1935. Library and Archives Canada

In 1975, for instance, Eaton’s advertised few semi-automatic rifles. As semi-automatic firearms entered the marketplace in larger numbers, however, some Canadians began to express concern about their availability.

Semi-automatic rifles have been used in many of the most infamous mass murders in Canadian history, including the murder of 14 women in the 1989 Montreal Massacre, the murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005, the murder of three RCMP officers in Moncton in 2014, and the Quebec mosque shooting of 2017.

Perhaps the first fight over the classification of semi-automatic guns in Canada concerned the AR-15, the firearm used in several recent mass shootings in the United States.
AR-15 restricted in Canada

In 1977, Ottawa made the AR-15 a restricted weapon. Prime Minister Joe Clark’s government reversed that decision, although Ottawa again declared it a restricted firearm in the 1990s. In 2016, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer sponsored a parliamentary petition asking that the AR-15 be reclassified as a non-restricted firearm. The AR-15, however, remains in the restricted category.

Canadians must decide how available modern semi-automatic rifles should be.

Many semi-automatic firearms based on military gun designs are now sold in Canada at stores such as Cabela’s. Manufacturers and retailers often call such weapons “modern sporting rifles” to make them sound less threatening.

Several gun groups like the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights argue that all semi-automatics with barrels of a certain length should be non-restricted. They suggest that guns like the AR-15 are restricted simply because of their physical resemblance to military weapons, and have urged politicians to make such guns non-restricted.

In 2016, the Conservative Party considered this change at its national convention, and Maxime Bernier has made this proposal part of his People’s Party platform.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, question why many semi-automatics, including the Ruger Mini-14 used in the Montreal Massacre, are non-restricted.

The federal government may prove reluctant to prohibit such guns because of opposition from gun groups.
Another option

Another option is possible, however. Ottawa could make all semi-automatic rifles restricted weapons. This would force owners to pass a more rigorous screening process, require the registration of such guns and place limits on how they’re used and transported.

This is not a new idea. In 1977, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police claimed that semi-automatic guns were “basically designed as an instrument of war” and that they had “no sporting use either in the cultural or recreational sense.” The association thus urged Ottawa “to restrict all semi-automatic weapons as a category.”

Ottawa refused to do it. But recent mass shootings in Canada have shown that such guns, if misused, are dangerous to the public and to law enforcement.

Legislators might well keep in mind the words of A.J. Somerset, author of Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun. He warns that as long as semi-automatic, assault-style rifles are widely available in Canada, a massacre like the 2016 nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., “is not simply a U.S. nightmare on the news; it’s a shadow falling over us, a possibility we can’t ignore.”

What is an”assault weapon”??
Is it the large capacity mag??? If so, that issue has been dealt with by banning them and limiting mag capacities. Is it the semi-automatic action ?? If so, my Remington 740 will be classed as an “assault weapon”... IMHO, Blair needs to establish a definition first....
In the mean time, I’m holding off buying a Benelli MR1 for coyote swatting !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

In the mean time, I’m holding off buying a Benelli MR1 for coyote swatting !!

---

You holding off makes it easier for them to take them away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You holding off makes it easier for them to take them away.

---

That makes no sense at all !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

You holding off makes it easier for them to take them away.

---

Sounds like you have all the answers

Attachment 37935

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

You could have a bank vault and if someone got in you would be charged exactly the same and this has happaned. A fellow in Toronto had an actual bank vault. Thieves spent 2 days to break in and he was still charged with unsafe storage.

---

Not so.

The one case where this happened is not as simple as you make it seem. You neglect to mention that the vault was in an apartment rented for the purpose of keeping guns and therefore unattended. That's not a conventional storage arrangement, so a question arises: what is the standard of care? Ought there to be an alarm system, for example?

The Crown took the view that the storage arrangement did not meet the standard of care.

Not a concern in "normal" situations. Many people have break-ins, lose guns, and are not charged. I've met & talked to some.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

That makes no sense at all !!

---

As do many of his posts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

".....without fear,favor or malice aforethought" went out the window with quota hiring and dumbed down qualifications to suit the multicultural agenda. Canada is in a lot worse shape,now, than has ever been in history.

---

Oh Boy talk about opening a can of worms with this statement.The Orangemen and Freemasons swore the same oath when they joined and had NO INTENTION of honouring that oath and that my friend was long time back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

Some of the comments about being charged with unsafe storage need a little more ‘splainin for this guy. Why would someone who stores their gun in a locked safe sold for that purpose be charged ?
Assuming of course that the LEO’s didn’t have any prior issue with the guy,

---

Well the place he stored the guns a crime ridden public housing area was not a wise choice of place to store such a cache of firearms along with him being an expert witness for the defence tipped the scales against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Sounds like you have all the answers

Attachment 37935

---

How did you get my photograph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Not so.

The one case where this happened is not as simple as you make it seem. You neglect to mention that the vault was in an apartment rented for the purpose of keeping guns and therefore unattended. That's not a conventional storage arrangement, so a question arises: what is the standard of care? Ought there to be an alarm system, for example?

The Crown took the view that the storage arrangement did not meet the standard of care.

Not a concern in "normal" situations. Many people have break-ins, lose guns, and are not charged. I've met & talked to some.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

The alarm system really is of no help at all, we saw many,many, break and enter and thefts where bad guys drove a stolen car through the windows of a gun shop,scooped up a bunch of firearms and were well on their way before the police arrived.Average response time when I was on the job downtown Toronto was 7 minutes.

The entire SAFE STORAGE concept in the firearms Act was to prevent suicides,having ammo and guns separate would make a person think before killing themselves.I am not saying this myself it was RIGHT in the firearms act video which I showed to the troops.Safe storage has not been defined by the courts as far as I know and its very open ended and subject to the discretion of LEO,s.

I am not to sure how you came to the conclusion the apartment was simply rented to store guns in.Does not make sense as the accused,s had plenty of places to store his guns,he was a firearms instructor and also had full access to the Lakeshore firearms range.I can tell you this for sure as he instructed me on my Glock at that very location.I think the fact that the CROWN dropped this
whole mess tells us a lot.

If a thief is determined enough they will break in anywhere, why the hell are we picking on the victim of the Break Enter and Theft.

What level are we going to set the bar at for Standard of Care.

I think a reasonable person would think a full metal extremely heavy safe which took the bad guys TWO DAYS using cutting torches to break open meets and probably exceeds the standard.

Also the fact that the CPFO was out to get this guy should have been enough to get this tossed out of court.

Just as secure as the vault where I have seen our local cops store their guns in fact it was probably more secure.
Also the charges were eventually dropped.


And as you know so well the Liberals made the rules as obscure as possible specifically for that reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Not so.

The one case where this happened is not as simple as you make it seem. You neglect to mention that the vault was in an apartment rented for the purpose of keeping guns and therefore unattended. That's not a conventional storage arrangement, so a question arises: what is the standard of care? Ought there to be an alarm system, for example?

The Crown took the view that the storage arrangement did not meet the standard of care.

Not a concern in "normal" situations. Many people have break-ins, lose guns, and are not charged. I've met & talked to some.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

How did you get my photograph?

---

Google lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Google lol

---

Actually I kind of look like him,well maybe without my tinfoil hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Just as secure as the vault where I have seen our local cops store their guns in fact it was probably more secure.
Also the charges were eventually dropped.


And as you know so well the Liberals made the rules as obscure as possible specifically for that reason.

---

OMG my first post this year agreeing with you again,heck you might end up turning me to the DARK SIDE.LOL

I dug this up while looking on the net for Mike Hardgreaves.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lor...eed-clarifying

Welcome to the Right Side. ;)

You should come by sometime when the Ottawa guy's get together for breakfast.

Did you have a nice Xmas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

OMG my first post this year agreeing with you again,heck you might end up turning me to the DARK SIDE.LOL

I dug this up while looking on the net for Mike Hardgreaves.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lor...eed-clarifying

---

Yeah I have seen that article. My buddies GF who is a cop (Well just retired last year) has seen my safe and yup it's perfectly fine unless I get robbed than the game changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

OMG my first post this year agreeing with you again,heck you might end up turning me to the DARK SIDE.LOL

I dug this up while looking on the net for Mike Hardgreaves.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lor...eed-clarifying

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

The alarm system really is of no help at all, we saw many,many, break and enter and thefts where bad guys drove a stolen car through the windows of a gun shop,scooped up a bunch of firearms and were well on their way before the police arrived.Average response time when I was on the job downtown Toronto was 7 minutes.

The entire SAFE STORAGE concept in the firearms Act was to prevent suicides,having ammo and guns separate would make a person think before killing themselves.I am not saying this myself it was RIGHT in the firearms act video which I showed to the troops.Safe storage has not been defined by the courts as far as I know and its very open ended and subject to the discretion of LEO,s.

I am not to sure how you came to the conclusion the apartment was simply rented to store guns in.Does not make sense as the accused,s had plenty of places to store his guns,he was a firearms instructor and also had full access to the Lakeshore firearms range.I can tell you this for sure as he instructed me on my Glock at that very location.I think the fact that the CROWN dropped this
whole mess tells us a lot.

If a thief is determined enough they will break in anywhere, why the hell are we picking on the victim of the Break Enter and Theft.

What level are we going to set the bar at for Standard of Care.

I think a reasonable person would think a full metal extremely heavy safe which took the bad guys TWO DAYS using cutting torches to break open meets and probably exceeds the standard.

Also the fact that the CPFO was out to get this guy should have been enough to get this tossed out of court.

---

I don't disagree with many of your points, though of course an alarm system might have prevented the thieves from spending two whole days getting into the safe.

Regardless: the fact that I understand the legal basis of the charges and the argument the Crown would make shouldn't be taken to mean I agree with the charges.

As you well know, the Crown needs to be able to make a good faith case or we get into malicious prosecution. The standard of care is up to the courts to determine.

In any case, this idea that having up your guns stolen will lead to you being charged is horse pucky.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I don't have any proof, but a Friend of mine who is my neighbors GF and just retired this year. Many and most times if your guns are stolen even from your safe you will be charged with unsafe storage and she said it happens a few times every year just in Ottawa alone. Any safe you buy in Cabelas can be broken into within a few minutes.

As I said my safe is perfectly fine according to the Ottawa Police,....... unless they get stolen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

I don't disagree with many of your points, though of course an alarm system might have prevented the thieves from spending two whole days getting into the safe.

Regardless: the fact that I understand the legal basis of the charges and the argument the Crown would make shouldn't be taken to mean I agree with the charges.

As you well know, the Crown needs to be able to make a good faith case or we get into malicious prosecution. The standard of care is up to the courts to determine.

In any case, this idea that having up your guns stolen will lead to you being charged is horse pucky.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Many and most times if your guns are stolen even from your safe you will be charged with unsafe storage .....

---

So you're saying the Crown is in the habit of laying charges with no evidentiary basis and no chance of conviction.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I don't have any proof, but a Friend of mine who is my neighbors GF and just retired this year. Many and most times if your guns are stolen even from your safe you will be charged with unsafe storage and she said it happens a few times every year just in Ottawa alone. Any safe you buy in Cabelas can be broken into within a few minutes.

As I said my safe is perfectly fine according to the Ottawa Police,....... unless they get stolen.

---

More BS !!!!!

What BS?? What that my Safe has not been seen by the cops??? That I don;t have a friend who just retired from the Ottawa Police force?? I dare say you have no idea, do you??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

More BS !!!!!

---

Really you think so??? I suggest you check your facts.

Seems to me someone on here called BS a few years ago when I said I Registry was never deleted and than lo and behold the liberals found it. Be careful what you call BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So you're saying the Crown is in the habit of laying charges with no evidentiary basis and no chance of conviction.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

I may not type as elegantly as you do. But trust me I know a lot more than you would ever imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So you're saying the Crown is in the habit of laying charges with no evidentiary basis and no chance of conviction.

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I may not type as elegantly as you do. But trust me I know a lot more than you would ever imagine.

---

So you *can* tie your own shoelaces?

Okay then.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

What BS?? What that my Safe has not been seen by the cops??? That I don;t have a friend who just retired from the Ottawa Police force?? I dare say you have no idea, do you??

---

I know you are out to lunch with respect to charges laid in cases where guns are stolen from locked safes!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

More BS !!!!!

---

........X2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

If you actually think all LEO's play by the book and treat everyone the same and fair, you sir are sadly mistaken...

---

I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I mean that a person who takes logical steps to safely store their firearms (ie in a safe sold for that purpose) should not fear charges if a thief got to them, UNLESS the guy had pissed off the LEO’s previously and they were out to get him. Which I think is what Rick and a few others are saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 73hunter

I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I mean that a person who takes logical steps to safely store their firearms (ie in a safe sold for that purpose) should not fear charges if a thief got to them, UNLESS the guy had pissed off the LEO’s previously and they were out to get him. Which I think is what Rick and a few others are saying.

---

Read my post I said a person who decided not to register his guns during the LGR had a break-in and was charged with unsafe storage. Although his guns were stored proper, he still was charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

Read my post I said a person who decided not to register his guns during the LGR had a break-in and was charged with unsafe storage. Although his guns were stored proper, he still was charged.

---

To get a conviction on unsafe storage, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt either

1. That the manner in which the guns were stored was contrary to regulation, or

2. That the manner in which the guns were stored, although not necessarily counter to regulation, did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances. For example: the guns are stored in a locked cabinet, but the key is left in clear view on top of the cabinet.

Either requires specific evidence of how the guns were stored. That they were stolen is not sufficient to prove unsafe storage.

So it is not inconceivable that a person whose guns were, in their mind, safely stored could actually be charged and convicted. But having your guns stolen won't necessarily lead there.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

To get a conviction on unsafe storage, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt either

1. That the manner in which the guns were stored was contrary to regulation, or

2. That the manner in which the guns were stored, although not necessarily counter to regulation, did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances. For example: the guns are stored in a locked cabinet, but the key is left in clear view on top of the cabinet.

Either requires specific evidence of how the guns were stored. That they were stolen is not sufficient to prove unsafe storage.

So it is not inconceivable that a person whose guns were, in their mind, safely stored could actually be charged and convicted. But having your guns stolen won't necessarily lead there.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

I guess you have problem reading as well. When did I ever say anything about him being convicted? I said a friend was charged and it cost him a lot of money. He found out the hard way how police work all because he decided not to register his guns, so they made life difficult for him. Again if you think all police play by the same set of rules, you are also sadly mistaken...

Geez guys, I guess none of us can catch up with Canadaman’s intellect - or attitude.

The safe storage of firearms was SOLD to gun owners under the guise of a prevention of suicide period. Why do I know this, I was one of the SALESMEN who sold this concept to a few hundred police officers who I had to train in the then new firearms legislation,as I was one of the first Provincially appointed local firearms officers.

Being on the job I had no objection to making sure guns were stored safely why would I.

The problem is in the wording of the laws and I believe this was done on purpose to give the police as much latitude in laying charges.

But here we are some 22 years on with no clear definitions on what safe storage is for the lay person or the police officer.

So hundreds of charges have be laid, deals are made to suit each case,including withdrawing them before trial and we still have a mess.

Its great for the lawyers as they make money,great for the courts,great for gun receptacle makers but really crap for the common gun owners.

The slight differences in the regulations between storage,display,transport,in use, add to the confusion.Hence the problem continues.

https://nfa.ca/2005/02/25/safe-and-l...cted-firearms/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canadaman30

I guess you have problem reading as well. When did I ever say anything about him being convicted? I said a friend was charged and it cost him a lot of money. He found out the hard way how police work all because he decided not to register his guns, so they made life difficult for him. Again if you think all police play by the same set of rules, you are also sadly mistaken...

---

Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not.

The Crown does not pursue charges where there is no prospect of conviction. Which means the Crown would have had to feel they could make out the elements of the 86(1) offence, i.e. failure to meet a reasonable standard of care, or that they had evidence the guns were not, in fact, stored per regulation.

There is a common thread in some of these replies suggesting police lay charges to harass people where there is no evidence of an offence. Reality is, malicious prosecution is a tort. Police will not lay charges and the Crown certainly won't pursue them unless they can make a good faith case. So, while the cops may try to "get" someone who for some reason is on their radar, it's very rare they'll do that without evidence of a real offence.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

welsh quote

" Police will not lay charges and the Crown certainly won't pursue them unless they can make a good faith case. So, while the cops may try to "get" someone who for some reason is on their radar, it's very rare they'll do that without evidence of a real offence"

Although you believe this truly and for the most part it is true the real problem is LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and CLEAR GUIDANCE about the actual laws.

If you were to give police officers a TEST on the storage laws I would bet MOST of them would fail and that is a real problem.The officers the would not fail would probably be hunters,target shooters themselves who have taken the time to dig into the laws.

The average officer who respond,s to a call is probably Normy Newguy as we affectionately called them as rookies.They have almost no idea about the differences between storage,display,in use.There is a knee jerk reaction with police and firearms that is long standing and the default position is Charge,Seize,
cover your arse and let the Crown deal with it.This is the harsh reality in most cases.

The first line of defence is NOT TO INVITE,ALLOW OR BE PERSUADED TO HAVE THEM ENTER YOUR DWELLING.The second defence is not to be sloppy in how you store your guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

If you were to give police officers a TEST on the storage laws I would bet MOST of them would fail and that is a real problem.The officers the would not fail would probably be hunters,target shooters themselves who have taken the time to dig into the laws.

---

True enough. But charges laid where there is no case are not going to go far.

Re knowledge of the laws, the flipside of cops who don't know the laws is that most gun owners seem to have only a superficial knowledge of our fun laws, coupled with overconfidence, which leads to people doing things that are illegal while believing they followed the law.


Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

welsh quote

" Police will not lay charges and the Crown certainly won't pursue them unless they can make a good faith case. So, while the cops may try to "get" someone who for some reason is on their radar, it's very rare they'll do that without evidence of a real offence"

Although you believe this truly and for the most part it is true the real problem is LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and CLEAR GUIDANCE about the actual laws.

If you were to give police officers a TEST on the storage laws I would bet MOST of them would fail and that is a real problem.The officers the would not fail would probably be hunters,target shooters themselves who have taken the time to dig into the laws.

The average officer who respond,s to a call is probably Normy Newguy as we affectionately called them as rookies.They have almost no idea about the differences between storage,display,in use.There is a knee jerk reaction with police and firearms that is long standing and the default position is Charge,Seize,
cover your arse and let the Crown deal with it.This is the harsh reality in most cases.

The first line of defence is NOT TO INVITE,ALLOW OR BE PERSUADED TO HAVE THEM ENTER YOUR DWELLING.The second defence is not to be sloppy in how you store your guns.

---

I would agree ! Unfortunately that shows the lack of proper in-service training......something I faught for, for years ! My opinion was/is that every recruit must take the Canadian Firearms Safety course....

I do not understand, how and why some people get the impression that, 'law enforcement', is out to get them. Personnel experience? What was it that you did to put yourself on their radar. I have never felt like I was being watched as they wait for me to make a mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

True enough. But charges laid where there is no case are not going to go far.

Re knowledge of the laws, the flipside of cops who don't know the laws is that most gun owners seem to have only a superficial knowledge of our fun laws, coupled with overconfidence, which leads to people doing things that are illegal while believing they followed the law.


Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

---

Charges laid that are not going far can devastate a family financially and mentally.I do agree with you that some gun owners play a little fast and loose with the laws but on the other hand there are plenty of people who have far more knowledge of firearms and the laws than the average police officer.

I do not know the level of training the police officers are receiving now but it is probably woefully inadequate as it was 20 years ago. The manuel given to me as a local firearms officer on the firearms act was 1600 pages if memory serves me well and difficult to interpret. Trying to do a good job I was on the phone often to a lawyer in Toronto I knew who was a firearms specialist,the CPFO and the lead lawyer in Ottawa for the government,trying to get answers to questions I had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

I do not understand, how and why some people get the impression that, 'law enforcement', is out to get them. Personnel experience? What was it that you did to put yourself on their radar. I have never felt like I was being watched as they wait for me to make a mistake.

---

Well unfortunately its true in some cases and Mike Hardgreaves is one such example and I can tell you from personal experience that he was targeted for charges.The Crown Attorney,s office came up against him when he testified as a expert witness in Crown cases which they lost.Instead of blaming the police it was better to take this man down.There were some complaints (supposedly) that he was passing armed security guards to easily in their restricted firearms training,cutting corners to make money.One of Mike,s best friends was retired Toronto Deputy Chief Constable Peter Scott now deceased whom I worked for as a rookie.Peter and Mike were both from England and pretty straight up guys,I do not think Deputy Scott would keep friends with persons of bad character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I would agree ! Unfortunately that shows the lack of proper in-service training......something I faught for, for years ! My opinion was/is that every recruit must take the Canadian Firearms Safety course....

---

I agree with you fully and even as a firearms officer I had not enough training even to handle firearms outside what I was trained on and I was one of the better one,s as at least I was a hunter.Police officers in Toronto back in the day would rely on somebody at the station to safety guns taken into the station Or even have the ETF come to a home to have the guns checked prior to moving them.The CFSC should be one of the requirements passed before you even apply for the job.The cost would be borne by the applicant and their training would be faster and easier at Aylmer.

On that vein I believe hands on range practice should be a component of the CFSC and its hard to figure out why its not apart from range availability,insurance..

I’ve downloaded and printed a summarized version of the safe storage regs that I found on a webpage which I think was from the RCMP or Canadian Firearms Centre - following that was the best defence I could think of