Gerald Stanley; charges he improperly stored 7 guns

[welsh]

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

[Dythbringer]

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

[Fox]

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

[rick_iles]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[rick_iles]

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 !

[welsh]

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

[Snowwalker]

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.

[Fox]

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.

[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