9th circuit court of appeal and 2nd amendment ruling

[Gilroy]

They seem to be on the rise in the GTA and Peel regions. Brazen day light break ins, doesn't matter. Has happened to me, family members, friends and a co-worker in the span of just 5 years.

Point is if an unknown person breaks in, you must assume the worst. They clearly know that they are doing something wrong by entering a locked premises. Benefit of the doubt should automatically default to homeowner in that scenario and not be so circumstantial.

Rack the slide, fire a warning shot after verbally warning the intruders, whatever. And if they persist they do so at their peril.

There is a difference between a daylight break enter and theft and a home invasion. Most all break and enters occur when home owners are away and the house is empty and they simply want to steal. A home invasion is still a break and enter with the intention of committing the offence of robbery so will probably be a little more serious in the eyes of the court.

You can rack the slide, fire a warning shot whatever, but you better have a god explanation if you use deadly force on a guy simply making of with your telly.

[Gilroy]

Boy that is a stupid concept - who ever came up with that one - so if a nut job comes at you with a bat and you got a gun you are not suppose to use it - down here if a guy comes at you with a bat and you got a gun - he is toast - sounds like your laws are there to protect the criminal - when I hear about so many of your laws makes me all the more happy that I am an American - pretty simple concept - simple that's for sure

Well not exactly Joe you need to look at the section of the Criminal Code in Canada


25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose

When not protected

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

[fishfood]

Well not exactly Joe you need to look at the section of the Criminal Code in Canada


25 (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose

When not protected

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person’s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

So in other words we have to treat them equally lol.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

[Bushwhacker]

There is a difference between a daylight break enter and theft and a home invasion. Most all break and enters occur when home owners are away and the house is empty and they simply want to steal. A home invasion is still a break and enter with the intention of committing the offence of robbery so will probably be a little more serious in the eyes of the court.

You can rack the slide, fire a warning shot whatever, but you better have a god explanation if you use deadly force on a guy simply making of with your telly.

"You can rack the slide, fire a warning shot whatever, but you better have a god explanation if you use deadly force on a guy simply making of with your telly."

I agree, and there lies the nuance of the argument. There is the possibility of both overkill (emptying a magazine into the back of a frail unarmed granny as she's 30 yards from your driveway, who entered your unlocked home by accident due to severe dementia) and being caught with your pants down, hoping you are not harmed while a dangerous criminal brandishes a weapon inside your home. As long as the perp isn't retreating, the threat is very much real and should be treated as such.

Point is, if someone is willing to violate the law by intentionally breaking in, they forfeit some of their rights in the process. What else are they willing to do? Any unknown person or thing inside your residence must first be perceived as a threat. And for the people who think 'what's the big deal don't you have insurance'? that's not the point. Some things are irreplaceable. You give your statement to the police but rarely if ever are items recovered.

You don't have to use deadly force to stop a thief. I'm sure just being confronted at gun point will make them reconsider.

[Gilroy]

"You can rack the slide, fire a warning shot whatever, but you better have a god explanation if you use deadly force on a guy simply making of with your telly."

I agree, and there lies the nuance of the argument. There is the possibility of both overkill (emptying a magazine into the back of a frail unarmed granny as she's 30 yards from your driveway, who entered your unlocked home by accident due to severe dementia) and being caught with your pants down, hoping you are not harmed while a dangerous criminal brandishes a weapon inside your home. As long as the perp isn't retreating, the threat is very much real and should be treated as such.

Point is, if someone is willing to violate the law by intentionally breaking in, they forfeit some of their rights in the process. What else are they willing to do? Any unknown person or thing inside your residence must first be perceived as a threat. And for the people who think 'what's the big deal don't you have insurance'? that's not the point. Some things are irreplaceable. You give your statement to the police but rarely if ever are items recovered.

You don't have to use deadly force to stop a thief. I'm sure just being confronted at gun point will make them reconsider.

I could reverse this whole thing on you and ask you why some rural homes are targeted. Many are targeted when empty because there are GUNS in the home to be stolen. So the very item that you want to protect you is the reason the home is targeted in the first place. Now you will not get those guns back as the long gun registry is gone.

[WillieBeno]

I could reverse this whole thing on you and ask you why some rural homes are targeted. Many are targeted when empty because there are GUNS in the home to be stolen. So the very item that you want to protect you is the reason the home is targeted in the first place. Now you will not get those guns back as the long gun registry is gone.

Yeah ok. How about reporting them stolen with the serial # just like any other stolen property.

[WillieBeno]

An interesting turn of events.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...LlmygyHKvnxslc

[Gilroy]

Yeah ok. How about reporting them stolen with the serial # just like any other stolen property.

Not every gun owner record's serial numbers especially as they no longer have to do this.

[fishfood]

An interesting turn of events.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...LlmygyHKvnxslc

He did the right by protecting his family .

Cheers .

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

[WillieBeno]

Not every gun owner record's serial numbers especially as they no longer have to do this.

LMAO Very weak Comrade. Then I guess they don't deserve to get their property back. I guess some have been so indoctrinated that they need the government to do everything for them. Sad