Using a Handgun on Private Property

[The Northerner]

thanx for your thoughts guys I kinda figured that it might come down to cops and court, not willing to find out what the out come might be

[trimmer21]

thanx for your thoughts guys I kinda figured that it might come down to cops and court, not willing to find out what the out come might be

Where you live,you'll have no trouble with a shotgun or rifle on an ad hoc range as long as you have permission if on private property. On crown land,as long as you're right off the beaten track and being safe,again,likely without a problem. When you put restricted or prohibited firearms into the mix,all bets are off. This lawyer can say all he wants. What matters is what the Judge says,after the evidence is heard. Is that a chance you really want to take? I don't. This thread is over five years old.Since then,quite a few things have changed and not for the better. Oh,BTW,welcome to the forum.

[The Northerner]

If you sat down at your picnic table and fired off a dozen rounds of 30-30 in your back yard, would you expect the OPP to show up? Would you worry if they did?

Nope the cops wouldnt show up and Im 99.9% sure I can shoot my long guns here with no problem any time, I'm also 8 miles out of town, there are gun shots at least 2 or 3 times a month up here after hunting season.. Natives up here can hunt year round.

[The Northerner]

And thanx trimmer21 for the welcome

[Fox]

This is not something I would test out, even if someone broke into the house I would go for the non-restricted first, there was a fight a number of years back of a guy who had people trying to burn his house down with him in it, he grabbed his restricted as well as his non-restricted, the way it ended up was that if he has only grabbed his non-restricted the prosecution would not have a leg to stand on but they decided to charge the guy for protecting himself with a handgun.

I think it is stupid, why can you not have a legal range on your own property, you used to be able to shoot a handgun on your own property but you also used to be able to use one for hunting.

I would never take the advise of someone who could make a lot of money off being wrong.

[Wahoo]

This is not something I would test out, even if someone broke into the house I would go for the non-restricted first, there was a fight a number of years back of a guy who had people trying to burn his house down with him in it, he grabbed his restricted as well as his non-restricted, the way it ended up was that if he has only grabbed his non-restricted the prosecution would not have a leg to stand on but they decided to charge the guy for protecting himself with a handgun.

It was the Crown having questions about the storage of the firearms AND the ammunition. It was all about the time it took to grab AND load them.

"Mr. Thomson was charged with four crimes: careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe (the second, a 9mm pistol, was never fired during the incident). The first two charges were dropped — it’s hard to imagine a more cut-and-dry case of lawful self defence than firing on men trying to burn down your home while you’re inside it. But the Crown insisted on pursuing the charges of careless storage.

On Friday, an Ontario judge acquitted Mr. Thomson of both those charges."

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...elf-with-a-gun

[trimmer21]

It was the Crown having questions about the storage of the firearms AND the ammunition. It was all about the time it took to grab AND load them.

"Mr. Thomson was charged with four crimes: careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe (the second, a 9mm pistol, was never fired during the incident). The first two charges were dropped — it’s hard to imagine a more cut-and-dry case of lawful self defence than firing on men trying to burn down your home while you’re inside it. But the Crown insisted on pursuing the charges of careless storage.

On Friday, an Ontario judge acquitted Mr. Thomson of both those charges."

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...elf-with-a-gun

The big difference with the Thompson case is that the crooks were trying to burn his house down with him and his family in it. He wasn't merely protecting property. Those a**holes were trying to kill him.

[topher]

https://firearmrights.ca/en/ join.. get the legal defense insurance ($80 a year) and if you get caught your covered.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Hunter John]

The big difference with the Thompson case is that the crooks were trying to burn his house down with him and his family in it. He wasn't merely protecting property. Those a**holes were trying to kill him.

Exactly. Yet many feel the guy who shot and killed someone over a pickup truck will skate free. LOL

[The Northerner]

The big difference with the Thompson case is that the crooks were trying to burn his house down with him and his family in it. He wasn't merely protecting property. Those a**holes were trying to kill him.

Thats just crazy never heard about that one, some of our laws seem to protect the criminal more than the victim, I heard it someone breaks into your home and you hit with a bat you can be charged for asult.