Using a Handgun on Private Property

[Fox]

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

There was a quote from him after the fact and he stated that as a Canadian gun owner what he should have done was left his handguns in the cabinet. They were all over him due to the ability for him to quickly access his handguns, not his shotgun or rifle. I remember that he was quoted as saying something to the effect of, I would do it the same way except I would not grab the handguns.

Total BS that the guy has to go through all that BS because his ammo and guns can be accessed legally.

For Mr Thomson though the old saying "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is very accurate here.

[Wahoo]

There was a quote from him after the fact and he stated that as a Canadian gun owner what he should have done was left his handguns in the cabinet. They were all over him due to the ability for him to quickly access his handguns, not his shotgun or rifle. I remember that he was quoted as saying something to the effect of, I would do it the same way except I would not grab the handguns.

I spent some time looking for that and could not find anything. Any link you could provide would be appreciated. I was thinking maybe the interview he did with the NFA after the acquittal but I did not find it there either. There is this statement, however:

"During my trial, the Crown prosecutor made it clear that he was being directed by the Ontario Attorney General. What happened to me was very much an attempt to make an example of me and to garner a decision that would tighten controls on use of firearms and storage of ammunition, Canada wide."

Pretty scary stuff being in the sights of the state.

Starts on page 22: https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/c...2013%20WEB.pdf

[trimmer21]

I spent some time looking for that and could not find anything. Any link you could provide would be appreciated. I was thinking maybe the interview he did with the NFA after the acquittal but I did not find it there either. There is this statement, however:

"During my trial, the Crown prosecutor made it clear that he was being directed by the Ontario Attorney General. What happened to me was very much an attempt to make an example of me and to garner a decision that would tighten controls on use of firearms and storage of ammunition, Canada wide."

Pretty scary stuff being in the sights of the state.

Starts on page 22: https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/c...2013%20WEB.pdf

He was absolutely right and so was the Judge who ruled against the Crown who chose not to appeal in case they lost. It could be argued that there was "malice" on the part of the prosecution for laying charges that seemed to be nit-picking or cherry-picking and then trying to build a case to facilitate an agenda of the Attorney General. That,in and of itself,brings the administration of justice into disrepute which is intolerable. It should also be noted that the Attorney General was/is a Liberal.

[patvetzal]

Lets not forget that we are now in a country where, according to Welsh's research, you are guilty under the Criminal Code just for loading your gun in an area where you cannot legally fire it. Wouldn't matter how long it took to unlock it.....

[welsh]

You commit a criminal offence for loading a firearm in a place where you can't legally fire it, yes.

But the reworked self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code come into play there. They don't simply allow a defence for assault or murder charges; they're a blanket defence against any criminal offence. So you would be not guilty of the loaded firearm offence if loading the firearm was necessary and reasonable to protect yourself in the circumstances.

Really, the loaded firearm offence exists to nail people who are carrying loaded guns around for no good reason.

[Bluebulldog]

Really, the loaded firearm offence exists to nail people who are carrying loaded guns around for no good reason.

^^^^^ This.

What people seem to forget, is that there are a couple of pertinent points to the rule of law. Not the least of which in the intent in which the legislation was drafted, and it's interpretation.

Unfortunately both of those particular facets don't get viewed until one finds themselves in a courtroom. Most Judges are fairly good when it comes to realizing that a law written to help prosecute gang-bangers, may possibly be mis-interpreted by lawyers, and eager LEOs.

[Gilroy]

^^^^^ This.

What people seem to forget, is that there are a couple of pertinent points to the rule of law. Not the least of which in the intent in which the legislation was drafted, and it's interpretation.

Unfortunately both of those particular facets don't get viewed until one finds themselves in a courtroom. Most Judges are fairly good when it comes to realizing that a law written to help prosecute gang-bangers, may possibly be mis-interpreted by lawyers, and eager LEOs.

OK then how about a eager LEO who is now facing a mandatory sentence in a law written to help prosecute gang bangers.P.C.Forillio.What is your take on that one?


That it is a police officer challenging the mandatory minimum laws is “an interesting turn of events,” says Laura Berger, a director at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which opposes all mandatory minimum sentences on the basis that they rob judges of the discretion to appropriately sentence each offender.

“I hope it causes people to maybe reassess the kind of stereotypes about the criminal justice system,” she says. “What a criminal looks like and what a fair sentence looks like.”

[welsh]

OK then how about a eager LEO who is now facing a mandatory sentence in a law written to help prosecute gang bangers.P.C.Forillio.What is your take on that one?

The law applies to everyone, provided the elements of the offence are made out.

As I pointed out above, there is a clear defence to the loaded firearm charge. It would be unlikely that anyone would ever be charged with loading a firearm in a self-defence scenario, as the charge is farcical if the real issue is assault, attempted murder, or murder. The intent of the law is to deter people from keeping guns loaded where they have no need of a loaded gun.

I am generally opposed to mandatory minimums because they remove judicial discretion. In Forcillo's case, however, I'm not much bothered. There are no s.7 grounds to complain that the punishment is inappropriate, because the intent element is not really in doubt: intent is the heart of attempted murder. We can make a sound argument that an attempted murder with a firearm ought to be punished more severely than an attempted murder with a knife, because knives do not kill innocents passers-by.

He did the crime, and he can do the time.

[Species8472]

OK then how about a eager LEO who is now facing a mandatory sentence in a law written to help prosecute gang bangers.P.C.Forillio.What is your take on that one?

So does your definition of eager mean "tried and convicted criminal?"

The mandatory sentence is too light in Forcillo's case. I fully expect a gang banger to kill people. A police officer on the other hand is supposed to be trustworthy and violating the public trust should be dealt with harshly. If his criminal conviction stands PC Forcillo should be given the maximum sentence possible under our legal system. If tried and convicted by our system and the conviction stands than he is worse than a gang banger (everbody knows they are douche bags and expects their behaviour to reflect this). Forcillo on the other hand was someone masquerading as a trustworthy individual who committed criminal acts while supposedly serving in a position of authority and trust (reminds me of kiddy diddling priests - different crime but same principle).

[Bluebulldog]

OK then how about a eager LEO who is now facing a mandatory sentence in a law written to help prosecute gang bangers.P.C.Forillio.What is your take on that one?

As already indicated by Welsh and Species. PC Forillo was convicted. The judge in fact had the power to recommend a lower charge to the Crown.

Mandatory minimums are not something I'm in favour of, as sentencing is often one of the biggest bargaining chips between Crown and opposing counsel.