146 replies to this topic

[guyser]

Why?

Um...Columbine, different laws, different country...shall I go on?

These idiots like to brag before they do it. You guys all screamed about the gun reg , but this happens and it is ok. I read a article today about how the left hates guns umless they are pointed at a con.

Who said it was ok? No one.

Which article is it you read today ?

[g_bambino]

...[I]t is time the judges stopped writing the laws and started enforcing them.

Judges neither enforce the law nor write it. They render justice based upon the law and can only do so within the bounds of the law as written or established through convention. In this case, the constitution - as it always does - trumps an Act of Parliament. That fact isn't the judge's fault.

[Peeves]

what if his friend didnt tell him it was stolen?

Now your taking flights of fancy.

Look. It was not his gun...He had no right to have it in his possession.
It was not securely stored per law...

It was loaded also breaking the law.
He was in illegal possession of a loaded unsecured fire arm.

That was grounds for incarceration or a fine, or both.

Now try to slip around them FACTS!

[Peeves]

Judges neither enforce the law nor write it. They render justice based upon the law and can only do so within the bounds of the law as written or established through convention. In this case, the constitution - as it always does - trumps an Act of Parliament. That fact isn't the judge's fault.

Tis so. AND judges all too often try to set the laws rather than administer them.. If the proscribed sentence was deemed inappropriate by his lawyer an appeal would be his next move. The judge should be removed from the bench pending a judicial review.

[olpfan1]

Now your taking flights of fancy.

Look. It was not his gun...He had no right to have it in his possession.
It was not securely stored per law...

It was loaded also breaking the law.
He was in illegal possession of a loaded unsecured fire arm.

That was grounds for incarceration or a fine, or both.

Now try to slip around them FACTS!

Facts? maybe, but the judge found it Unconstitutional.. Did you know the thing we call The Charter of Rights & Freedoms trumps law?

You seem to be Anti charter peeves, what gives?

Edited by olpfan1, 14 February 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[olpfan1]

The dude was at his cousins apartment..it WASN'T his apartment .. yes, he was posing with it to look cool like normal young guys do in a time and age where guns are seen as cool..3 years for that? rofl, that is not justice Peeves, the judge couldn't connect this guy to his cousins criminal activities and it's against the Charter to assume he's guilty because he's at his cousins apartment

You are way, way, way out of line on this Peeves

Edited by olpfan1, 14 February 2012 - 01:28 PM.

[Peeves]

Sounds like a reasonable judgement to me...

What is unreasonable is sending an idiot to jail as if he was some sort of criminal.

The funny part is, if the right-wingers on this forum had their way and gun laws were more like the USA's gun laws, what this guy was doing would not even be illegal! But now they want him thrown in jail for three years....

How do they square that circle???

What the USA laws are is a non sequitur.

Laws are not like the USA's though and we here know that it is a crime to be holding an illegal, loaded firearm.
Since I have one, I certainly know.
It must be registered. I must have a license FAC to have one. I must store it securely with the bullets stored separately.

The guy was breaking SEVERAL CANADIAN laws.



Liberals in Ontario agree with mandatory minimum sentences.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mcguinty-reaffirms-support-for-mandatory-minimum-sentences-139287038.html

[olpfan1]

Liberals in Ontario agree with mandatory minimum sentences.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mcguinty-reaffirms-support-for-mandatory-minimum-sentences-139287038.html

I don't think many people like Mcguinty and his lieberals..he was only elected in again cause it was either him or Hudak

your link also said he wants to BAN ALL HANDGUNS, do you support it still?

Edited by olpfan1, 14 February 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[guyser]

Now your taking flights of fancy.

Careful, so could you be...

Look. It was not his gun...He had no right to have it in his possession.
It was not securely stored per law...

Custody is not necessarily possession. He did not possess anything anymore than you are in my house and possess my remote.

Securely stored is not his problem.

It was loaded also breaking the law.
He was in illegal possession of a loaded unsecured fire arm.

That was grounds for incarceration or a fine, or both.

Now try to slip around them FACTS!

Loaded but not his , not illegal possession or a loaded firearm.....what facts ?

[dre]

Tis so. AND judges all too often try to set the laws rather than administer them.. If the proscribed sentence was deemed inappropriate by his lawyer an appeal would be his next move. The judge should be removed from the bench pending a judicial review.

Politicians should be completely removed from the sentencing process. They offer absolutely nothing of value, and the last thing we need is a politician thousands of miles away deciding the outcome of a trial without hearing a word of testimony or reviewing a shred of evidence.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is an utter abject failure.


It would have cost about 1/4 of a million dollars to throw this guy in jail for three years, and quite likely deprived the government of a bunch of tax revenue as well. And he would likely pose a bigger risk to society after being immerse in prison culture for 3 years, and making a new group of friends and associates there, then he his now.

[Argus]

It's a difficult situation. Any policy or regulation made for >ALL< cases will inevitably be grossly unfair in at least a few. You need a mechanism for stepping outside the one-size-fits-all rules now and then. The problem is that judges have demonstrated in the past a striking laxness in punishing gun offenses. I remember one particular case where known criminals, gang members, were stopped by police near Cornwall, and a loaded UZI was found in the car. The police charged them, and the judge gave them a fine and let them go. It was because of cases like that the government put mandatory minimums into place. The real question here, if the facts are believed, is why the Crown didn't plead this down. It seems an unfair charge on the face of it. Why did the Crown want to slam him into prison for three years? What is missing from this story?

The right way to go is to have judges punish those who are in possession of illegal restricted weapons, not register rifles. But judges, by and large, have seemed amazingly sympathetic to such people in the past.

I've already given my opinion in the past, that there ought to be a minimum 1/5/10 year sentence on 1st/2nd/3rd offense for buying or unauthorized possession of a restricted weapon. And those sentences should be doubled up where the offender has a criminal record for violence. That will inevitably lead to a few cases of grossly disproportionate sentences, but it will save lives and lower the number of restricted weapons out there among the criminal population. So in cases like that, you just have to say "Do it."

[Derek L]

It's a difficult situation. Any policy or regulation made for >ALL< cases will inevitably be grossly unfair in at least a few. You need a mechanism for stepping outside the one-size-fits-all rules now and then. The problem is that judges have demonstrated in the past a striking laxness in punishing gun offenses. I remember one particular case where known criminals, gang members, were stopped by police near Cornwall, and a loaded UZI was found in the car. The police charged them, and the judge gave them a fine and let them go. It was because of cases like that the government put mandatory minimums into place. The real question here, if the facts are believed, is why the Crown didn't plead this down. It seems an unfair charge on the face of it. Why did the Crown want to slam him into prison for three years? What is missing from this story?

The right way to go is to have judges punish those who are in possession of illegal restricted weapons, not register rifles. But judges, by and large, have seemed amazingly sympathetic to such people in the past.

I've already given my opinion in the past, that there ought to be a minimum 1/5/10 year sentence on 1st/2nd/3rd offense for buying or unauthorized possession of a restricted weapon. And those sentences should be doubled up where the offender has a criminal record for violence. That will inevitably lead to a few cases of grossly disproportionate sentences, but it will save lives and lower the number of restricted weapons out there among the criminal population. So in cases like that, you just have to say "Do it."

It’s quite simple why the Crown didn’t bargain down, what with the recent cases involving the fellow who fired warning shots at arsonists or what might come out of the recent shooting of the two RCMP members in Northern Alberta…….It creates precedent …….If they don’t throw the proverbial book at this fellow fooling around with a loaded, illegal firearm, the next time the Crown charges a licensed fellow with a loaded handgun in his night table they’ll be kneecapped………Ahh Canadian gun politics 101.

[Tilter]

Add this to the file of activist judges that should be fired outright.

The police were executing a search warrant for illegal firearms. The guy was found waiving around a loaded illegal firearm. If anything, three years is too lenient.

If the guy was waving a weapon he's lucky to be alive.
Don't think this is over--- this guy will serve his time in JAIL & tey should throw the "judge" in with him

[Tilter]

Careful, so could you be...

Custody is not necessarily possession. He did not possess anything anymore than you are in my house and possess my remote.

Securely stored is not his problem.

Loaded but not his , not illegal possession or a loaded firearm.....what facts ?

If he had it in his home it's them same as being his--- if it was loaded in his home there is still a possible 10 year sentence for that. I assume this was a handgun--- still under the same laws as in the firearms act---

[Tilter]

Politicians should be completely removed from the sentencing process. They offer absolutely nothing of value, and the last thing we need is a politician thousands of miles away deciding the outcome of a trial without hearing a word of testimony or reviewing a shred of evidence.

Mandatory minimum sentencing is an utter abject failure.


It would have cost about 1/4 of a million dollars to throw this guy in jail for three years, and quite likely deprived the government of a bunch of tax revenue as well. And he would likely pose a bigger risk to society after being immerse in prison culture for 3 years, and making a new group of friends and associates there, then he his now.

The politicians make the law.---- Shake your head---- this the type of thing that gets the Police officers and a lot of cretins that think they are special, killed.

Edited by Tilter, 14 February 2012 - 05:09 PM.