In response to : Licensed Gun Owner Gets 2 Years For Forgetting Wallet at Home?? (Video)
Those are statutory maximums under the criminal code. The minimum is an absolute discharge under section 730 of the criminal code (basically a judge giving you a pat on the back, a stern "don't do it again" look and no criminal record).
Also, bear in mind that maximum sentences are seldom given unless you actually work for them. Getting the 6 month jail term under the summary provision may be appropriate if you forgot your wallet AND got caught at least more than 5 times in the past 5 years bearing in mind that a police officer actually needs to reasonably believe that an infraction is taking place before he can attempt to detain you.
And really, for a first time offender as described in this video, you'd expect the worst to be a sentence along the lines of a period of probation or a fine (+ victim fine surcharge under section 737 which is mandatory on conviction or discharge). If you have a job that requires a clean criminal record, produce a positive pre-sentence report and the odds will be high that you will get a discharge.
On the other hand, forgetting your wallet and driver's licence is an automatic 100$+ fine depending on provincial statutory provisons and an indefinite driving privilege suspension if you fail to pay within the alloted time. Not being able to produce your vehicle insurances is usually 10 times that amount and an automatic suspension pending the production of proof of solvency.
So basically, for an honest mistake, you are more likely to be punished more harshly for a motor vehicle infraction than you are for a firearm's regulation violation.
A "two year maximum no minimum" offense is considered to be of a very low gravity.
To prove my point, for a common assault, which based on the definition under section 265(1)(b) of the criminal code, can be as innocent as waving your hand in a menacing gesture "could" carry a term of imprisonment of 5 years.
A maximum sentence is meant to punish what the government can think as a worst scenario. That menacing hand waving for instance may be made worst if it was, say, directed against your interracial wife and your handicap child, who were on the edge of a 100 meter high cliff and meant to convey discrimination, in the middle of a large crowd of horrified people. See section 718.2(1)(a) to construct that kind of nightmare scenario.
Prosecution by way of summary conviction or indictable offense is a choice ultimately left to the Crown Prosecutor. That choice is usually made in context and what may be an indictable offense at first can be reduced to summary on a plea bargain. Suffice to say, if you come to the court with a clean criminal record and an honest explanation, I can't think of a Crown Prosecutor approving the charges as indictable. It would go against public interest.
So yeah, to conclude, for the scenario depicted in the video, that girl is most likely getting a conditional discharge on the firearm regulation violation and probably a 200$ fine on not being able to produce a license while in care and control of the vehicle.
Thanks for all the effort you put into these comments. No one would get 2 years on a first offence, agreed, but it's there. I don't believe that people need to be threatened with these kinds of penalties for a paperwork offence regardless. More important point, and I think you'll agree. Many people who aren't gun owners would respond favorably if they were asked if we should tighten up gun control in light of all of these gang shootings. Yet they have no idea what the law is today. For instance 2 years in prison. This is the point and I can't imagine any rational person thinking the law needs to become even more punitive.
So, to address these points in order:
It's there, yet, it is in an non-obstructive manner.
Putting it through the scope of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, suggesting that the sentence is not appropriate is purely ridiculous.
First, no minimal sentence: the court has nearly unlimited discretion in the determination of the sentence, the only limit being the maximum.
Second, the maximum is not intrusive upon imposing lenient sentences. If, say, the maximum was 14 years, then discharges and conditional sentence orders (house arrest) would become illegal and, as such, would prove intrusive.
Third, it's an hybrid offence and the summary conviction standard established by the case law for a first offender is a fine according to Ruby on Sentencing 8th Edition (widely considered as the bible of sentencing).
There isn't a single argument for which the sentence of section 86 would be deemed inappropriate.
Also, bear in mind that not having your license while carrying is just one out of many regulations that section 68(3) aims to punish.
On the lower end of the spectrum, you have the scenario depicted in this video, but on the higher end, you have "leaving a loaded prohibited firearm within arms each of a 2 year old toddler". While both are bound by the same maximum sentence (not really, obviously the former is going to be prosecuted by way of summary conviction) it is certain that the circumstances are going to play a big role crafting a sentence.
Now, regarding the threat of penalty:
1. I already explained that not carrying your driver's license is more than likely going to be steeper than that of not carrying your gun license, and
2. the threat of penalty is an essential part of the existence of criminal law and the Criminal Code.
Section 718 and its follow-up explains the reasoning for sentencing:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;(IE, not let a crime go unpunished)
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (or threathening as you said it)
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (and by that the caselaw is clear that all other options must have been explored prior to considering a term of imprisonment, minimum sentence aside)
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (IE, next time double check to make sure you have your wallet)
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
Regarding the non-gun-owner community, we're not a club, we don't have t-shirts and we are not exactly a vocal mass. Some will want more control, some will want less. Suffice to say, the psychology of loss aversion will suggest that gun owners will want lower consequences because they have a stake in it, but to the average non-gun-owner with little to nothing, it's safer to assume that they are OK with the status quo unless they say otherwise (that means no tightening or loosing).
As a matter of fact, from my perspective as a defense attorney, I could always use more lenient sentences as it makes the position of my clients more defensible, but the fact of the matter is, for a firearm-related offense (or even for a non-firearm related offense), this kind of maximum is literally as low as they get.
Regarding the layperson not having knowledge of the law, if education was meant to be the concern of this video, then it's failing spectacularly by suggesting that a person forgetting his or her wallet would land in a federal penitentiary for 2 years as the title indicates.
Starting at 1:16, the author argues as to what the state of the law should be, notwithstanding his flawed premise, the title card stating that the following will be "Learn the facts about firearm law in Canada" or the use of strawman arguments and argumentum ad reductio.
Now opinions and arguments are par for the course, but presenting the issue so shallowly is going to make the theory look a whole lot worst than its actual state of affair.
Regarding the state of the law becoming more punitive, that is so true in so many contexts... but not this one. Under the Harper Government, we have seen a steady increase in minimum sentences and maximum sentences, especially for drug and sex related offense, barring the way for the crafting of what used to be appropriate sentences.
The only exception I, personally, could think of where the state of the law became more lenient was in 2012 with the An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act S.C. 2012, c. 6 which abolished the registration of non-prohibited non-restricted firearms.
Pardon my wit, but suggesting that more lenience is necessary for gun owners is just like eating your cake and asking for a refund.
Bonus tip if you read this far: in order to qualify for a federal term of incarceration, the duration of incarceration must be at least 2 years. This means that unless the accused gets the maximum sentence, even by a day, he is going to be provincially detained.
Great info Michael. Again thanks for engaging in this dialogue. The purpose of the video wasn't to trick anyone into thinking that people are getting 2 years for paperwork offenses but to show that the regulation exists and to promote the dialogue that's happening right now.
As I said, in a fair and equitable society the government should never have the option to levy penalties like this for a paperwork crime. I think we get so caught up in the minutia that we lose perspective sometimes. Prescribe a $140 fine if necessary. These penalties apply to only people who actually have a PAL. This is a separate matter from "Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm".
There are many firearm regulations in Canada that absolutely no relationship to public safety, literally none yet they all still carry incredible penalties, for example magazine capacity regulations.
There is also another loss of perspective that constantly occurs when discussing this. Many say, "no one's ever gone to jail". Fair, that's possible. But it's immaterial. I will give you an example (me).
I am involved in international business development, have been for over a decade. I'm also an activist interested in reducing bureaucracy and the constant expansion of law and regulation as a way of justifying parliament. Your well aware just the CCC is over 1000 pages already sans regulation. Remember...ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Say I forget my wallet at home by accident. Somehow I'm ensnared by the legal system and somehow I have to interact with the crown. they may decide they have an interest in making life hard for me. Likely they might take a position to say "Rod, plead guilty to a summary, no jail, $500 fine and a 5-year firearm prohibition or fight us and it will cost $30K". My career would be over. I can't travel to the US, can't maintain my security clearance, I'd have to disclose a firearm charge on every job application the rest of my life, can't be bonded, on and on. For what? Having an opinion and forgetting my wallet?
This is the issue at hand Michael, along with others. The government also has shown repeatedly they can't be trusted to administrate such authority. This is why this is an issue. Regulations need to have penalties commensurate with the offence. It's a matter of basic justice.
Interesting perspective, let's break it down.
Regarding the goverment exceeding his power by having the option to levy penalties:
1. I understand and respect your opinion, but
2. They have the power to set the range of sentencing through duly adopted statutory provision under section 91(27) of the Constitution act of 1867, and
3. They technically don't. The judge imposes the sentence he or she sees fit after hearing both parties arguments.
The penalty are indeed for people with a Possession and Acquisition License. The penalty for those who don't are worse, as not having one is an aggravating factor.
Yet, in R v Cox 2003 of the Supreme Court of Ontario (http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/ontario/superior-court-of-justice/2003/03/04/r-v-cox-2003-7729-on-sc.shtml) notwithstanding this aggravating factor, the court deemed an absolute discharge to be an appropriate sentence given the circumstances*.
Regarding firearm regulations, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it aims to avoid unsafe modifications. Its roots are more deeply entrenched in the manufacturing processes. Basically, the government works with manufacturers that tells them what their guns support and what they don't. That's how motor vehicle regulations come to be at least. When there is a consensus, they give the rubber stamp.
Regarding the criminal code being 1000 pages long, the official version with force of law is the digital one on the goverment website. Attempting to print it would produce 703 pages, but I'm just being facetious now and wanted to point out that we don't rely on that paper-cut factory we call books... Moving on.
Regarding ignorance of the law not being a defense, that is section 19 of the Criminal Code... Getting back on track now!
Regarding your little scenario, let's break it down:
-Your infraction is not having your license on you at the time.
-The Crown, having reviewed the case, approved the charges and prosecute by way of summary conviction.
-On early resolution, they suggest a fine (not too sure about the 500$. I read a case a while back where a guy waved his unloaded shotgun to a bunch of unwanted guest on his property and got 250$ fine). Conviction at this point would result in a criminal record. Bear in mind that, at this point, the Crown only knows what the police report is showing. If you speak with them, they might reduce that early resolution to something more fitting or propose alternative measures, or just withdraw the charges outright.
-There might have been an underlying reason for that, like something that made you lose your focus. The judge would like to hear that. If it's a relatable one, it could be construed as a mitigating factor.
-I assume you are a respectable member of society, so when whatever happened that resulted in you being charged, you were curteous and forthcoming about your situation with the arresting officer. You explained that you do have a license, but happened not to have it with you and propose to show it at the police station after having received your promise to appear.
-You have been involved in an international business for the past 10+ years. You are obviously a productive member of society. Yet, your career depends on having a clean record for travel. That means if the judge is to grant anything short of a discharge, you would suffer punishment as a direct result of that conviction. See R v Cox above which happened to be in a similar situation.
-Regarding the firearm prohibition, you've been a license gun owner for the past X years with no issues and the infraction does not mandate a prohibition, meaning the onus is on the Crown to prove that would be necessary.
*For reference, section 109 does not mandate a weapon's prohibition for convictions under section 86.
-You plead guilty at the first opportunity, saving the Crown time, resource and effort in proving your guilty. Therefore, you admit responsibility, show remorse for the situation and demonstrate a rehabilitative potential.
That's just a handful of mitigating factor that has the potential to reduce your sentence. If you choose not to be represented by counsel during your sentencing hearing, you would still benefit from duty counsel free of charge which could prode you for more questions such as: "Do you have children(or other dependants which would also suffer from your potential loss of employment)?"
Ruby on sentencing lists over 30 types of mitigating and aggravating factors including weird and odd things like deportation and test cases.
But, you may ask, those factors are not in the criminal code.
Indeed, they are, yet not really. They come from the case law, which is ever expanding and always changing. Its totality dwarfs the criminal code a millionfold.
More specifically, they are located under section 718.2(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
Now, compare your situation to, say, R v Cox: do you think your sentence should be harsher than Mr. Cox?
I think not.
I will review R v Cox. I am not a lawyer though. Do you think crown would be likely to completely withdraw a charge like that should I suffer undo hardship based on the results of a conviction.meaning my inability to continue my career? Is that actually a thing?
From my understanding, approving an accusation is a two-step process.
1. Are the essential elements of the offense demonstrable based on the evidence gathered?
If they are not, the charge is not approve and the Crown can either withdraw the charge or ask for a more thorought investigation and repeat step 1.
2. Would it be in the public interest to prosecute the offense?
That one is less tangible and that's where that kind of consideration belongs. The wording is similar to section 730 of the Criminal Code, except that section is how the judge determines if a discharge is appropriate.
In my line of work, I prefer never to promise. I cannot say for sure if the circumstances mentionned above would justify the withdrawal of the charges.
I do remember circumstances in which rather than pay a fine, the accused and the Crown aggreed that the accused would make a donation to a charity of his or her choosing, bring the receipt as proof and the charges would be withdrawn afterward.
Full caveat, I answer to those posts with very minimal research. A more thorought research and understanding of the facts of the case at bar could reveal more options.
Caveats fully accepted. Good information to know whether this reasonable approach is a possibility in our system. As I said before, I truly appreciate your engagement in this conversation. If we could reproduce this at the proper level we could actually create a system that works. To the uncivilized on the right and the left, this is what the gun control conversation should look like. Thanks Michael.
First great video, Second to Mickael Chiasson I must completely disagree with your assertions around fines and or penalties regarding forgetting your Driver License vrs Firearms License. to quote:
"On the other hand, forgetting your wallet and driver's licence is an automatic 100$+ fine depending on provincial statutory provisons and an indefinite driving privilege suspension if you fail to pay within the alloted time. Not being able to produce your vehicle insurances is usually 10 times that amount and an automatic suspension pending the production of proof of solvency.
So basically, for an honest mistake, you are more likely to be punished more harshly for a motor vehicle infraction than you are for a firearm's regulation violation. " " forgetting your wallet and driver's licence is an automatic 100$+ fine depending on provincial statutory provisons" - I believe this to be true, but then to try and compound not paying a fine:
"an indefinite driving privilege suspension if you fail to pay within the alloted time." (second offense in your example) and trying to equate that to the potential penalties for forgetting your Firearms license is quite the stretch.
In the drivers license scenario you don't get arrested, you don't have threat of jail, you get a fine; and once your Identity has been verified, free to continue driving. On the other hand, if you forget your firearms license, you will be arrested and charged, you will have a court date, at which time you may be fined -up to 2000 dollars and/or 6 months in jail.
Do people reading your comments truly believe these are similar in their punishments?
BTW, both your Drivers license and your Firearms license are available electronically to the officer through the CPIC system.
Keep in mind too, that once convicted, even of the lesser summary offence you may have your firearms license revoked, which means continued possession of your legal acquired personal property is yet another larger offense ( up to 5 years for possession with out a license ), and you must immediately take steps to have someone with a valid license take possession of your firearms or they will be confiscated and destroyed (with out compensation). These are the realities we face, especially given the anti-gun rhetoric so prevalent today.
I would like to end this by thanking you for your honest and open dialogue.
Break down time!
Regarding your analysis of the comparison between the driver's license and the firearm license, not paying the fine does not result in another offence. The suspension is administrative in nature as it falls under the purview of the Minister of Transportation.
IF, and only IF you are caught driving while your privileges are suspended, then it becomes a second offence for which a fine 500$ or so, for which the default of payment results in a term of incarceration (court appearance is not mandatory, but if you fail to pay in the allotted time and miss your default hearing date, there would be a warrant of review of sentence which would justify your arrest for a court appearance or a warrant of committal which would result in the time in default to be served forthwith) Also, the court won't tell you, but the registrar will suspend your driver's privilege for a year or so. That suspension begins as of your sentencing, but is not part of said sentencing. Again, it's the Minister of Transportation that imposes that suspension as a result of the finding of guilty to the aforementioned offence. (see your provincial motor vehicle act for details).
Ok? OK, back to the whole gun business =D Now, with the whole "under arrest" thing... yes... but why?
Let me explain. The point of detaining someone is to lead an investigation in such way as to minimize the contamination of evidence(or gather evidence from you, but HINT HINT section 11c and section 13 of the Charter), preventing the commission of further offences or serving the public interest (think of detentions under some provincial mental health act or intoxicated person act).
If you get approached by a police officer and realize that you don't have your license on you, what is the point of detaining you?
Assuming that your only offence at the time is that you don't have your license, I can't think of any, but feel free to try to prove me wrong on that one.
Using CPIC, they can verify that you are a licensed owner and that none of your guns were reported stolen, ergo they are presumed in the possession of their rightful owner(IE you).
At that point, they have a choice: give you a promise to appear or put you under arrest. Here's the tricky part, given the scenario depicted in the video (forgetting your wallet), there is literally nothing justifying the arrest.
From an procedural standpoint none of the aforementioned reasons for detentions are met.
From a bail standpoint, none of the grounds under section 515(10) would be justified.
Even from a simple practical standpoint, such an approach makes no sense. By releasing you on a promise to appear forthwith, all the officer has to do is prepare a general occurrence report indicating that you forgot your wallet home but that he confirmed that you were a licensed user according to CPIC.
By putting you under arrest, there would be a need to accommodate you with your right to speak to counsel, prepare a general occurrence report, have any officers that assisted in the arrest prepare a supplementary occurrence report, prepare the recording of the interview room, ask you to provide a statement (and really, what could they get out of you past the "Forgot my wallet, oops" line) and take you before the court ASAP(which are probably already busy enough with their own dockets as they are!)
So, to arc back to the original point: Why, in the name of all that is logic, would the police officer choose to proceed by way of arresting someone in those circumstances?
I can't provide a satisfactory answer to that question, but if you suggest that someone is at risk of getting detained in the "forgotten wallet" scenario, you'll have to put yourself in the shoes of the arresting officer and justify that those measures were necessary.
Now, regarding the prohibition order, as mentioned in my earlier comment, section 86 is not an infraction that would justify a mandatory prohibition order under section 109. The closest provision on the issue is paragraph b):an offence under subsection 85(1) (using firearm in commission of offence), subsection 85(2) (using imitation firearm in commission of offence), 95(1) (possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition), 99(1) (weapons trafficking), 100(1) (possession for purpose of weapons trafficking), 102(1) (making automatic firearm), 103(1) (importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized) or section 264 (criminal harassment).
This means that the prohibition order would be discretionary under section 110, for which the onus is on the Crown Prosecutor to prove, and again, based on the "forgotten wallet" scenario, is it possible for the Crown Prosecutor to prove that forgetting your wallet is indicative of a public or personal safety concern under section 110?
Again, those grounds cannot be successfully raised, then the prohibition order is a non-issue.
Comparatively, if you are charged with assault in a domestic context, a weapon's prohibition order is way more likely even if no weapons were involved.
Also, in response to Lee White, below, I indicated that the maximum summary conviction sentence is a 5000$ fine and a 6 month term of provincial incarceration, pursuant to section 787 of the criminal Code:
787 (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.
Now, let me be Machiavellian for a moment and go on the offensive. If you are not satisfied with the status quo, what do you think the sentence should be?
Wow... driving situation. You get a ticket, go pay it, you're done. Firearms situation you get a court date and must stand before the court for sentencing. I appreciate all your intelligent ramblings and I don't mean that in the negative way it must sound. But you are making assumptions about how you believe the system should work based on your understanding and interpretation of the CC and case law. What do I think the sentence should be for forgetting paper work like my firearms license? It should be the exact same way as the driver's license. Give me a ticket and send me on my way. 
So, a statutory minimum fine for which the police officer can impose with little to no discretion, payable within a predetermined amount of time if you don't show up in court to debate it?
What crimes(s) did I commit. What is my intent if any. To be honest in the day and age when my information is readily available to all police officers from their patrol vehicles, a simple check to make sure I have a valid firearm license for the firearms in my possession and a quick check to ensure I'm following the transportation rules for said firearms, a thanks for your time and have a good day sir is really what I think any law abiding citizen should get out of it. And the same should be true in the driving license scenario.
What crime? Presumably none.
What crime, hypothetically? Under section 86(2) of the Criminal Code. Also, if found guilty, would you still be a law-abiding citizen? Also, also, does it even matter? (Spoiler: The answer is "no" and "only in sentencing" respectively.)
What intent? It's a strict responsibility offence. No mental component needed unless you can raise the defense of officially induced error. That being said, it's relevant to sentencing, because quite frankly, what isn't?
Now, back to your alternative 2 comments ago, let me quote Civil Advantage 10 comments early:
"My career would be over. I can't travel to the US, can't maintain my security clearance, I'd have to disclose a firearm charge on every job application the rest of my life, can't be bonded, on and on. For what? Having an opinion and forgetting my wallet?"
That result in the status quo is an anomaly. It can happen, but it's just about as unlikely as dying from radiation poisoning by eating bananas. (Also, it could be pardoned 5 years down the line, travel to the US would prove difficult, but not impossible, being bonded could still happen since it's not a property related offence, but suffice to say, things would be bad.)
If what you propose would be enacted, that result would go from being ridiculously unlikely to being the rule! Discharge, conditional sentence order, alternative measures, negotiating with the Crown : all those means of diminishing the sentence are gone in an instant because of the minimum fine imposed.
So, yeah. You can either go to court for about an hour of a morning and get your pat on the back or streamline your way into getting a criminal record and the long-term consequences associated with it.
I did say that I was being borderline evil by asking for an alternative. Mandatory minimums are evil.
Section 86. Careless use of firearm, etc. 86.
(1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. Contravention of storage regulations, etc.
(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment
(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
So yes, the crime we are talking about is a paper work crime, forgetting your wallet that has your firearms license in it. This is not a case of a gang banger with a gun, this is a law abiding citizen (they wouldn't have a firearms license if they weren't). Do you true believe the greater good is served by this type of law? It's not only your license, there are other pieces of paper you must have in your possession when transporting your legally owned firearm including; the Registration Certificate ( a small piece of paper aprox; 90mm by 120mm), and your ATT (Authorization to Transport) which is printed on a carrier. (bottom 1/4 of the page your firearms license was attached to when they mailed it to you.) Section 86(2) applies if you are missing any of these items. Despite it all being readily and easily available to all patrol officers through CPIC for quick verification.
Your R vs Cox went to the Ontario Supreme court to get overturned.. at what cost?
final decision :
[36] Section 730(1) of the Criminal Code states:
“Where an accused, other than a corporation, pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offence, other than an offence for which a minimum punishment is prescribed by law or an offence punishable by imprisonment for fourteen years or for life, the court before which the accused appears may, if it considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, instead of convicting the accused, by order direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on the conditions prescribed in a probation order made under subsection 731(2).”
[37] The Appellant is in his fifties. He has no criminal record and is employed as a train conductor which, on occasion, requires him to cross the Canadian border. The Appellant had never owned guns previously and the only reason he was in possession of these guns was in his role as executor of his father’s estate. The guns were not prohibited weapons and no ammunition was found in the house. He had no intention of keeping them and did not intend to use them at any time in the future.
[38] The regulations for possessing and acquiring guns are now so stringent that it is unlikely that the Appellant could secure a firearms acquisition certificate were he to change his mind in the future. A search is conducted by the police department and character witnesses are necessary. Specific questions are asked about the position of the spouse in relation to the other spouse owning and possessing guns. It is extremely unlikely that the Appellant would be a successful candidate in obtaining the necessary certificate for acquiring and possessing guns.
[39] A criminal record could prevent him from entering the United States either for his employment or for his enjoyment. A conviction that deals with firearms may increase his chances of not being permitted to cross the border, especially when one considers the present political climate, regulations, and inspections.
[40] Accordingly, the granting of an absolute discharge under these circumstances would meet the requirements as stipulated in s.730(1) of the Criminal Code in that it would be in the Appellant’s interest and not contrary to the public interest. The sentence is therefore varied to read that the guns on the three counts shall be forfeited to the Crown for disposition. An absolute discharge is granted. The fine, if paid, is to be remitted by the Crown to the Appellant.
[41] In summary therefore, the appeal as to conviction is dismissed. The appeal as to sentence is to be varied as per the Reasons. Interesting case, but nothing to do with Transportation or missing paperwork. but I thank you for bringing this case to my attention.
Again, an absolute discharge. Great. after what, $70,000 of legal fees? 2 to 3 years of procedure? The forfeiture and destruction of the property?
In the context of our argument of "forgetting your wallet" why is it a reasonable response to say "ya but has anyone ever gone to jail"? It's ridiculous. These regulations have no purpose but to punish those that have a license. This is why people need to know that the statement that we need to tighten gun laws because of "all these shootings" is ludicrous.
Hey again,
A bit of a strict time table today so I'll Occam Razor my way through so hold on to your wrists.
To Mr. Thorne:
R v Cox 2003 is relevant. Same infraction though the hypothetical scenario of the video is less serious, but there isn't any lesser sentence a court can impose.
Also, feel free to look for yourself, but as far as I know, section 86, as part of a recorded decision, has almost always been applied in conjunction with a more serious offense which overshadows its negligible impact.
The arresting officer can and will contact dispatch to have a CPIC/PROS check. If they don't, they might be charging for the wrong infraction. Since there is no minimum, that also allows them to let you go with a warning, though I only have anecdotal evidence of such, but it's within their discretion to do so.
To Civil Advantage:
The complexity of the case might warrant at most 10% of your estimation for legal fee, but I'm not privy to those details and neither are you.
Also, the appeal was first and foremost on the verdict, IE being found guilty and not solely on sentencing. An early guilty plea is a mitigating factor, one which he did not benefit.
An order of forfeiture under section 491 would result in the state selling the firearms at the highest bidder and for the proceed to return to their lawful owner, in this case, the estate of the father of Mr Cox for which he was the fiduciary. The only time forfeiture warrants destruction is if the reselling would be illegal. If Mr Cox would have wanted the firearms back, he could have applied for an interlocutory order to prevent the disposal, but didn't so no harm there. Destroying otherwise perfectly legal firearms would be dumb.
Also, that order was most likely made due to the registration requirement which is no longer applicable past 2012.
Lastly, these regulations are indeed targeting lawful gun owners the same way motor vehicle regulations are targeting legal car owners. Illegal owners of both are getting it worse which is why this distinction exists.
Later.
Wait!
One more thing. My estimate assumes that he had a lawyer representing him at trial. Based on how south that thing went, I'm going to guess the opposite and that he just retained counsel for the appeal, reducing the legal fees to even less.
Toodles.
