Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteout
Where does it say he was forced to accept a plea because of his lack of finances? The only thing that has been reported is that the outcome was the result of a joint submission by the Crown and defence.
As far as safe storage being undefined, the opposite is true. The laws regarding storage as available for all to read online in the criminal code, the RCMP list them on their website and they even publish a little pamphlet. There have also been multiple court cases that set precedent, the one that immediately comes to mind is the Ontario case that found a school locker with a padlock met the requirements of safe storage.
With regards to the PAL issue, his family would still be eligible to hold a PAL/RPAL and store firearms in their home. The fact that someone with a prohibition order lives there would not be automatic grounds for a refusal on its own
And as far as your claim of me being “pro-Crown”, I’m not. The only thing that I support is the use of facts by both sides of this, or any, argument.
|
In your previous post you stated that the fine and the firearms prohibition was less than it would have cost him to defend himself in court. Why would he have simply accepted the prohibition and fine unless he could not afford to defend himself any longer?
The fact that MULTIPLE court cases have had to have been fought to establish whether a school locker and other gun lockers constituted safe storage or not proves that the actual definition of a secured locked container has not been defined.
As far as whether his family members would be eligible to hold PALs, I have not disputed that they actually would. I did state however, that it was unlikely that they would be able keep firearms in the home since Mr. Stanley has a 10 year firearms prohibition, regardless of whether they held PALs.
And, I notice that you use the term "automatic grounds for refusal", meaning that you don't know whether they would or would not be permitted to keep firearms in the home or not, and consider the possibilty that this might happen.
As for your assertion that you are not pro-Crown, if you aren't then you are a doing a damned fine impression of someone who is.