Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteout
Stanley was facing two charges; one for unsafe storage of a restricted firearm and one for unsafe storage of a non-restricted that dealt with six firearms the Crown said didn’t have trigger locks.
The fine, firearms prohibition and surrender of his firearms was a joint submission by the defence and the Crown. Based on Stanley’s statement that he never wants to own a gun again, it’s probably safe to say that he doesn’t care about the prohibition and that the fine is less than what it would have cost him to fight the charges in court.
The rules for storing a non-restricted or a restricted are laid or clearly and there is plenty of precedent that has been set by the courts.
|
While I don't necessarily disagree with your rehashing of established facts, I don't know whether Mr. Stanley cares about having a firearms prohibition on his record or not. I do think that this firearms prohibition will prevent Mr. Stanley from traveling outside of Canada, and I am sure that he cares very much about this.
Also, safe storage requirements don't necessarily require that the firearms be trigger-locked. They can alternatively be stored without a trigger lock in an inoperable condition, such as with the bolt removed. They can also be stored without trigger locks in a secure locked container not easily broken open, separate from ammunition. (Though, what constitutes the precise definition of that container is not defined)
Also, firearms used for predator or pest control in a rural area where firearms may be legally discharged, may be temporarily stored in an operable condition, and not locked in a container, and without trigger locks, so long as they are unloaded.
I also find it very sad that a Canadian citizen is forced to accept a firearms prohibition because he can't afford the legal costs to defend himself against the charges in court.
Considering that this is a pro-gun firearms forum, there sure seem to be a lot of members who have agenda to defend the Crown.
Odd, don't you think?