View Single Post
  #56  
Old 04-17-2018, 08:50 AM
whiteout whiteout is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860 View Post
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.

This will prevent him from traveling into the United States and probably elsewhere, and in that respect, I'm sure that he does care very much.
And, the fact that he was forced to cave in and accept the prohibition because he could not afford to fight the charges in court speaks very poorly about justice in Canada.

However, you do not refute that safe storage in Canada remains vague and undefined, and that a great many Canadians might find themselves charged despite their efforts to comply with the law.

Funny how so many people who are members of a pro-gun firearms forum seem to have an agenda to defend the Crown, isn't it?

Seems counter-intuitive don't you think?
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.