View Single Post
  #83  
Old 04-17-2018, 04:04 PM
pistolero1860 pistolero1860 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RavYak View Post
Unsubstantiated? They decided not to pursue charges for one reason or another, I saw one brief comment in an article saying due to lack of evidence.

I am perhaps jumping to a conclusion that he improperly stored restricted firearms but things point to that being the case. I also doubt the Tokarev was stored properly out in his shed.

One of the other laws he admitted to breaking(but was never charged for) is improperly using that Tokarev, a restricted firearm, to chase off coyotes. What is the chances of him storing it properly if he uses it improperly and doesn't store any of his other firearms properly?

Breaking the law, being charged for breaking the law and being found guilty of breaking the law are 3 very different things. Stanley clearly broke multiple laws and had a severe disregard for the proper storage of firearms(look at the photos, firearms laying around the house with ammo beside them etc).

I have no issue with Stanley receiving the support he did, instances like what happened at his farm need to stop and he was in a tough place. If there truly was a mysterious 1 in millions chance hang fire that caused this whole issue I feel very sorry for the guy.

I am just saying considering everything that happened he did very well. It is not very often that you can admit to accidentally killing a man and breaking multiple firearm related laws and walk away with only one minimal firearms related charge and a bunch of financial support.
The Crown did NOT charge him with unsafe storage of a restricted weapon, so he obviously did not break that law. There was a lock box for it.

I am also unaware of a law described as "Using a Tokarev to chase away coyotes." What law are you actually referring to?

Also, since we have dealt with the unsafe storage of unrestricted firearms as well, what are the rest of these "multiple firearms laws" that you vaguely claim that he violated?

And, surely police would have charged Mr. Stanley with all of these other violations of "multiple firearms laws" if they could.

So, again, could you clarify what all of these other "multiple firearms laws" were that you claim Mr. Stanley violated?