Quote:
Originally Posted by pistolero1860
So, although this incident (for which he was acquitted) happened with a restricted firearm (a handgun), the crown awarded him with a fine and a 10 year firearms prohibition for unsafe storage of an UNRESTRICTED firearm (a hunting rifle, .22 rifle, or a shotgun most likely).
This not only seems punitive. It is punitive. Having failed to bulldoze a jury into convicting him for something that the evidence could not prove was an intentional shooting, they simply punish him excessively for something else.
I wonder how many firearms owners in Canada could also be charged with unsafe storage of an unrestricted firearm, because they have not complied with the exact letter of the law. Especially when you consider that what safe storage of a firearm is has never been properly defined.
Thousands? Tens of thousands? A hundred thousand? All gun owners?
|
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.