[elkhunter11]

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.

The fact that the cases you mention even made it to court should be proof that the storage laws are not as clear as they should be. If the regulations are so clear, why couldn't the police and prosecutors understand them?