Gerald Stanley's charges for improperly storing guns slated for Sask. court today

bat119 · #1 03-19-2018, 08:01 AM

The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...sask-1.4581330

pikeslayer22 · #2 03-19-2018, 08:03 AM

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Hillbilly 12 · #3 03-19-2018, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat119

The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

Yeah what about them, no charge for them?, sounds racist to me...

Hillbilly 12 · #4 03-19-2018, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Probably not, it's traditional not to have one

bat119 · #5 03-19-2018, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Yes everyone needs one

elkhunter11 · #6 03-19-2018, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat119

The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

Not only did the occupants have a loaded firearm in a vehicle, they were in control of a firearm while impaired, and while being prohibited from possessing firearms, both of which are also criminal offenses . What good are more firearms regulations if people keep illegally possessing firearms while prohibited? The only way to keep some people from having firearms, is to keep those people in prison.

.264 Win Mag · #7 03-19-2018, 08:49 AM

Prime example of how new gun laws won’t fix or stop crime!! Typical!!

Ken07AOVette · #8 03-19-2018, 08:50 AM

For the 2nd time, all charges against the 4 in the car were dropped in favor of testimony given. Ok maybe the 900th time it has been discussed here.
It has been said many times on many forums if it had not been for the inconsistencies in testimony given by the 4 in the car Stanley may well be in prison right now. Deliberate play by a sympathetic Crown? Lesser of 5 evils?

elkhunter11 · #9 03-19-2018, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

For the 2nd time, all charges against the 4 in the car were dropped in favor of testimony given. Ok maybe the 900th time it has been discussed here.
It has been said many times on many forums if it had not been for the inconsistencies in testimony given by the 4 in the car Stanley may well be in prison right now. Deliberate play by a sympathetic Crown? Lesser of 5 evils?

Whether or not they were charged, my point is that prohibiting them from possessing firearms, did not prevent them from possessing firearms. As well, they were drunk, and the firearm was loaded in a motor vehicle. So it doesn't matter what firearms laws are passed, as long as these people are not in prison, they will find access to firearms, and they will commit crimes while possessing the firearms.

Big Grey Wolf · #10 03-19-2018, 09:18 AM

Interesting point is he was not charged for improper storage of the Restricted handgun as it was "considered to be in his possesion". He was charged for not properly storring dangerous 22's, shotguns probably used to shoot coyotes on the farm.

Newview01 · #11 03-19-2018, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

Interesting point is he was not charged for improper storage of the Restricted handgun as it was "considered to be in his possesion". He was charged for not properly storring dangerous 22's, shotguns probably used to shoot coyotes on the farm.

That is interesting, and maybe a play by the crown to go easy on him, assuming the charges are less for an improperly stored non-restricted firearm as opposed to restricted?

Ken07AOVette · #12 03-19-2018, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Whether or not they were charged, my point is that prohibiting them from possessing firearms, did not prevent them from possessing firearms. As well, they were drunk, and the firearm was loaded in a motor vehicle. So it doesn't matter what firearms laws are passed, as long as these people are not in prison, they will find access to firearms, and they will commit crimes while possessing the firearms.

I wasn't arguing your point, my reply was in answer to the OP;

Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

I think the Crown possibly feels they have to convict Stanley with something so the protesting crowd can put a win in 'their column' and settle down.

claystone · #13 03-19-2018, 11:00 AM

He will get them all back if he promises to not do it again. Maybe a fine.

Kurt505 · #14 03-19-2018, 11:10 AM

What a mess.

These degenerates show up on his land to terrorize his family and now his once peaceful life is now a mess of legal battles.

See what a life of minding your own business can get you, all it takes is having some douchebags target you as their next victim.

Sad.

bushbug · #15 03-19-2018, 11:20 AM

Just because they are fn doesnt make them non canadian and all canadians with firearms require a pal

260 Rem · #16 03-19-2018, 12:33 PM

I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

silverdoctor · #17 03-19-2018, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

RCMP really blew the investigation. They left the SUV door open all night, heavy rains washed away lots of blood evidence. I wouldn't expect much to come out of anything here.

CMichaud · #18 03-19-2018, 12:40 PM

From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

CNP · #19 03-19-2018, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMichaud

From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

That amounts to 6

Scott N · #20 03-19-2018, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNP

That amounts to 6

plus the Tokarev.

elkhunter11 · #21 03-19-2018, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

It was reported in the media that a statement was made by another occupant of the vehicle, that he broke the stock trying to break into a vehicle on another property, so he had possession of the firearm. And the firearm supposedly belonged to a grandparent of one of them, so either one of them stole it from the grandparent, or the grandparent willingly provided a firearm to a person that was prohibited from possessing firearms. Any way you look at it, several criminal offenses dealing with firearms took place.

Ken07AOVette · #22 03-19-2018, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

It was reported in the media that a statement was made by another occupant of the vehicle, that he broke the stock trying to break into a vehicle on another property, so he had possession of the firearm. And the firearm supposedly belonged to a grandparent of one of them, so either one of them stole it from the grandparent, or the grandparent willingly provided a firearm to a person that was prohibited from possessing firearms. Any way you look at it, several criminal offenses dealing with firearms took place.

odds of grampa being charged with unlawful storage of a firearm used in a crime?

.0005% or less?

regl · #23 03-19-2018, 02:26 PM

Prosecution asked for more time. Set over to April 19.

CNP · #24 03-19-2018, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott N

plus the Tokarev.

No. The Tokarev is not counted as one of the firearms. It was in use......not improperly stored.

Kurt505 · #25 03-19-2018, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNP

No. The Tokarev is not counted as one of the firearms. It was in use......not improperly stored.

I think the fact it was so readily available during the ordeal that it's suggested to be improperly stored as well.

bat119 · #26 03-19-2018, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regl

Prosecution asked for more time. Set over to April 19.

They've had 2 years their incompetence is showing again

Norwest Alta · #27 03-19-2018, 03:09 PM

Gonna guess they've been " improperly stored " for decades with no problem. Crock of **** imo. Give him the citizen of the Year award and call it a day.

They tried the same thing with my dad and his home invasion. He told the cops that that'll be the last time he'd call them. The cops attitudes changed after that.

does it ALL outdoors · #28 03-19-2018, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I think the Crown possibly feels they have to convict Stanley with something so the protesting crowd can put a win in 'their column' and settle down.

That crowd will NEVER be appeased.

Maybe Mr. Stanley can just show the judge his white privilege card

Grizzly Adams · #29 03-19-2018, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMichaud

From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

Whoa here, think if you live in a rural area, you are allowed to have firearms accessible, just not loaded. I'd be pleading not guilty.

Grizz

Norwest Alta · #30 03-19-2018, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Whoa here, think if you live in a rural area, you are allowed to have firearms accessible, just not loaded. I'd be pleading not guilty.

Grizz

Only one I believe