Storage and visit for a safety check confusion

PitBull1973 said:
If you buy a cabinet from CT it's not considered a safe and you must use trigger locks and there is no need for you to keep the pistol In a separate case. If you don't want to use trigger locks then I suggest you invest in a safe. As for inspections, once you reach 10 restricted firearms they can come as they please without a warrant.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Ontario case law would say differently. Something about a guy using a school type locker in his home being found to comply with the law.
Pretty sure this has been debated ad nauseam here and there are multiple threads on it.
 
Still alive said:
AFAIK, no legit gun owner has had a "safety check" done by the authorities. They need a reason to do so ie. suspicion of illegal activity, threat of home violence, buying too many restricteds at the same time, someone reported you for something etc. Only registered collectors with massive collections have been subjected to inspections and not all of them and not all the time. We all took our R/PALs and we know the rules. You are good to go. Just follow the rule and you have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. If you read s. 102(1) of the act, it makes it clear that owning more than 10 guns is, in and of itself, grounds for an inspection. It is not uncommon for police in big cities to specifically target older gun owners for inspections (ostensibly because old people are more likely to be victims of burglaries).
 
capp325 said:
That's incorrect. If you read s. 102(1) of the act, it makes it clear that owning more than 10 guns is, in and of itself, grounds for an inspection. It is not uncommon for police in big cities to specifically target older gun owners for inspections (ostensibly because old people are more likely to be victims of burglaries).
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
capp325 said:
That's incorrect. If you read s. 102(1) of the act, it makes it clear that owning more than 10 guns is, in and of itself, grounds for an inspection. It is not uncommon for police in big cities to specifically target older gun owners for inspections (ostensibly because old people are more likely to be victims of burglaries).
Click to expand...

You are right thanks for the link I couldn't find it.
 
Wretched said:
I'm pretty sure Ontario case law would say differently. Something about a guy using a school type locker in his home being found to comply with the law.
Pretty sure this has been debated ad nauseam here and there are multiple threads on it.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the judge ruled the locker a safe because of it's metal construction. Going to court is very costly. That's why they say the most expensive safe is less costly than than the cheapest lawyer. So be smart about your storage.
 
capp325 said:
That's incorrect. If you read s. 102(1) of the act, it makes it clear that owning more than 10 guns is, in and of itself, grounds for an inspection. It is not uncommon for police in big cities to specifically target older gun owners for inspections (ostensibly because old people are more likely to be victims of burglaries).
Click to expand...
You are correct sir. I know the law has these provisions but they would still need to request a mutually agreeable time to inspect, correct?
Also, for the OP, I was more thinking of perception vs. reality of the matter. The reality is it rarely happens unless they have a reason to look. I'm sure LEOs don't look for unnecessary paperwork either!
 
promac said:
IIRC, the judge ruled the locker a safe because of it's metal construction. Going to court is very costly. That's why they say the most expensive safe is less costly than than the cheapest lawyer. So be smart about your storage.
Click to expand...

This is very true and I was thinking about one of those biometric safes.
 
promac said:
IIRC, the judge ruled the locker a safe because of it's metal construction. Going to court is very costly. That's why they say the most expensive safe is less costly than than the cheapest lawyer. So be smart about your storage.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice, IMO.
 
Still alive said:
You are correct sir. I know the law has these provisions but they would still need to request a mutually agreeable time to inspect, correct?
Also, for the OP, I was more thinking of perception vs. reality of the matter. The reality is it rarely happens unless they have a reason to look. I'm sure LEOs don't look for unnecessary paperwork either!
Click to expand...
Agreed and I just wanted to make sure I obey the rules and law and this thread has been most beneficial!
Thanks to all you folks!
 
As for the police providing notice, if you read the section it does state:

Use of force

(3) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may not use force.


I'm no lawyer, but I believe that to mean they can't bust down your door to do it - therefore notice would be required?

There are a couple of seemingly learned people here on CGN. Perhaps they will make their opinion known?
 
PitBull1973 said:
If you buy a cabinet from CT it's not considered a safe and you must use trigger locks and there is no need for you to keep the pistol In a separate case. If you don't want to use trigger locks then I suggest you invest in a safe. As for inspections, once you reach 10 restricted firearms they can come as they please without a warrant.
Click to expand...
There seems to be some confusion as to what constitutes a "safe" for the purposes the Firearms Act. In R. v. Barnes (the infamous "Johnny Sombero" case from a few years ago), the Ontario Court of Justice held that a metal gun cabinet is, in fact, considered a safe. Some key excerpts from that decision:

[8] The issue in this case is whether the prohibited firearms were stored in a “safe” as permitted by section 7(b)(ii). In such circumstances, it is permissible for removable bolts or bolt-carriers to be stored with the prohibited firearms and there would be no violation of the regulations.
...

[12] Michael Press, a civilian member of the Toronto Police Service, was qualified as an expert in the regulations made under the Firearms Act and the storage and handling of firearms.[3] Mr. Press was present in Mr. Barnes’ residence during the execution of the warrant. He described the containers used by the defendant to store his guns as “school lockers”. In Mr. Press’ opinion, the defendant’s gun lockers met the definition of a “cabinet or receptacle that is kept securely locked and is constructed so that it cannot be readily broken into” in section 7(b)(i). However, he did not believe that the lockers would qualify as a “safe”, as they did not have a level or extended locking mechanism that could not be knocked off with a sledge hammer. The Crown’s expert also stated that the metal construction of the locker should have been harder or heavier in order to be considered a safe. However, no measurement was made of the thickness of the metal on any of the lockers. According to Mr. Press, gun lockers such as the ones made by Canadian Tire did not meet the definition of a safe and should only be used to store prohibited firearms if the bolts or bolt-carriers are removed. The basis for Mr. Press’ interpretation of the word “safe” and its characteristics was not explained in his testimony. No objective source for his understanding of the language of the regulation was provided either from his training, judicial consideration of the word or authoritative reference materials.
...

[21]Since a breach of the regulation leads to a criminal charge, there must be a discernable standard for licensed individuals to meet in storing automatic firearms: see R. v. Smillie, supra at ¶35. In my view, an interpretation of the word “safe” in its ordinary, dictionary meaning of a metal container with a secure lock is consistent with the objectives of the legislation and the intent of Parliament.

[22] I find that the cabinets in which the defendant’s prohibited firearms were stored fall within the definition of a safe. Both of the lockers in which the prohibited firearms were stored were made of steel. Each cabinet was securely locked: one by a key and a padlock; the other by a locking system that uses a key to unbolt rods in the door from the frame of the unit. Indeed, despite their disagreement on other issues, the Crown and the defence expert both accepted that the units were securely locked. The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was non-compliance with the regulation. The charges are dismissed.
Click to expand...

Full decision can be found here:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2011/2011oncj419/2011oncj419.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAMaGFycnkgYmFybmVzAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

Of course, this is a trial-level decision that has never been appealed. A different judge, in a different case, might come to a different conclusion. However, as of today, I am not aware of any law or case stating that a stack-on type gun cabinet is not a safe. Doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to get something a little more substantial to be on the safe side (pun intended).
 
Last edited:
Wretched said:
As for the police providing notice, if you read the section it does state:

Use of force

(3) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may not use force.


I'm no lawyer, but I believe that to mean they can't bust down your door to do it - therefore notice would be required?

There are a couple of seemingly learned people here on CGN. Perhaps they will make their opinion known?
Click to expand...

Yes I read that to so its seems notice is provided.
 
Just an extra word of advice. I already have a long gun cabinet so is it ok to store the handgun in the same cabinet until I buy a safe?
All items will be trigger locked of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom