Sorry if I'm in the wrong place.

[thegazelle]

Is that okay? Depends on the judges interpretation of readily accessible. Does locking a gun in a safe make it not readily accessible to ammo? I have no idea. It seems that it should, but I don't have any case law to reference one way or the other, and I'm not looking to be the guy who tests it. Personally I lock it all up just to cover my ass, I can't afford a lawyer.

My suggestion would be go to the dollar store and buy however many combo locks you need. At $4 a piece its easy insurance IMO.

Yeah, that's the thing...if I am reading the regs in my PAL book and online, it is not really written in such a way that addresses every situation. I know a friend and fellow club member who has his ammo bins out but they all have combo locks on them, even though his guns are all locked up in separate safes. He said the same to me - do you want to find out the hard way that your interpretation of the laws were wrong?

I do think that I shall go with the suggestion of buying 25+ individual combo locks to lock up each of those polymer ammo boxes even though the door has a lock on it now and the guns in the room are all in the safes.

I too haven't had any case law that I have seen on this, but the instance you cited with the lady - I seem to recall anything in a car has to be stored in a trunk, and if not a trunk out of sight in the back compartment...scary that the glove compartment allowed her to get hit with a charge...unless they said the gun wasn't locked up properly but in cars, how many people trigger lock a NR rifle and pad lock the case. And pad lock the ammo box. I wonder if the lady's car had a lockable trunk whether that would have made a difference.

 

[Buck1950]

thegazelle, looking back to posts #3-4 I think you've mis-interpreted the regs. Anyway, better 'extra-safe' for a few bucks. Suther has one suggestion - the Dollarstore locks. I made another (somewhere ? maybe another 'ammo thread' ? ) that the PA has NOW 2-for-$8 padlocks keyed alike; they used to have some in 4-paks. I think they're more durable, look like cheap Master-locks. I've got 20-ish boxes that I drilled for the lock-hasps, and a key-ring that now has 5-diff keys. (some paks of locks duplicated keys) I number them with a vibro-engraver, locks and keys. You end up with lots of spare keys so I have a few rings stashed around the house so I can access them quickly where-ever I'm at.

 

[Buck1950]

As for those scenaria, The lady should have locked the glove box.
And I read in another thread that some member got charged for having 'un-secured ammo' even though it was NOT for the guns nearby that WERE T-locked.
Like Suther said, depends on the judge . . . why gamble your future ??
I have my guns locked and ALL ammo boxes locked, and inside a closet with a deadbolt and MDF re-inforced door and walls. Above being legal, it's pretty theft resistant unless they come with lotsa tools and TIME.
( ** I thought this sounded familiar - SEE Post #5 - getting old HA !)

 

[thegazelle]

thegazelle, looking back to posts #3-4 I think you've mis-interpreted the regs. Anyway, better 'extra-safe' for a few bucks. Suther has one suggestion - the Dollarstore locks. I made another (somewhere ? maybe another 'ammo thread' ? ) that the PA has NOW 2-for-$8 padlocks keyed alike; they used to have some in 4-paks. I think they're more durable, look like cheap Master-locks. I've got 20-ish boxes that I drilled for the lock-hasps, and a key-ring that now has 5-diff keys. (some paks of locks duplicated keys) I number them with a vibro-engraver, locks and keys. You end up with lots of spare keys so I have a few rings stashed around the house so I can access them quickly where-ever I'm at.

Buck1950, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that I would mis-interpret anything. It's probably a given, given my pea sized brain and short attention span.

I fear for the whole janitor keychain scenario for me, as I have the propensity to lose things including entire keychains...almost thinking I should just looking for several bulk packs of combo locks. Heading out shortly to Dollarama as per Suther's suggestion to see what can be had there on the cheap.

 

[Geoman]

I’m a belt and braces type. Trigger locks on firearms and ammo cans with locks on. Both are in “gun safes” of CTC quality. Is it overkill, probably, does it both me, not really and it gives the rest of the family enough piece of mind that they forget the stuff is even there. BTW my throwing knives and tomahawks are out of reach as well. I have grandkids and remember what it was like to do a little “exploring “ lol!
The advice by other posters about just getting a bunch of locks of your choice makes good sense but it depends on your comfort level and circumstances.

 

[alpining]

This sort of discussion makes me frustrated. We have a bunch of thoughtful and responsible individuals earnestly trying to make sense of some poorly written regulations. In what other setting would it be accepted for individuals to have to look up case law themselves in order to be sure they are on the right side of the law?

It SHOULD be precisely clear what is required by law. It clearly is not. So, either you have the ability to search out the relevant case law to find the necessary information (even then, many scenarios haven't yet come up in court), or you have to go overboard in exceeding the regulations "just to be on the safe side". If each and every one of us decides that we have to go overboard in exceeding the regulations, then "regulations" is the wrong word for what they are.

Of course I should say that aside from the legal issue, everyone here has taken steps to be sure that their storage is appropriate to any specific additional risks they may have in their homes (kids, etc.).

As an individual, I tend to go overboard because of the personal consequences of not being found on the right side. As a principled member of a democracy, though, I understand that there's a risk that by regularly doing so I contribute to the erosion of our freedoms. I don't care for the situation.

 

[thegazelle]

Suther cited a case, and since I am a bit of a research junkie, I looked it up...it is very fascinating so I just cut and paste verbatim here. There is the additional (which appears) to be the primary charge of resisting a police officer, threatening suicide and her own daughter called the cops on her. She was also drunk when the officers found her.

I have heard it said that typically these unsafe storage charges are almost always ON TOP of another charge - in other words, the charges typically don't get applied in and of itself - so it's almost like these are supplementary charges that get stacked - but again, best to get legal advice from a lawyer.

Interesting what this also says in terms of contrasting what the lady did in terms of storage in her car and again that word in Canadian law "reasonable" is again used insofar as comparing to the average citizen in the same boat. And it said it was a marked departure, though it doesn't elaborate...but anyway here's the case...

*************

Offences against the administration of law and justice - Disobedience and obstruction - Obstruction and resistance of peace officer - In execution of his duty - The accused's daughter complained to the police that the accused would not leave the daughter's house and was "flipping out" and that the accused had stated that she was going to blow her own head off - The police responded and found the accused at her own house a few doors away - The accused was drunk and argumentative - An officer arrested the accused for mischief - The accused was combative and she struggled as the officer put the handcuffs on her - She also struggled and fought with the officers at the police station when they removed the handcuffs and placed her in a cell - The accused was charged with resisting a peace officer engaged in the lawful execution of his duty by struggling and pulling away - The defence argued that the accused's uncooperative attitude did not equate to actual resistance and that this situation was no more than the police could expect to deal with on a daily basis, particularly with intoxicated individuals - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - The arrest of the accused was lawful to prevent the repetition of the offence of mischief or the commission of another offence - This was an offence of general intent and the accused's self-induced intoxication did not afford a defence - The accused's actions were more than merely being uncooperative - Rather, she actively and deliberately impeded and obstructed the officer in the performance of his duties - See paragraphs 23 to 29.


Criminal Law - Topic 1175

Firearms - Careless use, transportation, carrying, storage, etc., of firearm - Elements of offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1436 ].


Criminal Law - Topic 1436

Offences against person and reputation - Firearms - General - Unsafe handling and careless storage - Police located a rifle in the back seat of the accused's car which was parked at her home - The rifle was under some clothes with the bolt of the rifle in the open position - A magazine that contained ammunition for the rifle was located in the console of the vehicle - The accused was charged with storing a firearm in a careless manner, contrary to s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code - The defence argued that the accused, having been hunting earlier in the day, was entitled to leave her firearm in the vehicle for a reasonable period prior to returning it to the storage cabinet in the house - Additionally, the defence argued that the way that the gun was lodged in the vehicle was in compliance with the regulations that dealt with the storage and transportation of firearms, and further questioned whether the firearm was "stored" or "transported" - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of the charge - The rifle was being "stored" not "transported" - The accused displayed a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person - See paragraphs 13 to 22.

***********

Ian Runkle expounds on this case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LquTwFTdRI&t=1s