CSSA Handgun Freeze Legal Action

[ted_dent]

So instead of taking years to try to fight this in court, why not set the precedent now on the freeze and 2 people volunteer to sell the other person a handgun and then call the rcmp after the sale to let them know that the seller is no longer the legal owner and the buyer can call in and confirm that they are in possession of their new handgun. Isn’t there also some firearm insurance company in canada that will pay for the lawyers? So it would be free to the 2 volunteers and it gets the ball rolling. Hell if all handgun owners did that, what would they do? Take everyone’s license away? That would cause a huge uproar and very unlikely

I am not sure if the firearm owner insurance would work if you willfully broke the law which you would be doing if you transferred the handgun without prior RCMP authorization. This is different from the 10/22 mag situation as they were not banned by a parliamentary bill or even an OIC but simply by a determination by the RCMP that they were handgun mags and therefore limited to 10 rounds. An opinion from the RCMP is not binding legislation whereas a bill or OIC is.

[rommelrommel]

So instead of taking years to try to fight this in court, why not set the precedent now on the freeze and 2 people volunteer to sell the other person a handgun and then call the rcmp after the sale to let them know that the seller is no longer the legal owner and the buyer can call in and confirm that they are in possession of their new handgun. Isn’t there also some firearm insurance company in canada that will pay for the lawyers? So it would be free to the 2 volunteers and it gets the ball rolling. Hell if all handgun owners did that, what would they do? Take everyone’s license away? That would cause a huge uproar and very unlikely

None of the insurance products available cover wilfully breaking the law.

The volunteers are gonna have to fight criminal charges, arrest, confiscation of their firearms, loss of license, weapons prohibitions, etc.

So, offering yourself up?

[ted_dent]

You must not have got the memo. Cssa took our money and then said "#### it." Abandoned the challenge before it even started.

The reason the challenge was abandoned was because Butler Creek (the primary manufacturer of high cap 10/22 mags) refused to provide import numbers of the mags to CSSA for use in court. Had they provided documentation stating that x 1000's of 10/22 mags were shipped to Canada prior to the development of the Charger pistol that would have established that the mags were, indeed, rifle mags and not subject to the 10 round limit. BC refused to do this (I don't know why) and without those statistics it killed the chance for a successful court challenge.

As I noted, even without a court challenge I am not aware of anyone who has ever actually been convicted of possessing a hi-cap 10/22 mag as the RCMP knows it would probably lose that case in court and set a legal precedent which they do not want.

And FYI, if you contributed money to the CSSA challenge and requested a refund when it was dropped you would have been be reimbursed.

[ted_dent]

What is the justification to seize it if it is not prohibited ?

The police pull this stunt all the time. They seize an item (e.g. a firearm or a mag) knowing full well that the seizure is illegal. Now you are faced with the dilemma of "Do I spend $5000 in legal fees to recoup an illegally seized $500 gun or a $25 mag?" I'm guessing you can figure out what most people would do.

That's why I have always maintained that you should be able to sue cops PERSONALLLY (not as an extension of the police service) when they lay obviously bogus charges. When you sue the cop as a member of the police service, even if you win it costs him nothing as the police service (and by extension the taxpayers) pay for the settlement. If a cop knew he was going to be personally on the hook for a legal settlement if he willfully laid bogus charges it would happen a lot less frequently.

[Tiny4]

I've heard seen this many times already, what's the story/history with Burlew?

An easily searchable local review board of local lawyers and paralegals had some unfavorable reviews of him posted. Many claimed he was ill prepared, unprepared, didnt do prep work. Many had claims of unusual billing practices and or raising bill rates and applying them retroactively to previously billed work. One even claimed along with others that he was overtly dramatic that he was also drunk. These are only reviews I have read with the link easily finable online, I have no opinion on the veracity of these reviews and of course perspective clients should always due their due diligence and decides who is the best fit for them.

[bnichols]

While we're waiting for the end of Lib days I also stumbled across #### from my early days, like this