Restricted storage question?

sailor723 said:
It's interesting to compare the storage regs from the RCMP site to the Firearms act....very close but not exactly the same. RCMP say trigger locked and in a "container, cabinet or room" while the FA says. "container, receptacle or room"

Seems like the RCMP want restricted firearms stored in a "Stackon Security Cabinet" to be trigger locked but the act doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

That would gave them the chance of charging you if you are not trigger locked in a cabinet.

They well know that in a real safe they could not charge someone for not being trigger locked or having loaded mags on the shelf beside an unlocked firearm, they are wisel.
 
caramel said:
That would gave them the chance of charging you if you are not trigger locked in a cabinet.
Click to expand...

Nope

The RCMP site is not law they can write what ever they want on it doe snot make it law

caramel said:
They well know that in a real safe they could not charge someone for not being trigger locked or having loaded mags on the shelf beside an unlocked firearm, they are wisel.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and quote for us the legal definition of a "real safe"

Shawn
 
sailor723 said:
It's interesting to compare the storage regs from the RCMP site to the Firearms act....very close but not exactly the same. RCMP say trigger locked and in a "container, cabinet or room" while the FA says. "container, receptacle or room"

Seems like the RCMP want restricted firearms stored in a "Stackon Security Cabinet" to be trigger locked but the act doesn't exactly say that.

It's really easy to see why many people think the Firearms Act is one of the worst written pieces of legislation to come out of Ottawa in years. Much of it is clear as mud.
Click to expand...

I noticed the same discrepancy. Hard to tell if that gives cover for the ‘cabinet’ as it is not expressly stipulated in the regs, or if the guidance projects how a cabinet will be interpreted by police and they will act accordingly. Again not interested in testing it as it is easy to avoid in the first place, but yes, one of the many provisions that should be cleaned up.
 
shawn said:
LOL

I am not the one using a case that sets pro firearms precedent as the boogie man while thinking it is proof of what BS you think.

Shawn
Click to expand...
Please, do show where I'm using said case as a boogie man. You don't even know what case I was asking about.

Please, do show where I say I think it is proof of anything. Or any BS I somehow think.



All you'll find is me asking a legit question and guys answering to it, with me making a statement to your "who cares" comment that any ruling is important because it sets a precedent, which is the truth.



You're pathetic.
 
Last edited:
This fall we had the police ( municipal ) over because a problem of mental health with one of my grandkid, 4 policemans show up to my doors, since i was the one who called them, there was no problems letting them in.

After a while, one of the officer asked me if there was firearms in the house, i told him, i had many restricteds firearms in the house, he asked me were they was, i told him they were in the safe, he asked me can i see the safe, i brought him just before the safe, he told me that it was satisfactory when he saw the big safe, he did not ask for me to open it.

This was the end of story for the firearms.

Never heard of it afterward.
 
sailor723 said:
It's interesting to compare the storage regs from the RCMP site to the Firearms act....very close but not exactly the same. RCMP say trigger locked and in a "container, cabinet or room" while the FA says. "container, receptacle or room"

Seems like the RCMP want restricted firearms stored in a "Stackon Security Cabinet" to be trigger locked but the act doesn't exactly say that.

It's really easy to see why many people think the Firearms Act is one of the worst written pieces of legislation to come out of Ottawa in years. Much of it is clear as mud.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head the first time. The RCMP site does not accurately reflect the law.

Further, too many people never learned anything about Canada's legal system in high school, and still don't understand that Statutes have to be read together in conjunction with case law, rather than just cherry picking the parts of law they like best. But too many gun owners don't even read the law, they just read the RCMPs website, which at best, is a bunch of ideological musings about what they wished the law said.

While there are many things that are disputed, and unresolved, in this particular case the issue of what constitutes a safe is actually VERY clear. There are just some people who refuse to accept it, and go to great lengths to manufacture a justification for doing so. Much of the confusion around these issues, and why they keep coming up over and over again, is people like to crowd source their thinking rather than consult the primary documents and come to their own conclusion.
 
Cameron SS said:
You hit the nail on the head the first time. The RCMP site does not accurately reflect the law.

Further, too many people never learned anything about Canada's legal system in high school, and still don't understand that Statutes have to be read together in conjunction with case law, rather than just cherry picking the parts of law they like best. But too many gun owners don't even read the law, they just read the RCMPs website, which at best, is a bunch of ideological musings about what they wished the law said.

While there are many things that are disputed, and unresolved, in this particular case the issue of what constitutes a safe is actually VERY clear. There are just some people who refuse to accept it, and go to great lengths to manufacture a justification for doing so. Much of the confusion around these issues, and why they keep coming up over and over again, is people like to crowd source their thinking rather than consult the primary documents and come to their own conclusion.
Click to expand...

No again you are not quite grasping the nuance that some of us are concerned with. But we can agree about the need for folks to consult the primary sources and decide for themselves.
 
gdawg said:
No again you are not quite grasping the nuance that some of us are concerned with. But we can agree about the need for folks to consult the primary sources and decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

Cameron SS said:
You hit the nail on the head the first time. The RCMP site does not accurately reflect the law.

Further, too many people never learned anything about Canada's legal system in high school, and still don't understand that Statutes have to be read together in conjunction with case law, rather than just cherry picking the parts of law they like best. But too many gun owners don't even read the law, they just read the RCMPs website, which at best, is a bunch of ideological musings about what they wished the law said.

While there are many things that are disputed, and unresolved, in this particular case the issue of what constitutes a safe is actually VERY clear. There are just some people who refuse to accept it, and go to great lengths to manufacture a justification for doing so. Much of the confusion around these issues, and why they keep coming up over and over again, is people like to crowd source their thinking rather than consult the primary documents and come to their own conclusion.
Click to expand...


I'm still not sure I understand where you get that part I highlighted in bold. Does one single decision from a lower court in Ontario bind all courts in the country? I thought only a Supreme Court decision could do that? I understand that this decision could and would be cited by an lawyer to bolster their argument but is it really that open and shut? I would have that while another court could take this decision into into consideration it would not necessarily be bound to follow it.:confused:

While we are at it CameronSS, what are your qualifications to issue these opinions? Have you trained as a lawyer?...do you practice law? You seem awfully definite in your pronouncements.
 
sailor723 said:
I'm still not sure I understand where you get that part I highlighted in bold. Does one single decision from a lower court in Ontario bind all courts in the country? I thought only a Supreme Court decision could do that? I understand that this decision could and would be cited by an lawyer to bolster their argument but is it really that open and shut? I would have that while another court could take this decision into into consideration it would not necessarily be bound to follow it.:confused:
Click to expand...

Cameron SS already addressed this awhile back:

Cameron SS said:
Every decision a court makes is a precedent. The doctrine of stare decisis applies to all courts at all levels. But not all precedents are created equal. Lower courts can not bind higher courts. The higher the court making the decision, the stronger and more important the precedent. The fact that the decision wasnt appealed means it stands. Its only a trial level decision but it is good law, and will be respected by appeal courts if a similar case landed on their desk. AND it happened in ONTARIO, which is not strictly binding on other provinces, but it can be relied on as informative by other provinces, especially when they dont have any similar cases to rely on.
Click to expand...

Its a pretty accurate summary. (The only thing I would clarify is that "respect" of a lower court decision by an appellate court means it will be acknowledged, assessed, and considered, though not necessarily followed or adopted.)
 
sailor723 said:
I'm still not sure I understand where you get that part I highlighted in bold. Does one single decision from a lower court in Ontario bind all courts in the country? I thought only a Supreme Court decision could do that? I understand that this decision could and would be cited by an lawyer to bolster their argument but is it really that open and shut? I would have that while another court could take this decision into into consideration it would not necessarily be bound to follow it.:confused:

While we are at it CameronSS, what are your qualifications to issue these opinions? Have you trained as a lawyer?...do you practice law? You seem awfully definite in your pronouncements.
Click to expand...

Further to what CV32 said, when I said the answer is clear, I meant that the single ruling (R V Barnes) that we have which explicitly states what constitutes a safe is clear. The judge was quite specific and straight forward as to what they thought the criteria was.

The debate some people seem to want to have is whether or not the ruling itself constitutes law.

Both statutes and court rulings are law, until they are changed. Statutes are changed by the legislative process. Rulings are changed by being overruled by a higher court.

Some people think that the possibility of a ruling being over-turned by some future ruling means the ruling has no legal value. That's like suggesting the Firearms Act has no legal value because some future government could repeal it.

If any trial level court, Ontario or otherwise, issued a ruling on what constituted a "safe" under the regulations for storage that in any way contradicted Barnes, the Crown Attorney would need to appeal in order to reconcile the conflict. If they let the conflict stand, then we would certainly have a bona fide debate over what constituted a safe.

As for my qualifications to give my opinions, they are as follows:
Qty 2 Mk 1 Eyeballs in reasonably good working order,
2018 Martin's Annotated criminal code,
Black's Law Dictionary
Internet connect with access to open source resources as Justice Canada E-laws website and Canlii database,
Modest grasp of the English language,
A pulse,
A sense of humour, and,
Valid CGN login Credentials.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on Television.
 
Cameron SS said:
Further to what CV32 said, when I said the answer is clear, I meant that the single ruling (R V Barnes) that we have which explicitly states what constitutes a safe is clear. The judge was quite specific and straight forward as to what they thought the criteria was.

The debate some people seem to want to have is whether or not the ruling itself constitutes law.

Both statutes and court rulings are law, until they are changed. Statutes are changed by the legislative process. Rulings are changed by being overruled by a higher court.

Some people think that the possibility of a ruling being over-turned by some future ruling means the ruling has no legal value. That's like suggesting the Firearms Act has no legal value because some future government could repeal it.

If any trial level court, Ontario or otherwise, issued a ruling on what constituted a "safe" under the regulations for storage that in any way contradicted Barnes, the Crown Attorney would need to apeal in order to reconcile the conflict. If they let the conflict stand, then we would certainly have a bona fide debate over what constituted a safe.

As for my qualifications to give my opinions, they are as follows:
Qty 2 Mk 1 Eyeballs in reasonably good working order,
2018 Martin's Annotated criminal code,
Black's Law Dictionary
Internet connect with access to open source resources as Justice Canada E-laws website and Canlii database,
Modest grasp of the English language,
A pulse,
A sense of humour, and,
Valid CGN login Credentials.

I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on Television.
Click to expand...

But did you Stay at a Holiday Inn last night?



Just doing my bit to extend this thread another 7 pages😂
 
This tread is like a dog running after his tail, it's so simple.

Read the FA régulations.
Buy the best possible safe.
End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom