Restricted storage question?

[easyrider604]

I’m so glad that some judges see things our way.

 

[tiriaq]

The decision had nothing to do with machine guns. The decision dealt with the definition of a safe. The Judge ruled the metal cabinet the guns were stored in was a safe. End of story. I can only imagine how much interest the Supreme Court of Canada has when it comes to defining what a "safe" is.

You would think by these threads gun storage inspections was the primary function of our various police departments and they were occurring daily without warning. Is the PAL test an open book exam these days with a tutor as an assistant?

Take Care

Bob

You are missing the point. Even though machine guns were involved, the judge still ruled the way she did. The powers-that-be were after Johnny Sombrero and his guns for a long time, and failed to "get" him.

 

[caramel]

Everyonnes should do as they wish.

 

[Innavedaw]

The decision had nothing to do with machine guns. The decision dealt with the definition of a safe. The Judge ruled the metal cabinet the guns were stored in was a safe. End of story. I can only imagine how much interest the Supreme Court of Canada has when it comes to defining what a "safe" is.

You would think by these threads gun storage inspections was the primary function of our various police departments and they were occurring daily without warning. Is the PAL test an open book exam these days with a tutor as an assistant?

Take Care

Bob

I think what Tiriaq is pointing out is that if there was no appeal, it wasn't because the matter was too small to pursue, it was because the ruling was legally sound and no basis for appeal existed - The authorities were working overtime for a long time to take down Harry Barnes - and the fact that he (an outspoken outlaw biker) legally possessed fully automatic small arms was a big deal to them. This makes it a really big deal and a very important ruling IMO.

Edited to add - I see Tiriaq already responded with same...

 

[Canuck44]

I think what Tiriaq is pointing out is that if there was no appeal, it wasn't because the matter was too small to pursue, it was because the ruling was legally sound and no basis for appeal existed - The authorities were working overtime for a long time to take down Harry Barnes - and the fact that he (an outspoken outlaw biker) legally possessed fully automatic small arms was a big deal to them. This makes it a really big deal and a very important ruling IMO.

Edited to add - I see Tiriaq already responded with same...

I think we are saying the same thing only differently. All the judge did was rule on the Law. He looked at the definition of a safe in a dictionary and applied existing law. What the cabinets had in them was not relevant to what the definition of a safe was. Nothing there to appeal.


Take Care

Bob