Restricted storage question?

legi0n said:
being well intended and reasonable but ignorant doesn't make one right when Canadian firearms laws are involved
there was this case where thugs took a week to break into heavy safes while the owner was on vacation
the RCMP laid unsafe storage charges nevertheless
The link I used to have is no longer active
I'm sure someone will chime in with the story.

edit: found something:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lo...-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point. The cards are stacked. Why would one leave something so basic, open chance when you know the odds are already not in your favour. I know I can’t control every eventuality but there are steps within my control I can take to minimize risk. To me it is a no brainer when it is this cheap and easy.

If you want to take take that risk yourself that’s fine. Suggesting it to others is irresponsible imo.
 
gdawg said:
Thank you for making my point. The cards are stacked. Why would one leave something so basic, open chance when you know the odds are already not in your favour. I know I can’t control every eventuality but there are steps within my control I can take to minimize risk. To me it is a no brainer when it is this cheap and easy.

If you want to take take that risk yourself that’s fine. Suggesting it to others is irresponsible imo.
Click to expand...

I disagree
bottom line is charges will be laid regardless
someone wants their bonuses
and we're the soft target
 
Cameron SS said:
You need to go back to Legal Studies 101. The precedent setting case IS THE LAW. By definition, the addition of a new legal ruling to the jurisprudence IS a change to the law. You do not need to later amend legislation to ratify court rulings. That would render the judicial rulings completely powerless and without consequence.

I can't believe there is yet another thread where people are asking the same questions and getting the same 101 wrong answers.

There should be mandatory tutorial on how to use the search function before people are allowed to post new threads.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But the point is, it is the Prosecutor and lawyers that will look to precedent in deciding whether or not to go to trial, not the officer doing the inspection and laying charges. I would prefer to take simple steps to try and avoid that situation in the first place.
 
gdawg said:
Fair enough. But the point is, it is the Prosecutor and lawyers that will look to precedent in deciding whether or not to go to trial, not the officer doing the inspection and laying charges. I would prefer to take simple steps to try and avoid that situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

the constables don't lay charges (my mistake for sounding like so), they recommend the charges and the crown prosecutors lie them (no pun intended)
 
gdawg said:
Fair enough. But the point is, it is the Prosecutor and lawyers that will look to precedent in deciding whether or not to go to trial, not the officer doing the inspection and laying charges. I would prefer to take simple steps to try and avoid that situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

You are putting the cart before the horse. Before anyone comes even close to getting charged for storage violations, they need to do something to invite the police into their house in the first place.

You have a greater chance of being struck by lightening then innocently having the police in your house starring at your storage and having reasonable grounds to believe you are committing an offence.

gdawg said:
Thank you for making my point. The cards are stacked. Why would one leave something so basic, open chance when you know the odds are already not in your favour. I know I can’t control every eventuality but there are steps within my control I can take to minimize risk. To me it is a no brainer when it is this cheap and easy.

If you want to take take that risk yourself that’s fine. Suggesting it to others is irresponsible imo.
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of assuming that people who prefer not to lock their guns up well in excess of the law are doing so because they are lazy, or inclined to leave themselves open to chance.

Personally, I weight the risk of malicious prosecution of storage violations (2 known cases in 21 years under the firearms act amongst 2.1 million licensed, and 3ish million unlicensed gun owners) against the risk of being a victim of criminal violence in my home (more than 5,000 annually). My decision to not triple lock my guns and burry them in the yard to guard against theft is specifically because if I ever need them to defend myself, my family, or my property, I will need them immediately.

AlbertaJohn said:
Has anyone here ever had the cops come to the door wanting to inspect your cabinet/safe?
Click to expand...

I have never heard of any gun owner, licensed or otherwise, being subjected to a random storage inspection. The several instances where gun owners posted on this forum about having their FIREARMS inspect by the CFO Firearms Inspectors, it was always on suspicion of criminal activity, ie trafficking.
 
350 Mag said:
So the NFA will defend NFA member in court (lawyers fees) that uses a Restricted Firearm to defend his family and property....??
Click to expand...

I have no clue you have to ask them. Whether or not they decided if it is covered by your policy or not does not change the fact that is not against the law.

350 Mag said:
So I can store my pistol in a wall safe, not trigger locked and have loaded magazines stored with it in same safe?
Click to expand...

Yes

Shawn
 
Cameron SS said:
You are putting the cart before the horse. Before anyone comes even close to getting charged for storage violations, they need to do something to invite the police into their house in the first place.

You have a greater chance of being struck by lightening then innocently having the police in your house starring at your storage and having reasonable grounds to believe you are committing an offence.



You make the mistake of assuming that people who prefer not to lock their guns up well in excess of the law are doing so because they are lazy, or inclined to leave themselves open to chance.

Personally, I weight the risk of malicious prosecution of storage violations (2 known cases in 21 years under the firearms act amongst 2.1 million licensed, and 3ish million unlicensed gun owners) against the risk of being a victim of criminal violence in my home (more than 5,000 annually). My decision to not triple lock my guns and burry them in the yard to guard against theft is specifically because if I ever need them to defend myself, my family, or my property, I will need them immediately.



I have never heard of any gun owner, licensed or otherwise, being subjected to a random storage inspection. The several instances where gun owners posted on this forum about having their FIREARMS inspect by the CFO Firearms Inspectors, it was always on suspicion of criminal activity, ie trafficking.
Click to expand...

Ya but get caught with a single loose .22 round in a desk or a drawer and your up chits creek...

That's the whole problem with C-68....it is FULL of ways to make otherwise innocent citizens guilty of an offence under C.C for an innocent mistake.

The Criminal Code should be used to discourage criminal activity....not make criminals out of people that had no "criminal intent"?
 
legi0n said:
bottom line is charges will be laid regardless
Click to expand...

Jesus people you guys really need to stop spreading lies. That is how we end up with threads like this. People spout the same lies over and over that new people think that the lies are the law or status quo.

The reality is that the vast majority of situations are not cleared by charge or never even see a charge, let alone the BS that you are getting charged no matter what.

Shawn
 
350 Mag said:
Ya but get caught with a single loose .22 round in a desk or a drawer and your up chits creek...

That's the whole problem with C-68....it is FULL of ways to make otherwise innocent citizens guilty of an offence under C.C for an innocent mistake.

The Criminal Code should be used to discourage criminal activity....not make criminals out of people that had no "criminal intent"?
Click to expand...

I agree with you but law as it stands doesn't always rhyme or reason
 
shawn said:
Jesus people you guys really need to stop spreading lies. That is how we end up with threads like this. People spout the same lies over and over that new people think that the lies are the law or status quo.

The reality is that the vast majority of situations are not cleared by charge or never even see a charge, let alone the BS that you are getting charged no matter what.

Shawn
Click to expand...

can you prove that?
I have quoted such charges
for the LEO it's nothing to recommend charges and let the courts sort it out
their performance reviews are .... need to say more?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom