Ruling is from 2011...We can safely rule out an appeal I think.
Restricted storage question?
- Thread starter sasdigger
- Start date
Ruling is from 2011...We can safely rule out an appeal I think.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
I’m in BC. Does that ruling mean I can legally store restricteds without trigger locks as well as loaded mags right beside them?
Cos I’d rather buy a Stack On lock on metal cabinet than a heavy expensive gun safe. I want to be able to pick up and install my gun storage system by myself. I had to call my son and nephew to help move my safe when I changed residence.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
I’m in the same camp. I don’t want any legal hassles at all. Better safe than sorry...that’s not a pun BTW.
But if there are legal precedents that will essentially provide clearer definitions of proper restricted firearms storage, i will gladly change my opinion and get rid of my real safes.
There is a common sense aspect that seems to be missing here. While there may be 1 precedent setting case, the law itself has not changed to reflect it.
If there is a situation and your storage practices are investigated, showing the RCMP that you have something called a ‘safe’ that is heavy, with big locking lugs will probably end the discussion. Sure there is some grey area here, but when I shop, seems the difference between cabinet and safe are pretty clear.
Showing them that you have a lockable ‘cabinet’ or metal container and no trigger locks on your pistols, will most likely not end the discussion. Sure, you can pull up the 2011 case on you smart phone, show the officer and plead your case, but he is not in a position of discression. He will apply the law as it is written, seize your guns, and charge you. Sure you can appeal, then plead your case, have your lawyer raise the 2011 precedent and maybe even have the satisfaction of winning and coming back here to gloat. But you will have paid a hefty financial price and lost access to all your firearms for years. And it would have all been avoidable.
While principles and precedent are important and fun to debate, they don’t always trump pragmatic realities.
If there is a situation and your storage practices are investigated, showing the RCMP that you have something called a ‘safe’ that is heavy, with big locking lugs will probably end the discussion. Sure there is some grey area here, but when I shop, seems the difference between cabinet and safe are pretty clear.
Showing them that you have a lockable ‘cabinet’ or metal container and no trigger locks on your pistols, will most likely not end the discussion. Sure, you can pull up the 2011 case on you smart phone, show the officer and plead your case, but he is not in a position of discression. He will apply the law as it is written, seize your guns, and charge you. Sure you can appeal, then plead your case, have your lawyer raise the 2011 precedent and maybe even have the satisfaction of winning and coming back here to gloat. But you will have paid a hefty financial price and lost access to all your firearms for years. And it would have all been avoidable.
While principles and precedent are important and fun to debate, they don’t always trump pragmatic realities.
Well said. Common sense should prevail.
but you always get in trouble with CFO first, then law
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
Guess my safes are not going anywhere soon. Lawyers are not cheap and fighting the government is never easy or cheap.
A Stack-On is not a safe, not in my book. A reasonable person, or one with common sense, would agree with me on that, most of the time at least. Well I’ve read that common sense can be uncommon.
For the price of a gun safe, I’m not willing to mince words with the RCMP and the all powerful Crown.
To all who don’t agree with Caramel, would you rather pay a $10,000 lawyer retainer and lose precious man hours better spent at the range, and all the accompanying stress and aggravation, than just spend half of that $10K on 2 bonafide gunsafes that will protect your gun investments from the grabbers or common burglar?
A Stack-On is not a safe, not in my book. A reasonable person, or one with common sense, would agree with me on that, most of the time at least. Well I’ve read that common sense can be uncommon.
For the price of a gun safe, I’m not willing to mince words with the RCMP and the all powerful Crown.
To all who don’t agree with Caramel, would you rather pay a $10,000 lawyer retainer and lose precious man hours better spent at the range, and all the accompanying stress and aggravation, than just spend half of that $10K on 2 bonafide gunsafes that will protect your gun investments from the grabbers or common burglar?
5 trigger lockers only cost you $30 dollars, better than thousands dollars on lawyer fee and risk your gun's ownership for years. Do the math.
I put trigger lockers on all my guns no matter R or NR even on a stripped pistol lower frame which defines a pistol in our Kanada gun law.
I put trigger lockers on all my guns no matter R or NR even on a stripped pistol lower frame which defines a pistol in our Kanada gun law.
The regulations according to the Criminal Code have already been posted.
So a cabinet requires the restricted to be trigger locked. A safe , vault etc doesn't.
But of course what is the definition of a safe? We have had that one ruling where it was metal, but also noted that the second one had bolts running through it. Will this case stand as precedent? Or since there isn't a definition of a safe in section 2 of the Criminal Code, will a sharp lawyer go and get some expert advice etc as they anticipate this argument in future safe storage charges?
Some non legal definitions use fireproof and complex lock to define a safe. Metal is fireproof, well at least not flammable like wood, polymer etc. I personally use the complex lock to determine if I have a cabinet or a safe. Not just that it's metal (fireproof).
If it's just a padlock then I consider it a cabinet. If it has a built in lock then I consider it a safe. Dials, electronic etc. A metal School locker, I consider a cabinet because you're using a simple padlock. But again not legal definitions.
Bottom line, academically it's interesting. But here's the reality... I buy combination trigger locks a few at a time when on sale. Anything I would see as possibly a cabinet I use trigger locks on my restricted firearms. In the safe that I have, I don't. But mostly because I don't have enough to go around. Plus it's definitely a safe. I can't see anyone rationally trying to argue otherwise.
Typical argument:
1) Rights etc. You don't need to so don't do it! It's not law. Many argue this and I agree to some extent.
2) There has been a ruling previously about a metal container being a safe. In the ruling though it was noted that one had rods going through it (not a simple lock).
3) The rules are plainly listed in the CC and if it's not clearly a safe it should be trigger locked. Of course the lack of a definition of a safe in section 2 of the CC makes this hard to quantify.
My argument:
If a trigger lock helps save me from brutal lawyer fees, the fun time of having all my stuff seized, and the years it will take to go to court. Plus as I mentioned above a sharp lawyer could very easily work off that last ruling with the complex lock argument. Because of this I will take the long term least expensive route and less likely to negatively affect me. If it's not clearly a safe with a dial/electronic or other "complex" lock then I trigger lock restricted firearms.
Another reason though, that even the die hard take a stand types will have to acknowledge is time efficiency. We should all agree that the laws state you need a trigger lock to transport a restricted. So if I have a trigger lock on it I don't have to find one before transporting to the range. It's enough of a pain in the @ss trying to get everything together for the range without forgetting anything. The more stuff I have ready to go the faster/easier it is for me. Right there, the easier it is for me and the fact that it ensures no one can try and argue I'm not in compliance is what it's all about.
So a cabinet requires the restricted to be trigger locked. A safe , vault etc doesn't.
But of course what is the definition of a safe? We have had that one ruling where it was metal, but also noted that the second one had bolts running through it. Will this case stand as precedent? Or since there isn't a definition of a safe in section 2 of the Criminal Code, will a sharp lawyer go and get some expert advice etc as they anticipate this argument in future safe storage charges?
Some non legal definitions use fireproof and complex lock to define a safe. Metal is fireproof, well at least not flammable like wood, polymer etc. I personally use the complex lock to determine if I have a cabinet or a safe. Not just that it's metal (fireproof).
If it's just a padlock then I consider it a cabinet. If it has a built in lock then I consider it a safe. Dials, electronic etc. A metal School locker, I consider a cabinet because you're using a simple padlock. But again not legal definitions.
Bottom line, academically it's interesting. But here's the reality... I buy combination trigger locks a few at a time when on sale. Anything I would see as possibly a cabinet I use trigger locks on my restricted firearms. In the safe that I have, I don't. But mostly because I don't have enough to go around. Plus it's definitely a safe. I can't see anyone rationally trying to argue otherwise.
Typical argument:
1) Rights etc. You don't need to so don't do it! It's not law. Many argue this and I agree to some extent.
2) There has been a ruling previously about a metal container being a safe. In the ruling though it was noted that one had rods going through it (not a simple lock).
3) The rules are plainly listed in the CC and if it's not clearly a safe it should be trigger locked. Of course the lack of a definition of a safe in section 2 of the CC makes this hard to quantify.
My argument:
If a trigger lock helps save me from brutal lawyer fees, the fun time of having all my stuff seized, and the years it will take to go to court. Plus as I mentioned above a sharp lawyer could very easily work off that last ruling with the complex lock argument. Because of this I will take the long term least expensive route and less likely to negatively affect me. If it's not clearly a safe with a dial/electronic or other "complex" lock then I trigger lock restricted firearms.
Another reason though, that even the die hard take a stand types will have to acknowledge is time efficiency. We should all agree that the laws state you need a trigger lock to transport a restricted. So if I have a trigger lock on it I don't have to find one before transporting to the range. It's enough of a pain in the @ss trying to get everything together for the range without forgetting anything. The more stuff I have ready to go the faster/easier it is for me. Right there, the easier it is for me and the fact that it ensures no one can try and argue I'm not in compliance is what it's all about.
Last edited:
The only advantage I can say my safe has over my gun cabinet where I have a couple of inexpensive shotguns is the safe is fire proof while the cabinet is not. Might mean something in case of a fire. I don't get the logic about the law not changing. The judge in the 2011 case based her judgement on the Law that is written. If the case was not appealed then her ruling is likely well known among the legal community, including I suspect, most Police Departments. The Crown, I am quite certain has far more pressing cases than laying a charge of unsafe storage unless you are a well known drug dealer who needs a time out. I just don;t see an instance where "Joe Average" has much in the way of concerns.
I own my own home and if I was really concerned I would put bars my gun room window, install a decent door lock and meet the requirements for gun storage that way. Come to think of it it would have saved me $1,200 I dropped on my safe.
Take Care
Bob
I own my own home and if I was really concerned I would put bars my gun room window, install a decent door lock and meet the requirements for gun storage that way. Come to think of it it would have saved me $1,200 I dropped on my safe.
Take Care
Bob
So the NFA will defend NFA member in court (lawyers fees) that uses a Restricted Firearm to defend his family and property....??
Just asking because I am a member?
So I can store my pistol in a wall safe, not trigger locked and have loaded magazines stored with it in same safe?
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
Last edited:
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
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.
Cameron SS
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ground Zero
Exo-Thermal cutting torch will open that safe in less than 60 seconds.
If a thief has unrestricted access to your home, and determination, they will open your safe.
Only thing a safe buys you over and above a stack on cabinet, is fire protection, a little bit of piece of mind, and time.
