It's perfectly legal to use a gun for self defense in Canada. But nevertheless count on getting charged with murder or manslaughter.

Well, I was thinking more of the laws that restrict storage and transport of guns in Canada. It's pretty difficult to defend yourself with a gun if it has to be unloaded and locked away in a cabinet with a trigger lock on it.

But yes, assuming you had time to unlock it, fetch the ammunition and load it, it would be technically legal to use it in self defense. And then as you said, you'd also likely be charged.

"count on getting charged with murder or manslaughter."

Or worse, owning a gun illegally. Isn't that the only offence in Canada that is punishable by hanging? Oh, that's right, being a CONSERVATIVE is the only crime punishable by death.

Between the lines, that's two innocent lives that got saved. Husband probably would have beaten her to death and Darwin Award clown had guns for sure in his possession while violating a person's home.

In your typical socialist disarmed nanny state, the outcomes would have been different. Recently two off duty French policewomen were raped, suggested solution by that vapid woman, Royal, running for president on the far left ticket, give women police officers police escorts to their cars. How about letting the ladies take their guns home, they are police officers for God's sake. Nothing like adding more civil servant hires to service civil servant hires.

Typical misguided and oh so stupid lefty solution to a not so complicated problem.

I heard recently about a case of a woman being convicted for murder in Texas. She was caught fornicatin' by her husband and yelled, "Rape!" Her husband shot the man with a handgun but since she yelled out that she was being raped she is the one going to jail.

"In Canada the law effectively prohibits using guns in self-defense "

More accurately an unwritten policy of prosecuting all armed self defense cases where a firearm is used (as if this were "undue force") has made the criminal code provision for the right to armed self defense virtually illusory.

Similarly, there is provision for a person to apply for a restricted firearms permit on the grounds of personal defense but the arbitrary "no arms for self defense" screening policy makes this also illusory.

So what we actually have in Canada is statue rights to engage in justified armed self defense using a firearm with 2 previsos:

1) this is justified as a "force equals force" defense...in other words you have no more lethal weapon that your attacker...ferinstance a 90 year old woman defending herself with a revolver against a 250 pound 25 year old male with a club has violated the force equals force policy as it is applied today

2) There is reasonable certainty in the potential victim's mind that the attack will be fatal ( One would be infinately "reasonable" to think any kind of criminal confronting you with any kind of weapon could be potentially fatal if we go strickly by statistical evidence...but the Monday Morning moralists in the crown prosecutor's office seem to have higher resistance of fear and apprehension than the individuals who are left alone to defend against an armed criminal attack.

So for all intent and purpose armed self defense is permissable but prosecutory policy is so intensely prohibitive that it makes this right illusory.

Your best bet to escape the tyranny of the jurocrats is to trust in the empathy of a jury of your peers....do what you have to survive, expect persecution from the state for offering defensive "violence" to dangerous criminals and prey the jury system has not been totally corrupted by the tyranny of the nanny state.

Goes to show ya. "An armed society is a polite society"

"Yeah, stealing guns from soldiers usually makes for a short career."

Yes and similarly planning a mass murder in a gun club,shooting range, gun store, police station or any other venue where there is a good chance of armed defense also makes for a very limited shooting spree...guess that's why nutters pick "gun free zones" to work out their frustrations.

Guns don't kill, people do. Damn good idea sometimes, too.

I was a juror on a fairly high-profile murder trial a while back in the city of Big D. A good-looking assistant DA was the one who put questions to potetial jurors in order to determine whether they were suitable.

When they started pressing the idea that shooting someone was never justifiable, I, of course, took issue and started talking about women who were being stalked and if the woman did not take aggressive action maybe she and her kids would be dead.

While I was congratulating myself on probably getting bumped because I challenged the DA's thinking, naturally the defense attorney loved everything he heard and so I got picked.

The upshot was that the lady DA made it clear to us and all other jurors that she worked constantly with women who had defended themselves with a firearm, and that nobody in the Dallas DA's office would ever attempt to indict a woman who had justifiably used lethal force.

(The case I was on, a guy got into a fight with his biker father who had done jail time, and beat him to death with a guitar. I hope nobody thought that I represented a juror of his peers.)

The blackadder said: "Guns don't kill, people do. Damn good idea sometimes, too."

That's the general concensus in the police culture and the military...there are just some people who won't stop killing peaceful folks until you stop them...terminally.

"(The case I was on, a guy got into a fight with his biker father who had done jail time, and beat him to death with a guitar. I hope nobody thought that I represented a juror of his peers.)"

Whoa...Kewel..death by fender...simple man slaughter..those suckers always feedback too much cirrent to the groundling plate....does that mean Pete Townsend gets dinged for dangerously discharging a weapon in public? :)

There is a section in the Criminal Code that covers the right of Arrest that a citizen has in Canada. Apparently a citizen has the same right of Arrest as a Peace Officer, but without many of the constraints. He does not have to announce the Arrest at the time; is supposed to be given latitude regarding excessive force, etc.. A Citizen must witness the crime and can't act on another's word.
I can't lay my hand on a leaflet I was handed at a Historic Arms show a few years back so I can't quote the CC Sections.
It would be interesting to hear is anyone has tried this instead of self defense.

So, let me get this straight.

I am allowed to shoot someone in self-defence, but not allowed to own the capability of shooting someone in self-defence.

Gunny99 said: "There is a section in the Criminal Code that covers the right of Arrest that a citizen has in Canada. Apparently a citizen has the same right of Arrest as a Peace Officer, but without many of the constraints. He does not have to announce the Arrest at the time; is supposed to be given latitude regarding excessive force, etc.."

This would be criminal code sections 25, 26 and 27

There is also CC provision where if an officer asks you to assist in an arrest ir to subdue a suspect you cannot refuse and the provisos go back to the right to use any force neccessary to take the suspect into custoy and stop the breach of the peace and threat to civilians or the peace officer subduing the suspect.

RThere are very clear statute references to the right to civilian armed self defense....but as I said "policy" in the application/interpretation of these Criminal code provisions make armed self defense or armed citizen's arrest virtually illusory by way of prohibitive prosecution.

wimp ssaid:"So, let me get this straight.

I am allowed to shoot someone in self-defence, but not allowed to own the capability of shooting someone in self-defence"

In effect yes. You will be charged with weapons offenses if you use a loded firearm or dischrge it where this is illegal...you had best have it registered and you have a valid licence or you will have federal charges for illegal possession...and all the miniscule provisions of justification have to be met or you will certain;y face anything from assault to manslaughter to murder.

I have files full of cases where the person being criminally attacked defended with a firearm and the the victim got worse criminal sentencing that the thug....I have one on file where the criminals were shooting at the vitim who had called police. He returned fire with an antque pistol killing one attacker and wounding the other....the original charge was 2nd degree murder and 20 firearms violations to the victim. The thug that lived, plea bargained his firearms charges away and got a reduced sentance for testafying against the victim...the victim was found guilty ...in an appeal with a jury, the judge released him and chewed out the crown.

There is one case where a crippled vet of 75 outside Lethbridge was broken in on by a knife weilding drugged-up punk and he fended him off beating him with his cruthch until he fell and went unconcious where the old man tied him up and phoned the cops....when the cops got to the old guys trailer and heard his story they charged him with criminal assault.

There are so many self defense cases with similar stories it is truly troubling...we see socialy engineered self destrutive pacification being foisted on us through justice system "policy".

WL Mackenzie said "This would be criminal code sections 25, 26 and 27" and "There are so many self defense cases with similar stories it is truly troubling...we see socialy engineered self destrutive pacification being foisted on us through justice system "policy"."
I understand that the US had the same problem back in the 80's, but the rights activists used citizens arrest to get around this nonsense.
Did any of your example cases assert their right to make an arrest starting at the "crime scene"? I was led to believe that a citizens arrest was something the crown couldn't wave aside and ignore.
Before "policy" can override the CC doesn't the Attorney General have to issue written orders for same?
I'm not a Lawyer, just asking.

So what I'm really hearing here, is that the justice, no, the legal system in Canada has reduced self-defence to a make-work project for Liberal lawyers?

What a bizarre legal system!

Next thing we know, crooked PMs will setting up $350 million advertising plunder projects and getting away with it.

Gunny said: "Did any of your example cases assert their right to make an arrest starting at the "crime scene"?
These were older people...have you studied the criminal code? Well neither have they...and add to this the pervasive propaganda the police and government spew about javing no right to armed defense and to dial 9-1-1 and duck...and you have a younger population that thinks it's helpless and an older population that think the right to armed defense is still there....untill they're charged.

This business of yelling "halt your under arrest" then proceeding with an armed intervention in a crime with no consequences is just some wishful thinking from Dave Tomlinson from the NFA...unfortunately in real life things don't go as Dave wishes it would.

the myth of police protection in Canada

In 1989, the police arrived at the scene of the Montreal massacre some 12 minutes after the shooting started. At that time, they were clearly aware that people were being shot in the building, this information had been relayed to them prior to their arrival and they could hear shots being fired in the building. Students, some wounded, were coming out of the building informing them where the gunman was and that he was continuing to murder students. The police spent the next 15 minutes standing outside the building without taking any action to actually deal with the murderer. It was only after the murder committed suicide that they entered the building.

The official Coroners report stated, “Throughout all that time, the police actions consisted of securing a security perimeter and evacuating the crowd. At the point when it was announced that the suspect had killed himself, there was a very large number of police officers on the scene ... When it was announced that the suspect had killed himself, therefore, the police were waiting for reinforcements. At that point, no intervention operation was underway and none was in the process of being executed, or even being formulated.” The Coroners report goes on to note that the rifle used had little relevance to the tragedy stating that “With the unlimited ammunition and time that Marc Lépine had available to him (author’s note: 60 unfired rounds were found), he would probably have been able to achieve similar results even with a conventional hunting weapon, which itself is readily accessible.”

WL Mackenzie Redux

"force equals force" defense...in other words you have no more lethal weapon that your attacker."

I disagree with you somewhat. Section 34(1) of the CC says this, "Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.”

Under this section I agree with your argument. However, Section 34(2) says this, “(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.”

So under Section 34 (2)(a) & (b) the old lady would probably walk.

There is also what is called proportionality. The way I understand this is that someone attacks you with his fists, you can use a club to protect yourself. If he attacks you with a club you can use a knife. If he attacks you with a knife, you can use a gun. On the other hand if he attacks you with his fist and you shot him, you’re going down!

This was from a lawyer on a talk show sometime ago and things could have changed since, but that is how I remember it.

Here is a very recent example of someone using self-defence:

“http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/03/21/death-closed.html”

that more or less proves my point.

In other news today

Student at N.H. college shoots roommate, kills self at off-campus apartment

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/us_student_shot

It strikes me that these subjects surrounding the proportional use of force were designed by people with absolutely no real-world experience of violence.

What I used to teach women and men in the case where one became aware of someone breaking in was to 1) get your gun, which should be loaded and close at hand; 2) turn out what lights you can; 3) lie down on the floor in a darkened room; and 4) as soon as you see him, shoot for the thickest part of his body.

This imagines a situation in which one actually has some time. And even here, with this measure of time to turn off lights and so forth there is simply no way to calculate what kind of weapon or how much of a threat the intruder poses.

Most gunfights take place between 8 and 12 feet, and basically the winner is the guy who manages to slap leather first, get the damned thing out quickest, and empty the gun into the bad guy's teeth.

So I frankly cannot envision a situation in which one has the time and presence of mind during the adrenaline rush as an unprofessional civilian to
go about the industrious activity of assessing the level of force that the villain can bring to bear.

English Common Law had its origins in protecting the populace from unlawful home entries by agents of the king. The right to resist the unlawful in our homes has deep roots in the English speaking world.

You bet that if at 3am, a person refusing to indentify themselves entering a bedroom deserves a few bullets, as does a jerk trying to hijack a car with kids in it, etc.

So far the lefies haven't figured out a way to take that right away from us here. They keep trying with every election cycle. So far, it isn't happening.

EVery study, and I mean every study, shows that states experience a reduction in violent crime following adoption of right to carry laws.

The places with the worst violent crime have the the most restrictive gun laws.

But liberals, who have become medieval in their rejection of intellectual curiosity and their infusion of religous belief structures into the scientific method, can ignore these statistics because guns are bad.

Brooks says: "So under Section 34 (2)(a) & (b) the old lady would probably walk. "

Under the current justice regime of interpreting WHAT constitutes "justified" and the prohibitive legal tests they hace devised...aunt Martha would have Fed charges....the very least of which would be using her registered restricted weapon for a purpose iother than the permit...illegal use of a restricted weapon and probably uexcessive force.

If 34 (2) worked as advertised there wouldn't be so many firearms self defenses garnering assault charges....prosecution policy is to go after defensive firearms cases....ask any firearms defense lawyer...they make a living at it.

LJ Brooks.. If the attacker uses his fists the defender can use a club, attacker club defender a knife , attacker a knife defender a gun. This all makes sense because the victim is no where near as dead if he /she is killed with fists as they would be if killed with a knife or gun.

The value of a 2nd amendment and a constitution that garantes us the right to self defense our founding father knew what they were doing its too bad our liberal idiot politicians cant get that into the walnut brains

Violent crime is of course bad. A violent crime is any crime in which you are threatened. I could put my hand on your shoulder, say I will hurt you unless you take out your wallet and give it to me, after I get your wallet I walk away. A threat of violence makes it a violent crime.

There is a difference between violent crime in the US and the rest of the West. In other Western countries you have a better chance to face the accused in court and say "That one did it."

When people talk about violent crime stats here they are playing fast and loose with them. More people are killed, dead, in the US than several other countries they point to with worse violent crime stats.

What the US has shown some leadership on regarding violent crime is with harder and mandatory sentences for those crimes compared to other Western countries. It wasn't long ago that the US lead the West in every crime stat and not just in those murdered by guns. Want to reduce violent crime, crack down hard on it with more police and meaningful sentences. Want to reduce those killed, take guns out like everyone else has.

Imagine what the US would be like if law abiding citizens like Cho could not legally acquire firearms designed to kill people. Combined with the US no nonsense policy toward crime. A reading of the second admendment that included the part about a well regulated state militia instead of ignoring it.

But that is just this conservative's opinion.

Regarding the citizen's arrest issue:

There are actually numerous restrictions of a citizen's (Criminal Code) authority to arrest. First, the crime must be witnessed by the citizen. Second, it must be an indictable or hybrid offense (ie assault or theft, not causing a distrubance or mischief). The subject must be told that they are under arrest and why in general terms, and they must be delivered into the custody of the police as soon as possible.

Depending on your province of residence, some provincial legislation may grant additional authorities. In Alberta for example, the Liquour and Gaming Act, Hotel Act, and Tresspass to Premises Act have provisions for citizen's arrest under certain circumstances.

The use of force in affecting such an arrest is governed under the 'use of force' provisions of the criminal code. Generally, it is 'as much force as is reasonabally necesarry', meaning the use of, or even display of, a knife or firearm is often excessive in detaining an unarmed agressor. However, as has been said, the courts usually (should) take into account a civilian's lack of training in 'use of force' paradigms.

"There is also what is called proportionality..."

You've got the general idea, but it is not so weapons specific. The proportionality principle recognizes levels of force rather than specific implements. For instance, use of a knife, firearm, strangulation, or even unarmed strikes to a prone individual are all deadly force, and can legally be resisted with the same. Other categories might be generalized as 'passive resistance', 'active resistance', and 'active agression'. Corresponding actions by the 'arrester' might be 'verbal direction', empty-hand control, intermediate weapons (impact weapons, OC spray, taser), and deadly force.

For example, striking with an impact weapon(a baseball bat)a subject displaying active resistance (ie. someone trying to flee or resist control) would probably be considered an excessive use of force.

I'm probably coming off as a know-it-all by this point, but I must continue :)

It is possible and legal, under current Canadian laws, to have a handgun as a viable home defense option. A handgun may be stored, in a small safe designed for the purpose, with it's ammunition, provided the firearm is not loaded with said ammunition. I know some individuals who store a sidearm in this manner next to their beds. With practise, they can open the safe, withdraw their firearm, load it, and be ready to fire in seconds.

If anyone is interested, there's an excellent article on home defense (in the context of Canadian law) here: http://homeinvasion.ca/

WL Mackenzie Redux

Sorry, I still disagree with you. In the scenario you described the old lady would probably walk. Check out the link I provided where the victim used a knife against an aggressive, but unarmed man.

The problem is that cases where Canadians have used firearms for self-defense are so rare. The last case I an think of happened in Ottawa about 12 years ago (I'm sure there are others that I'm not aware of).

I agree, with previous statements that use a firearm for self-defense and you get charged. In the Ottawa case it was a apartment owner whose apartment was being broken into and he shot the intruder. He was charged with murder, but when the judge read the evidence he threw the case out and proceeded to the rip the Crown attorney a new a$$hole.

vermont, possibly the most liberal state in the us has the right to carry with no permit required. vermont has the lowest crime rate in the us

Back a few years ago the community of KENNESHAW GEORGIA got a ordenence requaring a gun in every home and as usial the liberal idiot were making the usial rediclous claims THE WILL BE RIVERS OF BLOOD IN THE STREETS OF KENNISHAW BODIES WILL PILE UP LIKE CORDS OF WOOD MUDER RATE SKYROCKETS IN KENNISHAW but it did,nt instead the crime rate went down and the community had a few robberies with the robber eather being shot or were drive away there wwere no home break ins and rape burglaries and other crimes went down HAH THE NYTs VULTURE WENT DOWN TO GEORGIA LOOKING FOR A FEAST AND STARVED TO DEATH INSTEAD STUPID SCREWY LIBERAL IDIOTS