81 Replies to “Two Words Every Canadian Should Memorize”

  1. Well, Kate, this case certainly cries out for jury nullification. People should be free to protect their homes using whatever means they have available without being treated like criminals.
    There is almost something malicious about the way prosecutors in this country are so eager to beat up on people who have already been victimized. Prime Minister Harper has said he wants to reform so-called castle laws to stop this kind of legal harrassment. It is time to get on with it.

  2. Further reading about this trial indicates it is by judge only. So there is no opportunity for jury nullification in this one. In general, though, it should occur in each and every one of these cases that is heard in front of a jury to let the government know that the people consider this law unfair.

  4. The nasty thing in Canada is they can try you by summary conviction and you don’t get a jury. I am sure the crown goes that way when they are being a$$holes. The maximum sentence is limited but sentences are always at the low end anyways.

  5. @ Kate: having sat through the trial itself I must say that the Crown has been extremely incompetent. None of the police testimony matches, the locations of the firearms after use is in dispute. Ian Thomson played a video reenactment of him being able to retrieve his firearm from his safe in the time well described by the surveilance video.
    My impression from the trial is that the police themselves did not have their heart in the charges, and often they would interject statements in defence of Thomson’s personality and actions unasked.
    The way the charges were delivered from my understanding were after the fact, that the police had conferrred with the crown and charges had been laid later. Initially it did not seem that the police ever considered Thomson’s actions unwarranted and even after disclosing he had used firearms and their locations, they had discussions on other mundane subjects. Thomson himself was never searched.
    The crown has zero comprehension of firearms and made multiple mistakes which have been reported by the NP. The other humourous mistake was the crown repeatedly referring to a 9mm handgun as a high powered firearm because it was called Hi-Power. (Browning Hi-Power). The crown failed to establish the location of the firearms prior to Thomson’s assault, and even the location afterwards. Really it was like the Crown attorney just showed up and winged it.
    As for jury, since the charges do not carry a mandatory 5 year term IIRC a jury is not an option. I suspect however the Judge will rule in THomson’s favor.

  6. (Note: I was particularly impressed by the Crown insisting that Ian Thomson’s video reinactment was incorrect because after Thomson got out of bed, dialed 911, and retrieved and loaded his firearm he still had 20 seconds left to spare.
    Which side was the Crown on?)

  7. I have often wondered about the safe storage of firearms. If I have a gun in my house and my house is locked and dead-bolted and alarm system is activated, is that not safe storage, no matter where in my house my weapon is located….whether on my dresser or in my closet.
    I think most people would put it in a safe place if there were children around. This idea of locking in in a safe or whatever is stupid. When I am away from home for several days and my wife is home alone, do you think she will have the control to open the safe and load the gun after she is awakened by the front door be kicked in ….whoa even a trained cop would have trouble opening the safe. Firstly you would have to turn on the bedroom light so you could see the combination or get the key to open the safe. If the bullets are not stored there, then you have to find them to load the gun. By now the bad guys can see your light is on upstairs and how long is it going to take them to get up those stairs or run down the hall to your room.
    I told my wife to have the gun in her drawer next to her bed with the magazine in the gun. If she hears someone breaking in, get out of bed,grab the gun and the phone, and go in the closet, close the closet doors, and sit on the floor and wait. In the meantime dial 911. If the bad guys opens the closet door, fire two shots centre mass or keep firing until he hits the floor.
    A man with a wife and children in his house should have the right to shoot people who break into his house. Oh maybe he should go down and fight using the Marquis of Queensbury rules, after all we are gentlemen…what a joke…what about if the intruder(s) overcomes you…what next …now the wife and children are in major trouble. What I am saying is that there is no forgiveness for someone breaking into a house. That is the only way you can protect yourself and your family.
    Let’s have a law that says a man’s home is his castle and intruders enter at their own risk.

  8. What happened to those who attacked his house … did they even get charged?
    Why did they even do this to Ian Thomson?
    Only person who would not defend themselves would be: Judges, lawyers, off duty police and the LIEberal and NDPQ … the rest of Canadians would defend themselves if they were threatened like this.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=
    Off topic:
    What ever happened to the two guards that “pushed a prisoner down an elevator shaft” in Edmontom? Conviently, the survailance cameras were not working at that particular time.
    I suspect it is a case of the police protecting their own and nothing happened to them.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=–=

  9. Amen Mike M……well said!
    seems the law these days would rather the bad guy get away with murder, rather than a person be able to protect themsleves and their family.
    This kind of law needs to change…!
    a letter or email to the pm letting him know how we feel is in order.

  10. @ Mike: 50 seconds later Thomson would have been badly burned as the criminals were starting to throw firebombs into the home. It is due to the small size of his house he was able to leave his room, grabbing his keys, and cross the hallway to the other room to his safe within 50 seconds.
    He was a skilled firearms operator. Anyone else would have been in trouble.
    I 100% agree with locking firearms in a safe if you have kids. Teach them about firearms also so the mystique is gone and the knowledge of danger and how to prevent it is sound.

  11. I agree that the only motive for the Crown to prosecute, is to punish and set an example for any others, that Canadians are not permitted to defend their lives, even from particularly gruesome deaths, such as being burned alive.
    The pertinent question is: WHY and HOW has the state developed such a seething, psychotic hatred toward Canadians? This prosecution borders on being a crime against humanity.

  12. Yes jury nullification would be nice in turning the tide when authorities/crown and the courts collude against the rights of a citizen (as they have about lawful firearms ownership and self defense). Unfortunately in our all too elitist exclusive legal system (it stopped being a justice system the day the crown and judiciary stated meting out policy instead of justice) jury nullification is a hit and miss proposition.
    Firstly, I have seen judges instruct the jury as to what verdict they will return (or else be dismissed). I have seen judges reject jury verdicts that are contrary to the conviction the crown wanted. I have seen judges dismiss the juries for rendering the “wrong” verdicts. Our judiciary and bar assoc. despise juries and have often written of eliminating public input to the trial process.
    Secondly, most cases involving registered firearms don’t make it to open court and are sent to an HRC-like quasi-judicial tribunal under a summary charge. In these the accused is guilty and must prove otherwise to the satisfaction of an often biased judge. When they do get into a legit court, a jury trial is most often not an option for the accused as they heap tons of firearms infractions on him then plea bargain most of them away in an agreement to be tried by judge only – this method of process was cynically written into the Librano firearms act to put any lawful registered licenced gun owner at a distinct legal disadvantage. With his charter legal rights trimmed to virtually nothing, the crown and police have been running this gun confiscation, anti-self defense witch hunt for over a decade.
    Rather than hoping a hit and miss solution like jury nullification will trim back official repression of the civil right to armed self defense, I’d like to see criminal code legislation, with teeth, pertaining to abusive and malicious enforcement and prosecution of the law.
    It would be easy to establish a long term pattern of malicious prosecution and abusive enforcement of the firearms act.

  13. IMHO this mainly stems from the fact that most Canadian lawschools resemble left-wing think tanks. Among the “legal community” those that believe in using guns for self defence are rare fringe radicals.

  14. If that Prosecutor had his house fire bombed, he’d be singing from a much different song sheet.
    What a disgusting waste of valuable court time and money when there are real criminal walking free because of court delays.

  17. You know, it’s cases like this that make me wonder if one day someone will just stand up in court and tell everyone to pound sand. At what point can one question the supposed ‘moral authority’ that judges/courts have?

  18. If I were in charge,I would BAN household alarm systems and gated communities therefor making lawyers, judges and politicians play by the same rules as the rest of us.

  19. I agree with Mike M in that I consider a firearm stored in a locked house to be safely stored. The law states that firearms must be stored in a locked container but doesn’t specify the size of the container.
    What I do is to disassemble my pistols and store the pieces separately; all I need to do to get a working pistol is retrieve the slide from one location the remainder of the pistol from another and loaded magazine from a third. Revolvers have their cylinders stored separately. This means if thieves break into my house it would be unlikely they would find all the pieces of my firearms.
    Years ago I asked the NFA about this practice and their opinion was that it was perfectly legal and represents an imperfect, but more practical to a gun safe in Canada.

  20. For those who wonder how this came to pass, the answer was revealed in another letter to the National Post, also published this morning. I quote:
    When pressed, Allan Rock – the grand architect of Canada’s Kafka-esque gun laws – posited that self defense was “expressly forbidden” and he took steps to make it so.” (emphasis mine)
    Of course, this is nicely in tune with Rockhead’s world view. As president of the UofZero – er, Ottawa – he approved a letter warning Ann Coulter that her views “might” (nice weasel word, there, Allan) constitute “hate speech”. The speech was subsequently cancelled. He also banned student protestors from campus, since their “free speech” disturbed his sensibilities of what free speech exactly is. Small wonder that he would consider anyone acting to defend his or her self a criminal.
    Allan Rock – neo-fascist, and proud of it.

  21. I’d rather be on trial for unsafe storage than burned alive. This man is a Canadian hero, the prosecutors are traitors of the dominion.

  22. Occam at 11:22 AM
    “Rather than hoping a hit and miss solution like jury nullification will trim back official repression of the civil right to armed self defense, I’d like to see criminal code legislation, with teeth, pertaining to abusive and malicious enforcement and prosecution of the law.
    It would be easy to establish a long term pattern of malicious prosecution and abusive enforcement of the firearms act.”
    I would support that but Good luck enforcing that.
    The gate-keepers to the process would be the defendants.
    Currently the alleged Police support of the Registry is actually limited to the administrative level rather than the rank and file.
    It is the administrative level and the Crowns who zealously attempt to defend a monopoly on the use of force.
    There is also a disquieting element among the Police that regard civilians as unapprehended criminals.
    The safe storage laws were intended to limit unauthorized individuals access to firearms….the regulations drafted by the bureaucrats intent is to deny access to firearms.

  24. Mike M. >
    Bingo, even by your bedside it’s in your possession. Home alarms and locked doors are another barrier between an assailant and your gun, but of course those technicalities are not relevant to those with a bigoted agenda.
    They hate dependant people not willing to submit to their power and authority even when it may involve the death of yourself or a loved one.
    They the persecutors and prosecutors of citizens who wish to protect themselves want nothing less than total slavish submission of those they deem as less human than themselves period. Otherwise they would treat them as equal citizens and respect their rights of self preservation by any means.

  25. Mike M. said: “I have often wondered about the safe storage of firearms. If I have a gun in my house and my house is locked and dead-bolted and alarm system is activated, is that not safe storage, no matter where in my house my weapon is located….whether on my dresser or in my closet.”
    Common sense says yes, however actual -safety- was not the point on Alan Rock’s mind when this legislation was drafted. Unless one says the gun is kept safe from being used BY ITS OWNER in an emergency, that’s much more what they intended. Prohibition by exhaustion.
    The unofficial legal standard is: locked in an “approved” safe, with a trigger lock in place, with the action empty and open, with the bolt removed if possible, and with the ammunition in a separate, locked container, which is in a different room. That’s not what the law actually says, that’s what officials have decided they are going to make you do when you apply. And if you did do all that, they’d still charge you just to see the look on your face.
    Which is what happened to Ian Thompson. The Crown has decided that a gun -in your hand- in your own house, being used to fend off an obviously lethal attack (death by fire no less), constitutes unsafe storage.
    One of the wheezes Toronto police like to pull is they won’t give you a list of safes they approve. They say yes or no to your PAL application after an on-site inspection… meaning after you have bought and installed the safe, meaning after you’ve spent a couple grand and had the cops tromping around your house a few times, looking in your laundry hamper.
    Clearly, the Liberals wanted to ban guns completely and indeed were all set to do a house-to-house raid on the entire f-ing country to make sure they got them all. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration, I think that’s a simple statement of fact. But they just didn’t have the guts to go through with it.
    So they concocted the gun registry and the storage regulations instead. This gave them a beauty way to steal a billion dollars AND a bat to crush any gun owner (read “opposition voter”) they wanted too.
    Ian Thompson just happened to rub this prosecutor the wrong way is all, probably for having the gall to own a gun in the first place. Just think of a certain male lawyer named Lucy given the power of Crown Attorney, that’ll tell you what Thoompson is dealing with.
    Plain and simple, the Crown is crushing him as an encouragement to the rest of us Canadians to stay in our place. Which is the place where we meekly do whatever Big Brother says and don’t make waves.
    Everybody got that? Let the droogs burn your house down or the Crown is going to break you.
    Message received, see you next election @$$h0le$.
    CPC, take note.

  26. There needs to be far more accountability for Canadian police and prosecutors that aggressively harass and persecute Canadians beyond legal common sense.
    Currently their word is gold in a court of law and they can get away with murder without consequences.
    This is not a proper way for a civilized society to enforce its laws. We should not allow petty dictators to use the legal system to legally terrorize honest citizens without a proper set of checks and balances in place to “guard the guards”.

  27. If the occasion should ever arise and you find yourself in the position of having to use deadly force to remove the threat from an intruder, remember what he said and did before you remove the threat…..words like I am going to kill you and your family and use this knife to cut your throat. If someone said that to me I would definitely be in fear of the lives of my family and me. If you fear deadly harm to you or your family you can use as much force as is necessary to protect yourself.
    If someone did break-in to my house I would at that time be probably cleaning my gun, therefore, making the storage issue mute.
    I would make nil statement to the police, except….I want to talk to my lawyer before I talk.
    Always go for judge and jury election as you only need one juror on your side to have a mistrial.

  28. It’s amusing that he’s been charged with unsafe “storage”. The pistols weren’t in storage, he was using them.
    Anyone know if prosecutors are still immune from malicious prosecution charges? They would seem to apply here.

  29. I really can,t believe that we are all having this discussion about using force to defend our families….what a joke this country is? Ask the people in Mexico about crime. The reason Mexican people do nothing about the drug cartel crime is that they dont have guns. If they could ever afford a gun they have to go to the army to get a licence. I can guarantee you that if what was happening in Mexico with the drug cartel was happening in Canada or the USA, there would be alot of dead cartel members. Here is Canada and USA we have guns and could form militias and kick those scum out.
    That is the whole reason for a populace to have guns. The state sometimes does not protect the people and it is every mans God given right to defend himself and his house/family. If we dont have that right, then what else is there?

  30. Knight99 said: “There needs to be far more accountability for Canadian police and prosecutors that aggressively harass and persecute Canadians beyond legal common sense.”
    No, that’s just another layer of bureaucrats scratching each others backs.
    There needs to be a major firing of these f-ing camp guards at every level of government. The Justice ministry needs to lose two thirds of its total employee count, and the third that’s left needs to be REALLY AFRAID they’re going to get fired too.
    Then you’ll see d1ckweeds like the Crown in the Thompson case treading a little lighter.

  32. according to the moonbats, the ‘unsafe storage’ began the second he bought them.
    and as trite as the old saying is…
    I’d far rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.
    Once force capable of causing death or grevious bodily harm has been used or is imminent against your person or another, then you are well within your rights to return that force, even the liebrally reworded Criminal Code recognizes that.
    He was under attack by a deadly force…fire…one of the most psychologically intimidating weapons available to man.
    He’s extemely lucky that when he exited his burning house to confront the attackers he wasn’t hit with a firebomb himself and if there was one present in the hands of the attacker, he would have been well within his rights to use deadly force in return…and should have, then we’d have a jury trial and a coroner’s inquest and a better chance of changing the laws.

  33. Regarding the fire bombers, they are being charged with arson, not attempted murder – that would have granted Thompson an immediate defence. The fact that the police announced that they had seized his guns gave his assailants an open invitation to attack him again; how stupid is that? The lack of competence in the prosecutor’s presentation makes me suspect his heart is not in it and he is responding to political pressure. Now, let’s see what party is running Ontario…

  34. Re:safe storage of firearms
    The ony thing you need to know is tthat for the purpose of the crown/police agenda of abusive enforcement and malicios prosecution of the firearms act, there isNO safe storage – any and all storage is “unsafe”. Unsafe storage allways results in confiscation – don’t you get it yet?

  35. The Phantom >
    “There needs to be a major firing of these f-ing camp guards at every level of government”
    More akin to what I was trying to relay than more bureaucracy. Regardless there needs to be more enforceable accountability than we have at present. Where is the mechanism to purge our system of this rot? Maybe it’s there is one, but it’s not common knowledge and it should be. Average citizens are fairly helpless once they sink their teeth into them whether it’s justifiable or not.
    Some change can come through different governments as Harper is doing with C-10 & C-19, yet at the end of the day most aspects of the legal system could give a rat’s ass what the government thinks. They do indeed run by their own rules and rub each other’s backs.

  36. Mike M:
    If you don’t know what the rules for handgun storage are, you should look them up, muy pronto. See Fred at 11:30 am for the rules. Ian Thompson had his firearms properly secured and still ended up in court, (wrongfully, in my opinion) but anyone who stores a loaded handgun in his bedside table is just ******** crazy. I can just see the headline again – “child takes handgun to school, shoots playmate!”

  37. KevinB, here are the Liberals statements.
    Liberals on Guns
    “I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.”— Allan Rock, Canada’s Minister of Justice, Maclean’s “Taking aim on guns”, 1994 April 25, Vol.107 Issue 17, page 12.
    “… protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!”.— Justice Minister Allan Rock, “Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting” Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary, 1994 December.
    ‘So, will his new gun laws – aimed primarily at law-abiding firearms owners – reduce the crime rate even further? Rock is hesitant to give a conclusive answer: “I think it will help. (But) I don’t want to overstate it. I don’t want to give any guarantees.”— Allan Rock, Ottawa Citizen, 1994 December 1, A3
    “It’s true that the judgment of what firearms should be prohibited will be decided by the government of the day – and shouldn’t it be that way?”— Justice Minister Allan Rock, the Globe and Mail, 1994 December 1.
    “Canada will be one of the first unarmed countries in the world.”— Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, 1998.
    “Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998

  38. Unsafe storage is such an inexact crime unless a 6 year old bows away his 8 year old sister. That would be a good case of unsafe storage.
    When someone is home, unsafe storage is difficult to prove. Regardless of circumstance, it could be argued that a gun was being used not stored. Used of a gun could be admiring it, touching it, cleaning it, sleeping with it, or shooting in self defence. None of these uses are illegal and none involve storage. Sleeping with gun handy is using it, not storing it.

  39. terry >
    I believe MikeM was simply highlighting the cloudy & fluid (official verses unofficial) “rules” of legal storage.
    I don’t keep my long guns in a safe; I keep them in a glass display case in my office because I like to look at them. That said my office is secured with it own locked door, barred windows, and an alarm system all within another layer of home security and locked doors. Handguns are “more secured” than that if it really mattered.
    “I can just see the headline again – “child takes handgun to school, shoots playmate!” – terry
    Not all Canadian homes have little kids running around to pick up handguns and kill people with. Why should they be penalized for someone else’s problem? There are no kids running around my home anymore, why can’t I keep one by my bedside, I’m a grown adult who obeys the law, pay his taxes and creates no problems in a society that my family has contributed to for many generations.

  40. You think the firearms legistlation is bad have a look at BC’s laws against drunk driving and use of electronic devices while driving. For drunk driving, a police officer only has to believe you are impaired to take your license for 24 hours. No test required. This includes impairment from a “drug” and that’s not defined in the act. It’s basically all up to officer bob. No appeal.
    For driving while using an electronic device the officer only has to “observe you using a device”. They were clever and said that HOLDING A CELLPHONE is “using it”. That’s why I keep my cellphone in the glove box. I’ve heard of many people who get pulled over out of the blue. If the officer sees a cellphone on the seat or in the console you get a ticket.

  41. Thanks Terry for your concern. I realize it has to be locked up…trigger guard, ammunition separate,etc. etc….. My children are long gone so that is not a concern. To quote someone earlier we should educate our children about guns. I had guns when they were young and this was before the storage, etc. They never once touched or went near my rifles, shotguns, etc. I am sure most farm boys grew up with guns all over the place and you never hear of their kids taking a gun to school or where ever. You hear about the odd kid like here in Saskatoon last week going to school with a loaded 45 that was discharged…nobody hurt….
    Even if the guns are secured as per the law, you still have to take them out to clean them and if a crook happens to be lucky enough to break-in when I am cleaning it…..tough luck for him..not me.

  42. langmann@10:17, 10:21, etc.:
    Thanks for the great info.! I think you answered your own question—“Which side was the Crown on?”
    Is it your impression this case was being moved by the police brass (i.e., the politicians), not by the beat cops? We have reason to believe that, in general, the brass, but not the beat cops, want more restrictions of firearms.

  43. But officer it just so happened that I was cleaning my gun at the exact moment that the intruders entered my home, KArma is a b*tch.

  44. Mike M. – “I am sure most farm boys grew up with guns all over the place and you never hear of their kids taking a gun to school or where ever.”
    Twice, back in the 1960s, I saw guns in school plays. How did they get there? On the school bus, how else?
    Is there a reason we beat the Nazis in 5 years but are going to lose to the Taliban in 10 years? I assume it’s because our society has a preponderance of panty-waist idiots who are afraid of their own shadow.

  45. Prosecutos live in our communities, right?
    They work mostly,away from their homes during the day right?
    Well then the answer is right there…take the day off.

  46. I have yet to own a gun.
    100% of retired police officers in my clientele answer NO to the question, Should I own a gun for self-defense? This tells me I NEED a gun.
    A good friend recently showed me his hand guns.
    I observed his retrieval of them from his safe storage system. I’m blushing here, but they are the first handguns I’ve ever seen and held.
    He told me, he’d need 10 minutes notice of a home invasion. I told him, You’re not as safe as a “Palestinian” terrorist at home about to be nailed by Israel.
    We should not at all be surprised by this persecution. At risk is the big-lie myth that the state and its praetorian guard is actually performing job #1. Neither should be surprised by the lawyers who have saddled us with uncountable laws that are about state control and not public security.

  47. eastern paul >
    I dunno, you’ve posted here long enough to make me think you’re probably not a troll. Although in fairness I’ve never paid attention to anything else you’ve written before this.
    If not, I couldn’t imagine what your even thinking posting crap like that.
    Get stuffed either way.

  48. One constant all through history is for the ruling elite to relinquish power. Authority and domination are addictions that start with good intentions and morph into superiority complexes that are fed with every new rule and regulation for the serfs to follow. To admit a law or regulation is bad or unworkable is very difficult to handle for people that need continual confirmation to their right to rule and force others to obey. Whether it makes sense or not has little bearing on the subject as the prosecution of Ian Thomson shows. It’s all about protecting the power status quo and the inability to admit that a mere serf could/should violate a law implemented by a superior intellect. In their own mind. Power is a very addictive mental drug and like most drugs, you continually need more, not less. Withdrawl can be painful. Hope the Judge sends them all to rehab.

  49. Firearms are “in storage” only if the licensed owner is not in attendance. If you’re at home they’re in use. Of course that does not prevent the Crown from proceeding with bogus charges. If the defense attorneys handle this case correctly it could become a valuable precedent.

  50. Such fortitude shown here! Not many I know would have been “aiming at their FEET”, and rightly so!

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation