81 Replies to “Two Words Every Canadian Should Memorize”

  1. Me No Dhimmi >
    Gun ownership is a personal choice. What most non gun owners can’t seem to get their heads around is that many people simply like firearms for the aesthetics. Like with any fine piece of equipment, machinery, or art. No rational person expects all others to approve of their individual tastes for anything.
    Then of course is the love of a hobby, whether it’s various shooting sports, hunting, antiquities, nostalgia, and even technical interests such as reloading etcetera. I personally despise golf yet can respect that others are passionate about it.
    The Liberal blinders see all gun owners as simply personal protection nuts, yet personal protection includes various outdoor wilderness adventures aside from just home/ property defence, which is a legitimate right regardless.
    I get pissed off when I hear the repeated mantra of Urban verses Rural gun ownership in the gun control debates. They are intentionally creating an “us and them” societal division, as if only farmers and trappers have a legitimate right to firearm ownership as simply a tool for “duck” hunting, trapping, and varmint control.
    This is BS and agenda driven politics at its highest level to deprive and marginalize a certain segment of the population who in fact are the cultural norm into subjugation of their world view.
    Buy a gun, and piss them off, it’s our country as well shaped by individuals who had respect for guns.

  3. Once heard it said that the difference between Canada and Texas when an armed intruder atempts to break into a home is that, in Canada the police show up, warn the intruder about the loose front step, and haul the homeowner off to jail for threatening. In Texas, the cops show up, apologize for the inconvenience, and haul the body away.

  4. Me No Dhimmi, ask the retired police officers if they would consider a gun for their own self defense. Also ask what percent of retired officers they think own firearms.
    I’d be interested in hearing the answers.

  6. @ nick: Yes it is my opinion that the beat cops weren’t that interested in persuing the case. In fact they were rather friendly with Mr. Thomson during the incident apparently and never viewed him as a threat. His videos of the firebombings I think convinced them that he was minding his own business when he was brutally attacked.
    @ Phantom: fire them all? In the US there’s this thing called elections where prosecutors and sheriffs get a mandate. It is amazing what kind of different tune a Sheriff sings when the majority of his consitutents believe in self defence…

  7. In about 1991, there was a case in Cobourg, Ontario, where a store owner was threatened by someone ‘known to the police’. He brought his gun from home to the store the next day and sure enough the bad guy came in a few days later armed with a knife. Storeowner pulls out gun, chases bad guy to car. The storeowner was charged with careless storage but the judge ruled that the gun was ‘in use’ and as it was never out of his sight and not accessible to the customers there was no danger presented to the public. This was pre Allan Rock’s bill.
    I’ll try and dig it up tonight. Since it occured in the dark ages ie pre-internet it might be difficult. Anybody from Eastern Ontario remember this? A name or date would be very helpful.

  8. There’s always the possibility, however unlikely, that the Crown Prosecutor could be taking this to trial HOPING that he loses, thus setting a precedent.
    I have known PC’s that were avid shooters and even Peter McKay was a PC at one time…and unlike the treasonous allan rock… “MacKay has publicly stated that the major impetus for his entry into federal politics was his frustrations with the shortcomings in the justice system, particularly his perception that the courts do not care about the impact crime has on victims.”

  9. If Mr. Thompson and his lawyer were to hold a news conference and state publicly their intention to ignore any ruling on these charges of “unsafe storage”.
    If they announced they will boycot any further court proceedings in this matter, with the express purpose of forcing the crown to lay more serious charges or drop these current charges.
    And if they said..Our goal is access to a “jury” with the express purpose of seeking a binding “jury nullification” ruling, it has become apparent that the Crown is using these charges in a personal/vendeta to intimidate my client and all law abiding citizens from exorcsizing their constitutional “right to self defense”.
    IMO
    The charges will be dropped within a week.

  10. Canadian Firearms Safety Course handbook, section 9.3 Storage:
    A non-restricted firearm may be stored only under the following conditions:
    It is unloaded *and*
    Rendered inoperable by a secure locking device *or* [not “and”]
    By removing the bolt or bolt-carrier *or* [not “and]
    Stored in a securely locked container, receptacle, or room that cannot be easily broken open or into and
    Not within easy reach of ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a securely locked container or receptacle that cannot be easily broken open or into.
    Restricted firearms must be stored unloaded and secured in a container, receptacle or room that cannot be easily broken open or into *and* have a trigger lock *or* be secured in a vault (trigger lock thus unnecessary); ammunition may be secured with it if in a secure container, receptacle or room that cannot be easily broken open or into with trigger lock *or* in a vault without a trigger lock. (from Restricted Firearms Safety handbook section 8.3)
    Note the “ands” and “ors”.

  11. Rogue Male >
    “Stored in a securely locked container, receptacle, OR ROOM that cannot be easily broken open”.
    Which was my earlier point that a room will suffice if properly secured. Whatever that means.
    The problem lays in the “cannot be easily broken open” part, which is left to interpretation. For instance I can break into most things easier than my wife can. It sounds like a professional thief can break into nearly anything constructed by man. So what indeed constitutes easily broken into, a bike chain with a four digit combination lock, a steel verses wood door, a cheap tin file cabinet verses a professional grade safe? Does an alarm system have any validity, if not why not?
    Morally they shouldn’t be allowed to make rules for people to follow under penalty of jail time, confiscation, and or fines and leave the application of those rules up to vague interpretations. It’s medieval and untrustworthy.

  12. I don’t think it’s that ambiguous; in the case of pistols (Restricted firearm), any container you can legally transport the firearm in is a container you can legally store it in.
    That said, the rules are meant to dissuade people from owning pistols and impede those who do. The law should be changed, at the very least to classify pistols as non-restricted, and ideally to permit CCW.

  13. If you read the magna carta we are required by the crown to arm ourselves for both self defense and much like the second amendment to aid the crown against enemies and invaders.

  14. Today law abiding people stand alone. The gov wants to take our guns away. They tell us that our homes are not ours. They rule our lives for us. Don’t defend your selves we are only 30 min. away wait for us. If the guy kills you that’s OK we will charge him if we can find him. Don’t worry be happy.

  15. Attn: Me No Dhimmi… I know lots of active/retired police officers and I dont know any who would tell you not to have a gun for self-defence.
    Your talking to the wrong cops…. maybe OPP a.k.a the Caledonia Chicken Brigade…

  17. Rogue Male >
    “The law should be changed, at the very least to classify pistols as non-restricted, and ideally to permit CCW.”
    Agreed 100%.

  18. The storage/use laws being unclear and vague is an intended feature, not a bug, just like the rest of the firearms laws in the country.
    When it’s your interpretation vs. your ‘better’s’, guess who wins by default.

  19. marc in calgary “I fully support the idea of jury nullification.”
    But it’s up to jurors to figure out that they are supreme. The judge will tell jurors that they must follow the law.

  20. I agree with Rogue Male, I don’t think the rules are that ambiguous, unless it suits your purpose. My shotgun stands in the corner of the bedroom and the 30-30 is under the bed. Both have trigger locks. Ammo is on a shelf out in the shop. They would be useless in a home invasion because I lost the keys. Have to remedy that one of these days.

  22. There’s nothing to say the trigger lock key can’t be securely duct taped to the stock or the bolt removed [where applicable] and securely duct taped to the stock. Trigger locks don’t work on lever actions, one needs a cable lock to disable or secure the action.

  23. One of the questions that arises with “safe storage” is the definition of a firearm. When I remove the cylinder from my revolver, the frame is just a nice looking hunk of metal. It cannot be fired without the cylinder. When I’m away from home, bits and pieces of my guns are stashed in various locations that I know of except it would take a very determined thief to be able to put a gun together from the pieces and he’d have to disable the alarm system first and there’s a backup alarm system that’s of non-standard design.
    In a semi-auto, if one removed the slide and stores the slide, barrel and frame separately, which piece is the “firearm”? IMO, the totality of the parts is a firearm. The law calls the “receiver” as being equal to a firearm. There is case law from a case in Calgary that determined that a “prohibited weapon”, such as the highly lethal unloaded 30 round AK47 magazine, was no longer a prohibited weapon if it was disassembled. The case, IIRC, involved the police giving back the seized “prohibited weapons” in pieces which are the body of the magazine, the spring and the butt plate. I’ve seen AK47 mags for sale at gun shows in such pieces but they’re a lot cheaper at US gun shows.
    I’ve mentioned my plan to store my pistols in pieces to cops and they’ve thought it was a great idea as it’s a rather trivial operation to remove a trigger lock or similar “inactivating” device. One cop advised me to put a trigger lock on the frame possibly more for the humor aspect than any legal requirement.
    WRT BC’s drunk driving laws, they have been found unconstitutional. Also, the idiotic law banning cell phones while driving also prohibits drivers from looking at their digital watches while driving. One wonders what the local gestapo would make of someone using a watch phone which isn’t handheld since it’s attached to someones wrist. I’ve also never understood how the police and paramedics get the highly specialized multitasking training required to both drive and operate a cell phone or computer simultaneously. Obviously this involves a rigorous selection procedure where they are required to recite sections of the criminal code while simultaneously writing out a traffic ticket on an unrelated charge with their dominant hand while looking up a license plate on their vehicle computer with their non-dominant hand. I’ve known one intensivist who would write a note on the previous case presented while simultaneously listening to the resident presenting the next patient and we’d all check his notes afterwards to verify that he really was doing 2 things at once. I expect this should grant him an exemption to use a cell phone while driving. I’ve now mastered the art of writing up a note on a patient while simultaneously talking on the phone about another patient so presumably that means I can also use a cell phone while driving, or talk to my passenger while I’m driving.
    What it takes to eliminate these idiotic statist laws is for people to challenge them. What I’d really like to see is a couple of thousand gun owners bearing rifles openly bereft of trigger locks hold a “gun pride” walk and dare the gestapo to arrest them all.

  24. Just to give the topic a little twist, a number of years ago the Victoria Police department lost (misplaced) about twenty of their service revolvers and one turned up in a crime in Vancouver, why were no charges laid by the Crown against the department for unsafe storage, failure to register, or a dozen or so other charges that would have been laid against a private citizen?

  25. It seems that those juries in Quebec that decided Dr. Morgentaler wasn’t guilty, were sovereign, and didn’t need a judge to tell them they “must” find the Dr. guilty.
    They simply did what they wanted, as is their right.

  29. This case is another example of the Canadian legal system. Or, in other words; “it might be the law, but it is not justice”.

  30. Just to put all the speculating and arm chair lawyering to rest here, here is a legal fact that may amaze concernin “safe storage”:
    The term “safe storage” is not defined in either the law or its regulations. When asked directly what constitutes “safe storage” police and the Canadian firearms center have no answer. Undefined legal demands cannot reasonably be obeyed. This is because the term was purposely left as a nebulous undefined in the firearms act – so unsafe storage charges become a subjective call by a police with onus on the firearms owner to challenge that police/crown subjective definition in court. Lots of gun confiscations under these nebulous definitions of unsafe storage are never challenged. However in the real world outside the police state the firearms regime operates in, all charges of unsafe storage are moot until the court renders a legal and binding definition.
    It should be concern to Canadians that police routinely lay such charges against law abiding citizens, with no legal definition of the crime they are charging them with. This is a civil abomination – unless you LIKE living in an authoritarian police state.

  31. The only thing he’s guilty of is being a MAN, and that seems to be a capital offence in Ontario.
    Heck, even where I am on the left coast (the land of mixed fruits and nuts BC) the RCMP gave me a pass when I vigorously defended my property with a crowbar.
    Really what is more dangerous- a warning shot or a 2 Kg steel bar applied to a knee?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation