From: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca (Cdn-Firearms Digest) To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #569 Reply-To: cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Sender: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Errors-To: owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Precedence: normal owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Cdn-Firearms Digest Wednesday, February 20 2013 Volume 15 : Number 569 In this issue: Fw: CHINESE CHEVROLET RE: THE HUFFINGTON POST: Gun Control? We Need Domestic ... RE: USA TODAY: Authorities' new advice to schools: Confront ... RE: 'Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck ... USA TODAY: Biden's point-blank advice: Buy a shotgun Quebec, in clear and unanimous voice, prepares to set up its ... Re: Authorities' new advice to schools: Confront shooter Re: USA TODAY: Biden's point-blank advice: Buy a shotgun 'We are from the government' '3' Re: Fw: Personal Message: paid MP I Will Always Love You *NFR* Urge Your Congressman to Sign the Stockman-Broun letter Re: CBC - Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck down ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:08:06 -0800 From: Todd Birch Subject: Fw: CHINESE CHEVROLET Subject: CHINESE CHEVROLET Someone show me that this is just a conservative right-wing propaganda smear against the left, especially when both the right and left are taking our countries down the wrong path!!!! Now That GM is Removing Camaro Production From Oshawa …. Why haven't we heard this on the nightly news ???? http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?vLvl5Gan69Wo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:48:40 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: THE HUFFINGTON POST: Gun Control? We Need Domestic ... ...Disarmament > Domestic disarmament is a vision that can educate future generations > of voters about that which must be done and that which the Second > Amendment fully permits. > > Amitai Etzioni is proud to announce that he just made the NRA anti gun > enemy list. For more discussion see his book My Brother's Keeper. The writer must feel that Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't go far enough. I suspect Mr. Etziono would accept the job of disarming the citizens of the United States, or indeed any other country, if offered the job. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:57:39 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: USA TODAY: Authorities' new advice to schools: Confront ... > Authorities' new advice to schools: Confront shooter Traditionally, > potential victims have been told to flee and hide while waiting for > help. But now law enforcement instructional materials >say to fight > back. Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY - February 18, 2013 > > http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/18/schools-advice-confront-shooters/1920601/ Personally I recommend Target Focus Training because it provides the tools to decide what to do and how to do it. http://www.targetfocustraining.com/ Clive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:30:16 -0800 From: "Clive Edwards" <45clive@telus.net> Subject: RE: 'Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck ... ...down" > The apprentice electrician, who has no criminal record, was 29 years > old when he was arrested by police and found with a loaded Glock nine- > millimeter semi-automatic handgun outside a Surrey restaurant. > > Bahen said the federal law breaches Section 7 of the Charter of Rights > and Freedoms, one of the sections that establish the fundamental legal > rights of Canadians. If the accused was not actually threatening anyone with the gun I don't believe there should have been any charges in the first case. The fact that he didn't have a criminal record should count in his favour as well. To be absolutely consistent, even a criminal who has paid his debt by doing the time and been released without conditions, who is not threatening with a gun should not be penalized for mere possession. It is the act, not the tool, that is the evil for which we ought to be responsible. As for intent, we can presume an innocent intent, if one allows that self defense is innocent. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, February 19, 2013 11:06 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: USA TODAY: Biden's point-blank advice: Buy a shotgun USA TODAY: Biden's point-blank advice: Buy a shotgun The vice president, who has been shepherding the White House's gun-control agenda, reiterates that the Constitution allows for government to set limits on weaponry for the public good. Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY - 6:57p.m. EST February 19, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/19/biden-double-barrel-shotgun/1931223/ WASHINGTON - Vice President Biden has a little advice for those critics of the administration's push to ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition clips who say such measures will make it more difficult to defend themselves: Buy a shotgun. Speaking with Parents Magazine in a Facebook town hall on Tuesday, Biden said that he has advised his wife, Jill - if she ever has the need to protect herself at their home in Wilmington, Del. - that a double-barreled shotgun should be her weapon of choice. "I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house," Biden said. The vice president went on to explain that popular assault weapons, such as the AR-15, are less useful for self-defense. "You don't need an AR-15 - it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself," he said. In the interview, Biden, who has been President Obama's point man on shepherding the White House's gun-control agenda, reiterated that he and the president are supporters of Second Amendment rights. But he also argued that the Constitution allows for the government to set limits on weaponry for the public good. "How can I say this politely?" said Biden, who noted his surprise at some of the questions that were culled from Parents Magazine readers. "The Constitution does allow the government to conclude that there are certain types of weapons that no one can own. Now if that were not the case, then you should be able to go buy a flamethrower like the military ... if you're a billionaire you should be able to buy an F-15 . you should be able to buy an M-1 tank, you should be able to buy a machine gun, you should be able to buy a grenade launcher, and you can't do those things." Biden said that even if all of the president's agenda is implemented, it won't be an immediate cure-all for gun violence. But he argued the limitations are analogous to the ban on leaded gasoline implemented over nearly a quarter-century, suggesting that the tighter gun laws could have greater impact over time. "It will not solve the whole problem, but we shouldn't continue to make (the same) mistakes," Biden said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, February 19, 2013 11:11 pm From: "Dennis R. Young" Subject: Quebec, in clear and unanimous voice, prepares to set up its ... ...own gun registry Quebec, in clear and unanimous voice, prepares to set up its own gun registry RHÉAL SÉGUIN, QUEBEC CITY — The Globe and Mail - Last updated Tuesday, Feb. 19 2013, 9:25 PM EST http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-in-clear-and-unanimous-voice-prepares-to-set-up-its-own-gun-registry/article8853011/ Quebec has set itself apart from the rest of Canada with the tabling of gun control legislation that will establish a provincial firearms registry similar to the one Stephen Harper’s Conservative government voted to destroy last spring. All opposition parties in the National Assembly joined the Parti Québécois government to support the bill, backed by a widespread consensus throughout Quebec society spearheaded by the families and friends of the victims of gun violence, chiefs of police, community groups, police associations and gun control advocates. Quebec has taken Ottawa to court to stop the destruction of the portion of the federal data that contains information on Quebec gun owners. The new bill will be the “legal framework” allowing the province to obtain the data to set up its registry should it win the legal battle against Ottawa. “The Quebec government is stepping in to protect its citizens where the federal government is failing,” said Wendy Curkier, president of the National Coalition for Gun Control. “Eliminating the registration of firearms has put lives at risk and undermines Canada’s ability to meet its international obligations in combatting the illicit gun trade.” For Heidi Rathjen, a gun control advocate who played a pivotal role in the creation of the federal gun registry after the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre, the bill was a bittersweet victory after the Harper government dismantled the national registry. “As much as we are Quebeckers, we are Canadians and it’s tragic for every other province that they don’t benefit from a registry,” Ms. Rathjen said. “Today is a big silver lining. We took five steps back but at least today we are taking one step forward.” Ms. Rathjen said she hopes that the Quebec bill will give hope to those still fighting for the reinstatement of a federal registry. This wasn’t the first time that Quebec has taken a different view from the rest of the country on a social issue. But rarely has an issue created so much controversy in the rest of Canada, yet generated such unanimous support in Quebec. “Why is Quebec so different? I don’t know. But the fact is that Quebec is different,” said Public Security Minister Stéphane Bergeron. Part of the explanation, Montreal Police Chief Marc Parent said, may be that several mass shootings in Quebec over the past decades shaped views on gun control. Three people were killed in a 1984 shooting rampage in the Quebec National Assembly. Fourteen women died in the University of Montreal’s École Polytechnique massacre. Four people were shot dead in 1992 at Montreal’s Concordia University, which was followed in 2006 by the shooting death of a student at Dawson College. It was estimated that the federal registry cost Quebec taxpayers $250-million, which the province said would be lost if it fails to get the federal data. Last September, the Quebec Superior Court ordered Ottawa to hand over the data. The federal government appealed the ruling. The Minister acknowledged it would be costly to set up the provincial gun registry if the province loses the appeal. Coalition Avenir Quebec public security critic Jacques Duchesneau said cost should never be an obstacle. “We are speaking with one voice when we say that the gun registry saves lives We will monitor the costs but I repeat that a life has no price.” The Quebec Court of Appeal will begin hearing the case next month. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, February 19, 2013 11:42 pm From: "mikeack" Subject: Re: Authorities' new advice to schools: Confront shooter On 2013-02-19 18:42, Dennis R. Young wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/18/schools-advice-confront-shooters/1920601/ > Police officials said they were not advocating arming teachers, students, > office workers or others to prepare for such attacks; they also emphasized > that confronting the attacker should always be the last option. Bzzzzt! WRONG!! Immediate aggressive defensive action, before the assailant can consolidate his position, is the best course. And the best tool is the defensive firearm. -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, February 20, 2013 12:04 am From: "mikeack" Subject: Re: USA TODAY: Biden's point-blank advice: Buy a shotgun On 2013-02-20 01:06, Dennis R. Young wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/19/biden-double-barrel-shotgun/1931223/ > "I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the > balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire > two blasts outside the house," Biden said. What an idiot! He has NO clue about defensive shooting scenarios. He has just advocated completely exposing yourself to incoming fire, inadequately armed, while intentionally unsafely unloading your defensive firearm. What a complete moron!! -- M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike) Rural Family Physician, Sherbrooke, NS mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca "Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst". ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:29:09 -0800 From: Len Miller Subject: 'We are from the government' '3' FIREARMS DIGEST POSTING Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, February 19 2013 Volume 15 : Number 568 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:38:44 -0600 From: Larry James Fillo Subject: 'Mandatory minimum sentences for banned firearms struck down" This is interesting, I expect the Supreme Court will disagree. Instead of an aggravating factor in robberies, illegal drug dealers and other criminal activity involving violence or threats there of, which would be a rational approach, the government went after simple possession. Demonizing handguns, the most practical of personal self- defense weapons in the eyes of public has only set the stage for outright prohibition. When that happens the fingerprints of Liberal and Conservative governments will be all over the crime scene. Thus adopting a civilian disarmament policy, one predicated on inanimate objects while truly violent criminals get short, very short or very, very short sentences, volume discounts which is what concurrent sentencing is. The civilian disarmament policy is simply a guarantee that morally innocent citizens can be victimized by violent criminals where ever and whenever they want, in perfect safety. Criminal intimidation of citizens has become widespread over the last 22 years of "gun control". There is reason to believe this will increase markedly as they increase the territory under their control. The imported ones are in the early stages of their campaign. ------------------------------------------ There IS a 'gun' penalty in the criminal code. R. v. Brown [1994] 3 S.C.R. 749: Cruel and unusual punishment -- Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Mandatory minimum sentence for use of firearm while committing indictable offence -- Sentence to be served consecutively to punishment imposed for an offence arising from same event -- Sentence imposed on conviction for armed robberies using shotgun Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux-Dub�, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA Constitutional law -- Charter of Rights -- Cruel and unusual punishment -- Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Mandatory minimum sentence for use of firearm while committing indictable offence -- Sentence to be served consecutively to punishment imposed for an offence arising from same event -- Sentence imposed on conviction for armed robberies using shotgun -- Whether provision creating minimum sentence infringing s. 12 of Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1 of Charter -- Whether provision requiring sentence to be served consecutively if arising out of same event infringing s. 12 of Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1 of Charter -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 12 -- Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 85(1), (2). Criminal law -- Sentencing -- Mandatory minimum sentence for use of firearm while committing indictable offence to be served consecutively -- Sentence to be served consecutively to punishment imposed for an offence arising from same event -- Sentence imposed on conviction for armed robberies using shotgun -- Whether provision creating minimum sentence infringing s. 12 of Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1 of Charter -- Whether provision requiring sentence to be served consecutively if arising out of same event infringing s. 12 of Charter -- If so, whether justified under s. 1 of Charter. IACOBUCCI J. -- At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of s. 85 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed on the basis of the principles recently decided by the Court in R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485. In Goltz, the majority of the Court held that a two-stage test should be employed to evaluate the constitutionality of a legislative sentencing provision under s. 12 of theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The first stage is to view the provision in question from the perspective of the accused, and on the facts of this case, which involved three armed robberies using a shotgun, the provision clearly does not offend s. 12. The second stage involves considering reasonable hypotheticals involving the offence underlying the sentence in the case before the court. Here, the Attorney General of Manitoba limited its defence of s. 85 to the case which concerns armed robbery as the underlying offence. As such, the hypothetical proposed by the respondent relating to mischief is not a reasonable hypothetical envisioned by Goltz. We agree with these submissions and would therefore find no violation of s. 12 of the Charter. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba is set aside, the cross-appeal is dismissed, and the trial judge's calculation of the respondent's sentence is restored. We would answer the constitutional questions as follows: Questions 1 and 3: No, when the underlying offence is robbery. The operation of s. 85 in conjunction with other potential underlying indictable offences is not at issue in this appeal and no answer is required regarding the validity of s. 85 in conjunction with such other offences. Exception : with Harper everything has changed 'We are from the government .. and, now, we mean to harm you' ? Len 144 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:52:34 -0800 From: Bob Subject: Re: Fw: Personal Message: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:03:24 -0600 (CST), you wrote: >From: Todd Birch >Subject: Fw: Personal Message: > "Just a quick question about Canadian laws. In about 4 or 5 years our > plans are to move to Vancouver and I'll be taking my guns with me from > Denmark. Here's my worry. I suffered from very limited periods of light > and moderate depression on and off in my 20's and went through a > divorce about 2 years ago. I have used mild anti depressives for about > 15 years now. I still take very mild doses for mild anxiety and have > lived free from any symptoms since the divorce. Getting rid of her > apparently helped. AFAIK The CFProgram/RCMP is connected to the OAS, CPP, FIP and the Firearms "Program" in General. They are NOT much to Elections Canada/CRA, Canada Revenue or AMA to mention a few. They do a Criminal Background checks for a violence incident, and then they red flag U for "Domestic/Violent". RCMP Julie of "Domestic Violence Rat-outs Phone" may be more interested in your marital status, children, trigger locks, than the "valium" you occasionally take. otherwise they'd have to arrest themselves....it may even be a F.O.I.Act thing. >Here we do not have medical background check, just a criminal one which I of >course passed. What exactly do I have to declare in Canada? I see on the >form for license application that I need to say if I have within the last 5 >years have suffered from or been treated for any behavioural or emotional >disorders. By the time I get there I will have been at least 5 years since I >have had any kind of depressive symptoms although I will probably have to >take anti anxiety meds for the rest of my life unfortunately. > I can surmise as long as you are NOT on heavy meds like Daily 60mg Methadone with an MHA status, you can overlook the "Ibuprofen/Tylenol" you take >:). As a gunsmith you can take "Valium/Ritalin" like soft meds or something in line with what the Gov't Urine Samples allow....whatever that matters to your gun safety. The MHA manual has about what looks like 2 million Mental Disorders, that the RCMP use to abide to the Operation ENOCH/FEMA/MEMA projects. My exwife was from the Enoch/Cherokee tribe in dead-squaw Edmonton Alta.......I wonder??? >:( Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:58:04 -0500 From: "Maurice Curtis" Subject: paid MP Joe: In response to your question with regard to Garry Breitkreuz M.P. (Yorkton-Melville. In September, October and November 2000, I assisted the late Al Dorans by organizing and helping to organize seven rallies against the firearms act in Eastern Ontario. Garry was a key speaker and completely without charge. Maurice Curtis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:22:17 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: I Will Always Love You *NFR* Despots *NFR* I read that the despotic dictator Saddam Hussein won the 2002 election in Iraq with 100 percent of the vote. Hussein's campaign used a famous song written by Dolly Parton . The campaign song played over and over again on state media was Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You." Despots use propaganda wherever they grow unfortunately it works. source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/opinion/05zizek.html?_r=0 Yours in Tyranny, Joe Gingrich White Fox ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:31:04 -0600 From: "Joe Gingrich" Subject: Urge Your Congressman to Sign the Stockman-Broun letter Gun Owners of America Wednesday, February 20, 2013 9:07 AM Urge Your Congressman to Sign the Stockman-Broun letter Both Reps. leading the way to defeat ALL GUN CONTROL We've seen this happen a dozen times in the past 45 years: Anti-gunners introduce legislation to ban most guns or set up a national gun registry. And, too often, so-called "pro-gun" legislators negotiate a "compromise victory" for gun control advocates. Of course, the "compromise victory" merely serves as a platform for the next round of gun control demands. We're here to say: Enough! Enough! We're sick and tired of having our congressmen parse our survival with enemies who want to destroy us: * In the Senate, Tom Coburn (R-OK) is, sadly, working on gun control "compromise" with the most notorious gun grabber in the Senate -- none other than Chuck Schumer himself. * In the House, Congressmen like Paul Ryan (R-WY) have indicated that they might support a ban on private sales at gun shows -- stating that private gun buyers should first get the permission of the government (as if that would stop criminals from getting guns). This is outrageous and a betrayal of American gun owners! Gun control would do nothing to stop the shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson. And we're sick and tired of crooked politicians who want to exploit these tragedies for political gain. The very liberal and anti-gun Ed Rendell -- who is the former Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania -- summed it up pretty well when he said anti-gunners were "lucky" Newtown was so horrific. If a conservative said this about an act of terror, there would be a national uproar. But liberals say these things with impunity. We are not willing to give moral monstrosities like Rendell a single word of anti-gun law. And the way to stop it is for pro-gun Congressmen to sign the Stockman-Broun letter, which would petition the Speaker of the House to observe the "Hastert Rule" with respect to anti-gun legislation. Under the Hastert Rule, no gun control could be brought to the floor unless it was supported by a majority of the Republican caucus -- 117 Republican representatives. As we stated in a previous alert, we believe that gun control should die if only one constitutionalist-representative opposes it -- or even if none do. But, as a practical matter, if 117 congressmen sign a letter demanding that Boehner not bring up a gun control bill opposed by those 117 congressmen, gun control will die. Without that letter, Democrats will join with anti-gun Republicans, and gun control will pass. Enforcing the Hastert Rule would prevent MSNBC and the Obama administration from doing what it has discussed incessantly: Forming an anti-gun coalition between House Democrats and a handful of "blue state" Republicans, who would be picked off, one by one. The Republicans hold a majority in the House. We should encourage them to "man up" and start determining the agenda, and not let the anti-gun Democrats determine it! ACTION: Click here to contact your Representative http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=62426926. Urge him to sign the Stockman-Broun letter. Please note that there are two different action responses for you to send, and the system will automatically send that response, depending upon whether your congressman is a Republican or Democrat. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, February 20, 2013 11:24 am From: decline@pteradon.tera-byte.com Subject: Re: CBC - Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck down So my questions, in light of the charge below violating Sec. 7 of the Charter, why are convictions (or certainly prosecutions) virtually automatic on C-68 against LAW ABIDING citizens who have done NOTHING wrong, or even stupid as the guy in question did, attacked with such ferocity when C-68 violates almost EVERY section of the Charter?? Are judges ORDERED to prosecute without regard for rights if it involves simple traditional ownership of a firearm without "government papers please?" Just ask Jonathan Login, Ian Thomson, Chan, John Rew, and so many others..... See: Professor Ted Morton's research reveals that the Firearms Act (C-68) violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a dozen ways. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/violatescharterofrightsandfreedom.htm It has gotten worse, much worse, recently with the draconian and invasive privacy violating licensing. Chris, Lorne, and Judi, I smell a timely article here..... Don BCC: members, judiciary, legal, MPs and other concerned parties. > FIREARMS DIGEST POSTING > owner-cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca > > Cdn-Firearms Digest Tuesday, February 19 2013 Volume 15 : Number > 568 > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:38:44 -0600 > From: Larry James Fillo > Subject: 'Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck down" > > This is interesting, I expect the Supreme Court will disagree. Instead of > an > aggravating factor in robberies, illegal drug dealers and other criminal > activity involving violence or threats there of, which would be a rational > approach, the government went after simple possession. Demonizing > handguns, > the most practical of personal self- defense weapons in the eyes of public > has only set the stage for outright prohibition. When that happens the > fingerprints of Liberal and Conservative governments will be all over the > crime scene. Thus adopting a civilian disarmament policy, one predicated > on > inanimate objects while truly violent criminals get short, very short or > very, very short sentences, volume discounts which is what concurrent > sentencing is. The civilian disarmament policy is simply a guarantee that > morally innocent citizens can be victimize by violent criminals where ever > and whenever they want, in perfect safety. Criminal intimidation of > citizens has become widespread over the last 22 years of "gun control". > There is reason to believe this will increase markedly as they increase > the > territory under their control. The imported ones are in the early stages > of > their campaign. > ------------------------------------------ > > CBC - Mandatory minimum sentence for banned firearm struck down > B.C. judge says federal law breaches Charter of Rights and Freedoms > The Canadian Press Posted: Jan 4, 2013 12:28 PM PT Last Updated: Jan 5, > 2013 > 10:27 AM PT Read 415 comments415 > http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/01/04/bc-firearms- > unconstitutional.html > > The federal government's mandatory-minimum sentence of three years > imprisonment for the possession of a loaded and restricted firearm is > unconstitutional, says a provincial court judge in Surrey, B.C. The ruling > was handed down by Judge James Bahen Thursday and focuses on the > sentencing > of Glenn Harley Tetsuji Sheck. The apprentice electrician, who has no > criminal record, was 29 years old when he was arrested by police and found > with a loaded Glock nine-millimetre semi-automatic handgun outside a > Surrey > restaurant. > > Bahen said the federal law breaches Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and > Freedoms, one of the sections that establish the fundamental legal rights > of > Canadians. "This breach is caused by the arbitrary gap between the maximum > sentence of one year in summary proceedings and the minimum three years > sentence when proceeding by indictment," Bahen wrote in his ruling. > > Summary offences are generally less serious, while indictable offences are > considered more serious and include break and enter, theft over $5,000, > aggravated sexual assault as well as murder. Bahen also ruled the general > application of the mandatory-minimum sentence in "reasonable hypothetical > circumstances" could potentially violate Section 12 of the charter by > imposing cruel and unusual punishment. That means, according to the > charter, > that "governments cannot treat individuals or punish them in an > excessively > harsh manner." > > CROWN REVIEWING DECISION > > However, the judge decided not to rule the law to be of no force and > effect > in Sheck's sentencing, and has given the Crown an opportunity to make > further presentations to the court on the matter. "Crown will be carefully > reviewing the decision in the coming days to assess the appropriate next > step," said Neil MacKenzie, a spokesman for B.C's Criminal Justice Branch. > MacKenzie said the Crown can still have the sentencing provisions upheld > under Section 1 of the charter. That section states that "charter rights > can > be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be > reasonable in a free and democratic society." > > "We're very pleased with the outcome," said Elizabeth Lewis, one of > Sheck's > defence lawyers. "We think that it's a very solid and well reasoned > decision." She said the issue is not over, and the burden has now shifted > to > the Crown to call evidence under Section 1 to see whether "the otherwise > unconstitutional measure can be salvaged as a reasonable limit" to charter > rights. Lewis said the case has been adjourned. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V15 #569 *********************************** Submissions: mailto:cdn-firearms-digest@scorpion.bogend.ca Mailing List Commands: mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca Moderator email: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca List owner: mailto:owner-cdn-firearms@scorpion.bogend.ca FAQ list: http://www.canfirearms/Skeeter/Faq/cfd-faq1.html Web Site: http://www.canfirearms.ca CFDigest Archives: http://www.canfirearms.ca/archives To unsubscribe from _all_ the lists, put the next four lines in a message and mailto:majordomo@scorpion.bogend.ca unsubscribe cdn-firearms-digest unsubscribe cdn-firearms-chat unsubscribe cdn-firearms end (To subscribe, use "subscribe" instead of "unsubscribe".)