Joined: 17 Jun 2006
|Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: Canadian mandatory sentence ruled unconstitutional
|National Post article.
|Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition
95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, unless the person is the holder of
(a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
(b) the registration certificate for the firearm.
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is using the firearm under the direct and immediate supervision of another person who is lawfully entitled to possess it and is using the firearm in a manner in which that other person may lawfully use it.
So there's no "in the interests of justice" exemption as there is in British law, but on the other hand there is a summary judgement clause (which is a more sensible way of doing it, imo).
So TPS sent in the cavalry and the Crown felt they had to indict and as a result the law has been struck down because it was overkill. Smart.
Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.