Cybershooters Forum Index Cybershooters
The internet's leading source of information for shooters
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Canadian mandatory sentence ruled unconstitutional

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Legal Proceedings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cybershooters
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 4587

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:12 pm    Post subject: Canadian mandatory sentence ruled unconstitutional Reply with quote

National Post article.

Quote:
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.

Punishment

(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.

Exception

(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. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Steve.

Only three things are certain: death, taxes and stupid gun laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cybershooters Forum Index -> Legal Proceedings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group