[Newsbot]

Title: Application filed to �challenge the validity of the storage requirements for firearms
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: uwish
Date: 2012-06-28 07:53:49
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

I'm surprised it's gotten this far. The Crown normally pleads down or dismissed firearms charges that may result in federal laws being challenged.

Good for Mr. Thomson though! Dumb laws should be challenged.

[Unsound]

Which part of the law is he challenging? The article didn't really say much.

[DrCaleb]

Unsound Unsound:

Which part of the law is he challenging? The article didn't really say much.

IIRC, he was charged under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act: (Sections 5 and 6 would apply)

$1:

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;


(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,


(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or


(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and



(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

$1:

6. An individual may store a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;


(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or


(ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked; and



(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regu ... lText.html

[Unsound]

That is definatly confusing.

[BartSimpson]

It's an absurd set of restrictions that, had Mr. Thompson been obeying them, would have conceivably resulted in either death or grievous injury to Mr. Thompson. What's at stake here is the right to self defense. Does an individual have a right to defend themselves or does the individual have an obligation to perish to satisfy the regulations of the state?

[Thanos]

If they'd gone after a guy who had been merely lazy or reckless and his mis-storage had led to a gun theft that later resulted in injuries or death then the government would have had a better case. Not so with going after a guy who's life was clearly in danger from murderous criminals. But this is happening in wonder-Dalton's Ontario. Says it all right there.