[Freakinoldguy]

Bodah Bodah:

It tells you a lot that the crown would choose to go after this guy, considering it's a clear case of self defense and no one got hurt. They're trying to make an example out of him and the message is: Leave the bang-bang thing-a-ma-jigges to the police and no one else when it comes to defending yourself and property in Canada.

He's lucky he didn't shoot them.

Imagine if he did shoot and wound one of them; anyone think he should be charged with attempted manslaughter ? No doubt the crown would of went after him in this scenario.

Better he would have lain in bed and been burned alive so the Crown wouldn't have had to get off their sancitmonious asses and do so much work prosecuting him, since we all know that time could have been better spent plea bargining down the destruction of his home and death to a mischief charge and arranging to rehabilitate his attackers

[Foxer]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Better he would have lain in bed and been burned alive so the Crown wouldn't have had to get off their sancitmonious asses and do so much work prosecuting him, since we all know that time could have been better spent plea bargining down the destruction of his home and death to a mischief charge and arranging to rehabilitate his attackers

Well the crown kind of f'd themselves here. A little background for those not versed in firearms law first:

The law does not say that ammo must be locked up. it does however say that if it's stored "With the gun" then either it must be locked up in the safe with the gun or locked up in a seperate container.

There has always been a problem with determining what "with" means. Does that mean right beside it? Or perhaps in the same room? Or the same house. etc etc.

In this case, he had ammo beside his bed and the safe was in the next room i believe. He grabbed the ammo, opened the safe on the way past and grabbed the gun.

The crown contended this was unsafe storage. The judge dismissed that entirely and said it was not.

This establishes new precedent that the ammo has to be very close to the actual gun to be considered 'with' it.

Crowns don't like that, and neither do some police forces. It means i can store large amounts of ammo in the house as long as it's in another room than my gun safe, and i can store some in the safe as well.

Some police agencies have been trying to use the law to limit how much ammo a person can have on hand, but this kind of blows that away.

People dont' realize how much ammo you can go thru in a day. I've shot off 500 rounds of 22lr with the kids in an afternoon, never mind a day. Having 2000 rounds on hand is nothing. I've also shot 200 rounds of shotgun ammo in a day - i regularly have 1000 rounds handy. Saves trips to the store every time you want to go out and it's cheaper to buy in bulk.

I'd go broke having to have a safe big enough to hold all my ammo. Not to mention it'd likely go thru the floor into the neighbour's unit.

[uwish]

I agree, people hear "thousands" of rounds of ammunition and they think terrorist. It doesn't take much to go through 500 rounds on an active weekend.

[BartSimpson]

uwish uwish:

I agree, people hear "thousands" of rounds of ammunition and they think terrorist. It doesn't take much to go through 500 rounds on an active weekend.

It's just people who are ignorant of firearms who are afraid of them.