Mandatory-minimum gun sentencing law ruled unconstitutional

'Minimum sentencing' in general is wrong. Justice should be left to Judges, not partisan politics.

Hmm. Sometimes the judges refuse to dispense justice and that's what brings about the minimum sentencing laws.

Hmm. Sometimes the judges refuse to dispense justice and that's what brings about the minimum sentencing laws.

I tend to think in such cases there is something we aren't aware of. I have nothing but respect for most Judges, and don't think their colleagues let them 'fail upward', so there must be some other factor in 'weak' sentencing.

But if there are manditory minimums, Judges aren't allowed to use their discrestion in cases where, for example, intent isn't there or some sort of accident occured. Their choice in sentencing is removed, and penalties that don't fit the crime are imposed. I don't think that is 'justice' ethier.

This is absolutely the right ruling. Very few things in life are black and white and this even includes crime.

Guns and violent crimes are dealt with in much too lax a manner. Having lived in Calgary and Greater Vancouver, and with relatives in Edmonton and Winnipeg the street shootings are becoming ridiculous. There is no way anyone would be on the street or in a car with an unregistered pistol other than for nefarious purposes and they should be given way more than years, no questions asked. Violent crimes may have a story behind them but there too the sentencing in general seems to be way too soft.

Good decision. Obviously the law should have been written to specify violent crimes only or for situations when someone with a previous criminal record is found in possession of. I accept the attitude and thinking of where the law came from but obviously they went into overkill mode with the implementation.

You can't possibly reconcile the fact that where people live in places you acknowledge as high crime areas that they would not want to protect themselves? Obviously, and by your own admission, the police are failing to keep order in these areas so what would you advise people to do who have no choice but to live there?

Arm themselves and take the chance that they might get caught and prosecuted or depend upon the police to write a sternly worded report after they've been murdered, robbed, raped, or etc.?

What Edmonton shootings? 2011 was a high year for murders, but 2012 and 2013 have been lower than average - and none this year have been involving gunfire on the streets.

You can't possibly reconcile the fact that where people live in places you acknowledge as high crime areas that they would not want to protect themselves? Obviously, and by your own admission, the police are failing to keep order in these areas so what would you advise people to do who have no choice but to live there?

Arm themselves and take the chance that they might get caught and prosecuted or depend upon the police to write a sternly worded report after they've been murdered, robbed, raped, or etc.?Unless you are an American 2nd amendment nutjob and have had your brain devolve to total confirmational bias you will know that statistics show that gun you so want to defend yourself is much more apt to cause harm than stop harm. I've fought this one too long. A better bet would be to just summarily execute all who have illegal weapons but I don't propose that because it wouldn't fly and could reflect negatively on something achievable like a 15 year no parole minimum sentence.

What Edmonton shootings? 2011 was a high year for murders, but 2012 and 2013 have been lower than average - and none this year have been involving gunfire on the streets.Great. Then even less of a chance of the pathetic excuse of needing a gun for self defence flying.

What Edmonton shootings? 2011 was a high year for murders, but 2012 and 2013 have been lower than average - and none this year have been involving gunfire on the streets.Great. Then even less of a chance of the pathetic excuse of needing a gun for self defence flying.

You might want to read up on some of the formal 'rules' for debate, or you are going to get eaten alive around here. Someone's opinion of an issue is not a 'pathetic excuse'.

If you are OK with someone stealing your property or firebombing your house and killing your family, while waiting on hold for the police to say they'll be another 20 minutes; then by all means, leave your home undefended and simply curl up in a ball and whimper and hope the bad men go away. It is the RCMPs job to investigate your murder, not defend your property. And they are pretty good at investigating homicides, they have no cold cases at all.

But, don't tell me how to protect my property and family.

Feel free to protect your property and your family in any manner you feel fit, as long as you accept any unintended consequences of your actions.

But bringing your weapon out of your house exposes me and mine to danger so that is not then a freedom you have.

Potential for harm is not harm in of itself. Otherwise driving a car would be illegal. My rights then do not infringe on yours if I take a legally owned gun to a firing range.

And I always accept responsibility for my actions.

Probably so. Most of these things are too complex for simple fixes.