Supreme Court of Canada ruling says two tough-on-crime laws are unconstitutional

This is what happens when you ignore the advice of your lawyers that the legislation you are writing will be deemed unconstitutional.

I'm getting a feeling of deja vu here. Maybe it's just a flashback.

This is what happens when you ignore the advice of your lawyers that the legislation you are writing will be deemed unconstitutional.

But who cares. The base will just foam about an activist Supreme court and you leave the mess for the next government. Win win when you don't really care about the outcome, just the optics. If you can sneak one by once in a while, so much the better.

But who cares. The base will just foam about an activist Supreme court and you leave the mess for the next government. Win win.

Like we were saying about The Saudi arms deal.

It was fine when the Conservatives did it, now the Liberals are doing the same. I don't see the Liberals specifically crafting legislation that they know is unconstitutional and crying about 'Legislating form the bench' though.

No, that latter was a Reformacon special. The Libs will have to come up with their own tricks to send tofu to the base, and they have an extensive playbook to draw on, right back to daddy's notes.

So is minimum sentencing and minimums sentences for crimes involving a weapon. Both play to the 'tough on crime' crowd.

I generally disagree with minimum sentencing, but there are two incidences when I absolutely agree with Criminal Code minimums that judges cannot deviate from: automatic life with no parole for 25 years on first degree murder convictions; and four year minimum sentence for any offence committed with a firearm.

On those two issues, there are no mitigating circumstances which ought to be considered.

I think the minimums, in those cases, are still pretty lenient. If I were king, the minimum for those offences (and a bunch of others) would be immediate execution. BANG! Buhh-bye.

I think you are mistaken here.

Not registering a firearm, or rather letting it's registration expire is a crime. Since it involves a firearm, is it then right to punish that crime with four years in jail?

You are mistaken. Committed with a firearm means a firearm was used during the offense. Owning it isn't using it in that sense.

I thought long guns didn't have to be registered anymore?

What I mean is as andy describes it. I would not consider an administrative offence to be an offence committed WITH a firearm.

Anyone who'd draw down on another citizen has no place in civilized society. BANG! Buhh-bye.

Where it gets tricky is you use a gun to break a window for a burglary. The house is empty, nobody's in peril. Does that qualify?

That I mostly agree with, but that's not how the Conservatives drew up the legislation. That's why it was struck down, because my scenario was allowed under the former legislation.

I really don't agree with any legislation that doesn't allow judges discretion in sentencing. I think the branches of government are separated for a reason, and politicians are being egotistical to dictate to a Judge what their sentences should reflect. Only the Judge and/or jury are able to weigh the circumstances of a defendant's action based on presented evidence, and mete acceptable punishment.

The gun isn't being used as a weapon, it's being used as a rock. That's why I think discretion should be left up to the Judge.