Originally Posted by Cameron SS
At a very basic level, the difference between a weapon, and a firearm, is that any object is a weapon if it is intended by the person who possesses it to be used in a harmful way. Any object can be a weapon, but only if its is used, or intended to be used as such. Without any intent, a kitchen knife can never be a weapon, and therefore can never be a concealed weapon.
Firearms, are markedly different. Despite the absurdity of the statement, "Firearms, by their design, are inherently weapons". Therefore, as soon as you intend to conceal a firearm from view, you run the risk of being in possession of a concealed 'weapon'. Again, this is also an absurd statement, because the transportation regulations specifically mention the requirement, where possible, to conceal things from view.
If the RCMP has simply refused to address or enforce an issue up until this point, nothing is stopping them from starting to enforce it now. In fact, now that the appeals process is complete, is the best time to begin doing so.
Firearms owners have been languishing under nonsensical laws for more than 40 years, and many of the attacks on legitimate activities were predicted well in advance, in the midst of nay-saying and accusations of fear mongering.
Please stop talking.
1. A kitchen knife can be a weapon in the case of concealed weapon when it is proven before the fact that intent to use it as a weapon was present at the time it was concealed. In the even of "i had a knife in my pocket and i used it to defend myself", it would still count as a concealed weapon. This would require one to ask, why did you have the knife in the first place, and why was it concealed. Case by case basis, but you're wrong in general.
2. Please, explain to me the original purpose and design of the device so called "firearm", because clearly 99% of the world is wrong and you are right!
3. Nothing has stopped them before from enforcing it... what makes you think there's an incentive for them to start enforcing it now? If it weren't for people like you who have graced us with your presence and fear mongering, i do not believe the RCMP would be looking into these types of crimes to control. This case law isn't even significant to mention. Try spreading the news that a drug is now legal; that will get the unit commander's attention to spread the word in the parade room.
4. That's gambler's fallacy. Unless this case is similar to the ones you hypothetically referenced, there is little reason to believe this claim.
Originally Posted by Cameron SS
Well, first off, thousands of Canadians were affected by the ban on public transportation, despite not being on their way to a crime. It was not limited to only the situation that was brought up at trial, but it was applied across the country and negatively affected lots of people who had done absolutely nothing wrong.
No one here has ever denied that a person using an airsoft to rob a bank should have the book thrown at them. That is not the issue.
The Dunn case was a case of the nonviolent use of a firearm. While under observation for something completely unrelated, he took out a pellet gun, and put it back in his pocket. The people watching him thought he pointed it at some one else, who never complained, and then the observers reported it to Ottawa Police. The charge of pointing was tossed in court due to lack of evidence. That should have been the end of it all right there but it wasn't.
He was charged for three other non violent offences, and was convicted despite any intent to harm anyone. Now, as a result of the ruling, there is no intent of any kind required to be convicted of such an offence. This is a terribly unfair state of affairs, especially for people who think as long as I don't intend to hurt anyone else, I am safe from the law.
1. In a country with a population of almost 45 million, and about 2 million chronic homeless, I think that a few thousand irresponsible people transporting firearms on public transportation is the last of your worries.
2. Interesting you reference a bank robbery. Do you know what a robbery constitutes? Definition: theft with violence. Do i need to discharge my firearm to commit robbery, or is simply pointing at the teller, according to you, non-violent, and therefore only theft? Case law and the majority of cops will interpret and dictate that it is a violent crime. Simply pointing a gun at a person is considered a threat; you are going to shoot and, with all intents and purposes of pointing, intend to shoot. This assumption is not fallacious in anyway because this demeanor is dictated by the inherent nature of a firearm that is a weapon
3. Citation please. The last SCC ruling of R. v. Dunn 2014 ruled to dismiss the appeal, and to call a retrial on the remaining 3 charges. Furthermore, the charge of assault need not specific intent; only general intent. It is not necessary to prove that the accused intended to do harm.