Originally Posted by RainyEyes
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.
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.
OK so a little hard to follow the way you have laid that out. Apologies in advance if I have misread.
1. Kitchen knives. Seems like we agree. Some form of intent is required for a kitchen knife to be deemed a weapon.
2. As I have yet proposed a definition of firearm, I don't see how you figure I am right and 99% of the world is wrong, sarcastically or otherwise. There are numerous reference points in law, be they the firearms act, the criminal code or case law, that generally reflect the popular notion that firearms are designed to kill. I personally think this is absurd, because there are many firearms, like every airsoft firearm, that in fact were not designed to kill.
3. I don't really follow your point. I never said there was an incentive. How ever pending legal action usually presents a barrier to action, so the RCMP as a federal organization may have refrained from doing anything about the Ontario COurt of Appeal ruling until AFTER the supreme court appeal process wrapped up. No point jumping into action just cause an Ontario Court said something when it can get overturned soon after by the next court up.
Further, I have stated several times now that the RCMP do not have resources to even begin looking in to this, and despite what they MAY want to do with it, they probably can't do a whole lot at this point. Where is the fear mongering?
4. Gamblers Fallacy? Actually, the cases mentioned above are in fact quite similar. Its the same set of laws, down to the very section that were being enforced, the meaning of the same words being debated, and the same law enforcement agency taking an adverse interpretation of law to the detriment of the same class of citizen.
1. Population of Canada is 35 million. https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid...%20of%20canada
What exactly is irresponsible about taking the bus to the gun range? I didn't know car ownership was a prerequisite for gun ownership. Absolutely agree that homelessness is a bigger social issue than taking the bus with a gun, but that was our courts and politicians that made that call, not me.
2. Yes I know what a robbery constitutes. No, you do not need to discharge the firearm. Never said pointing a gun was non violent. In fact I've advocated the opposite. Yes, pointing a FIREARM is considered a threat. And guess what, airsoft guns are now FIREARMS. Do you get it now? you've completed the circle for all to see. FIREARMs, which NOW INCLUDES AIRSOFT, are WEAPONS!, regardless of weather or not they meet the intent based definition of weapon in the criminal code.
When I said this was a non violent case, it was because the pointing a firearm charge, the only violent act, resulted in acquittal. The appeal then proceeded on only non violent charges.
Handling a firearm in a careless manner is not violent.
Carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public is non violent, and is used to charge people who the police BELIEVE is up to no good, but can't prove anything else. It is one of the most contentious sections of the code.
Concealing a firearm is non violent.
Don't get me wrong, these are all undesireable behaviours. They simply are not violent the same way pointing or threatening with a gun is.
3. SC of Canada RvDunn 2014. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc...2014scc69.html
Dismissed the appeal, didn't overturn anything or order any new trials. Simply agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal, giving national recognition of the legal reasoning of that court.
Ontario Court of Appeal, R v Dunn 2013 https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/do...13onca539.html
Set aside acquittals of the trial judge, and ordered a new trial, except, and I quote from the last paragraph " I would not interfere with the acquittal on count 2 of pointing a firearm given the trial judge’s finding of fact that the respondent did not point the firearm at his friend
Here's the take away for airsofters. Guy is accused of pointing a pellet gun at his friend, and despite being acquitted on that charge because in fact he never pointed a gun at anyone, he was convicted of three separate criminal code offences, issued a prohibition order, banned from being in possession of anything resembling a firearm and must surrender any such items.
Welcome to the big boy world of firearms laws. And you think this is a good thing?