The Great Gun Control Debate

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile back at the ranch........


http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...14258-sun.html

Gun charges tossed
Judge rules cops' warrantless search a violation of
gunsmith's charter rights

By ELIZA BARLOW, SUN MEDIA
Thu, July 5, 2007

Firearms charges against a 62-year-old gunsmith were
thrown out of court yesterday after a judge ruled city
cops violated his charter rights when they raided his
southside home without a warrant.

Ernest McKenzie told Sun Media after the case was
dismissed that he's still "more than a little annoyed"
over the charges, which threw his life and career into
disarray.

"It would be nice if I got all my stuff back," said
the well-dressed city man outside the courtroom.

More than 250 items, including about 50 handguns, 50
rifles and assorted gun parts, that cops seized from
McKenzie's home are still being held by authorities.

A forfeiture hearing has been scheduled for August
when McKenzie will try to get back the items, which he
claims are worth upwards of $100,000.

McKenzie, a professional gunsmith since 1964, was
charged with five counts of careless use or storage of
a firearm after cops showed up at his home at 35
Avenue and 105B Street on July 20, 2004.

Officers had pulled over David Hamel, a friend to whom
McKenzie was renting a room in his home. Hamel was on
a recognizance not to possess any knives other than
for dining purposes.

When cops allegedly found a knife in his car, they
marched him back to McKenzie's home, where McKenzie
initially refused to let them in.

From the entrance, cops, who had no search warrant,
spied two boxes of shotgun shells on a bookcase. They
told McKenzie they were going to search his house,
essentially whether he liked it or not.

Judge Lloyd Malin said it appears cops felt that the
recognizance Hamel was on gave them the right to
search McKenzie's house.

Police did a walk-through of the house, where a
dismantled handgun was found on the kitchen table. In
McKenzie's bedroom, they found two rifles behind a
door and another gun under the bed. McKenzie also
showed them his locked "gun room," where the cops saw
stacks of rifles.

Court heard at some point police became concerned for
their safety and called in backup. Both McKenzie and
Hamel were handcuffed and hauled down to the police
station. McKenzie yesterday told Sun Media that though
he's a Type 2 diabetic, police didn't feed him for
about 24 hours.

Based on what they found, cops got a search warrant
and went back to the home for a thorough raid.

At the start of his trial, McKenzie launched a charter
challenge, contending his right to be secure against
unreasonable search or seizure had been violated.

Malin ruled McKenzie did not voluntarily let the
police into his home. He said officers used
"psychological coercion and misinformation" to get
inside without a warrant, adding, "This entry
constitutes a serious charter breach."

McKenzie said virtually all of his weapons are
registered. He hasn't ruled out pursuing civil action

 

[canadianblue]

I don't think that story really helps out the pro-gun cause at all, carelessly storing firearms isn't something that should be considered appropriate.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS


5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if


(a) it is unloaded;



(b) it is



(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,



(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or



(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and



(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.



  (2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.


  (3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

So where does this article show that the firearms where stored carelessly?

The partially dis-assembled handgun is in use, not being stored and likely he was working on it when they knocked on his door. Also by the article he has a “secure gun room” where most of his collection was. Unless you have further information that is not in this article, how can you show the 4 guns were “carelessly stored” ?

 

[Loachman]

I don't think that story really helps out the pro-gun cause at all, carelessly storing firearms isn't something that should be considered appropriate.

No, it doesn't - because few people can interpret it properly.

Now, I wasn't there, and didn't see the situation, but here's my interpretation:

"Police did a walk-through of the house, where a
dismantled handgun was found on the kitchen table. In
McKenzie's bedroom, they found two rifles behind a
door and another gun under the bed. McKenzie also
showed them his locked "gun room," where the cops saw
stacks of rifles."

The dismantled handgun was "in use". Some form of work or cleaning was being performed upon it, and, as long as the owner was present, there was nothing illegal.

Non-restricted rifles do not have to be locked away or secured with a trigger lock. They can be disabled by removing the bolt. Had that been done, nothing was illegal.

A locked gun room, no matter how many "stacks of rifles" were within, could well meet legal requirements as well.

One of the unfortunate aspects of the Firearms Act is that the wording is confusing, convoluted, and often contradictory. Few of those charged with enforcing it - judges, lawyers, and police - understand it. Police tend to err on, from their point of view, caution and wiill arrest almost anyone and seize almost anything.

While I do not trust them, as I said earlier, I do not and cannot blame them. They did not create this mess, yet they have to deal with it.

Were I a policeman who did not own private firearms, I would probably do and act much the same as they do.

 

[Loachman]

As for the loaded pistol, it is against Canadian law to load a gun anywhere that it cannot be legally discharged. So it is in fact illegal to have a mag in the gun anywhere in your house. Mag beside the gun however is perfectly legal.

As Loachman pointed out. It is perfectly legal for me to carry my pistol in a holster around my house and property as long as it is not loaded, I can have a full mag in my pocket and I have met the laws of this country.

This is the vagueness that I alluded to in a previous post (and one of a bazillion others that pepper the legislation like dead neurons in an Alzheimer's patient's neocortex).

When attacked or threatened, you may defend yourself with any means at your disposal so long as you respect the reasonable force limits. This includes a loaded firearm, which obviously must be loaded at some point. That point has not been defined in the legislation, its attendant regulations, or case law and until it is it could be anywhere from a millisecond to a decade or more.

This, like much of the legislation, has yet to be tested in court and any attempt to convict somebody of having a loaded, legally owned firearm, in use, in their dwelling place would likely fail.

The legislation is extremely poorly worded. This is why it took so long to bring most of it into force after it passed, and why some parts still have not been. A bigger botch-up could not have been made if they tried intentionally.

 

[Rowshambow]

Inch,
yes I have been to the States many times, and yes I do worry about the little things, I mind my P's and Q's a little more knowing how easy it is to get a gun down there! You are also right I do not have very much faith in my fellow man, turn on the news and see what my fellow man does everyday!
That's the great thing about this, we can debate it all day long and we will never change each others opinions!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

One interesting point is that if you are a legal firearm owner, the duty to obey the law and to avoid confrontation is higher than for other citizens. The cost of doing so is also higher. As a gun owner I have to watch everything I say and am at the mercy of my neighbour, if they decide to screw me by reporting that I threatened them, then I would have all my firearms seized and treated as guilty until proven otherwise, then I will likely have to go to court to force the police to release my firearms, incurring large costs. In other words in the eyes of the law you are a second class citizen and potential threat. 

Even in the US carrying a concealed firearm does not exempt you from any laws and makes a whole whack of other laws applicable. Having taken an interest in the subject, I overwhelmed with the huge amount of laws a CCW holder has to understand and obey as to where and how they can have a gun, what their rights and obligations are. In some states a CCW holder can lose their license if the gun becomes visible even in advertently, with no intention of brandishing. Also all the laws regarding use of force apply and they must be able to determine quickly if the use of deadly force is prescribed in a situation.

Also don’t mix up stats for all gun incidents with incidents involving CCW holder in the US. As mentioned having your gun visible could cause you license to be revoked and recorded as gun related incident. 

 

[Inch]

Inch,
yes I have been to the States many times, and yes I do worry about the little things, I mind my P's and Q's a little more knowing how easy it is to get a gun down there! You are also right I do not have very much faith in my fellow man, turn on the news and see what my fellow man does everyday!
That's the great thing about this, we can debate it all day long and we will never change each others opinions!

So you're saying that you're more polite and non-confrontational when in the US? Excellent, by the sounds of it, you've proven my point about crime rates falling when criminals and average citizens suspect that someone is armed. If people as a whole are more well behaved when they suspect someone is carrying a concealed weapon, then it's a good thing.

You can't honestly base your opinions of your fellow man on what you see in the news. Everyone knows the news sources are always slanted one way or the other and therefore biased though they claim not to be. In Canada, you won't hear about criminals being scared off when a homeowner points a gun at them, but you better believe you'll hear about anything the gun owners of this country do.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Inch
Are you suggesting that our media is less than forthright in balanced reporting and might have a hidden agenda to discredit certain viewpoints not held by the editorial staff? 

Frankly I am shocked by these outrageous accusations, I am sure the members of this site hold the media in the upmost regard and could never believe they would stoop to such levels.    :tsktsk:

:rofl: op:

 

[Munxcub]

I think they'd have to stand on a stool to stoop to "that level"

 

[1feral1]

Wes,

1. That's the great thing about self defence, it must be a sudden and overwhelming fear for your life or of serious injury or that of your family. You are correct, a guy leaving your place with a TV and shooting him in the back, that's murder. However, you confront him as he's leaving and he drops the TV and comes after you, that's self defence.

2. As for the loaded pistol, it is against Canadian law to load a gun anywhere that it cannot be legally discharged. So it is in fact illegal to have a mag in the gun anywhere in your house. Mag beside the gun however is perfectly legal.

3. If I had kids, they would be taught proper precautions, just as I was when I was a kid. Fear for their safety is a cop-out of having to properly educate and train them. Walls don't stop bullets, which is why one is never chambered. How can you have a UD if there isn't one in the chamber? Guns don't just load themselves, and don't say that it's easy to accidentally chamber one. You're a gun plumber, you know better. I'm sorry about your friend years ago, however that whole thing could have been avoided. I was taught at a young age that guns were not toys, ammo was kept separate (yes, that was the law even 15+ years ago), and never to go near the business end when someone else is holding onto it.

4. Growing up in a house with the many guns that my father collected, I survived, my sister survived and no one had a UD and put one through a wall. I think your fears are unfounded when talking about educated and responsible gun owners.

Firstly, I have owned firearms all my life (every catagory shy of machine guns and including CA's), been a responsible gun owner, and repsected the law. So I know my subject matter. For the 'on the job' side of things, have a squiz at my profile.

Now to briefly answer the above...

1. Yes its self defence, but shooting a guy when he is unarmed, well thats a grey area, and may result in a manslauhghter charge. We can go the tried by 12, carried by 6 theory here. However he he had a baseball bat, swinging it at you, ya, give him two in the centre of mass. Thats deadly force he is using at you.

2. Fair enough, but I would its a sad day if we have to be holstered in our own homes. Personally, I think firearms should be secured/hidden when not in use, for me thats common sense. I would favour easy access 'drop' safes.

3. I believe in education of our kids too, at 14 yrs old,we'd catch a bus (public transport) with our cased .22's to the Lion's teen rifle club down at the Laird Gym on Dewdney in Regina. Not now eh. I beleive that children must be supervised with firearms, and NEVER left alone with them, until there reach a specified age, which used to be 16.

4. About the wall, I am not saying you are irresponsible, but many licensed shooters can be less responsible than others. Therefore laws must be there for all. I don't have fears, just genuine concerns, and anyone who commonly loads a weapon in a house (shy of self defence if the need arrises) is just plain silly, and asking for trouble.

5. As for UD's, they are common here on the job. I have never had one, and we had two on operations in Iraq, one with a Minimi, the other a MAG 58, so even the pro's phuck up. We were lucky no one was killed, the MAG 58 discharged between the heads of two soliders. Close!


Cheers,

Wes

 

[1feral1]

I think Wes was pointing out the wrong assumption people have when they pick up a weapon....that it's empty.

that's why the UDs happen when the gun is empty. Stupid assumption.

Exactly what I was saying.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I came outside of my house in the morning face to face with a bear, which showed no fear of me, some kids spotted a cougar 1/2 mile from my house. When I go to the playground I carry a knife and bearspray as the park has a sow and cubs in it. I have used bearspray and think it's a wonderful tool, but it has big limitations. I would happily prefer .45 Commander with some hot loads. to deal with the critters, hell i would bring my 590, but I think the other parents might object. One of the guys I used to work with had to hunt for the remains of 2 kids killed by a cougar on Vancouver Island, a number of the people I deal with have been mauled or attacked by bears. For me being able to deal immediately with any threat to my kid is the upmost importance.

I do agree with good firearms handling and kids should be trained at any early age to respect them. Personally I blame Hollywood gang rappers for most of the gun problems nowdays. Not to mention ethnic gangs.

 

[1feral1]

I think that you mean "offence", and yes, I agree.

Ya that was a typo.

I respect your opinion, and agree partly, and at least you can see where I am coming from, and I hope it does make some type of sense.

The main point I am talking about is CCWs, and that I do not support the general public carrying such. There is a difference between CCW and an open unconcealed carry. I would support such as personal circumstances dictate.

Self defence, reasonable safe storage, and proper firearms education. I am for such, as is anyone, as thats just common sense gun owning.

That I think everyone can agree on.

The Wendy Kukiers out there are just waiting for another chance, another national tragedy, then to use the emotion of the public (sheeple), backed by a one sided media to get what they want.... our firearms. Don't let what happened here happen there.

At the end of the day, we are all gun owners, and must stand shoulder to shoulder united, as if a weak link is found, the anti gun mob will be onto it, exploiting it, and you know what happens there.


Cheers,

Wes  

 

[Inch]

Firstly, I have owned firearms all my life (every catagory shy of machine guns and including CA's), been a responsible gun owner, and repsected the law. So I know my subject matter. For the 'on the job' side of things, have a squiz at my profile.

I know all about your profile Wes, you've been here a shade under 5 months longer than I. I'm surprised you don't know who I am yet. You obviously missed my "gun plumber" comment earlier. I wasn't insulting your professionalism, I was just pointing out that some of your comments, IMO, are fear mongering, something that I'm against since I see it as an excuse to not properly educate, train and do thorough background checks on firearms applicants.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on CCW. I fail to see why citizens that undergo proper firearms training should be excluded from carrying guns for self defence. As Loachman said, if it's good enough for the cops, it's good enough for John Q Public, but I digress.

 

[1feral1]

I know all about your profile Wes, you've been here a shade under 5 months longer than I. I'm surprised you don't know who I am yet. You obviously missed my "gun plumber" comment earlier. I wasn't insulting your professionalism, I was just pointing out that some of your comments, IMO, are fear mongering, something that I'm against since I see it as an excuse to not properly educate, train and do thorough background checks on firearms applicants.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on CCW. I fail to see why citizens that undergo proper firearms training should be excluded from carrying guns for self defence. As Loachman said, if it's good enough for the cops, it's good enough for John Q Public, but I digress.

Wasn't taken as an insult, sorry if I lead you to think that. 

Carrying unconcealed and holstered for self defence yes, in the bush, on your farm land perhaps, or for a lawful profession/occupation, but to go 'packing heat' around town in crowded public places etc, and concealed at that, well, that I am not for, not yet anyways.

Fear mongering not,  but risk assessing, yes.  I hope that makes some sense. remember though, I am a right-wing radical gun enthusiest, but I feel CCWs are too far.

Cheers,


Wes

 

[Inch]

Wasn't taken as an insult, sorry if I lead you to think that. 

Carrying unconcealed and holstered for self defence yes, in the bush, on your farm land perhaps, or for a lawful profession/occupation, but to go 'packing heat' around town in crowded public places etc, and concealed at that, well, that I am not for, not yet anyways.

Fear mongering not,  but risk assessing, yes.  I hope that makes some sense. remember though, I am a right-wing radical gun enthusiest, but I feel CCWs are too far.

Cheers,


Wes

Fair enough. Peace my gun toting brother!

I'm not advocating settling arguments with a couple shots to the chest or a pistol whip to the head, but let me throw this at you. "Swarmings" were pretty common place in Halifax last summer (we're talking 9 or 10 in a 2 week period at it's peak). How it works is that a bunch of kids (6 or so 15-16 yr olds), would jump you while you were walking down the street. Not a damn thing you could do about it except turtle and hope they didn't stab you. They even swarmed a cop on Gottingen St IIRC. One guy was swarmed just to steal his laptop. I said it then and I'll say it again, this kind of thing wouldn't happen if they thought they would be shot in the process. That of course is just my opinion. 

Something I think needs to be said, we're all in favour of responsible gun ownership right? This includes not drinking while carrying a concealed weapon, that's just the responsible thing to do.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Federal gun registry has not improved public safety despite..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../05/c3822.html

A press release today from the Fraser Institute.

Attention News Editors:

Federal gun registry has not improved public safety despite costing taxpayers more than $2 billion

VANCOUVER, July 5 /CNW/ - Canada's homicide rate and number of gang-related murders has increased since the federal government's firearms registry and licensing program was implemented, an indication that the program has failed to improve public safety, according to Hubris in the North, The Canadian Firearms Registry, a new report from independent research organization The Fraser Institute.

"In 1995, the government promised Canadians that the gun registry would reduce total criminal violence, suicide and domestic abuse, not just gun violence," said Gary Mauser, author of the report, senior fellow with The Fraser Institute, and a professor at Simon Fraser University.

"But the legislation has failed to do that, primarily because it relies upon public-health research to justify a moralistic approach to firearms that exaggerates the danger of citizens owning firearms through pseudoscientific research methods."

Hubris in the North, The Canadian Firearms Registry details the history of Canadian gun legislation and examines the trends in criminal violence and suicide to see if the gun registry has been effective in accomplishing its stated goals.

The gun registry and its supporting legislation were introduced in 1995 by the Liberal government. Justice Minister Allan Rock said at the time that registering guns and licensing their owners would save lives by reducing criminal violence, domestic violence, suicide, and firearm accidents.

But Mauser's analysis shows that public safety has not improved. He finds that overall criminal violence and suicide rates have continued their long-term decline with the violent crime rate falling by about four per cent. Yet the homicide rate has actually increased by nine per cent since the registry was implemented. No persuasive link could be found between the firearm registry and these changes.

"I don't think you can credit the gun registry for the decline in criminal violence because the data indicate the drop began well before firearms registration was introduced," Mauser said. "Moreover, homicide and criminal violence in general have fallen more in the United States during the same time period than in Canada, so it's hard to imagine the gun registry having a measurable impact in this environment."

One of the most striking findings is that gang-related homicides and homicides involving handguns have increased substantially.

"Gang violence typically involves handguns and although handguns have been registered since the 1930s, this has not reduced the level of their criminal misuse," Mauser said. "The gun registry had no effect on homicide rates and was particularly ineffective against gang activity."

The report suggests that the rational for the registry program is based on faulty research.

"The government's approach to public safety relied on an analysis of firearms and violence that greatly exaggerated the dangers of firearm ownership," Mauser said.

"This misrepresentation stemmed from public-health researchers who ignored basic scientific principles in favour of advocacy. These activists drew conclusions that were not supported by their research studies and they compounded their errors by recommending legislative solutions that fell outside the boundaries of their research. Such studies are not properly scientific but use the scientific trappings of research to prove claims rather than testing hypotheses."

The report points out that research to date has not shown that sweeping gun laws are effective at reducing general homicide or suicide rates. These research findings remain largely unacknowledged in the public-health community. The low incidence rate of firearms misuse means that there are large numbers of false positives with substantial attendant financial costs, as well as important implications for democratic society.

"We lose much of our inherited democratic freedoms if we treat mature citizens as if they were helpless patients rather than responsible adults," Mauser said.

Despite its estimated $2 billion cost to date, the firearms registry remains notably incomplete and has an error rate that remains embarrassingly high. As a result of its many failures, particularly its failure to reduce gang violence or stop senseless killings such as the recent occurrences at Dawson College and Mayerthorpe, Alberta, the firearms registry has not been able to win the trust of either the public or the police.

Mauser pointed out that Auditor General Sheila Fraser complained that she could not get all of the necessary financial information during an audit of the registry and summarized her review of the books by saying the registry had one of the largest cost overruns her office had ever seen.

"Clearly, the evidence shows that the registry has failed Canadians. It has failed to reduce gang violence or stop senseless killings. So why then, should we trust it, and why should we continue to fund it?" Mauser said.

The Fraser Institute is an independent research and educational organization based in Canada. Its mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of competitive markets and government intervention on the welfare of individuals. To protect the Institute's independence, it does not accept grants from governments or contracts for research. Visit www.fraserinstitute.ca



For further information: Gary Mauser, Senior Fellow, The Fraser
Institute, (604) 936-9141, Email mauser@sfu.ca; Dean Pelkey, Associate
Director of Communications, The Fraser Institute, Tel: (604) 714-4582, Email deanp@fraserinstitute.ca

__________________

 

[Rowshambow]

Inch,
Yes I do fear people with guns in the States, if they happen to be carrying a gun? who knows? just like who really knows what they thinking that day! All I am trying to say is that CCW in a city, for what, protection? I thought you where saying that all fellow man are nice? or at least trustable? As for the news, ya you are right they always show a biased point of view, and the news is almost always bad, but try this, cut someone off and see what they do, not so nice! Now what if that person had a bad day, you might get shot? Yes I know things like this are few and might be few even with CCW, but if not having CCW prevents 1 death, then perfect. Also if you were walking down a street and had a pistol (holstered or not) and some bad guy tries to rob you at gunpoint, do you think you will have enough time to unholster/pullout your gun before he gets a shot off? s for swarmings, don't you think the people would have run or something to get away from it, I think most swarmings happen relatively quick and would be a surprise,kinda like the cop you mentioned, how many shots did he get off?  Would you really want to shoot some kids who are trying to steal your ipod or laptop?
We are all gun enthusiasts, I would love to have a pistol to go to the range with, I just don't have the time or convenience to deal with the paperwork. I love shooting and do not do enough of it. You are right in your last comment, "it's the responsible thing to do" you and I and our brethren have the luxury of this common sense, unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If CCW in Canada saves one life is it not worth it?