Is it leagl?-not HTA related

[Icbones]

How about Section 86 - Careless use of firearm, etc, along with 445 - the unintentional injury defence should hang him on the careless use charge. Check Mate at best and $15,000 - $30,000 in legal fees for Mr. Cranky Pants at the very least, win or lose.

You sound like Julian Fantino. Julian does not care if someone is found not guilty of a street racing charge. Julian has said at least their insurance premiums will increase. As far as $15-30,000 in legal fees for mister cranky pants. He just might sue his big city neighbors to recover his costs if he is found not guilty. It is by bo means a checkmate, everyone loses except for the lawyers.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You sound like Julian Fantino. Julian does not care if someone is found not guilty of a street racing charge. Julian has said at least their insurance premiums will increase. As far as $15-30,000 in legal fees for mister cranky pants. He just might sue his big city neighbors to recover his costs if he is found not guilty. It is by bo means a checkmate, everyone loses except for the lawyers.

At least our firearms use laws weren't created with the specific objective of circumventing Due Process.

 

[Icbones]

At least our firearms use laws weren't created with the specific objective of circumventing Due Process.

Rob, our firearm laws are a convoluted smorgasbord of poorly worded gobbledygook. They were designed to entrap law abiding firearm owners, with acts of omission rather than criminal intent. On the other hand, the tougher crimes to prosecute, in other words the real criminals beat their charges because police resources are squandered on RIDE programs, various other revenue generating traffic enforcement blitzes, and our much hated gun control laws. The latest example of this is the Ephraim Brown's killers,whoever they are getting off scott free.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Rob, our firearm laws are a convoluted smorgasbord of poorly worded gobbledygook. They were designed to entrap law abiding firearm owners, with acts of omission rather than criminal intent. On the other hand, the tougher crimes to prosecute, in other words the real criminals beat their charges because police resources are squandered on RIDE programs, various other revenue generating traffic enforcement blitzes, and our much hated gun control laws. The latest example of this is the Ephraim Brown's killers,whoever they are getting off scott free.

Believe me, I'm aware of the issues with our gun laws, however the fact remains that you have to be CONVICTED.

As to Ephraim Brown, his neighbours bear a great deal of the responsibility. If people will not come forward, then they are in no small way responsible for the society that we are living in.

 

[Icbones]

Believe me, I'm aware of the issues with our gun laws, however the fact remains that you have to be CONVICTED.

As to Ephraim Brown, his neighbours bear a great deal of the responsibility. If people will not come forward, then they are in no small way responsible for the society that we are living in.

Thanks to Ontario's Civil Liabilities law's, your property can be confiscated without conviction. I have mentioned the fact that Bruce Montague who has been a thorn in the side of the government regarding his protesting of our current firearm laws is in the unenviable position of having the Ontario government start the process of confiscating his family home, as it is considered the proceeds of crime. Randy Hillier has written a letter asking Attorney General Chris Bentley to reconsider.

http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0430.html

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Thanks to Ontario's Civil Liabilities law's, your property can be confiscated without conviction. I have mentioned the fact that Bruce Montague who has been a thorn in the side of the government regarding his protesting of our current firearm laws is in the unenviable position of having the Ontario government start the process of confiscating his family home, as it is considered the proceeds of crime. Randy Hillier has written a letter asking Attorney General Chris Bentley to reconsider.

http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0430.html

There's a fair bit more to that situation than you allude to here.

 

[Icbones]

There's a fair bit more to that situation than you allude to here.

Your missing my point. It is not only about the Montague case. It is about the way the civil liabilities act can be utilized against anyone charged with a crime. And I emphasize charged, not convicted.

But the original post was about some big city whiners whose dog was shot by a rural property owner. This sounds like another grief industry poster child similar to Tim Mulcahy who with his influence and full page adds in the Toronto Star was able to persuade McGinty to bring out more draconian laws against motorists. Not just new young drivers but everyone with new and increased fines for various offenses.

http://www.timmulcahy.net/2008/11/young-driver-law-change-update-we-did.html

We can go back further in time to the Montreal massacre that launched Wendy Cukier to fame. She championed our current gun control laws in the name of safety, but at the same time managed to wrangle $500,000 of federal grants. These whiners do pretty good for themselves.

 

[Icbones]

More info on the civil remedies act and how it will probably be expanded.

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...new-enforcement-Discuss&p=1291113#post1291113

post #83

It's called policing for profit. The police are tasked to enforce laws that result in fines or seizure of property. The civil remedies act was originally to confiscate the proceeds from organized crime. It now has been changed to illicit activities.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/20070824_CRIA_Update.pdf

Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, formerly known as the Remedies for Organized Crime and Other Unlawful Activities Act, 2001, came into force in 2002. The legislation concerns itself only with civil matters. It does not impose any criminal penalty, fine or other punishment.
In December 2005, when amendments to the Civil Remedies Act under the Law Enforcement and Forfeited Property Management Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, came into force, the province expanded the act’s powers to preserve, manage and dispose of property frozen or forfeited to the Crown.
In June 2005, a constitutional challenge to the Civil Remedies Act was dismissed. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with Ontario’s position
Update On the Civil Remedies Act 6
​

The use of these forfeiture laws will increase. A quote from Michael Byrant
"We're really right now on the cusp of exponential growth in the use of civil forfeiture as police services begin to use it in the ways that the precedents have set now that Ontario's highest court has ruled that it is constitutional.

 

[suprPHREAK]

Uttering death threats is a crime. The old man should be locked up.
If you want to chase more charges, in order for him to carry a weapon outside of his house, he will require an Authorization to Transport.
As well, he has to prove he had the weapon and ammunition stored separately.
His proximity to the children shows a blatant disregard for safety. He is on the hook to prove that the bullet/shot had ZERO possibility of ricochet into the children.
At the very minimum, he should have all his weapons confiscated, and all permits/licenses related to firearms revoked. People with this kinda of anger, who turn to their guns to solve their problems, should not be allowed to have weapons, and should be locked up.

 

[Icbones]

Uttering death threats is a crime. The old man should be locked up.
If you want to chase more charges, in order for him to carry a weapon outside of his house, he will require an Authorization to Transport.
As well, he has to prove he had the weapon and ammunition stored separately.
His proximity to the children shows a blatant disregard for safety. He is on the hook to prove that the bullet/shot had ZERO possibility of ricochet into the children.
At the very minimum, he should have all his weapons confiscated, and all permits/licenses related to firearms revoked. People with this kinda of anger, who turn to their guns to solve their problems, should not be allowed to have weapons, and should be locked up.

ATT is required for restricted firearms only. BTW firearms are not referred to as weapons. The RCMP spent a lot of money re-issuing permits changing the word weapon to firearm. Weapons are illegal period.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Your missing my point. It is not only about the Montague case. It is about the way the civil liabilities act can be utilized against anyone charged with a crime. And I emphasize charged, not convicted.

But the original post was about some big city whiners whose dog was shot by a rural property owner. This sounds like another grief industry poster child similar to Tim Mulcahy who with his influence and full page adds in the Toronto Star was able to persuade McGinty to bring out more draconian laws against motorists. Not just new young drivers but everyone with new and increased fines for various offenses.

http://www.timmulcahy.net/2008/11/young-driver-law-change-update-we-did.html

We can go back further in time to the Montreal massacre that launched Wendy Cukier to fame. She championed our current gun control laws in the name of safety, but at the same time managed to wrangle $500,000 of federal grants. These whiners do pretty good for themselves.

I am certainly no fan of confiscatory laws, as my many comments on this board illustrate. You must admit, though, that Montague makes a poor poster child. If you 'protest' a law, by breaking it, then you risk being found guilty under it. That's the price.

I'm also quite familiar with Wendy Cukier, though after working at Ryerson for 13 years I still don't know how to pronounce her last name (heard it pronounced at least 3 different ways).

As to the original post it was about one incident in which one person should be punished, for breaking our CURRENT laws, not a plea for draconian action against all gun owners. The comparison to the push for laws against all young motorists is flawed.

 

[omnivore]

But the original post was about some big city whiners whose dog was shot by a rural property owner. .

Dude-you have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get the big city whiners from? They (my brother, his wife,a nd their 3 kids) have lived in rural Norfolk county for their kid's entire childhood lives. They live on the land next door to the shooter, and thus, THEY themselves are rural property owners as well. Just becasue someone doesn't currently own and tote a loaded firearm on their hip while walking around their property, doesn't make them big city anythings.

 

[promac]

You sound like Julian Fantino. Julian does not care if someone is found not guilty of a street racing charge. Julian has said at least their insurance premiums will increase. As far as $15-30,000 in legal fees for mister cranky pants. He just might sue his big city neighbors to recover his costs if he is found not guilty. It is by bo means a checkmate, everyone loses except for the lawyers.

I'm no fan of laws that infringe on peoples rights, even if the SCC sanctions them. Nonetheless, they do exist. As such, I'll advocate the use of every law written, good or bad, to bring down some scum sucking POS that shoots the family dog just 3 meters way from a child who was only trying to retrieve it. A POS who threatened to shoot the child and the dog, at an earlier time, if ever found on the property again. He was not protecting his property or his life - just carrying out his prior threat and destroying a mere irritant to him. It's unreasonable people like this that are the root of every bad law - every reasonable man or woman suffers because of the unreasonable actions of the few. Do we get any justice - no, just more bad laws..........thanks a lot. The tools are there.........all someone needs is the balls to use them.

 

[skip]

I'm late to this thread, but as a firearm owner I feel I have to comment. I'm upset at the old man for not being a responsible firearm owner for several reasons. Firing off a shotgun when you don't know what could be down range and to the sides is careless. If the shot gun was firing with a cylinder bore and not a full choke the shot pattern could well have been 1m across where the kids reportedly were. If he was claiming live stock defense the dog lived after being shot at relatively close range, which leds me to believe it was shot with some size of bird shot not buck. Which is just the wrong shot to use, maiming and not killing. I know when I use my shotgun for predator defense its loaded with alternating OO buck and slugs, normally with a flash bang first. Shooting to maim not kill angers me, alot.

 

[Icbones]

Dude-you have no idea what you're talking about. Where did you get the big city whiners from? They (my brother, his wife,a nd their 3 kids) have lived in rural Norfolk county for their kid's entire childhood lives. They live on the land next door to the shooter, and thus, THEY themselves are rural property owners as well. Just becasue someone doesn't currently own and tote a loaded firearm on their hip while walking around their property, doesn't make them big city anythings.

Dude, if you don't provide all the details, I'm forced to fill them in for my self. Remember I wasn't there, and I must ask where you there to see the entire incident? I based my response on similar incidents that have happened in the past.

 

[Icbones]

I'll advocate the use of every law written, good or bad

Then your part of the problem of what is very bad in this country, too many bad laws!

 

[omnivore]

Dude, if you don't provide all the details, I'm forced to fill them in for my self. Remember I wasn't there, and I must ask where you there to see the entire incident? I based my response on similar incidents that have happened in the past.

I thoroughly explained that the incident happened int he country. And it was next door to my brother's place in his neighbour's yard. Common sense would clearly see that if the neighbour lived in the country, surely the big city isn't right next door now is it?
Wow.

 

[Icbones]

I thoroughly explained that the incident happened int he country. And it was next door to my brother's place in his neighbour's yard. Common sense would clearly see that if the neighbour lived in the country, surely the big city isn't right next door now is it?
Wow.

Wow yourself, the incident you posted made no mention of how long the dog owners have been living in the country. The scenario where suburbanites move out to the sticks and find out that they need to change the way they think about various issues repeats itself enough times that an unbiased reader of this thread might be justified not to automatically take your side. BTW I'm not a dog hater, but if the situation was different and Mr cranky pants' dog mauled your nephew and niece, you's be calling for the dog to be put down. CTV just had a story on the increase in the number of cases where dogs have mauled kids.

 

[omnivore]

No dogs were mauling kids in this case.
Re-read it and you MIGHT be able to tell the difference between a dog playing in someone's backyard garden fishpond and a kid being mauled.
Then again you might not.

 

[promac]

Then your part of the problem of what is very bad in this country, too many bad laws!

I think you've confused the difference between using a making bad laws. I don't advocate the latter. I think anyone would use a bad law to their advantage if it suited them.

It's unreasonable and selfish people, like Mr. Grumpy pants, who are the root of the problem. They set the democratic process of making laws into motion, as a knee-jerk reaction to a particular event, ignoring all relevant facts and the reality of the situation. The gun registry is a monumental multibillion dollar boon-doggle testament to some nutcase that shot a bunch of women in Montreal. Did it prevent the Dawson College shooting? No..............only a couple of officers at the school on other matters stifled that attack.