Not just mine. Others had the foresight to see this nonsense before it happened.
Mandatory Minimums - Off we go to the SCOC
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Not just mine. Others had the foresight to see this nonsense before it happened.
Why should he know? I have no idea what all are considered "illegal" weapons.
Possession, yes. Did he own it? No. Was he in possession of it for the purpose of a indictable offense? No.
Lots of things the police and crown consider serious. Thank God they are not the ones that actually decide in the end and hand out punishment.
Good of you to admit that, too bad you hadn't admitted that at the beginning and saved everyone a lot of reading and writing.
This appears to be an example of a well-meant law being misused. Certainly it was not meant to be used to send underwear-wearing idiots to prison for three years. As damngrumpy pointed out the word "judge" means that a judge is supposed to be able to make a decision regarding sentencing; not have that power taken away from her by mandatory sentencing. California had the same problem a decade of so ago when it sent hundreds of petty criminals to jail under the "Three Strikes Rule." It was a law aimed at dangerous repeat offenders but by taking away the discretionary power of judges it resulted in prisons being flooded with people who could have been dealt with by a simple fine or community service.
Nope,I don't...... What I see is a lage omnibus bill that was passed in a hurry because it had been dropped the year before, and now is beeing used as a club by the usual media...That poor stupid fool is beeing used to attack the the Harper government......Then later He will be used as an example by the same media to say "Look what the proliferation of guns is doing" after they remove the registration porcess for long guns.
It's kind of funny how these semantic issues can get past the government's radar and in a few short years, the natural consequences take effect.
All the government needs to do to fix this is to make a simple adjustment to the legislation to specify a more reasonable sentence for this situation. I'm not even sure why this even needs such debate.
It's clear that for this type of infraction, the punishment this government is enforcing is not reasonable or necessary.
Anyway, the good thing about this is that it is just the natural repercussion that comes with stupid policy. The more stubbornly the government attacks crime in a roughshod, ideological manner, the more it will come back to bite them in the ass when the real cases begin.
And then we all get to laugh at the CPC!
Last edited:
No legislation is absolutely perfect with respect to dealing with each and every permutation and possibility, especially of some drunken lout posting to face facebook page and waving around an illegal handgun in his tightie-whities. (I hear that's what all the gansta's do).
The policy can easily be tweaked
And then we all get to laugh at conservatives!
Not as long as Justin Trudeau is an MP... Maybe getting his mouth punched repeatedly with result in having his jaw wired-shut.. At least the liberals can rest easy knowing that Justin won't be able to make more embarrassing statements for 4-6 weeks,
I don't know... Maybe that's his grand plan after he takes over the Bloc leadership and separates from Canada... He'll want a utopian society and there ain't no use for handguns there.
Yep... That and the shellacking he'll get from Brazeau.
This story shows the error in the concept of mandatory minimums.
If the minimum sentence is mandatory, there is no room for changes/exceptions.
If there is room for changes, then it isn't mandatory.
If the minimum sentence is mandatory, there is no room for changes/exceptions.
If there is room for changes, then it isn't mandatory.
The tweak may be in the component that determines 'what action' is required to qualify for the mandatory sentencing
Which is why I laugh at 'zero tolerance' and 'mandatory minimums'.
They go completely against our society's concept of actually finding out what is going on.
Captain Morgan - if there are qualifications to make mandatory sentences mandatory, then they aren't mandatory.
Can the people impose zero tolerance on politicians? One lie or one unaccounted for penny and they are toast? I'd get behind something like that. Fair is fair.
Qualifications like the use of the firearm in the commission of a crime.. That said, if the law reads - and is intended to include simple possession of a restricted fire arm - then tough noogies for buddy.
I have yet to find a clause of the consolidated constitution acts that says we don't have the right to own any weapon we choose. If somebody else has found this please do point it out to me.
As usual we are given broad rights in the charter and constitution and then the government write another piece of legislation to take those rights away.
I would love to see just one piece of legislation that does not take away our freedoms and rights in some way.
Really? I would put my education up against yours anytime but im not here to throw insults like you. If you have a reference to where the CCA says we are not allowed to own weapons please do post it. If you can provide a piece of legislation that does not restrict or take away individual freedom then put it up. I am 99.9% sure you can do neither of these so you may want to keep your childish retorts to yourself, they make you look stupid.