Login

Stuff I didn't know

  • Stuff I didn't know

AnnaG
Avatar
#121

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
No it doesn't; the owners aren't being registered. What they own is being registered.
 
petros
#122

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

No it doesn't; the owners aren't being registered. What they own is being registered.

So you can register them anonymously?
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
Avatar
#123

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Does your pamphlet mention "hybrid offences" which are indictable until the crown decides on the charge?

Best check how they've changed the acts involved with driving without insurance to deal with chronic offenders and where a death has occured.

With chronic offenders, and where death has occured probably indicates that mens rea, or the criminal intent, is present. The simple act of driving without insurance, registration, license doesn't necessarily meet the requirement of mens rea for a conviction under the criminal code. In this case, you actually have to do something where harm is intended, or not do do something that a "reasonable" person would do that results in harm. In this case, the latter could mean leaving a loaded firearm unattended, but that is also open to interpretation. What we have now is the criminalizing folks for doing nothing, where no harm is intended, no harm is done, and there is no intent to cause harm. Gotta love the system.
 
petros
Avatar
#124

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

With chronic offenders, and where death has occured probably indicates that mens rea, or the criminal intent, is present. The simple act of driving without insurance, registration, license doesn't necessarily meet the requirement of mens rea for a conviction under the criminal code. In this case, you actually have to do something where harm is intended, or not do do something that a "reasonable" person would do that results in harm. In this case, the latter could mean leaving a loaded firearm unattended, but that is also open to interpretation. What we have now is the criminalizing folks for doing nothing, where no harm is intended, no harm is done, and there is no intent to cause harm. Gotta love the system.

It's about liability. If there were damages the motor vehicle act didn't have enough oomph to collect other than a surcharge on a driver's license "if" the person ever gets one. Now you can face both time and a fine resulting in property forfeiture.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
Avatar
#125

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

No it doesn't; the owners aren't being registered. What they own is being registered.

You have to have a license to register a firearm, so yes, you are registered. Does nobody else get this yet???? If you have one or one hundred fifity three firearms, only one has to be registered and they have you, it is the owner who is registered, they've gotcha. All this crap about scrapping the registry is window dressing, they've still gotcha. Bloody hell, I feel like I'm p*ssing into the wind, it's not the registry, (well, it is partly) but its the licensing of owners, that is a violation of our rights, rights affirmed by King James for cripes sake. We have to get off the sofa and defend our rights. Rights aren't given, they are fought for and defended by the people who own them, governments only take them away. And governments have good reason to take away the right for citizens to defend themselves, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, they all had good reason.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
Avatar
#126

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's about liability. If there were damages the motor vehicle act didn't have enough oomph to collect other than a surcharge on a driver's license "if" the person ever gets one. Now you can face both time and a fine resulting in property forfeiture.

You can certainly face time, but a conviction under a provincial statute will get you a maximum of two years less a day and no criminal conviction. But you can also get a conviction under the CC that will get you even less custodial time, but you have a monkey on your back for life.
 
petros
Avatar
#127

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 9th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

You can certainly face time, but a conviction under a provincial statute will get you a maximum of two years less a day and no criminal conviction. But you can also get a conviction under the CC that will get you even less custodial time, but you have a monkey on your back for life.

Depending on the severity of damages you can be indicted under the hybrid clause. I wish i could find the cash that changed all this. The jackass that the changes stem from was in 8 crashes with 6 different vehicles. 2 of the crashes were while on bail for there being a death in one of the other crashes. I wasn't kidding when I said they made some really stiff changes and opened up a chance to nail liability to the offender.
 
AnnaG
#128

Re: Stuff I didn't know

Jul 10th, 2009
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So you can register them anonymously?

I wouldn't doubt it.
 

Similar Threads

87
Seriously, Do any of you seriously believe this stuff?
by Praxius | Aug 5th, 2008
2
Stuff
by EmmaDibbs | Jun 3rd, 2005
no new posts