In your opinion
Not just mine. Others had the foresight to see this nonsense before it happened.
In your opinion
1, He's in a home with what he knows or ought to know are illegal weapons.
2, He was in possession of a restricted, illegal weapon, when the Police executed a search warrant for illegal weapons.
3, I don't know anybody that isn't aware of the fact the weapons offences, are deemed serious by the Police and Crown.
Is posing for a pic with an illegal firearm worthy 3 years in Federal custody?
I don't know.
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.
So, you agree with the 3 year minimum?
Those Canadians — me included — who favoured the get-tough law when it passed, never imagined it would be implemented so ridiculously. A gun crime means a violent crime committed with a gun, not an administrative crime involving the mere possession of a gun.
To be fair though, China tends to execute folks for embezzlement. Just saying.
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 conservatives!
At least the liberals can rest easy knowing that Justin won't be able to make more embarrassing statements for 4-6 weeks,
Trudeau is enforcing mandatory minimums?
Now that's embarrassing.
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.
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.
Flexiblity of laws is what makes our current system work just fine.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.
Flexiblity of laws is what makes our current system work just fine.
Captain Morgan - if there are qualifications to make mandatory sentences mandatory, then they aren't mandatory.
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.
You need to go back an get an education.