The Govt is able to legislate and pass laws. If they are overturned it would be by the SCOC. Now back to school.
Mandatory Minimums - Off we go to the SCOC
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
The Govt is able to legislate and pass laws. If they are overturned it would be by the SCOC. Now back to school.
I put his question in the same pot as those that state we do not legally have to pay income tax.
But here it is
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-5.html#s_91
Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,
27.The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters.
Last edited:
In the paper this morning, and it obliquely is relevant, a reader observed, "Why do we in Canada have to keep the pandas for ten years, when the Chinese only had Harper for a week? We've been out manoeuvred again!"
I guess you don't understand what he said.
Nothing in what you posted is incorrect, but it also does not contract or address his comment.
I read that twice and did not see a reference to ownership of weapons anywhere. Maybe you would like some time to try again.
Still waiting for that statute that doesn't take away my individual freedom in some way.
The question was - If you have a reference to where the CCA says we are not allowed to own weapons please do post it
He was asking about prohibition of weapons. The various constitutions and amendments give the authority to pass laws either to the Fed or Prov level. To state that where does it state weapons cannot be acquired in my opinion idiotic.
The constitutional Acts cannot cover all laws present and see into the future what laws will be required. It also cannot predict what technologies will be available, what laws will be required for the "Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters".
Reason why Parliament or the Provincial legislatures have that ability. To make and pass laws. So I do believe I answered as best as possible.
So are you saying me, or any other normal person, owning a gun is detrimental to peace and good order? I believe my ownership of a pistol is beneficial to peace and good order if I only use it for protection of my family and property.
Would you agree that because Pedophilia is not mentioned that it is beneficial to the good order of Canada.
Of course not, that is just an inflamatory statement.
Me giving a burglar a permanent limp and a severe case of lead poisoning is beneficial.
Ignorance of the law, is no excuse.
Illegal possession is an indictable offence.
I absolutely agree, but it is one of the reasons I avoid committing indictable offences.
Well I was kind of hoping someone would put forth a reasoned basis, for the claims being made in this thread.
We have thread after thread where guns and responsible people who own guns are railed with all manner of negativity. And here we have an unlicensed, person playing with a restricted weapon in the home of a cousin, about to be served. I know the laws involving weapons, I also know who in my family is running contrary to the law. I avoid them, and I avoid breaking those laws.
We have all manner of minimums in our daily lives, from the minimum amount of work we are required to do, to the minimum amount your parking ticket fine will be.
The Judge in this case is being heralded as some genius, when in fact, I've come to the conclusion after reading a bit about her, that she's an anti authority crusader.
Aren't you one of the anti gun nutters?
I laugh at most politicians and their ramblings. But people like you are far better punchlines.And then we all get to laugh at the CPC!
Last edited:
Not inflammatory at all. Just as idiotic as the question you posed to me.
And that is why under the Constitution Parliament passes legislation to prevent the law of the jungle types from running rampant.
But I do believe I answered your question.
Yup, that's what the police, crown, and judges all say. I don't agree. Willful ignorance is one thing. Not knowing the ins and outs of a set of laws that do not normally apply to you is not willful.
and obviously this judge and I concur in that under circumstances like this it should NOT be an indictable offence but instead should fall under a summary conviction.
actually, it's a good reason to avoid any and all offenses, indictable or otherwise.
and what claims, exactly, do you have a problem with?
And did you find anywhere in the CCA where weapons are banned? No, you didn't. Because it's not there. That's his point. You've gone off on a tangent, which is a pleasant place to go, but that's not his point.
If I want a glass of milk, and you point out that the local 7-11 has a sale on coffee, that's great, but it's not the point.
The CCA does not mention a host of things - Why should it? It covers rights, powers etc. So his question was in my humble opinion just BS. His question and answer is covered by the CCA. So he has his answer in my opinion.
If you are about to pick up a loaded weapon, and play with it, you should know the laws regarding that act.
If you drive a car, you have to know the rules and laws of the road. Just because you don't have a license, doesn't mean they don't apply.
As a firearm owner, I disagree. It's clowns like Smikle, that drop loaded weapons, and/or sometimes kill people, accidentally. That increase scrutiny placed on lawful gun owners like myself.
What if he had killed a kid?
Do we wait for the worst, before we take a tough stance on illegal possession firearms?
A lot of the usual rhetoric found on page one. The fact that the Judge stated it was cruel and unusual punishment, that many here agree. Yet I haven't seen anything but kneejerk opinion (Apart from the usual anti Harper Conservative nonsense) to support that claim.
I find the sentence of three years, neither cruel nor unusual.
He was found in the company of known criminals, in possession of an illegal, restricted firearm.
Fair enough, but I don't necessarily agree with Harper on mandatory minimums.
I just don't agree with the premise that three years for possession of an illegal restricted firearm, is cruel and unusual.
No record - Family - plain dumb thing to do. The sentence he received was fair. Harpers is taking Canadian down the same road the US did. And it does not work.
Man Mins for certain offenses - Violence using a weapon - knives, bats, guns - using a weapon, a gun to commit a crime - that I can agree with.