Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

With out the registry the police would have likely found out that he had guns. From the sounds of it he wasn't hiding the fact that he owned guns on his facebook page. Not to mention that even without the registry he still has a PAL which would have come up when the police ran his name. That's one of my big complaints about the registry is that billions were spent to acquire information that the government mostly had.

Although the SWAT team was an over reaction the fact remains that the police were there to arrest him for threatening someone not because he had guns. I don't see anything in the story that relates this in anyway to warrentless searches.

There are plenty of problems with Canadian gun laws and the registry but this story isn't an example of them. If you want to make a point about how terrible the gun laws are here there are much better examples out there. The Canadian pro-gun sites are full of them.

   

Telling someone you are going to kill them is not criminal? I am not a lawyer, but it strikes me that that is, or should be, illegal!

   

Have you read anywhere that they didn't have a warrant?

As far as I know, the standard for a warrant is probable cause. A threat to kill, and police records of guns in the home, to me as a layman, seem liek probable cause to arrest for making threats. So I wouldn't assume there was no warrant, or that the police were unjustified.

   

it is still a search and inspection without a warrant.

   

the gas and electricity companies hold many keys for houses.It would seem that a previous owner of your house has given them a key for the purpose of reading the meter and forgotten to tell you.
you can have the key back at any time just by ringing them up.
The meter reader should have knocked first to see if anyone was at home before letting his self in.you can rest assured that your key is kept secure in a safe and only released on the day of your meter reading.

   

Btw,did you know that all parts of a charge must be proven otherwise the defendant is innocent? For example, If the police officer charges the person with improper storage of a firearm, and the defendant is able to demonstrate that the firearm was on a table and he was actively cleaning it, then the charge can not stick. A more likely example is when a defendant is transporting or carrying the firearm to a new location, and he is charged with a storage infraction. It's important for the police officer to quote the correct section of the criminal code, otherwise the case could get tossed.

   

Then let the dumbass defendent here make that claim in court and see which way the judge or jury decides.

   

It's an inspection, not a search. But you're right, it's without a warrant. It's with an appointment.

   

They don't need an appointment at all. They can come to your house everyday if there are a complaint to execute a search and "inspection". Without notice. That's why I am against C-68. I would not mind to register my firearms if I had not to lay some of my rights in the paper works.

   

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing.

   

   

threats are a form of assault in canada

   

You claim to be a communist. That's a threat to our way of life. If you had firearms to go hunting, would you accept to be put in jail for that ? Because you are a threat ?

Maybe i'm playing with words here like Lemmy says but for me, that's the beginning of something that should not be accepted in a free society. That's it.

You can't condamn someone more than someone else because he has firearms. That's totally against our rights and freedoms.

It could happen to everyone who has firearms only because someone doesn't like him. That's C-68.

   

I've read Hayek that I know you read. Maybe that's why.

   

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next