Anyone know the Liberal position on replica handguns used in the commission of a crime? Seems to me banning handguns won't stop the illegal smuggling or use by criminals, but will also encourage the use of replicas, which can cause as much fear and trauma to victims. Can colllectors currently collect any kind of replica, including automatic weapons? Will this change under the new restriction? Also - ever notice the Liberals never announce anything that will happen immediately? It's always a five year plan and they can just forget about it as time progresses.
Replica Guns
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
I'm not a lawyer but reading the criminal code it looks like it is already against the law to use a replica to commit a crime. You can go to jail upto 14 years just the same as if you used a real gun.
Replica hand guns in the use of a crime will be treated as any other crime with a handgun. Howerver, if they are used for only display purposes only they are are not illegal.S.G. Gibson said:
I thought so. The laws are there - just never used. Even using a real gun and killing someone doesn't get many people 14 years. And, of course there is always the popular concurrent sentencing, that basically negates some crimes as if they never happened.S.G. Gibson said:
This is the relevant part of the Criminal Code
85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.
Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;
(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and
(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
Sentences to be served consecutively
(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Translation? Use a firearm in the commission of an offence in this country, whether it be real or imitation, and you are going down big-time... ...you are joing to jail for at least a year... ...and you will serve that sentence on top of the sentence for the underlying offence (be it robbery or whatever).
85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.
Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
(2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm
(a) while committing an indictable offence,
(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or
(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,
whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.
Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;
(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and
(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.
Sentences to be served consecutively
(4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).
Translation? Use a firearm in the commission of an offence in this country, whether it be real or imitation, and you are going down big-time... ...you are joing to jail for at least a year... ...and you will serve that sentence on top of the sentence for the underlying offence (be it robbery or whatever).
Last edited:
But you must admit Ghostie, if only used for display purposes, no criminal offnece has been commited>ghostie said:
ghostie said:
Sorry, but I don't think one year (which in fact equates to seven months) is "coming down big time" for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime - first offence or not. paying for and acquiring an illegal gun, becoming familiar with it, acquiring ammunition for said weapon, transporting, storing, hiding, then using the gun in the commission of the crime reqires a lot of time and forethought. This is not a spontaneous situation - it required logical, deductive reasoning and deserves much stiffer sentencing. I don't even think one year is appropriate for possessing an illegal gun.
Last edited:
Is it true that they are hard on you if you use a firearm in self-defense in Canada? Say you are working at the market late one night and someone comes in with a knife and grabs you. Can you shoot them if you feel endangered?
I'm trying to cut down on quoting statutes so much.... but I'll point you in the general direction of the answer (although, as with all statutes, the "real" answer is to take the facts of your particular case, and apply the language of the statute to it, as that section has been interpreted by courts previously).Cali Scott said:
Basically, there are three different categories where you can use force to defend things: defence of person (yourself or someone else) sections 34 to 37, defence of property (including defence of dwelling house, etc.), sections 38 to 42, and Protection of Persons in Authority, section 43-45.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41663.html
Have a read through those. I will bore everyone to tears if I try and explain it beyond that.
The particular situation that you describe would be a "defence of person" scenario. If someone comes in with a knife and grabs you and you shoot them... then the police charge you with an offence and you make a self defence arguement at your trial... the question becomes: did you shoot them "under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm" and "you believed , on reasonable grounds, that you could not otherwise preserve yourself from death or grievous bodily harm (except by shooting the guy)."
If both of those things are accepted as facts by the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge if it is a judge alone trial), then you will be acquited of the offence (be it murder or whatever).
You will find that the legal test is much the same in all 50 states. The real question though is how the courts, prosecutors and the police of a particular state or province interpret these kinds of words - which is really a cultural thing more than anything. In many states these kinds of tests have been interpreted quite liberally... often resulting in people not even being charged in such situations. In Canada we are more likely to charge a person in this situations unless it is absolutely clear that it was self defence.
In Canada we have, traditionally, used the "raised knife paradigm"... i.e., the point to which you are justified in using deadly force is when the assailant has raised the knife and is about to stab you (or has pointed the gun at you, or whatever).
This has changed a bit over the years... most famously in the context of battered women...
see: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1990/vol1/html/1990scr1_0852.html
...but generally the "raised knife" thing is still the law. This is why you will see (in movies and in real life) cops trying to talk a guy into dropping the gun... but if he aims it at them or another person they will fire (use deadly force without criminal consequences). This is the "raised knife" thing in practice.
Again, it isn't really that different in the U.S. Our law is more similar than a lot of people think.
A couple other things I was going to mention... there is really a lot to these types of questions and I could go on and on.... but I'll just say this.
You were asking if it makes a difference if you use a gun in self-defence as opposed to something else? Like a 2x4 or whatever....
No it does not make a difference in terms of the self-defence determination. If a person is justified in using deadly force, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of what type of deadly force they use.
A good example of this is the case R. v. Dhanda from the B.C. Court of Appeal.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/02/2005bcca0295.htm
In the trial, the Crown prosecutor had made these comments to the jury:
"through your verdict, based on the evidence presented in this particular case, you have an opportunity to send a message that whatever difficulties a person may be having with another, resort to gunfire will not be tolerated by the right-thinking members of this community. I ask you to send such a message through a verdict of guilty as charged."
There is a lot of problems with this comment... not least of which is the obvious point that the role of a jury is not to send messages to the community or anyone else... it is to determine whether or not the accused is guilty!
The Court of Appeal crapped on the Crown for this, but relevant to this discussion is what Mr. Justice Low said:
" I will have more to say about this passage in due course, but I wish to observe now that resort to gunfire must be tolerated by members of the community if the person who fired the gun acted in self-defence."
So there you have it in a nutshell... the community must tolerate gunfire if the person is legitimate using the firearm to defend themselves.
You could have some situations where the firearm is an illegal one (or possessed illegally by a person without the right licence) and the person is acquitted of the murder (or whatever) on self-defence grounds, but they end up being convicted for having the illegal firearm. Still, that's not a bad outcome though... you are facing murder or manslaughter and all you end up with is a convicton for possession of an unregistered firearm.
This was the case in Dhanda. The firearm used was "a Mossberg Model 590 single action shotgun with a pistol grip. Its magazine had a capacity of eight rounds." I'd have to check, but I think this is a prohibited weapon in Canada... it holds too many shells to be a legal shotgun. In any case, Dhanda purchased it illegally and was not in lawful possession of it.
The facts are pretty crazy in this case. For a more simplifed version of the facts, look at this link from Dhanda's appeal of his sentence.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/05/2005bcca0533.htm
Check this line from the facts:
"The appellant killed a man by firing a pump-action shotgun twice at the man’s face from close range. He was charged with second degree murder and tried before a jury. He maintained that he had acted in self-defence. The jury rejected that defence. They did not, however, find him guilty of murder but rather of manslaughter."
Oh, and by the way... his conviction for manslaughter ended up being upheld on appeal.
You were asking if it makes a difference if you use a gun in self-defence as opposed to something else? Like a 2x4 or whatever....
No it does not make a difference in terms of the self-defence determination. If a person is justified in using deadly force, the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of what type of deadly force they use.
A good example of this is the case R. v. Dhanda from the B.C. Court of Appeal.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/02/2005bcca0295.htm
In the trial, the Crown prosecutor had made these comments to the jury:
"through your verdict, based on the evidence presented in this particular case, you have an opportunity to send a message that whatever difficulties a person may be having with another, resort to gunfire will not be tolerated by the right-thinking members of this community. I ask you to send such a message through a verdict of guilty as charged."
There is a lot of problems with this comment... not least of which is the obvious point that the role of a jury is not to send messages to the community or anyone else... it is to determine whether or not the accused is guilty!
The Court of Appeal crapped on the Crown for this, but relevant to this discussion is what Mr. Justice Low said:
" I will have more to say about this passage in due course, but I wish to observe now that resort to gunfire must be tolerated by members of the community if the person who fired the gun acted in self-defence."
So there you have it in a nutshell... the community must tolerate gunfire if the person is legitimate using the firearm to defend themselves.
You could have some situations where the firearm is an illegal one (or possessed illegally by a person without the right licence) and the person is acquitted of the murder (or whatever) on self-defence grounds, but they end up being convicted for having the illegal firearm. Still, that's not a bad outcome though... you are facing murder or manslaughter and all you end up with is a convicton for possession of an unregistered firearm.
This was the case in Dhanda. The firearm used was "a Mossberg Model 590 single action shotgun with a pistol grip. Its magazine had a capacity of eight rounds." I'd have to check, but I think this is a prohibited weapon in Canada... it holds too many shells to be a legal shotgun. In any case, Dhanda purchased it illegally and was not in lawful possession of it.
The facts are pretty crazy in this case. For a more simplifed version of the facts, look at this link from Dhanda's appeal of his sentence.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/05/05/2005bcca0533.htm
Check this line from the facts:
"The appellant killed a man by firing a pump-action shotgun twice at the man’s face from close range. He was charged with second degree murder and tried before a jury. He maintained that he had acted in self-defence. The jury rejected that defence. They did not, however, find him guilty of murder but rather of manslaughter."
Oh, and by the way... his conviction for manslaughter ended up being upheld on appeal.
Very interesting Ghostie; thank you VERY much for the thorough reply. It is very informative.ghostie said:
Here in the U.S. it would be up to the prosecutor's office to decide whether try this in a court of law. Are you saying that you would automatically be indicted and go before a jury for them to decide?
Not automatic, the Crown (as our prosecutors are known, since they prosecute offences on behalf of "Her Majesty the Queen") can always choose not to prosecute. The test for whether to prosecute in Canada is two part. It is, one, "Is there a reasonable likelihood of conviction", and, two, "Is a prosecution in the public interest." Consideration of any possible self-defence arguement will factor in to this determination.Cali Scott said:
My own view is that Canadian prosecutors are more likely than their U.S. counterparts to approved a charge in these kinds of situations where it is clear that - at the very least - the accused is going to be making some kind of self-defence arguement if he is charged.
I think there is quite a range on these types of questions within the U.S. as well. If you take a situation like Dhanda where, after a previous confrontation, men came to the Dhanda's house with baseball bats and hammers and started breaking windows... and the accused walks out the front door with a shotgun and starts defending himself and his home with lethal force.... I have a feeling that this would not result in charges in some very pro-gun, pro-self-defence states. Other northern states may look at it more the way Canadian prosecutors would.
Back to my original question - Can the government ban replica guns,too? Are they included in this ban?
This is the information from the Liberal party website.Fudd said:
A close reading seems to indicate (to me at least) that there won't really be much of a change to the current situation in terms of who can buy handguns.
Canada Hand Gun Ban
December 08, 2005
At a cost of $30 million a year over five years, the Canada Handgun Ban would include a federal Gunstoppers Program, amnesty efforts, a buy-back program. $15 million a year for re-licensing fee-waiver would also be provided.
In 2004, the homicide rate jumped 12 per cent. Since 2001 handguns have accounted for roughly two-thirds of firearms-related homicides – up from approximately one-half in the 1990s and one-third prior to 1990.
Research also clearly indicates that guns, violence and gangs are correlated. Statistics Canada’s 2004 Homicide report counted 81 victims killed last year as a direct result of their involvement in illegal activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.
Under this proposal, federal legislation would be enacted enabling provinces and territories to legally prohibit all handguns.
A federal fund of $30 million a year over 5 years would be created to support the legislation. This fund would provide for local amnesty programs and would enable collectors and current handgun owners to be compensated, at fair market value, for their collections. Legal owners and collectors of handguns would also be given the opportunity to permanently disable their guns in order to keep them, turn them into police, destroy, sell or export their guns to licensed owners in jurisdictions that are not enforcing the ban.
This fund would also create a national Gunstoppers Program, which would pay a reward for information leading to successfully getting an illegal handgun off the streets.
In addition, the fee for the re-licensing of long gun owners would be eliminated. Those who have recently renewed their licences would be reimbursed. Firearm holders would still be required to have a license and register their guns.
Legitimate target shooters who meet strict requirements would be eligible for a narrow exemption to the ban, which would be established in partnership with the provinces and territories. Special measures would be enacted to ensure that shooting competitions can take place in Canada and that Canadian participants in major multi-disciplinary sporting competitions – such as the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games – can legally own their handgun.
These initiatives would build on the previous announcements by the Minister of Justice of legislative amendments to the firearms provisions of the Criminal Code, which doubled mandatory minimum penalties for firearms smuggling, trafficking and the illegal possession of loaded handguns in public places. The legislative amendments also created two new offences: break and enter to steal a firearm, and robbery where a firearm has been stolen. As well, they provided reforms that would expand the use of prohibition orders, restrict parole and facilitate witness testimony. This legislation is an important element of the Liberal’s gun and urban violence strategy.
Furthermore, the new legislation would build on previous justice initiatives, such as Minister Cotler's proposed agreement with the Province of Ontario to create dedicated, integrated teams of federal and provincial officials to collaborate and coordinate efforts to prosecute gun crimes.
A Liberal government’s inclusive and balanced strategy would also include:
a $50 million Gun Violence and Gang Prevention Fund as a fourth pillar of the National Crime Prevention Strategy, as announced by the Prime Minister on November 9, 2005;
support for community-based youth justice programs and partnerships to promote fair and effective approaches in response to youth in conflict with the law; and
community investments through the Youth Employment Strategy and the Justice Department's on-going programming and partnerships to provide hope and opportunities for youth and communities at risk across the country.
On October 27, Justice Minister Cotler also introduced reforms to conditional sentencing. Those reforms would prevent courts from using conditional sentences in cases of: serious personal injury offences as defined in the Criminal Code, such as all forms of sexual assault; terrorist activities; organized crime-related offences; and any other offence where the individual case is so serious that the need to condemn the act – and not use a conditional sentence – takes precedence over any other sentencing objective.
Courts would be required to explain in writing any exceptional circumstances that lead them to believe it would be in the interests of justice to use a conditional sentence in such cases.
I believe they are banned already, this has been the case for a few years now especially those airsoft guns. Although you see the occasional person selling them, customs will seize it if you try to bring it across the border.Cock Throppled said:
Just take alook at what this guy on Ebay sells, they sure look like alot of fun to have around, but your liable to get shot if a cop see you with this stuff.
You can not import these types of replicas into Canada anymore, just check with Canada Customs.
http://cgi.ebay.com/L-K-NEW-1000-5-...202254310QQcategoryZ31686QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
airsoft
www.specarms.com
www.air-soft.com
www.planetairsoft.net
www.redwolfairsoft.com
www.wgcshop.com
Wanna play now?
www.specarms.com
www.air-soft.com
www.planetairsoft.net
www.redwolfairsoft.com
www.wgcshop.com
Wanna play now?
