If the nation wasn’t already paying attention to Saskatchewan because of new premier Scott Moe’s attitude towards a carbon tax, the nation surely is paying attention to Saskatchewan as the Gerald Stanley trial unfolds.
I am very happy that in Canada, in 99 per cent of the time that a highly politicized trial falls upon the Canadian judicial system, they adhere to the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the standard of evidence.
An example would be the Jian Ghomeshi trail, in which a major deciding factor in that case was the onus of providing proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ghomeshi did what he was accused of doing. That standard of proof was not met and he walked out a free man.
However, nothing is perfect and if there is one issue that Canadian courts take a biblically harsh approach to, it is crimes committed where a firearm was used.
A lot of people want to call the Stanley trial a race issue and maybe it is, but for those that have no experience with firearm ownership and for those who do not find studying the law interesting, the Stanley case is likely going come down to case law.
Case law is like a legal history book and what has been done in the past many times before will likely happen again. What this means and always has meant, is that no Canadian in recent history has ever been granted the right to defend themselves with a firearm.
Stanley’s pistol is alleged to have fired out of battery, unintentionally sending a bullet through Colten Boushie’s skull. If someone is holding a loaded firearm, whether a round is in battery or in reserve in the magazine while in aggressive contact with someone that shows a lack of concern for human life. That gun could go off and kill the assailant or the person holding the gun.
Boushie and his friends were all under the influence of alcohol when they traveled to Stanley’s farm, with not exactly good intentions in mind. The rifle found at the crime scene was missing its stock and it was later found on another farm related to a separate reported criminal incident. Additionally the remains of the rifle where found in Boushie’s driving compartment, meaning, it was within close proximity to his body at the time of his death. The rifle was later determined not to be the property of Boushie.
If that happened to you, whether you were the one with the rifle or the one with the pistol, neither is a legal excuse to shoot somebody or attempt to. In that spilt second that both Stanley and Boushie might have thought they were exercising their right to self-defence, it is important to remember that neither had one to begin with.
Firing warning shots at an assailant while in defence of yourself or another person is a breech of section 85 (86) 1 of the Criminal Code also known as careless use of a firearm.
If Stanley kept his Tokarev pistol and ammunition in close proximity to each other, which allowed him easy access in a heat of the moment situation such as the warning shots fired at Boushie, that is a breech of section 88 (95) 1 of the Criminal Code.
Both these offences carry severe jail time, especially when malicious or criminal intent is proven. These are just two simple examples of how defending yourself or another person with a firearm is illegal.
Gun owners feel like no matter what they do, they are the criminals. This feeling is magnified when for example someone buys a handgun that has a 104-millimetre barrel instead of a 105-millimetre barrel and all of a sudden they’re in jail. If they want to stop being seen as criminals it would more useful to collectively lobby a political party then get arrested.
Legal literacy is paramount to responsible firearms ownership. The Criminal Code, the Firearms Act, the Explosives Act, Consolidated Regulations SOR-98-209 and safe storage advice is available online from the RCMP are tools to keep firearms owners out of jail.
Despite reading all those acts 20 times over, the ambiguity of proper storage of ammunition and explosives has been largely defined by case law, meaning that information is not readily accessible.
When in doubt contact your local police because they rather have you follow the law than arrest you because you don’t understand the law.
