Gang bangers must be laughing at this guy. Law abiding citizens, not so much. At the same time, they'd like you to believe it's legal gun owners that are the problem.
Trudeau Reduces Sentence for Serious Gun Crimes
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
Trudeau is a moron. Can't stand when he speaks, need to change the news channel.
This has been "discussed" numerous times on this board and you guys always post the same crap - usually in the form of a Toronto Sun editorial.
The reason that the gun crime MINIMUM SENTENCES are being removed is that THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
There have been 10 fucking threads on this board about this same shit.
Don't antagonize the righties with facts, they are dangerous when provoked.
This still doesn't make sense.
It was found to be unconstitutional, but the reasons given were that innocent people could get ensnared by the law. The example given that someone inherits a weapon, and doesn't get it properly licensed in time before being caught for possession.
OK. Fine.
But the supreme court has the ability to strike down portions of a law. Like they did recently with bill c-36.
Why did they strike down the portions of this bill that dealt with mandatory minimums for things like;
The use of a firearm in commission of an offense.
– Possession of a weapon obtained through crime
– Weapons trafficking
– Unauthorized import/export of a firearm
– Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent
– Robbery with a firearm
– Extortion with a firearm
Why were these also struck down? The reasoning given doesn't apply to these situations. Or, were these even struck down?
Something about this still smells rotten. Either the supreme court didn't actually strike down mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses, in which case idiot Trudeau is fucking things up yet again.
Or.
The Supreme court is full of left wing idiots, that put politics above actual logic and Justice.
It was found to be unconstitutional, but the reasons given were that innocent people could get ensnared by the law. The example given that someone inherits a weapon, and doesn't get it properly licensed in time before being caught for possession.
OK. Fine.
But the supreme court has the ability to strike down portions of a law. Like they did recently with bill c-36.
Why did they strike down the portions of this bill that dealt with mandatory minimums for things like;
The use of a firearm in commission of an offense.
– Possession of a weapon obtained through crime
– Weapons trafficking
– Unauthorized import/export of a firearm
– Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent
– Robbery with a firearm
– Extortion with a firearm
Why were these also struck down? The reasoning given doesn't apply to these situations. Or, were these even struck down?
Something about this still smells rotten. Either the supreme court didn't actually strike down mandatory minimum sentences for these offenses, in which case idiot Trudeau is fucking things up yet again.
Or.
The Supreme court is full of left wing idiots, that put politics above actual logic and Justice.
Like the "left-wing idiot" judges appointed by uber-conservative Stephen Harper who awarded Omar Khadr $15 million and then everyone blamed Trudeau, simply because he happened to be the sitting PM?
Trudeau doesn't sit down each morning and decide which Criminal Code offences he's going to tinker with. He gets advice from top government lawyers who clearly felt that the Supreme Court ruling applied to each of these offences - which it did.
That doesn't mean that judges can't give huge amounts of jail time to violent bank robbers. They've been doing that for over a century.
It just means they can't automatically apply a minimum, regardless of the underlying facts.
And no, the Supreme Court is not "full of left wing idiots". It's full of judges who have a zillion times more experience and ability with criminal cases than you will ever have and who are actually pretty hard ball. But live in your fantasy world anyway. If it makes you feel better to think you'd do a better job of being a judge, dream away.
Well the rational they gave does not apply to these circumstances.
And the fact that judges find shit like this unconstiutional, but somehow uphold the law allowing Police to conduct bodily searches on people in their car or in their house, without probable cause or a warrrant, shows there is something pretty fucking wrong with this system.
Since when do the cops get to do random body searches on people in their houses and cars?
A breathalizer is a bodily search.
It can now be administered anytime a police officer pulls you over regardless of probable cause.
It can also be administered up to 2 hours after you were driving a vehicle. Even if you are in your own home. No warrant. No probable cause.
The rationale is that the minimum might be too rigid and amount to overkill in some cases. IIRC, the case that triggered the ruling was a teenager who borrowed an unregistered pistol for 15 minutes to take some selfies in a mirror and was thus subject to a 1 year minimum for 15 minutes of posing. You could probably think of similar examples for the other offences. If the judges can think of a reasonably possible example where the minimum would be unfair, that normally renders the minimum unconstitutional.
It's actually a tempest in a teapot. Most sentences for those crimes would be routinely WELL ABOVE the minimums. The minimums were really perceived as an election stunt by Harper as his polls dropped and he wanted a big law-and-order turnout - which never happened for him. By proclaiming "We're tough as hell on gun crime. See?!... We got minimums!" he thought he could make Justin look weak.
It didn't actually amount to much of a change in what happens in 99% of the sentencing cases. That's among the reasons the judges killed the minimums so quickly. They were perceived as unecessary in 99% of the cases and a nuisance in the 1% of cases which were outside the norm.
THAT'S your example?!?!?!
Seriously?! The breathalyzer was ruled so non intrusive that the judges were prepared to overlook probable cause requirements in that isolated case.
Given the minimums were what, 3 years, and you said that supposedly, the sentence would be well above that for cases such as
The use of a firearm in commission of an offense.
– Possession of a weapon obtained through crime
– Weapons trafficking
– Unauthorized import/export of a firearm
– Illegal discharge of a firearm with intent
– Robbery with a firearm
– Extortion with a firearm
Then there was no danger of the minimum being overkill for these situations then is there? Which goes to prove that the rational didn't apply to those instances, yet they were also struck down. Why? Not for being unconstitutional, which is what they are deciding on.
Were they redundant in those cases? Perhaps. But we have redundant laws all over the place, and the Supreme court never strikes them down on the basis of being redundant.
And judges are not sentencing for long enough periods. Both the Police Commissioner of Toronto and Prosecuters have complained that these offenders are getting out way too quick for gun crimes.
More intrusive than carding. But that was ruled unconstitutional, yet this stands?
FUCKED UP SYSTEM.
I think the rationale is that carding was aimed at "keeping tabs on" random people. I got carded once when I was a teen. Fuck knows what the cop thought he was going to find out mid afternoon in a nice middle class suburb, but he called me over to his cruiser and made me give my name and point out where I lived.
It's hard to imagine that cops just randomly give out breathalyzers. They have to have some idea that you've been drinking. Otherwise why bother?
You think cops are actually going to your home and say "You were driving earlier today possibly. Here blow in this breathalyzer?" without having some idea that you were in an auto accident earlier and driving erratically? Why tf would they bother?
You're gabbling and you don't really make sense. So I'm going to explain it to you once again.
The legal test is: "If there is a reasonable hypothetical fact situation where the minimum would be too onerous and heavy, then the law is unconstitutional"...... So let's look at the above stuff. 90% of the time unauthorized import of a firearm is going to involve gang connections and is going to get more than 3 years from any judge. But there's that 10% where lovable gun fanatic Contact can't bear to part with his favourite Glock and drives across the Peace Bridge with it hidden inside his underwear. He stands up at customs to scratch his ass and the glock falls out of his pants and slides across the border into Canada.
Now it's a criminal offence, but it's only worth a couple of weekends because it's more stupid than dangerous or serious. Hence no 3-year constitutional minimum. Right?
