No different from any Government Licensing including even driver license.........all drivers are illegal unless showing authentic license........
Why "Handgun Owners" should be treated differently?
Liberal MPP proposes to let cops impound cars if they find illegal handgun
- Thread starter boodog
- Start date
Why "Handgun Owners" should be treated differently?
News flash, gun owners are already treated differently (worse than some actual criminals); nobody goes to jail because their driver's license expired and they didn't turn in their registered vehicle for destruction.
Again, show me an example of someone being charged with a summary and/or indictable offense for driving a vehicle without a license. Until then, you should probably listen to people who actually more than you do, and realize that gun owners are treated like crap.
Again, show me an example of someone being charged with a summary and/or indictable offense for driving a vehicle without a license. Until then, you should probably listen to people who actually more than you do, and realize that gun owners are treated like crap.
Did any one go to jail because their "Legal" handgun licenses expired?News flash, gun owners are already treated differently (worse than some actual criminals); nobody goes to jail because their driver's license expired and they didn't turn in their registered vehicle for destruction.
Again, show me an example of someone being charged with a summary and/or indictable offense for driving a vehicle without a license. Until then, you should probably listen to people who actually more than you do, and realize that gun owners are treated like crap.
(Registered vehicle is Vehicle Ownership Registration and have nothing to do with Driver License. And yes it is ILLEGAL to desert your old vehicle any where you like for "destruction".)
Yes if you got caught driving without proper license the cops can have your car towed away.......without the blessing from a judge.
Thats exactly this private member bill: if you got caught driving with ILLEGAL HANDGUN(s), thats handguns without proper legal firearm license, the cops should be given new power to have your car towed away and impounded and your driver license suspended............until its overruled by court.
Sounds reasonable to me. Can you tell us the legal way to transport hand guns?The examples I cited are cases where the police would not know at roadside whether you have an illegal handgun.
I doubt very much that most police are able to tell whether an antique pistol was made before or after 1897. If before, it is legal even if the owner had no firearms license. If after, it is a restricted firearm that requires registration.
Do they just seize your car until you can prove that it is in fact a legal antique?...
I would think that most legal gun owners would be transporting their guns in a gun case locked in the trunk, not in their pants or in the glove box. If a cop finds a gun just hanging around in the car where it can easily be accessed, they would likely be right in assuming some illegality involved.
Unloaded, trigger locked, stowed inside a locked gun case, travelling on a route that is "reasonably direct" to an authorized location (e.g., gun range).Sounds reasonable to me. Can you tell us the legal way to transport hand guns?
Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with this thread. I understand that the bill proposes to seize a car for unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, not for improper transportation of a restricted firearm. Note that these are two different laws, someone could be properly transporting a firearm they are not authorized to possess, or they could be improperly transporting a firearm they are authorized to possess. The charges are unrelated.If a cop finds a gun just hanging around in the car where it can easily be accessed, they would likely be right in assuming some illegality involved.
In some cases unauthorized possession is going to SEEM pretty obvious, the person does not have a firearms license and they're found with a modern handgun like a glock. However, that isn't 100% accurate, there are a variety of circumstances in which that possession is still nevertheless lawful possession. For example, the executor of a will, even though they do not have a firearms license, can nevertheless possess a restricted firearm for the purpose of disposing of it in accordance with the will. There are other exceptional cases as well -- if they were transporting it to the nearest police station after discovering it somewhere, that is also lawful. And so on.
My point is that if the cops just go about seizing cars from people found with firearms then they are imposing punishment without due process, where the defendant had no opportunity to show up in court and prove that in fact they are innocent -- and they may be.
It's fairly responsible for the police to seize a firearm in a case where possession isn't clearly legal, because there's a valid public safety interest in getting potentially unlawful firearms off the street, and the inconvenience to the person who really did just forget their paperwork of having to come by the police station later with the right documents to retrieve it is relatively minor. But there is no public safety interest in seizing their car, and the inconvenience is much more extreme.
Such a law would also be open to abuse. This law is explicitly set up to punish people when the police are unable to prove guilt -- someone up thread said that the individual may deny knowledge of the firearm. Well, what if they really didn't know about it? What if their friend actually stashed it there? Or even worse, what if their enemy stashed it there, and then tipped of the cops, just to get them in shit? It seems unfair to impose what amounts to, say, a $30000 fine on someone who may be genuinely innocent.
Another liberal ass clown!!! What does he propose, that police conduct stop checks for firearms under the guise of what??? Tell this idiot to get aquatinted with section 8 of the Charter that covers unreasonable search and seizure.
And what law isn't?Such a law would also be open to abuse. ....
Seems the intent of the law is to allow the cops to take away clearly illegal guns without having to worry about the excuses that get people off the hook legally (ie. must have been that guy I gave a lift to yesterday). People who follow the law with their legal guns will have their papers with them and the infinitesimal number who don't but are doing everything else by the book will get charges dropped or a slap on the wrist (and they deserve a slap on the wrist of they don't have their papers in order).
What in cripes are you blathering about, why are you even mentioning deserting vehicles, what does that have to do with anything discussed thus far? Your nonsensical and completely unrelated tirade further goes to show that people unfamiliar with firearms and firearms law, shouldn't really have a say in the matter because of how misinformed or willfully ignorant they are.Did any one go to jail because their "Legal" handgun licenses expired?
(Registered vehicle is Vehicle Ownership Registration and have nothing to do with Driver License. And yes it is ILLEGAL to desert your old vehicle any where you like for "destruction".)
Yes if you got caught driving without proper license the cops can have your car towed away.......without the blessing from a judge.
Thats exactly this private member bill: if you got caught driving with ILLEGAL HANDGUN(s), thats handguns without proper legal firearm license, the cops should be given new power to have your car towed away and impounded and your driver license suspended............until its overruled by court.
You've yet to show any logical connection between impounding a vehicle for finding an illegal gun and how seizing the vehicle will enhance public safety. It's just another punitive measure to harass people.
You're right about just one thing, your vehicle can be seized if it's operated on public roads without a license; yes it is illegal in the sense that it breaks a law. Yet you ignored the point I made; is driving a vehicle without a license an indictable and/or summary offense in the Criminal Code? Can it lead to at least 3 years jail time and leave a criminal record affecting your lifestyle? No, the severity is nowhere near the same. Thus endeth the lesson. Anything else regarding firearms law, and how illogical it is, that you'd like to learn about?
Have you not read post 1?And what law isn't?
Seems the intent of the law is to allow the cops to take away clearly illegal guns without having to worry about the excuses that get people off the hook legally (ie. must have been that guy I gave a lift to yesterday). People who follow the law with their legal guns will have their papers with them and the infinitesimal number who don't but are doing everything else by the book will get charges dropped or a slap on the wrist (and they deserve a slap on the wrist of they don't have their papers in order).
They get their CAR seized by the police at the side of the road in the spot.
Not if they have a legal weapon, which I assume they would have paperwork to prove...correct?Have you not read post 1?
They get their CAR seized by the police at the side of the road in the spot.
You are not required by law to have the paperwork with you (the law gives you 14 days to produce it) and in some of the cases I mentioned there isn't any paperwork you would reasonable have.Not if they have a legal weapon, which I assume they would have paperwork to prove...correct?
For example if you have a pistol like a mare's leg where the barrel is long enough to be considered a rifle there isn't any paperwork you can carry to prove that, and the average officer is not qualified to measure a barrel accurately.
It happens regularly that police seize these borderline firearms thinking they are restricted, then release them on further investigation when they learn that they are actually classed as non restricted.
As it is that is an inconvenience, the individual gets a charge and his firearms seized but it results in a notice to appear and you go on your way. A week or so later it all goes away usually before even getting to a crown because back at the station the police can get a certified firearms verifier to confirm it is non restricted, and then the firearm is returned to the owner and the charge is dropped.
So now in this not uncommon case people will have their car seized?
Hell no.
Maybe this new law should also have a provision that, if the police seize a vehicle in error, the driver receives compensation for their incompetence.
And? Will it be returned?Have you not read post 1?
They get their CAR seized by the police at the side of the road in the spot.
Of course when a cop stops someone for something that involves searching the car (which essentially means arresting someone already because otherwise you can refuse a search) that means the car is already being 'seized' at least temporarily. If everything else is in order, when the arrested person is released, the car and the gun will be waiting.
