Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Canada Handgun Ban

Since you are not a lawyer, you defer to them and to what is written in the Criminal Code of Canada.

https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html

Here is what the Canadian coalition for firearms reform (CCFR) thinks as it pertains to Canadian law.
https://firearmrights.ca/15-7-self-defence/

And again, it doesn't matter what the CCFR thinks. The law is the law. You just want to argue.

https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html

I am not a psychiatrist either, but I think you have an issue of control Steve, it is called OCD, and I think you have it. I could care less if you sucked on your pistola, but get some care.

Ah, it's good to see you still whining and complaining. You do that well.

If someone breaks into your home, unannounced, let's say a bugler or rapist. There is no way on earth anyone will go to prison for protecting themselves.

It is naive to think that the law is clear and straight-forward. In Canada, interpretation and established case-law are nuanced, which is why we need highly trained judges to make decisions in each case. Combine that with the fact that self-defence laws have been the rope in a tug-of-war between alternating governing parties over the past 20+ years, and it’s not surprising that the average Canadian lacks clarity in understanding the law and how it applies to them.

Regardless, when this topic would come up in conversation, I remember Grandpa used to say that it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Exactly Jordan, its about case law, and I don't think it has been fully explored yet.

lol

In the meantime, counselor, hold your breath until the federal government and the supreme court make sweeping changes.

Self-defense is allowed in Canada, period.

The only issues that will be discussed in court will be:

"Were you actions Justifiable" and "Did you defend yourself in an Appropriate Manner"

I know this to be a fact from personal experience.

Of course you do, Dave. 673 and you should get along famously. Have fun! lol

One would think so, but the goalposts move. The race of the individual charged is going to have a massive role to play, we don't just have one rule of law, and that is a problem.

Here is my rule of law, put your hands on me or break into my house with me in it and you are going to the hospital or worse. lol

Here is my rule of law, put your hands on me or break into my house with me in it and you are going to the hospital or worse. lol[/quote]
Totally agree^^^^^

Here is a poll from the Toronto sun LOL, scroll down abit for the poll.
97% of Canadians think the handgun ban does nothing.

https://torontosun.com/news/local-n...n-toronto-as-bullets-fly-across-the-city

The law may be the same federally but I have a strong suspicion that self-defence in Alberta is different than self-defence in Ontario—just look what happened to Ian Thomson.

Who is Ian Thomson?

Interesting hey, most Canadians are smarter than I thought. lol

You should check with a lawyer if you wish to understand what is written in the law, 673. Or you can just do what you always do and argue from a position of ignorance. lol

Ask a lawyer what this means. They argue their cases based on what is written here and judges use the Criminal Code to render their decisions. lol

Defence of Person

Marginal note: Defence — use or threat of force

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Marginal note:Factors

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Marginal note:No defence

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the force is used or threatened by another person for the purpose of doing something that they are required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, unless the person who commits the act that constitutes the offence believes on reasonable grounds that the other person is acting unlawfully.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F) 2012, c. 9, s. 2

This is appropriate for the thread.

Yeah, thats what I thought too, I will check the poll in a few days to see what effect time has on them.