Is it leagl?-not HTA related

[Rob MacLennan]

Since he has generated some gun related interest with the police, a inspection from a firearms officer with a warrant could be in his very near future.

Just what I was thinking.

 

[rafiki911]

Nope there are exceptions...which this person may qualify. Still think he is going to be screwed for firing the gun...but probably not on a storage charge.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-98-209/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:s_5

Hmmmm very good to know if I ever get a place up north

 

[rafiki911]

Well, first off you made your blanket statement and determination before the OP made any mention of the previous incident.

You've also made your determination on the basis of the OP's post, without giving the other side an opportunity to respond, and without any further background investigation. In policing that would be considered an incomplete investigation.

So shooting a dog a few feet from two children is not enough??? Um ok. The only way that would ever be ok would be if that dog was attacking the children which it clearly wasn't since he knew it was the nieghbours dog and children.

 

[promac]

So shooting a dog a few feet from two children is not enough??? Um ok. The only way that would ever be ok would be if that dog was attacking the children which it clearly wasn't since he knew it was the nieghbours dog and children.

Here in Ontario, it's more than enough. It's completely and utterly beyond my comprehension how this guy avoided gun seizure, licence and registration revocation and a court ordered prohibition on possessing firearms. He must be a member of the "Old Boys Club".

Did the attending officer check for a valid firearms licence and registration certificate?

Improper storage is probably out of the question:

Firearms Act Regulations - Storage of non-restricted firearms

5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;


(b) it is


(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,



(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or



(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and



(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.


(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.


(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

Criminal Code Section 86 would be more appropriate

Careless use of firearm, etc.
86. (1) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, uses, carries, handles, ships, transports or stores a firearm, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition in a careless manner or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons.

Contravention of storage regulations, etc.
(2) Every person commits an offence who contravenes a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) of the Firearms Act respecting the storage, handling, transportation, shipping, display, advertising and mail-order sales of firearms and restricted weapons.

Punishment
(3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment

(i) in the case of a first offence, for a term not exceeding two years, and


(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a term not exceeding five years; or


(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 86; 1991, c. 40, s. 3; 1995, c. 39, s. 139.

 

[rafiki911]

Here in Ontario, it's more than enough. It's completely and utterly beyond my comprehension how this guy avoided gun seizure, licence and registration revocation and a court ordered prohibition on possessing firearms. He must be a member of the "Old Boys Club".

Isn't it sad that the police did not take his threats seriously in the first confrontation. If they ran his name they would have seen that he is a gun owner as well. I know police here take it serious. Been in a few situations in the past where my life has been verbally threatened and they acted accordingly.

 

[turbodish]

So shooting a dog a few feet from two children is not enough??? Um ok. The only way that would ever be ok would be if that dog was attacking the children which it clearly wasn't since he knew it was the nieghbours dog and children.

How many feet is "a few"?

The most recent post indicating distance said the kids were about 2 meters, or a little under 7 feet away from the dog when it was shot. By contrast, the first post said "less than 50 feet away".

She is heartbroken, and the 11 yr old is abviously shaken. He was less than 50' from the dog when it was shot.

The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front.

Which is it? Clearly, 7 feet away is too close but 50 feet is in a much different ballpark, especially if the kids were off to the side or behind the muzzle of the shotgun and thus well away from any line of fire or stray spray.

If the distances are changing as the story is told, then what else is not consistent? The problem is that emotion inflames the subject and affects the prism through which events are seen and recalled. A shot pet is a very sad thing, but that by itself is not sufficient cause to rush putting someone through criminal charges without first dispassionately looking well and hard at all sides to the incident.

 

[Brian P]

Different number, read it again. Kids were "2 metres" from the dog, the man was "7 or 8 metres" from the dog.

My condolences on the loss of the dog. I hope that appropriate actions are taken against that man.

 

[promac]

The man told the kids if they or their f'n dog came back ever again he'd shoot them and their dog in the head-exact words.

Do you have or can you get a copy of the police report? It's too bad they didn't make a complaint to the Canadian Firearms Centre shortly after the threat. Had they done that, the dog might still be alive.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Which is it? Clearly, 7 feet away is too close but 50 feet is in a much different ballpark, especially if the kids were off to the side or behind the muzzle of the shotgun and thus well away from any line of fire or stray spray.

Well to be pedantic about it, 7 feet clearly fits the definition of 'less than 50 feet."

.... but it was THE SHOOTER who was less than 50 feet away, as clearly stated in the first post.

 

[turbodish]

Different number, read it again. Kids were "2 metres" from the dog, the man was "7 or 8 metres" from the dog.

I did. The OP is not consistent on how far the kids were away from the dog when it was shot. Direct quotes below:

She is heartbroken, and the 11 yr old is abviously shaken. He was less than 50' from the dog when it was shot.

The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front.

It doesn't diminish the loss of the dog, but it does have bearing on what if any firearms charges the shooter should or should not be facing.

 

[promac]

Way too close, IMO. When firing a any firearm, persons should be behind the shooter anywhere between 90 and 270 degrees - not anywhere in front (down range). To make matters worse, the kids were running towards the dog. It's really a no-brainer!

New info:
Turns out a couple months ago the dog's collar broke and he wandered next door. The old man has a garden pond with a fountain. The dog was playing in the fountain. This dog loves spraying water as I have witnessed it playing in a hose sprinkler before.
He came out then, and hit the dog on the head with a shovel as the kids were pulling the dog from the pond. The man told the kids if they or their f'n dog came back ever again he'd shoot them and their dog in the head-exact words. 2 hrs later the cops came to my bro's house-the old man called them to complain about the dog. The cops told my bro to keep his dog ties=d or the neighbour would shoot their dog-my bro asked the OPP at that time if the man could and the cop shrugged. My bro told the OPP to charge the man with uttering threats, and the cop got ****** at my bro and told him to let it go, leave the old man alone, and keep the dog tied. Period. End of story. Lazy cops won't do real police work, just traffic enforcement.
If a young guy threatened someone, maybe it'd be different, but since it was a good'ol boy, it's fine I guess.

So true to the man's word, he shot the dog in the head. (pre-meditation?) The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front. He may have seen and heard them calling the dog. If he didn't see them as it was night and rainy, then shooting a gun into the dark where he couldn't see well isn't what I hope a registered firearm owner would do.

 

[turbodish]

Well to be pedantic about it, 7 feet clearly fits the definition of 'less than 50 feet."

Perhaps, but the precision is odd. If the OP had originally said "less than 10 feet away" and then later said "7 feet away", that would be a relatively insignificant difference not worth noting. But 50 feet down to 7 feet is something else. It suggests at best an uncertainty of just how much distance was involved, or at worst a story deliberately or unconsciously changing to paint the shooter in an increasingly bad light.

.... but it was THE SHOOTER who was less than 50 feet away, as clearly stated in the first post.

Are you sure about that? It sure seems to be the 11-year-old who is referred to as being less than 50 feet away in the following quote:

She is heartbroken, and the 11 yr old is abviously shaken. He was less than 50' from the dog when it was shot.

The only available reference to the shooter is that he was 4 to 5 meters away from the dog, or about 15 feet, not 50 feet.

The kids were 2 metres away from the dog, approaching the dog from the side. The man was 4 or 5 metres in front of the dog, on his porch, so the kids were to his right front.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Are you sure about that? It sure seems to be the 11-year-old who is referred to as being less than 50 feet away in the following quote:

Less sure than previously, but my previous pedantic comment stands.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Less sure than previously, but my previous pedantic comment stands.

Stop arguing with turbo, Rob.. According to him, a GTAM membership should come with a 5 year jail sentence

 

[AGAVE]

Way too close, IMO. When firing a any firearm, persons should be behind the shooter anywhere between 90 and 270 degrees - not anywhere in front (down range). To make matters worse, the kids were running towards the dog. It's really a no-brainer!

Exactly.

Someone go to the firing range where the police practice and ask if you can stand 50 feet to the side of the target while they shoot. :confused1:
I'm sure they will say it's fine considering they are trained and certified to shoot accurately.

 

[turbodish]

Exactly.

Someone go to the firing range where the police practice and ask if you can stand 50 feet to the side of the target while they shoot. :confused1:
I'm sure they will say it's fine considering they are trained and certified to shoot accurately.

Apples and oranges.

I agree that 50 feet to the side at a rifle range is too close for safety. Then again, the targets at the range can be five hundred meters or more away from the shooting line so even a slightly error in aim angle can mean a wide divergence between target and where the round lands.

Things change when your target is only 4 or 5 meters away in front of you. Someone 50 feet to the side has no virtually chance of being hit unless you do a full right angle swing of the barrel before pulling the trigger.

 

[rafiki911]

Exactly.

Someone go to the firing range where the police practice and ask if you can stand 50 feet to the side of the target while they shoot. :confused1:
I'm sure they will say it's fine considering they are trained and certified to shoot accurately.

Just cause cops are trained doesn't mean you should trust their shooting capabilities.lol I know a sargent and he has been shot twice. Both times by other cops at a shooting range. Pretty funny concidering you are not supposed to have your finger on the trigger until you are aimed at the target and you are only supposed to point the nozzle down range.

 

[Nimbus]

Do you really think that the police would side with the shooter, when there were kids present and calling the dog and he shot from his porch which he could have easily gone inside and placed a call to police if he was that scared for his life??? I don't care how good this guys story is the cops have to be complete retards or rediculously lazy to not pursue this.

And? The problem is that description is applicable to a great many of our law enforcement personnel. Just saying.

 

[rafiki911]

And? The problem is that description is applicable to a great many of our law enforcement personnel. Just saying.

True but not if you know your **** and call them on it they usually act in your favour cause they want to cover their butts. I have had cops tell me that I arrested someone unlawfully then recited the criminal code to them and have them apologize to me. Not all cops know every aspect of the law, especially if they are not dealing with it on a daily basis.

 

[mike100]

Apples and oranges.

I agree that 50 feet to the side at a rifle range is too close for safety. Then again, the targets at the range can be five hundred meters or more away from the shooting line so even a slightly error in aim angle can mean a wide divergence between target and where the round lands.

Things change when your target is only 4 or 5 meters away in front of you. Someone 50 feet to the side has no virtually chance of being hit unless you do a full right angle swing of the barrel before pulling the trigger.

I think you are missing the point. You never shoot when there is someone forward or the muzzle. This is a basic rule of firearms safety!
This was not a life and death situation.