Canadian Airgun Forum

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that if Joe Bloe were to do the above in certain circumstances in an urban setting, charges of "weapons dangerous" or "public mischief" could/would be laid. I do understand, as a gun owner, the need to fight for our rights but there's always a small percentage that will take that quote as gospel and do something we (as gun owners) would call idiotic. And with that said and Hallowe'en just around the corner, I guarantee someone will attend a party or trick or treat with their kids in costume carrying a real firearm. Happens every year unfortunately...

I don't want to, but that's how ppl react.

Oh, I understand now, that must be the language barrier.

P.S. If you don't fight the Anastasia law, muhamor, you may find yourself walking with your firearms, this new bill proposed by Charest, wants to make riding the bus with a firearm an offence.

_________________
I reserve the right to be totally wrong, and change my opinion when wiser minds prevail.

WTF... I use to walk down the streets of BFTD along time ago with NO CHARGES WHATSOEVER. And what would those charges be, Pray-Tell I hadn't gotton any charges myself... From carrying any of my FireArms or Pellet-Gunz...

MIKe...

_________________
We will never be the Man we once were, but what we will Become...

I think the operative phrase in your statement is a long time ago and also important is what city you did it in. As for you saying with no charges what so ever is not indicative of what the law is. Failing to see a stop sign and driving through it without being charged does not make that practise legal or advisable.
Also, in my post I said, "weapons dangerous"...could/would be laid... which is not to be confused with being convicted. Having charges dismissed would be small consolation for time, effort and money spent to arrive at such a decision when an ounce of prevention (and common sense) could have avoided the whole ugly mess.
Here are some pertinent decisions by the courts in regards to this subject:

R. v. Kerr....the Crown must establish (1) that the accused possessed a weapon; and (2) that the purpose of that possession was one dangerous to the public peace...The trier of fact must first determine subjectively what the accused’s purpose was. This determination may involve a consideration of objective criteria. The question is what object the accused knew would probably flow from his possession, regardless of whether he desired it or not. Subsequently, the trier of fact must determine objectively whether that purpose was, in all the circumstances, dangerous to the public peace. There is no exhaustive test for dangerousness because of the wide variety of settings and circumstances in which a danger may arise. In s. 88, the concept of “public peace” refers generally to a state of order or to the normal state of society, but violence is not always and without exception a danger to the public peace. It is for the trier of fact, on the basis of all relevant factors, to determine whether the purposeful act would, in the particular circumstances, have endangered the public peace.

So in conclusion, (using my best Perry Mason voice ) I submit that it would be extremely ill advised to decide to do some banking in Toronto, during the winter wearing a balaclava , while slinging a Remington 870 as you could find yourself the test case for precedent making laws in this country or worst, shot by a responding policeman. In either case, I don't think you'd get much sympathy from anyone...

Also of interest in regards to a pellet gun taken to a party:

R. v. J.B.B., We know that the accused carried the gun to a party where other young people were present and showed it to them. The only inference that can be drawn from this is that he wanted these other males to know that he had such an item in the event that he was threatened by anyone in the future. I cannot think of any other legitimate purpose for taking such an item to a party where young people are present and drinking alcohol.

I'm not saying I completely agree with the exact wording in that decision but, it's up to the accused to appeal the decision which means a lot more $ going to lawyers fees.

P.S. Nothing against lawyers...

It was in BrantFord Ontario, Canada. I had bought a .22 caliber AirGun and the guy didn't have a bag for it nor the box. He says no worries, so I went on my way to SAM The Record Man on Colborne Street. And I actually walked into the store with also no problems either. It was in the very early 1970's--73 maybe IT WAS ALOT DIFFERENT THEN IT IS NOW, THATS ABIG FOR SURE EH ?

KM...

_________________
We will never be the Man we once were, but what we will Become...