🚀 go-pugleaf

Darin <Darin@home.com> wrote:
>    What this guy is saying is that if anyone was allowed to own a gun then
>the criminals won't know who is an easy victim. The way it is now some
>people have guns but they are not allowed to use them for self defense and
>this is common knowledge, so in a criminals eyes everyone is an easy

>    The way the Law is if someone breaks into your house and you pull out a
>gun and shoot them evern just wounding them, You are the one who is going
>to be charged, evern though they had no right to be in your house.

	While I'm firmly in the gun control camp, I thought this sounded a
little hyperbolic, so I dug around for the can.talk.guns FAQ (a relatively
pro-guns document).

	It gives an in-depth answer re: home invasions in question 15:

-----
15. Isn't the US-style self-defence illegal in Canada?

    Not only can you defend your life with deadly force, but you may defend
    your home.  Sections 32 and 40 of the Criminal Code (CC) allow use of
    deadly force
    1) where you fear death or grievous bodily harm, and
    2) to keep persons from illegally entering your home.

    Colet v Regina (CCC vol. 57, 2d, pages 105 to 113, Jan 27, 1981) is the
    most recent example of the latter that I have found.  Briefly, the local
    police tried to enter Mr Colet's home in Prince Rupert, BC, without a
    warrant to do so.  (They had only a warrant to seize whatever weapon he
    might have had.)  He violently denied entry, even throwing Molotov
    cocktails at the police.  Mr Justice Ritchie wrote in the _unanimous_
    Supreme Court of Canada decision:

        "The common law principle has been firmly engrafted in our law since
        Semayne's case (1604) as reported in 5 Co. rep. 91a 77E.R. 194 where
        it was said [at p. 91b]: ``that the house of every one is to him as
        his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and
        violence, as for his repose...''.  This famous dictum was cited by
        my Brother Dickson in the case of Eccles v Bourque et al (1974),  19
        CCC (2d) 129, 50 D.L.R.  (3d) 753, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739, in which he
        made an extensive review of many of the relevant authorities."

    However, it is likely far better to use the protection offered by
    sections 494, 25 and 29 of the Criminal Code (CC) of Canada.  They
    "marry" to offer major protection to any person who is trying to
    _arrest_ a criminal, or a person he or she believes on reasonable
    grounds to be a criminal _and_ a threat of death or grievous bodily
    harm.  They also protect him or her if force is used because the
    person being arrested is resisting arrest.

    When dealing with any home invasion (or other criminals) the _first_
    words out of your mouth should _always_ be, "YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!"
    If the intruder then assaults _you_, he has _no_ justification.  He
    is resisting arrest, and that is a crime under CC s. 270.  One
    should also read CC s. 265, 267, 268, and 270(1)(b) to clarify the
    above sections.  CC s. 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
    and 45 should be read by every person interested in what one can and
    cannot do in the areas of self-protection and control of doubtful
    situations.

-----

>The Laws protect the criminals and the guilty, not the law abiding
>citizens.

	Mind quoting which ones?



followups set.

-- 
Check          Screwdriver      Sun          Cup          Shutout
        Fish    Adjective           One     Plate      Base
   Noise     Two             Nick        Light   Zone
Flash      Three   Bull             Ice            Distortion