🚀 go-pugleaf

Public Safety minister Stockwell Day acknowledged that ALL Canadians will
need to be mobilized to be fully effective in the war on terror, and that an
effective defence will require the government to acknowledge the publics
right to defend themselves lawfully.... Day stated that his government was
committed to restore freedoms to law abiding Canadians as part of his
government mandate to fight the terrorists war on freedom.... Day stated
that if this law saves even one life it will be worth  it.....


"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo4p82ld66613kufl4f6boo8mj1g44r7vj@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:00:15 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brian Daily" <daily.brian@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:bj5j821sjeo6b1tlbcu1b1dgt9cobjoelb@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 05:18:54 GMT, "Semper Liber"
> >> <nopolicestates??@freedom4�ll.xxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I guess those fancy sidearms they carried proved to be kinda useless
> >for
> >> >self
> >> >> protection? Yet gun nuts everywhere yearn to own one. Stupid isn't
it.
> >> >
> >> >You think the cops are stupid for carrying sidearms for protection?
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >
> >So why would they carry something you say is "useless"?
> >
> Useless to civilians.

That makes no sense. Why would a bullet stop an attacker ONLY when fired by
someone wearing different clothing? Do cops have special decoder rings that
give their firearms special powers? Too funny!

>It against the law for a civilian to use a sidearm for
> self defense in Canada.

It is against the law for "governments" to make laws that differentiate
between individuals.... Rule of law means everyone is equal under the law -
equal in application and protection... end of story. We all have a right to
defend ourselves, and while it may be argued that a gun is not a reasonable
tool for self defence, such an argument by government would be totally
incoherent given the fact they issue guns to our servants for just such a
purpose. This sort of legal argument should even be simple enough for
dullards to understand...

"Here is a law which is above the King and Parliament, and which even He and
They must not and may not legally break. And in the event they or anyone
else were to try to abrogate it, such attempt at abrogation shall have no
force nor effect [1297] and can be safely ignored with no legal ill effect.
In addition, in the event of successful attempts at abrogation of such
liberties, customs, or rights, the King has commanded and do hereby compel
any and all subjects to swear oath to join the barons to assail the
properties and persons and families of those (saving the King, Queen and the
royal children) who had successfully completed such abrogation, including
but not limited to that of the individual Members of Parliament who had
voted in favour of any such successful attempts at abrogation [1215]. This
reaffirmation of a supreme law and its expression in a general charter is
the great work of Magna Carta; and this alone justifies the respect in which
men have held it."


--Quote by Sir Winston Churchill, 1956

> The gun can only be legally used for target shooting
> there fore it should be stored where it is used.

The gun can be used to lawfully defend ones person or property when
threatened..... This is a fundamental right, and any law that states
otherwise can be safely ignored. End of Story.

Per Arbour and LeBel JJ. : Section 88(1) of the Criminal Code requires a
subjective mens rea. Constitutional considerations aside, there is a common
law presumption that, absent a clear expression of Parliamentary intent, a
person is not liable for a criminal offence in the absence of subjective
mens rea. However, the elements of the offence must be distinguished from
the evidentiary problems that arise in any offence where the trier of fact
is called on to determine the subjective intent of an accused. To do this,
the trier of fact must look at the externalities or objective indicia of the
accused's state of mind.
     Under s. 88(1), an accused's subjective purpose must be one that is
dangerous to the public peace. To avoid importing an objective element into
a purely subjective approach, the concept of a "purpose dangerous to the
public peace" needs to be given concrete content. Within the meaning of s.
88(1), it is the possession of a weapon with the intention of doing harm to
persons or property, or showing reckless disregard for harm to persons or
property. Section 88(1) does not require actual use of the weapon, but does
require possession of a weapon coupled with an additional intention.