Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    SWOntario
    Posts
    2,124
    We have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own property of any kind. Never mind the strictly American 'Right To Bear Arms'. We have never had either "right" under the BNA or Trudeau the Elder's Constitution.
    "...Canada you could walk into any police station and get one..." Nope. However, before the FA, "To protect life." was the first reason for owning a restricted firearm on the application. Said reason being routinely a cause for a denial by local registrar(Local city PDs or OPP in Ontario prior to the FA) policy(cops have been making illegally law by regulation for eons).

  2. #12
    Member awndray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    National Capital Region
    Posts
    9,452
    Quote Originally Posted by BgDM View Post
    As to me, this section of the Charter clearly allows our rights to to liberty and security.
    Correct. But, as mentioned, no right to property. Therefore, no right to arms.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Burlington, Ontario
    Posts
    787
    The judge upheld the conviction because there was no evidence that the gun couldn't be modified to accommodate shotgun shells.
    I still can't get my head around this one, does this now mean that if there's no evidence that you're innocent, you're deemed guilty?
    Last edited by Magi; 01-10-2019 at 08:49 AM.
    We were told he wasn't ready, now we know he will never be!

  4. The Following 2 Users Like This Post By Magi

    manic29 (01-10-2019), Mobusten (01-09-2019)

  5. #14
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    32,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Justice View Post
    We have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to own property of any kind.
    The British North America Act left it to the provinces to guarantee property rights of citizens.
    The only thing the provinces seem to have done with it is
    - use it to retain power, e.g. Supreme Court Firearms Reference 2000 they argued that because the constitution gave them property rights, firearms were in their purview.
    - enact laws so they could seize anything they wanted, with reverse onus leaving it up to the individual to prove that they hadn't acquired it by or for a criminal purpose. (e.g. Bruce Montague's house after his arrest)

  6. The Following User Liked This Post By RangeBob

    manic29 (01-10-2019)

  7. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    1,055
    remember though


    no.jpg

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •