Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    38,189

    Quebec Registry Unconstitutional due to R. v. Schwartz?


  2. #2
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    10,959
    Give us the TL;DR please.
    Dictionary of the future:
    Global Warming was a popular computer simulation game,
    where the only way to win was not to play.

  3. The Following User Liked This Post By Doug_M

    Rory McCanuck (08-21-2019)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Grimlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,502
    I'm no law-talking-guy, but this is what I see:

    Guy gets convicted with not having registration certificates
    Provincial appeals court says reverse onus is unconstitutional
    Federal court says FU, guns are our domain

    Am I close?

  5. #4
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    38,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug_M View Post
    Give us the TLR please.
    That was kind of my point. It was long, so I am unsure if I read it right.

    As I read it, the section about the onus being on the citizen to prove they had a registration certificate (which is still there in today's Criminal Code ...

    Quote Originally Posted by CriminalCodeToday
    Onus on the accused

    117.11 Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 101, 104 and 105, any question arises as to whether a person is the holder of an authorization, a licence or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, licence or registration certificate.
    but today we know that it is literally impossible for the citizen to prove that, because it resides in the database to which citizens have no access, and the paper copy is basically interpreted as being worthless.

    Anyway, the court in Schwatz took the view that placing the onus on the accused for this violated the Charter, and didn't pass the Oakes test. (The court felt that the onus should be on the Crown to prove there was no registration certificate, by means of a witness would could prove it.)

    At the time of Schwartz, in 1988, we had FAC and Restricted Registration Certificates. No licencing.


    So, I was wondering,
    if Quebec's law is similarly worded,
    perhaps although law with compliance, maybe it's unenforceable/unpunishable for people who have a PAL and an unregistered gun.
    How can the government prove it never lost a form or a database row. Or made it inaccurate as the Auditor General showed the federal one was.

    Most of the criminal charges I see are for 'possession of a restricted firearm knowing it was unauthorized' meaning no licence.
    I can't recall the last time I saw one that said 'possession of an unregistered restricted firearm' with a RPALer.
    It does appear from time to time with unlicenced, such as #13 at http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/files...1084479347.pdf

  6. #5
    Senior Member Doug_M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    10,959
    Interesting. I think either way one would be raked over the coals, and as time marches on I don't have faith in our higher courts as they become more about legislating from the bench. I wouldn't want to be in a position to test it out and I doubt my insurance would cover it lol.
    Dictionary of the future:
    Global Warming was a popular computer simulation game,
    where the only way to win was not to play.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Grimlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,502
    The part about the law being unconstitutional was overturned (I think). Maybe they aren't charging people with not having certificates because they don't want it going before the courts again and getting a different answer. It's all about whether the judges involved think guns or violating your rights are more evil.

  8. #7
    Canadian ForcesMember Billythreefeathers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vesper Sask
    Posts
    10,969
    pretty much the same thing with the 10/22 30 round mags,,, they will not lay charges,, simple confiscate if even that,,

    Has anyone heard of any gun owner be deprived of his property??
    CSSA

  9. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    25
    Quebec hunter here.

    Another "interesting" part of this badly designed law is that the firearm does not have to be registered in the Quebec registry if the firearm is in Quebec for less than 45 days. The law makes no mention of how the hunter is to prove this...
    Proud NFA, CCFR, CSSA, and NRA member. Hunter, Sports Shooter, Reloading Enthusiast. Conservative. Deal with it.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    697
    Laws don't mean shjt when judges can decide whatever they FEEL like.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Zinilin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,284
    Quote Originally Posted by ipep View Post
    Quebec hunter here.

    Another "interesting" part of this badly designed law is that the firearm does not have to be registered in the Quebec registry if the firearm is in Quebec for less than 45 days. The law makes no mention of how the hunter is to prove this...
    Do you mean "The law makes no mention of how the crown is to prove this"?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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