Safe storage at home?

[SIR VEYOR]

There are two criminal code sections about safe storage. One is about violating the regulations. The other is about negligence.

And does ammo in a locked box with a trigger locked restricted cross over into negligence? I Vaguely remember the court case about the rifle leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer, and that was deemed Acceptable with consternation?

[RangeBob]

And does ammo in a locked box with a trigger locked restricted cross over into negligence?

If there's something unusual, then complying with the regulations may be insufficient.

for example, given

Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms

5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

If you were to "store" your rifles, by putting trigger locks on them,
and then suspending them on small pieces of string on the front yard under your 20'x8' billboard that says "FREE GUNS",
that would be negligence.

There are probably more realistic examples of negligence.

I Vaguely remember the court case about the rifle leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer, and that was deemed Acceptable with consternation?

that might be R. v Rusk 2000
http://canlii.ca/t/1l7qg
although that was two rifles leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer.


going the other way, we have R. v. Libon (2013).

"The RCMP knows that gun owners are low hanging fruit. They have these easy charges that they can lay under these storage regulations, for which there is no defense. And here's how bizarre it gets. I came across a case from B.C. a while back and if I didn't read this I'd think somebody had made it up. A fellow in B.C. was convicted of unsafe storage because he had ammunition too close to the firearm. But here's the thing. The firearm was a .22, the ammunition was shotgun shells. The judge upheld the conviction because there was no evidence that the gun couldn't be modified to accommodate shotgun shells."
-- Lawyer Rick Hemmingson

[spider69]

If there's something unusual, then complying with the regulations may be insufficient.

for example, given

Storage of Non-Restricted Firearms

5 (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.

If you were to "store" your rifles, by putting trigger locks on them,
and then suspending them on small pieces of string on the front yard under your 20'x8' billboard that says "FREE GUNS",
that would be negligence.

There are probably more realistic examples of negligence.




that might be R. v Rusk 2000
http://canlii.ca/t/1l7qg
although that was two rifles leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer.


going the other way, we have R. v. Libon (2013).

"The RCMP knows that gun owners are low hanging fruit. They have these easy charges that they can lay under these storage regulations, for which there is no defense. And here's how bizarre it gets. I came across a case from B.C. a while back and if I didn't read this I'd think somebody had made it up. A fellow in B.C. was convicted of unsafe storage because he had ammunition too close to the firearm. But here's the thing. The firearm was a .22, the ammunition was shotgun shells. The judge upheld the conviction because there was no evidence that the gun couldn't be modified to accommodate shotgun shells."
-- Lawyer Rick Hemmingson

I sure hope that one is going to The Court of Appeal. That Judge was a moron.

[Gunrunner]

13).

"The RCMP knows that gun owners are low hanging fruit. They have these easy charges that they can lay under these storage regulations, for which there is no defense. And here's how bizarre it gets. I came across a case from B.C. a while back and if I didn't read this I'd think somebody had made it up. A fellow in B.C. was convicted of unsafe storage because he had ammunition too close to the firearm. But here's the thing. The firearm was a .22, the ammunition was shotgun shells. The judge upheld the conviction because there was no evidence that the gun couldn't be modified to accommodate shotgun shells."
-- Lawyer Rick Hemmingson

... anti-gun activist cops, crown attorneys and judges are par for the course up here in Canada and getting more common every day ... if you are unfortunate enough to run into all 3 you are f'ked regardless of the circumstances because they have already made up their minds that you have committed anti-social behavior solely by owning a gun or even wanting to own a gun.