Safe storage at home?

SIR VEYOR said:
So...
6b(I) and c(I)

I could store a restricted in a locking toolbox, with ammo in the toolbox, provided the restricted has a trigger lock on it?

And a non-res with a trigger lock can be kept anywhere? It doesn’t need to be inside a locked room/closet?

Got asked about bare minimum legal requirements and was wondering how close to the line one can wander...
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
SIR VEYOR said:
Got asked about bare minimum legal requirements and was wondering how close to the line one can wander...
Click to expand...

There are two criminal code sections about safe storage. One is about violating the regulations. The other is about negligence.
 
RangeBob said:
There are two criminal code sections about safe storage. One is about violating the regulations. The other is about negligence.
Click to expand...

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?
 
SIR VEYOR said:
And does ammo in a locked box with a trigger locked restricted cross over into negligence?
Click to expand...

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.


SIR VEYOR said:
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?
Click to expand...

that might be R. v Rusk 2000
http://canlii.ca/t/1l7qg
[size=-9]although that was two rifles leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer.[/size]


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
 
Last edited:
RangeBob said:
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
[size=-9]although that was two rifles leaning on a welder with ammo in a nearby drawer.[/size]


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
Click to expand...

I sure hope that one is going to The Court of Appeal. That Judge was a moron.
 
The question is, was this not covered on your PAL course?
"...cross over into negligence?..." Negligence is what the cops will say when they're blaming you for becoming the victim of a crime and have your property stolen. A locking toolbox would result in the whole thing being stolen. Said tool box bolted to the floor is better.
One needs to remember that logic does not apply. None of these laws/regulations are meant to aid you in any way.
 
Justice said:
The question is, was this not covered on your PAL course?
"...cross over into negligence?..." Negligence is what the cops will say when they're blaming you for becoming the victim of a crime and have your property stolen. A locking toolbox would result in the whole thing being stolen. Said tool box bolted to the floor is better.
One needs to remember that logic does not apply. None of these laws/regulations are meant to aid you in any way.
Click to expand...

My pal course was so long ago I cant remember where I even did it. Do YOU remember everything you were ever taught ? This site is to help people out, not chastise them.
 
You might forget the technical stuff like how many mm a 18.5 inch barrel is but you don't forget the basics like not leaving loaded firearms unattended where curious kids are playing or muzzle control (not pointing guns at people).
 
RangeBob said:
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
Click to expand...

... 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.
 
Pop quiz...
Let's say you have a safe in a locked room. Can you store a loaded magazine besides a restricted firearm??

Asking for a friend!!
 
SwissArmyMan said:
Thanks for response.
The safe is in a gun room. Ammo is just in the locked room.
Click to expand...

Its worded in such a way that you can story your ammo with your guns in your safe, just as long as the guns aren't actually loaded. A loaded magazine is not a gun, and a gun is not loaded if the magazine isn't actually in it. I vaguely remember a case (might have been in the US, so don't quote me on this) where someone had a magazine partly inserted in the mag well and the judge ruled that it still wasn't loaded. I wouldn't want to pay the legal fees to argue that one out in court though.

On a side note, I know someone who got off an impaired charge (he had no intention of driving) because the door of the car wasn't closed. He knew he couldn't drive but REALLY didn't want to leave it where he had parked. He was digging around in the center console for our (we both worked in the same garage) tow truck drivers card. He was going to call him to tow the car for him. Apparently an overzealous bouncer decided that he was going to keep him from driving and grabbed his belt from behind (his feet were still on the ground) and dragged him out of the car. My co-worker was a big guy, and ex-airborne. He laid the bouncer out on the ground. The cops showed up, and charged him with "operating" a motor vehicle while impaired. Nobody disputed that he wasn't actually seated in the car and the door was open. The judge threw it out, saying "well, you can't drive a car with the doors open". You never know how these things are going to go.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now
or