andyt andyt:
Think, man. We have all sorts of mandatory minimums that the court has never had a problem with. The section you quote is about using a fire arm during the commission of an offense - ie it's a separate charge with a separate penalty.
What the judges had a problem with is the provisions just for possessing an illegal firearm. And yes, that the mandatory minimum for that crime was too severe. Make it one year and they probably would have no problem. But the concern is that the law sweeps up people who just forget to register their weapon or some such minor infraction, that a judge would have given a very lenient sentence to, but this law prevents the judge from doing that. He has to treat the gang banger the same as the farmer who didn't make it to the firearms office in time.
Given my bias, I'm not really worried about someone who's otherwise legit getting a stiff sentence for an illegally owned gun. I want stiff sentences for gun crimes. But I can see the judges point. And as you say yourself, all the Reformacons have to do is re-write the law so it meets the judges test. You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth here, where you say the law is poorly written and should be changed, then slam the Harper appointed Supreme court for saying just that.
It is one year now so what would be the point of rewriting a bill to stay the same? As Robair so succinctly pointed out, we already have a one year minimum for gun crimes and that includes unregistered firearms.This bill was written to make the punishment fit the crime but the Conservatives screwed up and didn't change the unregistered part which gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to quash the bill.
But, the point I'm trying to make is that some people are against this bill simply because they oppose Conservative introduced minimum mandatory sentences. But, when it's pointed out that the Liberals instituted this one in 1977 and amended it in 95 the argument changes to the sentences were to severe which is rather ridiculous because a minimum mandatory sentence is still a minimum mandatory sentence.
I have no problem putting criminals in jail for an initial 3 years for the commission of an offence with a gun but like every other responsible gun owner I don't want to be lumped in with the same thugs that are running amok just because I own an unregistered weapon which is why I'd like the bill rewritten and reintroduced to reflect what a majority of sane people want.
$1:
The ruling said the mandatory minimum sentence could ensnare people with "little or no moral fault" and who pose "little or no danger to the public." It cited as an example a person who inherits a firearm and does not immediately get a license for the weapon.
"As the Court of Appeal concluded, there exists a 'cavernous disconnect' between the severity of the licensing-type offence and the mandatory minimum three-year term of imprisonment," McLachlin wrote for the majority.
So, since they apparently didn't quash all minimum mandatory sentences for gun crimes. It means that its still okay to sentence an innocent gun owner who fails to license a weapon to 1 year in jail but god forbid don't sentence him to 3 years in jail because that's cruel and unusual punishment.
That ruling is the height of hypocritical thinking and was more likely driven by a personal motivation on the part of the court than any modicum of common sense or desire to protect the innocent.
