|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 12, 2020 16:11:41 GMT -4
There are times where I would say that she was exaggerating, but she seemed quite detailed in her description of events and his actions. I have a hard time to believe the weapons claims, if a part makes a complaint about illegal weapons for somebody with no certificate, it would be very easy to get a warrant. I don't think you can get a warrant because some angry person says "this guy has illegal weapons". The standard has to be higher than that to justify a warrant. Now if they guy threatened the other fellow with say a sawed-off shotgun, illegal, then sure. They investigate the threat and can get a warrant because a crime was alleged. I thought in the article that one of the neighbors said he saw his weapons. That's not just a disgruntled neighbor, the guy apparently saw them.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 12, 2020 16:44:28 GMT -4
I don't think you can get a warrant because some angry person says "this guy has illegal weapons". The standard has to be higher than that to justify a warrant. Now if they guy threatened the other fellow with say a sawed-off shotgun, illegal, then sure. They investigate the threat and can get a warrant because a crime was alleged. I thought in the article that one of the neighbors said he saw his weapons. That's not just a disgruntled neighbor, the guy apparently saw them. Under those circumstances no crime was committed, so you can't get a warrant for a fishing expedition to see if a crime has been committed.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 12, 2020 18:40:54 GMT -4
I thought in the article that one of the neighbors said he saw his weapons. That's not just a disgruntled neighbor, the guy apparently saw them. Under those circumstances no crime was committed, so you can't get a warrant for a fishing expedition to see if a crime has been committed. If the guy had a prior changed and was banned from posessing weapons, the bar becomes very low.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 7:46:59 GMT -4
Under those circumstances no crime was committed, so you can't get a warrant for a fishing expedition to see if a crime has been committed. If the guy had a prior changed and was banned from posessing weapons, the bar becomes very low. He had a prior charge 18 years ago, and was prohibited from owning a gun for 9 months, according to media reports I read. If you can show that he was currently banned from owning guns then I'd agree. But there are still privacy issues in play here and Judges take them very seriously. A Judge won't give you a search warrant if no crime has been committed.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 13, 2020 8:02:03 GMT -4
If the guy had a prior changed and was banned from posessing weapons, the bar becomes very low. He had a prior charge 18 years ago, and was prohibited from owning a gun for 9 months, according to media reports I read. If you can show that he was currently banned from owning guns then I'd agree. But there are still privacy issues in play here and Judges take them very seriously. A Judge won't give you a search warrant if no crime has been committed. I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that they said on newscasts that he was prohibited from owning guns. I think I heard that in one of the new conferences from the RCMP chief from NS.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 8:10:10 GMT -4
He had a prior charge 18 years ago, and was prohibited from owning a gun for 9 months, according to media reports I read. If you can show that he was currently banned from owning guns then I'd agree. But there are still privacy issues in play here and Judges take them very seriously. A Judge won't give you a search warrant if no crime has been committed. I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that they said on newscasts that he was prohibited from owning guns. I think I heard that in one of the new conferences from the RCMP chief from NS. Well those words are correct ... "he was prohibited from owning guns" but that was in 2002 for a 9 month period as a result of an assault charge. I stopped reading all the RCMP and media reports after awhile though so you may be correct.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 13, 2020 8:14:05 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, that they said on newscasts that he was prohibited from owning guns. I think I heard that in one of the new conferences from the RCMP chief from NS. Well those words are correct ... "he was prohibited from owning guns" but that was in 2002 for a 9 month period as a result of an assault charge. I stopped reading all the RCMP and media reports after awhile though so you may be correct. The comment I recall was that he had guns but does not have a certificate(which would be registered with the RCMP), the superintendant said they were looking into how and where he got the guns. Maybe he wasn't "prohibited" but he did not own them legally for sure.
|
|
|
Post by lirette on May 13, 2020 8:21:42 GMT -4
Well those words are correct ... "he was prohibited from owning guns" but that was in 2002 for a 9 month period as a result of an assault charge. I stopped reading all the RCMP and media reports after awhile though so you may be correct. The comment I recall was that he had guns but does not have a certificate(which would be registered with the RCMP), the superintendant said they were looking into how and where he got the guns. Maybe he wasn't "prohibited" but he did not own them legally for sure. The information on the prior charge was covered in detail on this article www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/nova-scotia-shooting-suspect-criminal-record-1.5541176
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 8:23:07 GMT -4
Well those words are correct ... "he was prohibited from owning guns" but that was in 2002 for a 9 month period as a result of an assault charge. I stopped reading all the RCMP and media reports after awhile though so you may be correct. The comment I recall was that he had guns but does not have a certificate(which would be registered with the RCMP), the superintendant said they were looking into how and where he got the guns. Maybe he wasn't "prohibited" but he did not own them legally for sure. Yes ... perhaps he did not go through the process of getting a PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence), but would have been eligible if he wanted to. I can't legally own a gun today because I do not have a PAL, but could go through that process and perhaps have a gun within a few months (or however long it takes), legally. Not considering Trudeau's gun ban of course ... not sure what I can legally buy anymore.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 8:26:26 GMT -4
That is what I recall reading.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 8:29:11 GMT -4
Well those words are correct ... "he was prohibited from owning guns" but that was in 2002 for a 9 month period as a result of an assault charge. I stopped reading all the RCMP and media reports after awhile though so you may be correct. The comment I recall was that he had guns but does not have a certificate(which would be registered with the RCMP), the superintendant said they were looking into how and where he got the guns. Maybe he wasn't "prohibited" but he did not own them legally for sure. I'm not suggesting that he had any legal guns. I understand that he had several illegal guns that came from Canada and the US. But I don't think he was banned from ever legally owning guns, as long as he went through the proper channels to get permits.
|
|
|
Post by bois on May 13, 2020 9:20:20 GMT -4
Also how would a neighbour necessarily know what guns were legal or not? if i was in my neighbours house and saw a gun i would have no idea why they had it, how they got it or if it was legal or not...... but if sometime in the future they committed a terrible crime i could certainly garner my minutes of fame and do an interview... thus is the world we live in
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 13, 2020 9:52:40 GMT -4
Also how would a neighbour necessarily know what guns were legal or not? if i was in my neighbours house and saw a gun i would have no idea why they had it, how they got it or if it was legal or not...... but if sometime in the future they committed a terrible crime i could certainly garner my minutes of fame and do an interview... thus is the world we live in Well if he brandished a sawed-off shotgun as a threat, then that would seem to be obviously illegal. But I agree ... and this would be before Trudeau's gun ban so even an AR15 wouldn't be clearly illegal. Of course I am no gun aficionado and would not know what was banned prior to 2020 ... was an Uzi illegal, because I'd guess yes.
|
|
|
Post by chootoi on May 13, 2020 13:11:48 GMT -4
Im not sure if the law has changed with this new ban, but previously it is not illegal to purchase or own "gun parts". You can easily purchase parts online without having to interact with people. Only when you assemble them into an assault weapon have you committed an offense.
|
|
|
Post by warrenmc on May 13, 2020 23:59:56 GMT -4
The Halifax Examiner is the outlet that broke this story. CBC was late to the game.
|
|