We Have a Double Standard Justice System?

 by Jane Gaffin

RCMP Const. Wayne Gork recently told a court that nobody is allowed to have a loaded firearm in a house.

During a 2-1/2 day unfinished trial, the Crown witness agreed under cross-examination that to be loaded, the gun must have a live round in the chamber.

One of several exhibits was a Ruger .44 magnum handgun.

During an unconscionable raid on a Whitehorse resident's private dwelling, the police found the gun "loaded" with five cartridges. An empty cylinder was on the barrel. Owner safety precautions, transfer bars and other built-in safety mechanisms prevent guns from discharging accidentally, even when they are carried in the bush fully-loaded.

The gun owner, an expert woodsman and mineral prospector, is very proficient with firearms and has handled them safely for over 45 years.

Loading and unloading guns to ensure ammunition fits, and so forth, is part and parcel of normal and regular safety procedures that gun owners go through--and one in which the accused was engaged when his home was rudely invaded by four unexpected visitors on Feb. 15, 2000.

My question as to whether the handgun can be considered legally loaded will have to be decided by the court, I suppose, since the RCMP have felt compelled to charge the gun owner.

In this specific case, Allen Carlos, who was legally licensed to possess his collection of seized firearms, was alleged to have contravened Section 86 of the Criminal Code regarding improper storage of loaded prohibited and restricted firearms.

While I don't make a daily diet of the Criminal Code, I have read about the careless use of firearms on page 47 of the hefty tome.

It states: "Every person commits an offence who, WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE, USES, CARRIES, HANDLES, SHIPS, TRANSPORTS OR STORES A FIREARMS, a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition IN A CARELESS MANNER OR WITHOUT REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHER PERSONS."

That begs another question. An item was reported on CBC radio and in the Star on Aug. 15:

"A 29-year-old man accidentally discharged his firearm in the Copper Ridge subdivision at 9:00 Monday evening, Whitehorse RCMP say.

"Apparently, the man was cleaning and examining his rifle when it accidentally discharged," police said in a statement.

"The bullet went through the ceiling of his basement and into the air. No charges were laid, but the man was reminded about firearm safety."

Did the police actually accept "cleaning and examining a loaded firearm" as a "lawful excuse" under Section 86(1) of the Code?

As a safety precaution, the barrel should have been pointed at the floor.

It sounds as though the person was "using and handling a firearm in a careless manner without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons."

The unidentified man had a loaded firearm in his house. The RCMP and the Crown prosecutor claim it is taboo to have a loaded firearm of any type in a house.

Yet the man was not criminally charged. Why not? A "live round" had to be in the "chamber" to discharge.

A stray, misguided bullet that caused property damage could have easily blown off somebody's head, or done other bodily harm to an innocent bystander, especially a small child.

The RCMP's mandate is to enforce the Criminal Code.

One man, who was "examining" his guns, is charged for having loaded handguns in his house that were under safe control and could not discharge accidentally. His name was made public.

The other man, who was "examining" his gun, is not charged for having a loaded rifle in his house that was not under safe control and did discharge accidentally, causing property damage.

His name is cloaked in anonymity.

Have the RCMP currently rethought and admitted to the legality of having loaded firearms in the house, as, for example, Section 34 to 41 of the Criminal Code that deals with self-defence of person and defence of property?

Or are the police inconsistent as law enforcers? Is Section 86(1) dusted off and used on a case-by-case basis?

Regardless, the man sounds like "a threat to public safety". He needs to take training in safe handling of his guns from Mr. Carlos.

Or is Canada operating on a double-standard legal system?

Just something to ponder.

(Note: Carlos was acquitted; Crown appealed, acquitted again; Crown appealed to Supreme Court of Canada, which will carry a hefty pricetag to defend. A trust fund for Allen Carlos has been set up at the Bank of Montreal. All donations to account number 8075-985 will be gratefully accepted. For more information, please phone Paul Rogan, president of Responsible Firearms Owners Coalition, Whitehorse, at 1-867-668-5609, or e-mail him at firearms@yukon.net.

Copyright 2004 diArmani.com