Firearm only has to be accessible for gun crime to take place: Supreme Court

[lars573]

Of Canada won't fit in the title. Still interseting take on the gun law. I heard the details on the radio news. The 4 perps were trying to rob a pot grow op. But they broke into the wrong house. That had already been shut down anyway And they threatened the grow ops neighbours with guns they didn't have on them. Criminal masterminds I tells ya.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the conviction of a man for using a firearm while committing a break-in, even though the defendant may not have actually been carrying the gun at the time. ADVERTISEMENT



In a unanimous ruling, the nine-member court said an offender "uses" a firearm within the Criminal Code definition, even if he only makes it known "by words or conduct" that a gun is available.

The justices said a weapon must be in the physical possession of the offender or "readily at hand."

And they said the usual rules of complicity apply to others involved in the crime.

The case involved Andre Omar Steel, who was convicted of a break-in at a B.C. marijuana grow operation.

The occupants of the home heard Steele and his accomplices warn them "we have a gun," "get the gun, get the gun," and "get the gun out" before one of them pulled a dark metal object from inside his jacket; police captured the four and found several weapons in their car, including a loaded handgun.

The original trial judge found that the intruders all intended to carry out a break-in and a gun was used to the knowledge of all four.

The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the Supreme Court agreed.

"Use includes discharging or pointing a firearm or displaying a firearm for the purpose of intimidation while committing an offence but the test is not met by mere possession of a firearm, idle threats that refer to a firearm, or evidence that a weapon was proximate for future use," Justice Morris Fish wrote on behalf of the court.

Section 85(1) of the Criminal Code relates to "situations where the firearm is at the ready for present rather than future use," he said.

"Here, the accused and his accomplices 'used' a firearm within the meaning of . . . the Criminal Code. They repeatedly referred to a firearm in their physical possession or readily at hand in order to facilitate the commission of the indictable offence of break and enter."

forgot teh linkage. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...oc__firearms_1

[Ice]

That's the strangest thing I've ever heard. Sounds like they should be charged with Breaking and Entering and Assault, along with possession of illegal firearms.

[Moros]

I know lawyers are evil, but I never tought they'd be burglers too.
(Sorry Andres.)

[lars573]

That's the strangest thing I've ever heard. Sounds like they should be charged with Breaking and Entering and Assault, along with possession of illegal firearms.

They were. However here there is a specfic offense of using a gun when comiting a crime. With lesser versions for knifes and bats and such. Essentially I rob somebody, I get charged with robbery. I rob somebody at knife point, I get charged with robbery and using a weapon while commiting a crime.

[Ice]

They were. However here there is a specfic offense of using a gun when comiting a crime. With lesser versions for knifes and bats and such. Essentially I rob somebody, I get charged with robbery. I rob somebody at knife point, I get charged with robbery and using a weapon while commiting a crime.

Yes, but they never used a weapon or even had one on them. Having one in their car doesn't really count.

[Husar]

Yes, but they never used a weapon or even had one on them. Having one in their car doesn't really count.

Well, the end result of "I have that gun here and can shoot you now" and "I have this gun over there and I could get it and shoot you then" after pulling the trigger, is rather similar. He didn't pull the trigger, but if you have the gun in your hand and don't pull the trigger, you're still charged with armed robbery even though you used your weapon only to threaten someone, well and that's what this guy did, he "used" his weapon(by mentioning it) to threaten someone. It's a bit weird, I agree, but it does make some sense to me.

[Fisherking]

So if he says "I am going home and get my gun and come back here and make you sorry." That would count by this ruling. That is if he were found to have one at home...but if he lied I guess he might get off....dumb

[Goofball]

So if he says "I am going home and get my gun and come back here and make you sorry." That would count by this ruling. That is if he were found to have one at home...but if he lied I guess he might get off....dumb

I don't think so. A gun in your house ten miles away isn't "readily accessible," but a gun in your car 30 feet away is. That's where the wiggle-room in this ruling comes into play.