Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum

Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Gerald Stanley's charges for improperly storing guns slated for Sask. court today (http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=341405)

bat119 03-19-2018 08:01 AM

Gerald Stanley's charges for improperly storing guns slated for Sask. court today
 
The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...sask-1.4581330

pikeslayer22 03-19-2018 08:03 AM

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Hillbilly 12 03-19-2018 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat119 (Post 3754358)
The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

Yeah what about them, no charge for them?, sounds racist to me...

Hillbilly 12 03-19-2018 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22 (Post 3754361)
Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Probably not, it's traditional not to have one

bat119 03-19-2018 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22 (Post 3754361)
Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Yes everyone needs one

elkhunter11 03-19-2018 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bat119 (Post 3754358)
The North Battleford courtroom is slated to hear charges that Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

Interesting to see how this plays out

Not only did the occupants have a loaded firearm in a vehicle, they were in control of a firearm while impaired, and while being prohibited from possessing firearms, both of which are also criminal offenses . What good are more firearms regulations if people keep illegally possessing firearms while prohibited? The only way to keep some people from having firearms, is to keep those people in prison.

.264 Win Mag 03-19-2018 08:49 AM

Prime example of how new gun laws won’t fix or stop crime!! Typical!!

Ken07AOVette 03-19-2018 08:50 AM

For the 2nd time, all charges against the 4 in the car were dropped in favor of testimony given. Ok maybe the 900th time it has been discussed here.
It has been said many times on many forums if it had not been for the inconsistencies in testimony given by the 4 in the car Stanley may well be in prison right now. Deliberate play by a sympathetic Crown? Lesser of 5 evils?

elkhunter11 03-19-2018 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette (Post 3754386)
For the 2nd time, all charges against the 4 in the car were dropped in favor of testimony given. Ok maybe the 900th time it has been discussed here.
It has been said many times on many forums if it had not been for the inconsistencies in testimony given by the 4 in the car Stanley may well be in prison right now. Deliberate play by a sympathetic Crown? Lesser of 5 evils?


Whether or not they were charged, my point is that prohibiting them from possessing firearms, did not prevent them from possessing firearms. As well, they were drunk, and the firearm was loaded in a motor vehicle. So it doesn't matter what firearms laws are passed, as long as these people are not in prison, they will find access to firearms, and they will commit crimes while possessing the firearms.

Big Grey Wolf 03-19-2018 09:18 AM

Interesting point is he was not charged for improper storage of the Restricted handgun as it was "considered to be in his possesion". He was charged for not properly storring dangerous 22's, shotguns probably used to shoot coyotes on the farm.

Newview01 03-19-2018 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf (Post 3754401)
Interesting point is he was not charged for improper storage of the Restricted handgun as it was "considered to be in his possesion". He was charged for not properly storring dangerous 22's, shotguns probably used to shoot coyotes on the farm.

That is interesting, and maybe a play by the crown to go easy on him, assuming the charges are less for an improperly stored non-restricted firearm as opposed to restricted?

Ken07AOVette 03-19-2018 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3754393)
Whether or not they were charged, my point is that prohibiting them from possessing firearms, did not prevent them from possessing firearms. As well, they were drunk, and the firearm was loaded in a motor vehicle. So it doesn't matter what firearms laws are passed, as long as these people are not in prison, they will find access to firearms, and they will commit crimes while possessing the firearms.

I wasn't arguing your point, my reply was in answer to the OP;


Stanley, 56, improperly stored seven guns on his Biggar, Sask.-area property where Boushie, 22, was fatally shot in August 2016.

Although the people in the car weren't charged for having a loaded rifle and no PAL.

I think the Crown possibly feels they have to convict Stanley with something so the protesting crowd can put a win in 'their column' and settle down.

claystone 03-19-2018 11:00 AM

He will get them all back if he promises to not do it again. Maybe a fine.

Kurt505 03-19-2018 11:10 AM

What a mess.

These degenerates show up on his land to terrorize his family and now his once peaceful life is now a mess of legal battles.

See what a life of minding your own business can get you, all it takes is having some douchebags target you as their next victim.

Sad.

bushbug 03-19-2018 11:20 AM

Just because they are fn doesnt make them non canadian and all canadians with firearms require a pal

260 Rem 03-19-2018 12:33 PM

I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

silverdoctor 03-19-2018 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 260 Rem (Post 3754555)
I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

RCMP really blew the investigation. They left the SUV door open all night, heavy rains washed away lots of blood evidence. I wouldn't expect much to come out of anything here.

CMichaud 03-19-2018 12:40 PM

From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

CNP 03-19-2018 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMichaud (Post 3754562)
From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

That amounts to 6

Scott N 03-19-2018 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNP (Post 3754576)
That amounts to 6

plus the Tokarev.

elkhunter11 03-19-2018 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 260 Rem (Post 3754555)
I haven't been following the "case" but would assume it wouldn't make sense to charge the dead chap if it was his .22. They must have pulled prints, but I suppose that really doesn't prove much.
I guess if there is a lesson here, it is that once a charge is laid ... expect everything to be looked at.

It was reported in the media that a statement was made by another occupant of the vehicle, that he broke the stock trying to break into a vehicle on another property, so he had possession of the firearm. And the firearm supposedly belonged to a grandparent of one of them, so either one of them stole it from the grandparent, or the grandparent willingly provided a firearm to a person that was prohibited from possessing firearms. Any way you look at it, several criminal offenses dealing with firearms took place.

Ken07AOVette 03-19-2018 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11 (Post 3754606)
It was reported in the media that a statement was made by another occupant of the vehicle, that he broke the stock trying to break into a vehicle on another property, so he had possession of the firearm. And the firearm supposedly belonged to a grandparent of one of them, so either one of them stole it from the grandparent, or the grandparent willingly provided a firearm to a person that was prohibited from possessing firearms. Any way you look at it, several criminal offenses dealing with firearms took place.

odds of grampa being charged with unlawful storage of a firearm used in a crime?

.0005% or less?

regl 03-19-2018 02:26 PM

Prosecution asked for more time. Set over to April 19.

CNP 03-19-2018 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott N (Post 3754588)
plus the Tokarev.

No. The Tokarev is not counted as one of the firearms. It was in use......not improperly stored.

Kurt505 03-19-2018 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CNP (Post 3754626)
No. The Tokarev is not counted as one of the firearms. It was in use......not improperly stored.

I think the fact it was so readily available during the ordeal that it's suggested to be improperly stored as well.

bat119 03-19-2018 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by regl (Post 3754622)
Prosecution asked for more time. Set over to April 19.

They've had 2 years their incompetence is showing again

Norwest Alta 03-19-2018 03:09 PM

Gonna guess they've been " improperly stored " for decades with no problem. Crock of **** imo. Give him the citizen of the Year award and call it a day.

They tried the same thing with my dad and his home invasion. He told the cops that that'll be the last time he'd call them. The cops attitudes changed after that.

does it ALL outdoors 03-19-2018 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette (Post 3754487)
I think the Crown possibly feels they have to convict Stanley with something so the protesting crowd can put a win in 'their column' and settle down.

That crowd will NEVER be appeased.

Maybe Mr. Stanley can just show the judge his white privilege card :angry3:

Grizzly Adams 03-19-2018 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMichaud (Post 3754562)
From CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskat...ewan-1.4581330)

The seven guns alleged to be stored improperly by Stanley, as listed in the court file, are:

A J Stevens Arms Company 520 rifle.
A .22-calibre semi-automatic rifle.
A .22-calibre bolt-action rifle.
A Winchester 1200 shotgun.
A Lakefield Mark 2 .22-calibre rifle.
A Winchester 1894 rifle.

Whoa here, think if you live in a rural area, you are allowed to have firearms accessible, just not loaded. I'd be pleading not guilty.

Grizz

Norwest Alta 03-19-2018 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams (Post 3754670)
Whoa here, think if you live in a rural area, you are allowed to have firearms accessible, just not loaded. I'd be pleading not guilty.

Grizz

Only one I believe


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.