NATIONAL POST - FEBRURY 1, 2012
The 'crime' of protecting yourself by Lorne Gunter
Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm? Mr. Thomson
is the Port Colborne, Ont., man currently standing trial in a Welland, Ont.
courtroom after he and his home were attacked by firebombers in August,
2010. (That's correct, in the topsy-turvy world of Canadian criminal
justice, Mr. Thomson and his home were the ones attacked and yet he is the
one on trial.) Having dropped other more serious charges - such as dangerous
use of a firearm - because they concluded there was no reasonable chance of
winning a conviction, Crown prosecutors have nonetheless bullied ahead with
unsafe storage charges against Mr. Thomson.
One can only speculate on the Crown's motives, but many prosecutors are so
opposed to private citizens owning guns and, especially, using guns to
defend themselves, their loved ones or property, that it is easy to believe
prosecutors are running Mr. Thomson through the ringer in an attempt to
discourage other homeowners from following his lead. They have conceded they
cannot get a conviction against the retired crane operator and former
firearms instructor for shooting at the three men who were trying to burn
down his house with him in it, but perhaps they are hopeful their decision
to drag Mr. Thomson through months of emotionally draining and expensive
court proceedings will cause other homeowners to conclude armed self-defence
isn't worth the hassle.
But back to my original question: Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe
storage? Was it when three masked thugs began lobbing Molotov cocktails at
his secluded rural home, while also shouting death threats in a pre-dawn
assault? That's when he ran to his locked gun safe, retrieved one of his
legally registered pistols and loaded it with ammunition. Or was he guilty
of unsafe storage when one of the bombs set fire to his veranda and another
broke through his kitchen window? That's when he went outside and fired
three times - once at the feet and twice over the heads of his attackers -
in a successful attempt to ward them off. Or was he guilty of unsafe storage
when he then ran back into his home, got a second locked-up gun, loaded it
and left it on his bed? Not knowing whether his attackers would return, he
wanted to be sure he was prepared, so he decided to fortify his bedroom as
his last line of defence. Was that unsafe in prosecutors' opinion?
Perhaps prosecutors feel it was unsafe that Mr. Thomson - again, wary that
his attackers might come back - tucked the first pistol in the waistband of
his pajamas while he went outside and used a garden hose to the extinguish
the fire on his porch and another that was burning his dogs' kennel. Perhaps
they believe he should have returned his weapons to their safe before
turning on the hose. Let the house burn rather than violate Canada's
obsessive gun laws.
Prosecutors have concocted a theory that Mr. Thomson must have had his two
pistols loaded and in his nightstand before the attack began because, to
their minds, he never had enough time once the gasoline bombs began raining
down to go to his safe, unlock it, remove his pistols, load and fire them.
Recall, though, Mr. Thomson is a former firearms trainer, experienced with
the operation and handling of pistols. On Monday he and his lawyer used a
video to demonstrate for the court that he was certainly capable of
retrieving his guns from safe storage and loading them in the time
available. (So much for the Crown's theory.) But even if we accept that the
Crown's version is not merely a desperate, hole-riddled
stretch-of-the-imagination to justify its 17-month persecution of an
innocent man, what would have been unsafe about keeping a gun in a bedside
table in an area where police admit it can take 15 minutes or longer to
respond to emergency calls?
The safe-storage provisions of the Criminal Code - passed at the same time
the gun registry was made law - are so poorly drafted that they permit
prosecutors to go after any gun owner who so much as takes his firearm out
of its case to admire it. Few unsafe-storage charges stick; judges tend to
throw them out. So they have largely become bludgeons prosecutors can use to
intimidate lawful gun owners. Just ask Ian Thomson.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...360/story.html
Horrible gun control story!
Linear Mode
