Gerald Stanley's charges for improperly storing guns slated for Sask. court today

[bat119]

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]

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Probably not, it's traditional not to have one

[bat119]

Originally Posted by pikeslayer22

Do FN need a PAL? Legit question

Yes everyone needs one

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by bat119

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...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bat119

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]

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

[Ken07AOVette]

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]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

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?

[270person]

Originally Posted by Big Grey Wolf

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.

No proof it wasn't stored properly before it was in his hand I guess. Could have just magically appeared there like foo foo dust I guess.

Odd he couldn't be charged for improper storage "after" the incident though. They found it in a case at the back of a closet from what I read.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

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

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

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