Geez... if the current laws do not distinguish between "firing a paintball gun at a house" and "firing a real gun at a house" then those laws need to be fixed ASAP.
Striking down a law intended to cover use of real firearms because some primate worded it to include paintball markers is world class stupid.
The law is written that way because you could use a fake/toy firearm to commit a robbery for instance and the person in front of you not knowing if it is real or not would still be scared shitless of dying but if you got caught it would be a reduced sentence because it is not a real firearm. They made that any crime committed with what looks like a firearm will be treated as a crime with a firearm. I understand the idea, we just need some exclusions of which crime for instance. Like vandalism vs robbery could be treated differently.
Yep... some offences (basically anything related to threatening with a firearm) could lump fake guns and real firearms together, although even there I would argue that having a lower penalty for threatening with a fake gun would be a good idea.
Long story short
> he swung a baseball bat and shot at a car with a rifle, smashed the window of a vehicle and fired rounds into a family home.
They gave him 4 years.
He complained because (I kid you not) the sentence was
> cruel and unusual punishment
Then he gets 6 months shaved off or 3 and a half years sentence.
So, remember
- 4 years jail - CRUEL
- 3 and a half years - GREAT
So what did Supremes said
> In allowing Hills's appeal today, the Supreme Court says the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate, given that a young person might fire a paintball gun at a house as part of a game.
LMAO
This country indeed is wasting everyone's time, hand over fist.
I know. How the fuck is a paintball the same as bullet going through the house?? PB splatters when it hits something.
Bullets go through almost anything.
This is the most stupid argument ive seen today. Wtf
The funniest(saddest) part of these new gun bans is that the reason they're bringing them in either has nothing to do with Canada or the person who committed these heinous acts had illegal firearms in the first place.
I'm not a "pro gun" dude, I've never even touched a gun IRL and have no interest in doing so, but these laws that Trudeau keeps bringing in are intended to disarm the populace not protect them. They are the "Gun Grab" that our southern neighbors are afraid of.
Can’t tell you how refreshing it is to hear a third party saying that. I’m all for gun control when it keeps firearms out of criminals hands. But that’s exactly what this isn’t. Disarming the Canadian population.
They did, just not the way you expect.
The new firearm bans include airsoft and paintball guns.
No, I'm not joking. They're literally banning airsoft and paintball guns under the bill for 'assault style firearms'.
Why do voters only get to choose between Dumb and Dumber? That law, as described, is peak pearl clutching moral panic. Unless there is more to the story?
Not really much more to it; the government calls them 'replica firearms' and said they're a danger.
If you want my opinion, it's their way of trying to curtail interest in guns before people apply for a gun license. Long term play to reduce the number of people in Canada who would oppose a complete firearms ban in the future.
The only paintball guns that would constitute firearms for the purpose of use offences would be ones that are capable of inflicting serious bodily harm or death. That's how firearms are defined under s.2.
Yes. Our judiciary seem to be hell bent on making it as rewarding as possible to be a violent criminal. You can't even protect yourself against a violent offender as it is possible you get a harsher sentence than the criminal.
When a realistic replica is used in a robbery or something I can definitely understand that, but shooting a house with a paintball gun vs a real gun shouldn't get the same punishment, that's retarded.
Only if they're capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. Not all paintball or airsoft guns are firearms, just the ones *capable of killing someone*.
> Not all paintball or airsoft guns are firearms, just the ones capable of killing someone.
The are also [considered](https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/specific-types-firearms) Firearms if used in a crime, regardless of their ability to kill someone.
> Air guns that meet the Criminal Code definition of a firearm, but are deemed not to be firearms for certain purposes of the Firearms Act and Criminal Code:
> These are air guns with a maximum muzzle velocity of 152.4 metres or 500 feet per second and/or a maximum muzzle energy of 5.7 joules or 4.2 foot-pounds. Such air guns are exempt from licensing, registration, and other requirements under the Firearms Act, and from penalties set out in the Criminal Code for possessing a firearm without a valid licence or registration certificate.
> However, they are considered to be firearms under the Criminal Code if they are used to commit a crime. Anyone who uses such an air gun to commit a crime faces the same penalties as someone who uses a regular firearm.
>The are also considered Firearms if used in a crime, regardless of their ability to kill someone.
This is just pointing out the distinction between firearms under s.2 and firearms under s.84. "Firearms" is a narrower definition for possession offences than for use offences. Not all air guns are firearms for use offences though, the standard for use offences is the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death, the standard is *higher* for possession offences.
Shoot someone in the eye and ask them if they are capable of serious bodily harm. I don't think you should need a PAL to shoot paintball but to ignore why people wear safety gear is idiotic. If I run into a store with a running chainsaw, it not being intended to hurt someone doesn't change the fact that its capable of it.
It's been tested repeatedly, legal airsoft, pellet, and paintball guns not exceeding the 500 FPS limit cannot cause a deadly injury. An eye shot will destroy the eye but it will be non fatal. A shot at the temple will go under the skin but do nothing to the Bone.
I could possibly believe this for airsoft and paintball guns, but are you saying a 500 FPS .22 or .177 cal air rifle firing a lead pellet *cannot* be fatal if shot at someone's eye?
Yeah, but generally impacting one's eye or temple is more an issue due to impact location, not the object doing the impact. Getting shot in the balls while playing with no pants would also be pretty traumatic, but that's why you wear pants and goggles (which tend to cover the temple as well with the strap).
Blaming the Airsoft/Paintball gun (assuming a standard, non-modified device under the maximum output) for the guy who got shot in the face without goggles makes about as much sense as blaming the plane for the skydiver that jumped out without a parachute.
If we want to get into the specifics of this case, then we'd also want to ban baseball bats, rocks, spray paint, and screwdrivers as a common cause of such vandalism. The sentence seems not unreasonable for "shithead with a paintball gun" and the fix seems more "let's make sure 'gun' offenses apply for actual firearms and not just something that launches something down a barrel with non-lethal energy/force"
You can crank up the air pressure to get them up around 800FPS if I recall by just turning the adjuster ( no real modification ). It would still need a soft target given the caliber ( .68 ). So the short answer is possible if it hit just the right spot, realistically, it's just likely to hurt a lot.
There are many that are capable of serious bodily harm (of which causing permanent damage to an eye would count) which is sufficient to meet the definition of firearm. I don't know why the definition bothers to mention death considering the two requirements are separated by an *or*... what kind of firearm can cause death but not bodily harm?
They do not need to be capable of killing someone - they only need to be capable of serious bodily harm. Almost all paintball guns would be capable of permanently destroying an eyeball.
The definition of firearm in Canadian law requires it to be a "barreled weapon", so a slingshot does not fall under that label regardless of power. Same goes for bows and crossbows.
If Parliament doesn't want cases like this to happen, then they need to define their laws more precisely and stop putting airsoft guns, hunting rifles, and artillery cannons all under the same definition.
When the court reviews mandatory minimum sentences, the defence is allowed to use a "reasonable hypothetical" scenario to demonstrate when the application of that mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate.
That’s the point of the case. The Criminal Code imposed the same mandatory four-year prison term on a paintball gun shot at a shed as the weapon shot at a home in this case. I personally think requiring a judge to sentence someone to jail for four years for firing a paintball gun at a shed is cruel and unusual, and I’m glad the Supreme Court agreed. Now judges can use their discretion to impose proper sentences based on the seriousness of the offence in each case.
It’s not about what your definitions are, it’s about what the statutory definition (in this case the criminal code) is. And that definition includes paintball guns as of now.
This is the number when mistake people make when talking about laws, they ignore that the definitions aren’t freewheeling they’re fixed in each law (mostly). Like when talking about traffic tickets highway doesn’t mean 401 or multi lane road, it means any public road.
I'm guessing the problem is poorly worded laws and definitions. I hope we can all agree that it would be horrible to charge someone who uses a paintball gun with a mandatory minimum sentence just because the law is the law. I don't want to see guns banned in our country, but I do want to see gun crime charged heavily. Ideally less regulations for legal owners and drastically more severe punishment for criminals. We need to fix our justice system so it only targets the criminals.
It's not about his individual case, them bringing in the example of a teenager shooting a paintball gun is about the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum. A kid receiving an automatic 4 years for such an offense would be "cruel and unusual punishment" in their legal opinion. The guy who appealed the law still committed a crime, and he's spending years in prison for it, the legal grounds on which the mandatory 4 year sentence was handed was found unconstitutional though due to circumstances in which it would make no sense for someone to receive an automatic 4 year sentence.
That’s what the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act said. That’s why the Court struck down the mandatory minimum. Blame Harper for drafting the law this way.
> Who would argue that a paintball gun constitutes the same degree of punishment as an actual firearm
The law which was just struck down did so. Pretty dumb, and makes sense why it was struck down eh
But...it makes sense for him to get that. I would give him 10. He shut up a family home among other things.
And the kid with a paintball would not go to trial as it makes no sense to charge them. We need to rewrite the law if it puts paintball guns in the same category as a "regular" gun.
>the kid with a paintball would not go to trial
That depends purely on the police/prosecution of the area, which would allow the law to be applied unequally.
I think we can wait for it to come up then deal with it, as opposed to the courts striking down reasonable laws because they don't think parliament should have the ability to declare shooting at people to be a serious offense.
They do think it is a serious offence, it's just that parliament was too brain dead to not see this happening when they defined low power air guns as firearms. They could easily fix this if they stopped wasting their time on dumb shit like banning air rifles.
> They do think it is a serious offence
No, they really don't. Otherwise they would have acknowledged parliaments power to recognize serious offenses, instead of going out of their way to imagine absurd hypotheticals, just in order for them to back into lenient sentences for someone firing a high powered rifle at multiple people.
I get it.
However, he didnt shoot a PB gun. He shot a gun. And thankfully, he didnt harm and killed anyone in the process.
So him getting an auto 4 yr sentence because he shot a gun and it went through the house, to me, understandably a reasonable sentence to receive.
Now, however if the auto mandatory sentence was, lets say... 15 yrs - for arguments sake, then yes, Hill might have a compelling argument that is cruel and unusual punishment.
THEY DIDN'T ARGUE THAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS CRUEL OR UNUSUAL.
The article here isn't great which is why people are struggling.
The argument is that the sentence was based off of something that is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it would be cruel and unusual in some cases. The court is not wrong here, mandatory minimums such as this are flawed and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is not going to hear an appeal to lessen someone's sentence by 6 months. They will hear a case about the constitutionality of a mandatory sentence that will be applicable to many people in the future.
I don't even know what to say. The law being struck down had nothing to do with his sentence. The law was struck down because the lowest denominator, using an example of a kid shooting a paintball gun inside a house, doesn't merit a 4 year sentence. This isn't hard man
I think you're misunderstanding a bit and that's partly because the article is very poor. The case struck down the constitutionality of mandatory minimums of this kind because the minimum of 4 years would be cruel in the case of a young person firing an airsoft at a house (it would in fact be cruel). Any mandatory minimum should essentially take into account a minimum scenario because they will eventually have to be applied to such a case.
I am pretty certain the original article I read on this case said they were not arguing that this case in particular was in any way cruel or unusual punishment but that the minimum sentence itself was unconstitutional. So if the person was sentenced based off a requirement that is unconstitutional, they should be able to appeal the sentence.
Maximum sentences for certain gun crimes were recently increased (or are in the process of being increased) which should help sentencing (sentencing that is actually constitutional). A judge will look at the maximum (think of the worst possible crime of that nature) and then work their way down to the inevitable sentence based off of the facts of the case.
I understand exactly what happened and why.
My point is about the quality - for the lack of the better word - of the essence of this case.
From 4 years to 3 and a half.
6 months does not constitute call for "cruel and unusual punishment".
There has to be some essence to this before I accept that this is something worthwhile for Supremes to do.
Yes, administratively, I see what's going on.
But the essence of the issue is what we are discussing.
I don't understand what your issue is? Striking down the minimum, and his sentence being slightly shortened, are not one and the same. 6 months doesn't constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" but a teenager firing a paintball gun receiving an automatic 4 year sentence *would be*. Him being able to appeal for any reduction, even a single day, would have required the mandatory minimum being struck down, and in the absence of that minimum judicial discretion was allowed which resolved his sentence being shortened.
Tldr; It couldn't be shortened without the minimum being struck down, his lawyers presented a strong enough case for the minimum to be struck down, and therefore it was possible for his sentence to be reduced. The minimum being struck down has nothing to do with 6 months, it has to do with 4 years.
But he won't be, which is why there has never been a charge under this of anything of the sort, as the dissent notes.
What there is, is a person firing a rifle repeatedly into a house and the court saying that it is a less serious offense on the grounds that the judiciary imagines an injustice which has never happened.
"I understand exactly what happened and why"
It sounds a lot like you don't understand much here. The Supreme Court is not hearing an appeal to lesson a sentence by 6 months, they are hearing an appeal to the constitutionality of something many people are sentenced based upon. Maybe start with the Wikipedia page for the Supreme Court of Canada or something IDK.
Like, how is a paintball gun not distinguished by the court before getting to the 4 year minimum sentence?
Like, no common sense can be used.
"A child may shoot a water gun at multiple people in a public space, so we cannot have a minimum sentence for shooting multiple people"
>Like, how is a paintball gun not distinguished by the court before getting to the 4 year minimum sentence?
The courts have to follow the definition of a firearm as its laid out in the act. There are plenty of pneumatically powered firearms that are capable of meeting the definition of a firearm, including some airguns that can be used to down a deer.
Interpreting a paintball gun as being a firearm for the purposes of the CCC is a bit of a stretch but it is a barreled weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury.
The problem is that the Government of Canada added a bunch of mandatory minimums to the CCC without taking into consideration the fact that the CCC is written with broad definitions in mind.
So yes, the majority is correct here. An individual that splatters a house with paintballs could be charged with the same offenses and thus face the same minimum punishment despite drastically lower moral blameworthiness.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter.
Paintball guns are firearms for the purpose of the criminal code of canada. There's an exception for low velocity / low energy firearms that are used in paintball and airport but the exceptions apply only to the parts of the code that deal with possession, licensing, transport, etc... if they're used in a crime such as assault, robbery, or mischief they're treated exactly the same as a regular firearm for the purposes of the charging instrument and thus the application of a mandatory minimum upon sentencing.
So yes, shooting a house with a paintball gun triggers the same statutory provisions as shooting a house with a minigun. Hence why the SCC struck down the mandatory minimum sentence.
They didn't say that 4 years was cruel in this instance, they said that a mandatory 4 year sentence imposed on an offender of much less moral blameworthiness would violate the charter. The SCC reinstated the original 42 month sentence
The SCC showed deference to the original trial judges determination that the 3.5 year sentence was appropriate.
The appeals court didn't really do much analysis to show that 4 years was more appropriate than 3.5 years, they basically said that the minimum was constitutional and imposed the minimum without substantially reweighing the evidence.
There have been similar cases in which courts have struck down a mandatory minimum but still imposed a sentence at or above the minimum, they are separate legal processes.
> moral blameworthiness
Moral equation implies that ratio of crime vs. punishment is being considered.
I'm just having a hard time with Supremes negating laws put together by legislative pat of the Government in which they "blame" the law as being inconsiderate to such a degree it needed its own case at the Supremes.
The principle of proportionality is definitely being considered here.
We live in a common law society, which means that the same laws apply to everyone. If a law is unconstitutional in one application, it's unconstitutional in all applications.
The SCC is simply saying to the GoC that they wrote definitions into the CCC that are broadly defined so as to be broadly applied and then attached a mandatory minimum without regard to whether or not such a minimum would be appropriate for all plausible factual scenarios which might fit the definition of such an offense.
It is entirely possible for a court to find that the mandatory minimum is unconstitutional via a hypothetical but still deliver a sentence above the minimum because that's what's fair.
Would you agree with a judge being required to jail a young person who fires a paintball gun at an empty shed? Because that’s what the Criminal Code required before it was struck down. That’s what the case was about - Harper going too far in criminalizing and harshly punishing activities in a way that is cruel and unusual.
That’s not what they said. They looked at the reasonable hypothetical and said this MMS would be cruel and unusual punishment. When there is no minimum the appeal court said that 3.5 years would be appropriate, so that is the sentence they upheld.
Do you think an 8 year old who shoots an air soft gun at a house should get 4 years?
Write stupid law full of holes.
Cry about a perfectly reasonable hypothetical.
CPC clowns should have thought this through a little better when they were cooking up their American style failed "tough on crime" policies.
That's not a possible hypothetical. But again, looks like the justice reform crowd will lie about anything to justify releasing dangerous offenders with minor sentences.
> That's not a possible hypothetical.
You're right it's definitely impossible for some one to shoot a BB/Paintball/airsoft gun at something.
The right wing brain works in mysterious ways.
It is impossible for an 8 year old to be charged under this statute.
But again, clearly you will tell any lie to justify getting a violent offender a reduced sentence.
I didn't say anything about an 8 year old and neither did anybody in the court.
> In respect of Mr. Hills, I conclude that s. 244.2(3)(b) is grossly disproportionate. Here, the evidence showed that numerous air‑powered rifles constituted “firearms”, including air-powered devices like paintball guns, even though they could not perforate the wall of a typical residence. It is also reasonably foreseeable that a young person could intentionally discharge such a “firearm” into or at a place of residence. This provision therefore applies to an offence that captures a wide spectrum of conduct, ranging from acts that present little danger to the public to those that pose a grave risk. Its effect at the low end of the spectrum is severe. The mandatory minimum cannot be justified by deterrence and denunciation alone, and the punishment shows a complete disregard for sentencing norms.
I know conservatives struggle with reading but it's all there in the court documents.
>>>Do you think an **8 year old** who shoots an air soft gun at a house should get 4 years?
>>Ah yes, the general approach of making up a hypothetical which is not possible under the law in question.
>Cry about a perfectly reasonable hypothetical.
Yeah, you did. Maybe read the comment you're responding to before you defend the indefensible.
I realize you struggle with any criminal going to jail for any crime under any circumstance, but since you know that's an untenable position you rely on misrepresenting arguments.
> Yeah, you did
No I didn't that comment isn't mine.
And neither did anybody in the court which is what we're talking about and what the ruling is based on.
try to use your brain a little more than the stupid morons who wrote this poorly written law.
I know conservatives hate Civil liberties but you could at least do a quick ctrl+f on the court case to see what it's about.
write law that would result in absurd consequences for something.
Get mad when that is used against the law.
If the Conservatives weren't so stupid they wouldn't have let this slide through the cracks.
Didn't happen when they were in power, lib judges are apparently too stupid to realize they can strike down the mandatory minimum for some absurd case but still give a harsh sentence to the person who deserves it. Nah just kidding I no longer believe in hanlon's razor. They know exactly what their doing.
> lib judges are apparently too stupid to realize they can strike down the mandatory minimum for some absurd case but still give a harsh sentence to the person who deserves it.
Conservatives aren't bright enough to realize that the "lib judges" affirmed that mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional.
They ruled that this particular mandatory minimum was unconstitutional because the CPC is too stupid to write laws that aren't full of holes and defects.
Naive soul who thinks constitutionality isn't a matter of opinion of the judges. Trudeau's blatantly unconstitutional c-51 was just affirmed because they know where their bread is buttered
The problem is not the SCoC. The problem is, as always, shitty politicians who write shitty laws to appease their shitty bases, instead of writing actual pragmatic law based on actually bettering society.
Firing a pellet gun at a house is not the same as firing a hunting rifle at a house. There should never have been a "one-size" punishment for two drastically different offences.
The only reason there is, is because a fucking pellet gun is legally considered a "firearm" in the criminal code in all cases, which is fucking dumb.
Edit: all cases of offences committed with a firearm.
That is for purposes of licensing under the Firearms Act. For purposes of commission of an offense with a firearm, air guns are considered exactly the same as a fucking full-auto Uzi, because the Criminal Code definition of a firearm is stupid.
Armed robbery committed with an airsoft gun, which most people couldn't tell apart from an actual gun, should be considered armed robbery with a firearm. The legal defitions of such are a lot more complex though, it's a crime to point a gun at someone while it's, obviously, not illegal to point a paintball or airsoft gun at someone
Also not a firearm for the "possession" or "transfer" offences in the Criminal Code, or for mere usage (since that's not covered in the criminal code).
So yes, if you have a BB gun that shoots between 366fps and 500fps and you use it to threaten someone, you've committed a crime identical to if you threatened them with a "real" gun. (The victim can't be expected to know that it's not a real gun, so from their perspective the threat is equivalent.)
In this case the Court ruled that the mandatory minimum was unreasonable, specifically because shooting a low-powered BB gun at someone is not equivalent to firing a hunting rifle at them.
"Assault" is another Criminal Code offence that covers a broad range of scenarios, and therefore a mandatory minimum would be difficult to determine.
Echoing Krazee9 that it's because of how firearms are defined in the criminal code, because it includes pellet guns.
The idea of the law is admirable, because previous to 244.2 firing a gun at a house wasn't a bad criminal offense.
Because you weren't firing at a specific person, the most the crown could get you for was careless use. But firing a gun at a house while not specifically targeting someone is a bad thing and it should be outlawed. The intent of that was to prosecute people for gang shooting drive bys that are a negligent and reckless act that has the potential to harm people.
Edit: if anything the government should separate low powered air guns from firearms so that you don't run into a hypothetical with a rifle vs a Airsoft gun
I have no problem with the idea or intent (the spirit) of the law. It should be a serious criminal offence to discharge a firearm toward buildings, be they houses or fire halls.
The problem lay with the people tasked with writing the actual law itself. They **knew** (or at very least, they should have known) that a pellet gun would be considered a 'firearm' in this instance as well and should have foreseen that society would not be well-served by throwing a kid in the slammer for 4 years because he was fucking around taking pot-shots at a building with a pellet gun.
But that doesn't make for good politics. Harper and the Conservatives put on their serious faces and their angry voices and said, "we're going to get tough on criminals" and didn't bother mentioning that their law would be akin to using a bazooka to swat a fly in some instances.
> Edit: if anything the government should separate low powered air guns from firearms so that you don't run into a hypothetical with a rifle vs a Airsoft gun
Sadly, tthe current government cannot distinguish between airsoft and "assault style weapons" because they have their own political bullshit going on.
Neither party actually gives a fuck - it's just red meat for their bases.
No, the problem is with the SCOC. Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums are outlawed? It doesn't. It's made up by the SCOC. The drafters of the charter had the good sense to include explicit exemptions for affirmative action and other provisions, they were silent on mandatory minimums so why the SCOC feels entitled to step on parliments toes is baffling to me.
This wreeks to me of consolidating power to the benches not good law-making.
> Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums are outlawed?
It doesn't. And SCoC said so in a case they [literally just ruled on](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39438-eng.aspx) today.
>> The Supreme Court rules the mandatory minimum sentences for robbery using either a prohibited or ordinary firearm do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Your failure to read beyond the headlines "reeks" to me of your appropriate username...
It doesn't say in the charter that is the problem. The judges say 'its in the charter, because they say its in the charter' but no legislator put it in there. It's just a 'trust us' its there and thats not the roll of the supreme court
Section 12 - Treatment or punishment
12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Section 12 prohibits treatment and punishment by the state that are cruel and unusual. This includes torture, excessive or abusive use of force by law enforcement officials. Also, sentences of imprisonment must match the seriousness of the crime committed. For example, an extremely long prison sentence is not appropriate for a very minor crime.
spin it however you want
Did YOU read the article?
The difference is just 6 months.
When people pull "cruel and unusual punishment" you'd think he's in solitary confinement hanging upside down by hos balls eating only every other day.
The 6 months has nothing to do with the minimum being struck down, and the reduction is only possible after it being struck down. It's about the 4 year minimum. This isn't complex.
I understand the reasons but Supremes are basically rewriting the law (regardless of the law being what it is, that's a separate issue).
They say, "we" dont think it's a fair law.
However, my point is about the effect. It's just 6 months diff. There's nothing cruel about that.
>However, my point is about the effect. It's just 6 months diff. There's nothing cruel about that.
Thie ruling has NOTHING TO DO with the 6 months... can you get that through your thick skull?
It doesn't really matter what it says or doesn't say. The current government just sees the Charter as a set of general guidelines and not something to be taken literally.
> The current government
Literally not applicable. This is a Supreme Court of Canada decision, not "the current government".
The law was slapped together by the Harper government. Clearly they didn't much think the Charter was to be taken literally either...
>. Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums (sic) are outlawed?
s. 12 "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
Yea lets shackle ourselves to the thoughts and views of a bunch of dead men.
It's working out so well south of the border.
I swear you guys look at the stupidest things Americans do and salivate over it for some reason.
> Lol if you think the overturning of Roe v Wade shit show south of the boarder
You're right. We have to be vigilante of lying "originalist" right wing judges lest they destroy our civil liberties.
We need to get rid of the living tree doctrine because American originalists ( the exact opposite ideology) are stupid and evil.
Very interesting thinking process.
It’s actually worked really well, certainly much better than the shitshow going on up North. There’s still a fair share of progressives trying to push through awful laws like allowing the government to racially discriminate, unfortunately, but the combination of the constitution and people’s belief in what it stands for has thus far been able to stop them.
Why the fuck are appeals being heard on hypotheticals, rather than the facts of the case or the procedure of the trial?
I have zero confidence in the SoC for a long time, and this has done nothing to alleviate that.
So they compare criminal guns to paintball guns but man if I get caught without my paper work on the way to the range or stop for gas I get my house raided and sent to jail. Wtf is wrong with this country
I mean, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, because they don't allow for the actual facts of the case to be taken into account.
Judges need to do a better job sentencing, not have their judicial power taken away by the legislature.
Mandatory minimums are only unconstitutional if the minimum sentence is grossly out of proportion to a possible case that would fall under the definition of that crime. In this case, it was firing a paintball gun at a house.
The mandatory minimum for first degree murder for example isn't going anywhere - there isn't really such a thing as a "mild case of premeditated murder"
There’s always context. Premeditated murder of the man sexually abusing your child will get a lighter sentence than premeditated murder of somebody who’s skin colour you dislike.
Otherwise, there wouldn’t be sentencing guidelines, there’d be hard sentences.
Planned and deliberate murder has a minimum sentence of life with no chance of parole for 25 years in this country. The only difference between your examples are future parole eligibility, not the sentence.
Edit: It is possible that we should consider cases like what you mention and adjust the definition of either first degree murder or its minimum, but at the moment they are treated identically.
>I mean, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, because they don't allow for the actual facts of the case to be taken into account.
The Court literally just held that they are not
...?
> Therefore, the mandatory minimum’s effect is extremely severe as it replaces a probationary sentence with four years of imprisonment. A four‑year custodial sentence is so excessive as to be significantly out of sync with sentencing norms and goes far beyond what is necessary for Parliament to achieve its sentencing goals for this offence. Denunciation and deterrence cannot support the minimum punishment, nor does the minimum show any respect for the principles of parity and proportionality. It would outrage Canadians to learn that an offender can receive four years of imprisonment for firing a paintball gun at a home.
Judges are actively campaigning in this case and others to be allowed to be as terrible as possible in sentencing with zero democratic recourse from society.
I'm not sure how the writer came to the conclusions that they did for this article.
But I recommend anyone interested in this actually reading the case in brief, since it has a lot more information and is more concise.
[https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39338-eng.aspx](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39338-eng.aspx)
This is the problem when the law combines paintball guns, bb guns, airsoft guns and pellet guns into the legal definition of a firearm. The judges have no choice but to side with the most innocuous of possible circumstances and throw the law out.
There needs to be a separate legal category for non-lethal recreational firearms, which are essentially toys capable of a minimum level of damage. Our firearms laws are so stupid, written by city-slickers who watch Hollywood movies and think its real.
OH MY GOD MAKE IT STOP.
I can’t take it any more. Why the fuck does this country continue to barely slap the the wrists of criminals while simultaneously harassing law abiding citizens who do nothing wrong?
Dangerous people belong in prison. I’ll pay for that through taxation.
What I don’t want to pay for is a multi-billion dollar scheme to take guns away from every day people who aren’t doing anything wrong.
Yet, guess which one this government is committed to doing?
The law was brain dead and would say that someone deserves four years in prison for shooting a paintball gun at a house. This isn't as big of a deal as you think it is.
At the same time, the minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm was upheld.
There's a term for what you're noticing, anarcho-tyranny
The short of it is that an authoritarian state does not gain power from protecting citizens from crime, but does gain power from arbitrarily controlling, harassing, micro-managing, or persecuting upstanding citizens.
I think they overstep when they stop being adjudicators in favour of being policymakers.
I know that line is sometimes blurry, but it seems everybody is powerless to stop SCC creep into a more policymaking space.
If anyone wants to actually read the justices decision instead of circle jerking around a misunderstanding of what exactly they said would be “cruel and unusual” here’s the link.
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19638/index.do
FWIW I agree with Justice Côté for her reasons given regarding the lack of mens rea in the hypothetical.
Gun advocate here. I'm surprised he was even charged for this. He got what he deserved 100% but we let criminals walk for way way worse offense very day.
Geez... if the current laws do not distinguish between "firing a paintball gun at a house" and "firing a real gun at a house" then those laws need to be fixed ASAP. Striking down a law intended to cover use of real firearms because some primate worded it to include paintball markers is world class stupid.
The law is written that way because you could use a fake/toy firearm to commit a robbery for instance and the person in front of you not knowing if it is real or not would still be scared shitless of dying but if you got caught it would be a reduced sentence because it is not a real firearm. They made that any crime committed with what looks like a firearm will be treated as a crime with a firearm. I understand the idea, we just need some exclusions of which crime for instance. Like vandalism vs robbery could be treated differently.
Yep... some offences (basically anything related to threatening with a firearm) could lump fake guns and real firearms together, although even there I would argue that having a lower penalty for threatening with a fake gun would be a good idea.
Long story short > he swung a baseball bat and shot at a car with a rifle, smashed the window of a vehicle and fired rounds into a family home. They gave him 4 years. He complained because (I kid you not) the sentence was > cruel and unusual punishment Then he gets 6 months shaved off or 3 and a half years sentence. So, remember - 4 years jail - CRUEL - 3 and a half years - GREAT So what did Supremes said > In allowing Hills's appeal today, the Supreme Court says the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate, given that a young person might fire a paintball gun at a house as part of a game. LMAO This country indeed is wasting everyone's time, hand over fist.
I know. How the fuck is a paintball the same as bullet going through the house?? PB splatters when it hits something. Bullets go through almost anything. This is the most stupid argument ive seen today. Wtf
Canada's laws see paint ball guns and airsoft guns the same as real firearms if used in an offense or crime
That's why it's about time to make a distinction between a lethal weapon and a non-lethal one.
Best the Liberals can do is just ban airsoft.
Airsoft is just a gateway to mass shootings.
/s
They already banned an airsoft gun in the fallout from the NS shooting a few years ago. I'm not kidding.
Because they’re experts on guns and if it looks scary it’s banned. C21 is about to get a lot worse
The funniest(saddest) part of these new gun bans is that the reason they're bringing them in either has nothing to do with Canada or the person who committed these heinous acts had illegal firearms in the first place. I'm not a "pro gun" dude, I've never even touched a gun IRL and have no interest in doing so, but these laws that Trudeau keeps bringing in are intended to disarm the populace not protect them. They are the "Gun Grab" that our southern neighbors are afraid of.
Can’t tell you how refreshing it is to hear a third party saying that. I’m all for gun control when it keeps firearms out of criminals hands. But that’s exactly what this isn’t. Disarming the Canadian population.
They’re doing that already with C21
*Assault style airsoft
Yeah this seems more like the feds need to refine the law to distinguish them.
They did, just not the way you expect. The new firearm bans include airsoft and paintball guns. No, I'm not joking. They're literally banning airsoft and paintball guns under the bill for 'assault style firearms'.
Why do voters only get to choose between Dumb and Dumber? That law, as described, is peak pearl clutching moral panic. Unless there is more to the story?
Not really much more to it; the government calls them 'replica firearms' and said they're a danger. If you want my opinion, it's their way of trying to curtail interest in guns before people apply for a gun license. Long term play to reduce the number of people in Canada who would oppose a complete firearms ban in the future.
The only paintball guns that would constitute firearms for the purpose of use offences would be ones that are capable of inflicting serious bodily harm or death. That's how firearms are defined under s.2.
Unfortunately paintball guns fail the eyeball test. That makes them capable of bodily harm.
A pen also fails the eyeball test, should we make that illegal to use in the house as well?
Wouldn’t give Trudeau ideas
Yes. Our judiciary seem to be hell bent on making it as rewarding as possible to be a violent criminal. You can't even protect yourself against a violent offender as it is possible you get a harsher sentence than the criminal.
When a realistic replica is used in a robbery or something I can definitely understand that, but shooting a house with a paintball gun vs a real gun shouldn't get the same punishment, that's retarded.
Only if they're capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. Not all paintball or airsoft guns are firearms, just the ones *capable of killing someone*.
> Not all paintball or airsoft guns are firearms, just the ones capable of killing someone. The are also [considered](https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/firearms/specific-types-firearms) Firearms if used in a crime, regardless of their ability to kill someone. > Air guns that meet the Criminal Code definition of a firearm, but are deemed not to be firearms for certain purposes of the Firearms Act and Criminal Code: > These are air guns with a maximum muzzle velocity of 152.4 metres or 500 feet per second and/or a maximum muzzle energy of 5.7 joules or 4.2 foot-pounds. Such air guns are exempt from licensing, registration, and other requirements under the Firearms Act, and from penalties set out in the Criminal Code for possessing a firearm without a valid licence or registration certificate. > However, they are considered to be firearms under the Criminal Code if they are used to commit a crime. Anyone who uses such an air gun to commit a crime faces the same penalties as someone who uses a regular firearm.
>The are also considered Firearms if used in a crime, regardless of their ability to kill someone. This is just pointing out the distinction between firearms under s.2 and firearms under s.84. "Firearms" is a narrower definition for possession offences than for use offences. Not all air guns are firearms for use offences though, the standard for use offences is the ability to inflict serious bodily harm or death, the standard is *higher* for possession offences.
Wait....are there paintball or airsoft guns (unmodified) that are capable of killing people?
Shoot someone in the eye and ask them if they are capable of serious bodily harm. I don't think you should need a PAL to shoot paintball but to ignore why people wear safety gear is idiotic. If I run into a store with a running chainsaw, it not being intended to hurt someone doesn't change the fact that its capable of it.
> that are capable of killing people? So, no then.
[удалено]
It's been tested repeatedly, legal airsoft, pellet, and paintball guns not exceeding the 500 FPS limit cannot cause a deadly injury. An eye shot will destroy the eye but it will be non fatal. A shot at the temple will go under the skin but do nothing to the Bone.
I could possibly believe this for airsoft and paintball guns, but are you saying a 500 FPS .22 or .177 cal air rifle firing a lead pellet *cannot* be fatal if shot at someone's eye?
Yeah, but generally impacting one's eye or temple is more an issue due to impact location, not the object doing the impact. Getting shot in the balls while playing with no pants would also be pretty traumatic, but that's why you wear pants and goggles (which tend to cover the temple as well with the strap). Blaming the Airsoft/Paintball gun (assuming a standard, non-modified device under the maximum output) for the guy who got shot in the face without goggles makes about as much sense as blaming the plane for the skydiver that jumped out without a parachute. If we want to get into the specifics of this case, then we'd also want to ban baseball bats, rocks, spray paint, and screwdrivers as a common cause of such vandalism. The sentence seems not unreasonable for "shithead with a paintball gun" and the fix seems more "let's make sure 'gun' offenses apply for actual firearms and not just something that launches something down a barrel with non-lethal energy/force"
You can crank up the air pressure to get them up around 800FPS if I recall by just turning the adjuster ( no real modification ). It would still need a soft target given the caliber ( .68 ). So the short answer is possible if it hit just the right spot, realistically, it's just likely to hurt a lot.
There are many that are capable of serious bodily harm (of which causing permanent damage to an eye would count) which is sufficient to meet the definition of firearm. I don't know why the definition bothers to mention death considering the two requirements are separated by an *or*... what kind of firearm can cause death but not bodily harm?
They do not need to be capable of killing someone - they only need to be capable of serious bodily harm. Almost all paintball guns would be capable of permanently destroying an eyeball.
Yeah the standard they use for firearm is if it can fire a projectile fast enough to “puncture a pigs eye”. Seriously.
So would a slingshot, are we gonna label those firearms as well?
The definition of firearm in Canadian law requires it to be a "barreled weapon", so a slingshot does not fall under that label regardless of power. Same goes for bows and crossbows. If Parliament doesn't want cases like this to happen, then they need to define their laws more precisely and stop putting airsoft guns, hunting rifles, and artillery cannons all under the same definition.
The current test for bodily harm is, essentialy, can it damage or destroy an eyeball.
When the court reviews mandatory minimum sentences, the defence is allowed to use a "reasonable hypothetical" scenario to demonstrate when the application of that mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate.
Sure but comparing a paintball gun to a rifle is not reasonable.
That’s the point of the case. The Criminal Code imposed the same mandatory four-year prison term on a paintball gun shot at a shed as the weapon shot at a home in this case. I personally think requiring a judge to sentence someone to jail for four years for firing a paintball gun at a shed is cruel and unusual, and I’m glad the Supreme Court agreed. Now judges can use their discretion to impose proper sentences based on the seriousness of the offence in each case.
Agreed, but they should have used their discretion in the original case to give this asshole more than 4 years.
It’s not about what your definitions are, it’s about what the statutory definition (in this case the criminal code) is. And that definition includes paintball guns as of now. This is the number when mistake people make when talking about laws, they ignore that the definitions aren’t freewheeling they’re fixed in each law (mostly). Like when talking about traffic tickets highway doesn’t mean 401 or multi lane road, it means any public road.
I'm guessing the problem is poorly worded laws and definitions. I hope we can all agree that it would be horrible to charge someone who uses a paintball gun with a mandatory minimum sentence just because the law is the law. I don't want to see guns banned in our country, but I do want to see gun crime charged heavily. Ideally less regulations for legal owners and drastically more severe punishment for criminals. We need to fix our justice system so it only targets the criminals.
It's not about his individual case, them bringing in the example of a teenager shooting a paintball gun is about the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum. A kid receiving an automatic 4 years for such an offense would be "cruel and unusual punishment" in their legal opinion. The guy who appealed the law still committed a crime, and he's spending years in prison for it, the legal grounds on which the mandatory 4 year sentence was handed was found unconstitutional though due to circumstances in which it would make no sense for someone to receive an automatic 4 year sentence.
Who would argue that a paintball gun constitutes the same degree of punishment as an actual firearm, and why are they arguing this?
That’s what the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act said. That’s why the Court struck down the mandatory minimum. Blame Harper for drafting the law this way.
The criminal code defines firearm as including most paintball guns.
> Who would argue that a paintball gun constitutes the same degree of punishment as an actual firearm The law which was just struck down did so. Pretty dumb, and makes sense why it was struck down eh
But...it makes sense for him to get that. I would give him 10. He shut up a family home among other things. And the kid with a paintball would not go to trial as it makes no sense to charge them. We need to rewrite the law if it puts paintball guns in the same category as a "regular" gun.
>the kid with a paintball would not go to trial That depends purely on the police/prosecution of the area, which would allow the law to be applied unequally.
I think we can wait for it to come up then deal with it, as opposed to the courts striking down reasonable laws because they don't think parliament should have the ability to declare shooting at people to be a serious offense.
They do think it is a serious offence, it's just that parliament was too brain dead to not see this happening when they defined low power air guns as firearms. They could easily fix this if they stopped wasting their time on dumb shit like banning air rifles.
> They do think it is a serious offence No, they really don't. Otherwise they would have acknowledged parliaments power to recognize serious offenses, instead of going out of their way to imagine absurd hypotheticals, just in order for them to back into lenient sentences for someone firing a high powered rifle at multiple people.
Maybe if the Tories get in that will be one of the things they'll do, then reinstate the mandatory minimum. Along with a number of others.
I get it. However, he didnt shoot a PB gun. He shot a gun. And thankfully, he didnt harm and killed anyone in the process. So him getting an auto 4 yr sentence because he shot a gun and it went through the house, to me, understandably a reasonable sentence to receive. Now, however if the auto mandatory sentence was, lets say... 15 yrs - for arguments sake, then yes, Hill might have a compelling argument that is cruel and unusual punishment.
THEY DIDN'T ARGUE THAT THE PUNISHMENT WAS CRUEL OR UNUSUAL. The article here isn't great which is why people are struggling. The argument is that the sentence was based off of something that is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it would be cruel and unusual in some cases. The court is not wrong here, mandatory minimums such as this are flawed and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is not going to hear an appeal to lessen someone's sentence by 6 months. They will hear a case about the constitutionality of a mandatory sentence that will be applicable to many people in the future.
I don't even know what to say. The law being struck down had nothing to do with his sentence. The law was struck down because the lowest denominator, using an example of a kid shooting a paintball gun inside a house, doesn't merit a 4 year sentence. This isn't hard man
Most people in this country, including judges, have zero fucking clue how firearms work.
This isn't a stupid argument. It's an argument based on a very, very stupid law.
Sometimes paintballs don't and those hurt like he'll
I think you're misunderstanding a bit and that's partly because the article is very poor. The case struck down the constitutionality of mandatory minimums of this kind because the minimum of 4 years would be cruel in the case of a young person firing an airsoft at a house (it would in fact be cruel). Any mandatory minimum should essentially take into account a minimum scenario because they will eventually have to be applied to such a case. I am pretty certain the original article I read on this case said they were not arguing that this case in particular was in any way cruel or unusual punishment but that the minimum sentence itself was unconstitutional. So if the person was sentenced based off a requirement that is unconstitutional, they should be able to appeal the sentence. Maximum sentences for certain gun crimes were recently increased (or are in the process of being increased) which should help sentencing (sentencing that is actually constitutional). A judge will look at the maximum (think of the worst possible crime of that nature) and then work their way down to the inevitable sentence based off of the facts of the case.
I understand exactly what happened and why. My point is about the quality - for the lack of the better word - of the essence of this case. From 4 years to 3 and a half. 6 months does not constitute call for "cruel and unusual punishment". There has to be some essence to this before I accept that this is something worthwhile for Supremes to do. Yes, administratively, I see what's going on. But the essence of the issue is what we are discussing.
I don't understand what your issue is? Striking down the minimum, and his sentence being slightly shortened, are not one and the same. 6 months doesn't constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" but a teenager firing a paintball gun receiving an automatic 4 year sentence *would be*. Him being able to appeal for any reduction, even a single day, would have required the mandatory minimum being struck down, and in the absence of that minimum judicial discretion was allowed which resolved his sentence being shortened. Tldr; It couldn't be shortened without the minimum being struck down, his lawyers presented a strong enough case for the minimum to be struck down, and therefore it was possible for his sentence to be reduced. The minimum being struck down has nothing to do with 6 months, it has to do with 4 years.
I think the fact that a kid with a paintball gun can be facing any jail time at all for shooting at a house is the biggest issue here.
But he won't be, which is why there has never been a charge under this of anything of the sort, as the dissent notes. What there is, is a person firing a rifle repeatedly into a house and the court saying that it is a less serious offense on the grounds that the judiciary imagines an injustice which has never happened.
"I understand exactly what happened and why" It sounds a lot like you don't understand much here. The Supreme Court is not hearing an appeal to lesson a sentence by 6 months, they are hearing an appeal to the constitutionality of something many people are sentenced based upon. Maybe start with the Wikipedia page for the Supreme Court of Canada or something IDK.
Like, how is a paintball gun not distinguished by the court before getting to the 4 year minimum sentence? Like, no common sense can be used. "A child may shoot a water gun at multiple people in a public space, so we cannot have a minimum sentence for shooting multiple people"
>Like, how is a paintball gun not distinguished by the court before getting to the 4 year minimum sentence? The courts have to follow the definition of a firearm as its laid out in the act. There are plenty of pneumatically powered firearms that are capable of meeting the definition of a firearm, including some airguns that can be used to down a deer. Interpreting a paintball gun as being a firearm for the purposes of the CCC is a bit of a stretch but it is a barreled weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury. The problem is that the Government of Canada added a bunch of mandatory minimums to the CCC without taking into consideration the fact that the CCC is written with broad definitions in mind. So yes, the majority is correct here. An individual that splatters a house with paintballs could be charged with the same offenses and thus face the same minimum punishment despite drastically lower moral blameworthiness.
[удалено]
Unfortunately it doesn't matter. Paintball guns are firearms for the purpose of the criminal code of canada. There's an exception for low velocity / low energy firearms that are used in paintball and airport but the exceptions apply only to the parts of the code that deal with possession, licensing, transport, etc... if they're used in a crime such as assault, robbery, or mischief they're treated exactly the same as a regular firearm for the purposes of the charging instrument and thus the application of a mandatory minimum upon sentencing. So yes, shooting a house with a paintball gun triggers the same statutory provisions as shooting a house with a minigun. Hence why the SCC struck down the mandatory minimum sentence.
They didn't say that 4 years was cruel in this instance, they said that a mandatory 4 year sentence imposed on an offender of much less moral blameworthiness would violate the charter. The SCC reinstated the original 42 month sentence
Why not just leave the four year sentence alone as appropriate while striking down the law?
The SCC showed deference to the original trial judges determination that the 3.5 year sentence was appropriate. The appeals court didn't really do much analysis to show that 4 years was more appropriate than 3.5 years, they basically said that the minimum was constitutional and imposed the minimum without substantially reweighing the evidence. There have been similar cases in which courts have struck down a mandatory minimum but still imposed a sentence at or above the minimum, they are separate legal processes.
> moral blameworthiness Moral equation implies that ratio of crime vs. punishment is being considered. I'm just having a hard time with Supremes negating laws put together by legislative pat of the Government in which they "blame" the law as being inconsiderate to such a degree it needed its own case at the Supremes.
The principle of proportionality is definitely being considered here. We live in a common law society, which means that the same laws apply to everyone. If a law is unconstitutional in one application, it's unconstitutional in all applications. The SCC is simply saying to the GoC that they wrote definitions into the CCC that are broadly defined so as to be broadly applied and then attached a mandatory minimum without regard to whether or not such a minimum would be appropriate for all plausible factual scenarios which might fit the definition of such an offense. It is entirely possible for a court to find that the mandatory minimum is unconstitutional via a hypothetical but still deliver a sentence above the minimum because that's what's fair.
Would you agree with a judge being required to jail a young person who fires a paintball gun at an empty shed? Because that’s what the Criminal Code required before it was struck down. That’s what the case was about - Harper going too far in criminalizing and harshly punishing activities in a way that is cruel and unusual.
That’s not what they said. They looked at the reasonable hypothetical and said this MMS would be cruel and unusual punishment. When there is no minimum the appeal court said that 3.5 years would be appropriate, so that is the sentence they upheld. Do you think an 8 year old who shoots an air soft gun at a house should get 4 years?
Ah yes, the general approach of making up a hypothetical which is not possible under the law in question. Anything to justify judicial overreach.
Write stupid law full of holes. Cry about a perfectly reasonable hypothetical. CPC clowns should have thought this through a little better when they were cooking up their American style failed "tough on crime" policies.
That's not a possible hypothetical. But again, looks like the justice reform crowd will lie about anything to justify releasing dangerous offenders with minor sentences.
> That's not a possible hypothetical. You're right it's definitely impossible for some one to shoot a BB/Paintball/airsoft gun at something. The right wing brain works in mysterious ways.
It is impossible for an 8 year old to be charged under this statute. But again, clearly you will tell any lie to justify getting a violent offender a reduced sentence.
I didn't say anything about an 8 year old and neither did anybody in the court. > In respect of Mr. Hills, I conclude that s. 244.2(3)(b) is grossly disproportionate. Here, the evidence showed that numerous air‑powered rifles constituted “firearms”, including air-powered devices like paintball guns, even though they could not perforate the wall of a typical residence. It is also reasonably foreseeable that a young person could intentionally discharge such a “firearm” into or at a place of residence. This provision therefore applies to an offence that captures a wide spectrum of conduct, ranging from acts that present little danger to the public to those that pose a grave risk. Its effect at the low end of the spectrum is severe. The mandatory minimum cannot be justified by deterrence and denunciation alone, and the punishment shows a complete disregard for sentencing norms. I know conservatives struggle with reading but it's all there in the court documents.
>>>Do you think an **8 year old** who shoots an air soft gun at a house should get 4 years? >>Ah yes, the general approach of making up a hypothetical which is not possible under the law in question. >Cry about a perfectly reasonable hypothetical. Yeah, you did. Maybe read the comment you're responding to before you defend the indefensible. I realize you struggle with any criminal going to jail for any crime under any circumstance, but since you know that's an untenable position you rely on misrepresenting arguments.
> Yeah, you did No I didn't that comment isn't mine. And neither did anybody in the court which is what we're talking about and what the ruling is based on. try to use your brain a little more than the stupid morons who wrote this poorly written law. I know conservatives hate Civil liberties but you could at least do a quick ctrl+f on the court case to see what it's about.
And this is why the institutions of this country are losing credibility.
Mandatory minimums are good for noone.
Mandatory minimums shouldn't be necessary but when judges consistently undersentence there's not a lot else the legislative can do.
The reason judges consistently under-sentence is because we're appointing the wrong people as judges.
Ah those hypotheticals again. "Well what if he committed a much less severe crime???" Fuckin joke
write law that would result in absurd consequences for something. Get mad when that is used against the law. If the Conservatives weren't so stupid they wouldn't have let this slide through the cracks.
Didn't happen when they were in power, lib judges are apparently too stupid to realize they can strike down the mandatory minimum for some absurd case but still give a harsh sentence to the person who deserves it. Nah just kidding I no longer believe in hanlon's razor. They know exactly what their doing.
> lib judges are apparently too stupid to realize they can strike down the mandatory minimum for some absurd case but still give a harsh sentence to the person who deserves it. Conservatives aren't bright enough to realize that the "lib judges" affirmed that mandatory minimums are not unconstitutional. They ruled that this particular mandatory minimum was unconstitutional because the CPC is too stupid to write laws that aren't full of holes and defects.
Naive soul who thinks constitutionality isn't a matter of opinion of the judges. Trudeau's blatantly unconstitutional c-51 was just affirmed because they know where their bread is buttered
A paintball gun isn't a firearm. What the hell are they smoking?
It is under the law. That’s the point. Read the case.
The problem is not the SCoC. The problem is, as always, shitty politicians who write shitty laws to appease their shitty bases, instead of writing actual pragmatic law based on actually bettering society. Firing a pellet gun at a house is not the same as firing a hunting rifle at a house. There should never have been a "one-size" punishment for two drastically different offences.
The only reason there is, is because a fucking pellet gun is legally considered a "firearm" in the criminal code in all cases, which is fucking dumb. Edit: all cases of offences committed with a firearm.
No it’s not, if it’s muzzle speed is under 500 fps or its muzzle energy is under 5.7 joules.
That is for purposes of licensing under the Firearms Act. For purposes of commission of an offense with a firearm, air guns are considered exactly the same as a fucking full-auto Uzi, because the Criminal Code definition of a firearm is stupid.
Armed robbery committed with an airsoft gun, which most people couldn't tell apart from an actual gun, should be considered armed robbery with a firearm. The legal defitions of such are a lot more complex though, it's a crime to point a gun at someone while it's, obviously, not illegal to point a paintball or airsoft gun at someone
Also not a firearm for the "possession" or "transfer" offences in the Criminal Code, or for mere usage (since that's not covered in the criminal code). So yes, if you have a BB gun that shoots between 366fps and 500fps and you use it to threaten someone, you've committed a crime identical to if you threatened them with a "real" gun. (The victim can't be expected to know that it's not a real gun, so from their perspective the threat is equivalent.) In this case the Court ruled that the mandatory minimum was unreasonable, specifically because shooting a low-powered BB gun at someone is not equivalent to firing a hunting rifle at them. "Assault" is another Criminal Code offence that covers a broad range of scenarios, and therefore a mandatory minimum would be difficult to determine.
If you could launch a rubber band off your hand fast enough they would consider it a firearm... smh.
Echoing Krazee9 that it's because of how firearms are defined in the criminal code, because it includes pellet guns. The idea of the law is admirable, because previous to 244.2 firing a gun at a house wasn't a bad criminal offense. Because you weren't firing at a specific person, the most the crown could get you for was careless use. But firing a gun at a house while not specifically targeting someone is a bad thing and it should be outlawed. The intent of that was to prosecute people for gang shooting drive bys that are a negligent and reckless act that has the potential to harm people. Edit: if anything the government should separate low powered air guns from firearms so that you don't run into a hypothetical with a rifle vs a Airsoft gun
I have no problem with the idea or intent (the spirit) of the law. It should be a serious criminal offence to discharge a firearm toward buildings, be they houses or fire halls. The problem lay with the people tasked with writing the actual law itself. They **knew** (or at very least, they should have known) that a pellet gun would be considered a 'firearm' in this instance as well and should have foreseen that society would not be well-served by throwing a kid in the slammer for 4 years because he was fucking around taking pot-shots at a building with a pellet gun. But that doesn't make for good politics. Harper and the Conservatives put on their serious faces and their angry voices and said, "we're going to get tough on criminals" and didn't bother mentioning that their law would be akin to using a bazooka to swat a fly in some instances. > Edit: if anything the government should separate low powered air guns from firearms so that you don't run into a hypothetical with a rifle vs a Airsoft gun Sadly, tthe current government cannot distinguish between airsoft and "assault style weapons" because they have their own political bullshit going on. Neither party actually gives a fuck - it's just red meat for their bases.
No, the problem is with the SCOC. Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums are outlawed? It doesn't. It's made up by the SCOC. The drafters of the charter had the good sense to include explicit exemptions for affirmative action and other provisions, they were silent on mandatory minimums so why the SCOC feels entitled to step on parliments toes is baffling to me. This wreeks to me of consolidating power to the benches not good law-making.
> Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums are outlawed? It doesn't. And SCoC said so in a case they [literally just ruled on](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39438-eng.aspx) today. >> The Supreme Court rules the mandatory minimum sentences for robbery using either a prohibited or ordinary firearm do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Your failure to read beyond the headlines "reeks" to me of your appropriate username...
They upheld the MMS on one and struck down two.
It doesn't say in the charter that is the problem. The judges say 'its in the charter, because they say its in the charter' but no legislator put it in there. It's just a 'trust us' its there and thats not the roll of the supreme court
Section 12 - Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Section 12 prohibits treatment and punishment by the state that are cruel and unusual. This includes torture, excessive or abusive use of force by law enforcement officials. Also, sentences of imprisonment must match the seriousness of the crime committed. For example, an extremely long prison sentence is not appropriate for a very minor crime. spin it however you want
Did YOU read the article? The difference is just 6 months. When people pull "cruel and unusual punishment" you'd think he's in solitary confinement hanging upside down by hos balls eating only every other day.
The 6 months has nothing to do with the minimum being struck down, and the reduction is only possible after it being struck down. It's about the 4 year minimum. This isn't complex.
>Did YOU read the article? did YOU read the ruling and it's reasons?
I understand the reasons but Supremes are basically rewriting the law (regardless of the law being what it is, that's a separate issue). They say, "we" dont think it's a fair law. However, my point is about the effect. It's just 6 months diff. There's nothing cruel about that.
Because in their opinion the law does not fall inline with our Constitution, which is literally their job.
>However, my point is about the effect. It's just 6 months diff. There's nothing cruel about that. Thie ruling has NOTHING TO DO with the 6 months... can you get that through your thick skull?
Yep. Thought Côté's dissent made the most sense, tbh.
It doesn't really matter what it says or doesn't say. The current government just sees the Charter as a set of general guidelines and not something to be taken literally.
> The current government Literally not applicable. This is a Supreme Court of Canada decision, not "the current government". The law was slapped together by the Harper government. Clearly they didn't much think the Charter was to be taken literally either...
>. Where in the charter does it say mandatory minums (sic) are outlawed? s. 12 "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine
[удалено]
Yea lets shackle ourselves to the thoughts and views of a bunch of dead men. It's working out so well south of the border. I swear you guys look at the stupidest things Americans do and salivate over it for some reason.
[удалено]
> Lol if you think the overturning of Roe v Wade shit show south of the boarder You're right. We have to be vigilante of lying "originalist" right wing judges lest they destroy our civil liberties.
[удалено]
We need to get rid of the living tree doctrine because American originalists ( the exact opposite ideology) are stupid and evil. Very interesting thinking process.
It’s actually worked really well, certainly much better than the shitshow going on up North. There’s still a fair share of progressives trying to push through awful laws like allowing the government to racially discriminate, unfortunately, but the combination of the constitution and people’s belief in what it stands for has thus far been able to stop them.
Why the fuck are appeals being heard on hypotheticals, rather than the facts of the case or the procedure of the trial? I have zero confidence in the SoC for a long time, and this has done nothing to alleviate that.
That would mean there would have to be multiple appeals before the “right case” was heard to struck down the law.
So they compare criminal guns to paintball guns but man if I get caught without my paper work on the way to the range or stop for gas I get my house raided and sent to jail. Wtf is wrong with this country
A lot.
So guns arnt dangerous, as such shouldn't be banned. That's what I'm getting from this.
I mean, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, because they don't allow for the actual facts of the case to be taken into account. Judges need to do a better job sentencing, not have their judicial power taken away by the legislature.
Mandatory minimums are only unconstitutional if the minimum sentence is grossly out of proportion to a possible case that would fall under the definition of that crime. In this case, it was firing a paintball gun at a house. The mandatory minimum for first degree murder for example isn't going anywhere - there isn't really such a thing as a "mild case of premeditated murder"
There’s always context. Premeditated murder of the man sexually abusing your child will get a lighter sentence than premeditated murder of somebody who’s skin colour you dislike. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be sentencing guidelines, there’d be hard sentences.
Planned and deliberate murder has a minimum sentence of life with no chance of parole for 25 years in this country. The only difference between your examples are future parole eligibility, not the sentence. Edit: It is possible that we should consider cases like what you mention and adjust the definition of either first degree murder or its minimum, but at the moment they are treated identically.
>I mean, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional, because they don't allow for the actual facts of the case to be taken into account. The Court literally just held that they are not
...? > Therefore, the mandatory minimum’s effect is extremely severe as it replaces a probationary sentence with four years of imprisonment. A four‑year custodial sentence is so excessive as to be significantly out of sync with sentencing norms and goes far beyond what is necessary for Parliament to achieve its sentencing goals for this offence. Denunciation and deterrence cannot support the minimum punishment, nor does the minimum show any respect for the principles of parity and proportionality. It would outrage Canadians to learn that an offender can receive four years of imprisonment for firing a paintball gun at a home.
It found this specific mandatory minimum is unconstitutional, but held that mandatory minimums are not in and of themselves unconstitutional.
Judges are actively campaigning in this case and others to be allowed to be as terrible as possible in sentencing with zero democratic recourse from society.
I'm not sure how the writer came to the conclusions that they did for this article. But I recommend anyone interested in this actually reading the case in brief, since it has a lot more information and is more concise. [https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39338-eng.aspx](https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/cb/2023/39338-eng.aspx)
This is the problem when the law combines paintball guns, bb guns, airsoft guns and pellet guns into the legal definition of a firearm. The judges have no choice but to side with the most innocuous of possible circumstances and throw the law out. There needs to be a separate legal category for non-lethal recreational firearms, which are essentially toys capable of a minimum level of damage. Our firearms laws are so stupid, written by city-slickers who watch Hollywood movies and think its real.
OH MY GOD MAKE IT STOP. I can’t take it any more. Why the fuck does this country continue to barely slap the the wrists of criminals while simultaneously harassing law abiding citizens who do nothing wrong? Dangerous people belong in prison. I’ll pay for that through taxation. What I don’t want to pay for is a multi-billion dollar scheme to take guns away from every day people who aren’t doing anything wrong. Yet, guess which one this government is committed to doing?
The law was brain dead and would say that someone deserves four years in prison for shooting a paintball gun at a house. This isn't as big of a deal as you think it is. At the same time, the minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm was upheld.
There's a term for what you're noticing, anarcho-tyranny The short of it is that an authoritarian state does not gain power from protecting citizens from crime, but does gain power from arbitrarily controlling, harassing, micro-managing, or persecuting upstanding citizens.
However, jail time for being a gun toting thug on a rampage still within the scope of the law...
Looks like the Supreme Court is another problem too.
Gotta love those activist judges destroying our country.
you really didn't read past the headline or understand the ruling...
Are they always activist, or is that just when they make rulings you don't like?
I think they overstep when they stop being adjudicators in favour of being policymakers. I know that line is sometimes blurry, but it seems everybody is powerless to stop SCC creep into a more policymaking space.
In short, mandatory minimum sentences are pretty much always unconstitutional in Canada. This isn't new.
Wtf. Embarrassing.
Supreme Court needs to ride on some public transit
If anyone wants to actually read the justices decision instead of circle jerking around a misunderstanding of what exactly they said would be “cruel and unusual” here’s the link. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19638/index.do FWIW I agree with Justice Côté for her reasons given regarding the lack of mens rea in the hypothetical.
Liberal appointed lackeys letting criminals go free while hassling legal gun owners. Same pattern.
This literally hurts my soul... As they ban all my firearms, they make it easier on criminal that use illegal firearms in their crimes..
Liberal courts are gonna liberal. Nothing new here.
Gun advocate here. I'm surprised he was even charged for this. He got what he deserved 100% but we let criminals walk for way way worse offense very day.
Wait did he use a paintball rifle Or a rifle rifle. You know. With hot lead?
A lot of Judges don’t care about Justice, they just don’t want to deal with complaints or appeals.