Offender can 'use' a handgun even without carrying one, top court rules:

[Praxius]

Offender can 'use' a handgun even without carrying one, top court rules

Threatening someone with a gun may be enough to warrant being charged with a firearms offence, even if one isn't being carried, Canada's top court ruled Friday. In a unanimous ruling, the nine-member Supreme Court of Canada upheld a court decision in B.C. that convicted a man of gun possession, even though he argued he never had the weapon on him during a break-in four years ago. It didn't matter whether 25-year-old Andre Omar Steele or his three accomplices carried a gun during the crime, the top court said. An offender "uses" a firearm when he or she makes it known "by words or conduct" that it is available, and as long as it is on the body or readily available, Justice Morris Fish wrote. "They [the four B.C. men] repeatedly referred to a firearm in their physical possession or readily at hand in order to facilitate the … offence of break and enter," the ruling said. Steele was convicted of an October 2003 break-in at a B.C. marijuana grow operation. According to court documents, Steele and three accomplices warned the residents inside, "We have a gun," and repeatedly told one another to "Get the gun, get the gun." At one point, one of the men pulled a dark metal object from his inside jacket that was described by the victims as "about the size of a gun." The four men fled minutes later, but police stopped their getaway car shortly after and found several weapons, including a loaded handgun under the driver's seat. The judge in the original trial concluded all four men knew a gun was involved. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Steele's conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada agreed, saying the point of gun laws is to reduce crimes, either through intimidation or actual injury. If a gun was nearby and accessible quickly, then whether or not it was on the criminals was irrelevant, said the ruling Friday from Ottawa.

And I agree.... so this basically means, if you come up to me, point your hand in your coat and say you got a gun, and to give you my money, they can charge you for firearm offenses..... I like it.

[tinybear]

This decision is just absurd if you ask me. Are these learned judges outta their minds?

[Jack]

Simulating a weapon or suggesting you posses one can result in a charge of armed robbery in many states. Here's Arizona's statute;

13-1904. Armed robbery; classification A. A person commits armed robbery if, in the course of committing robbery as defined in section 13-1902, such person or an accomplice: 1. Is armed with a deadly weapon or a simulated deadly weapon; or 2. Uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument or a simulated deadly weapon. B. Armed robbery is a class 2 felony.

A victim need not necessarily have to see a weapon to believe the offender posses one. You can be in fear for your life based on what you're told as well as what you see.

[tinybear]

There's already an offense of criminal intimidation; the more frightening the intimidation, the heavier the sentence.

[ZNFYRH]

It makes sense, if you think about it.

If you tell someone, "Give me money or I'll rape you," you don't have to have your penis showing when you say it.

[Chaossaber314]

Yeah, this isn't that unusual. We had a domestic a few months ago where a guy threatened to make this girl deep throat his pistol that he had in another room if she didn't leave. Gun turned out to be a clear Airsoft gun painted black.

[Mia]

Quote by: Praxius Offender can 'use' a handgun even without carrying one, top court rules And I agree.... so this basically means, if you come up to me, point your hand in your coat and say you got a gun, and to give you my money, they can charge you for firearm offenses..... I like it.

Maybe elsewhere, but not in this ruling. The gun would have to be on your person or in close proximity, not just simulated.

[tinybear]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It makes sense, if you think about it. If you tell someone, "Give me money or I'll rape you," you don't have to have your penis showing when you say it.

Yeah, but the guy would've been charged with robbery, criminal intimidation or blackmail, but not with rape.

[ZNFYRH]

tinybear

Directly from the quote in the OP:

An offender "uses" a firearm when he or she makes it known "by words or conduct" that it is available, and as long as it is on the body or readily available

My comparison was applicable to the Canadian law perspective on the issue.

I still think it's a good idea.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It makes sense, if you think about it. If you tell someone, "Give me money or I'll rape you," you don't have to have your penis showing when you say it.

If you're in a hurry you might. ::rimshot::



Good night, folks! I'll be here all week!

[Praxius]

Earlier reports in this case in paticular, there were back tracking stories from the acused, one said they never had a gun, then another said they left it in the vehicle, and yet one of the victims said one of them pulled out a black shiny object as they warned them they would shoot them..... so regardless, they intended to use it as a force of agression and to get what they want....

It's the same reasoning that I hold a bunch of people in a building hostage and claim I have a bomb strapped to me..... even though I don't, the enforcement that would turn out, and the seriousness of the crime would still remain. It's the act of trying to get what you want by invoking fear onto others.

[Rooster]

If an idiot walks into a store and tells the clerk that he has a gun (has his hand in his pocket) and demands cash, but the clerk decides to pull out a shotgun and shoots the idiot. The idiot deserves what he got.

If the threat of gun use is valid then suffer the consequences.

Guns do not kill people.! Its the person who has the gun that kills people

[pikatore]

Quote by: Rooster Guns do not kill people.! Its the person who has the gun that kills people

Guns DO kill people, you just need a person to pull the trigger.

[Rooster]

A gun by itself is not a dangerous thing. Its the idiot that picks it up and chooses how we wants to use it.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Rooster A gun by itself is not a dangerous thing. Its the idiot that picks it up and chooses how we wants to use it.

So it's not a land mine that kills people, it's the person who put it there and armed it? To me personally they are both connected as one factor.... 50% the person 50% the method in which they used to carry out their actions.

And chooses how he uses it? How else does one use a firearm except to shoot and kill? I never bothered to open a can of beer by shooting the top off like Homer Simpson, or shoot out my lights when I goto bed, lol....

IMO, there is only one use for a firearm.... to kill or to intimidate to the progress of killing.... something that Kills is not a Tool... unless your a serial killer or killing is your profession.... then it's not a tool.

[Rooster]

I grew up with guns and bows & arrows in the house. I learned respect for what they can do.

I have never killed anyone or anything. I like to shoot at paper targets. My mother was very good w/a bow & arrow and like to target practice. It was a hobby of hers just like softball.

Just because someone has a gun does not mean they intend to kill or even intimidate. Some are simply hunters and enjoy the meat they bring home. I dont like hunting, but I do realize that it must be done for population/disease control. (a completely different debate tho)

[Praxius]

Quote by: Rooster I grew up with guns and bows & arrows in the house. I learned respect for what they can do. I have never killed anyone or anything. I like to shoot at paper targets. My mother was very good w/a bow & arrow and like to target practice. It was a hobby of hers just like softball. Just because someone has a gun does not mean they intend to kill or even intimidate. Some are simply hunters and enjoy the meat they bring home. I dont like hunting, but I do realize that it must be done for population/disease control. (a completely different debate tho)

Similar background as I.... archery, sharp shooter, hunting, etc... all were hobbies of mine at one time or another as well as others in my family...... that doesn't mean I promote the average person to go around with one and claim it's a tool.

You, like I have recieved proper training on the uses of these various weapons.... and those who pass the tests, those who have been issued a firearm based on their career should have proven during these tests that they are fit for the uses of a firearm.

And although you brought up good points about hunting and disease control.... those are still forms of killing, just fancier words for it..... it is still the same end result and expression of what a firearm's use is for.

[Rooster]

Around here a person must pass a hunter safety course before they can get the proper license. It would be a good idea for anyone who wants to buy a gun and before obtaining the permit, must pass a gun safety course.

Criminals will always be able to obtain guns. I do not think the solution is to remove all guns entirely. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of an irresponsible person, ie a person with less than good deeds in mind...

I support the right to bear arms (and the right to defend yourself and your property). But I also support the responsible use of them.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Rooster Criminals will always be able to obtain guns.

In the UK, firearm crime is extremely low (and usually in the london area, where smuggling usually occurs), because the government has managed to keep a very tight hand on firearm circulation.

So while you are technically correct, that is nowhere near enough a good reason to try and restrict thier access to them.

Criminals will always be able to obtain cocaine, biological weapons, and nukes. Does that mean we shouldn't bother trying to restrict them for accessing them as tightly as possible?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: pikatore In the UK, firearm crime is extremely low (and usually in the london area, where smuggling usually occurs), because the government has managed to keep a very tight hand on firearm circulation. So while you are technically correct, that is nowhere near enough a good reason to try and restrict thier access to them.

And while you may be technically correct about the UK's restrictions of firearms, the comparison is off base. The UK is an island smaller than the state of Oregon with hazardous approaches from all sides. It is much more difficult to secure the United States against the illicit importation of arms.

Because something works or does not work for another country does not mean it will work or not work for the United States.