Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RuralandRight





Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 618
Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5Reputation: 41.5
votes: 5
Location: Rural Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
randr wrote:
Quote:
The warning shots hit one of the criminals ...


yes but apparently the 4 stray pellets barly broke the skin :roll:


maybe it was only bird shot ?

He most likely had a firearm handy for 'pest control', as do many rural folk like myself.

Quote:
5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
(a) it is unloaded;
(b) it is
(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,
(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or
(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and
(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.
(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forward wrote:
Of course :roll: What . . . a . . . "surprise".

Sorry to break it to you, Forward... I'm strongly against government trying to steal our rights, including the right to own guns. If you'd bothered to look at any of the various threads involving firearms, then you would realize as much.

That being said, firearms owners have a responsibility to be prudent in their use of weapons. I have no problem with Knight owning a gun. I absolutely agree with him bringing that firearm with him, given the situation as Knight had no way of knowing whether the thieves were armed, how many of them were involved, etc.

I applaud his courage for defending his property... but I question his judgement for discharging his weapon at the fleeing crooks after recovering his property. The heat of the moment, the frustration of seeing them run off, the desire to teach them a lesson.... none of them justify firing a gun at them. What a surprise.

-Mac
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
However, after hearing that it took police two hours to show up, that is a real problem.

Agreed.

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can empathize with Mr.Knight, and I think things turned out fairly well for all involved. That said, his use of potentially deadly force was inappropriate, and there should be some kind of penalty for that. Hopefully Mr.Knight gets a good lawyer and reasonable prosecution; some combination of probation or house arrest seems like a reasonable compromise. With luck, he will not get a lengthy firearms prohibition or jail time.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I can empathize with Mr.Knight, and I think things turned out fairly well for all involved. That said, his use of potentially deadly force was inappropriate, and there should be some kind of penalty for that. Hopefully Mr.Knight gets a good lawyer and reasonable prosecution; some combination of probation or house arrest seems like a reasonable compromise. With luck, he will not get a lengthy firearms prohibition or jail time.

Agreed... although I think a conditional sentence would suffice so if there isn't another incident, Knight doesn't get a criminal record.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Alberta farmer charged with shooting suspected thief

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB