April 16, 2015

Question of the Day: Should there be mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes?

Emily PrattRebel Correspondent
 

Mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes is unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court of Canada.



The court shot down the Harper government’s tough on crime statute earlier this week.

In light of the ruling, we hit the streets to see if you think Canada should have mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

Tell us what YOU think in the comments!


JOIN TheRebel.media for more news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.


Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-04-19 17:53:24 -0400
Another good idea messed up by Harper and his helpers..
Say I am cleaning my gun, a buddy drops in for a beer and the gun is left out… I am now subject to a minimum gun sentence.
Yikes. The law that was defeated was just another hack job passed by a bunch of fools.
Now if I was to take my gun and wave it around while robbing my local bank, then by all means send me away, that would be stupid. How hard is it to compose a law that would do that.. But oh no, lets just color all gun owners with the same brush..
Color us bad..

Thanks to the conservatives for another stupid move.
commented 2015-04-17 16:16:48 -0400
I’m all for law and order and I’m glad the Harper Conservatives are taking the initiative to correct the liberal/Liberal created problems in our courts. In reality I think that deterrents only work on a few people. Most violent crimes are committed in the heat of the moment or the perpetrator ‘thinks’ they’ll get away with their crime or they don’t think about it or don’t care. Either way they’re NOT thinking, ‘Hmmm, three years minimum for this gun I’m going to use in the perpetration of the violent crime I’m about to commit…maybe I won’t.’
The reason we have mandatory minimums is directly related to all the so-called judges not doing their jobs with the laws that are already on the books – cause and effect! These judges appear to give far more consideration to the ‘rights’ of the criminal – hug-a-thug justice – and either ignore the victim outright – which includes our society – or prosecute the victim, like when you use a firearm to defend yourself in your own home the police arrest you, the Crown sends you to jail and the judge goes along with the lawfare attack by the state!
The PM has already said they will be dealing with paper work ‘criminals’, created by the Nanny-State gun-control bureaucracy, but lets deal with High River and Paulson’s criminal gun-grab first before we go after the rest of the gun-control legislation the Liberals yoked us with!
commented 2015-04-17 10:07:25 -0400
There should be minimum sentences for any crime which involves violence and harm to the victim. Sentences for violent crimes should be consistent across the country, and they should not be based solely on the opinions/emotions/mood/whim/prejudice, etc. of a judge. In the days of the “Wild, Wild, West”, some judges gained the reputation of the “Hanging Judge”. You need to ponder on that.
commented 2015-04-17 00:54:13 -0400
Not on your life. The unfortunate thing is, in he communist socialist democratic dictatorship of Canada, there are far to many of us that face a bureaucratic nightmare when dealing with firearms license renewals, etc. as Steve Gunson said, just because a clerk at the CFO delayed your application a couple days, suddenly you are a criminal. This needs to change.
commented 2015-04-16 22:59:36 -0400
A person with a long & violent criminal history buys a black market pistol and carries it loaded, stuffed in the small of his back.
Uncle Joe Average, a sporting shotgun competitor has a extended hospital stay and his firearm license expires before he remembers to renew his license.
Both are subject to the same mandatory minimum sentences. Does this seem like fair and balanced justice to you?
commented 2015-04-16 19:47:27 -0400
I don’t think guns are the issue. In fact, I think guns are a red herring. There should be much stiffer mandatory sentences for violent crime, period. Whether or not guns are involved is irrelevant. Using a gun for self defense, or to defend others, against criminal attack, where the defending person is not involved in criminal activity, whether the gun was obtained legally or not should not be a consideration. The legality of possessing the gun is a separate issue and should be dealt with separately.
commented 2015-04-16 19:01:50 -0400
Whether it is right or wrong, is very debatable. Good arguments on both sides. Besides the point really, I think that the Canadian people should have the Canada that they want. Only in extreme cases that the Supreme Court decide our laws that we vote may not exist. I ask this very seriously, because the bill passed both the House and the Senate, how are minimum sentences for gun crimes a violation of our constitution? Please guide me to the article that articulates such a thing. What is the Supreme Court thinking?
commented 2015-04-16 18:43:24 -0400
There comes a point where if the penalty is too draconic…the offender will decide he has nothing to loose by fighting a last stand. This increases risk for law enforcement officers.

This also applies to removal of hope of parole,,,,an inmate who has nothing to loose becomes a greater risk to the guards and prison staff.

People have an unrealistic notion of how much suffering is induced by incarceration. There is a perception that it is a trip to Holiday Inn. Most people would need to be put on tranquilizers if they were confined to a room at Holiday Inn for six weeks. Anyone who has been confined to a cell that is like the stinky lightless cinderblock walled washroom at a tavern for six weeks would shudder at the words “six years”.

One of the things that I note in episodes of the Trailer Park Boys is that no matter how many times the boys are released from jail and no matter what resolutions they make to change their criminal ways…one of the first things they acquire is a handgun (which is easy in their network of contacts). If they feel the need to have a gun to fend off their enemies they are going to get one….I don’t blame them….in that situation I certainly would.
commented 2015-04-16 17:10:39 -0400
I would help if you drew a distinction. Are we talking violent crime with a gun or paperwork offenses that harm no one. Big difference but both are crimes. The issue is about our draconian gun laws as much as it is about violent crime
commented 2015-04-16 16:40:35 -0400
Quick answer; NO!
Longer answer; Convict Judges of Judicial Misconduct and give them the Mandatory Minimum if they fail to hand out a proper sentence to Violent Criminals who have possession of restricted or prohibited weapons.