Today's decision in R. v. Montague, 2010 ONCA 141 makes clear (as if it was necessary to clarify!) that Canadians have no constitutionally protected right to possess weapons. The Court holds:
[16] Moreover, contrary to the Montagues' contention, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the question of whether the possession and use of firearms is a constitutionally protected right and has rejected the notion that Canadians have an absolute constitutional right to possess and use firearms. See R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, at para. 9; R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, at para. 414. Although s. 7 of the Charter does not appear to have been expressly invoked in those cases, the Supreme Court stated in Hasselwander at para. 414 that, "Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms." In Wiles at para. 9, the Supreme Court said: "[P]ossession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege."
[17] The Montagues submit that the above-quoted comments are obiter, as ss. 7 and 26 of the Charter were not engaged in Hasselwander and Wiles or any related jurisprudence.
[18] We disagree. The Supreme Court's comments in Hasselwander and Wiles apply with equal force to s. 7 of the Charter.
3 comments:
"...that Canadians have no constitutionally protected right to possess weapons."
At least you had the good sense to qualify that. The great Liberal douche, Trudeau, wrote a constitution that omits many basic rights including the right to own property. But what else could we expect from a "reformed" anti-semite and rabid socialist? It' so much easier to impose a kleptocratic state when the workers can't shoot back.
In practice, and this is what the case is about -- Canadians have the entitlement to bear arms.
We can't bear arms but can we arm bears?????
Post a Comment