XPost: can.politics, ont.politics, bc.politics   
   XPost: ab.politics   
   From: weasel@stew.yum   
      
   On 3/30/2014 4:08 PM, {~_~} Раиса wrote:   
   >>> Guns are not allowed in Canada 'for trespassers', ya dumb rabbit.   
   >>> They're not even allowed - with very few exceptions - 'for personal   
   >>> protection'.   
   >>>   
   >>> You might want to reread the Canadian laws, gun owner.  Because you seem   
   >>> as screwed in the head as most gun owners who become criminal gun users.   
   >>>   
   >>> And you might also want to ask what people in more crowded countries,   
   >>> where guns are just not allowed at all.  They don't have the 'privilege'   
   >>> of threatening someone's life over trespass.   
   >>> Time Canada got smarter.  Certainly it's too late for the Americans.   
   >   
   >   
   > Kim Dobranski aka  Chom Noamsky wrote:   
   >> Winners never lie and liars never win, that's why you've been holding   
   >> the shit end of the stick all you life, Kewen.   
   >   
   >   . . .  Except when the stick that you hold has shit on both ends of   
   > it, Dobranski.   
   > I'll say it again, because you're more than a bit thick -  "Guns are not   
   > allowed in Canada 'for trespassers', ya dumb rabbit."   
   >   
   >   
   > The laws supports using   
   >> as much force as is necessary to remove someone from your property,   
   >> whether that be with a gun or a nerf hammer:   
   >   
   > See?  That's where you gun owners get into real trouble . . .  you   
   > inject your own little 'terms' into the law and think that makes you a   
   > law-abiding citizen.   
   > Calling the police would be considered 'no more force than is   
   > necessary'.  Shooting or threatening someone with a firearm would not.   
   >   
   > And on top of the requirement of 'no more force than is necessary',   
   > there is the prerequisite requirement for signs or other indicators that   
   > someone doesn't want anyone on their property.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Section 41: Defence of house or real property   
   >>   
   >> 41. (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or   
   >> real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his   
   >> authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from   
   >> trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a   
   >> trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.   
   >   
   >   
   > For the intruder's guilt to be ascertained, intent has to be proven;   
   > hence, trespassing signs are legally enforced to indicate boundaries. In   
   > land law or real estate law, trespassing constitutes two categories:   
   > criminal trespassing or civil trespassing.  Police and property rangers   
   > control the jurisdiction of criminal trespassing, whereas civil   
   > trespassing responsibility falls to the landowner to lodge a legal   
   > proceeding against the perceived trespasser.   
   >   
   >   
   > Canadian Trespass Act of 1996   
   >   
   >      No Trespassing   
   >   
   > According to the Canadian Trespass Act of 1996, a person is not guilty   
   > of trespassing if he has received the consent of the landowner, the   
   > consent of another organization or color of right, which means a legal   
   > statement revealing the genuine mistaken view of the accused or   
   > affirming that occupation on another person's property is legal.   
   > However, the trespasser faces certain conviction if the land is enclosed   
   > by fencing, walls or any other physical barrier, if the trespasser has a   
   > positive denial of entry from the landowner, if the trespasser continues   
   > to trespass after notification from police, or if the trespasser   
   > re-enters the premises after clear prohibition. The landowner bears the   
   > responsibility of erecting proper fencing around private property.   
   >   
   > See?  No guns.  Police, rangers for criminal trespass.  Legal action in   
   > courts if there is no criminal intent on the part of the trespasser.   
   >   
   > You need to have you firearms taken away, Dobranski.  You're a stupid   
   > gun owner.   
      
   I'll leave interpretation of the law up to the courts, goofy-in-the-head   
   biatches don't count.  In case I forgot to mention it, we won and you   
   lost.  Thank-you for starting this post, it was a great opportunity to   
   remind you of your burning, stinging, utterly humiliating defeat.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)