When Ian Thomson moved into his home in rural Port Colborne, Ontario, he quickly learned that he had the proverbial "neighbour from hell," a man with a long criminal record and considerable jail time in his past. Thomson had to call the police on numerous occasions when articles of his property went missing and death threats were made against him. To ensure his safety, he installed several surveillance cameras around his house.
One morning in August, 2010 Thomson awoke to find intruders firebombing his house. To see portions of the surveillance videos, click here.
For more details on the attack, here's what I wrote about this case in the Calgary Herald:
As an experienced firearms instructor, Thomson knew what he had to do. He got his gun out of the safe where it was stored and scared the men off his property by firing over their heads.
Thomson was initially charged with four offences, but two of those (careless use of a firearm and pointing a firearm) were dropped by the Crown when it became obvious that his self-defence argument would succeed. The remaining charges, of unsafe storage of his firearm and ammunition, went to trial. A decision was rendered by Justice Colvin on January 3, 2013. Thomson was found not guilty.
However, his problems may not yet be over. The Crown apparently said even before the decision was rendered that if Thomson were not convicted, the Crown would appeal. It seems the Crown wants Thomson to go to jail for storing his gun and his ammunition in the manner necessary to save his life.
Meanwhile, the four intruders recently pleaded guilty under s. 433 of the Criminal Code ("Arson -- disregard to human life"), an offence which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Two of them got sentences of two years. A third man got sentenced to three years. The fourth man -- the one who can be heard in the surveillance video shouting, "Are you prepared to die?" was sentenced to two years on top of the 29 months he has already spent in jail.
Is it just me, or do those sentences seem wildly disproportionate (i.e. far too lenient) when compared to the Crown's insistence that the victim himself should go to jail for the allegedly unsafe storage of his ammo?
Loading Slideshow
What does this new bill on the gun registry do?
We keep hearing about scrapping the long-gun registry, but really what we're talking about is scrapping the requirement for people to register their rifles and shotguns - that's what Bill C-19 aims to do by making amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearms Act. Once passed, people will not have to register their non-restricted or non-prohibited firearms. It also provides for the destruction of existing records in the Canadian Firearms Registry for those firearms.
<em>With files from CBC</em>
What exactly is the registry?
It's a centralized database overseen by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that links firearms with their licensed owners. It contains information about all three types of guns that must be registered - non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. (All firearms must be registered.) To register a firearm, you have to have a licence to possess it.
Does the bill make any changes to licensing requirements?
No. Canadian residents need a licence in order to possess and register a firearm or ammunition and that won't change. There are a couple of different kinds of licences because of various changes to laws and regulations over the years.
What are long guns?
There are three types of guns under Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted and prohibited. Most common long guns - rifles and shotguns - are non-restricted but there are a few exceptions. A sawed-off shotgun, for example, is a prohibited firearm. A handgun is an example of a restricted firearm. Different regulations apply to different classifications of firearms.
How many guns are we talking about?
As of September 2011, there were about 7.8 million registered guns. Of those, 7.1 million are non-restricted firearms.
Why does the government want to get rid of the long-gun registry?
The government says it is wasteful and ineffective at reducing crime and targets law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals, who don't register their firearms.
Who wants to keep it?
Police and victims' groups are big supporters of the registry. Police say the database helps them evaluate a potential safety threat when they pull a vehicle over or are called to a residence. They also say it helps support police investigations because the registry can help determine if a gun was stolen, illegally imported, acquired or manufactured. This year, the RCMP says police agencies accessed it on average more than 17,000 times a day.
When will the registry cease to exist?
The government has passed the legislation and the registry no longer exists. Except for in Quebec, where an ongoing court challenge means the owners must still register their guns in the province.
Why does the government want to destroy the records?
The government is doing this to ensure that no future non-Conservative government can recreate the registry. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has also made it clear that if any province wants to set up its own registry it would get no help from the federal government. The Conservatives are so fundamentally opposed to the existence of the records, because they say they focus on law-abiding citizens instead of criminals, that they don't want them available for anyone to use.
How much does the registry cost?
The registry cost more than $1 billion to set up in 1995 and the cost was the source of much controversy. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said on Oct. 25 that the government's best estimate is that it costs about $22 million a year to operate. That's the entire registry, not just the long-gun portion, but he noted most of the guns in the registry are long guns. He said he didn't know how much money scrapping the requirement to register long guns would save the government. Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner says there are also "hidden costs" that are borne by provincial and municipal police agencies to enforce the registry.
Follow Karen Selick on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@kselick
It's not you. Someone with a prior criminal record should have received a much longer sentence than the 2 years + 29months for arson. Imagine if the poor victim had not installed cameras and was not armed? Why did they not go for attempted murder? Were they missing evidence demonstrating intent? Was the uttering of "Are you prepared to die?" prior to the attack not sufficient for attempted murder?
Just out of curiosity, who gave the prosecutor leeway to act in such a way against the victim? What garbage message are they trying to convey/dictate to the public?
Perhaps other than the four wannabe killers, Colberg must be inhabited by angels and this prosecutor is bored out of his mind. Something is up with the prosecutor in this case and to me, where there is smoke (arson or otherwise), there is a fire.
Some people need to have things drawn out for them before they understand.
Warning shots are a bad idea.
But, it all turned out for the good in the end....I mean of the confrontation.
The bad guys went to jail.
Thomson (despite being a gun owner) acted in a way found to be acceptable by everyone except an apparently overzealous crown attorney.
The only issue I see is, why did people with long records get such short sentences?
He was prosecuted only because he defended himself with a firearm.
The issue is slamming people with trumped-up charges for their failure to peaceable burn to death.
Because a crown prosecutor was determined to cut deals offering absurdly cushy sentences in exchange for the testimony of the demented criminals "with long records," for the sole purpose of "persecuting" a decent man attempting to protect his family and home from these same criminals, who had tried to barbeque him.
After saying that three times quickly, one may wish to seek asylum in peace-loving Switzerland, where typical households ARE REQUIRED BY LAW to keep firearms on site.
There is no law against storing gun and bullets in the same safe.
Also defense lawyers love it, it keeps their customers on the street so they may get more business.
If someone breaks into your house and says he is going to kill you, You must say please do.
He should at least volunteer to pay for the cleaning of their underwear.
Let the law do what is has to but no law is going to prevent me from defending my home and my family. Period.
The fact that Thompson is not likely to get anything more than a warning about locking up his ammunition makes the screaming rhetoric seem silly.
Thomson has been totally exonerated. He will get nothing, as there is no law requiring ammunition be locked up. Not even a lecture.
May I suggest you view the surveillance video and tell us again that "jail would be pretty unlikely here. After viewing the video, I find it galling that the suspects weren't given life sentences.
Looking forward to your thoughts after viewing it, and of course whether you still feel the author was exaggerating.
I would like to see additional charges against the perps for endangering the dog.
Did he call the police?
What is the average police response time in that neighborhood? If it were reasonable to assume that the police would not have gotten there in time to prevent significant property damage or injury than Mr. Thomson's actions would be very reasonable.
IMO he still would've been obligated to contact police prior to opening fire.
That being said, people were attempting to burn his house down with he and his family inside it. Isn't that an imminent threat to life? Doesn't Canadian law permit the use of lethal force in such circumstances?
If the crown does appeal, and the case moves up to a higher court, then the constitutionality of the laws in play will come into question - which means that the might get stuck down.
I'm not sure why we're supposed to be scandalized by the justice system working exactly how it's supposed to. In many cases like this, appeals are a good thing because they prevent other people from facing nonsensical charges if laws are struck down.
It seems rather surprising that the author of this piece, allegedly an experienced lawyer, lacks such a basic understanding of how the judicial system works.
The Crown, in forcing him to great distress and expense in defending himself in court, has punished him for daring to exercise his ancient right to self-defense instead of quietly burning to death.
It is outrageous. I've been following this since day one......
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/gr...
http://freemasonrywatch.org/pa...
http://standyourground.com/for...