Supremely Arrogant

"Given the minimal blameworthiness of this offender [hypothetical law-abiding gun owner storing ammunition wrongly in error] and the absence of any harm or real risk of harm flowing from the conduct, a three-year sentence would be disproportionate."
Empirical evidence suggests mandatory minimum sentences do not, in fact, deter crimes."
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin writing for the majority

"It is not for this court to frustrate the policy goals of our elected representatives, based on questionable assumptions and loose conjecture."
"[The hypothetical scenario cited by the majority] stretches the bounds of credulity."
 Justices Rothstein, Moldaver and Wagner, writing for the dissenting opinion

 "[The government remains determined to] continue to be tough on those who commit serious crimes and endanger our communities."
"[Officials will now seek out] the most appropriate next steps towards protecting Canadians from gun crime and ensuring that our laws remain responsive."
Justice Minister Peter MacKay

Supreme Court of Canada

 And so here is Canada's politically-activist Supreme Court at it again; not interpreting the law, but writing the law, coopting that vital issue in lawmaking from the duly elected lawmakers in Parliament. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court justices led by the Chief Justice held that the government's mandatory-minimum sentencing regime for illegal possession of a firearm as part of the Tackling Violent Crime Act, violates Section 12 of the Charter of Rights.

As the majority opinion of the Supremes in this instance has it, that section of the 2008 Act has the potential to be translated into cruel and unusual punishment, and so the court ruled in a 6 - 8 decision. The three dissenting justices thought otherwise. They held for the increased minimum sentence for some gun-related crimes, including possession of a loaded firearm, from one to three years for a first offence, and from one to five years for a second.

What supreme irony, in fact, that the Conservative government which opted to relinquish the Liberal-introduced gun control laws which forced gun owners to register all their firearms, but accomplished nothing in reducing gun violence because criminals don't tend to obey laws, and saw no reason to register their illegal firearms, earned the anger of Canadians for not carrying through on that costly initiative for control of arms data, now is held back when a legitimately workable law to prosecute and punish those who do harm to society through a workable law.

This bill had a distinct purpose; to make it clear by government action in enacting a law with teeth that those who use guns in pursuit of profit through cross-border smuggling and trafficking of illicit goods will pay a penalty reflective of their harm to society. The Crown could prosecute the charge by holding a mandatory minimum of thee years' imprisonment for illegal firearm possession.

The gun control law that the federal government abolished mostly affected legal gun owners, mostly rural dwellers and farmers. This new one targeted those involved in criminal activities, which is as it should be. To impugn, as the Supreme Court justices in the majority did, that judges would be unable to to use their native intelligence to discern an innocent error from a deliberate criminal act, is beyond cringe-worthy.

"It’s now up to the judge to invent these ‘reasonable hypotheticals’ and use that, rather than the facts on the record. Any judge with a vivid enough imagination can step in and strike it down. The court was ruling entirely based on supposition, based on assumptions, based on speculation and that’s concerning from the perspective of the stability of criminal sentencing law moving forward."
"An accused can’t look forward and predict the outcome as they could with a mandatory-minimum, even if a mandatory-minimum imposes a disproportionate sentence."
"I’m not going to say that we’re at the point now that mandatory-minimums are presumptively unconstitutional. But certainly the case for any given mandatory-minimum’s constitutionality just got weaker."
Gannon Beaulne, Toronto lawyer, Macdonald-Laurier Institute writer