• Home
  • About
    • About Christopher di Armani
    • Disclosure Statement
    • Code of Ethics
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Gun Laws 101
  • FPO Violators
  • Store
  • Donate
  • Hire Me

Christopher di Armani.com

In Praise of Individual Rights and Freedoms

  • Top 25
  • Big Brother
    • Access To Information
    • Bureaucratic Incompetence
    • Bureaucrat’s Rule #1
    • Censorship
    • Feeding at the Government Trough
    • Lemonade Freedom
  • Common Sense
    • Expressions of Gratitude
    • Good Samaritans
    • Good Stuff
    • In Memoriam — Remembering our Heros
    • Life
    • Personal Responsibility
    • Politically Correct Madness
  • Courts
    • Abusive Prosecutions
    • Civil Forfeiture
    • Human Rights Tribunals
    • Judicial Corruption
    • Justice Denied
    • Justice System Abuses
    • Police Sentencing Double-Standards
    • Prosecutorial Misconduct
    • SLAPP Lawsuits
  • Crime
    • Abuse of Trust
    • Canadian Mass Murders
    • Firearm Prohibition Orders
    • Human Depravity
    • Immigration Issues
    • Racism
    • Restraining Orders
    • Sexual Predators
    • Violent Criminals
    • Wrongful Convictions
  • Guns
    • Concealed Carry
    • Dial 9-1-1 and Die
    • Firearms Act
    • Fun Gun Stuff
    • Gun Control
    • Gun-Free Zones
    • Gun Politics
    • Gun Registration
    • Negligent Discharges
    • Target Shooting Competitions
  • Islam
    • Canadian Islamic Disgraces
    • Islamic Terrorism
    • Radical Islam
    • Sharia Law
    • The Religion Of Peace
  • Police
    • Abuse of Police Authority
    • Filming Police
    • Great Police Officers
    • Officer Down
    • Police Brutality
    • Police Corruption
    • Police Misconduct
    • RCMP Accountability
    • RCMP Hall of Shame
    • Warrantless Searches
  • Politics
    • Elections
    • Ethics in Politics
    • Political Antics
    • Political Corruption
    • Social Justice
    • Stupid Human Tricks
    • Union Bay Improvement District
  • Rights
    • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
    • Constitutional Violations
    • Freedom of Assembly
    • Freedom of Religion
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Property Rights
    • Privacy Rights
    • Self-Defense
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Firearm Prohibition Order Imposed After Nasty Breakup

Published September 8, 2020 by Christopher di Armani Filed Under: Domestic Violence, Firearm Prohibition Orders, Guns


On August 21, 2020, Newfoundland Provincial Court Judge Wayne Gorman issued a 4-year firearms prohibition order against a man identified only as Mr. AP (R. v A.P, 2020 58652) even though the Crown only sought a 2-year prohibition.

“I have concluded that this is an appropriate case for the issuing of a section 111 Criminal Code prohibition.  I have reached this conclusion because the totality of the circumstances persuades me that it would not be desirable for the safety and protection of Ms. P, that Mr. P have possession of a firearm.”

Under normal circumstances, a relationship or marriage breakdown should not be grounds for a firearms prohibition order, as at least one firearm owner I know would attest.

The fact a relationship ended does not mean one partner wants to do violence to the other in every instance. To insist otherwise is nonsense not supported by the facts.

BUT…

There are many high-profile and heartbreaking cases where one partner has gone on to murder the other after the relationship broke down.

Jennifer Quesnel’s murder by her estranged husband on June 1st on Salt Spring Island in British Columbia, and Darian Henderson-Bellman’s murder by her ex-partner in Brampton, Ontario, are just two recent examples.

Cases like these drive one segment of the firearms control debate in Canada but miss one critically important point. In both the Quesnel and Henderson-Bellman murders, their killers were already prohibited from owning firearms.

That’s not the case here.

 

Legally Possessed Firearms

In the case of Mr. AP and Ms. KP in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, that’s not the case. Mr. AP legally owed his firearms and possessed a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence.

But, and I’m sure I’ll receive hate mail for this, a valid PAL does not mean Mr. AP behaved rationally after his relationship ended.

It was Mr. AP ’s “unpredictable behaviour”, as testified to by Constable Jillian Pollett of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, that set this firearms prohibition ball in motion in the first place.

Section 111 of the Criminal Code (lengthy weapon descriptions deleted for brevity) states :

111 (1) A peace officer, firearms officer or chief firearms officer may apply to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, […] where the peace officer […] believes on reasonable grounds that it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person against whom the order is sought or of any other person that the person against whom the order is sought should possess any such thing.

On July 1st, Mr. AP got drunk, came to Ms. KP’s parents’ home where she and her son lived, and entered the locked house using a pin code for the locked door.

He threw various items around the house and threatened to break more. He eventually left (the judgment does not explain how his departure came about), but not before terrifying Ms. KP and, presumably, her son as well.

On July 2nd, Ms. KP reported the incident to police, and filed for an emergency protection order that same day. That order was granted, and included an interim firearms prohibition order against Mr. AP.

In this case, Mr. A.P.’s actions on July 1st led directly to his firearms prohibition. There is nobody to blame but himself.

[1]     On July 2, 2020, this Court issued an emergency protection order, pursuant to Section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act, SNL 2005.  The order prohibited Mr. AP from having contact or communication with his former partner (Ms. KP).

The order also contained a condition that prohibited Mr. P from “possessing any ammunition or firearms” and that required him to “immediately deliver to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, any firearm permits or certificates in his name and any firearms or ammunition which he owns, which are in his possession, or which he has access to”.

Even though the Crown only sought a 2-year firearms prohibition, Judge Wayne Gorman felt a 4-year firearms prohibition order more appropriate, and issued that order on August 21, 2020.

[27]   Based upon the totality of the evidence presented, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for a section 111 prohibition to be issued.  The evidence establishes that after Mr. P and Ms. P separated, Mr. P acted in a violent manner toward Ms. P and entered a residence she was residing in without her consent or permission.

[28]   The context in which the application was made is important. The circumstances upon which the application is made occurred after an intimate partner separation. The potential for violence occurring and escalating in such a circumstance is well known, as are the often fatal consequences for the female partner.

[29]   I am satisfied that it is not desirable for Mr. P to possess a firearm.  Thus, a section 111 prohibition is hereby issued.

The Length of the Prohibition:

[30]   The Crown sought to have a prohibition put in place for a period of two years.  Based upon the circumstances involved, including the nature of the former relationship between Ms. P and Mr. P, I conclude that a longer prohibition is required. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that the prohibition should be in place for a period of four years.

Forfeiture:

[31]   Section 111(7) of the Criminal Code indicates that “[s]ections 113 to 117 apply in respect of every order made under subsection (5)”.  Section 115(1) indicates that “[u]nless a prohibition order against a person specifies otherwise, everything the possession of which is prohibited by the order is forfeited to Her Majesty if, on the commencement of the order, the thing is in the person’s possession or has been seized and detained by, or surrendered to, a peace officer”.

[32]   In this case, Mr. P surrendered three firearms to the police as required by the emergency protection order.  Based upon the circumstances, including the potential for future violence, a compelling argument for forfeiture could be made.  However, the Crown specifically indicated that it was not seeking forfeiture of these firearms. As a result, a forfeiture order will not be issued.

Conclusion:

[33]   For the reasons provided, the Crown’s application for a section 111 Criminal Code prohibition to be issued is granted.  The prohibition shall be in place for a period of four years and shall include all of the items listed in section 111(1) of the Criminal Code.  The three firearms listed in the application are not forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen.

 

What do you think?

Was Judge Gorman correct in issuing the firearms prohibition order, or should Mr. AP be allowed to keep his guns despite of his behaviour towards his estranged spouse?

Let me know in the comments section below.

Author

  • Christopher di Armani
    Christopher di Armani

    Christopher di Armani is a freedom-loving Amazon bestselling author and current events commentator from Lytton, BC, Canada, who strives to awaken the passion for liberty inside every human being.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Tags: Constable Jillian Pollett, Corner Brook, Criminal Code Section 111, firearm prohibition order, Judge Wayne Gorman, Newfoundland, no contact order, restraining order, Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Did you find value in this article?

If you found this article useful or it contained valuable information and you want to thank me, the best way is to buy me a coffee or two.

1. Send an Interac eTransfer to author @ christopherdiarmani.net (remove spaces)

2. Send via PayPal using this link: https://www.paypal.me/ThatLibertyGuy

3. Use your credit card in my online store to support me with a one-time donation, a monthly recurring donation, or an annual donation. See these links for all the details about the thank-you gifts I offer my supporters.

Comments

  1. Lee Morrison says

    September 8, 2020 at 3:23 pm

    In my opinion, a firearms prohibition was warranred in this case. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out several times, unchecked prihibitions are useless pieces of paper.

    Reply
  2. Paul Hulme says

    September 9, 2020 at 12:36 pm

    2 year prohibition is reasonable for this I would think.

    Reply
  3. Fleghorn says

    September 10, 2020 at 5:44 am

    Who will be checking compliance with the order? Nobody, I’m sure.

    I hope Ms. KP has the wits to keep some bear spray handy just in case. I wonder if they have changed the pin code to the door lock. Such complacency invites tragedy, Here’s hoping she gets good practical advice.

    Reply
    • Christopher di Armani says

      September 10, 2020 at 7:46 pm

      Nobody is correct. It’s something Dennis Young and I have been fighting to change for a long time now.

      Reply
  4. Jason Ingram says

    September 10, 2020 at 6:28 am

    Sorry folks but there is nothing reasonable about stealing someone else’s hard earned personal property to make another person FEEL safe.

    A prohibition order, restraining order or any other piece of paper issued by the courts does nothing to really protect a person and does absolutely nothing to stop someone motivated from doing harm to them or others.

    I’m sure when the police came to remove his guns they left him his kitchen knives, golf clubs, perhaps a shovel, and a million other household goods or tools that could be used for murder. But hey she’s safe now we got his hunting rifles, RIGHT???

    The reality is, if Mr. AP wanted to kill his wife he would not need a gun to do it.

    This is just another example of government overreach, and bad gun laws like those contained in C-68 the firearms act. It just another way of removing guns and gun owners from Canadian society. We have been in a culture war with progressives for decades with regards to firearms in this country.

    We need property rights in Canada, NOW!

    Reply
  5. Gerry Kirkham says

    September 10, 2020 at 9:39 am

    Hi Christopher, I am a restricted Pal holder and a twenty year Firearms safety course instructor.

    From my perspective, I think the four year suspension is excessive, and the original two year request was adequate. If this person allowed his emotions to get the better of him and caused him to drink to intoxication, knowing he harbored ill will toward his former spouse, and I suspect knowing that he has such control problems when he intoxicates himself.

    However he should also have been able to arrange storage with another Pal holder for those firearms. Who is made fully aware of the consequences if he does so, and that he cannot allow those firearms back in the offenders hands, until completion of the sentence. With valid proof of completion, whatever that may be.

    My reasoning on this is due to poor protection RCMP standards are, for firearm transport and storage. For example, I have seen officers removing several rifles, eight I believe, from a home after a domestic dispute. One officer cradled all those rifles lumped together in his arms, no cases or baggage on them or protecting them either, and literally heave them into the back of an RCMP truck, without care for the value and respect of, those firearms. Also knowing personally several ex RCMP officers, and knowing they sometimes like to mess around with stored firearms while they are in RCMP possession.

    In essence, I do not trust the RCMP to take adequate care of a citizens property, but agree that the citizen should lose access to those firearms for the two year period. Again, this is if the order does not cause or call for permanent forfeiture to the crown. He could also have been charged with breaking and entering a home, or perhaps even home invasion.

    Reply
    • Christopher di Armani says

      September 10, 2020 at 7:48 pm

      That he wasn’t given the opportunity to make alternate arrangements for storage really surprised me too, Gerry.

      Reply
  6. Joe says

    September 11, 2020 at 12:41 pm

    Prohibition orders are useless bullshit. If this guy is too dangerous to own/possess firearms, first he should have been tried and convicted of a crime, and then prevented from roaming free in society. Any person not convicted of a crime should not have any of their rights curtailed (yes property ownership is a right including firearms despite what the corrupt government would have you believe).
    Furthermore, I really wish that any time a convicted violent criminal with a prohibition order does harm, the judge who issued the order be held liable for setting that criminal loose in society instead of incarceration.
    So as to the question of whether this guy deserved the 4 yr prohibition order, it sounds like he was not convicted of a crime and therefore should not have his rights curtailed at all. The ex wife should be encouraged to arm herself because a) the police won’t protect her, and b) the piece of paper issued by the judge won’t protect her.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to my commentaries

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Latest Tweets

Follow @ThatLibertyGuy

Christopher di Armani 🇨🇦 🇺🇸
@ThatLibertyGuy

  • New comment: Edmonton Police Service Constable Adam Kube Refused Any Appeal In His Termination for Corrupt Practices christopherdiarmani.com/10846/police/p…
    about 3 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • A big shout out to @CandiceMalcolm, @AndrewLawton, @AnthonyFurey and the entire team at @TrueNorthCentre for sendin… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 4 weeks ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned among the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 1 month ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • New comment: Paul Rogan Passes: The End of an Era christopherdiarmani.com/18908/common-s…
    about 2 months ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite
  • To restore common sense to our nation, this is the path. The political left works around the clock and around the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
    about 2 months ago
    Reply Retweet Favorite

Most Popular This Week

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • No Right to Bear Arms in Canada? You might want to re-check your history.
  • A Historic Day for Freedom of Speech: Geert Wilders
  • The National Anthem BANNED… at Indiana’s Goshen College?
  • Thank God for Andrew Abbass and his Lawyer
  • Paul Palango: One Man’s Pursuit of the Truth Could be the RCMP’s Undoing
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer

Most Popular This Month

  • All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • Yvon Mercier: From RCMP Depot Trainer to Double-Murderer
  • OPP Sgt. Mike Dolderman’s Sexual Assault Trial Delayed Again
  • How did Live-Streaming Rape Become a ‘Thing’?
  • Dale Merle Nelson’s 1970 Murder Spree in Creston, British Columbia
  • OPP Sergeant Jamie Gillespie Pleads Guilty to attempting to intercept private communications
  • Escaped Mental Patient William Bernard Lepine and the 1972 Kettle Valley Murders

© 2004–2023 ChristopherDiArmani.com | All Rights Reserved

Close

Buy me a cup of coffee

A ridiculous amount of coffee was consumed in the process of writing these articles. If you enjoy my work, please buy me a coffee or two to keep me going!