We won’t track violent career criminals like Joseph Endelle Chan, but we’ll harass law-abiding Canadian gun owners?

The law is an ass is the famous statement, although I can't remember who by at the moment.  This truly is the case when it comes to Canada's laws on firearms and the stupid 2-billion dollar "gun control" scheme that can't keep guns out of the hands of  the likes of Joseph Endelle Chan.

Joseph Chan has a very long criminal record that includes 25 previous criminal convictions, including a 2005 conviction for possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

On April 8, 2010, Chan walked into a barber shop in Halifax and opened fire, apparently just for the fun of it.

Now, Windy Wendy Cukier and Lying Heidi Rathjen will tell you that Canada absolutely most definitely just has to keep our useless gun registry, but they are stunningly silent when it comes to explaining how a gun registry, or a licensing system for firearm owners for that matter, can keep guns out of the hands of lifelong violent criminals like Joseph Endelle Chan.

Their deafening silence, of course, says everything they don't want it to say.

Joseph Chan was already under a court-ordered lifetime ban from possessing firearms... not that it did any good.

Why would it?

A firearms prohibition order is just a piece of paper with absolutely nothing to enforce it.  We waste the police resources that should be tracking violent offenders like Joseph Chan on keeping tabs on millions of Canadians who have not and will not shoot anyone, ever.

There is absolutely nothing that Canada's failed gun registry or it's failed licensing system can do to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

The reason is quite simple.  Violent criminals like Joseph Chan are not "clients" of Canada's firearm owner licensing and gun registration system. (Yes, that's really what we law-abiding firearms owners are called by the bureaucrats!)

Chan and his ilk can never be "clients" of the system because the system is not designed to deal with violent criminals... it's only designed to deal with people like me who are willing to abide by the law.

Having a criminal record like Chan's means an automatic license refusal, not that Chan or other violent nutbars like him would ever apply for one.

On the upside, at least Justice Robert Wright is doing what he can to keep Chan from hurting any other decent Canadians for a good, long time.

Justice Wright (no, not the same Justice Wright as the Bruce Montague Case) sentenced Chan to 11 years in prison in the hopes of keeping Canadians safe for  the next decade.

In a departure from the usual judicial practice, Justice Wright gave Chan consecutive sentences of seven years for endangering someone’s life by discharging a firearm, one year for violating a firearms prohibition and three years for possession of a loaded handgun.

Well done, Justice Wright!

The usual (and ridiculous) practice is to let the violent offender serve all sentences concurrently, meaning at the same time.

"The foremost sentencing objectives to be emphasized for gun crimes such as this are denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public by separating the offender from society," Justice Robert Wright said.

"While the objective of rehabilitation can never be lost sight of, Mr. Chan’s past lifestyle and lengthy criminal record do not bode well in this regard."

"Separating the offender from society..."

What a novel idea.

Some folks just don't want to be rehabiliated.

As the judge said... "While the objective of rehabilitation can never be lost sight of, Mr. Chan’s past lifestyle and lengthy criminal record do not bode well in this regard."

2 thoughts on “We won’t track violent career criminals like Joseph Endelle Chan, but we’ll harass law-abiding Canadian gun owners?

  1. “The law is an ass” is a great quote, both in and out of context.

    I had read some time back that the “The law is an ass” originated with Charles Dickens but I had forgotten that the quote is from “Oliver Twist”, when the character Mr. Bumble is informed that “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”.

    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

*