Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /home/christo1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/paper-template/papertemplate.php(15) : eval()'d code(3) : eval()'d code on line 336

Gotta love this country, where up is down and left is right.

Only in a nation that has completely abandoned rational thought and critical thinking could dangerous offenders have more rights than law-abiding gun owners.  That this judgement  comes out of the Ontario court system should surprise nobody.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Alan Bryant ruled that reverse onus for dangerous offenders violates their constitutional rights. How... progressive of him.

The law that Judge Alan Bryant took such exception to requires violent offenders convicted of serious crimes must prove they do not deserve to be designated as dangerous offenders and thus be incarcerated indefinitely.

You must realize this isn't good old Joe from down the street we're talking about here.  No, the individuals affected by this law are folks who have explicitly shown through their repeated violent criminal behaviour that they're a menace to society.

The law used to require the Crown prove an individual was worthy of being locked up indefinitely but the Conservative government under Stephen Harper changed that requirement in 2008.

The law now requires the individual in question prove they should not be labelled a dangerous offender.

In this case such a requirement actually makes sense.  I say that because the Crown has already proven the individual is deserving of that designation by convicting them of numerous violent crimes.

Contrast that with law-abiding Canadian gun owners.

As a person who has not committed any crime, violent or otherwise, Canadian gun owners are subject to the burden of proof in practically every aspect of Canadian firearms law.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada section 117.11, for example, states the following:

117.11 Onus on the accused - Where, in any proceedings for an offence under any of sections 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 101,104 and 105, any question arises as to whether a person is the holder of an authorization, a license or a registration certificate, the onus is on the accused to prove that the person is the holder of the authorization, a license or registration certificate.

Even with the removal of the much-despised Canadian long gun registry law-abiding Canadian gun owners can still be charged with any of these offences.

The onus is then upon them to prove they nave NOT committed a crime, and given the horrendously flawed record-keeping of the government in this regard, good luck to any gun owner placed in this position.

The mere presence of a spent shell-casing is considered just cause for SWAT Teams to descend upon an unwitting Canadian, all because owning a firearm has been demonized repeatedly over the past 20 or 30 years.

No crime needs to be committed for this overreaction from police.  The mere drawing of a gun by a child is considered reason enough to strip a man of his Constitutional Rights and run him through the mill.  Jessie Sansone is living proof of that ridiculous state of affairs.

As I've said, violent criminals who face a dangerous offender status hearing have already proven themselves to be a menace to society, unlike unwitting gun owners or even non-gun owners like Jessie Sansone.

The onus should be upon them to prove to us they should not be locked away from the rest of us indefinitely.

Thankfully Justice Minister Rob Nicholson agrees with me on this point and vows to challenge Judge Alan Bryant's asinine ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

"Provincial attorneys general asked for this legislation, victims and law-abiding Canadians supported it, and even the chronically soft-on-crime opposition parties voted for it," Nicholson replied in a statement Wednesday.

"This government will not rest when it comes to strengthening our justice system and standing up for the rights of victims."

Amen.  Let's pray the Supreme Court of Canada has a few grains more common sense than Judge Alan Bryant does, and overturns his ruling.

That said, here's one last case to show the absurdity of how reverse onus is applied when it comes to gun owners and how nobody, outside of the gun community anyway, cares one whit about.

Ian Thomson is currently on trial in Ontario for the crime of defending his life against three masked would-be murderers who tried to kill him by tossing Molotov cocktails at his house.  They literally tried to burn him alive while he slept.

The only thing that saved his life was his legally-owned handgun, which he retrieved from his gun safe and used to fire a couple of warning shots over the heads of the would-be murderers.  It worked.  The gunfire scared them off.

Thomson then called the police and put out fires threatening his home while he waited for police to arrive.

When they finally did arrive (Ian Thomson lives well outside of town) the police arrested and charged him with multiple offences, of which the last charge remaining before the court is unsafe storage of firearms.

The police and Crown contend that because Ian Thomson was able to retrieve his legally-owned firearm "too quickly" and thereby save himself from certain death, he couldn't possibly have stored them according to the Safe Storage and Handling of Firearms Regulations.

It's absurd.

The burden of proof is now upon Ian Thomson to show he abided by the Regulations, which, given the sad state of justice in Canada when it comes to gun owners... let's just say Ian Thomson is in my prayers on a regular basis because he needs all the help he can get.

Repeat violent offenders need no such help. They've already proven they are unwilling to be rehabilitated. What they need is to be locked away from society for e very long time.