Since Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party rose to power, they have been proposing stricter gun control, such as repealing changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, requiring enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm, requiring firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes and so on. They believe stricter gun control can “get handguns and assault weapons off our streets” (Liberal, n.d.). Guns are indeed dangerous as they pose a great threat to community; innocent bystanders can be killed or injuired by
…show more content…
Smickle didn’t plead guity to the charge and questioned the constitutional validity of s.95(2). S.95(2) is a hybrid scheme, where the crown chooses the mode of prosecution. if the crown proceeds the case summarily, the maximum sentence is one year, but if the crown proceeds the case by indictment, the mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence is 3 years, thus creating a Two-year sentence gap. In this case, the crown chose to proceed by indictment. The defence believed the three year mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate to what the accused deserved and it violated s.12 of the charter, which stated that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” The trial judge found that the appropriate sentence of Mr.Smickle is one year of conditional sentence, which is significantly lower than the mandatory minimum sentence. Also, the breach of the Charter failed to pass the proportionality test and couldn’t be justified under S.1. 95(2). S.95(2)was then declared invalid and was struck down as a remedy under s. 52. (R v. Smickle, 2012)
The mandatory minimum sentence from S.95 (2) was imposed by Harper’s conservative government in Tackling Violent Crime Act (Conservative,2015). The court decision of R v. Smickle, along with R v Nur, dealt a huge blow on Harper government’s tought on crime agenda. (CBC,2015). This showed that stricter gun control does not deter crime, but only waste large amount of taxpayers dollars on unnecessary court
Smickle didn’t plead guity to the charge and questioned the constitutional validity of s.95(2). S.95(2) is a hybrid scheme, where the crown chooses the mode of prosecution. if the crown proceeds the case summarily, the maximum sentence is one year, but if the crown proceeds the case by indictment, the mandatory minimum sentence for a first offence is 3 years, thus creating a Two-year sentence gap. In this case, the crown chose to proceed by indictment. The defence believed the three year mandatory minimum sentence would be grossly disproportionate to what the accused deserved and it violated s.12 of the charter, which stated that “Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.” The trial judge found that the appropriate sentence of Mr.Smickle is one year of conditional sentence, which is significantly lower than the mandatory minimum sentence. Also, the breach of the Charter failed to pass the proportionality test and couldn’t be justified under S.1. 95(2). S.95(2)was then declared invalid and was struck down as a remedy under s. 52. (R v. Smickle, 2012)
The mandatory minimum sentence from S.95 (2) was imposed by Harper’s conservative government in Tackling Violent Crime Act (Conservative,2015). The court decision of R v. Smickle, along with R v Nur, dealt a huge blow on Harper government’s tought on crime agenda. (CBC,2015). This showed that stricter gun control does not deter crime, but only waste large amount of taxpayers dollars on unnecessary court