You are here: / / Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearms
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of Prohibited or Restricted Firearms

The Charge

Under s. 95 of the Criminal Code, it is an offence to possess a prohibited or restricted firearm that is either loaded or that has ammunition that is readily accessible, unless the person holds an authorization or licence. A “prohibited” firearm includes any handgun that has a barrel equal to or less than 105mm in length and any firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun by cutting the barrel length to less than 660mm. Prohibited firearms also include automatic firearms. A “restricted” firearm includes any handgun that is not a prohibited firearm, that has a barrel length of less than 470mm and is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner. An authorization under the Firearms Act is required for a person to possess any prohibited or restricted firearm, anywhere in Canada.

The Crown may proceed by indictment and seek a sentence of up to 10 years in jail upon conviction. Alternatively, Crown may elect to proceed summarily, in which case the maximum sentence is up to 2 years less a day. Although there is no longer a mandatory minimum jail sentence for this offence, when the Crown views the offence as having a true “criminal purpose” associated to possessing the prohibited or restricted weapon, Crown will proceed by indictment and will generally seek sentences in the range of 3 years in jail.

The Investigation

A significant number of cases start off at the United States/Canada border with an American visitor who does not understand how seriously different Canadian firearms law is compared to United States laws. While an American may have the right to possess a handgun in the U.S.A., that right becomes a crime with serious consequences in Canada. There are other situations in which the authorities may find a person in possession of illegal firearms. These include situations where vehicles, residences or other places are searched, either with or without a search warrant.

As experienced lawyers defending weapons charges, we understand that in order to prove the offence, customs officials and police have to prove that our client had knowledge and control over the illegal firearm. In the context of a firearm investigation, it is important for a suspect to know that they have the right to remain silent upon arrest. This right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A person suspected of possessing an illegal firearm has no obligation to acknowledge that they have knowledge of the weapon or control over it.

Recent Successes

A.L.

A huge thanks to Michael Mines for getting this criminal charge…

R. v. A.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Break and Enter.
Issue: Given our client's mental health issues, whether a conditional discharge was an appropriate sentence for this drug store break in.
Result: Mr. Gauthier  provided Crown counsel with information about our client which persuaded Crown to make a joint submission for a conditional discharge. No jail. No criminal conviction.

R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Theft of Motor Vehicle x2; Break & Enter.
Issue: Whether or not it was in the public interest to proceed with the trial considering the reluctance oft the Crown's central witness and rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel that ultimately led to a stay of proceedings on all counts. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Obstruct peace officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to continue with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Given our client's remorse and rehabilitation, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to divert our client into the Alternative Measures Program and to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.  

R. vs. A.B. – Insurance Fraud Investigation

Charge:  Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Given our client's rehabilitation and repayment of the disputed funds, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the insurance company to settle the matter on a civil basis. No criminal charges were forwarded. No criminal record.

R. v. S.M. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats (domestic).
Issue: Given the circumstances of the incident and our client's background, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Considering our client's unblemished history awaiting trial,  Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to withdraw the charge. No criminal record.

R. v. M.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Assault; Breach of undertaking.
Issue: Whether the complaint met the Crown's charge approval standard. Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the breach charge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown on our client's behalf which, ultimately, resulted in Crown not approving any charge on the sexual assault complaint and agreeing to a 12 month peace bond on the breach charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – Creston Provincial Court

Charge: Possession of a prohibited weapon for a dangerous purpose.
Issue: Given our client's background and the context of the offence, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that culminated in Crown's agreement to refer our client into the Alternative Measures Program. No criminal record.

R. v. S.S.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide relevant information to Crown on our client's behalf which resulted in Crown entering a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

M.S. – UBC Academic Misconduct Investigation

Charge: Our client was investigated for theft of pharmaceuticals while on a job placement assignment.
Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the university to expel our client from furthe studies at UBC.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to guide our client through the investigation process and was able to convince the faculty to allow our client to continue studying. Rather than proceeding to a discipline hearing, the matter was concluded.

R. v. V.M.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Attempted Murder; Assault with a weapon; Assault causing bodily harm.
Issue: Whether our client had the requisite mental intent to be convicted of attempted murder.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to present Crown counsel with relevant medical and background information that ultimately persuaded Crown to resolve this matter on the less offence of assault causing bodily harm. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the trail judge sentenced our client to 90 days jail and 3 years probation rather than the lengthy jail sentence Crown had originally sought.

R. v. M.G. – Nanaimo Provincial Court

Charges: Break and Enter; Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that the Crown lacked the necessary evidence to gain a conviction. On the eve of the trial, Crown entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the firearm into the trial, the court will find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Possession

In many situations, people are arrested on firearms charges with the firearm not directly in their possession. For example, a handgun might be in the glovebox or trunk of the car. It might be that the accused is not driving their own car but, rather, the car of a friend or relative. In these situations, absent any incriminating confession, it may be possible to argue that the accused had no knowledge of the firearm or that they had no control over it. As experienced defence lawyers, we understand the high standard that the law requires when prosecuting weapons offences. We are dedicated to protecting our client’s rights.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect