Surrey boy, 13, brings loaded gun to school, gets 6 months ‘custodial’ sentence in community

[TU Curmudgeon]

From The Surrey Leader

Surrey boy, 13, brings loaded gun to school, gets 6 months ‘custodial’ sentence in community​

A 13-year-old Surrey boy who brought a loaded handgun to his school has been dealt a six-month “custodial sentence served in the community” to be followed by six months probation.

The boy, whose identity is shielded by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm without holding a licence.

Surrey provincial court Judge Satinder Sidhu found that while the boy “exercised extremely poor decision-making and judgment, there is no evidence that he had any malicious intent or nefarious purpose in taking the gun to school. The consensus is that (the boy) took the gun to impress others and to post on social media.”

Th court heard that on Nov. 18, 2022 the boy brought a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handgun to his Surrey high school, the name of which has not been revealed. It was stashed in his backpack, he passed it to a friend, posted photos on social media and shot it in a wooded area.

After he got caught, the court heard, the boy told his principal he brought the gun to school because he “thought it would be cool to show people,” Sidhu noted.

COMMENT:-

DumbKids Without Borders strikes again? I wonder if he thinks it's so "cool" now?​

​

PS - I'm sure that the kids father is going to find SOME way of getting the kid to make restitution for the other 25 legally owned guns that the father used to have but which ended up being seized because of the kid's stupidity​

 

[Grand Mal]

From The Surrey Leader

Surrey boy, 13, brings loaded gun to school, gets 6 months ‘custodial’ sentence in community​

A 13-year-old Surrey boy who brought a loaded handgun to his school has been dealt a six-month “custodial sentence served in the community” to be followed by six months probation.

The boy, whose identity is shielded by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm without holding a licence.

Surrey provincial court Judge Satinder Sidhu found that while the boy “exercised extremely poor decision-making and judgment, there is no evidence that he had any malicious intent or nefarious purpose in taking the gun to school. The consensus is that (the boy) took the gun to impress others and to post on social media.”

Th court heard that on Nov. 18, 2022 the boy brought a Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handgun to his Surrey high school, the name of which has not been revealed. It was stashed in his backpack, he passed it to a friend, posted photos on social media and shot it in a wooded area.

After he got caught, the court heard, the boy told his principal he brought the gun to school because he “thought it would be cool to show people,” Sidhu noted.

COMMENT:-

DumbKids Without Borders strikes again? I wonder if he thinks it's so "cool" now?​

​

PS - I'm sure that the kids father is going to find SOME way of getting the kid to make restitution for the other 25 legally owned guns that the father used to have but which ended up being seized because of the kid's stupidity​

Yeesh. I grew up in Surrey, in the west Whalley area. Went to Queen E, PM.
Place has changed a lot.

 

[JMB1911A1]

From the article:

... All of his dad’s 25 lawfully owned guns have been seized by police since the school incident, the judge noted, with “the cooperation” of his family.

The boy says he secretly took the gun and ammo from his father’s safe without consent and took it to school to impress people, Sidhu noted.

So, because the boy basically stole the gun, the father loses his rights and property? That is pretty f***ed up.

 

[madman]

From the article:


So, because the boy basically stole the gun, the father loses his rights and property? That is pretty f***ed up.

if you're not responsible for your bang bangs! then you deserve the consequences.

 

[element94]

From the article:


So, because the boy basically stole the gun, the father loses his rights and property? That is pretty f***ed up.

Think of what could have happened. The father should have made sure they were secure. This is the type of irresponsibility that gets people killed. Do nothing, then? SMH

 

[JMB1911A1]

if you're not responsible for your bang bangs! then you deserve the consequences.

He was responsible. The guns were locked up. The boy had a Minor permit.

 

[madman]

Think of what could have happened. The father should have made sure they were secure. This is the type of irresponsibility that gets people killed. Do nothing, then? SMH

responsible gun owners until they are NOT!

 

[madman]

He was responsible. The guns were locked up. The boy had a Minor permit.

obviously they were not secure. Now here comes all of the excuses.

 

[element94]

obviously they were not secure. Now here comes all of the excuses.

Yeah, if dad was OK with him taking it to school, he should have been there with him, supervising.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

From the article:

So, because the boy basically stole the gun, the father loses his rights and property? That is pretty f***ed up.

Nope.

The father lost the guns because he hadn't properly secured them. Depending on what the father does he might still get them back.

I seem to recall one or two cases in the US where parents are facing criminal charges because they failed to properly secure their firearms and their kids took their guns to school.

PS - What the DumbKid did would have been a felony in the US and that would have meant that the DumbKid would have lost his rights to own guns for the rest of his life. Now (other than the six month period in which he is prohibited from "possessing any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada) he just has to wait until he is 18 and isn't allowed to possess firearms without adult supervision for the same period of time.

PPS - Even if he hadn't taken his guns to school, DumbKid would not have been allowed to own firearms until he was 18 and wouldn't have been allowed to possess firearms without adult supervision until he was 18. So which country has the stricter "gun control laws" - the one that says he can't own guns for life or the one that says that (except for a six month period) he has the same rights to own/possess guns as any other person of his age?

 

[Grand Mal]

He was responsible. The guns were locked up. The boy had a Minor permit.

Minor permit is for rifles. Handguns are restricted. You need a separate permit for restricted weapons.
That's my understanding.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He was responsible. The guns were locked up. The boy had a Minor permit.

He had a "Minor Possession’s Licence for Firearms which allows children 12 to 17 years old to borrow non-restricted firearms and use them “in accordance with the supervisory conditions attached to the licence.".

But, of course, you didn't read that far in the article and even if you did, you don't want to admit that a "Minor Possession’s Licence for Firearms" does NOT APPLY to handguns and doe NOT WAIVE the supervisory conditions attached to the licence" the way that you would like to imply that it does.

 

[madman]

He had a "Minor Possession’s Licence for Firearms which allows children 12 to 17 years old to borrow non-restricted firearms and use them “in accordance with the supervisory conditions attached to the licence.".

But, of course, you didn't read that far in the article and even if you did, you don't want to admit that a "Minor Possession’s Licence for Firearms" does NOT APPLY to handguns and doe NOT WAIVE the supervisory conditions attached to the licence" the way that you would like to imply that it does.

he hasnt responded. I think he knows he's on the wrong side of the facts here.

 

[Donatello]

From the article:


So, because the boy basically stole the gun, the father loses his rights and property? That is pretty f***ed up.

Not at all. That's what SHOULD happen when you can't secure your firearms. Dad lost his guns because of his son. Too bad. I doubt it will be a problem for them going forward.

 

[JMB1911A1]

he hasnt responded. I think he knows he's on the wrong side of the facts here.

No, I was getting lunch.

Personally, I am just glad that I don’t live in Canada. I find the majority of the laws to be too obtrusive.

The truth is none of us know, based on the article, how the boy got the gun. He admitted taking it without the father’s knowledge.
- Was it not locked up?
- Did the boy know the combo to the safe? How? Was he given it? Did he watch his father and memorize it?