r/canadaguns • u/GhostProtocolGaming • Mar 12 '26

News / Politics / Activism Stand on Guard - Conservative Party of Canada

https://www.conservative.ca/stand-on-guard-2/

The bill makes important changes to Section 34 of the Criminal Code so that force is presumed to be justified if used against an illegal intruder. Conservatives first announced the ‘Stand on Guard’ principle back in August, asking the government to introduce legislation in the fall session.

267 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

235 comments sorted by

View all comments

44

u/DoYouGetSarcasm Mar 12 '26

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

an illegal intruder

I haven't read the specifics but how do you know if someone is illegally intruding? Do they have to be convicted of something after the fact? I would want some deep thought out into his to word it better so it applies to any intruder unless they are proven to be legitimate.

41

u/GhostProtocolGaming Mar 12 '26

In Ontario, an "illegal intruder" (or trespasser) is defined as any person who enters a property without permission, lawful justification, or legal authority. This includes individuals who enter a dwelling-house (home) either through force or by using a temporarily open, unlocked, or partially opened entrance.

18

u/Nearby_Purchase_8672 Mar 12 '26

Definitely important to know how it is defined, and that this doesn't exclude because a door was unlocked

12

u/LongRoadNorth Mar 12 '26

The issue in Canada isn't what the law says is legal force or not. Because contrarily to what the conservatives say you do have the right to protect yourself.

The problem is cops lay charges regardless and then it's up to you to go through all the court proceedings to prove your innocence.

The more important and beneficial change needs to come in the way the police issue charges more than what the law actually is in regards to defending yourself. They charge before they even investigate when it comes to defending yourself in your home. That needs to change.

Because even if we had this stand your ground law, there will be plenty of times it's abused or used when it shouldn't be and you'd still be charged.

3

u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26

The problem is absolutely the law, not just police procedure.

Right now in Canada under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, self-defence is written in a vague, multi-factor test that gets interpreted after the fact by courts. That’s exactly why police lay charges so often the law gives them no clear standard in the moment. If the legal threshold is unclear, officers err on the side of charging and let the courts sort it out.

That’s precisely why a clearer framework like what the main topic poster posted is objectively a step forward. Laws modeled after things like Stand-your-ground law or stronger castle doctrine principles create clearer presumptions for lawful self-defence. When the law clearly states that a person defending themselves in their home is presumed justified, it reduces the ambiguity that leads to automatic charges.

We don't necessarily need a full on copy paste of stand your ground, but we certainly need to review our current system because punishing the victims in a home invasion is fucked up.

Also specifically the “it might be abused” argument isn’t serious. Every law can be abused, fraud laws, assault laws, even the current self-defence law. That’s why courts exist. The possibility of misuse isn’t a reason to keep a system where law-abiding victims risk being treated like criminals for protecting themselves.

Fixing police procedure alone doesn’t work when the underlying legal standard is ambiguous.

2

u/Del1c1on Mar 12 '26

The laws in our country around arrests and charging definetely ties the hands of police. This also includes releasing post arrest. Part of the reason we have so many repeat offenders is that unless criteria are met police and the courts have to release them with a court date.

It is absolutely ridiculous that someone would have to prove their innocence when it's supposed to be on the crown to prove guilt. Either way I would rather risk losing in court than not taking action at all and risk my family.

2

u/penny-acre-01 Mar 12 '26

Does "property" include land? Would this mean someone can shoot me if I accidentally cross their property line?

I suppose the key is in the word "presumed" which doesn't exclude someone for being tried, it just doesn't force everyone to go to court unless the crown choses to press charges? Is that it?

3

u/SummersPilgrim Mar 12 '26

Canadian laws tend to be written with the annoying up-to-interpretation term "reasonable", and I imagine this one would be the same. The factors most likely to be considered are intent and knowledge of both parties involved (specifically at the time of the incident), as well as the proportionality of the action taken.

Is A aware they were entering B's property? Were there any visual or verbal warnings issued by B to A? Did B give A reasonable time to comply to those warnings? Did B have any knowledge or suspicion of A's intentions?

Proportionality matters too. A walking across a little bit of B's lawn to get home faster is a lot different from A kicking down B's door at midnight. If B responds with an extreme escalation to violence when A has been non-violent, apologetic and compliant, that's going to be a major factor.

I too would prefer more specific language, but let's be realistic - Anyone that's unhinged enough to shoot you, no questions asked, for mistakenly crossing their properly line is not waiting for a law to be introduced to allow them to do that. They'd do it either way. (And they should be locked up for life if they do.)

2

u/Visible_Bar_6774 Mar 12 '26

I’m not particularly familiar with the case law, maybe one of the lawyers that frequents the sub will chime in. My understanding is that you’ve got good odds of being acquitted in a home invasion case if they are beyond the threshold of the home, but that this doesn’t extend to the whole property. I think the justification is that once someone passes the threshold they reasonably constitute a threat to the occupants.

2

u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26

My understanding is that you’ve got good odds of being acquitted in a home invasion case if they are beyond the threshold of the home, but that this doesn’t extend to the whole property. I think the justification is that once someone passes the threshold they reasonably constitute a threat to the occupants.

Not a lawyer but the bigger issue is also that the person who defends themselves / their families gets dragged through months of court, has to pay crazy fines and deals with their life getting flipped.

Ask yourself this, could you drop six figures in lawyer fees tomorrow and put your life on hold for 6 months?

Sure you MIGHT get acquitted but that isn't gonna fix the process.

1

u/CorsicanMastiffStrip Mar 13 '26

That would be good. We do have to be careful with how it ends up defined as we should by no means be allowing someone to cause injury to someone who made a reasonable mistake and was not threatening. Someone accidentally entering someone's land is not a threat. But a stranger in your home who won't leave absolutely is.

1

u/Visible_Bar_6774 Mar 13 '26

I don’t know, I’ve never mistakenly walked into a strangers home, reasonable to assume a threat. How do you propose someone, in the midst of a home invasion, determines whether the invader is a threat? A stranger in mine will be met with 1oz centre mass.

1

u/CorsicanMastiffStrip Mar 13 '26

That’s why I said “land”, not home.

-4

u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 12 '26

Not a fan of that, how am I supposed to know if a cop got the wrong address and broke into my house vs a criminal.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[deleted]

4

u/mbncolr Mar 12 '26 edited Mar 12 '26

Remember the case of Basil Parasiris in Quebec years back. Police raided a mans home, they didn’t announce they were police. Man defended his home, Officer passed away and the man was acquitted.
Edited* Ended up getting 20 months though cause he had an illegal firearm

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[deleted]

1

u/mbncolr Mar 12 '26

🙌🏼

1

u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 12 '26

Yes because no one will ever impersonate a police officer

2

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 13 '26

No my point is that if I defend my house and accidentally shoot a cop who is acting legally by their knowledge but is wrong I shouldn’t be charged

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Canada-throwaway2636 Mar 14 '26

Like I said it’s my only issue with this definition. A cop by all rights could legally enter my house because he believes that there is a legal reason to enter my home. But none of us are psychic so we don’t know at 2 am if it s a criminal saying they’re a cop or a real cop if they even announce themselves to begin with

1

u/FromDeepestFathom Mar 12 '26

It’s your own home, anyone you do not permit to be in there.

But the clowns writing the legislation will somehow mess it up, or the clowns arresting, or the clowns judging. Clowns all the way down really.

0

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 12 '26

Oh please. Its token month where the CPC pretends we exist. This is a not thought through nothing burger.

If there's an intruder and your life is threatened you can do what this "bill" says. Its a waste of time.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Lumindan Mar 12 '26

Dont worry about that, worry about shooty shooty the dark figure in the doorway

That argument is basically a movie-script scenario pretending to be a legal point. Canada already recognizes the right to defend yourself under Section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The issue people are raising isn’t “shoot anything that moves in the dark.” It’s that the current system often second-guesses victims after the fact instead of clearly protecting them when they act reasonably against an actual threat.

Shit its my dad

Thats a lazy strawman. By that logic nobody should ever defend themselves from anything because maybe they’re mistaken. The law already requires that a person’s belief in a threat be reasonable in the circumstances. If someone blindly fires at shadows, that obviously wouldn’t meet that standard. That’s already covered.

and the real sad part is that criminals already ignore the law. The only people left navigating the legal grey zone are the victims; but fuck them I guess?

1

u/canadaguns-ModTeam Mar 13 '26

In accordance with the subreddit rules, your post/comment has been removed for the following reason:

[9] Trolling/Spam/Disruptive Behaviour

https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaguns/wiki/rules/#wiki.5B9.5D_trolling.2Fspam.2Fdisruptive_behaviour

If you believe a mistake was made, please feel free to message the moderators. Please include a link to the removed post.