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.

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.