The Canadian Castle Law Petition deserves more than 1075 signatures… this law helps Canadians protect their homes and families in multiple ways, and the idea transcends politics and opinions. Please sign this petition.

150

u/TEC-DC9 Mar 13 '26

There is a proper process for creating a petition in Canada. The website change.org is not part of it.

32

u/M3NUTN Mar 13 '26

Yes I'll chip in $7 to reach the petition goal

No I'll share it instead

Change.org is such a scummy website.

64

u/ItchYouCannotReach Mar 13 '26

Change.org petitions are a massive waste of time. Use the actual petition system in place for Parliament if you're going to try to push this issue

6

u/Thegears89 Mar 13 '26

I learnt that official government petitions don't work in this country. After the May 2020 "assault rifle ban" was announced the largest petition in Canadian history was made and it did nothing

2

u/altiuscitiusfortius Mar 14 '26

How many signatures did it get?

5

u/Thegears89 Mar 14 '26

Record Signature Count: Reports at the time indicated it had garnered over 230,000 total signatures, while final, verified, and certified counts often cited 175,310 for the petition.

This was petition (e-2341) which was against the OIC in 2020

2

u/altiuscitiusfortius Mar 14 '26

I think the anti "alberta separatist" petition last year got half a million.

175k is still a lot though.

It was worth considering. I believe anything over 10k needs to be considered in the usa.

3

u/Thegears89 Mar 15 '26

This was also in 2020. So at the time. Not currently

26

u/Spacemanspiff1998 on Mar 13 '26

The Canadian Criminal code does not define what is "reasonable force" because reasonable force is not something you can easily measure. The idea is that what is and what isn't reasonable force will be decided after the thought in a court of law by judge and jury. Section 34 of the Criminal code goes over self defense if you want to learn more

also if you want to create a petition change.org is designed to be ignored by government, use the house of common's petition system instead where it'll be officially ignored by government

3

u/hatethelcbo Mar 14 '26

I think what the spirit of the bill is, that when someone breaks into your home…..any force is reasonable.

No educated human on the face of the earth can argue that. My home is where my kids should feel safe. You break into my home…..whatever happens next is on you

2

u/i-Hermit Mar 15 '26

Not "any" force.. I think Runkle said the test should be that the level of force "shocks the conscience". That seems reasonable to me. So you wouldn't be able to tie an intruder up and torture them to death. But yeah, it should allow for deadly force.

48

u/Agonizing-Stroke1812 Mar 13 '26

The people most likely to support this are the least likely to volunteer their information

43

u/-rifle-is-fine- Mar 13 '26

I would want to see a section on home defense added to the PAL course though. The accidents that happen in the States with shit like shooting a person using your driveway to turn around, I would bet money on, are probably not people that would pass a safety course like we have to.

Castle Law is a freedom that could be done responsibly.

12

u/dannysmackdown Mar 13 '26

Yup. You need to know your shit to even entertain the idea in the first place. Lots of variables at play and you must be proficient in the use of your firearms.

17

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 13 '26

This is what I keep saying. As much as I think self defense is a right and its a valid reason to own a gun, a lot of people have no idea of what the realities of that are, and a lot of people have "educated" them selves on it watching Americans on YouTube.

4

u/hitmanhux Mar 13 '26

100%. Although the Canadian govt doesn't recognize self defense as an acceptable reason to own a gun. But yes, I carried a gun for a living for many years (legally of course) and the amount of "professionals" who can barely pass the rediculously easy qualifications is staggering.

2

u/-rifle-is-fine- Mar 13 '26

I saw pictures of a local police shooting range. A ton of pock marks from errant rounds. Very few marks at the local gun club.

There must be something different between police training and black badge.

5

u/dannysmackdown Mar 13 '26

Yeah, it's an issue no doubt.

2

u/hitmanhux Mar 13 '26

I get the theory but there's a 0% chance they will make self-defense a legit reason to own a firearm in this current climate. Plus, self defense isn't always with a gun per se.

1

u/-rifle-is-fine- Mar 13 '26

The thinking is in reverse.

Castle Law does not specifically mean giving gun ownership a new valid reason. Inadvertently, gun owners are just going to use those items if Castle Law comes around and we could defend our homes more easily. One could crank an invader in the head with a hammer as the OP suggests too.

Castle Law has nothing to do with firearms at its core.

2

u/hitmanhux Mar 13 '26

I completely agree and that's what my comment alludes to. Not everyone takes a firearms course who may use castle law.

You also cannot add a section about castle law in a firearms safety course without giving gun owner ship a valid reason. Now, a separate class on "use of force models" and force application I can get behind.

For further clarity, when you apply for your PAL, one of the question they ask is "why do you wsnt to own a firearm". If the answer is "self defense" you're denied. Therefore, in order to include castle law in a PAL course self defense MUST be an acceptable reason to own a firearm .

Hopefully that clarifies my point

1

u/Jeepking0831 Mar 14 '26

You guys are such pussies and sheep this is why Canadian gun owner are in the situation we are in. Just like in America it is the responsibility of the individual to make the correct judgement call regarding a self defence scenario or there will be heavy legal consequences just like in American. You think a little course is Going to stop people from doing stupid shit?

It’s is the responsibility of an individual to be a competent gun owner period.

Guns and self defence should be a basic human right in a free country

No one is going to tell me I can’t protect my family cause I didn’t take a government approved course.

10

u/TheRealTwooni Mar 13 '26

These petitions are nothing more than shouting for change in a cave. Sounds great. Does nothing.

6

u/nikechristo Mar 13 '26

I'm not sure how effective a Change.org petition would be. It'd be best to create a petition on ourcommons here - https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Home/Index - and get an MP to sponsor it.I know it's not easy to get an MP to sponsor but this may actually bring a real change than change.org which will likely be ignored.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '26

[deleted]

2

u/gspotcowboy Mar 13 '26

It's also a water soluble neurotoxin. Oops. I got extra in the intruder's mouth.

Don't let your pets near it or water sources near where you spray it!

5

u/StumpedTrump Mar 13 '26 edited Mar 13 '26

This opens a huge can of worms. Right now “self defence” is not a valid reason for 99.9% of people. I doubt anyone here is in that 0.01%, IIRC it’s a few hundred people for deep-wilderness (against animal threat only) and a few (count on one hand) for armed protection outside of employment. Pretty sure “few” is just judges/prosecutors and witness protection in EXTREME circumstances where hired protection or police aren’t even sufficient.

Allowing stand-your-ground requires a complete shift in legislature and communication surrounding gun ownership, not just usage.

Then you have the issue of storage. Any reasonable expectation of firearm use for protection requires easy access to a loaded firearm. Not possible here. So you have to update storage laws as well.

This isn’t an “itty bitty little law change”, it’s a full overhaul of everything front to back. And honestly, that’s not happening in any near future, especially through a change.org petition and ESPECIALLY while statistics around gun violence down south are so bad. Most people look south and see “what we could become” if firearm laws loosen at all. You’re fighting an uphill battle here.

There’s no way police and social-workers are letting this happen easily either. I’m sure they’re quite happy walking into houses with moderate expectation that a loaded firearm probably isn’t present.

2

u/Terrorcuda17 Mar 13 '26

Thank you for being the first person to bring up the storage issue. I have a farm with livestock and my firearms are primarily for their protection. That being said it takes me about a minute to grab my keys, get to my safe, get a gun, open my ammo safe, grab ammo and be on my way.

During a home invasion, getting a gun is going to be the last thing on my mind, because no home invader is going to give me a 60 second head start.

Hilariously I do have two spears sitting out that are grab and go ready. Canines are our primary concern and a pokey stick will do just fine. On the other hand pokey sticks would be good against 2 legged predators as well.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 13 '26

No. There are examples of stand your ground laws going poorly in the states. I have yet to see a story of a home owner defending themselves INSIDE their home that was grossly unjustified.

There is a big difference between castle law, a law that is accepted across all 50 states and most of Europe, and stand your ground laws. The asshole shooting an Uber eats driver for knocking on the wrong door is not defending them selves under castle law.

6

u/karmatiger Mar 13 '26

there a bajillions of examples of castle law going poorly south of the border. Stories like this one are all too common:

https://abcnews.com/US/dad-allegedly-kills-daughter-mistaking-intruder-reports/story?id=82002874

4

u/i-Hermit Mar 13 '26

Oh fuck, that's tragic.

The article does say no charges had been filed, but it was referred to the prosecutors office for review.

Killing your daughter then going to jail.. second level hell stuff there. I dunno.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this qualifies as castle law there.. or under what proponents of castle law here want. Would be curious if someone knew.

Regardless.. people use firearms in self defense in Canada, so this could have happened here too. Castle law is how we deal with what comes after the shots are fired.

Would castle law apply here (or there)? Maybe, or maybe not. In the moment, when you believe there's an intruder in your home, I doubt very much the average person is thinking about the application of reasonable force or whatever else. They're using what they have available to defend themselves and their families. God help them if they're not right though.

-1

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 13 '26

Castle law as its purposed in Canada would not apply here, it wasn't in the house. It says the father shot her in the garage.

1

u/karmatiger Mar 13 '26

the gymnastics you do to say "not castle law" embarrasses you

-1

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 14 '26

I'm not wrong so what your point.

1

u/karmatiger Mar 14 '26

You are wrong. Under most states' castle doctrines an attached garage is considered within a home's curtilage and therefore part of your dwelling. As shown in the photos in the article I graciously provided you, despite your inability to grasp it, the garage in question is an attached one.

The times American castle doctrine hasn't applied in a garage is when it's detached.

But you're trying so hard to rationalise that Canada ought to have these laws that you're twisting them to fit your fantasy of how you think they work, rather than listening to someone who has lived under those laws.

JFC you're tedious.

1

u/i-Hermit Mar 14 '26

Again, castle laws apply to what happens afterwards. If you think there's an intruder in your house, are you going to think to yourself "oh, we don't have castle laws so I'd better not use a firearm"?

America has cultural, social, and training issues around firearms, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have castle laws in Canada. Anyone with access to a firearm is going to use it to defend themselves if they think their life depends on it. They shouldn't have their life turned upside down and face potential jail time and massive legal bills for doing so. There will be tragic examples like this, but these were going to happen regardless. That's where training comes in.

1

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 14 '26

I hate how we can't have a conversation about minor changes to our laws and attitude to self defense with out people arguing this hyperbolic fallacy that it will immediately turn into a "Texas" style murder for fun scenario. These people aren't arguing in good faith, they just don't agree with it because it doesn't concern them or they are so politically tribal their against the discussion because its not in aligned with their preferred party's politics.

Every counter arguement is just some example of someone committing murder out side of their home in the states, often these case end up in the person being charged, convicted or facing lawsuits in civil court.

The US has problem because people don't understand their laws, think they have rights that they don't have and have very poor firearms laws.

The whole idea of self defense, especially with a firearm, is so taboo in Canada that people don't actually know what their legally allowed to do or have access to training on how to be prepared in this type of situation, which focus on avoiding conflict. But it doesn't change the fact that home invasions happen and people will respond, it just means we have to waste court resources determining if its justified, and as the people who support our current laws keep pointing out, people are rarely convicted for acting in self defense, so why is it necessary to do this whole song and dance and pretend self defense isn't a right and something people should consider. Its no different then having plans and preparation for fires and natural disaster, its just emergency response.

1

u/karmatiger Mar 14 '26

Harper clarified Canadians rights to defend themselves in 2013. There is a 9 point checklist the courts use to determine a person's right to self defense, and legal analysts say it gives Canadians a stronger right to self defense than even many US states.

What PP's "conservatives" are calling "castle laws" for Canada is the presumption that any violence against a presumed intruder is justified. Which is a mechanism that can be abused six ways to sunday. But that's what you're defending.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26

My issue is the general definition of castle law still relies on the reasonable force doctrine. Which means we have it in all but the name.

4

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 13 '26

The issue is that we charge people and let courts sort it out when the majority of situations the police investigation should be able to determine if its self defense.

A man climbs on to the roof of a building, breaks into an apartment through a window with a load cross bow, gets into an altercation with the home owner, gets stabbed. It shouldn't take 9 months in court for our system to decide if that self defense.

The other issue is reasonable and proportional defense is just defined off vibes. No one can tell you what is reasonable and you may think you acted reasonable and the court disagrees. Under castle law you use of force is reasonable as long as your not using it on someone who is fleeing, surrendered, in retaliation etc. "Some one broke into your house, you confronted them, they didn't flee or surrender, maybe even escalated the situation, you shot them, the coroner is on the way, thank you for your statement, would you like to speak to victim services?"

Under Canada's law the response you make can and will be picked a part in court to see if it was reasonable and proportional. " someone broke in to your house, you confronted them, why did you confront them? Did they tell you why they were there? Could you see that they were armed? So they had a hammer, but you had a gun, so why did you not shoot them in the leg or arm?" So on and so on, and eventually after months of this bullshit the crown will drop all charges and you get left with a nice pile of legal fees, on top of all the other shit that comes with it.

1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26

A man climbs on to the roof of a building, breaks into an apartment through a window with a load cross bow, gets into an altercation with the home owner, gets stabbed. It shouldn't take 9 months in court for our system to decide if that self defense.

It took 9 months because the guy that was defending his home has a prior convictions for assault with a weapon and went to prison. Believe it or not I have no problem with it taking longer for criminals to get checked out in situations like that and the apartment owner was a criminal.

Under castle law you use of force is reasonable as long as your not using it on someone who is fleeing, surrendered, in retaliation etc.

That's terrible. You would have to prove that he wasn't fleeing, surrendering or in retaliation. Even then most Castle laws have a reasonable force component. That's why that guy in the states was sent to prison for killing a woman who pulled into his driveway despite the state having castle laws.

9 times out of 10 the crown drops the charges before a court date. You just don't hear about those times.

Our self defence laws are reasonable.

1

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 14 '26

Shooting some one in your driveway way is not castle law, he was never protected by it to begin with.

A prior felony should have NO bearing on your RIGHT to defend yourself in your home. Did the guy go to jail like 20 years prior? We have to respect the right and life of h9me intruders but the courts can destroy this guys life for a crime he served time over decades before and was rehabilitated?

6

u/__phil1001__ Mar 13 '26

Knowing how inaccurate a shootout can be with trained professionals, a home with a panicking homeowner is likely to shoot through walls and possibly into the street causing more casualties. I am not convinced that this is a good idea. Down south when they have a school shooting, the idea of teachers having guns, shooting back possibly into neighbouring classrooms and then swat arriving and seeing everyone with a gun is just stupid.

2

u/i-Hermit Mar 13 '26

Having castle laws isn't going to make people suddenly feel like they're able to use firearms in a home invasion situation. They we going to do it regardless, because as you say, the average panicking homeowner (with a PAL) is going to reach for whatever they have to defend themselves. Castle law deals with what comes after the shots are fired.

-5

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26

Yea even in the states you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than an intruder.

I don't know. Unless someones life is actively being threatened I don't support this kind of thing.

Did you see that video of the woman in Florida opening fire on a group of people that broke in and stole dogs she was breeding? She shot up that neighborhood and called it self defense. I don't want that here.

3

u/hitmanhux Mar 13 '26

That's just a BS statistic that anti-gun people use to fear monger. YOU are not more likely to shoot a family member, I'm sure you know how to identify your own loved ones.

Family members do get shot however because the US has no storage laws and loaded guns sitting at the bedside are picked up by kids. Our current firearms storage laws would still exist, as they should.

I think if someone breaks in your house at 3am it's perfectly reasonable to assume they are armed and are causing you harm. Someone who defends their family in their own home should never see the inside of a cell, nor have to spend $1 in legal fees

-1

u/The_King_of_Canada mb Mar 13 '26

I think if someone breaks in your house at 3am it's perfectly reasonable to assume they are armed and are causing you harm

What if it's just your neighbour stumbling in drunk and in the wrong house? What if your teenage kid snuck out to a party and you only heard him get back into the house?

Laws like this make situations like this more common. Which means more people getting hit with stray gunfire.

Our current law is fine. If they are threatening your life you use reasonable force. 9 times out of 10 self defence cases don't make it to the courtroom.

1

u/bumsaxk Mar 13 '26

Everyone on here acting like if castle law was enacted it would turn into the Wild West. Home owners shoot intruders all the time in castle states and still have to go through investigations. The likelihood of someone shooting at a person turning around in their driveway is very slim, let alone killing them unlawfully and not being charged. Its a gun culture issue we see in the states not their laws.

2

u/Murray3-Dvideos Mar 13 '26

It's not a gun culture issue, it's radicalism in general.

4

u/gamercast1337 Mar 13 '26

Id love castle law in canada but youre gonna need more people being murdered in house break-ins before the non gun crowd begins to consider it.

So once again for anything good to happen in canada the people need to suffer more to change their mind. Its like it's a common trend in liberal countries that this happens 🤔

3

u/donzi39vrz Mar 13 '26

That is just how government works as a whole. It has nothing to todo with liberal or conservative places. Governments will not act on a single incident unless it fits an existing agenda or is a major issue they can get behind to get votes. That is both a good and a bad thing. Making law changes for every bad thing or rare incidents is not smart. Waiting till half the population is pissed off is not smart either.

3

u/RadiantCoast6147 Mar 13 '26

they still wouldn’t consider it if there 100,000 home invasion killings. they’d give the typical response of “call the police, it’s their job, it’s why they carry guns”

0

u/hitmanhux Mar 13 '26

Followed by "he was broke/desperate/on drugs you should have just given him your possessions"

2

u/HappyCan7250 Mar 13 '26

I encourage you to go take your CFSC and get your firearms license, seeing as currently self defense is not a "reasonable" reason to own a firearm in the eyes of our government, it's also a very fun hobby and a fun skill to develop. Unfortunately the Liberals don't believe in citizens defending themselves, as they've said many times "it's not the wild west!", although in some neighborhoods, it practically is.

The Conservatives at least have been talking about castle law, but we won't see it under the Liberals unfortunately. I think we may see it one day, but it will take a Conservative majority in order for it to ever happen.

4

u/Barbarian_818 Mar 13 '26

FWIW, the Canadian courts have held, for decades, that carrying *anything* with the express purpose of self defense is "a purpose dangerous to the public peace". And the use of force to protect property has always been frowned on by police, legislators and the judiciary. (1)

So even legislation expressly permitting the use of force to defend your family and home against intruders may not be enough. From bits I have picked up watching Runkle of the Bailey, I gather that such things are highly subject to something most of the public knows nothing about.

The courts in every province have guideline documents and internal policies that dictate how litigants can file, what standards of evidence are in play and so on. Those internal policies have a lot of influence on how a judge weighs whether force used in self defense or defense of property. I think advocating to have those guidelines amended is something to be looked into.

(1) I understand the logic. Human life, even the life of a man who has come into your home and used the threat of force to deprive you of your property, is more valuable than the property itself. And from the police perspective, it's better to let the perp grab n' go than to do anything that prolongs and escalates the encounter. But my stance is that I am not the one who created a potentially fatal situation. But I am damned well going to flip the script if I get a chance.

4

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Mar 13 '26

The issue is, there are people, and in my experience they don't own guns and are often fat cowards on Facebook, who think they should have the "right" to attack someone who is stealing from their shed or rummage around a unlocked car. They believe castle law or stand your ground laws give them the right to punish and execute.

People also conflict castle law with stand your ground laws. So when they try to argue against these laws, they use example from the US where people acted outside of their home in some heinous way. Why its so hard to understand that castle law mean defending your self inside your home i do not understand.

The biggest issue with this discussion is there are two groups of assholes, people who have no idea what their talking about but basically want legal immunity to punish criminals and people who insist on pushing this hyperbolic fallacy that any adjustments or clarification to our self defense laws will lead to a fiction version of "texas"

The reality is the flaw in our law is that the investigation is done by prosecution in a court room where they try to find an angle that makes you guilty if a crime. The change should limit the amount of time that the court has on deciding on these manors and/or give police the mandate to not press charges in a clear cut case.

Our laws are not flawed, but the way our system uses them is. No one should have to spend thousands of dollars and 9 months in court fighting a prosecutor who insists on trying to find some reason you actions weren't justified just because you were forced into a confrontation with an unknown home intruder at 3am.

0

u/Imaginary-Text4690 Mar 13 '26

What if the “perp” isn’t just looking to steal. What if the perp is looking to rape your family and kill you guys in your sleep. For fun. Idk about you but there’s plenty of fucking freaks that’ll do stuff like that for fun. Someone I hadn’t seen since 6th grade just got arrested recently after multiple home invasions and attempted rapes on elderly. This is a 22 year old black guy. Idk I’m from the states so it might just be different but if someone’s coming into my house I’m assuming the worst, not that there just gonna “grab and go”

1

u/gwhh Mar 13 '26

Good luck guys.

-1

u/mantafloppy Mar 13 '26

The Conservative "stand your ground" bill is fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Here's the actual law.

Before anyone says "finally we can defend our homes", you already can. Let me save you the rabbit hole.

1. The burden of proof is already on the Crown.

The accused never has to prove self-defence was reasonable. The Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This is basic criminal law, confirmed by the Supreme Court.

> Source: R v Cinous, 2002 SCC 29

2. There is no duty to retreat from your home. None.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled multiple times that a jury isn't even allowed to consider whether you could have retreated from your own home. We already have a de facto castle doctrine, it just doesn't have a catchy name.

> Source: R v Forde, 2011 ONCA 592

3. Our law is already MORE permissive than U.S. Stand Your Ground.

McGill law professor Noah Weisbord, who literally wrote the academic papers on this, says Canadian law lets you "claim defensive force more easily than in the U.S." The Harper Conservatives already reformed this in 2013 (Bill C-26).

> Source: Weisbord, McGill Law Journal

4. The Collingwood case they keep citing? The law WORKED.

Cameron Gardiner shot two armed masked home invaders and the charges were dropped, under the existing law. The real problem was prosecutorial overreach and a messy situation (drug-dealing from the house, evidence removed before police arrived). A "presumption of reasonableness" in the statute wouldn't have prevented his arrest anyway. Only a prosecution immunity provision would do that — and that's not in this bill.

> Source: CBC News

TL;DR

The proposed change is legally redundant. The Crown already has to disprove reasonableness, that's not changing. What Cobena's bill won't do is stop homeowners from being arrested and charged while under investigation. Only a US-style prosecution immunity provision would do that, and nobody's proposing that.

You're being sold a solution to a problem that Harper already solved in 2013.

> Full DOJ legal breakdown: justice.gc.ca

News / Politics / Activism The Canadian Castle Law Petition deserves more than 1075 signatures… this law helps Canadians protect their homes and families in multiple ways, and the idea transcends politics and opinions. Please sign this petition.

You are about to leave Redlib