Ian Thomson got his guns back

- February 8th, 2013

Just heard from Ian Thomson’s lawyer, Ed Burlew, that Ian got his guns back today. This means that there is no appeal from the crown.

For those unfamiliar with the story you can read more here. Ian still has legal bills and if you can help, there are details here.

Below is my interview with Ian from last month.

See also:

VIDEO: Canada’s gun bullies are now the police brass

VIDEO: Quebec and the gun registry – Lilley and Duhaime talk truth, not lies

The fight for free speech in Canada is not over

 

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

10 comments

  1. Graham says:

    It’s about bloody time! The Krown should NEVER have pursued charges in the first place. Ian has been put out of pocket while the prosecutors get fat off the taxpayers dollars. There needs to be reparation for this mockery of our justice system!

  2. Alain says:

    While it is the only just conclusion, the court should award him his legal expenses. Otherwise this tactic will continue, since few have the means and endurance to fight back. So it remains an abuse of power no matter what.

  3. Rose says:

    Thanks for the update, giving his guns back how nice of the stasi.

  4. ron says:

    I agree with Alain. Since he has been found not guilty, then his legal expenses should not be his. The crown has unjustly tried this man. The crown PERSONALLY should pay his legal fees. Then this lunacy of victims having no rights and criminals having all the rights will stop!! WE DESERVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

  5. keith says:

    what about the money spend on lawyers? i think all these laws just benefits the lawyers.

  6. mikeack says:

    Now let’s see how long it takes the cops to comply with the judge’s decision to return to him his lawfully owned and harmlessly used personal property.

    If Jeremy Swanson’s case is any indicator, it’s gonna be a long wait.

  7. AL says:

    Well the video proves his property and life was in danger, there for we should be able to defend ourself I believe in an eye for an eye, we cant depend on police anymore so we have to defend ourself, I would of done the same thing I would of shot at them also depending on situation it might of not been warning shots, I think we should stand up to government and justice system to change the law and give us the right to defend ourself when needed

  8. Newsblaster says:

    Why can’t Thompson sue someone for costs? How about the firebombers? The law should be amended to allow victims of crime to sue the perpetrators for compensation, including costs incurred in cases like this, where he was forced to defend himself, then forced to defend the actions he took to defend himself. This guy is $60,000 in debt now, and it would be more if it were not for the NFA and the CSSA and CGN.com. Disgraceful.

  9. Misery says:

    Lets face it there is no justice.

  10. beatcop says:

    In the Thomson case, most have missed the crux:
    Those who first framed C-68, and its ancillary falsehoods, knew full well what would happen, A FEEDING FRENZY FOR LAWYERS. And it WAS intentional. Which is why Harper retains licensing.
    To think, that Thomson can’t sue the Port Colborne cops, is showing a lack of ‘due process’.

    Like Jonathan Login, in HIS case, Ontario Justice Jon Jo Douglas, found Nottawasaga OPP guilty of abuse of authority, and leveled a penalty of 1.5 million.

    So the judicial standard has been set.
    Ian Thomson, should have no problem when HE proceeds.
    It only remains for him to proceed.

Comments are closed.