A British Columbia man convicted of using a gun during a home invasion, even though the gun was actually in his car during the crime, has lost his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.I can see getting Steele on a threat charge. But "use"?
It's hard to feel any sympathy for the lowlife who lost his appeal, but the reasoning applied by Justice Fish (and if that doesn't sound like the title of an "Adult Swim" cartoon about a team of super groupers, nothing does) really stretches credibility--and takes the law in a dangerous direction for someone who may say they have a gun when in a prohibited area to protect themselves.