Dude! L&O in my legislation book!

[ciroccoj]

Well, OK, not really. But it looks like the Gunshow ep was not just Ripped From the Headlines from the Montreal Massacre, but from R. v. Hasselwander ([1993] 2 SCR 398), where the Supremes had to decide whether Mini-Uzi submachine guns were "prohibited weapons". I know it's more likely to have been ripped from an American case, but it's still funny to be reading a Supreme's decision and see Jack McCoy reacting to it in my mind's eye ;)

For law geeks:

In R. v. Hasselwander the Supreme Court of Canada offers a classic example of the use of purposive analysis to clarify the scope of a provision. The issue was whether a Mini-Uzi submachine gun was a "prohibited weapon" within the following definition:

(c) any firearm ... that is capable of firing bullets in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.

As it came off the assembly line, a Mini-Uzi submachine gun could not fire bullets in rapid discharge. However, by removing a certain part, something an owner could quickly and easily do, the gun could be made to fire rapidly. The trial judge thus found the gun to be readily capable, but not immediately capable, of rapid discharge. The question was whether such a gun was "capable of firing bullets in rapid succession" within the meaning of the section. Cory J. wrote:

In my view, any uncertainty as to whether the word 'capable' means either 'immediately capable' or 'readily capable', is resolved as soon as the word is interpreted in light of the purpose and goals of the prohibited weapons provisions of the Code.

Cory J. determined the "purpose and goals" of the relevant provisions through inference, relying on certain facts about automatic weapons and the preferences of Canadian society:

Let us consider for a moment the nature of automatic weapons ... These guns are designed to kill and maim a large number of people rapidly and effectively ... They are not designed for hunting any animal but man. They are not designed to test the skill and accuracy of a marksman ... There is good reason to prohibit their use in light of the threat which they pose and the limited use to which they can be put. Their prohibition ensures a safer society ...

... Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.

So yeah, so I'm sitting here reading this and seeing Jack pouring bullets onto a table. Hee.

Comments

[lonejaguar.livejournal.com]

That was like the best closing argument ever.

[misstexan9821.livejournal.com]

I remember reading an interview one time with Sam Waterston and some source (perhaps Apocrypha?) and he said one of the most memorable episodes was "Gunshow" because all the bullets left marks on the table so in each future episode, he was reminded. ;)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

...he said one of the most memorable episodes was "Gunshow" because all the bullets left marks on the table so in each future episode, he was reminded

Oh, man. Yeah, that would be memorable. ::shiver::