Long-shot appeal off target

Out in the rolling cowboy country of Saskatchewan’s southwest, does taking away a man’s guns constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

One Swift Current-area man thought so in taking aim at a decision that ordered him to give up his guns. RCMP had seized 18 long-barrelled firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition from his residences last year. Alas, a judge shot down Vincent Hurl’s unique Charter of Rights argument, dismissing his appeal.

“I am of the view that the orders were not grossly disproportionate for Mr. Hurl nor would they cause an outrage to the standards of decency held by the public,” Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Lana Krogan said in this month’s written decision, recently posted to a legal website.

Krogan said it was important to keep the context of the seizure in one’s sights.

An RCMP search of Hurl’s residences — in Swift Current and at a Simmie-area farm — turned up the cache of firearms and ammunition in April last year.

An unloaded shotgun was found under the living room couch, in front of which were children’s toys, Krogan noted. Two children, aged three and five, were occasional visitors at the Swift Current home. Police also found two 12-gauge shotgun shells on the kitchen counter along with a coffee cup containing several .204-calibre rounds of ammunition. The gun safe in Hurl’s bedroom was empty.

At the Simmie residence, a .22-calibre rifle was perched by the front entrance. Crates of ammunition were on the porch. A rifle and ammunition were in the kitchen, while police seized a 10-gauge shotgun with ammunition from the living room, which had a room off it containing a large amount of ammunition and supplies, including gun powder. An open and unlocked locker in the room held two 12-gauge shotguns, a .300 Winchester Magnum rifle, three .22-calibre rifles, a .306-calibre rifle, a .50-calibre rifle and a .270-calibre rifle.

At the time, Hurl, 40, had been on an undertaking that included a condition not to possess firearms.

Hurl pleaded guilty in November to two counts of careless storage of a firearm and ammunition — each drawing $500 fines. The prosecutor indicated the request for fines considered Hurl’s “financial and emotional investment in the firearms and that the loss of the firearms would have a significant impact on Mr. Hurl,” Krogan wrote.

The sentencing judge also ordered that the seized firearms and ammunition be forfeited to the Crown for disposal, and prohibited Hurl from having any guns for three years. He fought both those orders in his appeal, which he handled without a lawyer.

On the issue of cruel and unusual punishment, Hurl argued he had worked hard for his guns and ammunition, it was a victimless crime, and “just improper storage.” Although he claimed the loss of his guns had cost him his house, job, and truck, Krogan contended there were holes in his story.

“There was no evidence presented as to his need for the firearms and ammunition, and he made no representation as to how the orders had a particular impact on him,” she said.

While forfeiture was mandatory, the prohibition order was discretionary. The sentencing judge found there were safety concerns to warrant it. “Quite frankly, I have a grandchild and it scares the daylights out of me,” the judge commented at the time.

Krogan shared those concerns, noting the guns and ammunition were “scattered” around Hurl’s residences and in his vehicle, within reach of children.