New court case raises questions over firearms for self-defence
Ezra Levant is joined by firearms rights lawyer Ian Runkle to discuss a jury's verdict in a case from Toronto that saw a young man defend himself with an illegal firearm against an attacker with a knife.
A jury's verdict in a Toronto court case has sparked discussion about whether Canada's gun laws have been subtly altered by the decision. The jury acquitted the teen when faced with a murder charge after claiming he used a firearm in an act of self-defence.
The incident occurred in October 2022, when a known enemy of the teen reportedly came to his school to confront him, lunging at him with a knife. Despite illegally owning the firearm, the jury found the teen's claim of self-defence was sufficient after he shot and killed the attacker.
On Thursday's episode of The Ezra Levant Show, firearms rights lawyer Ian Runkle joined the show to discuss the case and the conservations circling about the jury's verdict online.
“Self-defence cases don't necessarily have a good guy or a bad guy,” Ian explained. Many cases in Canada are “bad guy versus bad guy,” he cautioned before delving into the specifics.
Some commenters online aren't assessing the case accurately, he suggested, noting the teen is still facing a gun charge.
“Just because (the jury) said it's not murder doesn't mean that they're saying it's OK for him to have had the firearm in the first place,” he said. With the teen still in custody, he “might see a plea if he's been in custody awhile.”
However, Canada's laws don't require legal firearm ownership to legally defend yourself, Ian added. The law doesn't say, “you're not legally carrying this gun so your responsibility is to die if somebody attacks you with a knife.”
Instead, the law allows for an individual to “use whatever you need to that's reasonable in self-defence, and reasonable is going to depend on a whole bunch of things.”
Another factor in the case is Canada's requirement of reasonable doubt, the lawyer explained.
“The jury could still have been thinking this guy is probably the bad guy, this was probably bad self-defence or even that it was very likely to be an improper killing,” he said. “But if they can only get to very likely, that's not good enough. The standard is basically either certain or almost certain.”
Without that certainty, the jury must acquit.
Speaking generally, cases can see defendants cleared of murder charges but still “end up with three years or something like that” because of illegally having firearms.
“They end up doing some time over that, but of course, the drug dealer is probably happier doing the three years than being the other guy in that gunfight.”
In the Toronto teen's case, “all the people that said he's getting away scot-free are probably wrong,” Ian said. “There's probably going to be some sentence for having the firearm itself.”
BECOME A MEMBER
RebelNews+ Clips
RebelNews+ is our premium subscription service, which gives you access to our exclusive long form, TV-style shows, documentaries, members-only comments section, and the ability to read RebelNews.com without ads.
Subscribe now to get the full experience!
https://rebelnewsplus.com/Featured Stories
5:11
COMMENTS
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-07-11 21:32:43 -0400I’m the wrong colour to own a gun. I was also born here, not Iraq.
