Article content

Justice Minister Peter MacKay has publicly denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down mandatory minimum gun sentences, arguing that the country’s highest court was relying on a “far-fetched hypothetical scenario” to mandate how Canada deals with armed criminals.

[np_storybar title=”Peter MacKay: What the Supreme Court got right — and wrong” link=”http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/peter-mackay-what-the-court-got-right-and-wrong-on-mandatory-sentences-for-gun-crimes”]

Recently, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that our government’s law requiring a mandatory sentence of three years for the crime of “possessing prohibited or restricted firearms when the firearm is loaded or kept with readily accessible ammunition”; and five years for the second or subsequent offences, was unconstitutional.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Peter MacKay slams Supreme Court for quashing mandatory minimum gun sentences Back to video

It is important to note that, while the majority struck down the mandatory sentencing law, it did so on very narrow grounds. All nine justices — the six in the majority and the three in dissent — actually agreed that mandatory prison sentences are legitimate criminal justice tools and are appropriate in the vast majority of gun crimes. In fact, the Court upheld the sentences of the two individuals whose sentences were at issue, both of which were longer than the mandatory sentences that the Court struck down.