Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It WrongWhat happens when legal gun ownership becomes grounds for a guilty verdict, even when no crime was committed?On August 2, a Lethbridge jury found Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick not guilty of the most serious charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. However, both were found guilty of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose.After the verdict, Newsweek reported “documents obtained under an Access to Information and Privacy Act request showed that the RCMP had been profiling protesters by running licence plates through databases, then focusing in on those who possessed federal gun licences.” Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose?Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns, told this author of the charge: “I have not found a case where the charge of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose has not been twinned with an act of murder, violence.” This section of the Canadian Criminal Code, she explained, “has two categories: “dangerous purpose for the public peace” or for “another criminal act.” The charge brought by the Crown against Carbert and Olienick was for “possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose” being “dangerous for the public peace.” When he was arrested standing outside of Smuggler’s Saloon, Tony Olienick had no weapons. He had a rifle and a shotgun and had moved them from his truck to the trailer. There were several guns in the trailer Chris Carbert was sleeping in at the time of his arrest. However, when he came out of the trailer to be arrested, he was unarmed. During the trial, it was confirmed it’s not illegal to have firearms in your camper trailer. It’s legal to have firearms for self-defence in your camper trailer. No guns were seen in public. Carbert, Olienick (and Lysak) snuck the guns into the trailer when no one saw them to make it safe — so nothing would happen accidentally to someone in view.What was the Dangerous Purpose?Chris Carbert’s lawyer, Katherin Beyak, summarized, “The evidence wasn’t there for Chris needing to have a firearm for self-defence at the blockade, that evidence just didn’t come forward. That’s why I’m trying to figure out what the dangerous purpose was. Other than, perhaps, the jury didn’t think there was a valid purpose for having a firearm at the protest. I don’t know, and we can’t ask them (the jury).” Asked about the jury decision, Beyak said the jury decision may have been “more of a statement that this was supposed to be peaceful, and you shouldn’t have had firearms there.” Explosive Witness TestimonyThe jury also found Tony Olienick guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.Brian Lambert, a sandstone quarry owner and colleague of Olienick, testified at the trial. He described an explosive device, nicknamed “firecracker” in the business, that he observed Olienick use years ago. Lambert testified that Olienick used these “firecrackers” to dislodge stone that would be sold and repurposed for construction. Olienick’s father, George, served as a peacekeeper in the Canadian Armed Forces in Cyprus. A stone quarry in southern Alberta occasionally got drill bits stuck in the stone. George Olienick created an explosive device with a plumbing pipe, ordinary gunpowder, and a fuse that can be purchased at a hobby store. It was used to dislodge drill bits from a stone. After he died in 2017, Olienick gathered the “firecracker” device and other items from his father’s estate. The son moved it onto his property. While George. Olienick had a permit to use the device, his son didn’t renew the permit for the explosive device.Marilyn Burns, lawyer for Tony Olienick, relates the RCMP went through everything to find that device in a pile of other belongings of her client’s late father. During the trial, RCMP officers described as “pipe bombs” what they found in Tony Olienick’s Claresholm, property after his arrest. They alleged that these were intended for a dangerous purpose. During the Coutts Blockade, the “explosive” device remained on Olienick’s property, a two-hour drive away.A warningTwo takeaways from the jury verdict: if you go to a protest, make sure any explosive device you have at your property has a permit. Otherwise, even if the device in question is a two-hour drive away, you could be found guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. Second, even if you are unarmed, you shouldn’t have firearms in the vicinity of a municipality where there is a protest. Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong
