From the National Post:
Ian Thomson moved to a rural homestead in Southwestern Ontario to lead a quiet life investing in a little fixer-upper. Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.
The incident began six years of trouble for Mr. Thomson that culminated early one Sunday morning last August when the 53-year-old former mobile-crane operator woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home.
“I was horrified,” he said. “I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t know what was happening. I had no idea what was going on.”
So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew.
His surveillance cameras caught the attackers lobbing at least six Molotov cocktails at his house and bombing his doghouse, singeing one of his Siberian Huskies. But when Mr. Thomson handed the video footage to Niagara Regional Police, he found himself charged with careless use of a firearm.
The local Crown attorney’s office later laid a charge of pointing a firearm, along with two counts of careless storage of a firearm. The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
[...]
“I hear some people, some being police officers, some being Crown attorneys, some being ordinary people, say we don’t want vigilantism, to which I can only give an emphatic pardon me?” Mr. Burlew said. “When you’re under attack, it’s not a vigilante act. Vigilantism talks about vengeance and retribution. This is about saving your life and saving your property.
“I’m sure that will be recognized at trial, but why would a citizen, where it’s so obvious that what he was doing was protecting himself during a continued attack, be put to the expense of a trial? It’s demeaning.”
The worst part about this case is that Canada actually does allow for the use of “reasonable” force to defend ones self if being attacked. Should you bring a shotgun out to shoot an unarmed person? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the fact remains that Thompson did nothing wrong — both morally and legally.
This isn’t the first time that gun owners have been targeted by authorities, and I fear it won’t be the last either. Unfortunately, property rights are not something entrenched in the Canadian “constitution,” nor are they valued by the average Canadian simply because of a lack of knowledge. Ultimately, if so much as an obnoxious salesman comes onto your property you should have the right to kick them off; firebombers don’t even seem like a gray area. If someone throws a Molotov cocktail at your house, the police seem to think a strongly worded letter is the best response.