Table of Contents
Pointing a firearm is a distinct criminal offence in Canada under Section 87 of the Criminal Code. It criminalizes aiming a gun at another person without lawful excuse, even if the gun is unloaded and there is no intention to fire. This conduct is treated as inherently threatening and capable of causing serious psychological harm. In police data, it is tracked as UCR Code 1457. Legally, it is a hybrid offence, meaning the Crown can proceed either by indictment or by summary conviction, with different maximum penalties. Because of the flexibility and seriousness involved, anyone researching “pointing a firearm Canada” needs to understand not only the wording of Section 87, but also how courts apply it in real cases.
The Legal Definition
Section 87(1), Criminal Code of Canada: “Every person commits an offence who, without lawful excuse, points a firearm at another person, whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded.”
In plain English, Section 87 makes it a crime to aim a gun at another human being unless you have a legally recognized justification for doing so. The law deliberately says it does not matter whether the firearm is loaded or unloaded. What matters is the act of pointing and the threat it creates. The official text and full context of Section 87 can be read on the Department of Justice website at the statute link above.
To convict someone of pointing a firearm, the Crown must prove three key elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the accused pointed a firearm (as defined in the Criminal Code) at another person; (2) this pointing was done without lawful excuse; and (3) the act was voluntary and intentional (it was not purely accidental). The Crown does not have to prove that the gun was operable, that it was loaded, or that the accused intended to shoot – the focus is the threatening act itself. The phrase “without lawful excuse” is built into the definition, which means that if there is evidence of a recognized justification (for example, lawful self‑defence or lawful police conduct), the Crown must disprove that excuse.
Penalties & Sentencing Framework
- Mandatory minimum penalty: None (no mandatory minimum sentence applies whether the Crown proceeds summarily or by indictment).
- Maximum penalty (indictable): Up to 5 years’ imprisonment.
- Maximum penalty (summary conviction): Up to 2 years less a day in jail, or a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
- Severity classification: Hybrid offence (Crown may elect indictable or summary procedure).
Because pointing a firearm is a hybrid offence, the Crown first decides whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. This election dramatically affects the potential outcome. On an indictable election, the accused faces a maximum of five years in custody and has access to the fuller set of procedural protections associated with indictable matters, including potential jury trial options depending on the court level. On a summary election, the matter stays in provincial court before a judge alone, with a lower sentencing ceiling: up to two years less a day in jail, up to a $5,000 fine, or both, as set out in Section 787 of the Criminal Code.
There is no mandatory minimum for Section 87, unlike many other gun offences (for example, weapons trafficking or using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence). This means sentencing judges retain broad discretion. Depending on the circumstances, outcomes can range from discharges or fines (usually for less serious summary matters and first‑time offenders) up to lengthy custodial sentences for more aggravated situations. Courts are guided by the general sentencing principles in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, with particular emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence when firearms are involved.
In practice, prosecutors tend to elect indictable where the conduct is especially dangerous or aggravated – for example, pointing a firearm at police, children, or during another serious offence like a robbery. They may elect summary where the incident is more on the lower end of the spectrum: an impulsive act, no injuries, no discharge, and a person with little or no record. The hybrid structure lets the justice system respond proportionally to the wide range of real‑world situations that fall under “pointing a firearm Canada.”
Common Defenses
-
“Lawful excuse” built into Section 87
The statute itself requires that the pointing occur “without lawful excuse.” If there is a credible basis that the accused was legally justified – for example, acting under a recognized authority or in a situation Parliament intended to permit – the Crown must disprove that excuse beyond a reasonable doubt. “Lawful excuse” can include actions by law enforcement, military or corrections personnel, or civilians in tightly defined circumstances where the law accepts pointing a gun as necessary and proportionate. The defence will focus on the specific context: why the firearm was drawn, what threat was perceived, whether lesser responses were realistically available, and whether the accused was acting within the scope of their lawful duties or rights.
-
Self‑defence under Section 34
Section 34 of the Criminal Code provides a general self‑defence justification for the use or threat of force, including pointing a firearm, where three main conditions are met: (1) the accused believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used against them (or another person), or that a threat of force was being made; (2) the pointing of the firearm was done for the purpose of defending or protecting against that threat; and (3) the act was “reasonable in the circumstances.” Courts assess reasonableness by looking at factors like the imminence and seriousness of the threat, whether the other party had a weapon, the relative sizes and strengths of the parties, any history of violence between them, and whether there were other realistic options (escape, de‑escalation, calling police). In a Section 87 prosecution, the defence may argue that pointing the firearm was a proportionate, last‑resort response to an immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. If the court accepts that the conditions of Section 34 are met, the accused is not criminally liable.
-
Peace officer justification under Section 25
Section 25 of the Criminal Code protects peace officers (and those lawfully assisting them) who use force, including possibly lethal force, in the lawful enforcement of the law, provided they act on reasonable grounds and use no more force than necessary. For pointing a firearm, this can be a complete justification if, for example, an officer points a gun during an arrest of an armed or dangerous suspect, or during a high‑risk traffic stop where there is a credible risk of serious harm. Section 25(4) further authorizes potentially lethal force in very narrow circumstances (such as preventing death or grievous bodily harm when a suspect is fleeing). The defence will typically lead evidence about police training, risk assessment, and situational urgency to show that the officer’s conduct fell within these statutory limits. If a peace officer exceeds what Section 25 allows – for instance, by pointing a gun at someone without any reasonable safety concern – the justification may fail, and Section 87 liability can follow despite their status as an officer.
Real-World Example
Imagine two people in a heated argument at a private residence. One person, in a moment of anger, retrieves an unloaded handgun from a drawer and points it directly at the other to scare them, insisting they never intended to shoot and knowing the gun was unloaded. Under Section 87, this behaviour clearly fits the offence of pointing a firearm without lawful excuse. The victim cannot know whether the gun is loaded or not, and the law explicitly states that it makes no difference. Police called to the scene would likely seize the firearm, interview both parties, and, if grounds exist, arrest the person who pointed the gun for the Section 87 offence. In court, the Crown would not need to prove that the firearm was loaded or operable or that there was any intent to fire – the intentional pointing and the absence of any lawful excuse are enough. Unless the defence can establish a recognized justification (such as true self‑defence, which would be unlikely in a bare argument situation with no imminent attack), a conviction is very possible, even though no shot was ever fired.
Record Suspensions (Pardons)
Because Section 87 is a hybrid offence, record suspension (pardon) eligibility depends on how the Crown proceeds and what sentence is imposed. Under current Parole Board of Canada rules, for summary conviction offences, an individual can generally apply for a record suspension five years after completing all parts of their sentence, including payment of fines, probation, and any other conditions. For indictable offences, the waiting period is typically ten years after completion of the entire sentence. “Completion” means not just the jail or probation portion, but also any restitution, surcharges, or ancillary orders. A record suspension does not erase the conviction, but it separates it from other criminal records and can significantly reduce the impact on employment, travel, and volunteering. Given the stigma attached to firearms offences and the seriousness with which they are viewed, obtaining a record suspension for a conviction for pointing a firearm can be particularly important for long‑term rehabilitation and reintegration.
Related Violations
- Discharging a Firearm with Intent (e.g., Section 244 Criminal Code)
- Use of Firearm in Commission of Offense (e.g., Section 85 Criminal Code)
- Weapons Trafficking (e.g., Section 99 Criminal Code)
