Firearm Lawyer In Toronto

R. Graham Zoppi – Toronto Gun Lawyer

Firearms charges are among the most serious in the Criminal Code, as many of them attract mandatory minimum sentences. By way of example, while Robbery has no mandatory minimum sentence, Robbery while armed with a Firearm carries a 4 or 5 year minimum sentence upon conviction, depending on the type of firearm that was used.

Similarly, the bail provisions of the Criminal Code create a higher threshold for granting bail to those charged with certain firearms related offences.

If you or someone you know is charged with a firearms related offence, it is imperative that you contact an experienced firearms lawyer to handle the charges. Many types of defences exist for these charges, such as:

  • lack of knowledge or control over the firearm, thus negating possession;
  • identity of the accused as the individual who committed the offence;
  • Charter applications to exclude firearms located as a result of unlawful search and seizure.

Graham Zoppi has extensive experience defending firearms charges. From the bail hearing through trial, he will utilize all available legal defences in order to avoid the harsh penalties available under the Criminal Code for firearms offences. The following are some examples of his successes in this area:

R. v. M.M.

Client was on bail for a robbery charge when he was found in an apartment that contained 4 loaded firearms. Gun lawyer Graham Zoppi got the client bail, and ultimately was successful in persuading the Crown Attorney’s office to drop the charges against his client.

R. v. C.A.

Client was charged with possession of a loaded sawed-off shotgun which was found by police in the trunk of his car. Firearms lawyer Graham Zoppi successfully argued at trial that the shotgun was located as a result of an unlawful search by the police. The shotgun was excluded from evidence, and the client was acquitted of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon. Further, the client was acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon with respect to a pellet gun and a knife that were located in the waistband of his pants. -CLICK TO SEE NEWS ARTICLE

R. v. J.F.

Client was charged with respect to a shooting at a nightclub. 24 hours after the shooting he was found with a shell casing that matched the gun used in the shooting, and the gun was recovered from the ground feet from where he was arrested. Client was found not guilty of possession of the firearm and of the shooting.

R. v. J.F. (2)

Client was charged with possession of a firearm that was brandished at a second nightclub. The firearm was located within feet of where the accused was standing, and the accused was in possession of a shell casing that matched the gun. Client was found not guilty of possession of the firearm that was brandished at the club.