You focus on vulnerability to challenge based on arbitrariness, but I'm asking you to refocus on the issue of the removal of the absolute, unfettered right to reasonable bail that a person has under the charter, to its being altered by this statute because the guy has a couple of bullets left over from a hunting trip.
I may be pushing the narrative here a little bit in terms of factual probability, but it could happen. Would such a person be charged with having ammunition unlawfully? Well, maybe or maybe not, but I'm pushing the hypothetical to point out the problem.
So on that issue, does yanking the absolute right, or the arguably absolute right, without sufficient justification, hit any nails on the head for you as someone on the defence counsel side?