R. v. Tarapaski, 2020 MBPC 36

CITATION: R. v. Tarapaski , 2020 MBPC 36 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen ) L. Nair and V. Gama ) ) for the Crown - and - ) ) ) Robert Tarapaski ) ) M. Raffey for the Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision ) Delivered: August 25, 2020 MCKENZIE, P.J. [ 1 ] Mr. Tarapaski pleaded not guilty to a 12 count Information.

The allegations involved four counts of uttering threats, mischief over $5,000.00, unauthorized possession of a prohibited weapon, possession of identity documents belonging to another, two counts of possessing a firearm contrary to a weapons prohibition order, two counts of possessing ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order, and failing to comply with a condition of a recognizance for failing to abstain from alcohol. History of Proceedings [ 2 ] The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire where Mr. Tarapaski contested the voluntariness of several statements made to the police.

No breach was found and Mr. Tarapaski’s statements to the police were ruled voluntary. After the voir dire the Crown stayed the four allegations of uttering threats. She also amended the charge of mischief over $5,000.00 to mischief under $5,000.00. [ 3 ] The Crown then entered into another voir dire seeking a ruling that Corporal John Hurley was a qualified expert in a number of areas involving firearms.

After the voir dire , the defence agreed that Corporal Hurley was a firearm expert in the areas proffered. [ 4 ] After the expert qualification voir dire , Corporal Hurley testified concerning his findings and adaptation of what he believed was the frame or receiver of an improvised firearm which was seized from Mr. Tarapaski’s residence at 873 Applecross Drive located in East St. Paul, Manitoba. Facts [ 5 ] During the voir dire I made a number of findings of fact.

I am not going to repeat all of them as they are not all pertinent to the remaining counts, but for completeness of the record, I will summarize the Crown’s evidence from the four Crown witnesses. [ 6 ] I heard from four Crown witnesses: Constable Jordan Lorenz, Constable Kevin Reimer, Constable Justin Dickens, and Corporal John Hurley whom are all members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. [ 7 ] On May 9, 2019 the RCMP were dispatched to 873 Applecross Drive. The complainant, Elaine Tarapaski, called the RCMP to request that they investigate her allegation that Mr.

Tarapaski was damaging walls at her residence. [ 8 ] Upon arrival, Constable Lorenz met with Marlin Tarapaski, who identified himself as the home owner and Robert Tarapaski’s father, who confirmed that Robert Tarapaski had damaged the house. [ 9 ] Constable Lorenz stepped inside the boot room through the garage for a quick look. He noted damage to walls down the hallway. After viewing the damage inside the house, Constable Lorenz immediately notified Mr. Tarapaski that he was under arrest for mischief or some similar offence. [ 10 ] Mr. Tarapaski was then searched before being placed in the cruiser car.

During the search, the police noted that Mr. Tarapaski’s breath smelled of liquor. During the search, the police found in his pocket several rounds of .22 calibre ammunition and several pieces of identification belonging to others. It was later learned that some of the identification had been stolen. One of the identification documents was a firearm possession and acquisition licence (P.A.L.) and Mr. Tarapaski’s photograph had been adhered to it although it did not belong to him.

[ 11 ] While entering the police car, Mr. Tarapaski stated spontaneously, “My dad’s going to say I hit a couple of walls and that’s true”. He later stated to Constable Reimer, “I punched holes in the wall because I was angry, I’m not a bad guy though.” [ 12 ] Constable Lorenz and Constable Dickens returned to search the house to document the damage. On the upper level of the house, the officers found numerous holes in the walls, a damaged kitchen island top, and a damaged dishwasher.

On the lower level of the house they noted damage throughout. [ 13 ] In plain view, the officers found a partial box of .22 calibre ammunition near a computer monitor. They also found an item laying on a futon that looked like a firearm. The item was seized and referred to at trial as an “alleged makeshift firearm” which was filed as “Exhibit 23”. [ 14 ] After the investigation in the house, Constable Dickens took the “alleged make-shift firearm” out of the house and laid it on the hood of the cruiser car near where Mr. Tarapaski was seated. Constable Reimer testified that Mr.

Tarapaski blurted out, “That’s my bb gun, it’s just a bb gun not a real one”. [ 15 ] At the time of his arrest, Mr. Tarapaski was bound by two orders preventing him from possessing any firearms or ammunition. Mr. Tarapaski also did not hold a valid P.A.L. Further, at the time of the allegation he was bound by a recognizance to abstain absolutely from the consumption of alcohol. [ 16 ] The arresting officers were unaware of what exactly they had found.

The “make-shift firearm” resembled a sawed-off double barrel shotgun, had a pistol grip handle on it, and contained a homemade firing pin within the top tube of the item. The police sent the seized item to Corporal Hurley, an RCMP firearms expert, to determine whether the item was a firearm or not. [ 17 ] Corporal Hurley believed the item to be the frame or receiver of an improvised firearm thereby falling under the definition of a firearm. He was then tasked to adapt the seized item and to make it operable. He chose to modify the item to fire .22 calibre ammunition because that was the calibre found on Mr.

Tarapaski and seized from the basement. Uncontested Allegations [ 18 ] The defence made no argument concerning the allegations involving possession of identity documents of another, the two counts of possessing ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order, and breaching his recognizance by consuming alcohol. As a result, 1. I find Mr. Tarapaski guilty of possessing identity documents of another. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of identification documents belonging to another.

This includes a variety of documents, one of which was a firearm possession acquisition license that he had altered to include his own image; 2. As Mr. Tarapaski was bound by two separate orders prohibiting him from possessing ammunition, I find him guilty of two counts of possessing ammunition as Mr. Tarapaski possessed several rounds of .22 calibre ammunition in his pocket at the time of his arrest; and 3. I find that Mr. Tarapaski breached a condition of his recognizance that prohibited him from consuming alcohol.

At the time of his arrest he had been consuming alcohol and had the smell of liquor on his breath. Count 5: Mischief under $5000.00 [ 19 ] Mr. Tarapaski made inculpatory statements to the police that he had caused the damage inside of the house at 873 Applecross Drive. There were numerous holes punched into the walls. However, despite the damage he caused, I agree with the defence that the Crown has failed to prove this allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 20 ] Specifically, there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Tarapaski damaged anything other than his own home.

His inculpatory statements do not equate to the actus reus of the offence merely because his dad would say he did the damage. It does not mean that he has deprived anyone of the lawful enjoyment of their property. The evidence that the home was owned by Marlin and Elaine Tarapaski was hearsay and Mr. Tarapaski clearly lived at the home as well.

Neither Marlin nor Elaine Tarapaski testified and there was no evidence led that the home belonged to anyone, it was merely the belief of the officers. [ 21 ] Further, there was no evidence before the Court of when that damage occurred or whether the damage in the photographs was caused solely by Mr. Tarapaski. As a result, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven mischief under $5,000.00 beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Mr. Tarapaski is acquitted of the allegation at Count 5. Remaining Charges on the Information [ 22 ] Mr.

Tarapaski had been originally charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, but the Crown conceded that during the trial she had not proven that the firearm was a restricted or prohibited firearm and therefore, amended the information accordingly. [ 23 ] The remaining charges on the information are as follows: − Count 6: Possession of a non-restricted firearm without being a holder of a licence to posses it; − Count 9: Possession of a firearm while bound by an order prohibiting him from doing so; and − Count 11: Possession of a firearm while bound by an order prohibiting him from doing so. [ 24 ] Defence counsel concedes that if Mr.

Tarapaski is convicted of Count 6 that he will also be guilty of counts 9 and 11 since they directly relate to Count 6 as he was bound by two separate weapons prohibition orders at the time of that allegation. He also conceded that Mr. Tarapaski did not hold a valid P.A.L. permitting him to have possession of a non-restricted firearm.

[ 25 ] The alleged firearm was originally referred to at trial as an “alleged make-shift firearm” or an “improvised firearm” so for simplicity purposes, I am going to refer to it as either the “item” or as “Exhibit 23”. It is uncontested that Corporal Hurley adapted Exhibit 23 into an operable firearm. [ 26 ] The outstanding issues are whether or not: 1. Mr. Tarapaski had possession of Exhibit 23; and 2. Exhibit 23 as it was found was a firearm within the definition of

section 2 of the Criminal Code . Description of Exhibit 23 [ 27 ] Corporal Hurley’s evidence was that Exhibit 23, as it was found, was the frame or receiver of a barreled weapon as defined in

section 2 of the Criminal Code . He believed this to be true after he took a careful look at the design of the item. He described the item as consisting of two long metal tubes similar in diameter. The tubes are welded together and held with zip ties. The barrels are not of the same length. At one end of both barrels the paint is either unfinished or worn off. At the finished end of each of the long tubes there are additional smaller tubes crimped inside.

The crimped-in metal inside the top tube is slightly larger in diameter than the one in the bottom tube. [ 28 ] When the item was seized by the RCMP, they also found within the top tube an item that was referred to as a firing pin. Corporal Hurley explained that the firing pin is made up of a 3/8” bolt with a screw fastened to one end. When the firing pin is dropped inside the unfinished end of the bottom tube, the bolt does not protrude outside of the finished end.

However, when it is dropped in the top tube it protrudes, but is stopped from coming all the way through by the crimped inner tube and fastener on the firing pin. Corporal Hurley believes that the item was designed so that the firing pin could be struck as this is the only direction in either tube that the firing pin protrudes. [ 29 ] In addition to the tubes and the firing pin, the item had a plastic handle slid onto it.

The defence argued that the handle was affixed in such a manner as to be a pistol grip and Corporal Hurley believed the item to be a forward handgrip to hold while using one’s other hand to strike the firing pin. Corporal Hurley agreed the handle looked like it could be used in either direction, but did not agree that it was a pistol grip, but rather a forward handgrip. Steps Taken to make Exhibit 23 Operable [ 30 ] When Corporal Hurley was tasked to adapt Exhibit 23 to an operable firearm he initially had to spend some time with the item to determine how he would do this.

The defence referred to this as the reverse engineering process. It took him about 30 minutes to determine what he needed to do. [ 31 ] Corporal Hurley decided to adapt the item to fire .22 calibre ammunition as that is what was found on the scene and in possession of Mr. Tarapaski. Corporal Hurley testified that he could have easily have adapted the item to fire larger calibre ammunition, but did not. [ 32 ] The next step for Corporal Hurley was to source a barrel for the item. It required something that would fit within the top tube and that he could create a chamber for the ammunition to sit inside of.

He testified that he could have obtained a metal tube from a number of sources, but ultimately decided to use a .22 calibre pellet gun barrel. He did this because they are readily available without a licence at any hardware store that sells them. [ 33 ] To obtain the pellet gun, Corporal Hurley contacted the WPS to ascertain whether they had any in their seized firearms that he could destroy.

He went down to the Winnipeg Police Headquarters and used a hacksaw to remove the barrel from a Slava model .22 pellet gun. [ 34 ] He returned to his office where he found a power hand drill and a metal drill bit to drill a hole in the end of the barrel to sit the bullet inside of it. This took him a matter of minutes. [ 35 ] Next, Corporal Hurley was concerned that the firing pin would not strike the edge of the .22 ammunition or that it may puncture the ammunition. The ammunition was rim fire which means that the firing pin has to strike the rim of the bullet to make the ammunition fire.

He testified that he could have bent the top screw of the firing pin to the direction of the rim and to make it less pointy, but he did not want to damage the exhibit as it was still before the Court. He found in his tool box what he referred to as a metal wedge. The wedge looked like it was a removable flathead screwdriver bit or something similar. He attached the metal wedge with some scotch tape. [ 36 ] He then slid the firing pin into the top tube so that the bolt protruded out of the top tube where the crimped inside tube stopped it from falling out.

He put a bullet inside the chamber, and placed the chamber end of the barrel inside the top tube. He then used some tape to hold the barrel in place. He said the tape was not necessary, but added it for safety purposes. Otherwise he could have just held the barrel in place. [ 37 ] He went to the firing range and while holding Exhibit 23 by the handle in a forward grip position, he struck the firing pin with a hammer and discharged the bullet.

He testified that he did not need to hit the firing pin with a hammer, that he could have used another object including his hand. [ 38 ] In total it took Corporal Hurley no more than two hours to make Exhibit 23 into an operable improvised firearm. Did Mr. Tarapaski have Possession of Exhibit 23? [ 39 ] Before attempting to determine whether Exhibit 23 is a firearm, I must determine whether Mr. Tarapaski had possession of the item. The evidence of possession lies solely on Mr. Tarapaski’s spontaneous utterance from inside the cruiser car whereby he took

ownership of the item. [40] The evidence of Constable Reimer was that Mr. Tarapaski had been under arrest and seated in the rear of the police vehicle.Constable Reimer saw the investigating officers exit the house at 873 Applecross Drive. As they brought the item from the house Mr.Tarapaski stated, “that’s my bb gun. It’s just a bb gun, not a real one”. As previously noted, I found this spontaneous utterance voluntaryafter the first voir dire. [41] The defence argued that Mr. Tarapaski was not in possession of the item merely because he claimed ownership of the item.

Hespecifically argued that it is unknown what exactly Mr. Tarapaski had observed. That he was perhaps mistaking Exhibit 23 for a bb gunthat was still inside the house. He further argued that this item was not a bb gun nor was it capable of being a bb gun which is consistentwith Mr. Tarapaski believing the item was something else. [42] While I agree that we cannot possibly know exactly what Mr. Tarapaski observed because he did not testify, nor does he haveany obligation to, but this is a fairly unique looking item. It resembles the look of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun or long-gun.

It isclearly not a bb gun, but it is obviously not a commercially manufactured firearm either. [43] Given the unique nature of the item, I do not accept that Mr. Tarapaski mistook the item for some other bb gun he may havehad in the house or elsewhere. The police brought the item out of the house right in front of Mr. Tarapaski and placed it on the hood ofthe cruiser car in his direct view. He saw the item and made the spontaneous utterances. I am satisfied from his comments, in the contextof the police having been in his home, and together with the item being brought out in plain view, that Mr.

Tarapaski knew what thepolice had brought out and that he had possession of Exhibit 23. I am also satisfied from Mr. Tarapaski’s comments that he knew thatExhibit 23 may be capable of firing projectiles. What is a Firearm? [44]

Section 2 of the Criminal Code as it relates to the definition of a firearm states, “firearm” means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causingserious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adaptedfor use as a firearm. (Emphasis added) [45] The Criminal Code definition is fairly straightforward when it comes to commercially manufactured barrelled weapons that arefully functional.

The regulations classify these firearms as either non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited and their use and possession areregulated accordingly. The definition of a firearm does not depend on whether the device was purpose-built or commercially available asa firearm, R. v. Ziegler, 2016 ABQB 150 at paragraph 50. [46] There is a body of case law as it relates to inoperable commercially manufactured firearms. What is clear from the case law isthat a firearm does not need to be operable to still fall within the definition of a firearm.

While that case law is instructive, it isincomplete when it comes to inoperable improvised firearms. [47] In R. v. Covin and Covin, (SCC), 1983 CarswellNS 31, 1983 CarswellNs 144, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 725, theSupreme Court had cause to determine a case involving the use of an inoperable commercially manufactured firearm. The Court found atparagraph 11 that a firearm does not need to be capable of being fired to fall under the firearm definition in

section 2. Rather, that theCrown must prove that either at the outset or through adaptation or assembly that the gun is capable of being loaded and fired, andthereby of having the potential of causing serious bodily harm. Because Covin was a use case versus a possession case, the Court foundthat at the time of the commission of the offence the accused had to have the ability and means to adapt, assemble or modify the gun tomake it operable for it to fall within the definition of a firearm. [48] In R. v. Fergusson, (ON CA), 1985 CarswellOnt 1376, [1985] O.J.

No. 141, the Ontario Court of Appealdealt with a case where the accused was found in the possession of an inoperable commercially manufactured firearm. The nature ofpossession offences are that they are continuing offences and therefore the Court found, at paragraph 24, that the acceptable amount ofadaptation and time span required to render the gun operable is longer than that required in use offences. This was affirmed by theManitoba Court of Appeal in R. v.

Cook, 1989 CarswellMan 106 at paragraph 10 where our Court of Appeal found that the accusedhimself does not need to adapt the weapon as there are many experienced persons to assist the accused to adapt the firearm to make itoperable. [49] Therefore, in determining if an inoperable commercially manufactured firearm falls within the definition of a firearm, the Courtmust determine, 1. Is the offence a use offence or a possession offence? 2.

If a possession offence, can the gun be made operable in a relatively short period of time with relative ease by either the accused orsomeone who can assist him? [50] I have been careful to use the term “inoperable commercially manufactured firearm” up until this point because thedetermination in the current case law does not refer to non-commercially manufactured firearms.

The concepts are similar, but it is verydifferent for an expert to adapt, modify, or fix a commercially manufactured firearm to make it operable than it is for an expert todetermine whether an item has been designed to be a firearm and then to engineer how to make the item operable. [51] Many commercially manufactured firearms are mass produced and the manufacturers have replacement parts or parts can besourced from other broken or inoperable firearms of the same or similar make and model.

The Court can determine how difficult it wouldbe to fix a broken part, whether it has to be machined, or how long or difficult it may be to fix the firearm. A scarce item or a repair that

takes considerable expertise may make the ability to adapt the item too remote to fall within the definition of a firearm. [ 52 ] However, an additional step must be taken with an alleged improvised firearm. I say this because nearly any item can be made into a firearm, but not every item is a firearm. The Court must determine whether the item is substantially altered and at a stage where the item is converted to a frame or receiver of a barreled weapon given the circumstances.

Therefore, an analysis has to be done to determine if it has an alternate rational purpose in the state it was found, not in what it was originally designed for.

The Court also needs to be mindful that improvised firearms do not require a manual or specific expertise as contemplated in a number of cases involving inoperable commercially manufactured firearms because of the potential simplistic or crude nature of these weapons. [ 53 ] If the item has undergone sufficient transformation and there is no other rational purpose for the item in the state it was found other than that it has become the frame or receiver, only then would the Court embark on the analysis as contemplated by the current case law involving inoperable commercially manufactured firearms.

Circumstantial Evidence [ 54 ] The defence argued that there is a reasonable alternative purpose to the design of Exhibit 23. The evidence of Constable Dickens and Corporal Hurley were that this item looked like a sawed-off shotgun. Counsel argued that because the evidence is circumstantial the Court must consider the rule in Hodge’s Case 1838 CanLII 1 (FOREP) , 168 ER 1136 and ultimately acquit Mr.

Tarapaski. [ 55 ] The rule in Hodge ’s Case requires that when the evidence is circumstantial that the accused can only be found guilty if the evidence is both consistent with guilt and not inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. [ 56 ] Constable Dickens and Corporal Hurley both indicated that Exhibit 23 looked like a sawed-off shotgun. Constable Dickens really had no idea what he was dealing with and seized the item for public safety.

Neither officer agreed that this was the purpose of the item, but it does open the question that defence counsel has argued, that being: Whether Exhibit 23 could have been made to look like a sawed-off shotgun and thereby have an alternative purpose? [ 57 ] I agree with the defence that the evidence of Exhibit 23 being a firearm is circumstantial. Nor can I disagree that the item resembles a sawed-off double barrel pistol grip shotgun. If the body of the item was all that was found, in the circumstances, I would agree that there could be a rational alternate purpose.

Even with the two tubes welded together, the plastic handle, and the inner crimped tubes. [ 58 ] What takes this item out of the innocent alternate rational purpose is the firing pin, and the mechanics of the firing pin within the upper tube of Exhibit 23. If one were designing something to look like a double barrelled shotgun they would have no need to manufacture a firing pin, nor would the design it so that only the end of the firing pin would protrude from the top tube in one direction.

I am satisfied that Exhibit 23 had been substantially manufactured and had no other rational purpose other than as a frame or receiver of an improvised firearm. Remoteness [ 59 ] As identified in R. v. Fergusson , and R. v. Cook , the adaptability of an inoperable firearm must be able to be completed with relative ease in a relatively short period of time.

It is unnecessary for the accused to have the skill or expertise to adapt the firearm as there are others with the skill necessary to complete it. [ 60 ] What is an important consideration in this case is whether or not the time, skill, and materials are something that Mr. Tarapaski had the capability to adapt, or obtain within a reasonable amount of time. [ 61 ] The defence argued: 1. The steps taken by Corporal Hurley were that of an expert who reverse engineered the item. There is no evidence of how long Mr.

Tarapaski was in possession of the item or that he had the capacity to convert the item into an operable firearm; 2. That the parts sourced by Corporal Hurley, particularly the pellet gun barrel, were only available to him as a police officer. That members of the public would not have access to this particular item; and 3. That there were too many steps over too long of a period of time to adapt the item and therefore too remote.

Further to remoteness that the mallet strike method is also too remote. [ 62 ] It took Corporal Hurley approximately 30 minutes to determine what he would have to do to make Exhibit 23 operable. He had not created the item and given his expertise did not require much to figure it out. The steps he took afterwards were not complicated and could easily be done by anyone with a few tools. [ 63 ] The steps taken by Corporal Hurley were relatively easy and required no particular expertise.

He sourced the barrel from the Winnipeg Police Service, but he could have obtained a pellet gun from any hardware store that carries them. Pellet guns do not require a licence to purchase and anyone can purchase one. He chose to inquire about whether the Winnipeg Police Service had one because they often have seized firearms on hand. He testified that he could have obtained a barrel elsewhere as well.

Ultimately, I am not satisfied that the pellet gun barrel was so unique that it was only available to Corporal Hurley because of his position as a police officer. [ 64 ] Whether Corporal Hurley took four steps as described by the Crown or 15 steps as described by the defence, the steps he took

were not difficult, nor were they lengthy. The only necessary steps he took was to source a barrel, cut the barrel with a hacksaw, and drill a hole into the end of the barrel for the chamber. All of the other steps he conducted were unnecessary. He took the other steps to preserve the evidence and for safety purposes. The defence raised that the metal wedge was something special, but it was just a piece of metal taped onto the firing pin with scotch tape.

Not only could the wedge have been from another source, but it was also an unnecessary step. [ 65 ] While Corporal Hurley is an expert he testified that the internet has numerous websites dedicated to manufacturing improvised firearms. He testified that he normally uses books or magazines for resource material, but that the internet has created a vast array of instructions on how to build similar items.

Unlike commercially manufactured firearms there are no specific parts required for crude improvised firearms. [ 66 ] Notably, the defence argued that striking the firing pin with a hammer to adapt Exhibit 23 to make it operable was too remote as in the cases of R. v. Vader , 2012 ABQB 288 and R. v. Brown , 2005 CarswellOnt 5235, [2005] O.J. No. 4589 . However, because Exhibit 23 has no other firing mechanism such as a trigger, spring, and built in hammer, it requires something to strike the protruding firing pin.

Therefore, a mallet strike is necessary with this particular improvised firearm distinguishing it from R. v. Vader and R. v. Brown . Death or Serious Bodily Injury [ 67 ] I note that neither counsel raised the issue of whether Exhibit 23, after it was adapted, was capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. I can take judicial notice that a firearm capable of firing a .22 calibre bullet is capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. R. v. Spreeman , 2004 ABPC 2009 and R. v. Ziegler 2016 ABQB 150 . [ 68 ] While we have no way of knowing what Mr.

Tarapaski believed Exhibit 23 to be, what we do know is at the very least he believed the item to be a bb gun. In R. v. Ziegler , the accused had modified a flare gun to be intentionally non-lethal and referred to the item as a “brass firing nerf gun”. A flare gun is not normally a firearm and the possession of such a device does not require a licence. Because it was modified, it had become a “make-shift firearm” and that despite the accused’s intent, it was a firearm as defined in

section 2 of the Criminal Code . [ 69 ] I am satisfied that once adapted that Exhibit 23 was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Decision [ 70 ] Considering all of the circumstances, I find that Exhibit 23 meets the definition of a firearm as described in

section 2 of the Criminal Code . I also find that Mr. Tarapaski had possession of Exhibit 23 and was not a holder of a valid licence to possess a non- restricted firearm. Furthermore, I am satisfied that Mr. Tarapaski knew that this item was intended to fire projectiles. I therefore find Mr. Tarapaski guilty of possessing a non-restricted firearm without having a license to possession one, and of two counts of possessing a firearm contrary to two separate orders prohibiting him from doing so. “Original signed by:” MCKENZIE, P.J.